Societies have finally shifted away from traditional religion-endorsed romantic and sexual relationships. Arranged marriages have been banned in many places, dowry is no longer socially expected, premarital sex is widely accepted, racial barriers are more permeable than ever, gay marriage is finally recognized, the French even accept significant age gaps without too much concern… I could go on. Somehow monogamy persisted, remaining the standard setting, the baseline, that shapes our romantic interactions.
To be fair, it has been linked to several positive outcomes at both the individual and societal levels while non-monogamy has faced some criticism concerning its societal implications. Craig Jones, a B. C. lawyer, argued against the recognition of polygamy as a protected religious practice in front of the provincial Supreme Court in 2010. He asserted that a polygamous society creates a stronger impetus for men to get married. A heightened demand for wives, his argument goes, creates an incentive for men to turn to younger and younger girls thus generating an increase in child brides, teen pregnancies and young women trafficking. Joseph Heinrich, Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson take the argument one step further by claiming that the wealthy and powerful would marry several women while the less fortunate would struggle to find even just one wife. This creates intrasexual competition amongst men, generating violence.
Tsoulis (1987) argues that monogamy as it is portrayed in society is actually a “tool by which women are controlled”. She contends that women tend to be overinvested in their relationships, both emotionally and financially. In the wake of Mac Miller’s death and the accusations that were thrown at Ariana Grande for not supporting her ex-partner, could we really argue that women aren’t required to devote more of themselves to their relationship? This overinvestment is not only condoned but expected by society. Until 1925, women who wanted to divorce had to prove their partner’s infidelity and his engagement in desertion, bigamy, rape, sodomy or bestiality. Men obviously only needed to fulfill the first requirement. This shows the double standard expectations: women have to put up with a lot more in their relationships than men do.
Another telling example is the case of Irene Murdoch, an abused wife who wanted nothing more than a portion of the ranch that she helped build and maintain, through both labour and money. Canada’s Supreme Court Justice Ronald Martland argued that her husband had made no additional money from her unpaid labour. As a result, not only was her 200$/month pittance revoked, but Murdoch had to pay part of her ex-husband’s legal fees. Once again, a woman was expected to put in the work while her husband boasted all the profit.
Conservatives argue that the institution of marriage has been under attack the past few years. That may be true, but worry not, its legacy is alive and well. The notion of male possession embodied by the wedding ceremony is still very present in our societies. The institution of monogamous marriage as we know it was founded long before women were legally recognized as men’s equals. The women of Quebec had to wait until 1964 for the law to sanction their agency and regard them as than minors under their husband’s responsibility. This happened a full 24 years after granting them the right to vote, which just goes to prove men’s disbelief in women’s ability to make decisions and how much their voice and opinion were actually valued.
The debate over monogamy versus non-monogamy really misses the point. Deciding on the number of partners one wants to have is a personal decision, the same way choosing a hook up over a relationship is. As long as all parties involved are aware of the situation and consent to it, it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business. However, if the general context is one of female subordination, then it can and does become a tool for their subjection. When you consider that marital rape was not recognized as such until 33 years ago, because, as Backhouse (University Research Chair on Sexual Assault Legislation) states: “women were deemed to be sexual property,” you have to reckon monogamous marriage has been more of a way to subdue women than an expression of true, undying love. Why would we uphold an institution that remains founded in notions of capitalist possession and patriarchal male superiority?
Tackling what makes monogamous marriage problematic would require far-reaching reforms put forth by courageous politicians. One does not just “dissolve” the patriarchy (I wish), but measures reaffirming gender equality may get the ball rolling. By addressing the problems of the glass ceiling, the wage gap, some of the double standards in both the public and private sphere and/or dealing with exclusively female issues like the financial weight of menstrual products and the brutality women encounter from the medical profession (like the husband stitch), politicians would finally take a step towards actually makingwomen their equals rather than just saying they are. There is so much more at stake than a marital decision in overcoming the power dynamics that have been at play for centuries.
But that is quite an undertaking and unfortunately, politics do not seem interested in taking it on right now. It’s up to us to put it on their agendas.
