This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
But humans are not one of them, and neither are most primates. 90% of bird species are monogamous but only 3-9% of mammals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_in_animals
To put it another way, male-on-male aggression is adaptive for males in a polygamous society, and so is the female tendency to go for the strongest male because making babies is expensive and time-consuming and making sperm is free.
I would caveat that "naturally monogamous" in animals isn't exactly what humans would interpret that to be or to mean. In mammals, complete genetic monogamy is extremely rare and usually tied to things like votes; coyotes are one of the largest 'strictly' monogamous ones, and that's still got one-in-twenty extra-couple mating. Even a lot of monogamous bird species aren't genetically monogamous: something like one in eight swan babies aren't genetically tied to the mother's 'husband'.
It's a meaningful category, still, to contrast species that where serial mating (eg, raccoons) or outright multiple paternity is common (eg, housecats), or where mating is 'indiscriminate' (rabbits), but the extent that the line gets fuzzy makes it hard to categorize humans, even before considering what extent humans have drifted from their historic environment.
More options
Context Copy link
I was suggesting that in evolutionary terms, it's more plausible that the causal arrow should have run from the development of male aggression, to polygamous society and women driven to affiliate with "bad boys," than the other way around.
For one thing, your argument about the adaptive advantage of infidelity/ hypergamy should be true of monogamous bird species as well as mammals, but the birds have retained the monogamy. For another thing, humans are pretty weak overall, so our male strength and aggression is much more useful for intraspecies conflict than for pure survival via inter-species defense or resource acquisition. Chad's ability to beat up the dweeb in no way translates to Chad's ability to take down a buffalo or fight off a lion, so it's not clear how there'd be a strong-enough adaptive advantage to females breaking monogamous coordination to pursue Chad en masse unless you have an existing culture of violence where Chad might just beat up your man and rape you anyway. Thus, it seems like the precipitating factor is more likely the emergence of battle-males in conditions of plentiful resources.
Of course, once that's in place you certainly get positive feedback loops where the polygamy increases the aggression and vice-versa.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not really accurate to say that humans are 'not monogamous'. We are not perfectly monogamous, but we are mostly monogamous. The modal human reproductive unit is, and always has been, one man and one woman.
There are some cultures that allow a degree of polygyny for elite men, but those cultures are being outcompeted by monogamous ones because polygamy reduces fertility.
To say 'humans are polygynous' because a small minority of societies allow a small minority of men more than one wife, is a bit like saying Japan is a violent country because some small percentage of the population commits violent crime.
I was saying 'humans are polygynous' because (a) that's what we expect looking at other mammals/primates, (b) humans given sufficient resources and power (Emperors, rock-stars, warlords etc.) are often polygynous without strong cultural shunning/pushback, and (c) it seems to me that most men, if asked 'would you like another girlfriend/wife if your current one was open to it' would say 'yes please'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link