SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-do-you-keep-multiple-wives-happy dept.
A study conducted by a team of researchers from the U.K., Tanzania and the U.S. has found an example of polygynous marriage that does not appear to be harmful to women or children. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers outline their study of people living in villages in Tanzania, and why they believe organizations such as the UN need to modify their stance on the practice to better take account of cultural practices.
Polygny is a term used to refer to marriage systems where males can have more than one wife, while polygamy refers to the actual practice of it. In this new study, the researchers looked into the question of whether a polygnynous marriage is in fact harmful to women or children as has been assumed by many in the international community. They looked at 3,500 households in villages in Tanzania, noting the occurrences of polygnynous marriage versus monogamous marriage and the standard of living for those women and children.
In looking at their data, they found that first wives—women who were the first to marry a man with several wives, tended to have better nutrition as did their children, than women in monogamous marriages and their children. Later wives and their children fared on average as well as monogamous wives and their children, but not as well as first wives. This, the team claims, shows that not all instances of polygynous marriage are harmful to women or children—it shows that in some cases, it can actually be a practice that women can use to better their lives and that of their children. It is a matter of wealth and the rules that govern a society—if women cannot own land or other resources, for example, or take a job, as was the case in the Tanzanian villages, they will likely do better in life if they are able to attract and marry a man with some degree of wealth, which in some cases may mean, a man with multiple wives.
How do the husbands fare?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:15PM
What they are saying is, women are better off sharing one good man, than risking getting a dirtball in a monogamous arrangement? Yeah, I suppose so, but in most polygamy arrangements it seems the dirtballs are collecting virgin girls to add to their collection.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday October 28 2015, @12:31PM
For me the message to take away was "if you are a woman in a society where women have no rights and no independence, then the best you can hope for (in terms of nutrition at least) is to bag a rich husband." Well, no great surprises there, but hardly a great result for womankind.
In other words if the UN are currently spending resources to encourage people to abandon this practise, they should redirect their efforts into promoting women's rights instead.
Relevant link to an extremely interesting, entertaining and educational TV series: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-tribe [channel4.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:51AM
I took the same message away. Rural Tanzania treats it's women badly was the other thing I thought.
I wondered what happens to all those men who have no chance of marrying because the wealthy men take all the women also. What does that do for society?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:19AM
IMHO, the real take away is that they should redirect their efforts towards education of women and girls. A woman who is educated tends to be more self-sufficient and less easily exploited. Why do you think that one of the first things groups like Boko Haram and ISIS do when they take over an area is to shut down girls schools?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:04PM
but in most polygamy arrangements it seems the dirtballs are collecting virgin girls to add to their collection
How many polygamists do you know?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:12PM
Its an interesting practical vs theoretical situation.
The theoretical ones who made up a framework or read it out of a religious book get intense interest from academics and journalism but there aren't many of them.
The practical ones are mostly young male jocks, frat boys, drunks-in-training barfly types. Stereotypically their techniques work better on younger more ignorant girls, lots of broken hearts or whatever. Some of those guys rely more on chemical assistance than others, booze, pills, etc.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Wednesday October 28 2015, @08:14PM
How many polygamists do you know?
I've known a few. This is in western society so we are not talking about official marriage, which is not legal where I live, but partnerships. I've known guys stringing along 2, 3 or 4 women for years, even ones who are aware of each other, seeming in hope to win the guy for themselves one day. God knows why, because as the GP said, they are generally dirtballs, although they can talk nice.
Polygyny (I had not realised the word existed as opposed to polygamy) might (or might not) be good for women, but it is certainly not good for the poorer men who are left without a wife, nor good for society (where it arguably leads to the suicidal male extremism we see coming from the Muslim world).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:00AM
but it is certainly not good for the poorer men who are left without a wife, nor good for society
You're not entitled to someone else's body, to a wife, or to a relationship, so this is a silly concern.
And "certainly" is such a strong word for something that is so uncertain and subjective.
(where it arguably leads to the suicidal male extremism we see coming from the Muslim world).
You would need evidence to link those things. But nothing "leads" these people to do such things; they ultimately make those decisions on their own. I believe people are responsible for their own actions. If they indeed choose to do such things because they can't find a wife (an idea which I lack a belief in), that is entirely their fault.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:18AM
And yet gender imbalances could indeed lead to an uptick in those kinds of decisions being made, and become a public policy concern. See: China.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/uk-china-onechild-idUKKBN0KU0V720150121 [reuters.com]
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/06/05/gender-imbalance-china-one-child-law-backfired-men-336435.html [newsweek.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:56AM
And yet gender imbalances could indeed lead to an uptick in those kinds of decisions being made, and become a public policy concern.
Then that's a problem with those people, even if I were to accept such an idea (and frankly, I am highly skeptical of any research measuring subjective issues like these); it cannot be blamed on allowing people to make choices for themselves regarding what kind of relationships they want to enter into. People are responsible for their own decisions, and ultimately, freedom is what matters.
I also like how one of the articles implies that remaining unmarried will raise the risks of "anti-social" and violent behavior, as if marriage is some magical thing that solves problems. Being in a relationship doesn't mean you will or plan to get married; it's entirely a nonsensical social ritual with some undeserved legal benefits and magical thinking attached to it. What they were probably trying to say (I hope) is that they can't find good candidates to get into relationships with.
So yes, while I cannot deny the possibility that societies with gender imbalances *could* be more susceptible to producing individuals who choose to take/do take harmful actions because of said gender imbalances, it's ultimately a meaningless observation to me because there is nothing that can reasonably be done. Or at least, there is nothing to be done about this one person with multiple partners 'issue'; China's policies are predictably unjust because they greatly infringe upon individual liberties, so they should be scrapped.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:42AM
Imbalances leading to many people going without partners is a concern. Relationships are important to most people, and they become unhappy if they are unable to form them. At the most extreme end of the spectrum we get people like the "incels", who occasionally start mass murdering, but before getting to that point there are a whole host of social and mental problems that exist. It's a problem for the minority too - there can be such a thing as too much attention.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday October 29 2015, @10:38AM
Maybe you are concerned about this problem which may or may not exist, but even if it does exist, there is nothing that I see that can reasonably be done about it. No one is entitled to a relationship; it requires the consent of all of those involved. Furthermore, if someone wants to enter into some kind of relationship with multiple partners, and it's all consensual, forbidding that would be an attack on freedom. So while this may be concerning, I'm not sure what could even be done about it except providing mental health assistance when people request it.
And I'm not even sure these types of relationships are common enough for this to 'cause' the problems that allegedly exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:43PM
> You're not entitled to someone else's body, to a wife, or to a relationship, so this is a silly concern.
Well, gee, thanks for that. Next maybe you should tell us we're not entitled to steal things from other people's houses and we can just scrap the break-and-enter laws as "silly concerns". After all, the only reason crooks steal and rapists rape is because no one told them it was wrong, huh?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:55PM
What? Entering into a consensual relationship with someone else does no harm, so your example makes literally no sense whatsoever. Who said anything about allowing breaking and entering or any actions that are directly harmful to others or their property? What was the actual point that you were trying to make?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @08:25PM
How many do I know personally? None at all. But they make the news here in the US pretty routinely.
http://gosw.about.com/od/southwesthistory/a/polygamy.htm [about.com]
Basically, you have a small community of old bastards who lust over each other's pubescent daughters, so they just swap them around from house to house, and call it "marriage". It looks very much like Islam to me.
"A Phoenix, Arizona woman, who was once a member of the sect in Colorado City, escaped the night before she was to be married to an older man. She was 14 at the time. Pennie Petersen, at age 14, found out she was to be married to a 48-year-old man who she said had previously molested her. She ran from the sect and has become an advocate for the under-age brides in Colorado City. "
When they get into trouble in their home states, they try to spread out to escape the law.
This pig was arrested in 2008 just south of Texarkana - http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/01/nation/la-na-nn-tony-alamo-arkansas-victims-20140228 [latimes.com]
At about the same time, Texas was working this case - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05jeffs.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]