Marriage stops the "natural" dynamic by tying every male to a maximum of one female
That guy must be kidding, right? Monogamy is one thing, but what about other forms of marriage that involves more than one man and one woman?
But the rest of the sentence that you quoted is even worse, but so that it makes more sentence, I'll quote the entire sentence:
In earlier societies where marriage did not exist, the most dominant males had children with many women, and the males at the bottom of the hierarchy did not get to procreate at all.
But in most societies around the world, the poor tend to have more kids. Who is the author of that article?
He's:
a 33 year old semi-retired entrepreneur (I co-founded the Swedish marketplace Fyndiq where I was CTO for the first six years). Nowadays I spend my days mostly reading, writing and photographing stuff.
And making up crazy ideas about society.
That might be true for women but not for men. And the author is talking about men.
Men who make good money generally have no trouble remarrying and having more kids with another woman if they want it. Stats I have seen suggest that women are more likely than men to have kids, men who do procreate are more likely to do so with more than one partner.
Iirc: about half of all men reproduce, about 80% of all women do. You can infer from that stat right there that men who do father kids have decent odds of fathering them on more than one woman.
Also weren't most very early societies without marriage matriarchal?
Addition: Isn't this also ignoring polygamist marriage?
The idea that early human society was matriarchal comes out of wild speculation by certain authors with a political bent.
No offense, but I'd rather trust that guy's story than some random dude on the internet's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_matrilineal_or_matrilo...
The Akans of Ghana, West Africa, are matrlineals. Akans are the largest ethnic group in Ghana. They are made of the Akims, Asantes, Fantis, Akuapims, Kwahus, Denkyiras, Brongs, Akwamus, Krachis etc.
"Matrilineal" means property is passed down through the maternal line on the death of the mother, not that of the father.
There are a substantial number of matrilineal societies, probably due to the ease of knowing who your mother is compared to your father, before genetic testing was developed. They are quite often not matriarchal, though.
- anthropologists don't study primates.
- primates don't strive for money.
Can you provide any sources?
I think the idea may have originated with anthropologist Donald Brown, who wrote a book Human Universals (which I haven't read) about traits that are pretty much ubiquitous across all cultures.
If you can tolerate a Wikipedia article, here it is:
"In earlier societies where marriage did not exist..."
I could stop reading right there. There are essentially no known human societies, past or present, in which marriage does not exist. (Possible exceptions for a few very small societies in highly unusual situations.) Marriage is considered a human universal by anthropologists.
But a bit further on:
"This study looked at research being done on 33 nonindustrial populations (nonindustrial = pre-marriage, pre-contraception)"
You're seriously equating nonindustrial with a lack of marriage? You understand that the industrial revolution was less than 200 years ago, right? And that people have been getting married for all of recorded history?