Slashdot Mirror
The Link Between Polygamy and War (economist.com)
Is there a link between polygamy and war? The Economist explores (might be paywalled): Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth -- often measured in cattle -- will allow. Perhaps 40 percent of marriages are polygamous. "In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you," says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife. Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country's horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story. Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state. A non-paywalled, syndicated source for the article.
nt
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
But I just put all my anger and aggression into contributing to open source projects...
No one identified the real problem. Let's not dance around the issue because we're afraid to tell it like it is. The violence is caused by Islam.
Sensationalist trash like this perpetuates misunderstanding of polyamorous people.
Having lived in some of these communities, I believe that some of them need a strong man. Without such a leader, society breaks down. These folks simply do not think like the typical westerner.
While western politicians may "steal" and voters simply vote them out, politicians in these communities cause chaos.
Sometimes, we in the west foment war/mayhem with bribes too. Just look at what is happening in the Mid East...
This assumes there are equal numbers of men and women...
In many societies there are not equal numbers, for instance in China thanks to the one child policy and the preference for male children there is an imbalance and yet no civil war... On the other hand, in a country which is fighting a war war it is usually the men doing the fighting, and thus dying, resulting in an imbalance of women.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Sensationalist trash like this perpetuates misunderstanding of polyamorous people.
How is it sensationalist, and how does it attack the polyamorous? It's not a mistake to believe that it will cause problems if there are no mates for many men. Denying them the opportunity to partner leaves them with a hole in their life. They're going to fill it with something. Polygamy is not inherently about love. It can be a loving relationship, but in a culture which promotes marriage for other reasons, that's unlikely. In a culture in which women have to marry a powerful man in order to be protected from other men, it's especially unlikely.
No culture that forces women to live in bags lest they be raped to death on the street can include any equitable relationships. There is always a power imbalance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One is already more than I can handle!
I wish she could have multiple husbands! Get somebody else to pay the bills and do all the work at home that I do, and then I can go fishing all day.
So I think the article draws the wrong conclusions. If I had multiple wives, I'd want to go to war as a way to vent my frustrations. Or die in battle.
So the more women in the top 10% of society, the more conflict and civil war?
C'mon, you're among friends here. You can fess up and admit that you've done a lot of one-handed loving but never actually touched a lady's boobies. But that's fine, you're still only 26. One day, you might be able to redeem some of your most appalling personality features and persuade someone to have pity on you.
In a polygamous society war can produce a surplus of women. It certainly produces widows and orphans, which in a society with no state social welfare programs and limited economic opportunity for women is a huge problem.
Polygamy is also a way to establish dynastic ties between potential rival groups.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Compared to the Atlantic slave trade, which was mostly men for work, the Islamic slave trade was mostly women for sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In contrast to the Atlantic slave trade, where the male-female ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, the Arab slave trade instead usually had a higher female-to-male ratio. This suggests a general preference for female slaves. Concubinage and reproduction served as incentives for importing female slaves (often Caucasian), though many were also imported mainly for performing household tasks.
In Islam you can have four wives and an unlimited number of sex slaves if you are male.
It's easy to see that polygamy and the inability of poor men to find a wife and thus legally have sex was a driver for this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Saying cucks without irony in 2017, LUL. You didn't even get it right, either. Someone is mad they missed the Great Meme War.
This article does not talk about modern Western polyamory. It talks specifically about patriarchal polygyny.
Either your reading comprehension is terrible, or you are butthurt polyamorist with a persecution complex.
"If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry."
Sorry, but that's the dumbest comparison I've ever seen.
If anything, it disproves its case.
If you're just talking about Lamborghinis, there are only about 3500 made each year - pretty damned close to a fixed supply. If you're talking about cars generally, there are something like 60 million made every year.
In terms of people, there are something close to 70 million girls born every year - almost precisely the same "rarity' as cars.
And as far as utility, I'm going to guess that the useful reproductive life of a female human - what, 25 years now, nominally? - far exceeds the useful life of most autos.
I don't even disagree with the point of the article - that polygamy disenfranchises young angry poor men and causes social strife - just the dumb comparison.
-Styopa
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even if that is true, this doesn't mean that the women are culturally and possibly legally blocked from sleeping with other men. It doesn't lead to an enforced surplus of men that are chaste against their will because there are literally no available women to even compete for.
That's the problem that polygamy creates, rather than polyamory. People may choose to settle down to monogamy after playing the field, so even those who are not especially successful in their early adult years may still find someone later. Those people will be denied mates in true polygamy, since there will never be similar-age women available. They may then turn to younger women after they've established themselves financially, which then denies that generation's men the women that would normally make for natural mates, etc.
What do you do with a surplus of men that cannot find women? You have to get rid of them. War is a very efficient way to get rid of them.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Okay Lennart, get laid already, I'll pay for a hooker weekly, just stop working on systemd
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
An article in 2017 defending treating people, women specifically, as commodities, rather than people with their own opinions and goals. Let's cut out the bullshit with this article and get to the meat of it, they're complaining about rich men getting all the poor women. With that in mind, it's clear this isn't about polygamy, it's about wealth inequality and women doing what's best for themselves financially, so right there this is an economic issue and not a social one. It also ignores the real social issue here which is the idea that monogamy is the only kind of intimate relationship that humans should have, it's an old fashioned western centric viewpoint that also ignores how marriage was historically also an economic function and only recently became about love etc etc. Let's just get to the point, marriage is an old idea that only serves economic and material purposes, it's not about love and never was, this article pushes that point to its logical conclusion by completely glossing over the inequality cause and instead bans the symptom by putting a dollar figure on human relationships, which is disgusting in this era. If you want to solve this problem, you need to address the inequality, and also address the social stigma of people being disallowed from loving more than one person.
Shoutout to r/polyamory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
My entire point is that if it talks about that, the headline should be that. Writing shitty headlines is a classic propaganda tactic. The guy spreading the bias knows that it's the most important part; many won't read anything else, and for those who do, it leads them very effectively to the desired conclusion about the content of the article.
Just ship them a couple million middle-aged American feminists who can't get laid in the USA anymore.
That must be why Slashdot is the most peaceful website on the planet.
America has a similar problem brewing with marriage age men who can't get wives, although here it's just the crappy economy rather than polygamy. They've loosely banded together under the banner of the "Alt-Right". Just a lot of angry men with no options since our manufacturing base is gone.
There's not a lot more dangerous in this world then a large group of men with no wives, no jobs and no future. All you need is a Strongman type to gather them into a fighting force and give them something to attack. Our current president tapped into them and it helped him win. Many of us are hoping he's too much of a buffoon to actual send them off on a killing spree. The rumblings over Iran & North Korea don't make us hopeful...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I've met too many ESR types who spout that shit about how everyone can fuck everyone else and nobody needs to get upset if they're all just cool about it, and it's always been bullshit. Western society left polygamy behind for the same reason we left other primitive shit like slavery behind.
Repeat after me : Correlation is not causation.
For all I know, they have polygamy, because they have war, so the women who would be otherwise unwed due to the lack of men (because they died) have a change to get married.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
... And I was disturbed about how the arguments really make good sense and how we looks way more "animal" than we would like when it comes to basic things like sex and family formation. As example has anyone seen in documentaries how a lions family works? Very similar, too much similar to my liking.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Middle eastern culture transforms women (and men too to some extent, as servants or younglings who obey the elders) into property that can must be fought for and/or can be used for fighting.
Btw, I am saying it as an Israeli who's country is gradually adopting these perceptions due to orthodox jewish religion taking over.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Go back to /pol you damn dirty retard.
For all I know, they have polygamy, because they have war,
Dude, it's not the 1800s. We have wikipedia. We have google. You can find out why they have polygamy. And guess what? They treat women like possessions all day, every day. They are legally inferior. Arguably, all women in their culture are slaves. Polygamy in their culture isn't a disease, it's a symptom of a disease.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Denying them the opportunity to partner leaves them with a hole in their life. They're going to fill it with something.
I wonder how the inability to get laid factors into someone's decision to strap on a bunch of explosives and take their chances on whether the 72 virgins story is bullshit or not.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Neither is the supply of women with the (in?) appropriate use of CRISPR-cas9!
This could explain the death cult of terrorism that has gripped the Muslim religion. Lots of young men without a family to mind leaves them plenty of time to get themselves into trouble. Instead of blaming their own culture for the hole in their heart they blame the West.
But Nazi Germany enforced strict monogamy.
Because theyâ(TM)ll have 100 million excess young males due to gender specific abortions.
As I posted on The Economist, it is not salacious polygyny but anything that upsets the sex ratio that becomes profoundly destabilising: [Poor] young men see the [few] young women of their villages swept away to better [city] prospects. They can hardly stop it. But it gives them powerful motivation to improve their standing, including by military adventure. A clever "leader" (Bo Xilai?) can tap into this. Most worrying are China's "empty branches", excess young men as a result of China's "one child" policy generating selective abortion/infanticide.
Yes, there is always a power imbalance ... wet yo wick pad're ... and unless pilpulling femi-nabi stormtroopers pervert standard bio-social mores the fem nominally ends rapturous upon-the-bottom !
I've had a fair number or friends in open relationships/marriages over the years. I'm not interested in one, but it dosent bother me at all so I was fine being friends with them. Over the long haul, maybe 15 years, I've seen how these play out versus traditional relationships. In most cases, for awhile, the relationships were mutually acceptable to everyone. However, eventually a particularly outspoken and judgmental individual started making waves which didn't combine well with the few polyamorists who couldn't just be chil and laid back but instead made the drama worse. There used to be 50 or so of us in the social circle (20 or so were in non traditional relationships) but this fractured the group into roughly 3 groups even though many members were friends for 20 years. It's sad because we all used to go out and do things, and now that is ruined. People have enough trouble in a 2 person relationship, 3+ becomes far more complicated and unstable and is far easier to devolve into fighting the larger the group gets. While it's obvious you can't only blame polygamy for violence, having men take multiple wives and never the other way around, only creates a shortage of women and is just asking for younger males to become violent in competition.
Fortunately, the headline, "The Link Between Polygamy and War", is fine. It's neutral and clearly informs the reader of what the article is about. While dry, it's unbiased and doesn't suggest that polygamy causes war, but informs that there is an investigation into a link between the two which is elaborated in the article itself (and summarised in the summary). That is exactly the case.
I'm going to assume that you are referring to Magzter's version, "The Perils of Polygamy - how plural marriage begets violence", which is almost as sensationalist as one suggesting that "polygyny is the problem", as you demand. I doubt that's deliberate bias as you insist - more likely it's merely an attempt at snappy wordcraft.
It's got to be one heck of a job to teach 72 virgins how to please a man. Do you suppose some of those would-be martyrs are planning to have them exhibit lesbian fantasies for their entertainment purposes?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
If a man can't afford lambo, he still can rent it for half a hour or a whole night.
Or use a public 'Mary–Ann' transit for a few bucks.
Did you reach that conclusion on both appearance and taste?
They say polygamy is one wife too many. Some say the same of monogamy.
Polygamy is a VERY advanced topic for this crowd considering many of them have not had one sexual partner let alone MULTIPLE. It's definitely NOT news for nerds.
We'll make great pets
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
I don't have to respect the parts which are not just disrespectful, but actively harmful. I don't have to throw away the good parts because some parts are actively abhorrent, either.
I am not remotely against polyamory, polygyny, or polyandry when these lifestyles are lived by choice. I'm not even against wearing bags, given the same caveat. I believe that given a lack of force, natural tendencies will typically produce small relationship units. Most people seem to have little enough idea how to cooperate as a couple, let alone as a triad or beyond, and perhaps ought to get past that before they explore larger and more complex formal relationships.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, if you had multiple wives, and you found one of them in bed with a strange man, would you be upset? Or, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "Good for her. Wife number 4 is being polyamorous. I'm not a machine after all", and then make them breakfast?
I do escort work. Many of my clients are married men who like an extra spice in their sex lives through to men who conventionally wouldn't be considered dateable. I still can't get over how much men pay to spend time with me. I really wish everyone was happy with their marriage and everyone could find someone for them. Sadly life doesn't always work out this way which is, I guess, why I make my money.
I don't believe Western men are especially different from other men. I do agree Western culture has evolved with different checks and balances and basically works after a fashion.
I would like to fall in love too. Sadly, work beckons. I have an email from a potential client expressing how as an older man he likes mature women and how fabulous I look in my pictures and wishes to experience his erotic fantasies. What I cannot get in quality, billionaires being in short supply, I am certainly making up in quantity.
It's not 72 virgins, it's a 72 year old virgin.
Either that, or 72 Virginians.
If you can't make love, you make war.
I guess that's the summary?
The link between sex and paywalling would be more accurate.
Polygamy exists everywhere but nobody calls it that.
It's not polygamy if it's not a person married to multiple people at the same time.
It's just cheating/fooling around/open relationship/mistress/man-on-the-side/sleeping around/other term goes here. But it's not polygamy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
with multiple marriages for all, where a man can have multiple wives and his wives can have multiple husbands, and so on and so on.
For good measure, let people marry animals and inanimate objects. Hello Alexa....
--
100% satire from concentrate
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I was born an unattractive male in America. Girls, and then women, turned their noses up me for my entire life. I never married, had hardly any relationships and none of them lasted for more than a few months, and I have completely given up.
And I have never once been inclined to violence. I have been told that my lack of violent inclinations is part of what makes me unattractive to women...but that is a separate issue.
I know other men who are like me. Rejected, single, and not violent at all. Apparently, there are entire web communities of single men who aren't practicing violence (like, MGTOW).
My conclusion is that the no-women thing does not, in and of itself, motivate men to be violent. In cultures where there is an association, it is *also* true that men need wives as a matter of socio/economic elevation. The value of a wife is much more than love and sex, and I expect that THOSE are the real reasons for all the violence.
It may also be that such cultures are simply more primitive, and as such have a higher ratio of (genetically or otherwise) violent-predisposed men.
In any event, I am not ready to accept the conclusion that "no woman = violent man", though I will readily accept that violence is higher in cultures that practice polygyny.
yes, he got a large number of votes from folks who still had money, but when people dug into the data as to _why_ they voted for him they found it was mostly because their kids didn't have jobs, wives or futures. They saw Trump as giving those things, what with his left wing populist rhetoric. Meanwhile (as I've pointed out on other threads) Hilary was running the same campaign Romney did. An intensely conservative one focused on staying the course. The middle class didn't want to hear that because, well, the only middle class people left are in their 40s and 50s and they watched their kids grow up as a lost generation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
a woman is thinking, "Can this Man raise children with me?" and the answer is more often than not 'no, he can't hold a decent paying job'. Two $7.50/hr or even $9.50/hr incomes can't raise children.
/. post. I don't know what you think you're doing, but you're not helping yourself. At best your a foot solider in somebody's war, at worst your a patsy who's going to get fleeced. Wake up already.
Also, you're last comment is a standard 'what-about-ism' talking point of the alt-right's 'leadership' (I put that in quotes because it's hard to call somebody a leader when they're really just taking advantage of a desperate group to hit them up for money and cheap political power). You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking it let alone writing it in a
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why outlaw polygamy? Because some people are slow learners!
What is the optimal number of spouses? Zero is not enough. One is too many.
Take my wife...please!
Interesting how we could replace polygamy with feminism and it would be equally true, at least to the average men that modern women ignore during the height of their marketability.
Sensationalist trash like this perpetuates misunderstanding of polyamorous people.
... It's not a mistake to believe that it will cause problems if there are no mates for many men. Denying them the opportunity to partner leaves them with a hole in their life. They're going to fill it with something.
Please explain China and its overabundance of young men who have no mates, nor will ever have any prospect of one. Why is there no civil unrest (or at least none to upset the balance of power) there? Answer: There are more than just a perceived imbalance in mating relationships that is at the core of civil unrest/war. Poverty, resource allocation (food, money, ...mates etc ) all contribute. Political ideology is also a factor but only if one side can see themselves as disadvantaged and need to "right the balance". Power hungry madmen who gain control over other men. guns etc is another factor. It is simplistic to boil war down to one or two factors.
Here to wishing that people wake up. The need for war is diminishing rapidly as the worlds poorest standard of living is increasing like never before. Lets hope it continues Link
<meme>Ur mom sleeps with the other 70%.</meme>
or you are butthurt polyamorist with a persecution complex.
Most of the polyamorist people i've met in my life fit into this.
If single men were allowed to view porn their right hands would be too busy to bear arms.
Why the need to test this hypothesis?
A. Because we are scientists, or nerds reading about science.
So flood all those countries with lewd magazines, so we can enjoy ten minutes of peace. Make that five!
They managed to make it the woman's fault.
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
You're showing your age. Once they got the upper hand the language changed from respecting everyone to it's some flavor of ism (ie racism, sexism, nationalism, etc) if you don't agree.
Mark my words, you can tell who does not have the upper hand by looking at who wants to have one set of rules for everyone.
For example if you look at the Civil rights movement in the 60s it was about a common set of rules / drinking fountains / pools / etc for everyone. Now that minorities have the upper hand they are all about exclusive benefits for themselves like quotas, minority only scholarships, preferential hiring and government buying rules, etc. Same for gay marriage. At first it was about having the dame rights as everyone else. Now it's about forcing bakers to bend the knee. If you want to see who has the less dominant position look for who asks for equality or the same set of rules.
The headline says polygamy, not polyamory, so what are you complaining about?
given how many men there are compared to women, and how few are able to marry.
oh, wait.
has anyone seen my sarcasm key?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Its mostly the other way around. A warlike culture has to either accept polygamy or accept lesbian marriage - children require a huge amount of attention and require multiple parents.
It is true that this kind of culture is slightly self-reinforcing, encouraging men to go to war to both maintain the shortage of men and collect the resources necessary to support the children.
But it is mostly the other way around.
Real polygamy takes too much work on the part of the man to be worth it for anyone not in the top 1% wealth wise. As such, while it is viewed as high status, it's actual presence does NOT lead to more war, but instead creates a desire for peace. And fishing. Lots of fishing. Anything to get away from the constant nagging.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The issue pointed out here is naturally balanced by many factors. Among them:
These factors make it difficult to determine the balance of effects.
Very similiar to the asymmetrical power structure we have with modern surveillance/information gathering, the same applies with relationships.
You want a way to allow polygamy AND provide for all the men?
You need to also make polyandry socially acceptable. Then one woman can have as many men as are willing to share her. That takes care of the surplus of men if they are willing to tolerate their female partner's other lovers. Hell for bisexual, or some homosexual men, it could also offer a safe clique of men to have their otherwise promiscuous fun amongst without the risk of STD transmission from playing in a larger community.
The biggest societal problems we have today are not letting people figure out their own relationships, instead telling them what relationships are acceptable (outside of obvious ones like the power and maturity imbalance between a minor and someone over the age of majority, and even that could be solved if there was actually a path for minors who wanted to 'graduate into the adult world faster' had the opportunity to find part time work alongside school so they could emancipate (in the us at least, other countries may vary.) I mean hey if the kid from home alone can do it, why can't the rest of kids? It is not like he was any more mature when he became emancipated, and all that making kids wait longer is really doing is stunting their growth into maturity rather than improving their chances with it. Have drug or substance abuse problems really gone down? Has education, or the average level of intelligence really gone up? The reasons for a lot of modern changes surrounding acceptable ages for bad habits haven't really improved the first world, and judging by some of the stupidity going on today have actively retarded it.
Repeat after me : Correlation is not causation.
For all I know, they have polygamy, because they have war, so the women who would be otherwise unwed due to the lack of men (because they died) have a change to get married.
And just saying "correlation is not causation" has gotten to be a stupid as anything else people post without thinking.
The factors regarding competition for mates and the negative effects on the losing males has been constantly studied throughout history.
The causal relationship between male is behavior and lack of mating opportunities is well known.
Seriously. In this case you're being stupid with the "Repeat after me : Correlation is not causation."
Or 72 grapes. The Arabic is rather unclear.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
With Mao's one child policy in effect for so long and the preference for male children China now has a huge imbalance between marriage age men and women. Expect to see warfare break out in the streets of Beijing. Or maybe this Economist hypothesis is not worth the paper it is written on. There are plenty of women in other parts of the world. Why not travel to find a bride?
I do not think it would work. The average male still insists on try to kill all the competition and having all the resources for himself (food, property and females) than to share or collaborate with other males.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
I dunno, I converted to Islam to marry my wife, but I'm probably less religious now that I was when I was technically Christian. I always want to laugh at the 72 virgins thing... I mean have these men ever had to deal with 1 non-virgin women? Take those troubles and multiply by 72 virgins...
If someone can work that out to hogsheads per fathom, I'd appreciate it.
The solution isn't to ban polygamy, but instead, to create a bank of sexual providers (mostly women, but some men as well) within society that will provide sex. Sex is a basic human right, and everyone should have access to it without fighting for it, or paying for it.
A tax would be created to compensate the sexual providers and build a healthy, long-term institution around this.
Read more about this on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheNewMovement/comments/7i2dd9/sex_and_relationships_solutions
Watch us on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgVZQC5kVkPbF13Uai1JGVg
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
They are? Or are you just inventing strawmen to attack?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
To anyone who wants to learn more on the subject, there is a non-trivial amount of work on this idea out there. One could do worse than starting with William Tucker's book "Marriage and Civilization."
I think it's their economy. It's entirely based on a single resource, oil. That means you end up with a top/down oligarchy built around that oil and a ton of rather nasty policies needed by those at the top to stay at the top.
I suppose you could argue they were like this before the oil money, but they were also insanely poor before that, and if you look at just about any really poor, agrarian society woman are treated as property. That's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with giving men a reason to stick around once the sex is over. A woman and her children were your property, so taking care of them and raising them was desirable.
If you want to break that system down and replace it with the emotional benefits of marriage and child rearing you need to take care of your working class and pay them enough they can get emotional satisfaction from the system. Otherwise it breaks down when men can't afford to hold a family together and lack attachment to the family unit as property.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I remember reading an article many, many, years ago that made exactly that connection. I think it was early 1990's, might have been in Time or The Wall Street Journal.
The males in Islamic counties who see little to no chance of ever getting a wife/mate because the rich/powerful have first dibs will be desperate enough that when they are told that if they fight Jihad and die a martyrs death you get, not just one, but 72 women (and virgins to boot) as your brides/consorts. In a culture that puts so much emphasis on male children and measures your worth as a person by how many wives you have this makes it easy to get people who are willing to die for whatever ideology you are pushing as long as they get the women.
I think the cause and effect are backwards here. When you have wars and poverty, you have fewer men with enough money to have a wife. The single poor women are in favor of marriage to a rich guy, even if he has other wives. (1 day on 2 days off)
When you have peace and prosperity, the women have more men to choose from and don't want to be 2nd wife.
In TFA a girl found a teacher to run off with. She found a guy with enough of a job to take a risk on.
Countries with educated women who have jobs of their own, have women who marry NOBODY.
There are males in Japan, who cannot find a mate, because the women have careers of their own.
Are they starting wars in Japan?
Polygamy is more a result of wars and poverty, than a cause of them.
Heil Hitler!
It’s been cited many many times, that in reality a low number of male suiters actually end up matting with the best females. Thus throwing this whole theory out the window. Due to work, personal issues, and social hierarchy not youth. Keep in mind the women age as the rich people do, and produce off spring of their own. So the new off spring will be the ones quenching that need as they grow up. The young men will not be the ones who get upset but the older men who had women taken from the pool would, and most of those men are the same ones who work for the rich men anyway. So basically those women, who those empty handed men want, would not date them anyway. So I disregard that theory in its entirety. you can easily see this happening today in a modern society with rich men marrying and divorcing women in large numbers at about the same ratio of the above article. This is nature's natural imbalance not an human controlled imbalance. Females of all species pick the best of the choices to mate with. What I would tell the youth and men who didn't get the girl, would be to stop living at home, get a life and start improving your social skills and stop bitching. But for those who get more than one, they must be doing something right for those women to choose them in a modern world where you have plenty of choices. So polygamy doesn't cause wars, maybe a few small squabbles not wars. I do not see any polygamy family’s diligently building nukes to protect themselves from the next war. Whom ever wrote this article needs to read more history and finish the books they started reading before posting on the titles.
That's what marriage is for - "equitable" relationship.
You are a dumbass.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Its nearly impossible to not assume that selling your daughters against their will to men potentially twice their age and denying them any choices in their life is not seriously messed up.
That's damn near if not exactly slavery depending on the circumstances. I have known people who had arranged marriages BUT that was an entirely different and entirely consensual nuptial.
It is some seriously sick $hit when one person assigns a selling price and or purchase price for another human being. An when I thought it couldnt possibly be worse it is worse because this is talking about people selling their own children.
I read the entire article and I just keep iterating audible variations of wtf!!
more thoroughly? I think it's alluding to some practice the Mormons had or used to have but I'm not sure.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the Abraham religions. That includes Christianity and Judaism. They're all cut from the same basic philosophical cloth: e.g. the heretic ("Gentile" in Jewish terms, they even have a word for it) is inherently less of a person than the faithful.
Furthermore given God's well publicized tendencies to punish the faithful for the sins of the heretic (Sodom/Gomorrah, Noah's flood, etc) every single Heretic is an existent threat to the faithful. And don't think they haven't noticed, either. Every single disaster is followed by a raft of preachers claiming it as divine punishment.
Family guy did a funny skit on it that I'm surprised didn't generate more controversy. A world without Christianity skips the dark ages and is 1000 years ahead, so much so that Meg is attractive. That last bit probably blunted the message; and court jesters have been ignored for centuries anyway.
Think of something you want to do, good or bad, and odds are you can find a justification and a reason in the various bibles out there. We shouldn't be surprised either. These books were written by hundreds of people over thousands of years for just as many reasons. My point is, a few words telling you to not be so damn awful in the old/new testament doesn't fix the fundamental underpinnings that allow people to do pretty much as they please to anyone they deem not faithful enough.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For example if you look at the Civil rights movement in the 60s it was about a common set of rules / drinking fountains / pools / etc for everyone. Now that minorities have the upper hand they are all about exclusive benefits for themselves like quotas, minority only scholarships, preferential hiring and government buying rules, etc. Same for gay marriage. At first it was about having the dame rights as everyone else. Now it's about forcing bakers to bend the knee. If you want to see who has the less dominant position look for who asks for equality or the same set of rules.
Somebody forgets what really happened in those days.
Minorities were actually disdained because they were asking for proper treatment, including properly run schools, the right to commerce, and more. All which the right doggedly opposed. The horrors of busing. The temerity of voting rights. The indignity of having to sit on the same toilets!
Sorry man, but your disingenuous argumentation was as false then as now. Especially telling is how much effort was spent not just rejecting same-sex marriage but ANYTHING in the way of an alternative. Oh but now the poor baker's, the indignity of making a cake for a couple. He'll have to use special yeast and dough, and putting two men's names in icing?
I'm not even sure there's actually a religion where cake is a sacrament.
So it could as well be a symptom of the wars, not a cause. Causation is not correlation.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This was also my first thought. Sudan's cival war is crazy long. The first from 1955 - 1972, then another from 1983 - 2005, and now the south sudanese cival war from 2013 - presnt.
Wars often take the lives of far more men than women. Men taking multiple wives is a common historical practice from many cultures when other men die. In the Old Testament, "multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility. The practice of levirate marriage obligated a man whose brother has left a widow without heir to marry her." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity)
I strongly doubt that polygyny led to the wars. Rather, the wars (and other instability issues) probably led to the polygyny.
So imagine that 99% of the male fetuses were aborted. Tough luck if you were never born, but I'll bet the remaining 1% of males wouldn't complain so much. Or fight any wars, except maybe against the Chinese Granny Amazons! Long story short.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Hillary, please shut up and go away.
Blaming polygamy for the violent acts of some is an exercise in making excuses for those committing violence. There are LOTS of young men without wives or girlfriends who are not acting violently or engaged in war and certainly within certain age ranges post-puberty. You don't need to cite any statistics to come to that conclusion either. Just think back to middle and high school. I'd bet 95% of those here were without girlfriends or wives and even well into adult life.
I'm not arguing for more polygamy as I don't practice it myself and have no desire to. I do have a partner today and I have encouraged my partner to seek out sex with others to satisfy whatever sexual appetite he has beyond me. Sex is not love, sex is not even a relationship, and certainly not a loving relationship.
However I will defend those who wish to practice polygamy for it is each individuals right to form whatever relationships one wishes independent of OTHER peoples bigoted views. I advocate for freedom. Period. Other peoples bad behavior is never a morally justifiable reason for punishing everyone or otherwise restricting everyones freedoms.
Please explain China and its overabundance of young men who have no mates, nor will ever have any prospect of one. Why is there no civil unrest (or at least none to upset the balance of power) there? Answer:
...if you make problems, the death vans show up to take you away and they break you up for parts, because the Chinese have institutionalized organlegging.
China is a superpower, and they don't depend on delusional, horny young men with visions of virgin poontang dancing in their heads blowing themselves up to project global power. So the nail that sticks up isn't pulled out and sent to blow up a building somewhere, it's just pounded.
On the other hand, they do have some 25 million plus excess men sitting around, and they simultaneously believe that women go bad around age 30 or something like that, so it's hard to imagine what they're going to do with all those people if not make war on someone.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just like women with kids will fight and compete with any and all other women with kids for resources. Its not limited to men.
Many of the examples are from pagan Sub-Saharan Africa, not Islamic territories.
YET!!
We don't know what the consequences of the gender imbalance will be...
It's not multiple "marriages" when any are property and possession.
Polygamy is weak in USA, but the country ignited more wars than any other in the last decades.
Why, I do not know.
https://www.google.com/search?...
Far left pc types are burying their heads in the sand, meanwhile a city which was effectively almost entirely safe for the duration of my life, now is no longer safe in some areas and at night.
Car jackings, home invasions, violent muggings, etc.
These people should be left alone in their own shithole to do their own thing, stay away from them.
Before you say anything âoeAfrican Americansâ in the USA are vastly more civilised, educated. These people are NOTHING like the American black population.
They lost so many men in WW1 that there was a population shortage of soldiers by WW2. Those men that survived WW1 should have done the right thing and taken on mistresses.
Or to shoot up a school like that Rodger guy... It definitely can cause mental health problems, and groups like the "incels" on Reddit just amplify the misery.
Some towns in the UK have this problem too. They tend to have a lot of pub fights.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The X chromosome of the English peasant in 1000AD is extinct. The remaining X chromosomes in the English population are from the aristocracy of those times or 'imported'. Sorry but I do not have a cite. This occurred without polygamy but there were plenty of wars.
In the western world, a rich man can
* marry a young woman ("trophy wife")
* divorce after a dozen years
* marry another trophy wife
* divorce after a dozen years
* marry another trophy wife
He uses up the prime years of three women's lives. The women get dumped in their late 30's. Their reproductive years are over. And they may not want to re-marry, because they lose monthly alimony payments. As far as younger average males are concerned, there are that many fewer marriagable women around.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Causation is not correlation.
I think you need to work on that one a bit more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
By this argument, lesbians also cause wars, since they remove potential wives the population.
a common trope among women is believing a man will change. Actually it's not just women. Several of my loser buddies parents pushed them to have kids in the hope it would straighten them out. Yes, people make bad decisions. But that doesn't change the logic underpinning those decisions, and in the case of many, many women it's "Will this man support my kids?". Yes, lots of them answer 'Yes' when any rational person would say 'No', but that doesn't mean they aren't asking the question, or that many of them don't answer in the affirmative, leaving millions of men without wives.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Polygny "causes war", but Christian, Islamic, Jewish countries are embroiled in war all the time.
I understand what this article is about. It's one of those articles that show fake concern for a little-reported on country so as to advance a xenophobic image of them as backwards so as to justify in the public aggressive political or military intervention.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Most of the idiots commenting, and the moderators modding them up to +5, are completely ignorant.
They immediately assumed: "polygamy = Islam".
Fact is, South Sudan is not a Muslim country at all. They are Christians and animists.
They fought a bitter civil war with the Muslim majority north, and for decades this was portrayed as "Muslims in power oppress non-Muslims who seek freedom", which had some truth into it, but more to it than just that.
The north (now Sudan proper), has been mismanaged for decades. The president is a military officer, and allied with a Muslim cleric when it suited him, then shunned him when interests diverged.
The same government caused and ignored a humanitarian crisis in Darfour. This was Muslim against Muslim. But it was also desertification at play, with nomadic Arabic speaking Janjawid encroaching on shrinking arable land by agriculturalists African speakers.
Now, South Sudan wanted to solve the problem by secession, which was supported by most of the world, and portrayed as freedom followed by prosperity.
Guess what: that did not happen and the civil war continues with the same atrocities and more.
Lesson: don't reduce complex problems into one emotionally charged prejudice-du-jour (Islam is a common target these days).
42.
You're in deep trouble. Not only have you passed a non-return valve in your legal status, but you've also, by your statement that " I'm probably less religious now that I was when I was technically Christian," laid yourself open to charges of apostasy and thereby capital charges in around a dozen countries in the world. Be very careful about your travel arrangements, including possible diversion routes (I nearly got re-routed through a lethal country a few years ago when my scheduled plane got struck by lightning and had to do an emergency landing in a 4th country. First option out would have put me with a 6-hour stop over in a lethal country. I took the option of an extra 18 hours in the departure lounge and a direct flight to Europe.)
By making a statement like that in a public forum, you've provided an excuse for lunatic co-religionist who wants to kill you for undermining his (almost always) faith in his interpretation of your shared religion. That includes in your home country.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Excess males without a mate are prone to antisocial behavior such as crime and violence. When they congregate in groups they tend to organize, form paramilitary groups or join the military or engage in revolution or terrorism. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... 94% of unmarried males in China are poor and uneducated because they are the least desirable partners. They are more likely to be susceptible to demagogues or nationalists. Sex ratio imbalance in the other direction is also a problem. A shortage of men results in fewer committed relationships, more single parent households headed by women. Men in these situations tend to be underemployed because they have less reason to work and are often supported by women... because they can. Even small imbalances can have these effects; a sex ratio imbalance of 110 in a population of 100 million will result in 10 million people without a mate.
The act of marrying all these women is the problem.
The better solution is just to have a harem. Don't have all the legal entanglements, and you can push them out the door easily if they misbehave.
Lots of benefits, IMO, to having multiple "girlfriends" or whatever you want to call them.
I spoke with a South Sudan resident. The South is Christian. The North Sudan is dominated by Muslims. Unfortunately, the South Sudan will have to stay on high alert to monitor the North's violent tendencies.. Definition of the "PRICE OF FREEDOM" - constant alertness; a constant willingness to fight back.