E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Nikola Solic / Reuters file
An exhibit at the Neanderthal Museum in Croatia shows a male working near other family members in a cave.
Research into the roots of our species suggests that stronger bonds between fathers and their children played a role in shaping society as we know it — which is a worthwhile subject for reflection on this Father's Day weekend. Some anthropologists even suggest that current social trends could bring us closer to the good old days of hunter-gatherer fathering.
Although most moms wish the man in the house would take more of a role in childraising, things could be worse. Males take on the job of parental care in only 5 percent of mammalian species, according to research cited in "Fatherhood: Evolution and Parental Behavior." In that book, anthropologists Peter Gray of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Kermyt Anderson of the University of Oklahoma tick off several facts about the evolution of fatherhood:
- Men tend to spend more time with young children in hunter-gatherer societies than they do in most other societies, particularly ones in which men make a living herding livestock. "Fathers might have sex-specific reasons for spending time with children, for instance, teaching boys to hunt," Gray and Anderson wrote in The Chronicle Review.
- Men tend to invest more in children if they are the biological parents rather than the stepparents. "Spending time on offspring who do not carry any of your genes seems counterintuitive," the anthropologists said.
- Some studies have shown fathers tend to have lower testosterone levels than men without children in the same society. "This could be picking up the behavioral transition men undergo as fathers as they move away from some degree of investment in courting women, seeking new mates, competing with other males, and begin to settle into a more family-oriented outlook, including spending time directly with a young child," Gray told the Boston Globe.
- Paternal care is largely absent among our primate cousins, and the fossil record suggests that the common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees were similarly fatherhood-deficient.
So what changed? Anthropologists say the rise of male-female pair bonding was a key factor. "We see that process getting under way around 2 million years ago but becoming more pronounced around a half a million years ago," Gray and Anderson write. With pair bonding, males had a bigger stake in defending their mates as well as their genetic progeny.
When fathers invested more time in nurturing the family group, the mothers didn't have to expend as much energy — and that opened the way to more frequent births and bigger families. At least that's the hypothesis advanced by Northwestern University's Lee T. Gettler in the journal American Anthropologist. That, in turn, led to a population explosion among the early members of the Homo genus.
How males gathered together
Other research suggests that early humans diverged from chimps in the organization of hunter-gatherer societies. Groups of chimpanzees are generally organized along kinship lines, and there's a high level of aggression between those kin groups. But Arizona State University anthropologist Kim Hill and his colleagues reported in the journal Science that today's human hunter-gatherer groups are more mixed up, genetically speaking.
Such intermixing, coupled with pair bonding, might well explain why intergroup relations go more smoothly among humans than they do among chimps (even though we still have a long way to go). A father who recognized his son in a neighboring group would be less likely to strike out against him, which would open the way for larger tribal networks. (Thanks to Blogging the Bust's James Lavin for making the connection to fatherhood.)
Last month, University of Colorado anthropologist Sandi Copeland and her colleagues published a paper in the journal Nature suggesting that hominid males tended to be stay-at-home types who stuck together as far back as 2 million years ago. The researchers' conclusions, based on an analysis of fossil teeth found in South African caves, lend weight to the idea that cooperative behavior among males was one of the hallmarks of hominid society.
The takeaway message is that fatherhood and male bonding took on a higher profile in the formation of hominid hunter-gatherer societies, even before the rise of Homo sapiens — and that those aspects contributed to the organization of early human society, on a scale that could be larger than that found among other primates to this day.
Modern-day message
So what does that mean for modern-day fathers? You could argue that we're taking on more of the aspects of a hunter-gatherer social setting thanks to some of the trends we're seeing today — more women in the workplace, more stay-at-home dads, blurred roles in childrearing, a departure from industrial work patterns, even increased connectedness through mobile devices.
Gray told the Globe that today's society may be friendlier to fatherhood than the family setting in the 1960s, portrayed so vividly (and unflatteringly) in shows such as "Mad Men." In short, this is not your father's fatherhood.
"One thing presented in a show like 'Mad Men' that was also a common family pattern in the baby-boom era in the U.S. is this sexual division of labor," Gray said. "Women were at home and didn't work. That does not apply well to an evolutionary backdrop. Among hunter-gatherers, women and men are both working, but in ways compatible with having young kids."
Has fatherhood evolved, or are we still cavemen when it comes to parenting? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below ... and have a great Father's Day!
More about the science of fatherhood:
- Meet the mice with two dads
- New dads get baby blues, too
- Role of American dads is changing
- Dads get a hormone boost from child care
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Too bad this kind of pseudo science isn't usable as fertilizer. Digital BS from empty heads for empty heads.
@dade
I'd love to know what you think is "pseudo" regarding the science contained in this article?
Is it that we evolved through countless generations of lower primates?
Is that we can learn much about the cultural significance of our earlier ancestors?
Or, is it simply "learning," in general that you have a problem with?
I'm pretty sure that nowhere in this article is anything written on stone tablets, and stamped as fact. I'm pretty sure there will be many intelligent debates regarding this research. However, nothing and nowhere in this article is anything putting forth "pseudo" science.
That's why science is beautiful dade. Science is dynamic. Science changes and adapts to new discoveries ... it reflects what we learn and it is self-correcting when new (and better) evidence comes to light.
It's through the grace of science that we enlighten ourselves dade ... pity you seem to be blind to that.
If you were truly as enlightened and intellectual as you are trying to sound you would have given us some specifics instead of offering a general condemnation of the article without any real reason why.
Good reply Chad. The beauty about science with your reference to science changing as new data comes around, is the biggest part. The primary basis behind any *real* science, is for scientists to be wrong (science wants to be wrong) based solely of the evidence at hand, as that allows for newer evidence to change the theories. It's too bad that science deniers like like Dade exist, they'd just assume that we get all of our biology/anthropology from the Bible or creationism.
uh............astronomical problems with prebiotic synthesis of cytosine?....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC16343/
..and that's just one of many problems at the molecular level....
......science my foot....
Well put Steve, but the "faith" of these so called "scientific" people will not let them see the facts.
9751,
Your comment is well put too. In spite of the observable data, they continue to believe, and they will continue to sway the ignorant, and the unreasoning.
I do love seeing irony in motion. I just love it when a grouping of people that claims to not believe in magic ascribe magical properties to things. Science is not some magic doohickey process to unerringly find the "truth". It it posesses all the flaws and limitations that those that use and define it does. Science is a great tool for understanding the world. But take it as you should take what ANYONE tells you, be they priests or scientists, that is take it with a grain of salt and make up your own mind. And allow others to do the same.
The dade (or the dead) is obviously a pro gay marriage advocate. This throws water on that fire. Can't have science doing that ya know. If science does not back your agenda then it's BS. Well known fact.
Personally, if people want to have same sex realtionships that's fine. They should be made to reproduce by their own means too instead of screwing up some poor unsuspecting kid.
And how did you conclude that? There's nothing in his statement to indicate that, nor in any of his past statements on other stories.
The article is pro man and wife. The dead said the study was fertilizer and BS. It's not a stretch to theorize that The dead is pro gay marriage because the article is pro hetero couples and he calls it BS. Use your brain for more than watching Mr Ed.
So, it's pro-man and wife. It's also pro-family and pro-society. But it's mostly pro-paternity in the context of evolutionary theory; that's what dade was probably addressing.
Funny, I see no claim of "fact" within this article..... anywhere. I do however see some areas where "research suggests" certain claims and provides evidence to back-up said claims. Again, nothing is written in stone here. Science doesn't deal in "facts" or "proofs". If this were the type of intellectual stimulation you seek, perhaps maybe you would prefer a thread discussing mathematics? At the very least, maybe you could familiarize yourself about the scientific method a little more before you attack it?
Agreed, but can we do this without all of your unsubstantiated, straw man claims?
It seems you, Steve, and 9751 are all on the same boat. Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is only overshadowed by your gleeful rigor to attack it.
Science is not simply perpetrated within lab coats and petri dishes. Science is about ideas. Ideas that reflect our best-known experience and observations about our natural world. Science is constantly updating itself to better reflect incoming knowledge gathering, data-points, and ideas. Science, is what fuels our dreams. As I've already said, it's a pity you can not see this. Worse yet, you attack those that do. This is what is wrong with this once great nation. And, the reason we are no longer at the top.
chad-1841583, the article is almost certainly based on soft science, even if it is not "pseudo-science." There is a joke in physics in which the certainty of measurement is compared with other science; in that joke the best known measurement in physics is known to 14 digits of accuracy, then best known measurement in chemistry to (say) 6, and so on until you get to biology or psychology where the best known measurement is known to 0 digits... The point being that if your science is not predictive, it is not much more useful than mythology (which is quite useful, by the way).
As an example, a recent study of the actual mutation rate in humans was recently published that showed that the assumed rate was up to 100 times greater than the measured rate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43431736/).
Ben,
I agree, and I'm not sure what you read in any of my posts that would suggest otherwise?
I repeatedly stated that science is about the power of ideas and not something adorned on stone tablets. "Facts," are not relevant here (in the traditional sense of the word.) However, the comments I replied rebuttals for were merely in defense of the baseless assertions that this article was somehow just a fabrication, or part of a larger scientific conspiracy to spread misinformation.
Take the example you supplied. In 100 years, when we have better science, better instruments of measurement, and an even better understanding of our own scientific limitations, we may find that the actual rate of human mutation is 100 times greater then the article you've just provided.
Does that negate the science? Does that make the science "soft." Or, does it simply show how science works, and why it is beautiful?
@chad:
Strawman claims? Where exactly do you get that? I love it when people throw that up as if I was arguing against the scientific method or science as a whole. Seems almost kneejerk in nature... As is immediately assuming any person offering any criticism against cherished opinions are attacking it.
There are those through their comments reveal just such a mindset especially when they wax romatic about the subject in the face of dissent. Science doesn't mitigate the eccentricities, tendencies and flaws mankind posess. Yet some pretend otherwise.
Also, don't you think that it's childish and rather silly of you to blame the problems of this nation on those that disagree with you on the topic? Problems that are not only complex in nature but far reaching accross the society as a whole.
Funny ... another strawman.
Wraith, the whole point here is that nothing in this article is part of "cherished claims," nor does it claim to be.
When you set up your argument that this article is somehow mainstream, scientific "dogma" .... and then attack it as such. You're pretty much proving my point. I can think of no better definition of a strawman argument.
Try again.
@chad:
Too bad that isn't what I was doing at all. Try actually reading what I actually said perhaps instead of searching for a convient convoluted pidgeon holes and red herrings perhaps? Your desperation to do so is painfully obvious.
Here's a hint, my comment was a rant inspired by yours. Science is not an independent entity that can do anything much less what you ascribe to it.
If your original response was directed at me ... why not address it as such?
Furthermore, your use of the descriptor "rant" is not only telling ... but quite fitting as well.
I'm extremely curious here wraith. Perhaps, (since you avoid providing anything of substance in your comments, other than rants). Would you please enlighten me on what I ascribe to science and what it cannot achieve? As a follow-up, please explain what tool you prefer to use in understanding the natural world around you?
Now, here's the tricky part.
In your reply, you're not allowed to first build up false arguments that were never made, and then attack those arguments. You may be able to do this ... I just haven't seen any proof of that yet.
Please commence....
One must advocate a better "tool" in order to offer criticism? Fascinating. Or more precisely point out the flaws in a given system? I know a great many fanatics of all stripes view acknowledgment of any flaws in their favorite ideas as outright attacks but come on. Is this were you expect me to launch into a diatribe or something about the Christian bible or any of the holy books of any of a number of religions?
As for exactly what I am saying I leave that for you to figure out as I do not feel like repeating myself. Read your comments, then read mine, connect the dots in such a way that isn't a flimsy attempt to find an excuse to lambast me and you just might get it.
On another note. Thanks for the laugh sir. Attempting to sound authoritive is greatly amusing at these junctures. Your hubris is showing particularly when you attempt to sound smart but yet cannot even grasp simple english comprehension and interpretation. It would help if you could in your attempts to seem smarter. I say this, evidenced by the fact you were at one point thinking I was talking about the article despite the fact I obviously was not. And no I'm not saying you aren't just saying your trying too hard.
So, we done here or do you wish to get the last word in?
Wraith,
I've never claimed a superior intelligence here, that's what you've brought to the table.
However, I'm not going to sit here and argue intellects with an individual that doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're."
In summary, if your kicks are had through attacks, and not through serious discourse ... that's fine. Just be more transparent up front about it.
be well.
By the way, chad, science is much more than just "ideas" and is based on the fact(s) of measurements. Any science that is not validated by "facts" is pseudoscience.
Okay Ben,
That will just be your little secret then.
@Ben:
The problem is what constitutes "facts".
@chad:
That is the ONLY COMMENT you got from that long statement? *shakes head and chuckles* Good day sir. Though serious discourse was never on your mind and it shows. Brow beating and labeling was the amount of assumptive leaps you take shows that at the very least. Might wish to work on that selective perception perhaps?
Wraith, you still at it?
I'm going to leave you and Ben to get after the truth. I will follow along in silence as I watch the two of you define the nature of "fact," and what constitutes "hard" science ... popcorn in hand.
More hubris and wanton self congratulatory misinterpretation. You seem to have more than half a brain yet squander it in your attempts to at seeming. Tis a pity.
Don't you have some more heathens to self righteously correct on the magics of science?
I'm pretty sure that one is in the dictionary. Facts would be things like measurements, evidence, data, observation.
Gravity isn't a fact (shocker!), it's a scientific theory. What is a fact though is that when an apple is heavy enough, it will fall toward the earth.
How on EARTH is that relevant to the article? I can only guess that you are imploding because the article mentioned evolution and so now you're trying to attack evolution by attacking abiogenesis.
First of all, I should point out that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. Confabulating them would not speak well of your understanding of the subject.
In any case, since you seem to be using the linked article to attack evolution/abiogenesis, let's use some direct quotes from **YOUR** cited source:
At the end of the abstract, we find this:
(Emphasis mine) One need not read very far to see that the paper in question concerns the issue of HOW abiogenesis occurred. You are clearly trying to imply that the authors are somehow admitting that abiogenesis could not occur, but you don't have to read past the ABSTRACT to see that this is not the case.
Nontheless, let's forge ahead and read the last paragraph in the conclusion section of the paper YOU cited:
(Emphasis mine) Either you didn't understand the paper you cited AT ALL or you dishonestly cited the paper to attack the IDEA of abiogenesis when the authors said nothing to support your arguments.
It's a funny joke, but if you REALLY think that psychology and biology can't make precise predictions, let's dance. Would you like to know how precisely a molecular biologist can predict the occurrence of certain genetic diseases (such as Huntington's disease) based on an analysis of a person's DNA?
(I will now use my knowledge of psychology to predict that, if you reply, you will be unpersuaded by what I posted above.) ;-)
I'll tell you why men have an increasing role in child-rearing, two words: Women's Lib! Now don't get me wrong, I believe women should be treated equally in all areas of society including the workforce, but that is the answer, like it or not.
Brilliant.....Womens Lib started 500,000 years ago?
you got yourself wrong... like it or not...
I'm referring to the Women's Lib movement that started in the 60's. Which caused a paradigm shift in the concept of the father being the breadwinner and the mother as homemaker and childcare provider (as it was in the 50's)
Devavo, that's kinda the point of the whole article, that fathers having more of a role in raising kids is a good thing. I'm not a big libber, but the whole 50's-60's model of men working and women being the main caregiver was a trend that needed to end. Kids need paternal input much more than some of us boomers received.
Agreed. But they make it out like it's some big shocking mystery!
So easy, even a caveman can do it
This article sounds like it was made up from the Talking Points of the various Far out ultra right wing tea party Family Rights Groups.
Not likely, since it discusses early humans 10,000 or so years ago (way before God supposedly created humans) and it also mentions evolution.
Here we go again! More "why men. fathers, boys are important"!
I agree that having GOOD fathers who are decent , responsible, loyal is the best thing for a family.
I agree that white feminists did a disservice to white males and unfairly advanced others LIKE THEM in the workforce, politics, and elsewhere (after being out of the kitchen for a relativlely short time).
But it bothers me that all this research and studies are being used to explain the SERIOUS problems with the black community. It ain't that simple! Black women were NEVER allowed to stay home and black males had serious problems with being responsible members of families and communties from the moment slavery ended (long before welfare or feminism).
Claiming that if you make black males the kings of their castles and heads of their households they will automatically be kinder, more loyal to their wives, and less aggressive- is niave. Its the "chicken or egg" debate. Which came first, violent, sexually aggressive, irresponsible males (who created broken homes and angry, independent women ) OR broken homes headed by angry independent women (who created violent, sexually aggressive, irresponsible males).
Considering that Haiti and Africa are MAGNIFIED miror reflections of the serious problems in black America- its risky to say welfare, feminism, matriarchal homes, and the devaluing of fathers made black communities and families fall apart. Also remember that just 10 years ago, many claimed poverty and racism made these men and boys (and families) so bad. I fear this father/savior/men's movement thing may become just a new excuse- a way to blame another group again.
But I agree that decent men as fathers is very important ot families and communities.
Interesting take. Thanks for sharing it. I'm not so sure the problem is with the basal stock but more the culture in which they are raised.
But I would just like to say, personally, I believe in one race. That is the human race. The rest is petty divisiness that mankind can ill afford anymore.
So, what do we gain by reducing the importance of males in the family?
Whether you think this is useful or not, it is definitely happening in our society, and it is uniting our society with the other 95% of animal species rather than proving our "uniqueness."
I love all the feminized men who take pride in putting down strong, traditional male roles. Well, guess what? Your girlfriend or wife isn't interested in banging someone like you - she's banging the construction guy with the big muscles. Don't believe me? Ask her.
wildhorse
Your comment is really telling in regard to your own lack of self confidence. While I'm no Freud, your words speak volumes.
What makes a man who respects a women's individual right at an independent life "feminized" ... I really must hear your definition.
Why would you equate a liberalized male's physique to one lacking of "muscles"?
It's been my experience that those with liberal backgrounds are not only more educated then their conservative counterparts, but they also take better care of their physical person as well. The construction workers? Their the ones with their belly's hanging out of their "drill baby drill," mustard-stained tshirts.
I think you're confusing "feminized" men with altruistic men. Men who respect the women in their lives as equal human beings. It's not about "strong, traditional male roles". It's about preserving and protecting the collective strength of the human condition.
LOL. This is what guys who are unable to get women say to try to belittle those of us who have. Well, all I have to say is that I'll be sleeping with my wife tonight, while you will have a playboy and your machissmo attitude to keep you company. Have fun with that.
Yea I bet Jehovah Psalms 83:18 bounced Jesus on his knee and told him how proud he was of him and how much he loved him and stood up at night with him when he was sick worried all the time about him as he grew up and protected him from t6hose people down the road making Crystal Meth that the Police keep letting out of jail. He must have taught him to not wear his robe below his waist and played ball with him and took him fishing , after all he was a great fisher of men and a great teacher. I bet there sure was a lot of great stories except for the one where he had to throw Lucifer out of Heaven just like we should do our kids on drugs > MAKE it a hanging offence for someone to deal drugs it doesn't matter if it is my kid Kick him out of his heavenly home if he wants run with the wolves. I am very serious no matter who the person is if they are dealing drugs hang them stop this wishy washy painty waist approach to everything HANG THEM HIGH and you will get rid of the drug problem Period. Don't come back with that is too harsh a punishment, when they know what is coming and do not stop get rid of them and clean up the world : Next step welfare fraud
Holy unintelligble babble Batman! Are you sure you're not on meth?
Future anthropologists will look back at the last half of the 20th century as the point when American humans began to evolve backward by setting up programs to encouraging breeding in the most unfit & non-productive while limiting breeding of the best and brightest. They will be amazed at how we foolishly threw away such a great society with unlimited potential due to misguided benevolence. Too bad. So long and thanks for all the fish!
---Dave Bryant in Tampa
There's no such thing as "evolving backward." Try again.
If you don't understand the message perhaps you should try again.
Spoken like the people that support such programs as Eugenics, Social Darwinism and etc. Funny thing I have observed though. Those same people believe and act as such because they truly seem to believe they are above the line they draw to say who deserves to die and who deserves to live. But if and whenever the tables are turned, then they cry for the milk of human kindness. Mores the pity.
I think he was referencing a scenario similar to the one put forth in the movie, "Idiocracy."
Natural selection is not up to us. While it may seem that out technological advances/excesses have allowed the human race to seemingly suspend natural selection, it is more an issue that we, society, have fostered an environment in which seemingly maladaptive traits are specifically sought out in mates.
Okay, for instance. If there is a surplus of food, there is less time and effort involved with the immediate sustenance of life. So maybe then it is not so important to find a man who is a good hunter or a woman who can travel by foot for many miles in search of food. Perhaps we decide that men who are promiscuous get more women and are therefore superior. We have then fostered an environment where more monogamy-minded attitudes are "bred out" between genetics and cultural impression. That being said, it IS entirely possible for humanity to "breed out" the long-term viability of our species; Look at the shih tzu...
These examples are hypothetical. The point is, people, in general, have this notion that natural selection (Darwinism) is "survival of the fittest." That is simply not the case. It is survival of the ones that survive... Why? Well... Because... Think of it as the ordered culmination of the ultimately chaotic.
The elephant seal is a good example, I think.
Um, and you felt the need to give me this information I already knew exactly why?
No need to be snarky... I was simply adding to what you said about the idea of "evolving backwards..." Really, I thought the first poster was confused and twisting facts to support an elitist agenda, as well, thus I thought HE might benefit from further clarification... Shalom.
Well, this hits home that gays and lesbians would die out in one to two generations amongst themselves. If that doesn't tell you the nature of natural selection, nothing does.
There have been plenty of hypotheses explaining the relationship between natural selection and homosexuality. Try again.
What does that have to do with the fact. Try harder. Let's try an experiment an put all gay men, or all lesbians on an island for 50 years and see what happens. Than it won't be a hypotheses.
Jon
Straight people would just keep making gay people.
Many of these speculations seem to have gone beyond the bounds of science, reminiscent of the unsubstantiated claim that the family is the building block of society. In many hunter-gatherer societies, the concept of biological fatherhood does not exist. Children raised by "stepfathers" in these societies experience fewer social and mental problems in adulthood than those raised in traditional western family structures. The tribe, not the family, appears to be the true building block of society.
Uhhh... kinship structures are the basis for even the most rudimentary tribal organization. I would take it further and say that the abstract, cognizant relationships between humans are the basis of society. (IMO)
I think enlightened men are great. Their manhood isn't threatened by staying home and braiding pigtails if their wife is in a position to make more money than they are. They still play golf. They still watch the games on T.V. and staying home doesn't make them less than other men. In the eyes of their wives and daughters and sons, they are Supermen. Doing everything that moms have always done with their own style. Our society is evolving into something different than it once was and you know how folks panic when anything changes, even the smallest bit. Over 60% of college students these days are women. Where do you think that's going to lead us? Women will start to be the bread winners and men will start to be the nurturers. And what's wrong with that? This world needs more compassion from us all and raising your kids yourself in lieu of a babysitter gives you lots of chances to learn patience, fortitude and kindness. I asked a little girl once what her daddy did and her answer was "brush my hair, make lunch, wash the dog". Then I asked her what her mommy did and she said "My mommy sells titanium". She thought her daddy was much more interesting. She talked about him all the time and I think that's wonderful.
Interesting article.
What bull. Most bird species have more paternal involvement than mammals, even humans, and their minds are nowhere near human level. 'Fatherhood' in humans means being little more than a sperm donor or a baby-daddy to the child of a casual female acquaintance. Articles like this are just written to make men feel good about themselves.
Trolling, Lexi?
I raised my daughter. After her mother died, I had to raise her by myself. I don't need an article like this to know my worth as a father.
@Lexi ,tell that to my 14 y/o daughter that I am raising as a single dad.
Massively incorrect. If your statement held any merit I would not be a single father of two. Try again and stop judging the many by the few.
Womens lib has nothing to do with this study. Womens lib is associated with the latch key kids of the eighties which is due to the degrading economic stability of this country. More liberated women had to work to keep the family unit in a positive economic situation. The main wage earner of a family was not making enough to support a family so the woman in the household had to pickup a job as well.
The classic "man works, woman stays home" model is truly a modern invention. Only during the early industrial revolution or during the "Elisabeth-ian" social eras, were women held on a pedistal (objectified?) in that way. All rural societies have both sexes working, many times side by side. It is purely a bump in social history.
Now Peter Gray and Kermyt Anderson may have “ticked off” several obvious and/or assumed “observations” about fatherhood but I do not think they constitute anything factual about the evolution of fatherhood. To wit:
Yup, hunter-gatherer is a part-time job males perform whenever they get hungry, whereas herding livestock is a full-time job males perform to prevent from getting hungry.
HA, …. Mother’s baby, … Daddy’s maybe. A male’s investment potential is determined by the emotional bond between himself and the mother and/or child …… and/or the “needs” of the male that could be provided by the child at a future date.
HA, both males and females will “lie like a rock” when questioned about their sexual wants, desires and physical acts.
Mercy me, …… is not the above statement directly contrary to the title of the article, to wit: “How fatherhood made us human”
Holy unintelligble babble Batman! Are you sure you're not on meth?
.
So many men today vote for republicans, so they tend not to play much of a role in families, not the great hunter of the past. They don't have jobs, or don't make much. All tend to make less, women and men, while women take/make a bigger impact. Women tend to have more education, and are making gains in income, while males are going backwards. Eventually men may not be needed, other than for procreation, which may also be solved. It's their own fault, so many of them are staunchly conservative, and advocate economic policies that destroy them. Most are economic illterates, not great hunters. Economic issues just make their eyes glaze over, but they do know a few right wing jingles. The proof is in the pudding, they are going backwards, downward, losing ground, failing, failures. So many of them voted for that.
LOL this is not about politics. I know terrific & horrible men of both political parties. Besides the educated vs uneducated #s among Democrat vs Republican tend to be fairly even. Now back to the actual article.
The happiest families I know and statistically this is true are ones where mom & dad work as equals. Both hubby and I work & have some flex to our jobs & we are very happy:) Much happier than when I was at home. I lucked out w/ my hubby but I do fear for men in general in the future. Too many seem to lack ambition & a work ethic.
Wow....really?
Just a quick post re that idea that a generation ago, men went off to work every day, while women "stayed home and didn't work." My mother was a "housewife" until my father died (in 1951), and she certainly did work! Household chores were much more difficult in those days--we lacked many conveniences that are now taken for granted. We didn't have hot running water (water for baths had to be heated on the kitchen stove, then lugged into the bathroom). In winter, coal had to be purchased and stored, then hauled up from the cellar when needed. The "icebox" had to be laboriously defrosted. There were no frozen entrees, no microwave ovens, NONE of the "gadgets" that make cooking and cleaning easier today.
I neglected to mention that the Homo ergaster specimen I referred to is dated at about 1.8 my, which does support group care, although not in itself parental care. Also, the specimen in question is adult.
This in reference to a much longer, earlier post, which has not appeared.
and we are on a downward spiral of reverse evolution with all the single moms out there.. soon we'll be just like the apes
WTF? really...?
When I was a kid, I'd get up weekend mornings and watch cartoons to get my entertainment. Now, I just read threads like this one. I am truly amazed that we humans have survived this long. Fascinating.
We're not as smart as dolphins, but we work our a$$es off.
this article would have been better titled, "how early hunter-gather hominids differed from chimpanzees". to say that today's peoples are similiar to austropethicines as the article implies is ridiculous. for one thing, the industrial capitalism which our economy has been based on for a century & a half is rapidly coming to an end. with jobs so few & far between for so many, families ties aren't strong anymore, look at all the divorces & single mothers. and this article definitely overlooks the role of mothers & children not just in hominids, but all mammals & even female reptiles. the article also implies we are more peaceful than chimps, which is really just pure nonsense. the whole history of humankind is warfare & killing, over 100 million killed in the 20th century alone. and look at america, enslaves africans, & genocides native americans. we aren't peaceful & we never have been. sure all fathers of which i am one get to celebrate tomorrow. let's just don't get carried away with how wonderful we are.
Um. The name is correct. It is after all EXACTLY what the article was talking about. "How fatherhood MADE US human." All that stuff came afterwards and thusly not part of the scope of this article.
Mel - bit of a negative nellie there ol sport...couldn't you just as well state the good side of mankind...I mean isn't there more to the picture than all the terrible things?