Download Ch07

The Dilemmas of Parenthood
• The Selfish Gene approach
– Parenting involves risk and sacrifice
– The Gene’s-Eye-View approach predicts conflict
between preserving oneself (100% your genes) for
future reproductive opportunities or sacrificing for
“gene machines” that are 50% your genes.
– Remember: Only women are sure that it’s 50%
Maternal Bonding
• Mothers have an advantage
– They are “drugged: into maternal behaviors and
identifying their children
– “Virgin Mother” experiments support this
– Social Significance
• What happens when the system doesn’t work?
• What happens when mothers are separated from
children?
• What happens when children don’t respond?
• Article (FYI)
Men are Disadvantaged
• Is this surprising?
– What are the evolutionary benefits of leaving men
in a state of uncertainty?
• What are the consequences in terms of
parental investment?
• How can this be navigated today?
– DNA Tests
– Social negation/leverage
– The Law
The Paradox of Adoption
• Why would you raise someone else’s children?
– Second unions and step-parents
– The cukoled’s dilemma
– Adoption as a utility
• Labor
• Companionship & love
– An understanding of the Selfish Gene might be
beneficial here. If your behavior is shaped by your
genes, remember, YOU are not your GENES.
The Paradox of Adoption
• Men have always been fooled
– Could the “selfish gene” male find it easier to raise
an adopted child than to raise a child that is his
partner’s (but not his)?
• Challenges
– In-vitro fertilization
– Same-sex parents (to date), someone will always
be left out of the genetic equation
– This story is unfolding in the research and the
courtroom!
We are Fortunate
• Available resources and the law make most of
us blind to the decisions that humans have
has to make and, in many situations, still have
to make about the resources that they offer
their children.
– Slate, 2002: What are the social consequences of
the “children as a woman’s property” approach.
• Infanticide as supporting monogamy
Parental Investment (mammals)
• Lactation
– Amenorrhea
– Biological restriction on sharing
• Humans have extended childhoods
– Investment requires more than lactation
– Social factors combine with displays that we see
elsewhere in the animal kingdom
Parental Investment (humans)
• Social Investments
– Wealth
– Education (apprenticeships)
• If females are attracted to wealth and males
are attracted to physical traits then
– Parents in subsistence cultures should give
material resources to sons and “health” resources
to daughters unless circumstances dictate
otherwise
Infanticide (Darwinian Paradox)
• Remember the IS-OUGHT problem
• This should be a matter of redistribution or (in
cases of personal survival) desperation
• Three main reasons (Daly & Wilson)
– Paternity certainty (pre-DNA testing)
– Offspring quality (Romulus and Remus)
– Insufficient resources (Orphanages and Bread)
Parallels with Abortion
• Lycett and Dunbar (UK)
– Single women were more likely to terminate than
married women (esp. younger – estimation of
future chances). Older single women were less
likely.
– The reverse was true for married women
Infanticide is Rare
• It is of interest to us because it occurs at all!
– Again, we are fortunate
When Boys and Girls are not Equal
• The Trivers-Willard Effect (1973)
– Parents may choose to invest in one sex of
offspring over another
– If variance in reproductive output differs, then
parents should invest in the less risky (less
variable) sex
• Poor parents should invest in the less risky sex
Which Sex is less Risky?
• In polygamous mammals, males should have
greater variance in total offspring (some with
many offspring, some with none)
• Parents with resources should favor males
• Parents without resources should favor
females
Trivers-Willard Effect
• Originally aimed to explain the 50:50 ratios
seen between the sexes across the animal
kingdom (or, at least, mammals)
• Does it apply to human social behavior?
– Wealth has a greater impact on the reproductive
success of men than women
– Historical analysis of infanticide in Indian caste
system suggested female infanticide among highranking families but not low ranking familites
Trivers-Willard Effect
• Similar results among the Mukogodo of kenya
who serve the Maasai (Kronk, 1989)
• In subsistence societies with a rigid social
hierarchy, it’s tough for men to “marry up.”
• The effect remains controversial and may
vanish in industrialized cultures (Keller et al.,
2001)
Rebellion
• Parental resources can include land
– Who shall inherit? Should the land be divided?
• In Europe, primogeniture emerges in the late
medieval period, at about the time land
becomes scarce (the norm by 1400)
• Consequence: Disenfranchised young men
• Solution: Send them to the colonies
(Portuguese)
• What about the women?
Niches in the Family System
• Sulloway (1997) Born to Rebel
– Conformist, conservative firstborns
– Latter are more liberal and rebellious
• Sulloway argues that this is a solution to
limited family resources
– Salmon & Daly (1998): Later-borns seek alliances
outside the family unit
Don’t despair, but be Aware
• Poverty > Rigid Social Structures >
Disenfranchised Men
– What if they survive?
– What about cultures that endorse
polygamy?
Modern Applications
• How should the law address infanticide in a
“modern” light?
– Other consequences of the “sexism of
reproductive potential?”
• Do family dynamics have a biological origin, or
are we just too slow to shake the cultural
conventions of medieval Europe?
• Other thoughts?