Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#138803 02/07/05 07:46 PM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
tsuwm Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
it is often asked, "What is the opposite[sic] of misogyny?". (it's been asked here at least twice)

here's what wikipedia has, and it's quite evenly balanced, in a biased manner.
http://www.answers.com/topic/misandry

note: I got this through answers.com; I hope the link works for everyone else. if not, I can redirect from wikipedia.


#138804 02/07/05 07:57 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Just as polyandry is the distaff equivalent of polygamy. But I have never seen biandry.

It's interesting that certain religions tolerate or even venerate polygamy, but I've never heard of one that allows polyandry. Could it be that those religions are male-dominated? I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!



TEd
#138805 02/07/05 09:40 PM
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
B
addict
Offline
addict
B
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
I understand that Tibetan Buddhism accepted both polyandry and polygamy, as well as at least one sect of married monks / nuns.

Also that the polyandry was normally one woman marrying a number of brothers. Not sure if the reverse was true for polygamy.

I have always assumed that this acceptance was tied into social conditions. A massive percentage of the population was dedicated to monasteries by its parents - monasteries had stores of food and large communal lands and herds which meant they were much more able to look after a number of children than any one family. Most monks and nuns being celibate meant that you could keep the overall population down. Some being allowed to marry gave a degree of generous forgiveness to the human weakness in us all. And those polyandrous arrangements outside the monasteries kept the family holding in one shared lump, whereas medieval English hereditary division left everyone with a too-small share so they could all starve together! Not a recipe for social harmony!

...come to think of it, sibling-based polyandry fits nicely into Darwinian genetic 'altruism' (as per Richard Dawkins' books) as a population-control method. It limits the number of children 2-5 brothers can bear to the offspring of one woman, but still gives them all a guaranteed stake in raising and caring for those children. Consider brother Albert. If the children are his, they have half his genes. Worth investing in their future to protect his genes. But if they are not his, they are his brother Bert's (or Cuthbert's, or Dilbert's). In which case, since Bert (or Cuthbert, or Dilbert) shares half his genes with Albert (yeah, I know, not guaranteed, but on average and that's the way Dawkins calculates it), the children have one quarter of his genes. So still worth Albert protecting them and their future.
So genetically, from a male point of view, polygamy works if you have lots of resources and can support more than one woman and her child-bearing capacity. Sibling-based polyandry works if resources are scarce and you will need to club together to support even one woman and her child-bearing capacity. From the female point of view, the choice is between one very well-resourced male - but you might have to share him - and a pool of more less well-resourced male.

I guess biandry doesn't give enough advantage in most situations to be worth it for the woman? The worst of both choices rather than the best?

...none of this is meant to offend anyone' religious / ethical / egalitarian / feminist / masculist principles, by the way. I just happen to think Dawkins does great analysis of how our genes drive us to achieve their goal, and I'd never thought of applying it to polyandry before. As far as I'm concerned, live how you like, just try not to judge anyone else or destroy their lives...


#138806 02/07/05 10:55 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
polyandry is the distaff equivalent of polygamy

Polygamy is the gender neutral term; the thing that polyandry is the distaff equivalent of is polygyny.


#138807 02/08/05 02:57 AM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 176
When I was younger, I dated Miss Andry for a while. Which, in and of itself, wouldn't have been so bad except that I was on the rebound from dating Madame Bovary. A monk’s life really didn’t look so bad after that.


#138808 05/21/05 06:55 AM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4
L
stranger
Offline
stranger
L
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 4
Bridget, I love you.
I was on another list and wondered if the term "biandry" was correct, or if I had just made it up (well I did, really - just substituted "andry" for "gamy"). Did a google search and came upon this site. Read your entry and promptly signed up. You are a truly a woman after my own heart. Email me anytime or visit ENTP @ yahoo groups to read my latest diatribe. We are in need of an infusion of intellect of your caliber (regardless of your Myers-Briggs category)...;-)

Cheers!
-Megan

P.S. No offense to anyone else on this list. I just haven't gotten around to reading the reat of the thread yet!


#138809 05/22/05 11:57 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 114
C
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 114
P.S. No offense to anyone else on this list. I just haven't gotten around to reading the reat of the thread yet!

No offence taken, lalibertine. You've got the pick of the litter in Bridget - a credit to your own judgment, however hasty!

Pray, don't keep Bridget away too long or we'll have nothing left to attract the likes of you again.




#138810 05/23/05 12:14 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Who's this "we" you're speaking for?


#138811 05/23/05 12:20 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 114
C
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 114
Who's this "we" you're speaking for?

"We" doesn't include me because I can't assure lalibertine that I'll be around if and when lalibertine returns.

Alas, we may have seen the last of Bridget. As they say, "It's hard to keep them down on the farm once they have seen Paree."


#138812 05/23/05 12:34 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Who's this "we" you're speaking for?

Pluralis majestatis?

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/index.php/Pluralis_Majestatis



Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,580
Members9,187
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Karin, JeffMackwood, artguitar, Jim_W, Rdbuffalo
9,187 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 332 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
wofahulicodoc 10,713
tsuwm 10,542
LukeJavan8 9,931
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5