Well, your thesis is that Islam being a world leader in polygamy causes high rates of violence despite most of those countries having much lower homicide rates than the US and your least overtly politically biased source started out talking about violence due to polygamy in a majority Christian country.

Well first he tries to frame me as a mens rights activist, then am a islamophobe, and then he feels the need to talk about how politically biased my sources are. I havent actually said anything wildly controversial and this guy goes out of his way to show us how angry he is. Also he demands that i defend everything in the links i casually provided. What a guy, tbh.


Im just going to throw in some research here for whoever cares.

[...]

Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects—promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.

[...]
In closing, it is worth speculating that the spread of normative monogamy, which represents a form of egalitarianism, may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality at all levels of government [7,91]. Within the anthropological record, there is a statistical linkage between democratic institutions and normative monogamy [92]. Pushing this point, these authors argue that dissipating the pool of unmarried males weakens despots, as it reduces their ability to find soldiers or henchman. Reduced crime would also weaken despots' claims to be all that stands between ordinary citizens and chaos. Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes (see our historical sketch in the electronic supplementary material). In Ancient Greece, we do not know which came first but we do know that Athens, for example, had both elements of monogamous marriage and of democracy. In the modern world, analyses of cross-national data reveal positive statistical relationships between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties [65]. In this sense, the peculiar institutions of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality and human rights first emerged in the West [6].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...STB20110290C65

You should have started with that post instead of the MRA Islamophobia and you should have posted it in the anthropology forum or some place other than the foreign affairs thread of the politics section. Maybe in the history or smp forums if you needed a place on 2p2. The politics of your initial post were quite clear and that's what I responded to, this being the politics forum and all.

The obvious problem with this is that in many countries polygamy predates the influence of Islam.

No i think i got it just right by putting it here actually.

On the islamophobia and MRA everything you see is interpreted in these terms. The angle i take is one where i look at society in a zoomed out way to see if there is e.g any social structures or institutions or patterns that may make them unstable or increases violence or social problems and similar. For example if you produce alot of angry young men then that might possibly increase instability in a country. Thats a theory right there. I doubt that creating angry young women would have the same effect.

The MRA angle is one where you are very concerned that males in society get enough care and attention, sometimes by neglecting womens rights. Theres quite a big difference between saying that "a society with alot of unmarried young men might be unstable" and "particularly men in polygamous societies really need more rights because they have really been treated unfairly". The difference is descriptive (my angle) vs normative (your frame of my angle).

Islam is part of this discussion because in todays world it seems (in pratical terms) inseparable from polygamy. The reason is that their religion says 4 wifes is allowed, so that probably makes polygamy alot more sticky in those societies than other places.

Here is a summary of the study and interview with the lead author btw.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-mrm012312.php


In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution. The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems.

"Our goal was to understand why monogamous marriage has become standard in most developed nations in recent centuries, when most recorded cultures have practiced polygyny," says UBC Prof. Joseph Henrich, a cultural anthropologist, referring to the form of polygamy that permits multiple wives, which continues to be practiced in some parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America.

"The emergence of monogamous marriage is also puzzling for some as the very people who most benefit from polygyny - wealthy, powerful men - were best positioned to reject it," says Henrich, lead author of the study that is published today in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. "Our findings suggest that that institutionalized monogamous marriage provides greater net benefits for society at large by reducing social problems that are inherent in polygynous societies."

Considered the most comprehensive study of polygamy and the institution of marriage, the study finds significantly higher levels rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery and fraud in polygynous cultures. According to Henrich and his research team, which included Profs. Robert Boyd (UCLA) and Peter Richerson (UC Davis), these crimes are caused primarily by pools of unmarried men, which result when other men take multiple wives.

"The scarcity of marriageable women in polygamous cultures increases competition among men for the remaining unmarried women," says Henrich, adding that polygamy was outlawed in 1963 in Nepal, 1955 in India (partially), 1953 in China and 1880 in Japan. The greater competition increases the likelihood men in polygamous communities will resort to criminal behavior to gain resources and women, he says.

According to Henrich, monogamy's main cultural evolutionary advantage over polygyny is the more egalitarian distribution of women, which reduces male competition and social problems. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, institutionalized monogamy increases long-term planning, economic productivity, savings and child investment, the study finds. Monogamy's institutionalization has been assisted by its incorporation by religions, such as Christianity.

Monogamous marriage also results in significant improvements in child welfare, including lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death, homicide and intra-household conflict, the study finds. These benefits result from greater levels of parental investment, smaller households and increased direct "blood relatedness" in monogamous family households, says Henrich, who served as an expert witness for British Columbia's Supreme Court case involving the polygamous community of Bountiful, B.C.

Monogamous marriage has largely preceded democracy and voting rights for women in the nations where it has been institutionalized, says Henrich, the Canadian Research Chair in Culture, Cognition and Evolution in UBC's Depts. of Psychology and Economics. By decreasing competition for younger and younger brides, monogamous marriage increases the age of first marriage for females, decreases the spousal age gap and elevates female influence in household decisions which decreases total fertility and increases gender equality.

I don't see anything in here about Islam. Perhaps that's because polygamy is quite rare in Islamic counties and what's legal is a stupid way to measure it as opposed to what is practiced. Rates of violence are also quite low in many Islamic countries. What you're really talking about are non-modern tribal cultures. But, you want to be the man of logic who proves that Islam is a violent religion.

As far as the MRA thing goes, polygamy is generally awful for both men and women, but I would submit to the incel community that there's no excuse for them here. Even from your "descriptive" view it ignores the vast differences between tribal and modern culture and the degree in difference in status that marriage confers.

Im quoting the study i linked a few posts earlier:

[...]In the modern world, analyses of cross-national data reveal positive statistical relationships between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties [65]. In this sense, the peculiar institutions of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality and human rights first emerged in the West [6][..]

They offer a real explanation why the west has become what it is today in terms of the above mentioned qualities while cultures that have embraced polygamy have ended up worse than we have. I think they make a good point. Polygamy isnt much in play today, but leading up to today christianity have acted as a brake on it while islam have been a force to keep it legal (and its still legal as you saw from my wiki link).

You may praise the low homocide rates in muslim countries but who is willing to be criminal if they get their hands or head chopped off in public. There is a famous quote that says you shall judge a society by how they treat their criminals.

Your assumption that excessively harsh and visible penalties for crimes are an effective deterrent is contradicted by the behaviour of pickpockets in Victorian England, who plied their trade at the public hangings of other convicted pickpockets.

Nice, then that position is discredited to some degree. Maybe muslims are just better people than everyone else though? I would doubt that for various reasons. However its not that important, the grander points still stands.

I'm still waiting for the punchline on this bait. What's the country?

Seriously?

Democratic Federation of Northern Syria

The most feminist revolution the world has ever witnessed

Jineology

lol @ picking a country that isn't a country

I said 'society' and that's why.

I recognize it though. **** the UN.

So this is a place for inspiration for everyone else around there.

However, is it really the most feminine society on the planet?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/r...deep-is-change

It's the real world and does not turn into a co-op in Berkeley in one day. But in some ways, like major leadership consisting of male and female co-leaders and assemblies of delegates being 40% minimum female, they are far more feminist than Western countries. Changing everyone's attitudes and behavior takes time.

"Well, your thesis is that Islam being a world leader in polygamy causes high rates of violence despite most of those countries having much lower homicide rates than the US "

That's a little disingenuous, no? I don't disagree with your overall thesis, but using the US as a measure of homicide rates ain't great - pretty much every other civilized nation in the world has figured out that handing out firearms like Skittles is a bad idea. Nothing to do with Muslims/Christians/Druids or whatever. US #1 and all that. And yeah, I'm a yank.

MM MD

But if you want to get into those details, most of these countries don't have Euro style gun control. But, guns per capita maps horribly with intentional homicide rates.

In order on guns per capita: US, Serbia, Yemen, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uruguay, Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Switzerland, Macedonia, Montenegro, New Zealand, Greece, United Arab Emerites....

In fact that list is pretty low on homicide rates with Uruguay and Iraq being the only ones between 8-9, Yemen at 6.7 and I think the rest having lower homicide rates than the US. The only two Muslim majority countries with a high rate of guns per capita AND homicide being countries at war right now.

hobbes the polygamy is mostly out of play at this point so it doesnt have much effect in a vacuum. However i quoted the researchers proposing that polygamy might have hindered the developement of human rights, democracy, gender equality and other nice things. Societies that practice or have practiced extensive polygamy probably suffer quite a bit because of it.

But if you want to get into those details, most of these countries don't have Euro style gun control. But, guns per capita maps horribly with intentional homicide rates.

Don't disagree. But Canada, Norway, Finland etc. etc. don't have the bat**** crazy gun-huggers the US has. Like I said, I'm not disagreeing overall - but I'd kick out the US #1 as an outlier for a bunch of reasons - the comparison to Canada/Norway would be more enlightening, I think....

MM MD

Well, we shouldn't be arguing since we agree. My point is not that Muslim countries are free of violence or that polygamy might not be a source of violence, but that Muslims are not especially violent and that generally the correlation of polygamy and Islam has more to do with tribal culture mostly in Africa, some remote parts of places like Afghanistan and among royalty in the Gulf States. It's not representative of Islam anymore than polygamous Christians in South Sudan are representative of it for Christianity.

In one context there's an interesting point here about polygamy, women's rights, competition among men and violence in society. But given the first post on the subject ("The muslim world are leaders in both polygamy and economic inequality.") the links being to an article in The Economist (the source meant to make it look good) that makes a bizarre transition from South Sudan to Islam and the other source coming from Human Events (Powerful Conservative Voices - posts a lot of articles by Pat Buchanan to give you a feel), and this being the Politics Forum, I feel like inferring some intent behind it is fair. (ridiculously long sentence and I just got a phone call - hope it makes sense)

I dont really care if i criticise islam or anything else that that breaks left wing orthodoxy. Im pretty good at criticising christians and republians so i dont feel the need to excuse myself when i target someone else. Neither do i care what sources i use, right wing or left wing, i read them and make a judgement if there is anything to take home. The guy who wrote on the conservative link has written a book about polygamy, maybe he knows something about it.

What i do care about is not debating with undiplomatic people. I should really start keeping myself to higher standards.

I'm plenty diplomatic to most people.

4500 americans died to make al-sadr the prime minister of iraq

(i have no idea how it actually works but an al-sadr coalition with the communist(?) seems to be getting the most votes)