3 ms·

> 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

> 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.)

Nursie 9y ago
>> 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. Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's a breadwinner, and being put through a forced marriage. >> 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. They are significantly different in consequence, IMHO, even if the cause is different only in matter of degree. >> 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. I don't consider that a band-aid particularly, it seems something a lot of people want out of life, and the question of "status" somewhat orthogonal. I also don't think the parent post advocates any sort of enforcement of this, but just looks at outcomes.
- colanderman 9y ago
  So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? Forced polygyny does not just happen, someone has to have the power to force it. That someone exactly he who benefits from the practice: high-status men – by definition, the patriarchy. Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of course, I'm not arguing that. Is being formally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of high status worse than being informally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of low status? Yes, but by degrees. Yes, you can replace formal ostracism with informal ostracism by normalizing monogamy, but it's still going to happen so long as a patriarchal power imbalance remains in place. (Doubt that informal ostracism happens? Women who choose not to marry have historically been excluded from mainstream society in western society. Hence the trope of the isolated spinster/widow, and the prevalence of prostitution as a means of earning for women who choose to stay single.)
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that they are associated, and I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies. I'm also not sure why you keep talking about status and what your issue is with people choosing monogamy. You don't have to if you don't want to, and it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
    - colanderman 9y ago
      > I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies. Then why are we arguing? > what your issue is with people choosing monogamy I have no such issue? You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is why we are arguing. All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is. Remove polygamy and all you've done is democratize power among males, without addressing the problem of patriarchy. Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic. > it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately. Western society has made strides in that direction, yes. And beside the decrease in social ostracism of single females, it is argued that the rise of feminism has driven the rise in consensual polyamory [1], supporting my above point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspect...

Nursie 9y ago

>> 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. Sorry there's a f*ck of a lot of difference between choosing a partner that's a breadwinner, and being put through a forced marriage. >> 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. They are significantly different in consequence, IMHO, even if the cause is different only in matter of degree. >> 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. I don't consider that a band-aid particularly, it seems something a lot of people want out of life, and the question of "status" somewhat orthogonal. I also don't think the parent post advocates any sort of enforcement of this, but just looks at outcomes.

colanderman 9y ago
So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? Forced polygyny does not just happen, someone has to have the power to force it. That someone exactly he who benefits from the practice: high-status men – by definition, the patriarchy. Is being physically coerced to marry someone worse than being economically incentivized to? Of course, I'm not arguing that. Is being formally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of high status worse than being informally ostracized for refusing to marry someone of low status? Yes, but by degrees. Yes, you can replace formal ostracism with informal ostracism by normalizing monogamy, but it's still going to happen so long as a patriarchal power imbalance remains in place. (Doubt that informal ostracism happens? Women who choose not to marry have historically been excluded from mainstream society in western society. Hence the trope of the isolated spinster/widow, and the prevalence of prostitution as a means of earning for women who choose to stay single.)
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> So you really believe that physical coercion to marry high-status males is caused by (i.e., is an "outcome" of) the practice of polygamy? No, I believe that when we look at historical or contemporary examples of societies or sub-cultures in which polygamy is practised, we tend to see forced marriages. I'm not saying either is the cause of the other, but that they are associated, and I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies. I'm also not sure why you keep talking about status and what your issue is with people choosing monogamy. You don't have to if you don't want to, and it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately.
  - colanderman 9y ago
    > I agree very much that they both take place in highly patriarchal societies. Then why are we arguing? > what your issue is with people choosing monogamy I have no such issue? You are putting words in my mouth. Perhaps this is why we are arguing. All I take issue with is the GP's assertion that polygamy is the cause of the "lost boys" problem. I claim it's not, patriarchy promulgated by high-status males is. Remove polygamy and all you've done is democratize power among males, without addressing the problem of patriarchy. Remove patriarchy and polygamy is no longer problematic. > it's no longer the case that a woman can't support herself adequately. Western society has made strides in that direction, yes. And beside the decrease in social ostracism of single females, it is argued that the rise of feminism has driven the rise in consensual polyamory [1], supporting my above point. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory#Philosophical_aspect...