Talk:Polyandry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polyandry article.
Article policies

Some Wikipedians are assessing interest in a new project dealing with close relationships. Editors of this article may be interested in participating in the project. Please check out the project proposal page and sign up if you are interested in participating.

Contents

[edit] POV

I removed this sentence: "With traditional polyandry, the most common source of friction is rivalry between the fathers and their children for the attention of their wife or mother. This causes tension for the already heavily burdened wife.[citation needed]" The sentence is biased, poorly written ("already heavily burdened wife") and without any reference, does not belong in the entry. Jessica lp (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mormons

Glaring omission here. What about early Mormonism and Mormon fundamentalists? 121.44.7.125 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have Mormons ever practiced polyandry? From my understanding, polygamy is restricted to men having multiple wives. Jessica lp (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is polyandry really so rare?

Isn't it absurd to assume that polyandry is "extremely rare" and has been throughout history, when there are clearly millions of women in our own society who are NOT monogamous? Even if polyandry is technically illegal, it's surely not that uncommon for women to have long-term non-monogamous arrangements. I mean, a substantial percentage of women cheat, have children sired by men not their husbands, etc. I think the author may be pushing a bit of a POV agenda here. -Platypus

Platypus: "cheating" and "non-Monogamous" relationships are not the same as Polyandry. Polyandry is a societal setup which we (Westerners) simply do not nor have ever had regardless of who "fools" around. Polyandry *IS* rare over Earth's history in comparison to Monogamy and Polygyny, mainly due to economic and social reasons. This argument is carried out and widely accepted in anthropolgoy. It's only an "agenda" if you take "agenda" to mean "commonly accepted anthropology." Sonofabird 19:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"we (Westerners) simply do not nor have ever had" Never? Not true, fraternal polyandry existed in the ancient Celts. - 121.73.78.114 (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links / Changes Discussion etc

Is it okay to add informative, stable links specifically related to polyandry here?

surely. seglea 23:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted away from the recent changes by Stevertigo, which took away the short opening para. Without that para, the two distinct fields in which the word is used do not emerge clearly, and the reader (who will only want one of them) is likely to be confused. I've done the same on polygyny. seglea 23:30, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to say that in biology the term polyandry implies an ongoing relationship. It certainly doesn't always mean that. For example, honeybees are said to be polyandrous because a queen typically mates with multiple males, even though mating is the only interaction that they have (the males go off and die, and the queen goes off and makes lots of babies, using stored sperm for those eggs that she fertilizes). Josh Cherry 04:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Can people please use paragraphs? This is very hard to read.

Added - 121.73.78.114 (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polyandry and Partible Paternity

This would seem to be related to partible paternity. I have drafted an article but since it has to be partly speculative (and I say so) I've put it up for the time being http://www.gendys.mcmail.com/partible.htm to save cluttering Wikipedia's server if people don;t like it.

Comments please to thrws@boltblue.com Chevin 12:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polyandry in other mammals

I'm trying to gather info about polyandry in non human primates, with sources. The stuff about new world monkeys- finding sources to document. Anybody else think it's a good idea to add section on polyandry in other primates/mammals/etc? Sorry if the new edit's a little rough...will try and fix. 24.148.69.57 08:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a contradict tag.... This article states that marmosets exhibit polyndry, while that article says the exhibit monogamy. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The marmoset article currently says, "Marmoset mating systems are highly variable and can include monogamy, polygyny and occassionally polyandry." Typo aside, the contradiction has been fixed. 204.111.40.10 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (August 2006)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications.
Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please include more appropriate citations from reliable sources, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since December 2006.

--zandperl 03:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non human great apes

I have a problem with the wording of the 'non human' great apes sentence. It seems to imply that non human great apes all practice polygyny and are highly sexually dimorphic, when gibbons are great apes, are usually monogamous, and are not very dimorphic at all. Do bonobo males and females count in the chimp category here? Are they polygynous?

-Gibbons are lesser apes, not great apes, so this doesn't apply to them. Phoenix Flower 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

-Bonobos mix all sorts of things up and the marriage part of polygamy is probably the thing they do least. They are more matriarchal and probably practice more polyandry than most species expect non-monogamous 154.20.109.121 01:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)rusl

[edit] rant

I removed this:

It must be kept in mind that a Mut`ah relationship (which the majority Sunni's do not practise and deem unlawful) makes a woman neither a wife nor a slave girl of a person, and that the Qur'an specifically restricts sexual relationships of a person to those with his wife and his slave girls only. It should also be noticed that the particular word used by the Qur'an in the referred verse, which is translated as "wives" is "azwaj," plural of "zaujah". In the Arabic language, a woman with whom a person enters into a contract of Mut`ah is called the "Mamtu`ah" of the person, she is not referred to as the "zaujah" (wife) of the person. The verse, therefore, is evidence to the fact that no other relationship besides the one based on Nikah is allowed by Islam.

It is neither accurate nor relevant. --Striver 02:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Table code

I removed the table code that was used to encase the citation notice. It is necessary for a single notice since there is no tabular data, and despite claims to the contrary, I have been unable to determine any browser that is negatively affected by the removal of this code. --Kmsiever 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] even the first sentence is bad

This article is horribly biased and riddled with errors. I think it deserves at least a POV tag. For instance, at the time of this comment, the first sentence reads, "In social anthropology and sociobiology, polyandry (Greek: poly- multi-, andres men) means a female forming a stable sexual union with more than one male." First of all, it ignores the use of the term in ethology. Second, polyandry denotes something very different in cultural anthropology than in sociobiology, and the sociobiological definition is highly controversial within anthropological circles. Third, in anthropology polyandry certainly does not require a "sexual union" ("union" is of course the wrong word, bringing in contemporary Christian connotations). On the contrary, sex is often secondary to marriage, permitting the phenomenon of "woman-marriage." The key fact is often that any child produced by a woman in a marriage is a legitimate child within her particular social context. Cf. for instance McConnell Ginet "Why Defining Marriage is Seldom 'Just Semantics': Marriage and Marriage" in The Language and Sexuality Reader (Cameron and Kulick). Zensufi 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added POV tag

I added a POV tag because this article seemed very biassed, and similar concern was expressed on the talk page.
There are a lot of weasel words (and even weasel lists) in here. This article reads like it's trying to advocate polyandry, rather than explain it. The reader does not need a link to every polyandrous species.
(What is "reverse sexual dimorphism"?)
-Haikon 11:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't have feeling that the article is advocating polyandry. I think that when the phenomenon exists it is necessary to explain the conditions when it is likely to exist. This is not the same as saying that under these specific conditions polyandry is better than other mating systems. Reverse sexual dimorphism - in this context - means that females are bigger than males. In mammals (including humans) males are (on average) bigger than females. So if in any mammal species females are (on average) bigger the dimorphism would be "reverse". But I agree that it can be misleading, because in most earth's species (most invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles) females are usually bigger. So we can say that mammals' and birds' sexual dimorphism is "reverse". Maybe it needs clarification in the article. I'll do this. Jasra 21:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


The comments above already declare that the article is biased, but I couldn't help but copy here the line that I found to be the most biased, and even argumentative: "With particular regard to the supposed failure rate of polyandry (and polygamy in general), it is important to note that there are high rates of infidelity and divorce in 'monogamous' societies, so that it is possible to argue that polyandry is not somehow uniquely unworkable." Here the use of the word "supposed," understood to be synonymous with "purported" in this context, creates a biased argument in and of itself. Putting "monogamous" in quotes is done mockingly or cynically, with a sense of irony intended. The author contrasts the rule of one system with the flaws of another, and implies that polyanthry is immune to infidelity and divorce.

The bottom line is that over one third of the section dealing with the controversy of polyanthry is dedicated to its defense. - Andrew (no user name) 7/15/07 6am

[edit] gay group marriage

Is marriage between 3 or more men really excluded from the definition of polyandry? wordreference says "more than one simultaneous husband."Brinerustle 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  Eh.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.253.178 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

There are currently 8 articles on polygamy: Group marriage, Polyfidelity, Polygamy, Plural marriage, Polygyny, Polyandry, Fraternal polyandry, Sororal polygyny, I think we could merge at least the last two.Brinerustle 01:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • You forgot Polygynandry, which is now a bio stub, but needs expansion for its anthropological use, e.g. in Tibet, as repoerted by Melvyn Goldstein or Nancy Levine or Ben Jiao. And, I suppose, Polyandry in Tibet makes it a round 10. Actually, that last one already describes to some extent fraternal polyandry generically (as it is the main variant in the region) and Sororal polygyny as well as Bigenerational polyandry and Bigenerational polygyny. The thing about Polygynandry is that, in human terms, it is a synonym used by anthropologists for Group marriage, as well as an analogous term in ecology for persistent couplings, but no biologist will be caught dead talking about group marriage in spiders or ducks, so that the thematic range of the two terms is not one-on-one and onto :), and we wan't just redirect one to the other. --Mareklug talk 13:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • P.s. And I forgot about Promiscuity, which ecologically completes teh spectrum for Monogamy, Polyandry, Polygyny and Polygynandry, but does not have the same neat grouping in anthropology or for that matter any human discussion of Marriage. So, in sum, I'm not sure combining holds much promise, with the same word having different applications, discipline depending. --Mareklug talk 14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue has been resolved, as several of these articles have been combined already. --Gimme danger (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ants and other insects

Couldn't ants be classified as polyandrous? I think examples like queen ants and queen bees are more accessible to laypeople (like me) than marmosets, Agile frogs, and polecats. ("Queen bee" is a fairly common household cliché--in the US, at least. i think bees are mentioned only twice in the article the way it is.) does anyone else have an opinion about this?--Jmjanzen (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)