41–50 of 109 posts
> every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single Or he could simply be already dead from all the warfare. These two things connect in positive feedback loop: men dying in war create gender misbalance that would push more women to become second and third wives as well.
But rent has been rising faster than the average male wage since 1958, and politics in the USA has become angrier and angrier. The mechanism that this article suggests, that polygamy leads to war, would also suggest an angry impulse in a country that has transformed from one where 18 year old men have their own apartment to a country where most men don't achieve their own apartment until their late 20s or 30s.
There certainly has been a change in the tone with which men talk about women. Nowadays you can find Pick Up Artist web sites where men in their 20s and 30s can supposedly learn tricks to win over women. The tone suggests that women are far away, and need to be tricked into things. In 1958, a woman was a person you lived with and shared your life with, starting when you were 18. Early marriage had its own problems, which have been picked apart in endless comedies, but according to this article, the ease of marriage in the 1950s would have explained the contentment that the American people expressed regarding their own government and way of life.
The other implication of this is that Consumer Price Index is a lousy way to track people's standard of living, because it tends to treat socks and lettuce and bicycles and apples and houses and automobiles and Xboxes and Nintendo consoles as all having the same weight to each other as their price. But if this article is right, that men need women or they become war like, that would suggest that one item (housing) has an emotional weight that makes it much more important than any other item. If we adjust the median male wage with the CPI then it seems male wages in the USA have been stagnant since 1973. But if we gave housing the kind of weight that this article seems to justify, then we could say that men have seen a declining standard of living since 1958. That is, the abundance of socks and lettuce and bicycles and apples and automobiles and Xboxes and Nintendo consoles does not make up for rising rent.
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.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/an...
HN is just not equipped to discuss this sort of thing.
I think that's because an acknowledgement that the kind of marriage one selects has an "environmental impact" immediately brings the sacred cow of gay marriage into question. When it really shouldn't. You still have a fundamental right to select the type of relationship that's right for you, but you do have a responsibility to be mindful of its effect on society. This doesn't just mean ban stuff. Perhaps for polygyny…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 an…
It's not so different now in America.
I cannot find the excellent psychologist essay about this topic from a few years ago, but here's a relevant summary of the concepts: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/resolution-not-conflict...
Now you've got me interested, look harder! (:
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What definition of "capitalism" are you using to refer to this as a "capitalist endeavor"? The "return on investment" (as you put it) aspect? Wouldn't, say, a communist make similar justifications? For example: "we provided your education as a child so you'll abide by our directives as an adult."
I don't think buying/selling women was a communist cornerstone. The reason I say this is a capitalist endeavor is the recognition of an asset (the daughter), the want to see the most return (as large of a bride price as possible), and then seeking to improve the asset through education, travel, and competition to lead to a better selling price.
Turkmenistan's recent history is as a (Soviet) socialist republic and it ranks very, very low on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom. I'd need further convincing that this practice is reflective of a culture which embraces capitalistic ideals like free markets and voluntary exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complete aside, and I looked in your profile for a way to pm you instead of making this comment where I am sure to burn karma. I noticed in two separate comments that you are improperly using hyphens. > ... no interest-like people the world ... Hyphens join two words. This sentence was hard to parse and was nonsensical until I realized the hyphen was intended as a separator. Consider spaces around hyphens when joinin…
Thank you for the info I’m aware that the hyphen used that way is a personal quirk. But I’m always looking to improve my written communication so I’ll use them correctly going forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Complete aside, and I looked in your profile for a way to pm you instead of making this comment where I am sure to burn karma. I noticed in two separate comments that you are improperly using hyphens. > ... no interest-like people the world ... Hyphens join two words. This sentence was hard to parse and was nonsensical until I realized the hyphen was intended as a separator. Consider spaces around hyphens when joinin…
Thank you for the info I’m aware that the hyphen used that way is a personal quirk. But I’m always looking to improve my written communication so I’ll use them correctly going forward.