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.'"
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.'"
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