Keysar Trad, Shakira Hussein, polygamy, and dangerous ideas go gay

(Above: poor confused women in a Victorian Punch cartoon, unable to work out that gay would come to stand for happy would come to stand for homosexuality, when really it stands for the way polygamy could eradicate prostitution and pornography at the stroke of a court edict).

It's desperate times at Crikey. A few weeks, or months ago, they were wondering why they didn't have that many female readers.

Then if you pay your money to get behind their paywall today, you'll be rewarded for your trouble, and your financial outlay, with a further bit of nonsense from Keysar Trad under the header My humble contribution to the polygamy debate (no link, it's a paywall item).

Trad's ever so humble Uriah Heep mouthings are even more offensive than his recent outing in the Sydney Morning Herald, as he starts by saying how pleased he is that laws have been introduced to give rights to spurned mistresses, and how honoured and privileged he is to have offered a service to women in Australia.

Such service I can live without. Even from ever so humble servers working for god:

I did not create the debate, it came to me, I do not like generating controversy, however, if it comes to me, I will address it forthrightly with outright conviction in the wisdom of my Creator Whose work I am honoured to do. Some unjustly view my faith in the wisdom of God as controversial.

Not really, just loonish. Perhaps because the wisdom of god doesn't seem to have made it into his (or hers?) ever so humble vessel:

We are still some way from finished with the debate on plural unions. Whilst we managed to get some rights for the mistress last year, we still need to take away the stigma from her and all the women who exceed the gender ratio. This ratio is not only determined by raw population numbers, one must also deduct from the male population the disproportionate number of male prisoners and any disproportionate number of males to females who pursue same gender unions.

WTF? The women who exceed the gender ratio? Same gender unions? WTF has any of this got to do with the introduction of polygamy to ensure men can herd women into harems in fundie religious outposts in the west Texas badlands, or the outer suburbs of Salt Lake City, or somewhere in Auburn ?

Well of course it's to save them from abortion, and the stigma of bearing bastards.

Sometimes, it breaks my heart to be proved right as was the case with the British headlines yesterday about a successful doctor allegedly poisoning his mistress to bring about an abortion.

Yep, a man being cruel to a woman - and somehow it's all to do with her being a mistress! Well polygamy can fix what ails ya. Just take one sip and all will be well:

Part of my argument to decriminalise polygamy includes the right of the second woman to bear children and the right of the child of such a relationship to live life without stigma. The second woman should not be treated as a mistress, she should be able to expect to be treated as a proper partner or spouse.

Oh poor, heart-broken, proven-right devotee of the rights of mistresses to service married men, bear their children and share in the estate. What a valiant servant of women. And if such valiant polygamy isn't far away, how soon can we bring back concubines and slavery?

Hist, pist, don't worry about that. The vile danger of monogamy is spreading!

Yes, the Justinian facade that I previously mentioned has also influenced non-Greco/Roman societies with more countries frowning on the open plural relationships.

Oh no, polygamy under threat. What to do?

In modern society monogamy is regularly breached. Clandestine adultery is widespread. Therefore, decriminalising polygamy and removing its social social stigma will further guarantee the rights of women.

In this debate, some have theorised that in order to make such laws equal, they would like me to recognise polyandry.

Guarantee the rights of women!? Polyandry?!

Well yes actually, gander goose, good for and whatnot, we've been down this road before, what else that's new have you got to offer for preferring good old patriarchal nonsense?

The reality of decriminalising plural unions would produce a law that is non-discriminatory by nature. The secular system would be able to acknowledge both forms of polygamy. It would remain then up to the various religious traditions to decide which to bless for their own adherents. Plural secular marriages can go in whichever direction they choose, those people who do not follow my religious tradition are not obliged to live by its rules.

Well that's very liberal, almost flower power hippie. I can see it working a treat. Anarchist chaos throughout the land, just like we had back in Haight Ashbury in the summer of love of '67.

Pity about the religious traditions that don't recognize polygamy, but I guess it'd be a fine old time for fundie Islamics, Mormons, and fundie Christians eager to return to those old fashioned Old Testament ways. A harem here, a harem there, everywhere a harem, and newly domesticated men content to look after their women after the shoulder padded power dressers come back from a hard day in the board room.

But surely this isn't going to be the best way, surely there's some way we can dissuade those harpie fem domme feminists from jumping on the bandwagon, and hooking up with a dozen or more husbands to satiate their insatiable desire to rule and emasculate?

To dissuade from the eventuality of polyandry though, I offer the following rationalisations:

The gender ratio pool (excluding societies that practice the horrors of gender-selective abortion). Without even having to point at statistics, it is elementary knowledge that a disproportionate number of women are exploited through prostitution and pornography. Allowing these women the option to enter an open rather than a secret union with an attached man will save many of them from this form of exploitation.

Polygamy as the redemption of prostitution and pornography! Well there's a way forward. Why I haven't heard that kind of angle since the days of Victorian England when there were only two kinds of women - the innocent and chaste, and the wicked, unchaste, fallen, who might be redeemed by marriage.

What a charming argument. Women redeemed through the kindly good works of men only too willing to save them from exploitation.

So what else have we got?

Relationships are not just about intimacy, they carry emotions as well as various forms of support. We see the impost of the commitment more clearly if we temporarily put the brief climactic conclusion aside. When we do so, it becomes salient that polygyny creates more responsibilities for the male and gives advantage to the woman.

Oh dear, that's unfortunate. Advantages to the woman and more responsibilities to the male! Well we can't have that can we, better stick to a form of pluralism that gives advantages to the man and more responsibilities to service and care for the male to the woman. There, that feels much better.

Oh and one last thing:

The paternity is more clearly discernable.

The question of support is easily addressed in such situation. As a general rule that can be fine-tuned, the non polygamous person in the relationship will have rights similar to those that exist today whereas the polygamist is limited to a share of what he or she had brought into the union. The polygamous person in a polygynous union is the male; it is the female in a polyandrous union. This suggestion would eliminate or reduce the risk of prospecting.

Prospecting for gibberish? No sadly the trawling never stops, and the results are always copious, fecund, abundant. Let's see now: one male, ten women, twenty children (allowing a modest bourgeois total of two per woman). Hmm, better get the women working bucko, or the government welfare payments flowing, if you're going to keep that kind of Ponzi scheme afloat.

The polygamy debate that comes to me from time to time is another opportunity to promote honesty, openness and frank discussion in relationships. Without it, all we do is perpetuate suspicions and the ignorance is bliss myth that everything is hunky-dory.

Well actually all that Keysar Trad does is promote the suspicion that Islam is dangerous, and that ignorance of its dangers to women will promote a bliss myth that everything will be hunky-dory, in the unlikely happenstance that the fundie poly part of that religion should ever get an unfortunate grip in the antipodes.

I felt a wave of deep sympathy for Shakira Hussein who yesterday wrote under the header Muslims moan: Why Keysar Trad? Why? (outside the Crikey paywall):

I’m sure there are plenty of atheists who sigh and say: ”Why do they always invite Christopher Hitchens? The man gives all of us a bad name!”

So perhaps they can identify with Muslim moans of “Why Keysar Trad? Why?”

Well no need to steal Hussein's thunder - why not have a read since it's free, on the house from Crikey - but I will note that she links to the Supreme Court's trial summary of Trad v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, which is also worth a read and which you can find here.

That case backfired on Trad, who by now has amassed something of a track record in the matter of India (dominated by the lowest of the low among races), homosexual Anglo Australians (the descendants of criminal dregs), Jews, and women as uncovered meat.

After you've read the court case, you might begin to think that the polygamy puffery is just another way to stir the attention-seeking pot ...

Meantime, thanks to Stephen Stills, we dedicate this song to Keysar Trad:

If you’re down and confused,

and you don’t remember who you’re talkin’ to.

Concentration slip away, ‘cause your baby is so far away.

Well there’s a rose in the fisted glove and the eagle flies with the dove,

and if you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with,

love the one you’re with, love the one you’re with, love the one you’re with.

Don’t be angry, don’t be sad, and don’t sit cryin’ over good times you’ve had.

There’s a girl right next to you, and she’s just waitin’ for something to do.

And there’s a rose in the fisted glove and the eagle flies with the dove,

and if you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with,

love the one you’re with, love the one you’re with, love the one you’re with.

(Below: men, some unfortunate fallen women, just waiting to be redeemed and swept up into your arms and your harems. How could you not think of helping these poor unfortunates? Marry five women today, and make sure they understand their salvation is only thanks to the sweet bliss that you pour into their parched view of the world).