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.
The Mormons were violent when they practiced polygamy. Today it is not practiced by Mormons except for some fringe groups. One thing that is certain, young men without women are a problem regardless of religion.
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.'"
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.
What I want to know is why they (and you!) are talking about the Arab slave trade like it's a thing of the past. Western women still occasionally escape from a harem. They are still kidnapping women internationally and pressing them into slavery. Where do you think all those missing girls and women go? You don't seriously think they're all winding up in shallow graves, do you? The same thing is happening to them as is happening to valuable cars. They are being stolen, and put on a boat. Granted, they're not all going to Araby, but over six percent of all slavery worldwide occurs in that region.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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."
Our current president tapped into them and it helped him win.
No, not really. Our current president got elected by people with money. We know this because polling shows that trump voters have on average a $10,000 higher median income than clinton voters even though they tend to live in more economically depressed areas. Not only would they be more affluent than clinton voters if you transplanted them, but they are vastly more affluent than their neighbors. Those red states are always bleeding money, with only a couple of exceptions, and have to be propped up by blue states. That means that the trump voters are especially well off for where they live, and will have no trouble attracting mates on that basis whatsoever.
Those guys are dangerous, but they did not provide any significant help to trump. He was elected by people with money who believed that he would help them keep their money. Ironically, most of them were wrong. They're going to get punched in the nuts by trump's tax plan in two years.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And I was disturbed about ... how we looks way more "animal" than we would like [snip]
We ARE animals. You're just now coming to grips with that on this site of all things? Have you not read about our evolutionary roots which we know more about now than we ever did? Apes are our cousins. If you want a primer, here you go.
We'll make great pets