this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
430 points (96.7% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
7253 readers
189 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think polygamy has to be misogynistic, although I agree that's the way its been overwhelmingly applied throughout recorded history. It could hypothetically be misandrist if power dynamics had the opposite gender polarity. I think the core issue is the power imbalance being expressed in the construction of a harem. Anyway, I think of polyamory as the broad term and polygamy as an unfortunate subset of it, designed to legally and unilaterally enforce an inequitable and exploitive type of polyamorous relationship by members of one gender against the members of another. That's a pretty broad generalization of gender, sex, and orientation dynamics, but I'm not an expert in the field. I assume there's still some kind of conventional, ontological hierarchy with corresponding terminology. I think that's what I was reaching for.