Submitted by Rex Thomson on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 19:42.
It aint what you don't know what gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that aint so!
What plusess can polygamy give to a relationship that polyandry would no include
The support for polygyny here does not come from an arbitrary drive for liberalization. We do not say, people should be able to do whatever, but people should be able to do this for specific reasons.
Polygyny and Polyandry have almost never co-existed in a society, and polyandry is very rare because it requires a very peculiar set of circumstances to be useful.
The most basic agrugment for polygyny in a general society is that there are simply more women then men, as men tend to get killed much more often. All gender imbalance problems alleviated by polygyny would be irritated by polyandry.
My entire battery of historical and societal arguments in favour of polygyny either do not apply to polyandry or are against them. They are distinct sociological phenomena to deal with distinct social circumstances.
From there, there are many distinctions, But I think its more work than its worth to list them here and now.
Note that people are busy, dont post and expect immediate answers, leave the topic a few days between checks.
It is not true that there are "simply more women" in "a general society."
The male-to-female ratio for the entire world population is 1.01 males/female, with 1.06 at birth, still 1.06 for those under 15, 1.03 for those between 15 and 64, and 0.79 for those over 65.
So, for the world, there are more men than women in every age group except old people well past their childbearing years. Also I would say, well past wanting to get married if they haven’t already, or marry again if they have.
It is true that there are about 4,303,361 "extra women" in the United States.
The male-to-female ratio for the population of the United States is .97 males/female, with 1.05 at birth, still 1.05 for those under 15, 1.02 for those between 15 and 54, and 0.82 for those over 54; 51 is the average age for menopause in American women.
All of the "extra women" are 54 years or older. So, if 2 or 3 million polygynists would commit to marrying all the extra women over age 54 I'm sure that would make them happy.
Please use statistics wisely and correctly.
I know that accepting this information as fact will seriously undermine your mathematical defense of polygyny. However, perhaps this just means that you will have to focus on other aspects besides statistics.
For instance, polygyny could be posited as the demographic counterpart to male homosexuality, and perhaps you could argue that as long as adults are free to make these choices, both lifestyles are acceptable. (Although you might have a hard time putting this past female homosexuals.)
Or, you could argue from a biological standpoint, where as with lions, the females mate only with the most desirable male and thus strengthen the gene pool because the other males are unable to pass on their less-desirable genetic information.
Or, you could say that polygyny is perfectly acceptable from a moral standpoint as long as it is used wisely. For example, it can be traditionally recognized as a useful means to populate or repopulate an area when this has to be done quickly, and then the practice can cease until it needs to be used again.
Well you seem to be really trying to grab attention. I addressed the mater of the global population, though it seems you didn't see it. US pop over the last few years is an oddity, but as I'm not American in the first place it isn't the relevant set of data for my detailed research in the first place. The raw numbers hold as I said, and the point stands in the global scope.
As for older people wanting to be married, you should check the archives on the my 2 wives blog to start.
Ultimately though I suspect you're trolling, if you where doing any more than that you would have continued the pertinent discussion before blahing on into another peripherally related thread.
I realize that my response was not about polyandry directly, but a key point in your argument was essentially that there are more women than men in the world, which is not true, the actual ratio being 1.02:1 males to females.
US population is not an oddity, it is actually a pretty typical spread for the developed world.
Also as for older women wanting to be married, perhaps more research is needed as to whether they would be willing to become a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) wife that late in life, i.e., after age 54. Keep in mind I'm keeping my points pretty much to mathematics because this is what I see the key issue to be in the conflict between pro- and anti-polygyny.
Ok, if you're game we can talk the whole thing out. Too many people come, complain and go, but I'm glad to go through the whole premise if you'll bear with me for the conversation.
First off, I was going through CIA world factbook you cited, and its data has quite a few oddities. For example in my own countries data it misses a handful of the most crucial natural resources as far as the U.S. or any country should be concerned. It also sites a comparable M\F ratio in Afganistan (as of 07') to other places in the world, but my U.N. data (which is unfortunately not available online) is very contrary too. The male population is depleted because Taliban membership was very high before us North Americans got there, and there are many 'warlord' groups that suffered greatly as well. This lead to social reforms because previously women where very limited in the areas they could work, that HAD to expand for the country to sustain itself. Long story short the facts on the ground do not mesh at all with with factbooks citation of total population: 1.049M\F 2007 estimate. Think about it for a minute, we have killed a LOT of Taliban forces previous to 2007. If it seems like not a lot of people are dyeing in that conflict its because we only hear about our casualties, which are miraculously low.
As I cited before, the M\F drop off worldwide at older ages is directly related to WWII, where many men died. Any war depletes the ratio as well. If that is acknowledged then we can get into historical scope. You said it worked as an argument for temporary allowances, and it has, in 1650 it was allowed by both catholics and protestants for 10 years for just that reason. The problem lies in politics, lawmakers simply cannot be relied upon to consistently change laws when changes are needed, and in general politics would rather have more prostitutes than allow women to be wives. Moreover war is something that usually occurs several times per century, it would be something of a hassle to change marriage law so frequently even if legislatures would. Historical perspective does and shall always vindicate my assertion, and I believe it is better to always allow people discretion rather than shift a paradigm by governmental force.
I would submit that if we are talking about social policies we must take a longer term perspective than data for any given decade would allow. I do contend you're source (though I didn't expect I would, and typically don't), but, even given you're source, I submit that male depopulation is normative in the long term.
Polyandry is one woman 2 or more men. it is unnatural and besides this site is for Polygyny not polyandry.
I like your Christ
I do not like your Christians
They are so unlike your Christ
Ghandi
I never knew that there was this much disagreement on the sex of the partners. I didn't even know that there were different names. I am swaddled in ignorance...
Polyandry
It aint what you don't know what gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that aint so!
not here...
This site is specifically for polygamy.
Polyandry is not a topic.
I second Apostle.
Polyandry
It aint what you don't know what gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that aint so!
What plusess can polygamy give to a relationship that polyandry would no include
No
The support for polygyny here does not come from an arbitrary drive for liberalization. We do not say, people should be able to do whatever, but people should be able to do this for specific reasons.
Polygyny and Polyandry have almost never co-existed in a society, and polyandry is very rare because it requires a very peculiar set of circumstances to be useful.
The most basic agrugment for polygyny in a general society is that there are simply more women then men, as men tend to get killed much more often. All gender imbalance problems alleviated by polygyny would be irritated by polyandry.
My entire battery of historical and societal arguments in favour of polygyny either do not apply to polyandry or are against them. They are distinct sociological phenomena to deal with distinct social circumstances.
From there, there are many distinctions, But I think its more work than its worth to list them here and now.
Note that people are busy, dont post and expect immediate answers, leave the topic a few days between checks.
The extra women are senior citizens
It is not true that there are "simply more women" in "a general society."
The male-to-female ratio for the entire world population is 1.01 males/female, with 1.06 at birth, still 1.06 for those under 15, 1.03 for those between 15 and 64, and 0.79 for those over 65.
So, for the world, there are more men than women in every age group except old people well past their childbearing years. Also I would say, well past wanting to get married if they haven’t already, or marry again if they have.
It is true that there are about 4,303,361 "extra women" in the United States.
The male-to-female ratio for the population of the United States is .97 males/female, with 1.05 at birth, still 1.05 for those under 15, 1.02 for those between 15 and 54, and 0.82 for those over 54; 51 is the average age for menopause in American women.
All of the "extra women" are 54 years or older. So, if 2 or 3 million polygynists would commit to marrying all the extra women over age 54 I'm sure that would make them happy.
Please use statistics wisely and correctly.
I know that accepting this information as fact will seriously undermine your mathematical defense of polygyny. However, perhaps this just means that you will have to focus on other aspects besides statistics.
For instance, polygyny could be posited as the demographic counterpart to male homosexuality, and perhaps you could argue that as long as adults are free to make these choices, both lifestyles are acceptable. (Although you might have a hard time putting this past female homosexuals.)
Or, you could argue from a biological standpoint, where as with lions, the females mate only with the most desirable male and thus strengthen the gene pool because the other males are unable to pass on their less-desirable genetic information.
Or, you could say that polygyny is perfectly acceptable from a moral standpoint as long as it is used wisely. For example, it can be traditionally recognized as a useful means to populate or repopulate an area when this has to be done quickly, and then the practice can cease until it needs to be used again.
Sources: CIA World Factbook and US Census Bureau.
A little off topic
Well you seem to be really trying to grab attention. I addressed the mater of the global population, though it seems you didn't see it. US pop over the last few years is an oddity, but as I'm not American in the first place it isn't the relevant set of data for my detailed research in the first place. The raw numbers hold as I said, and the point stands in the global scope.
As for older people wanting to be married, you should check the archives on the my 2 wives blog to start.
Ultimately though I suspect you're trolling, if you where doing any more than that you would have continued the pertinent discussion before blahing on into another peripherally related thread.
The raw numbers do not stand
I realize that my response was not about polyandry directly, but a key point in your argument was essentially that there are more women than men in the world, which is not true, the actual ratio being 1.02:1 males to females.
US population is not an oddity, it is actually a pretty typical spread for the developed world.
Also as for older women wanting to be married, perhaps more research is needed as to whether they would be willing to become a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) wife that late in life, i.e., after age 54. Keep in mind I'm keeping my points pretty much to mathematics because this is what I see the key issue to be in the conflict between pro- and anti-polygyny.
Thanks for the response!
Lets talk then
Ok, if you're game we can talk the whole thing out. Too many people come, complain and go, but I'm glad to go through the whole premise if you'll bear with me for the conversation.
First off, I was going through CIA world factbook you cited, and its data has quite a few oddities. For example in my own countries data it misses a handful of the most crucial natural resources as far as the U.S. or any country should be concerned. It also sites a comparable M\F ratio in Afganistan (as of 07') to other places in the world, but my U.N. data (which is unfortunately not available online) is very contrary too. The male population is depleted because Taliban membership was very high before us North Americans got there, and there are many 'warlord' groups that suffered greatly as well. This lead to social reforms because previously women where very limited in the areas they could work, that HAD to expand for the country to sustain itself. Long story short the facts on the ground do not mesh at all with with factbooks citation of total population: 1.049M\F 2007 estimate. Think about it for a minute, we have killed a LOT of Taliban forces previous to 2007. If it seems like not a lot of people are dyeing in that conflict its because we only hear about our casualties, which are miraculously low.
As I cited before, the M\F drop off worldwide at older ages is directly related to WWII, where many men died. Any war depletes the ratio as well. If that is acknowledged then we can get into historical scope. You said it worked as an argument for temporary allowances, and it has, in 1650 it was allowed by both catholics and protestants for 10 years for just that reason. The problem lies in politics, lawmakers simply cannot be relied upon to consistently change laws when changes are needed, and in general politics would rather have more prostitutes than allow women to be wives. Moreover war is something that usually occurs several times per century, it would be something of a hassle to change marriage law so frequently even if legislatures would. Historical perspective does and shall always vindicate my assertion, and I believe it is better to always allow people discretion rather than shift a paradigm by governmental force.
I would submit that if we are talking about social policies we must take a longer term perspective than data for any given decade would allow. I do contend you're source (though I didn't expect I would, and typically don't), but, even given you're source, I submit that male depopulation is normative in the long term.
Polyandry is one woman 2 or
Polyandry is one woman 2 or more men. it is unnatural and besides this site is for Polygyny not polyandry.
I like your Christ
I do not like your Christians
They are so unlike your Christ
Ghandi
Wow; I never knew that there
Wow;
I never knew that there was this much disagreement on the sex of the partners. I didn't even know that there were different names. I am swaddled in ignorance...