Polyamory is/is not a feminist movement

[MeeraReed]

This is such a bizarre "debate." All Magdlyn said is that the modern polyamory movement is feminist in origin. As in, it is an outgrowth of the feminist movements of 1980s and 1990s.

This is factually, historically, and contextually correct, and no one should be making such a fuss about "disagreeing" with this statement.

I believe LoveBunny misunderstood what Magdlyn meant and took personally the implication that practicing polyamory is inherently feminist and that practicing monogamy is, therefore, inherently not feminist.

I am on a similar personal journey as LoveBunny right now. I am finding myself happier in a monogamous relationship than I was in my previous long-term poly relationship. Although my poly relationship made me very happy and empowered for a long time, in the end it did not live up to the feminist ideals it was supposedly based on, and I ended up very disempowered in the relationship. So I totally get where LoveBunny is coming from.

But it doesn't make sense for everyone to be arguing so strongly with Magdlyn about things that she is not actually saying.

Everyone has raised many good points about how polyamorous relationships are not always actually feminist, how current polyamory culture is not necessarily always promoting feminist ideals, and how polyamory in general may fail to live up to the feminist philosophy it is based on; and how maybe all of this is because there is still a lot more patriarchy remaining in the world. As with other feminist movements, the polyamory movement may have gotten some things wrong, may need to refine its philosophy further as our understanding of feminism becomes more intersectional and nuanced, etc.

None of that makes polyamory NOT a feminist movement.

Polyamory is becoming more popular and mainstream now, so that means many people are interested in it and practicing it now who don't know much about its historical origins (historical as in the 1990s, not as in human prehistory & pre-patriarchal non-monogamy). I'm sure there are polyamorists out there who don't identify as feminists. But they are unlikely to hold completely anti-feminist values, because polyamory, as a practice and philosophy, is pretty darn feminist overall. (Which doesn't mean that some sexist people won't figure out how to use polyamory to get want they want, of course, such as the OPP harem dudes).

What patriarchy invented wasn't so much monogamy as it was the idea that WOMEN are supposed to be monogamous while men are supposed to want multiple women. Men have multiple wives in some patriarchal cultures...in other patriarchal cultures, where men can legally only have one wife, it is or was considered normal and acceptable for a man to have mistresses, concubines, female slaves, or at least to visit prostitutes. At the very least, a man was supposed to have sexual experiences with prostitutes prior to marriage, while proper women remained virgins until marriage.

MODERN monogamy has already been informed by feminism in that it demands sexual exclusivity from the male partner too. (That is actually a fairly new development in the history of human "monogamy.") Furthermore, it embraces the idea that many men actually DO want to be monogamous with one woman. And in modern monogamy, both women and men can sleep around prior to entering an exclusive relationship.

Women who cheat or sleep around "too much" are still judged more harshly than men who do the same, though.

Which is why, for me, the basic premise of the philosophy behind ethical non-monogamy is inherently feminist: that women may want multiple sex partners just like men (are supposed to) want multiple sex partners. And for the philosophy of polyamory, I believe it was specifically women who began advocating for the right to have long-term, loving relationships with those partners (in contrast to other alternative sexuality movements, such as swinging, which tends to center men's desires).

So...I don't understand what everyone is so bent out of shape about on this thread. The philosophy behind polyamory is inherently feminist, even if the practice or current reality fails to live up to those ideals.

I think LoveBunny's initial objection is actually a separate question: given that polyamory is a feminist movement, where does that leave people who practice monogamy? Specifically, where does that leave people who have experience with polyamory and find the philosophy of polyamory appealing, but are choosing monogamy, or feel they are monogamous by orientation?

In no way do I think that people who practice monogamy are inherently not feminist. Of course not!

The above question in bold is absolutely the question I've been asking myself over the last few months. I am trying to reconcile how or whether the relationship style that appeals to me right now actually clashes with my own values.

And it is not, as LoveBunny has suggested, that I've been "brainwashed" by polyamorist philosophy into thinking that monogamy is a tool of the patriarchy. It is that I genuinely believe that humans struggle with monogamy and that ethical non-monogamy is a liberating, empowering practice.

So, for me personally, the resolution has been finding a partner who shares my beliefs--that humans, both men and women, are not meant to be monogamous; and that ethical non-monogamy is appealing and feminist, at least in theory--but that who currently wants to practice monogamy with me, out of choice, not compulsion. In addition, he shares my feminist values more broadly, so I am not compromising on that.

Any monogamy that I practice will be informed specifically by feminism and by many of the philosophies of the polyamory movement. Nor do I necessarily want to be monogamous forever.

Anyway, I am disappointed by how strongly (and pointlessly) everyone seems to be arguing with Magdlyn on this thread. I genuinely don't get it.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

All Magdlyn said is that the modern polyamory movement is feminist in origin. As in, it is an outgrowth of the feminist movements of 1980s and 1990s.

I don't think this is historically accurate. I think it came from the free love movement, which I think is distinct from feminism. I don't think there is anything at all inherently feminist about polyamory, nor has there ever been. We may be currently approaching a time where we can say that.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Polyamory Isn't Just for Liberals

In the history of sexual dissent, the relationship between politics and sexual freedom defies simplistic categorization.

time.com

I think this post gives a more concise timeline.

 

[ref2018]

This is such a bizarre "debate." All Magdlyn said is that the modern polyamory movement is feminist in origin. As in, it is an outgrowth of the feminist movements of 1980s and 1990s.

...

Anyway, I am disappointed by how strongly (and pointlessly) everyone seems to be arguing with Magdlyn on this thread. I genuinely don't get it.

This is a civilized discussion. If it seems "pointless" and "bizarre" to you, you are not required to read or participate. Other people are enjoying it. If Mags didn't want the discussion, she wouldn't have started the thread, and she is a moderator, so she can lock the thread herself when she's had enough.

 

[Magdlyn]

This is a civilized discussion. If it seems "pointless" and "bizarre" to you, you are not required to read or participate. Other people are enjoying it. If Mags didn't want the discussion, she wouldn't have started the thread, and she is a moderator, so she can lock the thread herself when she's had enough.

Hmmm, I appreciate Meera's post very much. If she gets my point, and finds some other contributions pointless, I am glad she read the whole thread and finally took the time to express her opinion. It's nice to feel understood.

I appreciate everyone's contributions. I don't find them pointless, but I do feel there has been some goalpost shifting and some people not understanding me and putting words in my mouth. I will quote Inaniel as an example.

And Seasoned said some things recently that I just do not understand at all.

 

[Magdlyn]

@Mags

You keep referring to FMF as polygyny. I don't know if that's meant to be a slight or if I'm just being sensitive. Regardless, I think the statement "FMF = Polygyny not polyamory" both narrows the definition of polyamory and broadens the definition of polygyny.

Polygyny is just a descriptor of a relationship (or set of relationships) where a man has several female partners (formerly or currently called wives) but the wives all have just the one male partner (formerly or currently called a husband). Nowadays, in Western culture, a man can only legally marry one wife, but in reality, he might consider himself married to more than one.

Beyond that, in long-term history, and in cults such as the FLDS, women are NOT allowed to have more than one male partner. But the men believe they have a right to more than one woman/wife, and might get to a better level of heaven after they die if they have at least three wives. That's some pretty intense motivation.

When I describe my polyship as FMF, it is from my perspective as the hinge. It does not infer anything about my partner’s sexual autonomy.
I don't keep up with Bird's orbit; that would be exhausting, and I don't care to. Her orbit is her business.

Are you saying that Bird has other male partners? Then this is not polygyny. It's just a regular modern (feminist) polyamory network/constellation.

My poly experience is FMF because I cohabitate with two women. Both of my partners refer to themselves as feminists; Bird is LGBTQ+ and Daisy out earns me by 50%. My polyship does NOT represent traditional patriarchal plural marriage practices.

Nor did I say it did.

There are a million reasons why a relationship configuration might look the way it does. And I think making broad statements reducing "real poly" to three simple letters makes an already exclusive community even more exclusionary.

I never used the term "real poly." I used the term modern/current poly (basically 21st century, but starting in the late 1990s). We're almost a quarter century into the 21st. Why can't we focus on that in this thread, instead of patriarchal polygyny or 1960s Free Love, or swinging?

The debate is becoming a bit repetitive, so I'll summarize my final thoughts:

Voices advocating for feminist principles in “modern” polyamory do not eradicate all of the poly relationships you personally find to be invalid. Triads, MFM, OPPs (you know... the dark side of polyamory).

Organic triads are fine. Rare, but fine. MMM, FFF, FMF, MFM, or people of any other gender. In fact, I think MMM or transmen triads are probably becoming pretty popular, since gay men have had quite a lot of practice with open relationships-- much more than straight people have.

Forced OPPs are sexist. No one can argue that.

I don't see anything dark about a MFM V. That's a woman having two male partners, which is the "new" feminist concept I am addressing here. It's usually a V, but occasionally triads are attempted. I don't hear much about those. There is still quite a bit of stigma for men to admit they are bisexual.

They are real people in real relationships, all of which fall under the umbrella term of polyamory, and they are all a valid representation of polyamory, regardless of whether they represent the specific values of polyamory.com or choose to participate here.

I don't think the one-penis policy is "valid" in today's culture. Generally here and in modern books, articles, podcasts, etc., it is explained that men need to examine the sexist roots of a OPP. They can't order their female partners to only have one male partner just to avoid facing their own unexamined sexism and their fears.

I think we have established that polyamory can empower women, and that polyamory can also be suppressive for women.

Poly can be uncomfortable, scary, a rollercoaster, a learning curve, etc., for anyone. It shouldn't "suppress" anyone. If it does, it's not ethical. Polyamory supposes the informed and joyful consent of all players. That's what makes it ethical. If it's not ethical, if you want to use the "real" word, it's not "real poly." I'd rather say it isn't "successful" poly.

Polygyny, where women are not "allowed" by an authoritative husband/culture, to have more than one male partner, is not modern ethical polyamory.

If the average of the two extremes is a sliver of conditional sexual autonomy; is it a feminist movement? Hardly in my opinion, if at all.

Explain this better, please. I don't understand it.

 

[Magdlyn]

Polyamory Isn't Just for Liberals

In the history of sexual dissent, the relationship between politics and sexual freedom defies simplistic categorization.

time.com

I think this post gives a more concise timeline.

Thanks for sharing that. I will read it and try to absorb it and see how it relates to this thread. Would you write a concise summing up of it for those that won't read it?

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Hmmm, I appreciate Meera's post very much. If she gets my point, and finds some other contributions pointless, I am glad she read the whole thread and finally took the time to express her opinion. It's nice to feel understood.

I appreciate everyone's contributions. I don't find them pointless, but I do feel there has been some goalpost shifting and some people not understanding me and putting words in my mouth. I will quote Inaniel as an example.

And Seasoned said some things recently that I just do not understand at all.

Like what?

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Thanks for sharing that. I will read it and try to absorb it and see how it relates to this thread. Would you write a concise summing up of it for those that won't read it?

It gives a timeline that shows the first "modern polyamorists" were essentially comservatives and definitely not feminists.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Polygyny is just a descriptor of a relationship (or set of relationships) where a man has several female partners (formerly or currently called wives) but the wives all have just the one male partner (formerly or currently called a husband). Nowadays, in Western culture, a man can only legally marry one wife, but in reality, he might consider himself married to more than one.

Beyond that, in long-term history, and in cults such as the FLDS, women are NOT allowed to have more than one male partner. But the men believe they have a right to more than one woman/wife, and might get to a better level of heaven after they die if they have at least three wives. That's some pretty intense motivation.

I think you are missing the point here. You keep implying that certain configurations aren't polyamory, they are polygyny (because polyamory needs to be ethical and a harem isnt ethical). That is the no true Scotsman fallacy where your argument centres on the idea that "real" polyamory is feminist and the examples we are given do not count because a harem isn't polyamory.

Are you saying that Bird has other male partners? Then this is not polygyny. It's just a regular modern (feminist) polyamory network/constellation.

I think the point here is that people use language differently. I think Inaniel sees their world from the perspective of a hinge between two women. He is the centre of his world.

The assumption that him saying he is in a FMF relationship means that is a closed vee (polygyny) is on the person who makes it. But we forum users seem to be so adamant to catch someone out being "fake poly" that we just assume it must be some form of polygyny or unicorn hunting with very little evidence.

I don't think the one-penis policy is "valid" in today's culture.

This is the point, you are saying that some versions of polyamory aren't polyamory and extending the definition to only suit relationship styles that could be argued to have feminist ideals. An OPP is valid polyamory, it just is usually homophobic. Look, if a white couple have an egalitarian polyamorous equally open relationship, but they have an "agreement" to only date other white people, it is still polyamory. The blatant racism doesn't negate the polyness of the polyamory. Homophobia doesn't negate the polyness either.

It shouldn't "suppress" anyone.

This is nowhere in the definiton of polyamory. A wife who feels suppressed by her husband doing even less around the house since they opened their relationship to polyamory is still in a poly relationship. A real poly relationship.

Explain this better, please. I don't understand it.

I understood it to mean that just because women can theoretically have more than one intimate partner with most poly configurations, that alone doesn't constitute a feminist movement in his opinion. A "sliver" of sexual freedom alone doesn't qualify as progression towards equality.

 

[LoveBunny]

My initial objection came from Magdyln saying "polyamory is a feminist movement."

Had she said "was historically a feminist movement," I might not have said anything. I concede that the feminist movement forwarded the idea that women have a right to practice having multiple partners (just like men have done freely.) I concede feminists created the TERM "polyamory," & I concede that the feminists of the 80's-90's tried to create a vocabulary & philosophy for such arrangements.
I'd argue they were trying to turn the free-love/swinging of the 60's & 70's into something more female-friendly, involving love & commitment instead of just casual sex, + more inclusive of non-heterosexuals, though gay men of the 80's & 90's were already very accepting of non-monogamy & didn't embrace any of the lingo of polyamory until very recently.

Is polyamory currently a feminist movement?

The notion of an egalitarian polycule functioning as an extended family seems at odds with Ayn Rand/Franklin Vieux types espousing poly-as-rugged-individualism, so they can take no responsibility for the emotional damage they do.

Is polyamory the best way to express feminism? Our subjective experiences tell us, not necessarily. As @MeeraReed says, as monogamy becomes more egalitarian, perhaps it evens the playing field.

Thanks, y'all, I've enjoyed this debate I've started, but will be happy for it to wind down, too.

 

[Inaniel]

This is such a bizarre "debate." All Magdlyn said is that the modern polyamory movement is feminist in origin. As in, it is an outgrowth of the feminist movements of 1980s and 1990s.

I did not realize that. I was not able to go back and find that statement. My argument is based on the thread title, and the proposition as I understood it was: Polyamory specifically, as in can be defined as a "feminist movement".

I believe LoveBunny misunderstood what Magdlyn meant and took personally the implication that practicing polyamory is inherently feminist and that practicing monogamy is, therefore, inherently not feminist.

I do not think the issue was a false dichotomy, I believe LoveBunny was responding directly to the broad statement made by Magdlyn in the original thread: See below.

But monogamy is part of the patriarchal system. As that system slowly starts to crumble, men and women are changing.

On that note.

I do feel there has been some goalpost shifting

Agreed!

and some people not understanding me and putting words in my mouth. I will quote Inaniel as an example.

It was not my intention to put words in your mouth however I can see how you feel that way because I inserted rhetoric other members have used that I find similar. I will try to focus only on quoted statements in this thread.

Are you saying that Bird has other male partners? Then this is not polygyny. It's just a regular modern (feminist) polyamory network/constellation.

All partners have the autonomy to pursue any gender. I guess this is where I embarrassingly admit that I didn't know FMF, MMM, MFM, FFF by definition denoted a closed triad... I've always used that as a representation of the first order of my constellation because that is my experience as a hinge...

Organic triads are fine. Rare, but fine. MMM, FFF, MFF, FFM, or people of any other gender. In fact, I think MMM or transmen triads are probably becoming pretty popular, since gay men have had quite a lot of practice with open relationships-- much more than straight people have.

Forced OPPs are sexist. No one can argue that.

I don't see anything dark about a MFM V. That's a woman having 2 male partners, which is the "new" feminist concept I am addressing here. It's usually a V, but occasionally triads are attempted. I don't hear much about those. There is still quite a bit of stigma for me against admitting they are bisexual.

I don't think the one-penis policy is "valid" in today's culture. Generally here and in modern books, articles, podcasts, etc., it is explained that men need to examine the sexist roots of a OPP. They can't order their female partners to only have one male partner just to avoid facing their own unexamined sexism and their fears.

I argue what you consider fine, sexist, dark, and valid is only relevant to your pursuit of polyamory. Arrangements that you personally find dark or sexist are still existent in the polyamory movement and therefore represent a subset of the movement.

Poly can be uncomfortable, scary, a rollercoaster, a learning curve, etc., for anyone. It shouldn't "suppress" anyone. If it does, it's not ethical.

"Should" statements are a form of cognitive bias, you can google "unhelpful thinking styles". Or you can read more about at the following link. (I only bring this up to support my statement below)

"Should" Statements

Polyamory supposes the informed and joyful consent of all players. That's what makes it ethical.

Exactly! The definition of polyamory specifies informed consent. That's it! Nothing else. One must add bias about what polyamory should and shouldn't be to infer that polyamory is a feminist movement. By definition polyamory does not specifically promote feminist issues of equality.

 

[AlwaysGrowing]

I guess this is where I embarrassingly admit that I didn't know FMF, MMM, MFM, FFF by definition denoted a closed triad... I've always used that as a representation of the first order of my constellation because that is my experience as a hinge...

FWIW I've always thought that the letters were just a description of what comes next. I describe my relationship as a MFM vee. It's not prescriptively closed so I don't say closed. When one of my partners IS dating? I'm still in an MFM vee I might change that description to an N or W shape instead of a V if it got serious between them, but ultimately my polyamory experience, like yours, is currently from the perspective of the hinge of a vee and I describe it as such.

If I see FMF I use context to establish if it's a vee (aka hinge with 2 partners) or a triad (3 people all dating each other). If that isn't the norm, then we can learn something new together lol

 

[Inaniel]

I have been thinking about what MeeraReed said in regards to the origin of polyamory. Until Meera's post I was not giving any thought to the origins of the movement or the word, rather the definition as I understood it today.

Regardless, I did some googling to land on the first use of the word polyamory in popular culture which was reportedly coined by the writer "Morning Glory Ravenheart Zell" in a publication called "A Bouquet of Lovers" for Green Egg Magazine in 1990.

I was able to find the publication, (I think what I found was perhaps a re-publication because it also included a text titled "FAQ Re. Polyamory by the Ravenhearts") Which is perhaps more interesting than the original publication as it goes into depth about origin of the word.

Here is a link but the article is behind tons of annoying advertisements.

A Bouquet of Lovers

I am still pondering the text however my initial thoughts after peering into poly circa 1990 is that the practice at the time appears to be informed by feminism as the writer does make patriarchal distinctions. With that said, in the FAQ when the definition of polyamory and the values of polyamory are discussed the choice to define the word polyamory to apply broadly to open relationships appears to be intentional. Gender equality is not stated or inferred to be foundational from what I can surmise.

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

I have been thinking about what MeeraReed said in regards to the origin of polyamory. Until Meera's post I was not giving any thought to the origins of the movement or the word, rather the definition as I understood it today.

Regardless, I did some googling to land on the first use of the word polyamory in popular culture which was reportedly coined by the writer "Morning Glory Ravenheart Zell" in a publication called "A Bouquet of Lovers" for Green Egg Magazine in 1990.

I was able to find the publication, (I think what I found was perhaps a re-publication because it also included a text titled "FAQ Re. Polyamory by the Ravenhearts") Which is perhaps more interesting than the original publication as it goes into depth about origin of the word.

Here is a link but the article is behind tons of annoying advertisements.

A Bouquet of Lovers

I am still pondering the text however my initial thoughts after peering into poly circa 1990 is that the practice at the time appears to be informed by feminism as the writer does make patriarchal distinctions. With that said, in the FAQ when the definition of polyamory and the values of polyamory are discussed the choice to define the word polyamory to apply broadly to open relationships appears to be intentional. Gender equality is not stated or inferred to be foundational from what I can surmise.

What should be noted from that article is that the author recommends veto power and explicit hierarchy in order for a married couple to ethically open the relationship. So feminism then was about keeping your wife happy with the open relationship she also wants, but dumping your girlfriend if your marriage hits a speed bump. They state the primary should have approval of all new partners and that secondary partners should be aware of their place.

So sure, we can say that it was based on giving wives more sexual freedom in a patriarchial society. Is that feminism? Is it feminism just because the author thought it was?

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

If I see FMF I use context to establish if it's a vee (aka hinge with 2 partners) or a triad (3 people all dating each other). If that isn't the norm, then we can learn something new together lol

Same. If someone comes in and says they are in a MMF triad, I assume they mean theyre coming to talk about that trio of people (a partner and metamour, or both partners). I don't know if they are open or closed or have other partners outside of this triad unless I specifically ask.

 

[Inaniel]

What should be noted from that article is that the author recommends veto power and explicit hierarchy in order for a married couple to ethically open the relationship.

Right! The absolute and extreme hierarchy didn’t go unnoticed. Additionally, I found it telling that all of the most precious people in MorningGlory’s life were those her husband preselected and brought home, with their genders left unspecified.

I’m uncertain about crediting the architects of the word 'polyamory' as authorities for defining the entire movement. However, the Ravenheart family were practitioners of neopaganism and seemed to take it quite seriously. If the practice of polyamory originated from a pagan context (of which I’m no expert), then it may have been intentional to avoid contextualizing polyamory (the definition) within feminist or patriarchal principles, as paganism predates both.

A recurring theme I notice in the article and elsewhere is the sincere intention to define polyamory as broadly as possible to avoid exclusion. The broad definition of polyamory was no accident!

MorningGlory's husband was quoted making the following topical statements, during a 2018 interview:

"Some of our biggest challenges within the polyamory community have occurred quite recently. It's been challenging to maintain clarity of the definition with individuals who keep trying to change it to fit their own reinterpretations of value, ethics, and history. The movement seems to have gotten more politicized, and downright meaner. We are now seeing poly people using their public platforms to be judgmental, disrespectful, and exclusive, ironically the opposite of what we always stood for as cultural groundbreakers in the United States."
Link:
https://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2018/10/oberon-zell-co-creator-of-word-on.html?m=1

 

[SEASONEDpolyAgain]

Right! The absolute and extreme hierarchy didn’t go unnoticed. Additionally, I found it telling that all of the most precious people in MorningGlory’s life were those her husband preselected and brought home, with their genders left unspecified.

I’m uncertain about crediting the architects of the word 'polyamory' as authorities for defining the entire movement. However, the Ravenheart family were practitioners of neopaganism and seemed to take it quite seriously. If the practice of polyamory originated from a pagan context (of which I’m no expert), then it may have been intentional to avoid contextualizing polyamory (the definition) within feminist or patriarchal principles, as paganism predates both.

A recurring theme I notice in the article and elsewhere is the sincere intention to define polyamory as broadly as possible to avoid exclusion. The broad definition of polyamory was no accident!

MorningGlory's husband was quoted making the following topical statements, during a 2018 interview:

"Some of our biggest challenges within the polyamory community have occurred quite recently. It's been challenging to maintain clarity of the definition with individuals who keep trying to change it to fit their own reinterpretations of value, ethics, and history. The movement seems to have gotten more politicized, and downright meaner. We are now seeing poly people using their public platforms to be judgmental, disrespectful, and exclusive, ironically the opposite of what we always stood for as cultural groundbreakers in the United States."
Link:
https://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2018/10/oberon-zell-co-creator-of-word-on.html?m=1

From the same link

"PQ: So let’s focus instead on the positives. What have been your best memories since you first identified as polyamorous?

OZ: Group sex would have to be high on that list for me! Many sweet and delightful threesomes, and a few wondrous orgies.

 

[ref2018]

Many sweet and delightful threesomes, and a few wondrous orgies.

...which they could have done even without "identifying as polyamorous."

 

[MeeraReed]

My initial objection came from Magdyln saying "polyamory is a feminist movement."

Had she said "was historically a feminist movement," I might not have said anything.

Ah, I see! Thank you, LoveBunny. That totally clarifies my confusion about this whole thread to begin with.

Is polyamory currently a feminist movement?

Well, polyamory is no longer one coherent movement (if it ever really was to begin with), so it can't be any one thing. And it's becoming more popular and trendy, so a wider variety of people are interested in it and practicing it.

But I think the philosophy behind polyamory is pretty feminist. A lot of newbies, outsiders, media portrayals of poly, etc, are unaware of or downplay the feminist aspects.

In poly social circles (at least in the Boston area currently), I have met so many poly men who are strongly feminist and deeply engaged with feminist issues. Much more so than were the mostly mono men I encountered before I became poly. So, earlier this year, when I decided to be open to dating mono men as well, I was curious if I would still notice that dichotomy.

And I have to say that, yes--the poly men I met were much more obviously and openly feminist than the mono-identifying ones. But, this is in the context of me already selecting for the most politically leftist and pro-feminist men. So, if there are conservative poly men out there, I wouldn't have matched with them. And the mono men I met were all pro-feminist in their beliefs, but they noticeably hadn't done as much questioning and thinking about feminist issues as the poly men had done.

It's possible that this is a regional thing. The Boston-area poly community is super liberal and feminist. Magdlyn lives in this area too, so maybe that's why our perspectives are similar.

The notion of an egalitarian polycule functioning as an extended family seems at odds with Ayn Rand/Franklin Vieux types espousing poly-as-rugged-individualism, so they can take no responsibility for the emotional damage they do.

I totally forgot that Ayn Rand was into non-monogamy, LOL.

Is polyamory the best way to express feminism?

But I don't think anyone is arguing that polyamory is the best or the only way to express feminism.

That would be kind of like arguing that lesbianism is the best way to express feminism...which definitely WAS an argument made by some capital-L Lesbians back in the '70s, and is definitely a part of the history of second-wave feminism...and straight women feminists at the time were left feeling like they were giving in to the patriarchy if they dated men...but today, nobody would take that argument seriously.

Plenty of people are monogamous by orientation. My closest friends are all strong feminists...90% of them are monogamous. They don't find non-monogamy or polyamory relevant to their lives or particularly appealing. They were never unhappy due to monogamy and never felt that monogamy was an oppressive structure for them personally.

I don't think my friends are giving into the patriarchy by not questioning monogamous norms...although I have definitely felt judged by them at times for my being non-monogamous, so I think they could learn a bit more about polyamory and particularly its feminist aspects.