This looks like a case of correlation vs causation. The author tries to link polygamy as a factor to unstable states. I would say poverty is a far more common factor among the countries presented. A counter example would be Saudi Arabia which has polygamy but is stable due to its wealth.
Saudi Arabia is not stable at all, take out the easy money from oil, and hell breaks lose, you should compare same wealth & polygamy vs non polygamy.
As I said in a comment above polygamy seems to be a symptom of extremes in poverty and/or religious beliefs, both of which are direct causes of conflict/war.
> 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. I expected that the sentence ends with "...of young women", because they are obviously seen as objects of a man's wealth and not as individual beings. It is an inequality not only of r…
Polygyny may actually be advantageous to most women, while being bad for most men: https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200707/ten-politica.... This is because it allows many women to have a more desirable mate than they would otherwise have, while many men end up with no mate at all.
From that perspective, it's no wonder that many patriarchal cultures outlawed polygyny.
> 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. I expected that the sentence ends with "...of young women", because they are obviously seen as objects of a man's wealth and not as individual beings. It is an inequality not only of r…
The men generally don't select the women in these societies; the marriages are arranged by both sets of parents. That's quite a different type of inequality.
Still, women have a quite measurable exchange value. And from the perspective of who has what to say in a marriage, gut feeling tells me it is the husband.
> 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. I expected that the sentence ends with "...of young women", because they are obviously seen as objects of a man's wealth and not as individual beings. It is an inequality not only of r…
It makes no sense to discuss objectification in regards to the level of societal development that is implied by polygyny. Nobody there is seen as an individual being in a sense that no one's human rights are guaranteed or even promised to be. This is only about basic needs. Of course, the men at the top are winners, and winners take all. Women are inequally treated by them but get their basic needs covered (safety and resources, reproduction and opportunity to care for their children etc). Majority of men, though, simultaneously have to fend for themselves AND are deprived of sex. They are worse off, biologically and personally. They have less to lose, too: no offspring, no stability, no relationship, however inequal; which makes it so much easier to challenge the status-quo.
Moreover, men are more likely to respond to violence in just about any context, especially this. No wonder that their frustration is a greater factor in societal disturbance induced by polygyny.
Of course, this applies only if the polygynous marriages are exclusive. I find it in any case hard to imagine how to support four or more wives not just financialy, but also emotionally by myself (unless you think of them as just property). Most people spend hardly enough time with their one spouse.
One could imagine that actually polyamourous marriages would reduce violence in such a country. Why don't let your fifth wife be happy when you are busy with the others, or doing warlord stuff... I imagine people thought modern contraception would remove a lot of social norms and taboos around sex and marriage, but that didn't happen. I guess some things die hard.
This looks like a case of correlation vs causation. The author tries to link polygamy as a factor to unstable states. I would say poverty is a far more common factor among the countries presented. A counter example would be Saudi Arabia which has polygamy but is stable due to its wealth.
You consider Saudi Arabia "stable"? They just had a coup d'etat this month, and have been involved in plenty of wars in the region, most recently in Yemen.
"This is a remarkable article: it literally pins the blame for everything bad that non-white people do on the one thing white people (read Western Europeans) have criticized others for for two millennia: polygamy. Violence? Polygamy. Terrorism? Polygamy. Domestic violence? Polygamy. Child mortality? Polygamy.
Of course the article is so high on its own supply that it ignores divorce/remarriage of wives of elite polygamous men and, even more so, that enormous reality of western life: extra-marital sex. Despite this article’s claims, polygamy is always relatively uncommon. It would be good to know how common it is in comparison to men hogging more than one woman in non-marriage sexual relationships. Temporary? So are, in effect, many polygamous marriages. I’m stunned this article got published."- Jonathan Brown