5 ms·

I’m betting on monogamy since that has worked for thousands of years.

standardUser 5y ago
Worked for who exactly? An entire gender that has, for almost all of history in almost every society, been ignored, oppressed, controlled and frequently raped by men? Hardly.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Whereas men have simply been killed in droves. Are you sure women had the worse part throughout history, or do you just not care about the fate of men?
  - GenericPoster 5y ago
    What is the point of this comment? The topic that was being discussed was >I’m betting on monogamy since that has worked for thousands of years. The reply asked worked for who? Then out of nowhere you're talking about men being killed in droves. Are you saying that monogamy didn't work for either gender (one that lost their freedom and and the other that lost their lives)?
    - Miner49er 5y ago
      I think he's saying that the world used to be more violent, and the violence women faced maybe wasn't due to monogamy, it was just how the world was.
      - GenericPoster 5y ago
        See, your comment makes sense and is a valid point. I do agree that the world was a more violent place and I don't think monogamy is the reason that women had it bad (most likely has to do with a patriarchal culture and an uneducated population). Theirs is a borderline flame bait comment that added nothing to the discussion.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        What does you calling somebody a troll just because you can not grasp their argument add to the discussion?
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      I was responding to the claim that monogamy was simply a net negative for women. If you don't understand it, perhaps try harder?
  - standardUser 5y ago
    "Whereas men have simply been killed in droves" Not by women. Obviously it's not that simple, but that is a true statement.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      If the overriding concern is placing blame, it is probably better for it to be mostly self-directed so as to adjust standards of behaviour. Rationalizing why an out-group is responsible for all the sufferings of the in-group becomes easier the more one engages with it.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      How is it relevant? Tbh I think the way of thinking in which that would seem relevant is completely fucked up. Also, do you believe women would not be competing for resources if there were no men, and are not competing for resources in general?
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
- pawelmurias 5y ago
  For almost all of history in almost every society both man and women have been ignored, oppressed, controlled. Things have drastically changed in Western world. Not sure we need to impose a Brave New World style "utopia".
- bena 5y ago
  Let's ignore that saying what we've done for all of history was "monogamy" is being a little generous with the term.
- cplusplusfellow 5y ago
  I'm not sure we should assign monogamy as the culprit for the bad things that have happened to women. There are plenty of men who don't ignore, oppress, control or frequently rape women who are happy to be monogamous, and women seem to prefer it if you haven't noticed. We're not out here trying to convince men that being able to have sex with multiple partners throughout their lives is a good idea -- that part comes naturally to us.
jedberg 5y ago
Pretty sure an anthropologist would disagree with you there. Humans for the most part have not been monogamous until recently. There are many historical examples of men who have sex with multiple women in the tribe and many examples of women who have sex with other men besides their partner. And yes, my language was intentional to point out that historically it was expected that a woman had one partner but a man could have many. Not all societies today even value monogamy. In France some consider the President weak if he doesn't have at least one mistress. And in fact the same thing in America.
- throwawaygal7 5y ago
  This is still monogamy - its just social monogamy rather than genetic. Many animals are socially monogamous, especially among primates and some monkeys are even genetically monogamous. Let's be honest you're trying to use a nature to excuse behavior most find unacceptable - there's risk residue if Christianity in that. I see this a lot in these appeals - you're essentially arguing that if you can show someone thing is natural it's beyond question. However, anthropologists admit that most human societies have developed monogamy of one form or another, with exceptions only for rulers.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Worked for who exactly? The human history is filled with stories of people who couldn't handle monogamy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aella 5y ago
We haven't exactly been monogamous for thousands of years tho
- throwawaygal7 5y ago
  If you count social monogamy it's pretty fair to claim we have

Worked for who exactly? An entire gender that has, for almost all of history in almost every society, been ignored, oppressed, controlled and frequently raped by men? Hardly.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Whereas men have simply been killed in droves. Are you sure women had the worse part throughout history, or do you just not care about the fate of men?
- GenericPoster 5y ago
  What is the point of this comment? The topic that was being discussed was >I’m betting on monogamy since that has worked for thousands of years. The reply asked worked for who? Then out of nowhere you're talking about men being killed in droves. Are you saying that monogamy didn't work for either gender (one that lost their freedom and and the other that lost their lives)?
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    I think he's saying that the world used to be more violent, and the violence women faced maybe wasn't due to monogamy, it was just how the world was.
    - GenericPoster 5y ago
      See, your comment makes sense and is a valid point. I do agree that the world was a more violent place and I don't think monogamy is the reason that women had it bad (most likely has to do with a patriarchal culture and an uneducated population). Theirs is a borderline flame bait comment that added nothing to the discussion.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        What does you calling somebody a troll just because you can not grasp their argument add to the discussion?
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I was responding to the claim that monogamy was simply a net negative for women. If you don't understand it, perhaps try harder?
- standardUser 5y ago
  "Whereas men have simply been killed in droves" Not by women. Obviously it's not that simple, but that is a true statement.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    If the overriding concern is placing blame, it is probably better for it to be mostly self-directed so as to adjust standards of behaviour. Rationalizing why an out-group is responsible for all the sufferings of the in-group becomes easier the more one engages with it.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    How is it relevant? Tbh I think the way of thinking in which that would seem relevant is completely fucked up. Also, do you believe women would not be competing for resources if there were no men, and are not competing for resources in general?
AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
pawelmurias 5y ago
For almost all of history in almost every society both man and women have been ignored, oppressed, controlled. Things have drastically changed in Western world. Not sure we need to impose a Brave New World style "utopia".
bena 5y ago
Let's ignore that saying what we've done for all of history was "monogamy" is being a little generous with the term.
cplusplusfellow 5y ago
I'm not sure we should assign monogamy as the culprit for the bad things that have happened to women. There are plenty of men who don't ignore, oppress, control or frequently rape women who are happy to be monogamous, and women seem to prefer it if you haven't noticed. We're not out here trying to convince men that being able to have sex with multiple partners throughout their lives is a good idea -- that part comes naturally to us.

jedberg 5y ago

Pretty sure an anthropologist would disagree with you there. Humans for the most part have not been monogamous until recently. There are many historical examples of men who have sex with multiple women in the tribe and many examples of women who have sex with other men besides their partner. And yes, my language was intentional to point out that historically it was expected that a woman had one partner but a man could have many. Not all societies today even value monogamy. In France some consider the President weak if he doesn't have at least one mistress. And in fact the same thing in America.

throwawaygal7 5y ago
This is still monogamy - its just social monogamy rather than genetic. Many animals are socially monogamous, especially among primates and some monkeys are even genetically monogamous. Let's be honest you're trying to use a nature to excuse behavior most find unacceptable - there's risk residue if Christianity in that. I see this a lot in these appeals - you're essentially arguing that if you can show someone thing is natural it's beyond question. However, anthropologists admit that most human societies have developed monogamy of one form or another, with exceptions only for rulers.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

Worked for who exactly? The human history is filled with stories of people who couldn't handle monogamy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Aella 5y ago

We haven't exactly been monogamous for thousands of years tho

throwawaygal7 5y ago
If you count social monogamy it's pretty fair to claim we have