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: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:20PM
The loser in these kinds of arrangements are the men who end up single: in many societies with polygyny, polyandry (1 woman, many men) is not allowed, nor is prostitution legal. China is running into a similar problem for a different reason, namely that the one-child policy in a patriarchal society along with infanticide has meant that there are about 20-30 million Chinese men that will never get married and quite possibly never get laid.
And that does in fact cause a societal problem, because the guys who can never get laid because there aren't enough women to go around are exactly the ones that are most likely to be attracted to ideas like 72 virgins after you die.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:01PM
Yes, and for China-watchers it's concerning. 20-30 million pissed off single Chinese men is an awful lot of cannon fodder. You can have those guys running around kidnapping women and joining Falun Gong and generally getting into trouble, or you can have an occasional war for them to vent their energy.
I'm betting war is the way the CCP will choose.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @05:58PM
Hell, conquest was the young men steam valve in every major society at some point (and arguably still is). There is no downside. Start a war somewhere outside your borders and send your aggressive young males. Best case you lose excess, troublesome men to win resources. Worst case you lose excess, troublesome men for nothing.
I am not saying it is right, merely that, from a game theory perspective, conquest (as opposed to total war or empire building where counterattack is likely) is a choice that has no losing outcomes.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 28 2015, @07:12PM
The loser in these kinds of arrangements are the men who end up single
Well, too bad for them. These are voluntary arrangements and no one is required to be in a relationship with them. They're not actually losing anything, because they never had anything to lose.
And that does in fact cause a societal problem, because the guys who can never get laid because there aren't enough women to go around are exactly the ones that are most likely to be attracted to ideas like 72 virgins after you die.
Right, because every male is just a mindless barbarian and will go completely insane without sex.
What do you think about asexuals, by the way? Do you think they do not exist? What about those who are simply not attracted to real people? What about those who are fine with just masturbating? What about those who aren't so unintelligent and defective that they'll go insane if they can't have sex?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @08:46PM
Exactly. It's basic arithmetic: given a male to female population ratio of close to 1:1, if a sizeable fraction of the men take more than one wife, then a sizeable fraction of the men will end up with *no wife*.
These latter men will not be a force for stability in society, I can assure you, as they are its "obvious losers".