TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

39

Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model (Ross et al. 2018) (royalsocietypublishing.org)

submitted by SophisticatedBean


[–]SophisticatedBean[S] 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Kinda the opposite to what I expected. Greater wealth inequality leads to choosier women, but not more polygyny because the number of men who can afford multiple wives decreases and also having multiple wives has quickly diminishing returns for the wealthiest males.

Edit: Though economic inequality does lead to more divorces hence more men engaging in serial-monogamy with high SMV males remarrying more often (which is de-facto polygyny). Not sure whether this holds true cross-culturally though. https://www.scfamilylaw.com/income-inequality-and-divorce-rates

[–]Mefic_vest7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

An agrarian society is also one where civilization becomes important, such that every man needs to pull their own weight.

The average low-status male isn’t going to give a fuck about contributing (the cost) if they have no guaranteed access to a wife and offspring (the reward). And masses of single low-status men is a recipe for societal instability.

I see this trend, despite income inequality, as a logical one based not on the inequality, but on the type of civilization being built. As in, one that needs extensive effort/input from many to most of the males.

When the effort needed to maintain the civilization is low, polygyny is free to flourish because low-status men can and will fuck off to do their own thing without dragging down the whole framework.

When the effort needed is high, monogamy needs to be imposed in order to ensure sufficient buy-in from low-status men that make up the bulk of the workforce.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

High IQ comment

[–]magnificent180 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why I partly believe religion with the concept of monogamy was created. If for not this then the world would be in chaos and as a race we wouldn't progress. As a man regardless of who you where, you were told if you contribute to society in some shape or form as a result of this hard work you will attract a partner. But this goes against biology.

Biology is simple as fuck, fuck anything that looks good as this is the test for "good genes". Biology doesn't know how to test for character, personality, or IQ. Biology relies on instant gratification. Biology would have you rather fuck someone now and procreate than take a chance to find the perfect partner, running the risk you might die and never procreating. Biology is risk adverse.

[–]Andrew543213 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would have thought that more polygyny reduces wealth inequality.

Meaning that multiple wives are more costly and so only wealthy men become less wealthy closing the gap.

[–]SophisticatedBean 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lol, the expenses of some wives seem to vanish compared to economic inequality (I mean we're often talking CEO to employee pay ratios of 100 to 1), or you'd need an impractical amount of wives for this to matter...

[–]Andrew543211 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

On a grand scale, yes. On an individual basis, not so much.

If wives compete with each other it is likely to be measured in gifts from the husband.

There may even be a case for having multiple homes to house the wives that don’t get along.

I won’t debate the CEO pay vs employee pay thing but I will say this: Only equal effort and equal result deserves equal pay.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter