Plural marriage versus gay marriage

[Silur]

Which would remove the instances of most people ever going out and meeting strangers to have sex! :laugh:

On the bright side, you would remove social phobia from the gene pool, since only the outgoing forward people that can meet members of the opposite sex without alcohol would breed. The population of the Scandinavian countries would go extinct in a few generations...

Seriously though, I have to wonder what removing alcohol from the world would due to the rate of people coupling and breeding. It could have staggering results.

All for the better, I think. First, the actual breeding process is a lot more fun when you're sober. Second, you wouldn't be taken completely by surprise 9 months later. Third, a number of birth defects related to the mother consuming alcohol would disappear. The list goes on.

This is an added bonus to the discussion about marriages, where intermarital abuse would be halved (and by the way, many muslims do drink alcohol... Q: How do you recognise a Saudi in Dubai? A: He's the guy resting his head on the bar).

[Heksefatter]

Actually, I can, since you utterly failed to answer them in any coherent fashion.



You noticed that. Good. Thus your powers of perception seem to work sometimes. I suggest you use them to analyse your own texts, and specifically address the following key problem:

In order to reach the conclusion you re-re-re-re-state, you need to make an enormous leap of faith. Now, leaps of faith are useless in an argument, since they asume we already agree on the point where you choose not to reply. The key issue the last 50 posts or so is that neither you nor LD expand on the leap of faith that allows you to reach the conclusion that the legal restriction on polygamy has any effect. You don't get to call it utilistic nor pragmatic until you can show that. You can call it a belief, or an epiphany or the word of god, but you cannot state that it is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.

I am sorry, Silur, but since you use rethoric such as "Thus your powers of perception seem to work sometimes" I don't really feel like continuing this discussion. I feel as if I have taken enough. Through this thread, you and Fable have been making a lot of references as to my person, such as your above comment and Fable's remark that I (among others) didn't care about oppressed women.

I am simply not willing to participate in a discussion like this. I know internet discussions can become a little heated, but I am not used to such a personal style. I do not want to discuss a political subject with anyone who considers my person, its morality and its "powers of perception" that relevant.


Heksefatter out. And that includes the entire thread.

[Silur]

I am sorry, Silur, but since you use rethoric such as "Thus your powers of perception seem to work sometimes" I don't really feel like continuing this discussion. I feel as if I have taken enough. Through this thread, you and Fable have been making a lot of references as to my person, such as your above comment and Fable's remark that I (among others) didn't care about oppressed women.

I am simply not willing to participate in a discussion like this. I know internet discussions can become a little heated, but I am not used to such a personal style. I do not want to discuss a political subject with anyone who considers my person, its morality and its "powers of perception" that relevant.

Heksefatter out. And that includes the entire thread.

I cannot honestly say that it was completely unintentional for you to take offense, but considering that it did get you to actually read what I write, it is perhaps sad that you decide to leave the discussion. You must realise that it is equally insulting to ignore questions, constantly restating that the basis for your standpoint is "pragmatism, and the belief that it would be worse" without further explanation and claiming that anecdotal evidence and cultural prejudice is somehow indicative of the validity of your standpoint - especially after most or all claims have been debunked repeatedly. You could of course argue that they haven't been debunked, in which case you should in turn address those statements with argument and evidence, not simply restate your standpoint again with the same arguments. If I want that kind of punishment, I can go and discuss with creationists at talkorigins instead.

[Heksefatter]

I cannot honestly say that it was completely unintentional for you to take offense, but considering that it did get you to actually read what I write, it is perhaps sad that you decide to leave the discussion. You must realise that it is equally insulting to ignore questions, constantly restating that the basis for your standpoint is "pragmatism, and the belief that it would be worse" without further explanation and claiming that anecdotal evidence and cultural prejudice is somehow indicative of the validity of your standpoint - especially after most or all claims have been debunked repeatedly. You could of course argue that they haven't been debunked, in which case you should in turn address those statements with argument and evidence, not simply restate your standpoint again with the same arguments. If I want that kind of punishment, I can go and discuss with creationists at talkorigins instead.

What you are saying is essentially that my arguments are so poor that it is ok for you to insult me personally.

I am reporting this to the moderators. If it is alright by forum rules, I will leave Gamebanshee for good.

[Silur]

What you are saying is essentially that my arguments are so poor that it is ok for you to insult me personally.

I am reporting this to the moderators. If it is alright by forum rules, I will leave Gamebanshee for good.

No, I'm not saying it's ok to insult you, but your arguments were somewhat lacking in clarity, and I regret that after some time it made me loose my composure. There is really no causal relationship between the two, as in one qualifying the other.

I assume this means you won't explain the leap of faith I have asked you for repeatedly?

[Heksefatter]

No, I'm not saying it's ok to insult you, but your arguments were somewhat lacking in clarity, and I regret that after some time it made me loose my composure. There is really no causal relationship between the two, as in one qualifying the other.

I assume this means you won't explain the leap of faith I have asked you for repeatedly?

As you state that you regret losing your composure, I am willing to wipe the slate clean. I withdraw my request for a moderator statement.


But Silur, I seriously don't think it is a good idea to continue this discussion. It has turned poisonous. I fear it will do so again if we start over. If you insist, however, I will do my best, but the problem is that I am really honest-to-God convinced that I have answered all your objections, and I have read your questions as you not having understood me. I don't think there is a fruitful way of continuing the discussion when it has come to this.

[Silur]

@Heksefatter: I will try to explain where you are loosing us as best I can.

You believe that prohibiting polygamy prevents women from being used and abused by immoral men. This is what I understand to be your core belief in this matter.

To substantiate this, you have presented numerous anecdotal references, all which are equally likely to happen in monogamous relationships - most of them are in fact from monogamous relationships, and you ask us to accept (here is one leap of faith) that this would be "worse" if polygamy was permitted, without further motivation.

LD has also given anecdotal references to mormon polygyny, which exists outside the law and probably is very bad for the women involved. The man could in theory be prosecuted and punished. The women are then victims of a crime, and could in theory sue for damages. This is all in theory of course, since the multiple marriages are not registered by law, and thus not prosecutable - only multiple legal marriages are illegal. If polygamy was permitted, the wives would have their rights protected, and if they chose to exercise their right to divorce, they would receive their part of the family fortune, as well as protection for their offspring. Neither the fact that the law misses its mark, nor that polygamy would award the woman more benefit have been addressed by you or LD.

A different assumption from your part is that if polygamy were to be permitted, traditional muslims would seek to have more polygynous marriages. The fact that these polygynous relationships also exist outside the law in the same way as in the mormon example above has been completely ignored by you. Also, there is little to support your assumption, since the obvious disadvantage of having multiple legal wives in a western country where they have rights, for instance in the case of divorce, as compared to just tossing them out on the street if they're merely wed under the laws of god, would dissuade most fundamentalists from even considering it. Yet again you ask us to believe that "it would be worse", without further explanation.

The one that really irritated me, was when you claimed that it was a "pragmatic" and "utilistic" view that persuaded you that forbidding polygamy was the right thing, again without a hint of motivation. For something to be pragmatic or utilistic, it has to have a measurable, provable outcome - and until you can show that, it's just a belief - in effect, wishful thinking. It is very hard work to try to live utilistically (I try hard, but fail constantly), and it annoys me whenever prejudice is masqueraded as such.

[Cyro]

I don't believe marrige should even be a political issue. It should be a contractual agreement between however many individuals of whatever gender wish to be involved.

What people choose to do is none of by business, nor should they do it sponsored by my stolen money.

[Heksefatter]

@Heksefatter: I will try to explain where you are loosing us as best I can.

You believe that prohibiting polygamy prevents women from being used and abused by immoral men. This is what I understand to be your core belief in this matter.

To substantiate this, you have presented numerous anecdotal references, all which are equally likely to happen in monogamous relationships - most of them are in fact from monogamous relationships, and you ask us to accept (here is one leap of faith) that this would be "worse" if polygamy was permitted, without further motivation.

LD has also given anecdotal references to mormon polygyny, which exists outside the law and probably is very bad for the women involved. The man could in theory be prosecuted and punished. The women are then victims of a crime, and could in theory sue for damages. This is all in theory of course, since the multiple marriages are not registered by law, and thus not prosecutable - only multiple legal marriages are illegal. If polygamy was permitted, the wives would have their rights protected, and if they chose to exercise their right to divorce, they would receive their part of the family fortune, as well as protection for their offspring. Neither the fact that the law misses its mark, nor that polygamy would award the woman more benefit have been addressed by you or LD.

A different assumption from your part is that if polygamy were to be permitted, traditional muslims would seek to have more polygynous marriages. The fact that these polygynous relationships also exist outside the law in the same way as in the mormon example above has been completely ignored by you. Also, there is little to support your assumption, since the obvious disadvantage of having multiple legal wives in a western country where they have rights, for instance in the case of divorce, as compared to just tossing them out on the street if they're merely wed under the laws of god, would dissuade most fundamentalists from even considering it. Yet again you ask us to believe that "it would be worse", without further explanation.

The one that really irritated me, was when you claimed that it was a "pragmatic" and "utilistic" view that persuaded you that forbidding polygamy was the right thing, again without a hint of motivation. For something to be pragmatic or utilistic, it has to have a measurable, provable outcome - and until you can show that, it's just a belief - in effect, wishful thinking. It is very hard work to try to live utilistically (I try hard, but fail constantly), and it annoys me whenever prejudice is masqueraded as such.

First, an apology for a slow answer. I have been very busy. (I am going nuts correcting errors in my thesis, the most annoying job in the world).

I think the core issue here, which you consider me to have ignored, is whether a ban on polygamous marriages would decrease the incidence of conservative muslims polygamous de facto marriages in Denmark and comprable countries. With de facto, I mean the people involved considering themselves to be married, but there is no sanctioning by the state.

But I consider myself to have answered that objection. I have written repeatedly that a state-sanctioned marriage entails numerous legal and economic benefits. Denying them to polygamous marriages would, in my view, limit the incidence of those.

Remember, it is our view of marriage as something based on romantic love (or at least a continuation of romantic love) which is the exception. For the greater part of history, marriage (both monogamous and polygamous) has been business and family politics - and not only among the wealthy.

So, I don't believe in the prevention of the abuse of women. Such a thing is not possible, I hope for the limitation.


And, to get this situation straight: Am I missing the mark as you see it? Am I reading your objections incorrectly?




Now I will go to some minor points, as I believe the above to be the core issue and I have tried to explain my position there:

- Telling you about how bad the situation is for women in certain Danish muslim circles is intended to convey this message: this is the situation to which polygamy would be introduced. Of course, most of these women have fled from a monogamous relationship, but that's not the point. The point is that if those women are so oppressed, polygamy makes their situation worse. Why? Because if you live in such a patriarchal family, your choice in whether your husband takes another spouse will often be close to nil. And becoming just another wife, against your will, is oppression. Of course, that rests on whether outlawing polygamy has any influence on the involved people's behavior, but I've given my reasons for believing in the second paragraph of this post.

- Regarding the improvement of the legal status of a state-recognized second wife, you are correct. I have said so earlier, and I will admit that it constitutes an argument in favor of legalizing polygamous marriages: A normal divorce is an easier undertaking than proving that you have lived as a de facto wife, have been abused and have the right to damages. But: If we ignore the for-against arguments about the incidence of polygamous marriages, then it should still be remembered that full-fledged divorces in such environments are rare. They are (internally in patriarchal sub-culture) scandals almost unheard of, especially if it is the women who initiate them. So I don't believe it would matter much, but it would matter a little.

[Silur]

@Heksefatter: Yes, you are still missing a number of major points.

First, you have provided no explanation to how the de facto polygynous marriages would increase as a result of legalizing polygamy. To me, that number would be constant, simply because they exist today and no one is setting any limit on the number of "wives" you have as long as only one of them is official. This is a leap of faith that you have not even touched upon.

Second; With the economic benefits come legal obligations, and you cannot have one without the other. Thus, the de facto marriages remain without benefits and are as likely to exist. For those chosing to legally marry more than one person, come the legal responsibilities and I have shown how this actually grants more protection to the abused women rather than less which you imply but never substantiate.

As for your assumption that muslim women remain in abusive marriages in the west, think again. Statistics from the nordic countries (Danmarks Statistik, Statistiska centralbyrån and Statistisk sentralbyrå - Forside) show that they are in fact more likely to leave their husbands than nordic women, having an overall higher divorce rate than average. Interestingly, abuse is roughly the same in both groups. The fastest growing group of women reporting abuse in Denmark, for instance, is a foreign woman married to a Danish man ([url]http://www.danmark.dk)[/url]. This is why I claim that your views are prejudice.

[Heksefatter]

@Heksefatter: Yes, you are still missing a number of major points.

First, you have provided no explanation to how the de facto polygynous marriages would increase as a result of legalizing polygamy. To me, that number would be constant, simply because they exist today and no one is setting any limit on the number of "wives" you have as long as only one of them is official. This is a leap of faith that you have not even touched upon.

I feel the other way around. If polygamy is legalized, it becomes easier to support a polygamous marriage economically. The marriages we are currently discussing are not romantically based marriages as we understand them. They are more like economic/clan-political arrangements, and hence it seems perfectly reasonable to me that by improving the economic conditions for them would increase their incidence.

Second; With the economic benefits come legal obligations, and you cannot have one without the other. Thus, the de facto marriages remain without benefits and are as likely to exist. For those chosing to legally marry more than one person, come the legal responsibilities and I have shown how this actually grants more protection to the abused women rather than less which you imply but never substantiate.

The first part of this I simply do not understand, possibly linguistically. I see absolutely no argument there. The second we have already covered.

As for your assumption that muslim women remain in abusive marriages in the west, think again. Statistics from the nordic countries (Danmarks Statistik, Statistiska centralbyrån and Statistisk sentralbyrå - Forside) show that they are in fact more likely to leave their husbands than nordic women, having an overall higher divorce rate than average. Interestingly, abuse is roughly the same in both groups. The fastest growing group of women reporting abuse in Denmark, for instance, is a foreign woman married to a Danish man ([url]http://www.danmark.dk)[/url]. This is why I claim that your views are prejudice.

http://Www.danmark.dk is a homepage devoted to the state's informing about social services available, as well as about current laws being passed. You only linked to the front page, and the information you mention is thus obviously not easy to find. The two possible links I could find which might have been of interest are the links "udlænding i Danmark" (Foreigner in Denmark) and "Parforhold" (Couple's Relationsships), both under "Værd at Vide" ("Worth Knowing"). http://danmark.dk/portal/page/pr04/DANM ... EGLEN_NEM1

"Parforhold" was a broken link when I checked. "Udlænding i Danmark" dealt mostly with a superficial introduction to the definitions of such terms as "asylum seeker", "immigrant" and so on, as well as links to various government agencies dealing with asylum and integration. There was a link to some serious information, however, this being a report from the Statistics Agency of Denmark. This report was a 255 page report dealing mostly with demographics. The aspect dealing with marriage patterns was just the demographics of marriage, ie. age, country of origin for partners and so on.

The things regarding divorce which I found were just general information about the rules as well as links to possible legal aid.

You have linked to the Danish Statistics agency, Danmarks Statistik too, to support your claim on a high divorce rate for muslim women. In this case too, you only linked to the front page which contained no relevant information. I did a little search on the keywords which occured to me (skilsmisse/skillsmisse + muslimer/skilsmisse + indvandrere) and found nothing of relevance.

I did not bother to repeat a detailed search on the Swedish and Norwegian statistics agencies, but limited myself to checking their front pages which you linked to, and a quick search on the words meaning divorce. I found nothing relevant to muslims in either case.



If you have found some articles of interest, it is better if you link to them directly.

[Silur]

@Heksefatter: I'll get you the correct links shortly, when I get home to my "fun&games" computer. This is one of the side effects of using more than one computer - copy/paste doesn't work between them. I personally used google to search all the mentioned sites, typing what I'm looking for and site:.scb.se or site:.danmark.dk. Filters out most of the noise.

I feel the other way around. If polygamy is legalized, it becomes easier to support a polygamous marriage economically. The marriages we are currently discussing are not romantically based marriages as we understand them. They are more like economic/clan-political arrangements, and hence it seems perfectly reasonable to me that by improving the economic conditions for them would increase their incidence.

What you feel is irrelevant, which is something I've pointed out repeatedly. If you mean something else, use a different wording. Romantic or not is also irrelevant. Reasonable - here again, is a leap of faith, going again from a description of what already exists and assuming it will get "worse".

In order to "improve the economic conditions" it has to be legal polygamic relationships we are discussing, correct? You jump between the two depending on what point you wish to make, so it is rather difficult to respond unless you decide which leg you're standing on. Many of the religiously motivated polygamic non-lawful marriages in existence in our society today are most likely arranged, as are many monogamic marriages. The economic balances are the same as their respective traditions make them, so there will be little change there. If I'm wrong, give me some substantiated reasons, preferably based on some existing socio-economic principle. I've met a few men living with his wife and her "sister". If all these "sisters" were to become legal wives, then perhaps they would stop being slaves and have some means of escaping their situation. Today, they will have absolutely nothing, and are rarely given social benefits since they're either in the country illegally or not yet citizens. So, to use your line of arguing, it is reasonable to assume that it is better to stay a slave to a wicked man, than be deported back to your country of origin with nothing. This is called a false dichotomy, by the way.

The first part of this I simply do not understand, possibly linguistically. I see absolutely no argument there. The second we have already covered.

I disagree. You may feel that you have covered the second part, but what I'm stating is that the logic behind your reasoning is faulty. So while you feel that your descriptions have covered the issue, I think that it doesn't hold water. Don't claim consensus on your assumptions!

As for the first part, marital law is specifically constructed to protect the weaker party. This is why pre-nuptual agreements were invented. Now, in all the examples you have given, who is the weaker party? If you wish to enjoy the fruits of a legal marriage, you also have to abide by the rules of it. So, if a person decides to marry 3 other persons, whoever is the weakest is the one that has the most to gain. This is a fact. So what I keep claiming, and you repeatedly argue against with feelings and beliefs, is that given legal status, these women would suffer less.

Now, if you're opposed to the concept of pre-nuptual agreement, that is a completely different discussion. That is constructed to retain power with the stronger party.

[Heksefatter]

@Heksefatter: I'll get you the correct links shortly, when I get home to my "fun&games" computer. This is one of the side effects of using more than one computer - copy/paste doesn't work between them. I personally used google to search all the mentioned sites, typing what I'm looking for and site:.scb.se or site:.danmark.dk. Filters out most of the noise.

Ok.

What you feel is irrelevant, which is something I've pointed out repeatedly. If you mean something else, use a different wording. Romantic or not is also irrelevant. Reasonable - here again, is a leap of faith, going again from a description of what already exists and assuming it will get "worse".

My belief that oppressive polygamic marriages would increase by legalizing them has been qualified by argument. You may choose to disbelieve the argument. It is not a "feeling" as in "emotion", but an attempt to give a description of what would happen, based on argument.

In order to "improve the economic conditions" it has to be legal polygamic relationships we are discussing, correct? You jump between the two depending on what point you wish to make, so it is rather difficult to respond unless you decide which leg you're standing on.

The topic is polygamous marriages. By making them legal, we improve economic conditions for them.

Many of the religiously motivated polygamic non-lawful marriages in existence in our society today are most likely arranged, as are many monogamic marriages. The economic balances are the same as their respective traditions make them, so there will be little change there. If I'm wrong, give me some substantiated reasons, preferably based on some existing socio-economic principle. I've met a few men living with his wife and her "sister". If all these "sisters" were to become legal wives, then perhaps they would stop being slaves and have some means of escaping their situation. Today, they will have absolutely nothing, and are rarely given social benefits since they're either in the country illegally or not yet citizens. So, to use your line of arguing, it is reasonable to assume that it is better to stay a slave to a wicked man, than be deported back to your country of origin with nothing. This is called a false dichotomy, by the way.

If the marriages are recognized by the state, they will recieve economic advantages with respect to the state. Those cannot be given by an arrangement between families. For instance, you can (in Denmark, at least) deduct your spouse's lack of income on your taxes if he or she hasn't got a job.

And the women you describe would be in deep trouble if they were married too. They would not have the option of divorcing their husband if their claim to staying in a particular country was marriage, as that would near-universally lead to the deportation. The only exception (in some countries) would be a humanitarian appeal, which would rely on whether they could prove that they were abused in their current situation. Married or not.

I disagree. You may feel that you have covered the second part, but what I'm stating is that the logic behind your reasoning is faulty. So while you feel that your descriptions have covered the issue, I think that it doesn't hold water. Don't claim consensus on your assumptions!

I don't claim consensus on my assumptions here. Else I would not be discussing things with you. I am trying to make a convincing point through description of what would happen. But note that this point - and neither are yours - is not "knockdown". Compare with a typical argument about taxes:

A: Income taxes should be decreased for higher wage incomes, as the current 68 % removes incentive to work more.

B: There is little use in lowering income taxes for high earners, as they already work long hours, and the effect you mentioned would be balanced by them now having enough money for more free time.

Both arguments are presented in ordinary discussions and by professional economists. Obviously, neither are knockdown. They are based on a description of society and the actions of people in it, and each person must decide what argument she thinks delivers the most accurate description of society.

As for the first part, marital law is specifically constructed to protect the weaker party. This is why pre-nuptual agreements were invented. Now, in all the examples you have given, who is the weaker party? If you wish to enjoy the fruits of a legal marriage, you also have to abide by the rules of it. So, if a person decides to marry 3 other persons, whoever is the weakest is the one that has the most to gain. This is a fact. So what I keep claiming, and you repeatedly argue against with feelings and beliefs, is that given legal status, these women would suffer less.

Now, if you're opposed to the concept of pre-nuptual agreement, that is a completely different discussion. That is constructed to retain power with the stronger party.

The power of a patriarch is based on social control. If you are in breach of family discipline, you are in deep trouble. In such a situation, the patriarch reaps the benefits of a marriage, but de facto none of the obligations. By the way, a pre-nuptial agreement would be deemed null and void if it was blatantly unfair to the weaker party.

[Silur]

Since I'm not getting any fun & games today, I've done some new searches.

Likelyhood for divorce; this article (thesis, really) presents all the data and gives the appropriate references for Sweden.

http://theses.lub.lu.se/archive/sob/soc ... H03128.pdf

A short summary in english for those who find Swedish to be a useless language best recorded on tape, stored for posterity in a dark cellar at the Royal library and replaced by something more practical:

Divorce between couples where both parties are from the same cultural region:
Latin america: 6.5%
Iran: 5.2%
Sweden: 1.2%

One explanation may be that since the woman has more freedom in Sweden, conflicts may arise which lead to divorce. Another (typically Swedish) explanation is that the counselors lack sufficient experience with foreign cultures and cannot assist foreign couples seeking help. Either way, immigrant women are generally more happy with being divorced than immigrant men.


Likelyhood for Abuse; another thesis, that analyses not only convictions of crimes (where immigrants are over-represented), but reported crimes, demographics of the suspects and police handling of the case. Physical abuse is one of the areas being analysed. Relevant references are included, again for Sweden.

One really interesting passage is how many of the official suspects were questioned in the different groups; 77% of native suspects against 84% of immigrant suspects. It was also found that the police held a negative bias towards immigrants, either because of their association with generic "suspicious elements" or because of where they "chose" to live. In short, the cops are racists.

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocu ... lltext.pdf

The conclusion is that the likelyhood of anyone commiting a crime is about the same across the board, but if you're an immigrant, you're more likely to get caught and convicted - and if you do, you get a longer sentence. Great.

[Heksefatter]

If the marriages are recognized by the state, they will recieve economic advantages with respect to the state. Those cannot be given by an arrangement between families. For instance, you can (in Denmark, at least) deduct your spouse's lack of income on your taxes if he or she hasn't got a job.

And the women you describe would be in deep trouble if they were married too. They would not have the option of divorcing their husband if their claim to staying in a particular country was marriage, as that would near-universally lead to the deportation. The only exception (in some countries) would be a humanitarian appeal, which would rely on whether they could prove that they were abused in their current situation. Married or not.

Sorry for quoting what really should be an edit, but this argument is very flawed. It is the result of a train-of-thought that got messed up, and was discovered, as such things usually are, just after going to bed. In this concrete example, the woman's situation would be improved by a state-recognized marriage, if it had been in existence for a longer time. I made a long edit, but it screwed up somehow, and now I have to leave for a meeting, and I haven't got the time to reformulate it. Just don't waste your time on its current version.

[Heksefatter]

Since I'm not getting any fun & games today, I've done some new searches.

Likelyhood for divorce; this article (thesis, really) presents all the data and gives the appropriate references for Sweden.

http://theses.lub.lu.se/archive/sob/soc ... H03128.pdf

A short summary in english for those who find Swedish to be a useless language best recorded on tape, stored for posterity in a dark cellar at the Royal library and replaced by something more practical:

Divorce between couples where both parties are from the same cultural region:
Latin america: 6.5%
Iran: 5.2%
Sweden: 1.2%

One explanation may be that since the woman has more freedom in Sweden, conflicts may arise which lead to divorce. Another (typically Swedish) explanation is that the counselors lack sufficient experience with foreign cultures and cannot assist foreign couples seeking help. Either way, immigrant women are generally more happy with being divorced than immigrant men.


Likelyhood for Abuse; another thesis, that analyses not only convictions of crimes (where immigrants are over-represented), but reported crimes, demographics of the suspects and police handling of the case. Physical abuse is one of the areas being analysed. Relevant references are included, again for Sweden.

One really interesting passage is how many of the official suspects were questioned in the different groups; 77% of native suspects against 84% of immigrant suspects. It was also found that the police held a negative bias towards immigrants, either because of their association with generic "suspicious elements" or because of where they "chose" to live. In short, the cops are racists.

http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocu ... lltext.pdf

The conclusion is that the likelyhood of anyone commiting a crime is about the same across the board, but if you're an immigrant, you're more likely to get caught and convicted - and if you do, you get a longer sentence. Great.

I will check on this and give you some feedback later. It will take some time reading a thesis.

[Silur]

@Heksefatter: Too bad you saw that, I was lining up arguments like kids around a piñata.

You have plenty of time. I need to focus on a tender due wednesday, so I'm only here for minutes at a time, posting nonsense, if at all.

[fable]

Heksefatter, when you do get a chance, I'd appreciate a reply to my comments, as well, which are on the bottom of the last page.