Wasn’t polygyny an example of women as men’s property?
In no country at no period of time, were women safe from… the insistence that their bodies existed only in relation to man, for his pleasure and progeny
The Women’s History of the World46
Academic feminism often equates mistresses, concubines, and polygyny* (a man having more than one wife) with male dominance. Once we understand the immortality rule, though, we can move to a deeper understanding of why God blessed the many wives and concubines of David – as in David and Goliath. As a king, David had enough wealth and power to support more than one woman – so why should other women miss out? Polygyny did not mean any man could have many wives – it meant a poor man would be deprived of a wife so a woman could have a rich man. No one took pity on the man who was poor for being deprived of love.
Polygyny, then, was a system by which the rich man, by having more than one wife, prevented a woman from being stuck with a poor man. Polygyny was a form of socialism for the poor woman, the rich man was taxed to help the poor woman. Polygyny was to some Mormon women what the government is to some modem women – a substitute husband.
Polygyny was man-made religious rules saving poor women at the expense of poor men. But polygyny was not a conspiracy against men. It was an outgrowth of Stage I survival needs. It was not designed to help anyone get their intimacy needs met.