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, Informative) by Snow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:10PM
I'm pretty sure it's not illegal because of 'fairness' issues. It's illegal because crazy right-wing religious groups marry 12 year old girls who don't have any choice in the matter.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:52PM
Don't forget dying intestate and estate tax. If everyone only married singles in that were younger than them, and inheritance laws continued to have large to infinite spouse exclusions, the .gov would not be amused.
I can only imagine the divorce legal entertainment.
The only thing worse than contested unhappy divorces would be uncontested... so I gotta marry the former owner of my house so they can transfer it to me almost for free in the "divorce" instead of paying the usual middlemen and taxmen.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:32PM
Where's our "marry young girls" troll when you need him? We've finally got a thread where he'd be on topic!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 28 2015, @08:35PM
Not really, if that were the case, then why hasn't there been a push for it the way that there was a push for same-sex marriage? Under your theory, they're both illegal because of crazy right-wing religious groups, but in one case you've had the left-wing folks pushing back against it and the other you haven't.
Polygamy and polygyny are no different from marrying teenagers. There are serious social problems associated with it and in both cases you don't see the practice being accepted in places where the mortality rate is reasonable. Marrying pre-teens and polygamy are both things that cultures adopted to deal with the problem of population decline due to war and infectious disease. They're not something you see being practiced in the developed world except in secret by small numbers of scofflaws.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @09:08PM
why hasn't there been a push for it the way that there was a push for same-sex marriage?
That's actually a really good question. There are a lot less poly people than gay people, so that's a big reason for the lack of push to change the laws. Also, poly people tend to be white, middle aged, educated, and pretty well-off. A lot of us are pretty privileged, so it's easier to stay on the down low. Some of us work in conservative jobs that probably wouldn't approve. Poly is not a protected class, so we can be discriminated against.
And yes, there is absolutely a difference between poly and marrying teenagers. The biggest difference is that one involves informed, consenting adults, and the other involves children.
I actually feel that poly (non-religious based) is a more honest way of running a relationship. If I don't treat my wife well, she can (and will) find someone who does treat her well. Our relationship would fade. Instead of being stuck with someone forever and ever (the traditional version of marriage) I need to work to keep my relationships strong.
What exactly are the social problems? If you are worried about us poly guys scooping up all the women, don't worry. Normal women aren't interested in us. We date within our circles.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday October 30 2015, @09:10PM
The biggest difference is that one involves informed, consenting adults
Most of the adults I've seen cannot exactly be described as "informed". Having a fully developed brain by no means indicates that you won't make short-sighted and uninformed decisions, and not having one doesn't mean you're incapable of consent. Forced marriages are bad, but I am tired of this attitude where people incorrectly reason that because children (even teenagers) do not have fully developed brains, they cannot make any informed decisions of their own. Not fully developed != nonexistent.
So younger people will make mistakes and probably regret it. Adults do that too at similar rates, and even ingest substances like alcohol that make that even more likely to happen. But making a mistake isn't the end of the world, and you can learn from it. Our society seems to prefer to coddle children with false ideas of innocence and then throw them out into the wilderness once they reach some arbitrary age.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 28 2015, @11:41PM
I'm not seeing how those things are at all connected.