By any chance, have you read Steven E. Landsburg’s The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life? Well, if you haven’t, you should!
In fact, sometimes I can’t help but wonder what would happen if by some happy happenstance some of the books were to reach members of the Muslim Personal Law Board who have been fighting hard to keep polygamy legal in a country that is increasingly demanding for a Uniform Civil Code and a ban on the practice of polygamy within the Muslim community?!? Well, to be perfectly honest with you, I can almost picture them (the Muslim clerics, that is) sniggering and walking into the Supreme Court…with Landsburg’s book in tow.
Why, you wonder?
Because it is a unique book…and in fact, the only one of its kind that actually advocated how laws against polygamy were actually “detrimental” to women! Yes, you read that right…the book actually argues as to why polygamy is good for women!
Thus, the book basically makes a case in favour of polygamy! On top of that, the book argues that such a world-order would actually be beneficial for women in general. It’s logic: “You can change the laws of marriage, but you can’t repeal the laws of arithmetic.”
Well, don’t be flummoxed! Let me explain…
You see, for a moment let’s assume – female foeticide/infanticide aside – that the population was made up of equal numbers of men and women, i.e. 50-50. Now suppose if one man was to take multiple wives (in fact, let’s keep it at four for now…simply for mathematical ease).
What happens?
Well, out of those 50 men, only 12 would marry (having taken 4 wives each). Now, what happens to the remaining 38 men who have been forced to remain unmarried?!? [After all, no one can change the laws of arithmetic!]
While Landsburg argues that such a scenario would be good for women who would become prized possessions (once again reducing women to mere prize and/or property) since they would be in short supply, he forgets one important thing, which is — “What happens when the majority of men don’t have wives?”
You know…to be perfectly honest, one doesn’t even need to venture that far in order to visualise that situation and it’s consequences on women. In fact, all you need to do — Landsburg included — is to simply take a look at Haryana and its treatment of women and it would be enough to reveal as to what happens when “marriageable” women are few and far between!
The dearth of women to marry does not alleviate women’s problems, it exacerbates them! And it certainly does not make a man work harder to gain a woman’s affection?!? On the contrary, there is a high probability that the majority of men would take forcibly that has been denied to them legally. I mean, does Landsburg really believe that unsatiated men would let other men enjoy their spoils while they remain hungry with lust? In the end, basic human psychology trumps economics!
Thus, polygamy does not benefit anybody…especially women! It turns them into easy targets for unsatiated men and their untamed lust. Thus, the armchair economist needs to realise that polygamy cannot be viewed from an economic lens…for it is just bad mathematics! Pure and Simple!!
