5 ms·

Respectfully, this logic reminds me of the leaps commonly seen in crackpot conspiracy theories. I am highly skeptical of any supposed connection between economi

Respectfully, this logic reminds me of the leaps commonly seen in crackpot conspiracy theories. I am highly skeptical of any supposed connection between economic equality and increased civil unrest, let alone polygamy. Critical thinking time. Is there an established link between female self-esteem and polygamy? Let's suppose there is, does polygamy actually hurt communities? Where's the evidence for that? If women are more well-off, is it a zero-sum game that makes men less well-off? If it is zero-sum, are economically insecure young men any more likely to cause civil unrest than economically insecure young women?

PicassoCTs 6y ago
Actually, there are several studies of places in the world were polygamy is connected to social unrest. Sudan comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War Of course the "reason" is usually something else. Nobody writes 100x"InCel" on a manifesto. Religious morals, if stripped of the whole superstitious nonsense, leaves behind the "everybody gets a chance" pacifier. For all other forms of society its boils down too some feudal harem dropping a few outdated flowers and one is desperate enough to pick from the outdated left-over men-heap. This always was and has been a solid basis for civil war, for if all you got is your life,and there is no perspective for it to ever be good, why not put it as bargaining chip into the ultimate equalizing game - which civil war is. Sorry to say it, but all those nice little social games like ménage à trois are entertainment for those who never came near these problems. And i doubt that a lot of those advocating for this as solution, ever were poor enough, long enough & lonely enough, to not become "clingy and desperate", aka jealousy. While we are at it - may i also point out, that the usual - all female secretary pool at headquarters- suspiciously looks like economic opportunity harems and thus a lot of commentary by company owners will be very tone-deaf by nature.
- chaorace 6y ago
  That's a solid point, though, I think polygamy is acting as a barometer of social inequality in your example. I am forced to admit, if men were treated like women are in Sudan, that OP's scenario of women forcing men into harems would become reality.
DC1350 6y ago
Economic equality means women don't need to pair up with men for utility reasons anymore, which means a lot of men will be leftovers since this has historically made up a huge chunk of all marriages. Polygamy or at least polyamory follows since sexual and emotional needs are better met by one man to many women pairings. This is very easy since online dating creates a super efficient market where most women have hundreds of options and most men have very few. Unmarried and sexually frustrated young men are generally unsatisfied with life and prone to engage in antisocial activity.
- jfengel 6y ago
  I am genuinely sorry that so many men appear to grow up in a culture that teaches this about women. It's deeply misogynist, and makes the assumption that women must hate men just as much. This simply isn't the case. The vast majority of women genuinely like men. Not as penises to be notched, but as human beings. Many of them want a long-term partner because it makes them feel good. It's nice to have a person they can rely on and develop a life with. It's hard enough to find one person for that, and many are content with finding that one person. For most women that's going to mean finding one man. And that gets even harder when faced with the sheer number of men who seem to think the way you do, seeing women as commodities on a "super efficient market" to meet their "sexual needs" -- and threatening "antisocial activity" when they're not met. If you ever wonder why women refuse to date you, you can cross off everything you think is at the top of your list -- money, attractiveness, ambition, whatever. Every reason women refuse to date you is in your post here, and none of the others matters even a tiny fraction as much as you think it does. Your "sexual frustration" has nothing to do with women. If you need an orgasm, go take care of it yourself. If what you want is a trophy of your economic and sexual prowess, don't use a human being for that. If what you want is a partner in life -- including one who takes an interest in your sexuality -- stop talking about them as if that were a commodity to be purchased or a prize to be won. And certainly not as predators looking to use you, because that's precisely how you are appearing to them. Women are human beings. Seek out a human connection with them, and you'll discover that that's something that they want, too. That doesn't make it easy to find one who is a good match that stands up to years or decades. But that's not the reason you're alone, brooding about how better men are taking up all the women.
grawprog 6y ago
> I am highly skeptical of any supposed connection between economic equality and increased civil unrest, The French Revolution begs to differ.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  I actually doubt the economic equality argument too cause I think it misses the point. The truly angering thing is when there's systemic self-dealing in government/big business, which is probably best described as crony capitalism. Too big to fail, etc. There's something more precise and outside the scope of "economic equality" when we have Pelosi with a fridge stocked with $100 ice cream and nothing to show in Congress in terms of relief while Americans are missing rent payments. I'll use Pelosi as an example cause she's visible but the same argument is easily applied to McConnell and everyone else too. Cause at the end of the day, Pelosi doesn't really represent industry. There's a world of difference between, say, Amazon and the US govt. I'd trust Musk or Bezos to get me a vaccine or working covid test any day, over the mess we get from the federal govt. She represents truly useless and asinine government that constrains and leeches off ordinary people. Not only is there historic debt spending, but there's practically nothing to show for when Americans need help the most; what're we paying fortunes for?!
- chaorace 6y ago
  The underlying glibness is not lost upon me, but I'll engage with your counterpoint seriously, even if that's why I'm not fun at parties. The French revolution happened in just one country. The entire continent of Europe begs to differ. The vast majority of social reform in Europe has been remarkably peaceful, transforming monarchies into democracies, often overnight. These quiet revolutions improved the stability of their respective societies and were largely driven by an emerging middle class.
  - grawprog 6y ago
    >The vast majority of social reform in Europe has been remarkably peaceful, The vast majority of social reform in Europe took place after a massive global conflict that left millions dead. World War 1 was a thing....then there was a bunch of violent revolutions that saw dictators put in charge of a bunch of European countries which led to yet another massive conflict that left millions dead.

PicassoCTs 6y ago

Actually, there are several studies of places in the world were polygamy is connected to social unrest. Sudan comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Sudan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudanese_Civil_War Of course the "reason" is usually something else. Nobody writes 100x"InCel" on a manifesto. Religious morals, if stripped of the whole superstitious nonsense, leaves behind the "everybody gets a chance" pacifier. For all other forms of society its boils down too some feudal harem dropping a few outdated flowers and one is desperate enough to pick from the outdated left-over men-heap. This always was and has been a solid basis for civil war, for if all you got is your life,and there is no perspective for it to ever be good, why not put it as bargaining chip into the ultimate equalizing game - which civil war is. Sorry to say it, but all those nice little social games like ménage à trois are entertainment for those who never came near these problems. And i doubt that a lot of those advocating for this as solution, ever were poor enough, long enough & lonely enough, to not become "clingy and desperate", aka jealousy. While we are at it - may i also point out, that the usual - all female secretary pool at headquarters- suspiciously looks like economic opportunity harems and thus a lot of commentary by company owners will be very tone-deaf by nature.

chaorace 6y ago
That's a solid point, though, I think polygamy is acting as a barometer of social inequality in your example. I am forced to admit, if men were treated like women are in Sudan, that OP's scenario of women forcing men into harems would become reality.

DC1350 6y ago

Economic equality means women don't need to pair up with men for utility reasons anymore, which means a lot of men will be leftovers since this has historically made up a huge chunk of all marriages. Polygamy or at least polyamory follows since sexual and emotional needs are better met by one man to many women pairings. This is very easy since online dating creates a super efficient market where most women have hundreds of options and most men have very few. Unmarried and sexually frustrated young men are generally unsatisfied with life and prone to engage in antisocial activity.

jfengel 6y ago
I am genuinely sorry that so many men appear to grow up in a culture that teaches this about women. It's deeply misogynist, and makes the assumption that women must hate men just as much. This simply isn't the case. The vast majority of women genuinely like men. Not as penises to be notched, but as human beings. Many of them want a long-term partner because it makes them feel good. It's nice to have a person they can rely on and develop a life with. It's hard enough to find one person for that, and many are content with finding that one person. For most women that's going to mean finding one man. And that gets even harder when faced with the sheer number of men who seem to think the way you do, seeing women as commodities on a "super efficient market" to meet their "sexual needs" -- and threatening "antisocial activity" when they're not met. If you ever wonder why women refuse to date you, you can cross off everything you think is at the top of your list -- money, attractiveness, ambition, whatever. Every reason women refuse to date you is in your post here, and none of the others matters even a tiny fraction as much as you think it does. Your "sexual frustration" has nothing to do with women. If you need an orgasm, go take care of it yourself. If what you want is a trophy of your economic and sexual prowess, don't use a human being for that. If what you want is a partner in life -- including one who takes an interest in your sexuality -- stop talking about them as if that were a commodity to be purchased or a prize to be won. And certainly not as predators looking to use you, because that's precisely how you are appearing to them. Women are human beings. Seek out a human connection with them, and you'll discover that that's something that they want, too. That doesn't make it easy to find one who is a good match that stands up to years or decades. But that's not the reason you're alone, brooding about how better men are taking up all the women.

grawprog 6y ago

> I am highly skeptical of any supposed connection between economic equality and increased civil unrest, The French Revolution begs to differ.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
I actually doubt the economic equality argument too cause I think it misses the point. The truly angering thing is when there's systemic self-dealing in government/big business, which is probably best described as crony capitalism. Too big to fail, etc. There's something more precise and outside the scope of "economic equality" when we have Pelosi with a fridge stocked with $100 ice cream and nothing to show in Congress in terms of relief while Americans are missing rent payments. I'll use Pelosi as an example cause she's visible but the same argument is easily applied to McConnell and everyone else too. Cause at the end of the day, Pelosi doesn't really represent industry. There's a world of difference between, say, Amazon and the US govt. I'd trust Musk or Bezos to get me a vaccine or working covid test any day, over the mess we get from the federal govt. She represents truly useless and asinine government that constrains and leeches off ordinary people. Not only is there historic debt spending, but there's practically nothing to show for when Americans need help the most; what're we paying fortunes for?!
chaorace 6y ago
The underlying glibness is not lost upon me, but I'll engage with your counterpoint seriously, even if that's why I'm not fun at parties. The French revolution happened in just one country. The entire continent of Europe begs to differ. The vast majority of social reform in Europe has been remarkably peaceful, transforming monarchies into democracies, often overnight. These quiet revolutions improved the stability of their respective societies and were largely driven by an emerging middle class.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >The vast majority of social reform in Europe has been remarkably peaceful, The vast majority of social reform in Europe took place after a massive global conflict that left millions dead. World War 1 was a thing....then there was a bunch of violent revolutions that saw dictators put in charge of a bunch of European countries which led to yet another massive conflict that left millions dead.