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.
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)!
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.
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.
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.
I guess I’ve forgotten what the problem was exactly. High maternal mortality? How is that not solved by having many redundant wives?
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.
Yes I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Polygyny = some men have many wives, others have none.
Which does nothing to help with the issue of mothers dying from pregnancy, unless there’s something more that you know?
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)!
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.
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.