Shak El wrote:
> I remember reading a book on polgamy and the early Mormons in the 19th
> century whose thesis was that fopr woman Polygamy was a more pleasant
> lifestyle than monogamy. The main reason was that in monogamy a female
> usually was preganent at least every other year, had huge families,
> and frequently died during child birthing. Poligamous woman had fewer
> children usually 2-3, had other women to help in household choirs and
> had fewer deaths due to child birth.
Perhaps, but the problem is different with the availability of birth control. In that case, I still think monogamy or serial monogamy is a good option -- though I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of such happy unions. Failing that I think the best model is given by deer: males on the outside periphery, guarding the women and children & dipping in for the old slap and tickle now and again; women and children in the inner circle, nurturing and playing. This would keep the gene-pool rocking, provide safety, and not allow any one male a monopoly of females, which creates noxious power relations.
>
> Poligamy in warfare socieities is often a way to deal with the problem
> of widows and ophans. If males are dying in huge numbers, then
> surviving males pick up the marriage slack.
Though it could also be argued that starving some males of females and intensifying the struggle for females would increase the chance of violence and war. I remember reading somewhere that a disproportion of men to women is a harbinger of war.
Joanna
>
>
>
>
> Jim Davis
> Ozark Bioregion, USA
> http://anarchistozarks.blogspot.com/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/left_n_Springfield/
> http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=141735
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060316/022ccdb6/attachment.htm>