979
moms rule (mander.xyz)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 55 points 2 years ago (18 children)

In Western Europe at least back to the early medieval period it was common for anyone who wasn’t nobility to have their first child around 22. The younger you are the more likely you’re going to have serious (fatal, back then) complications. It was the nobility that was marrying off barely pubescent kids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    What was it like outside of Western Europe?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    No idea, I'm not as read up on that. It would shock me if it was significantly different just because risk of death from complications is a hard biological line the younger you get, pre-modern medicine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (13 children)

    There are definitely cultures who have practiced polygyny to get around this issue. Some still do today, for example in many different countries in Africa where people still practice a pastoral life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (12 children)

    I don't see how polygyny gets around the issue of risk of death from pregnancy.

    Polygyny would get around the issue of men getting killed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Polygyny is where one man has many wives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

    Edit: This first point was wrong, but the second point still stands.

    Polygyny wouldn't solve the aforementioned problem if we suppose that the birth rate of men and women is roughly the same. If one man has many wives, some of whom even die, then several other men won't have any wives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Yes I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Polygyny = some men have many wives, others have none.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    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)!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •