4 ms·

When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress." In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appear

When I look at polygamous/polygynous societies today and in history, I'm not sure I see "social progress." In fact, for whatever its pitfalls may be, it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger than polygyny's own. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. Like the vikings: 'Polygyny created a pool of unmarried men motivated to engage in risky behavior to increase wealth/status/prob of entering marriage market' http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30307-5/pdf Or the Lost Boys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentali... Or certain other religions and tribal areas that may promote such behavior today as a side ffect, which may promote other lost boys to, I don't know, join ISIS in hope of getting some of those dear wives of their own too, one way or the other. Perhaps you file this under "not my problem." Maybe its not your problem, but it definitely presents a social problem, and you're suggesting that poly-* may be social progress. I don't think that plays out in history.

colanderman 9y ago
> it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry? EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
  - colanderman 9y ago
    To me, that sounds like a problem caused by patriarchy or other power imbalances: in many societies, men have great power (earning potential), women have little, and hence are forced to marry (preferably the richest man) to gain power. Of course you can address the symptom (women choosing the wealthier/more powerful men, leaving the men who are less-so without a mate), but the underlying disease remains: womens' choice whom to marry is hampered by lack of societal standing. Better to address the disease (patriarchy). Women are no longer forced to marry "up" (addressing the power issues polygyny belies); men no longer are forced to focus on being earners, so those who would be low-status under patriarchy (due to lack of earning potential) can instead focus on developing other traits (e.g. homemaking) which would make them attractive to female earners.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      I don't think you've quite understood my last comment. It's not really about men being high earners or having some sort indefinable social capital that makes women "marry up" in most examples of polygynous cultures AFAICT, it's literal force. It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse. Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.
      - colanderman 9y ago
        > It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse. No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise. Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that explicitly force women to marry powerful men. > Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife. Which is exactly my thesis: patriarchy is the cause, polygyny is the symptom. Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the cause. (You see the same thing with prostitution BTW – prostitution is "bad" because it places desperate women in a position where they are taken advantage of by clients. But banning prostitution doesn't fix anything – you still have women who see no other earning potential than selling sex. The real problem is patriarchy that creates such a large class of women with no independent earning potential in the first place. Fix that, and the problem of prostitution-from-desperation diminishes greatly.)
- colanderman 9y ago
  Wow, seems I touched a nerve by mentioning the patriarchy! The GP claims that we ought to restrict women's choice in marriage to ensure each man a wife… amazing that this position seems to be considered unassailable here. Some reading for thought: https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/323/354 https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/articl... http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/06/should-feminists-be-critical-of-compulsory-monogamy/ http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/06/should-feminists-be-cr...
crsm345 9y ago
That is an interesting way to look at it. Thank you for the reading suggestions! However it seems to me that this is only a problem for 'exclusive' polygamy, of which, one might say, traditional monogamy is just a subtype (the advantage of monogamy being that aproximately 50% of people are male/female, amd mostly hetero) But wouldn't a 'relaxed'/open approach be at least as good? Among obvious advantages like (presumably) less frustrated expectations, breaking of trust etc, you also wouldn't have to rely on 1:1 matching. People that might otherwise be sexually frustrated may have a chance at least at sexual relations, if perhaps not erotic (in the etymological sense) elationships. (One reason being that one may be less 'selective' when looking for a mate doesn't involve life long commitment) Also, there could be less conflict and risky behavior (designed to impress) stemming from competition over mates.

colanderman 9y ago

> it appears that monogamy solves a large number of social ills that are perhaps larger. Like large bands of males cast out with no prospects, so they resort to not-so-progressive behavior. So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships with less-desirable men? Why shouldn't men be expected to be more attractive mates? Why not blame the patriarchy for creating a power imbalance that favors polygyny over polyandry? EDIT: For those doubting that patriarchy plays a role, consider that both the Mormon [1] and Arabic [2] worlds have historically been strongly patriarchal. I don't know about the Vikings. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Arab_societies

Nursie 9y ago
>> So the acceptable "solution" to this imbalance is to socially force (through normalization of monogamy and marriage) women into relationships If you read into polygamous societies, it's often that (particularly very young) women are forced into relationships with socially powerful men. Not much to do with attraction.
- colanderman 9y ago
  To me, that sounds like a problem caused by patriarchy or other power imbalances: in many societies, men have great power (earning potential), women have little, and hence are forced to marry (preferably the richest man) to gain power. Of course you can address the symptom (women choosing the wealthier/more powerful men, leaving the men who are less-so without a mate), but the underlying disease remains: womens' choice whom to marry is hampered by lack of societal standing. Better to address the disease (patriarchy). Women are no longer forced to marry "up" (addressing the power issues polygyny belies); men no longer are forced to focus on being earners, so those who would be low-status under patriarchy (due to lack of earning potential) can instead focus on developing other traits (e.g. homemaking) which would make them attractive to female earners.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    I don't think you've quite understood my last comment. It's not really about men being high earners or having some sort indefinable social capital that makes women "marry up" in most examples of polygynous cultures AFAICT, it's literal force. It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse. Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife.
    - colanderman 9y ago
      > It's not women choosing to marry the man with the most power or wealth, it's cultural and religious forced marriage, on threat of ostracism, familial disgrace or much worse. No, I get that – my point is, there's not much difference between social pressure to marry someone wealthy because you were not raised to be a breadwinner and thus would starve if you didn't marry up, and social pressure to marry someone in high social standing because you'd be ostracized otherwise. Social pressures that prevent women from gaining power and thus being forced to marry to get it, are not that different from social pressures that explicitly force women to marry powerful men. > Yes, it is a problem caused by patriarchy, they tend to be highly patriarchal societies, the ones where men routinely have more than one wife. Which is exactly my thesis: patriarchy is the cause, polygyny is the symptom. Applying a band-aid of normalized monogamous marriages to ensure mates for low-status men (as the GP insinuated) addresses the symptom, and ignores the cause. (You see the same thing with prostitution BTW – prostitution is "bad" because it places desperate women in a position where they are taken advantage of by clients. But banning prostitution doesn't fix anything – you still have women who see no other earning potential than selling sex. The real problem is patriarchy that creates such a large class of women with no independent earning potential in the first place. Fix that, and the problem of prostitution-from-desperation diminishes greatly.)
colanderman 9y ago
Wow, seems I touched a nerve by mentioning the patriarchy! The GP claims that we ought to restrict women's choice in marriage to ensure each man a wife… amazing that this position seems to be considered unassailable here. Some reading for thought: https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/323/354 https://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/articl... http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/06/should-feminists-be-critical-of-compulsory-monogamy/ http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/06/should-feminists-be-cr...

crsm345 9y ago

That is an interesting way to look at it. Thank you for the reading suggestions! However it seems to me that this is only a problem for 'exclusive' polygamy, of which, one might say, traditional monogamy is just a subtype (the advantage of monogamy being that aproximately 50% of people are male/female, amd mostly hetero) But wouldn't a 'relaxed'/open approach be at least as good? Among obvious advantages like (presumably) less frustrated expectations, breaking of trust etc, you also wouldn't have to rely on 1:1 matching. People that might otherwise be sexually frustrated may have a chance at least at sexual relations, if perhaps not erotic (in the etymological sense) elationships. (One reason being that one may be less 'selective' when looking for a mate doesn't involve life long commitment) Also, there could be less conflict and risky behavior (designed to impress) stemming from competition over mates.