Asking this as a Qatari with a polygamous father. My father’s second wife is Swedish and I know it was a tough pill to swallow for her family and friends back home.
Because somebody always gets the short end of the stick
I’m fine with it if women are allowed to be polygamous as well.
Why is polyandry so frowned upon in Quatar?
Would you want to share a wife with other men?
Most instances of middle eastern polygamy have a heavy element of materialism to them. The women mostly agree because it gives them a higher standard of living, not because they like the concept.
People of Sweden have a relatively high living standard as a baseline so when your father’s second wife decided to do this it was like giving up ‘real’ partnership for some fancy hand bags.
Some people do. If they’re not harming anyone, who the fuck cares what their relationships look like.
First, the simple answer is religion, Christianity (the primary religion of the west) mostly rejected the idea in the middle ages which means that culturally most of the west grew up seeing it only as a practice engaged in by groups that aren’t “us” Even those of us who aren’t religious are still impacted by religious imprints on cultural norms for the area.
The actual reason?
The gender balance at birth is generally close to 50/50, I think it’s closer to 51/49 but it’s close enough that it doesn’t matter. If one man takes two or more wives, it means there will not be enough women for every other man to also find a wife.
When a lot of these cultural norms were set, the gender ratios in specific regions were often completely skewed by wars and other deaths related to fighting, most of which happened in men. This left more women than men.
The other significant factor was that women used to die in childbirth, a lot, so having multiple wives was almost an insurance policy to make sure you still had a wife after a few years.
As death from injuries/war and childbirth decreased it has become less of a practical arrangement and there’s little reason to switch away from monogamy to polygamy given that it’s the current cultural norm anyways.
That being said, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with polygamy myself it as long as all parties are informed and consenting.
Unfortunately a lot of the groups that still practice polygamy often do not educate women, do not provide paths for them to succeed independently, or even outright control them as property.
The gender balance at birth is generally close to 50/50, I think it’s closer to 51/49 but it’s close enough that it doesn’t matter. If one man takes two or more wives, it means there will not be enough women for every other man to also find a wife.
Setting aside the wider point, I’m pretty sure that’s not true, because to have multiple wives you have to be able to provide for multiple wives and multiple sets of children. I’d guess the percentage of men who can do that is small enough in most if not all places to not have an effect on the wider population.
This is true. Each wife is entitled to her own house, car, allowance, etc. They have to be treated equally; at least that’s how it is in Islam. For example, my mom and father’s other wife don’t even interact that much except for communal family events and holidays for example.
Because polygamy inside an unequal society like capitalism and monarchies is a form of control and power and most people inherently reject allowing others to have such power if they can help it.
For religious people - because Christianity allows only one spouse.
For non-religious it has a bad reputation due to the way it used to be practiced in the Arab world (and elsewhere) where it’s not symmetrical - a husband is allowed multiple wives but a wife is not allowed multiple husbands.Lately there has been a rise in acceptance of polyamory - understanding that people may have multiple partners at the same time, and this should be accepted.
Everyone’s citing Christianity, but that’s not completely accurate—monogamy isn’t really promoted in the New Testament outside of the letters of the apostles, who were trying to promote Christianity to a Roman audience. The church enforced monogamy through the Middle Ages, but it was originally adopted from the Romans.
As for why the Romans practiced it, there are several theories—for one, Roman women had relatively higher status than women in most Middle Eastern cultures; another theory is that the prospect of marriage for more men made Roman armies more effective.
Also, being a slaver society, if you wanted a side-chick as a middle class roman, you just bought one, and since the kids from those slaves were not able to inherit, the wives basically let it slide (although I am unsure how much fight they put up verbally. Letting husbands have a servant for “entertainment” as well as domestic chores were not unheard of even by the victorians)
Because it’s primarily a way for (old) societies to foster a war-ready populace. If most women are taken by just a select few men who can afford to, that leaves tons of young males without a mate and prospect of a family.
Those are absolutely prime candidates for the military. So if you know your ideology has a stranglehold on the culture, this is how you generate “unlimited” soldiers for your cause.
Are you trying to describe monogamous societies or polygamous ones?
OP is asking why Western societies frown on polygamy, but you respond by talking about the strategic value of having more readily available cannon fodder - I assume in polygamous cultures, because that’s the only thing that makes sense. A monogamous society, assuming relatively equal M/F birth rates, would have LESS available available military men, by your own description.
I’m not sure how that answers OPs question unless you’re saying that Western societies frown on polygamy because it was SEEN as just a tactic to raise armies?
Polygamy is oppression, as the women don’t have a choice or agency in the relationship.
Polyamory, however, when done ethically, means all parties consent and can leave or modify their relationship with their partner.
Why are women so frowned upon in your country?
Because nobody wants to be second fiddle.
Ignoring the sexist reasoning behind polygamy, there are practical ones too.
I have one dick.
Its risky to have sex with multiple partners. The more partners, the more that risk of STIs increases.
The amount of intimacy (not sex, intimacy) a spouse gets with a partner decreases the more spouses one has. At some point “starvation of intimacy” will occur, leading to a breakdown in the relationship.
Because Christianity. That’s really it
Except for some extreme forms of Mormonism of course
Historically, most forms of polygamy are very misogynistic. It’s not just because of Christianity, it’s more due to how it was implemented.
It is absolutely possible to have a great polygamous relationship, but especially recent history has been filled with examples of it being used as a way to subjugate, not free people.
Are your dads wives allowed to have more than one husband? There’s your answer.
I want OP to answer this, even though i know the answer.
They said “No.”
Thanks!
No.
Guess that would be a too big pill to swallow eh?
It boils down to misogyny.
So why do you feel that it’s ok for your dad to have multiple wives, but not for his wives to have multiple husbands? Curious.
deleted by creator
