Two reasons besides patrilocality that males might be more valuable: Heavy labor it takes a lot of muscle mass - especially upper body muscle mass - to do. Nonmechanized warfare, ditto.
So you want sons to push the ox-plow and sons to wield a sword. "Never judge a book by its movie." http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:48:11 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Re: Polygamy > > hkhenson wrote: > > At 01:00 PM 2/4/2008, Alberto wrote: > > > >> Keith Henson wrote: > >>> Considering that polygamy is the norm for the vast majority of the > >>> cultures in the world, it's an interesting question how the western > >>> countries, and a few others, became monogamous. It seems to be > >>> associated with settled agriculture but I don't know if there is a > >>> connection or why. > >>> > >> I would guess that it's peace that doomed polygamy. There can't > >> be polygamy unless there's more women than men, otherwise > >> the men without women will revolt. > > > > This does not square with field anthropology. Polygamy is well known > > in cultures where female infanticide and distorted sex ratios are prevalent. > > > > "Polygamy greatly exacerbated women's scarcity and direct and > > indirect male competition and conflict over them. Indeed, a > > cross-cultural study (Otterbein 1994: 103) has found polygamy to be > ... > > Sorry to shoot down your thoughts. Please try again because I would > > really like to understand it and am clean out of ideas. > > > > Keith > > Keith-- > > Hi. This is interesting. First, just for clarification, do > the studies have direct evidence of female infanticide, or do > they deduce it from the skewed sex ratio? (There is some > evidence that the ratio can be made to vary from the norm > without infanticide. Just checking...) > > The part I have trouble with is why it would be in the parent's > interest to have male children rather than females. In terms of > number of descendants, it seems that females would actually be > a better choice if the sex ratio was skewed. (Pretending that > each female has 3 children, wouldn't it be better on the > average to have a female child which gave 3 grandchildren, > rather than a male child with a 1 in 10 chance of surviving to > have a harem of 5 women, say? Since the male produces > 0.1 * 5 * 3 = 1.5 grandchildren, on average.) > > So the argument would be that the parents are responding to > social forces. For instance, that a female child costs them > for its upbringing, but provides little return on investment, > since she's going to go live with her husband's family anyway? > (i.e. patrilocality) And the parents may even need to provide > a dowry. Whereas grown male children will at least attempt to > pay back their parents, and may even get rich? > (I guess I have classical China in mind, or something.) > > Claiming "social forces" produce this effect doesn't really > address the basic question, though. WHY is this way of > organizing a society stable? In economic terms, a scarcity > of women should make them more valuable. This would put > them (or their parents) in a better bargaining position. > So that instead of paying a dowry, parents gradually wind > up being paid a bride price... > > ---David > > It takes a certain mindset to do this kind of analysis, > doesn't it? : ) > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
