Transcript Ch07x
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?