• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Polygamy (Split from Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack)

PhantomWolf said:
Because societies that treat women well have only existed, and even then they aren't the whole way there, for about 30-40 years.
Click to expand...

Then ponder why the only societies which have emerged from this sexist past into a more enlightened modern state are monogamous ones. No polygamous society has been able to make that transition. Again, this isn't a coincidence.
 
Nobody in this thread married their significant other to shore up their military partnership with France, so any associations with "Traditional Marriage" are invalid. In fact you might even call them........STRAWMEN *Music sting* (See I can play the "call an argument a bad name" game too.)

The idea of marrying for love is.... way new. It is not traditional. Traditional marriage was all about shoring up relationships between countries and powerful families.

So "Appeal to Tradition" goes off the table. No more "So and so is a bedrock of Western Civilization."
 
PhantomWolf said:
This however is for a variety of reasons, one of which is social conditioning and culture. As long as we keep telling women that they should not be interested in sex or they are slut, unclean, deviant, and so forth, they will continue to associate their sexual drives with being bad, and repress them. Sure that won't make them as horny as a lot of men, but the differences between how society views women's sexual drives and men's sexual drives does account for some of that difference. Other things being that women and men simply view sex differently.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is... so not relevant.

First off, that isn't at all the message that women get now. Second, the relevant distinctions aren't between whether or even how much women want sex. For example:
https://quillette.com/2019/03/12/attraction-inequality-and-the-dating-economy/
"A data scientist representing the popular dating app “Hinge” reported on the Gini coefficients he had found in his company’s abundant data, treating “likes” as the equivalent of income. He reported that heterosexual females faced a Gini coefficient of 0.324, while heterosexual males faced a much higher Gini coefficient of 0.542."

This difference why polygyny will always be more popular that polygamy. The likely cause is biological: a woman can only be pregnant once at a time, but a man can impregnate many women. So that gives incentives to women to be far more picky about who they hook up with than men. But regardless of the reason, the observational fact remains that sexual inequality (meaning inequality in access to sex) is higher for men than for women. And that's cross-cultural.

Monogamy constrains that inequality. Polygamy exacerbates it. High degrees of sexual inequality breed social pathologies.

I think that using human history is a poor way to try and develop the future of society, since most of our history has been based on oppressing certain people groups.
Click to expand...

History reveals truths about human nature. You can't wish those truths away.
 
Roboramma said:
Well, the issue that I brought up in the other thread (and I think the reason that Phantomwolf wrote his OP in that way) is that where polygamy is practiced it just turns out that it's often old men forcing young girls to marry them. But because of the power they have over these girls, the state can't demonstrate the non-consensual nature of these relationships.
Click to expand...

Sounds like more an effect of the power differences rather than the cause, though. In a society where men and women are largely equal, would it be still a problem? I mean, you have the same considerations in couples.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because they have to stop the slippery slope soon. First it was miscegenation, then gay marriage now suddenly it is monogamy. Each was the bedrock of western civilization in its time.
Click to expand...

Yet more straw. Neither miscegenation nor gay marriage have any connection to the argument I'm making, and so my argument doesn't suggest opposition to either of those things. This should be obvious, and I've made that explicit previously regarding gay marriage.

In fact, it's quite the reverse. Monogamy helps develop and support the western notion of equality and the value of the individual. Both of these were fundamental concepts in the development of both minority and gay rights.
 
No it's worse than "Appeal to Tradition."

It's "Appeal to one arbitrary point on a long timeline of traditions." There's not even really a "Tradition" to appeal to.

"One on one monogamous marriage for the purposes of personal romance" is only "Traditional Marriage" is you just randomly point at one type of marriage and go "Yep that's it, that's 'Traditional Marriage' right there, not the the other kinds of marriage before or after it, that one right there because I say so."
 
Ziggurat said:
The truth is right under your nose, and you don’t even notice it. Why do you think the hilighted portion is how things turned out? Do you think it’s just a coincidence? Random chance?
Click to expand...

As I said above I think these harems happened because women were treated as second-class, not the other way around. There's no logical pathway from polyamorous relationships to stripping women of rights or abusing them.
 
Ziggurat said:
In fact, it's quite the reverse. Monogamy helps develop and support the western notion of equality and the value of the individual. Both of these were fundamental concepts in the development of both minority and gay rights.
Click to expand...

Only because the majority likes the minority to conform to its values before it grants them equality. Gay people shouldn't have had to assimilate and act like straight people to achieve equal rights. Monogamy is not universally valued.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yeah, no. You either don't understand that fallacy, my argument, or both. There's quite a bit more to it than that.
Click to expand...
I not only understand your argument, I used to make your argument. If there's quite a bit more, you should bring that here.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Nobody in this thread married their significant other to shore up their military partnership with France, so any associations with "Traditional Marriage" are invalid. In fact you might even call them........STRAWMEN *Music sting* (See I can play the "call an argument a bad name" game too.)

The idea of marrying for love is.... way new. It is not traditional. Traditional marriage was all about shoring up relationships between countries and powerful families.
Click to expand...

Still, history is replete with people of all classes who wanted to ignore their arranged marriages in order to marry instead the people they loved. It wasn't _all_ about that.
 
theprestige said:
Humans aren't creatures of logical pathways, though.
Click to expand...

Er... I'm not talking about individual decisions but about how one can lead to the other. By definition such relationships are among several people. What's the mechanism that leads to abuse or the removal or rights for women? Mentioning situations that stem from an already-existing abuse of rights doesn't say much about those relationships. One has to show specific outcomes that are _caused_ by polygamy, not the other way around.
 
Belz... said:
As I said above I think these harems happened because women were treated as second-class, not the other way around. There's no logical pathway from polyamorous relationships to stripping women of rights or abusing them.
Click to expand...

But there absolutely is a pathway. What do you think happens in a society with lots of young men with no sexual prospects? How do you think they start to behave? How do you think society accommodates them?

They become abusive to women because they are resentful. And women are forced to seek the shelter and protection of the high status men, who can then exploit their positions of power over those women. The social bargain that is struck is that low status men can be enticed to accept their situation by giving them status over women.

Just think of the pathologies of the whole "incel" movement, and then multiply that, across generations.
 
So we're basically at a "Polygamy will inherently lead to harems" impasse.

Is misogyny and polygamy cause and effect, or both symptoms of the same cause so it's possible to have one without the other.

It's not like polyamourous relationships that aren't nothing more then misogynistic old men with harems of disenfranchised women aren't a thing. People can have stable, fair and open, relationships with multiple people. I don't see why "making it official" is going to turn some switch on that and turn it into harems or sister-wives or whatever.
 
Ziggurat said:
But there absolutely is a pathway. What do you think happens in a society with lots of young men with no sexual prospects?
Click to expand...

Gay reconversion therapy? :p

But you could also have women with several male partners in that deal, so it could, assuming the two sorts of relationships are rather equal in numbers, balance out. Of course, we have no data for that.

So before we consider the rest of what you describe in your post, we need to look at that.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
An arranged marriage would have to be a forced marriage by definition. It's possible that all parties involved in an arranged marriage would have freely chosen their spouse but the fact remains that the parties involved are not the one's who made the decision.







Arranged marriages are a time honored tradition. The way it works in the west where two young people without any real world experience are able to choose a marriage partner whom meet by random chance based on mutual sexual attraction is kind of crazy if you think about it.



Not true. Muslim birthrates are higher than those of the indigenous French. Their birthrates are higher than the indigenous populations everywhere in Europe, NA, Australia and New Zealand. Not to mention the growth in population from immigration.



A country doesn't need to be majority Islamic to adopt Islamic customs anyway. Jews are less than two percent of the population of the United States. They are allowed to resolve disputes through a Beit Din and in Rhode Island and New York state, Uncles can marry their nieces. The percentage of Muslims in the United States is approaching two percent. How can we deny our Islamic brothers and sisters the right to resolve disputes through a Sharia court or enter into a marriage that the majority of Americans would find odd when we have granted the Jewish community the right to practice their folkways?
Click to expand...
Arbitration is a very ancient system, in most of the countries that derive their legal system from England we have the right (in certain matters) to decide who or what we want as an arbitrator.

Can't see what the benefit is in removing the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom