5 ms·
This is a very interesting topic and it is worthy of discussion. One thing to point out is that women tend not to couple down-status. Combined with the fact t
by greenail 5y ago
This is a very interesting topic and it is worthy of discussion.
One thing to point out is that women tend not to couple down-status. Combined with the fact that more women are getting degrees than men further reduces the pool of available males. It isn't clear what impact this will have long term.
> The institution of monogamy is itself a “redistributive” type of policy: like capping the income of billionaires, it caps the total allowed romantic partners of the most attractive, so that unattractive people have much better chances to find a partner.
This seems like an odd take. Monogamy is not dating equity for ugly people, it is a social construct evolved to give children an advantage over the long run. One of the biggest barriers you could have to over come is to come from a single parent home. There is copious data on this topic.
- strikelaserclaw 5y agoOn your last point, i would also argue that monogamy is a stabilizing agent in society, imagine how many wars would break out if the majority of the men didn't find partners.
- rytcio 5y agoWe're getting there: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2767066 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
- clarge1120 5y agoAgreed. There is copious data, and substantial circumstantial evidence, that points to the fact that children who come from a single-parent (specifically single-mother) household encounter overwhelming obstacles in nearly every area of life. Anyone (yes, anyone) who attempts to advance the idea of eradicating monogamy is flirting with madness.
- kowbell 5y agoI'm curious why you and OP are equating "not monogamy" with "single-parent?" What about polygamy? Or even non-married but still-committed group partnerships? I'm certainly not suggesting to eradicate monogamy and replace it with these, and it wouldn't make sense to say any one of these is holistically better than the others, but if we're focusing on just the "what's best for kids" angle... wouldn't it be better if kids had _more_ parents/very close adult relatives? More people in their life they can rely on for attention, advice, care, etc.?
- yobbo 5y ago> More people in their life they can rely on Even in this super-rare case where one father lives with multiple wives, the attention/resources of the father is still divided among even more children. Also, the wives usually view the other children as competitors. The dynamics of this setup are known from old harems/courts.
- rkk3 5y ago> I'm curious why you and OP are equating "not monogamy" with "single-parent?" What about polygamy? Or Infidelity...
- thenanyu 5y agoNo need to either-or. It’s both. They’re related even.
- Seanambers 5y agoOn your last point - Well if the most attractive people are unavailable, i guess the rest will mix and match more easily as the biggest distractions are not on the market..
- iammisc 5y agoMonogamy isn't just for kids. By ensuring that most men get married, it quells social unrest. In polygamous society, one man gets more women, which causes jealousy, and ultimately social unrest when inequality gets too high. Men without partners are a recipe for societal disaster.
- yobbo 5y ago> it is a social construct evolved to give children an advantage over the long run Child-rearing is only a small part of it. In one of two competing communities, 90% of men are invested in the next generation. In the other community, only 20% of men are invested. Which community is more safe, productive, advanced?