This is a very interesting topic and it is worthy of discussion.
One thing to point out is that women tend not to couple down-status. Combined with the fact that more women are getting degrees than men further reduces the pool of available males. It isn't clear what impact this will have long term.
> The institution of monogamy is itself a “redistributive” type of policy: like capping the income of billionaires, it caps the total allowed romantic partners of the most attractive, so that unattractive people have much better chances to find a partner.
This seems like an odd take. Monogamy is not dating equity for ugly people, it is a social construct evolved to give children an advantage over the long run. One of the biggest barriers you could have to over come is to come from a single parent home. There is copious data on this topic.
On your last point, i would also argue that monogamy is a stabilizing agent in society, imagine how many wars would break out if the majority of the men didn't find partners.
Agreed. There is copious data, and substantial circumstantial evidence, that points to the fact that children who come from a single-parent (specifically single-mother) household encounter overwhelming obstacles in nearly every area of life.
Anyone (yes, anyone) who attempts to advance the idea of eradicating monogamy is flirting with madness.
I'm curious why you and OP are equating "not monogamy" with "single-parent?" What about polygamy? Or even non-married but still-committed group partnerships?
I'm certainly not suggesting to eradicate monogamy and replace it with these, and it wouldn't make sense to say any one of these is holistically better than the others, but if we're focusing on just the "what's best for kids" angle... wouldn't it be better if kids had _more_ parents/very close adult relatives? More people in their life they can rely on for attention, advice, care, etc.?
Even in this super-rare case where one father lives with multiple wives, the attention/resources of the father is still divided among even more children. Also, the wives usually view the other children as competitors. The dynamics of this setup are known from old harems/courts.
On your last point - Well if the most attractive people are unavailable, i guess the rest will mix and match more easily as the biggest distractions are not on the market..
Monogamy isn't just for kids. By ensuring that most men get married, it quells social unrest. In polygamous society, one man gets more women, which causes jealousy, and ultimately social unrest when inequality gets too high. Men without partners are a recipe for societal disaster.
> it is a social construct evolved to give children an advantage over the long run
Child-rearing is only a small part of it.
In one of two competing communities, 90% of men are invested in the next generation. In the other community, only 20% of men are invested. Which community is more safe, productive, advanced?
We're only a few generations away from multiple (3+) generations living under the same roof. I suspect with the rate that real estate prices and raw materials are increasing compared to the wages paid to laborers, it won't be but another generation or two before we're back in the same situation. Adult guidance is probably the most important thing, here, not necessarily a specific 2 parent household.
The dating economy is quite painful, and there likely is inequality of attraction, but the author does make an incorrect usage of their own evidence.
"If these findings are to be believed, the great majority of women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men while most men are willing to communicate romantically with most women. The degree of inequality in “likes” and “matches” credibly measures the degree of inequality in attractiveness, and necessarily implies at least that degree of inequality in romantic experiences. It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true."
The 'like' #s that the author quoted and Gini coefficient measured outgoing likes, not incoming likes / total matches. So for Hinge at least, the takeaway isn't that "women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men" but that they are willing to initiate a conversation with only a small number of men.
Likewise for the OKCupid blog post the author used as evidence, the blog post demonstrated that women viewed only a small fraction of men as highly attractive, but also showed that women still responded to and and went on dates with men they ranked as not as attractive. The latter the author of this piece ignored.
13 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 37.6 ms ] threadOne thing to point out is that women tend not to couple down-status. Combined with the fact that more women are getting degrees than men further reduces the pool of available males. It isn't clear what impact this will have long term.
> The institution of monogamy is itself a “redistributive” type of policy: like capping the income of billionaires, it caps the total allowed romantic partners of the most attractive, so that unattractive people have much better chances to find a partner.
This seems like an odd take. Monogamy is not dating equity for ugly people, it is a social construct evolved to give children an advantage over the long run. One of the biggest barriers you could have to over come is to come from a single parent home. There is copious data on this topic.
Anyone (yes, anyone) who attempts to advance the idea of eradicating monogamy is flirting with madness.
I'm certainly not suggesting to eradicate monogamy and replace it with these, and it wouldn't make sense to say any one of these is holistically better than the others, but if we're focusing on just the "what's best for kids" angle... wouldn't it be better if kids had _more_ parents/very close adult relatives? More people in their life they can rely on for attention, advice, care, etc.?
Even in this super-rare case where one father lives with multiple wives, the attention/resources of the father is still divided among even more children. Also, the wives usually view the other children as competitors. The dynamics of this setup are known from old harems/courts.
Or Infidelity...
Child-rearing is only a small part of it.
In one of two competing communities, 90% of men are invested in the next generation. In the other community, only 20% of men are invested. Which community is more safe, productive, advanced?
"If these findings are to be believed, the great majority of women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men while most men are willing to communicate romantically with most women. The degree of inequality in “likes” and “matches” credibly measures the degree of inequality in attractiveness, and necessarily implies at least that degree of inequality in romantic experiences. It seems hard to avoid a basic conclusion: that the majority of women find the majority of men unattractive and not worth engaging with romantically, while the reverse is not true."
The 'like' #s that the author quoted and Gini coefficient measured outgoing likes, not incoming likes / total matches. So for Hinge at least, the takeaway isn't that "women are only willing to communicate romantically with a small minority of men" but that they are willing to initiate a conversation with only a small number of men.
Likewise for the OKCupid blog post the author used as evidence, the blog post demonstrated that women viewed only a small fraction of men as highly attractive, but also showed that women still responded to and and went on dates with men they ranked as not as attractive. The latter the author of this piece ignored.