Recently I read an article titled “Doosri Shadi ki Mukhalifat kyun?” which in English translates into “Why oppose second marriage?” The article was flawed at multiple levels and showcased multiple fallacies in our thinking.
The first one is the complete lack of editorial oversight and approval of such jaundiced thinking by a prominent news media house of the country. The other thing is the utter idiocy and hollowness of the arguments for second, third or fourth marriage. What tops it all is the misogyny inherent in religion-inspired arguments and the prevalent superficial understanding of western societies. Such misogynistic arguments are couched in terms of avoiding alleged ills and chaos of the west; and the recipe for avoiding the downfall of western civilization is sought in return to ‘true values of nature’, which according to them is the true regimen of Islamic family laws.
The article starts with glorification of polygamy as it is prevalent in the immediate family of the author and the author despises the fact that despite all his sincere struggles he still is unable to tie the knot for the second time. Then he recounts that he would most gladly allow his brother-in-law to marry again, followed by a tale of a bill that a female member of Punjab Assembly presented in support for polygamy.
The article is then a jumble of oft-repeated mediocre arguments like the fact that the ratio of females is greater than males; hence men should be allowed to be polygamous. Another argument is that the dominant cause for prostitution is the lack of marriage for the female prostitutes. The author – with clearly a broken heart – presents some socio-economic reasons for the evil of prostitution but declares the lack of marriage the main culprit.
Then comes the favorite part: the moral bankruptcy of western civilization and tales of moral affliction are solely caused by the west’s disdain for the institute of marriage, in particular, and to polygamy in general.
The argument that the author will allow his brother-in-law to be polygamous, does not make the writer a beacon of justice and fairness. Such argument exposes the internalized misogyny of the person. The flaw here is that misogynists assume that if we allow other to treat our sisters in the way that we treat our wives then it is not injustice. But the thought evades their consideration that deep down they are bound to treat even their sisters with the internalized notions of misogyny.
People with such assumption forget that the causes for prostitution are more socio-economic and in some cases cultural, than the inability to tie the knot. The simplistic assumptions completely exonerate the social attitudes that sustain prostitution.
The gist of the argument for binding women in marriage is the assumption that women should be taken care of. The underlying assumption here is that it is better to feed the women rather than empowering them to become equal partners of men in development of the economy. The mediaeval assumption that women are inferior and they lust after male companionship and the legitimacy stamped by religion is what makes such arguments all too convincing and commonplace.
The west’s alleged moral bankruptcy is a fallacy that is seeped deep into the ethos of our popular culture and that in some way provides a vent to the frustration of the all-too-glaring backwardness of our society.
It needs a separate treatment of its own, but it is important to mention that in west women don’t need to be taken care of. They are blessed with economic opportunities, and excluding few and rare cases, have equal opportunities to contribute to the economy. The narrow patriarchic and misogynistic lens finds it difficult to reconcile with the fact that women can be independent in making decisions of their lives and form autonomous families of their own. No matter how much they label the western society a bankrupt one, it is still more harmonious and humane than their society where polygamy is considered a virtue and adultery the basest of evils.
The author concludes his article by claiming that deep down every woman wants to become a mother and the author is all praise for his religion for allowing women to fulfill her natural destiny through polygamy. He forgets in his misogynistic and patriarchic enthusiasm that every woman is a human and her natural dignity is a right that every human is entitled to. The lens that sees women through her familial roles needs to be shed-off to see women in a persona of her own and not with respect to any external role.