Random thoughts I had while reading it (not all criticisms, some devils advocacy)....
Colloquially hate is another way of saying 'opposed to'. God's not opposed to women; He's opposed to rebellion. And that's the real problem, modern women are in rebellion.
"men appear to have much more freedom and self determination" This is the sort of thing always said by those envious (women's original temptation) of those up the hierarchy. They lack any concept of the sword of damaclese or the real burdan of being the leader in a marriage or that men likewise are submitted to those above them. [see "I am God" meme]
"To accept the idea that polygamy is anti-women and something to refute, is to say that the system God allowed and regulated to support women, is anti-women." They say it's anti-women because it is anti-women in charge.
monogamous Torah followers feels like an oxymoron. Not a criticism of your article, I realize they exist, and good description because it elicited this response. But still, if you can give up bacon you can give up monogamy.
Limiting marriage to believers would probably be seen as anti-woman too. The American church doesn't like being told what to do.
"I had approached many of the stickier topics regarding male-female relationships in Scripture with a blind acceptance" Nothing wrong with that. This is faith like a child. Understanding can come later. "I won't believe it until you tell me why." is the refuge of the rebellious.
"There was no social ‘safety net’ for a woman in ancient times."
This whole line of thinking while nice and pro-woman sounding leads naturally to the retort, "we have a social safety net now so we don't need to force women into polygamy". Never mind the fact that the social safety net is destroying marriage itself. Never mind that few single moms thinks it is easy or a preferred way of raising kids. If you don't deal with that retort, however you choose to deal with it, such doubters will ignore everything else you say.
"Where will these 5.3 million women find husbands who will love and cherish them?" That is a mere 1.5% of the population. A drop in the bucket. And many of those women are likely older widows or women who don't want to marry. The median church size is 75; so that's just over 1 nonmarried woman per congregation (almost certainly a widow).
"entire African continent’s family and social structure was seriously damage, if not destroyed," Then how did Europeans manage the same without polygamy? One could easily pin the blame for that damage on colonialism. Or slavery. For that matter, one could call the historic african polygyny a reaction to the poaching of men by slavers. And you know how that would play today.
"While western culture has not had the shockwave of millions of women and children kicked to the curb, we have instead had a slow burn culturally created by the same false monogamy-only doctrines that disallow millions of single women, many with children, access to a godly man to provide for and protect them. It is a travesty of epic proportions to which the church turns a self-righteous blind eye."
But we have had a shockwave of millions of fathers kicked to the curb. And any given church likely has more failed marriages than nevermarried childless women. Why add poly as a solution when we can't keep the marriages we have together?
Do not Muzzle the Ox....I love Steve's comment above. This is also a great addition to the 1 Cor 7 'do not deny' discussion.
"She doesn’t have to ‘settle for’ whoever is available, but can look at all men and seek a suitable covering that is Godly and can best provide for her needs." I understand the appeal of this but it doesn't really fix the root problem; which is women's unrealistic expectations for how attractive a man they can secure for marriage. Well it does fix another problem (women delaying marriage until after the best men are taken); but the better fix for that is young marriage.
"It gives them insufficient single Godly men for them to marry" I'm still not convinced this is a real problem, and not just because the church drives away Godly men while attracting lukewarm women. If you look at the Orthodox, who are big on tradition and not on evangelism, men outnumber women. I tend to suspect women marrying outside the faith is a problem there too, just as in Protestantism and we only mistakenly think the root cause is the sex ratio because we've driven away so many men and attracted so many women (which the less evangelistic orthodox won't have).
"We should be reminded that it is not the government’s responsibility to care for widows and orphans. That is the responsibility of the Body!" Amen to that. But good luck getting an American to go along with that idea, even without bringing up poly. Tell them poly is the way it's to be done and they're even less likely to want to accomplish that.
Ya so after having read all that I don't really see you dealing with the root cause of why they see God as being anti-women. Instead you're just trying to convince then that God really does love them. But that won't help if hte problem is them being offended at being told no. I think the root of the matter here is the American church's self worship and rebellion. Anything that criticizes female bad behavior, restricts them, or causes feelbads is seen as anti-woman. This comes down to a deficiency in their gospel which is female and 'me' centered and completely lacks any semblance of selflessness, sacrifice, and obedience.
Ultimately this article is arguing poly is not anti-woman because it can be benefitial and it gives them a choice. But this isn't much different rhetorically than the stay at home mothers arguing for their 'choice' to do so. And that doesn't slow the feminists down for a second as they rush to criticize tradwives. Which is to say, while this polygamy is prowoman idea seems like a good rhetorical play, to me as well, I tend to doubt it's ultimate effectiveness. But it's still worth a try.
I love your concluding paragraphs. The whole article is well written and flows well.
