Polygyny and why male live shorter

Take the life expectancy statistics of any species. For most species, including human, female live longer than male. Among many theories, my favorite one (at least for human) is "male is the defect version of female." Remember that male have the XY chromosome, while female have XX. The Y chromosome is a 'mutated' version of the X - means that boys are by nature mutants (the 'defect' version of girls). That makes boys are more prone to death, which explains the higher rate of postnatal mortality rate.

A new research, cited in this article, offers another perspective: polygynous practice leads to shorter male life expectancy . According to the article:

In 16 of the 19 polygynous species in their sample, males of all ages were much more likely to die during any given period than were females. Furthermore, the older they got, the bigger the mortality gap became. In other words, they aged faster. Males from monogamous species did not show these patterns.

The point about polygyny, according to Dr Clutton-Brock, is that if one male has exclusive access to, say, ten females, another nine males will be waiting to topple the harem master as soon as he shows the first sign of weakness. The intense competitive pressure means that individuals who succeed put all their efforts into one or two breeding seasons.

The implication for human is:

Dr Clutton-Brock reckons that the sex difference in both human rates of ageing and in the usual age of death is an indicator that polygyny was the rule in humanity's evolutionary past—as it still is, in some places.

Well, at least it adds to the debate on the good and bad side of polygyny.

Polygamy, again

I agree with Aco. That is, I don't disagree with the practice of polygamy.

What concerns me more is the fact that the President (and that means, representing the State) needs to have a say on this. It is amazing that SBY can't say a word on a lot of things he is supposed to be decisive, yet he quickly reacts to private matters like this. In today's paper (linked later) it is reported, SBY wants people not to make a big deal out of this polygamy thingy. Well, you, a president, should not make a big deal out of it.

Polygamy is not and never supposed to be the State's business. Managing taxpayers money well is.

Polygamy

Polygamy

Having seen an interesting movie, Berbagi Suami (sharing one husband), below I list some interesting discussions on polygamy.

But first off, let's clarify some terms. Many people (including that movie) think "polygamy" as "a family with one husband and more than one wives". That's inaccurate; the social construction of male superiority should be held responsible for this fallacy. Polygamy is a gender neutral term. It means marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously (more on the epistome here). So, when a man has two or more wives, we call that polygyny. If a woman has two or more husbands that's polyandry. The movie Berbagi Suami is a story (three stories, actually) about polygyny (you with HBO, think about Big Love).

University of Michigan's Ted Bergstrom has an interesting paper on polyginy. Borrowing an approach used by evolutionary biologists, he concludes:

A society that allows polygamy and stable property rights will usually have positive bride prices and some polygynous marriages. In such a society, bride prices will go not to the bride, but to her male relatives and all women be allocated the same amount of resources by their husbands. The greater the amount of material resources available per woman in the society, the higher will be bride prices and the greater the amount of resources allocated to each woman. However, in societies with sufficiently low amounts of resources per woman, instead of positive bride prices there will be dowries, which unlike bridewealth, are paid directly to the newly married couple. In such a society dowries will be of approximately the same size as the inheritance of males who marry.

In plain words, Bergstrom is saying that polygyny is likely to increase the "value" of women. Isn't that a good thing, ladies?

Here's more on the debate with econ points of view: Gary Becker (women better off in polyginous society), Tyler Cowen (polygamy makes children worse off), Alex Tabarrok (polygyny good for working women), David Friedman (polygyny good for women, polyandry good for men), Tim Harford (it's just a math), and Robert Frank (the victims of polygyny are men, not women).

So, now. Where do I stand on this polygamy thing? I don't disagree with it. Hm, will I do it? No. Why? Because I don't believe I can be equally fair and just to the wives. I, for one, don't like to be ill-treated. And it's always two-way direction.

Everyday Choices