• chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The birth rate of XY babies is actually slightly higher than XX babies. On the other hand, babies with higher testosterone tend to have weaker immune systems and so are more susceptible to infant mortality from disease.

    Otherwise, I’m not sure what the problem is with men who don’t have wives? They simply don’t reproduce. Throughout history men have reproduced at a lower rate than women. In polygynous cultures it’s only the very powerful and wealthy men who have many wives. The poor and powerless men have few or none.

    • Kayana@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Huh, really? I thought there were slightly more women than men, but maybe that depends on the economies etc.

      As for your second point, yes, exactly. They don’t reproduce. So it doesn’t matter if many men get one wife each, or if a few men get many wives each, the number of pregnancies won’t change, and the number of pregnancy-related deaths won’t change either. So (again), I don’t see how polygyny helps in this situation.

      • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I guess I’ve forgotten what the problem was exactly. High maternal mortality? How is that not solved by having many redundant wives?

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          You don’t just “have many redundant wives”. It starts out roughly 50/50 from birth no matter what you do.

          You either have more women by having a lot of single men, or a lot of dead men, or by taking women from other places.

            • Comment105@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              Which does nothing to help with the issue of mothers dying from pregnancy, unless there’s something more that you know?

              • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Multiple wives => redundant wives. Solves the issue of mothers dying in pregnancy. The more wives you have, the more you expect to survive to be able to care for the children. Having only one wife, on the other hand, means all your eggs are in one basket (apologies)!

                • Comment105@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 hour ago

                  There is no such thing as redundant wives in a total sense.

                  There’s only kidnapped wives, or dead or single men. That’s the only way you get a relative surplus. The amount of women remains the same whether you do polygyny or not.

                  • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    56 minutes ago

                    I’m sure there’s some kidnapped wives historically. Some wives bought from their fathers. But there’s also plenty of women who have consented to marry a man who already has a lot of wives. The issue has to do with resources and political power.

                    A rich and powerful man has a lot of resources available for his wives and children. A poor and weak man has few or none. Your chances of escaping starvation and death are much higher with the rich and powerful man.

                    Notice that I made zero mention of love. Marriage for love is a luxury of modernity, of wealth and power overflowing. You didn’t marry for love in the days when a bad year meant there was no food to last through winter.