>Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.
-Engels, The Origin of the Family
What did he mean by this?
Monogamous marriage is a cornerstone of human society and there is literally nothing wrong with a patriarchy, in fact it is desirable.
>>1195183
Virgin detected.
>>1195188
Cuck detected.
>>1195178
>it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period
how does he know?
monogamy seems reasonable from a evolutionary perspective, and there are examples in the animal world. i don't see why it has to mean a "first class oppression of the female sex by the male" in our particular species
>>1195208
Monogamy in the western world came about as a result of the fall of polygamy which was quite literally oppressive to women rather than just Marxist meme """"""oppression""""".
>>1195178
>What did he mean by this?
To proprely enslave the woman, you have make sure she is the second class citizen of her own household.
The most efficient way to accomplish this is reinstating polygamy, because in polygamy she not only is the second class citizen, she does not even have a claim over the household, the household isn't "hers", she lives in her master's, for as long as he is pleased with her.
Of course, the enslavement is most evident and effective when there is a hierarchy of wives in place, and she's at the very bottom, the most disposable and most frequently subject to divorce. She can be a third, fourth, fifth class citizen, then.
The goal is to convince her that being one out of many wives is liberation, and being the only possible one until death or divorce is oppression, so she can become the advocate of her own enslavement, no longer THE wife but A SECOND wife.
Such tactics rely on the assumption that women are fundamentally stupid, and cannot perceive there might be a trap in restoring or introducing a third world country practice in Latin-alphabet-using ones - countries that forsook it, and that are significantly ahead in the field of women's rights.
>>1195203
>Cuck
Literally everyone who uses this term remotely unironically is beta as can be
how do you guys deceive yourselves so much lmao
from an evolutionary standpoint isn't the harem system king? call me a retard on this don't you want the best or just better men to pass on their genes? this is assuming a lot on my part but strength speed resistance intelligence heck maybe even beauty are almost universally agreed upon(by the intellectual elite) that better is just better.
women can still choose monogamous men though arguably those will be the weaker specimen.
>>1195277
The harem system is an emergency measure at best, given the potential for inbreeding. An interesting thing about humans is that in poor living conditions, people will give birth to around the same number of girls as boys, while in conditions of plenty couples are actually more likely to give birth to a boy than a girl. The idea is that boys are far more likely to end up dying before they can reproduce, so a 50/50 split at birth would turn into a female majority by the time people have kids. In famine conditions or similar, it's better to have more girls than boys because of the harem strategy, but in times of plenty, there are more boys born so that 50/50 parity can be achieved later in life.
This means that, biologically, the default standard of human reproduction is monogamy. Multiple female partners are essentially a last-ditch survival strategy to get numbers up.
He's not entirely wrong, but monogamy is not inherently oppressive, either. Present day western marriages are considered equal partnerships, and that seems to work fine.
>>1195325
USA marriages have a 50% divorce rate. I wouldn't call that 'working fine'
>>1195334
Yeah. Marriages nowadays are just not that great.
People go with the wrong expectations and priorities and end up hurting themselves because of it.
They think that marriage is about romantic love and sexual pleasure. Then, when romantic love cools down, they ended up thinking that there is no reason to keeping married (since for them, it is all about romance and sex) and they divorce.
I wonder when people started having this idiotic idea about what marriage is for.
>>1195349
[spoiler]hollywood[/spoiler]
>>1195178
It's Engels trying to justify his affair using dialectical materialism.
>>1195334
>USA marriages have a 50% divorce rate. I wouldn't call that 'working fine'
I would. The ability to end bad marriages makes the average marriage better. And the divorce rate is steadily declining, btw, as marriages become more equal.
Also, keep in mind that stat doesn't mean 50% of married people get divorced - most do not, but a small minority get several divorces.
>>1195369
If 50% of marriages are working bad enough that people divorce, they are not working fine.
>>1195334
That's a misleading statistic though
It's mostly just the same few people getting divorced multiple times
Most marriages do fine in the US
>>1195374
I already said why that's not true.
>>1195374
That 50% is made up of people who have already divorced that later remarried. That group of people tend to not only marry multiple times, but consequently divorce multiple times.
Reminder that the divorce rate in the U.S. peaked in 1980 and has been getting lower ever since. Only about 1/3 of marriages that began in the 2000s are expected to end in divorce. And if you take out serial divorcers and people who get married as teenagers, it's far lower than that.
>>1195277
You're disregarding certain factors.
>A society has 10,000 males and 10,000 females.
>It enforces monogamy.
>Every man who wants a wife, will thus have one available for him to take.
>Now, assume the society allows polygamy.
>The top 10 men will take 15 wives each. The 100 next best men will take 5 wives each. The 1000 next next best men will take 2 wives each, etc.
>Thus there will be a large group of low-status men in society, who want a wife, but can't have one, because there simply aren't any available.
>Those men will cause massive civil unrest, possibly scheme and plot together to kill the high status men.
>The high status men will realize this and seek to kill the low status men
>Queue massive war, until someone decides that enough is enough, and that we should instate monogamy.
>>1195446
historical examples? you're praxxing here.
>>1195451
praxxing? I'm just using logic. A polygamous society has to be fine with having a large amount of men who don't take wives. It's simple math, because in any society there are roughly 50% males 50% females (slightly more females i believe).
>>1195454
tell me when in history where a harem system was overthrown by upset 'betas'. I agree with your logic but I feel we're missing something here.
>>1195458
Isn't that the Middle East?
>>1195458
Well, the nation with the harem system in place could also go conquer some other nation i guess, and take their wives. Maybe that would explain a correlation between Islam's violent occupational tendencies, and their polygamy.
>>1195451
I don't think there's ever been a harem society that wasn't fuelled by slaves and captives so I think his speculation is allowed, given the lack of historical examples.
>>1195466
>>1195469
so you're telling me it could work.
>>1195474
In the modern global society? Anon, just look at any place in the world right now that has polygamy. Are they places you want to live in?
>>1195476
Up to 4 in Sweden. In UK only first marriage is legally recognized but you can still add more.
I think there might be a misunderstanding in the terms here.
Monogamy means being married to one person.
It implies, and that was obvious for a long period of time In Europe, that you can't divorce when you want and marry another person.
When you can, it's no longer monogamy, it's serial polygamy.
So monogamy in this sense was not a common practice before the development of society, and it is not a common practice now : as people, even if they end up not using it (and that's a minority), are assuming that they have the right not to wait till death do them part.
>>1195546
That and socially imposed monogamy doesn't always preclude mistresses, concubines, slaves, servants, and prostitutes.
>>1195566
so if harems practically in all but name existed for powerful men where is the beta uprising the other anon is praxxing about?
>>1195579
I wouldn't know. Sexual inequality seem to me to be a consequence of social inequality, and it's usually social inequality that gets attacked which then leads into less sexual inequality. I'm thinking of early Greek kingdoms which seemed very economically stratified versus their collapse and restructuring into the later polis, where serial monogamy seems to have taken hold.
Monogamy vs. polygamy to me doesn't have much to do with the subjugation of women by men. Both systems are capable of it, Rather it seems the issue was inequality between men, likely during a period of low prosperity.
Once economic prosperity, and disparity, returned to Greece of course, polygamy returns in a roundabout way to circumvent established monogamy laws: foreign slave concubinage
>>1195484
>Up to 4 in Sweden
Only if you were married abroad. You can't marry a second wife in Sweden.
>>1195579
Because for most of our history we've had prostitutes regularly available for the average man.
>>1195243
>believing the alpha/beta meme
>using "virgin" as an insult
>>1195178
But that's kinda wrong. Monogamous marriage throughout history has benefit women by making them more valuable, and in Christian society especially because getting a divorce was not that simple. In a male dominated society, monogamous marriage has no benefits for men.
>>1195495
Funny, it's almost as if there is a correlation between the practice of polygamy and how developed a nations is.
>>1195178
He is a cuck and wants his gf(or rather his faggot lover) to cheat on him
>>1195178
Why do all failed cultures and societies have non-monogamy in common. The correlation is literally a causation.
How do you cucks explain this?
>>1195277
Your view on evolution is simplistic. There is no singular 'best', evolutionary speaking. It depends on context, both the natural and cultural. A male that is strong and violent might still die before reproducing offspring due to some genetic defect resulting in a rare disease. A physically weak but smart male might aquire wealth and status over time and attract women that way. There is no single tactic to find a mate.
A good man that gives all his resources to one women and gifts her with multiple children, might be a better bet evolutionary speaking for a women. Powerful leaders have a certain appeal, but powerful leaders also have the chance to be erradicated by revolt. Very often the wife and children will be killed too. Look at Saddam and his children.
Physical strenghts is outcompeted by the invention of guns. Intelligence will flourish better in a cultural context that is reasonably stable and safe.
Also, evolutionary success doesn't equal a just society or even a good life for the evolutionary fit individual. Some drugdealer that impregnates 10 different teenagers before he gets gunned down by the competition or a cop at the ripe age of 19 has a high fitness evolutionary speaking, but he had a shit life according to most. Some good looking rich guy that had a life most of humanity could only dream off that dies childless has a fitness of zero.
Evolution has no purpose, it's like a river streaming towards the sea. It just happens.
>>1195446
why do you assume that it would be males having several females and not the other way around you male chauvinistc pig
>>1195446
>>1195451
Except that this is literally how hunter-gatherers evolved from poly to monogamous relationships and thus evolved and established civilization itself. Because the members of the tribe were sick of the chief getting all the women while they didn't get shit, and raiding other tribes could only get you so much.
>>1195369
When you say, "bad marriages," do you mean stuff like abuse? Okay. If you mean "irreconcilable differences", that's really shoddy grounds for breaking up a family.
>>1195614
No. They weren't available when the average man was a slave, neither when he was a serf. They only became available to the "average man" when the average man started to have a significant disposable income.
>>1196886
But this is wrong. There are no examples of hunter-gatherer or nomadic tribes whose members revolted against polygamy and instituted monogamy. What happened was that agriculture was more sustainable with a monogamous work force, and so free-choice polygamy where women flocked to men with the most resources was then done away with by early agrarian kings and nobility (who still maintained harems), in order to sustain a working agricultural population. Later on these kings were overthrown and a more equal citizen-polity was set up, finally doing away with free-choice polygamy but now promoting concubine slavery for the upper classes.
>>1195178
It means Engels thought men could bear children obviously
>>1195178
Wasn't one man having multiple wives the norm in places that didn't (and some still don't) enforce monogamy, though? I'm having trouble understanding how that's less oppressive to women than monogamy.
>>1195178
protip: neither marx nor engels were historians or anthropologists
they were full of shit
>>1197415
Anthropology is a junk discipline. Marx and Engels historical writings conform to Ranke's criteria.
>>1195474
>implying you're not on the bottom rung to women
>>1195484
>unironically wanting to live in Sweden
>>1197415
Engel's work on private property and the family is lifted almost verbatim from Lewis H. Morgan, one of the most influential Victorian anthropologists.
>>1195183
Then why isn't Korea, the most patriarchal society historically, the most succesful one?
>>1197415
Neither are you.
>wealthiest males have harems along with 'official' wives and families
>general population is monogamous
>abject losers can't find partners and die alone
Best of both worlds. Top-tier genetics pass into the general population via bastard offspring, country has a strong foundation of nuclear families, deficient germ lines are removed.
>>1195458
>tell me when in history where a harem system was overthrown by upset 'betas'.
It wouldn't be, because the harems would be only for the people in power, i.e the monopoly of violence, who had both the power and resources to stamp out any contenders or mischief makers.
I think people just need to realize that sex, reproduction and relationship function EXACTLY the capitalist economy.
Some people will have 5000 casual sex partners over the course of their lives, some will have 100, and some will have 15, and others will have zero, exactly like some people rich like Donald Trump, and many people are destitute Untouchables in India.
>>1195277
Evolutionary speaking, I want to pass on my genes weather I'm at the top of the pyramid or not.
>>1195870
That's a very bold claim.
By the way are we including the concept of Mistresses or Concubines as an act of Polygamy?
>>1195178
>I am basing my views on none historical assumptions which themselves are based on my own personal abstractions - but I am going to frame these views in a historical manner
Fuck off - I can't stand 'social architects' of this sort.
>>1195446
This wouldn't actually happen, because the relationships would be A) be temporary, and B) 'le worlds oldest profession' would arise.
In reality desperate men don't mind being Cucks, as shown by OP's pic.
>>1200088
the orthodox conversion of the slavic pagans.
beta monks convinced pagans with huge harems to give up said harems in favour of monogamy in favour of christianity
>rulers would rather fuck one posh princess than a hundred hot slaves
that said, getting rid of harems also gets rid of succession disputes and wars if you have a decent succession system that everyone buys into. latifundia is more efficient than minifundia.
>>1196910
>>neither when he was a serf
You're forgetting something about middle age society, everyone got married when they were reasonably young.
>>They only became available to the "average man" when the average man started to have a significant disposable income.
You realize that depending on how you define this it can cover a stupidly long frame of time and a large number of places yeah?
>>1200060
>abject losers can't find partners and die alone
So betas who want to murder higer status men and then enslave/rape their wives have nothing to lose?
test.
>>1200060
>abject losers can't find partners and die alone
No. Excess males usually fall into prostitution, pedophilia, homosexual and rape sub-cultures. They also usually become more violent both in competition for women and display. Polymogamous society always have excess males with little interest in the status quo who easily fall into violent sub-cultures whether it be banditry, piracy, mercenary work, extremist sect, etc.
The western monogamy model made everyone have some invested interest in the status quo. It was very efficient but only workable with per-industrial economic models. Its been collapsing for decades now.
>>1203517
>So betas who want to murder higer status men and then enslave/rape their wives have nothing to lose?
they're betas. protip: they can't.
>>1195178
He meant he was a commie kike that should be completely ignored.
>>1195233
Get out. Go back to tumblr.
>>1203517
>So betas who want to murder higer status men and then enslave/rape their wives have nothing to lose?
they're betas. protip: they can't.
>>1195466
Most muslims are monogamous. It's only less than one percent and usually arab muslims with multiple wives. You're supposed to be able to treat all your wives equally(which obviously even Muhammad couldn't do, as he favoured Aisha)
T. Ex muslim
>>1204782
Aren't you allowed only three wives anyways unless you're royalty or a preacher or some such loophole?
>>1195178
>What did he mean by this?
Leftists are insane.
>>1204792
My Islam/Quran teacher(back when I was like 11) told us that only Muhammad was worthy of having 8 wives. You can have up to 4 if you can treat them all EQUALLY. Otherwise you can only have 1.
>>1195325
We cab assume that even in medieval times women had a word to say in the household.
When you jave to work with your wife together with only your kids as helping hands>>1195334
in order not to starve you may part your roles but will in the end not treat her as a slave due to the mutual dependence.
I once heard that while greek rural dwellers agree on a very patriarchial system were women do most of the work at home and generally act as a houseservant they are in charge of the finances which is a big concession of power.
