(September 11, 2011 at 11:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That may be so, but if women always did what was good for them we wouldn't have them (or believers) offering up the battered woman defense would we? As a quick aside, monogamy does benefit females in that it prevents their competition from securing the whatever advantage they felt their mates had for themselves. Men can make much better use of polygamy, in that they are not bound by gestation cycles and can sire many more children in nine months than any woman could ever hope for or dread.
The score is 270-1, advantage male. (and could easily be even more lobsided)
Speaking from functionality, monogamy has very little benefit from the male side of the equation, even if you factored in abandonment of offspring by the female due to noncompliance, no worries, he can just pump out a few hundred more. Thankfully functionality isn't the whole equation eh?
But there was a time when there wasn’t a welfare system and men needed to be around to ensure the survival of such offspring. Not many would have survived.
Throughout history men have ruled. In most parts of the world polygamy is illegal. So, why did the men let this happen? You can’t really explain it away as a compromise between males and females, when it was men who were in charge. A poor man wouldn’t think that polygamy was such a good idea, if he was competing with rich, charming, and rugged men, who could have many wives. China is going through this, right now, with their shortage of brides. The men are working hard, and saving as much as they can, in order to compete for a mate. I don’t think they would vote for polygamy, do you?
Anyhow, monogamy is a topic all on its own.
I’m an unapologetic atheist. I was addressing the so called good atheists, the humanistic types, who are continually criticizing atheists. The ones who think we are condescending, but in the same breath, say “Oh no, we don’t believe in God. We are too smart for that.” You know, like Chris Mooney or Eugenie Scott.
