Interesting. I've been toying around with the idea that there are two different kinds of polygyny, let's call them "lion polygyny" and "sultan polygyny".
In lion polygyny the females contribute most of the resources and the male spends his time defending his harem against other males. In sultan polygyny the male contributes most of the resources. Notice that sultan polygyny requires the man to be able to contribute more resources than all his wives combined could do on their own. Since humans aren't that sexually dimorphic, this is only possible if the man in question sits at or near the top of a massive power structure. This is probably also why there don't appear to be any examples of sultan polygyny in the animal kingdom.
I recall you made an off-the-cuff comment on Twitter that the labour of wives substituted for slaves in gerontocratic polygyny systems (such as in Australia).
I’m just wondering, is polygyny actually a form of de-facto slavery?
Typically hunter-gatherer societies are assumed not to have slavery (with the exception of the Northwest Coast), but if we are not counting all sorts of slavery-like practices, we could be severely underestimating the prevalence of slavery in the ethnographic record.
Interesting, but some surprising results. I would expect high female subsistence contribution to favour polygamy given free marriage choice as it allows women to 'share the burden' (and conversely, where women contribute little you might expect them not to want to share the man's contribution with other wives). Have I misunderstood the subsistence contribution variable, or missed something else important?
Welcome back
Interesting. I've been toying around with the idea that there are two different kinds of polygyny, let's call them "lion polygyny" and "sultan polygyny".
In lion polygyny the females contribute most of the resources and the male spends his time defending his harem against other males. In sultan polygyny the male contributes most of the resources. Notice that sultan polygyny requires the man to be able to contribute more resources than all his wives combined could do on their own. Since humans aren't that sexually dimorphic, this is only possible if the man in question sits at or near the top of a massive power structure. This is probably also why there don't appear to be any examples of sultan polygyny in the animal kingdom.
I recall you made an off-the-cuff comment on Twitter that the labour of wives substituted for slaves in gerontocratic polygyny systems (such as in Australia).
I’m just wondering, is polygyny actually a form of de-facto slavery?
Typically hunter-gatherer societies are assumed not to have slavery (with the exception of the Northwest Coast), but if we are not counting all sorts of slavery-like practices, we could be severely underestimating the prevalence of slavery in the ethnographic record.
Pretty cool, I get multiple wives And they do all the work. Win win all around
A type of polyandry was the custom of ‘adelphic-polyandry’ which was practised in parts of India amongst rural agrarian communities.
The social realities and implications of this custom for women in those communities is described in the Punjabi song ‘ਭੁਲ ਗਈ ਮੈਂ ਘੁੰਡ ਕਡਨਾ’.
An English language translation is available here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-156451365?source=queue
Interesting, but some surprising results. I would expect high female subsistence contribution to favour polygamy given free marriage choice as it allows women to 'share the burden' (and conversely, where women contribute little you might expect them not to want to share the man's contribution with other wives). Have I misunderstood the subsistence contribution variable, or missed something else important?