The green paper on marriages was recently published by the department of home affairs for public comment. One of the proposals in it, is the recognition of polyandry. Polyandry would allow women to be married to more than one man at the same time (Unathi Nkanjeni, 2021).
Men are up in arms, some women too. But most interesting to me is the reaction of men. I say this because men have polygamy and hardly ever critique the implications of polygamy on African homes – instead, they laud the practice.
Men hardly speak of its effects on those that are directly affected by it, such as the children. We hear of horror stories in polygamous homes. But this is yet to be seen motivating men to do away with it. This is because in the context of polygamy we are beneficiaries, we can justify it and understand its supposed importance.
But we fail to be objective and think it is warped that women could have access to the same. It seems in our society, self-determination and freedom of choice is only acceptable when it is applicable to men. Men are up in arms because polyandry challenges so many parts of what they have known to be normal.
Polyandry is only a problem because It challenges patriarchy and the “sacrosanct” treatment men are entitled to. The war is raging because men feel that this would be unAfrican, and is part of practices that are imposed on us as Africans and are Eurocentric in nature. It is us men who, if you ask me, are beneficiaries of the inherent unequal distribution of power in marriages.
It is therefore understandable why the majority of men are up in arms. It is because when women marry more than one husband, the question would be, “why do I then as a man, get married?”, because the essence really, is to be the head. This is challenged when there is more than one man. This would cause a power relations shift, it is this perceived loss of power that has the majority of men up in arms about polyandry and its consequences.
The uproar is rooted in the constant need to stifle and police the choices women can make.The consensus in most religions and cultures is that women should be subservient to men's power and control.
I have always argued and continue to argue that marriage at the core of it, is predicated on inequality. This inequality is in the favour of men.
Hence it is difficult for men to countenance anything that takes away, whether perceived or real, power from us. This is exactly what we think of polyandry, as a result we make all sorts of arguments, when in fact, all we are saying in reality is – “please don't take away power from us”. Men want to remain in control, we want to remain in these powerful positions where we make decisions on the running, the composition and structure of the family unit.
The buck must stop with us.The changing of any structure of marriage takes away one of the major “sacred” institutions that have given men legitimate power and control of women. The status quo that men want to remain is the treatment of women as minors.
Polyandry challenges this, and disrupts the essence of culture and religion, which perpetuate the ideals that come with patriarchy. Which are largely premised on women being governed by men. Men can therefore not fathom a woman having equal power or freedom (like them) to choose the number of partners they desire.
ACDP leader Kenneth Meshoe had this to say on polyandry: “South Africans must not take this issue of human rights too far.”
This is quite shocking coming from a member of parliament, which is meant to carry out in the fullest sense, our democracy.
Human rights must be exhausted and stretched as far as possible. Society is not static, as our society progresses, so will our human rights and our conceptualisation of human rights will be challenged by that which we would have never imagined.
And this is one such case, you may not see its importance or the possibility of it happening, but that does not mean we are taking things too far. What even is taking human rights too far, if it results in equality for all human beings? If you have a problem with polyandry, you should think “what is it to me?”.
How am I affected by the choices others (women) make when coming to their bodies or the setup of their unions. The problem is not the concept of having multiple partners in a marriage, the problem is this “privilege” possibly being extended to women, tipping the status quo on power relations that men have spent years reinforcing and protecting.
If indeed polygamy is premised on the principles men say it is premised on, then polyandry shouldn’t be challenged.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.