Evolutionary Psychology is the Reason I Only Have Boys
Photo: Ole Jørgen Bratland & Gisele Jaquenod, stock.xchng.com
Here’s the basic idea: Those personality traits that encourage successful reproduction in that person’s progeny are favored. Those that don’t, well, die out.
The idea has been around since the 1960s or so. Especially in the mating game, it explains a whole lot.
Like–why men have the roving eye. You see, a man’s investment in his progeny traditionally was a five to ten minute romp with his progeny’s mom. So the more romping he did, the more likely he was to successfully pass on those personality traits which encouraged romping excessively. In the long term, this produces the classic, “What’s your sign? Do you want to go to bed with me?” philosophy of fatherhood.
Women, on the other hand, have to invest 18 years in that little romp. Which means we have evolved to avoid the “What’s your sign?” men. We tend to chose men who might be around for, say, 18 years.
Hence the battle of the sexes, which has been going on since long before Darwin’s brilliance began to explain this whole mess. It seems humans, like most other higher mammals, simply did not evolve to be monogamous, or at least not easily monogamous.
[If you haven't read The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright, I highly recommend it. It's a fine review of the basic concept of evolutionary psychology, told in an appealing way, by stepping through Darwin's marital life. Fun, and fascinating.]
Society has chosen monogamy as the preferred method of male to female interaction. Yet, trying to fiat psychology always has its perils. So, too, does trying to upset the apple cart. As women’s gender roles have been changing, there has been resistance. And it may not come from where you think it does.
Yes, men are often credited with trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant. But, evolutionary psychology says they should be gratefully taking advantage of the new woman, who is perfectly capable of feeding her progeny herself (and preventing progeny, thank you very much). Men should be delighted that they can get free sex without the 18 year commitment.
Women, however, have a different agenda. Remember, the evolutionary purpose of any woman’s life is to create reproductively successful children. And if her girls are out partying and working and choosing not to procreate, MOM HAS DONE IT WRONG.
This new study shocks me a lot less than it has a lot of people. The purpose was to determine where opposition and hostility to changing gender roles arises. It turns out–it’s just as common among women as men.
Obviously, women have to support any social hierarchy, any social order. Regardless of cries of suppression, if the entirety of 50% of the population rose up en masse, things would be a-changin’. The fact that women, traditionally, DIDN’T, implies tacit approval of the status quo.
A woman whose daughters behaved as expected in the status quo had reproductively successful daughters. So that’s how she raised them. It takes a strong woman to step out of the mold.
It’s probably a good thing I only had sons. I have a fairly decent shot at spreading my genes to another generation.
Well, maybe not. I guess I need to explore the reproductive potential of geeks. Next post.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!![[del.icio.us]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[kirtsy]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/kirtsy.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mothershandbook.net/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Related posts:
- Boys and Girls ARE Different. TRUST Me.
- Another Really Good Reason Not to Clean
- Of Lizards and Boys
- Peacocks R’ Us
- It was Bound to Happen…
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
9 Comments
Stephanie B.
Monday, 25th January 2010 at 4:04 pm
My father was one of the most extreme feminists I know, one of nine brothers and three sisters. He had five daughters and two sons (and most of his generations tips the scale a bit to the daughter side). I consider myself quite progressive myself and girls outnumber boys in our household 3:2 (including parents).
I wonder if that means I'm weird.
[Reply]
Mira
Monday, 25th January 2010 at 4:41 pm
I have to say that I love that 'benevolent sexism' is BS in that article. It so is. Anyway, it is hard to keep people from asking my daughter, not even 2, to be the more responsible one, clean up and behave herself better. People just assume boys will be rowdy. I am not immune from gender roles. And I have to work hard not to be the old fashioned mom who does all the housework. Or I will have to once I find an alternative. I'm hoping intellectually I can counteract what they see. Because otherwise my daughter will be very confused.
[Reply]
ilinap
Tuesday, 26th January 2010 at 2:17 am
It seems that I had boys for good reason too. And now when people ask me if I'm going to have more children to try for a girl, I've got this study and your blog post as my ammo. Sidebar: I HATE when people assume I'm unfilled just because I don't have a daughter. Boys rock.
[Reply]
The Mayor
Tuesday, 26th January 2010 at 4:46 pm
I think I my self esteem may be seriously damaged. The eldest 2 of my 5 daughters are ambitious and busy working full time, pursuing an MBA, enjoying what little free time there is and NOT procreating. That's fine with me.
That's fine with me, I did enough procreating for all of us.
[Reply]
The Dental Maven
Tuesday, 26th January 2010 at 8:58 pm
My dad used to say that a woman without a career is one step away from the welfare line, and I took his words to heart.
[Reply]
mrsbear
Wednesday, 27th January 2010 at 12:47 am
I am alright with my daughters proving me a failure in the reproductive arena, as long as I'm not a grandmother before I'm 40.
[Reply]
badmommymoments Replies:
January 27th, 2010 at 1:26 am
I was just thinking the same thing.
[Reply]
Stepiphany
Wednesday, 27th January 2010 at 11:48 am
Interesting, but not shocking study. My mom is probably the most sexist person I know, in spite of the fact that she often dipped into notraditional roles for herself.
[Reply]
sara
Thursday, 28th January 2010 at 10:54 am
Try a book called Ever Since Adam And Eve – same vein, kind of hard to get ahold of, but also beautiful illustrations and fascinating. But also, statistically – the higher status you are, the more likely you are to have sons. People in poorer situations have more daughters – the evolutionary theory being that if you are poor, a daughter might marry up, but if you are wealthy, a son will keep your possessions. Mechanism not known, seems to have to do with varying infant mortality rates. Happens in most mammals.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment