it’s not clear that the food provider role of males was actually widely present in prehistoric people
I don’t see support of this statement in your linked text (which, by the way, dips into politically correct idiocy a bit too often for my liking).
Not sure what causes your amusement.
I’m easily amused :-P
Isn’t there still the possibility that this is memetics rather than genetics?
What exactly is “this”? Are you saying that there is no genetic basis for males to be attached to their offspring and any attachment one might observe is entirely cultural?
Here is the part I’m referring to: “Nor does the ethnographic record support the idea of sedentary women staying home with the kids and waiting for food to show up with the hubby. We know that women hunt in many cultures, and even if the division of labor means that they are the plant gatherers, they work hard and move around; note this picture (Zihlman 1981:92) of a !Kung woman on a gathering trip from camp, carrying the child and the bag of plants obtained and seven months pregnant! She is averaging many km per day in obtaining the needed resources.”
What exactly is “this”? Are you saying that there is no genetic basis for males to be attached to their offspring and any attachment one might observe is entirely cultural?
Attachment to cute babies is clearly genetically predetermined, but I’m trying to argue that it’s not clear at all that considerations whether or not to have sex are genetically determined by other things than physical attraction.
Yes, and how does it show that “it’s not clear that the food provider role of males was actually widely present in prehistoric people”? The observation that women “work hard and move around” does not support the notion that they can feed themselves and their kids without any help from males.
I’m trying to argue that it’s not clear at all that considerations whether or not to have sex are genetically determined by other things than physical attraction.
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that the only genetic imperative for males is to fuck anything that moves and that any constraints on that are solely cultural? That’s not where you started. Your initial question was:
But how significant is the ‘traditional’ male father role for a good upbringing of a child?
Yes, and how does it show that “it’s not clear that the food provider role of males was actually widely present in prehistoric people”? The observation that women “work hard and move around” does not support the notion that they can feed themselves and their kids without any help from males.
At least it provides evidence that upbringing of the offspring could have worked without a father role. Here are a couple of other hints that may support my argument: Among apes the father is mostly unknown; The unique size and shape of the human penis among great apes is thought to have evolved to scoop out sperm of competing males; The high variability of marriage types suggest that not much is pretetermined in that regard; The social brain hypothesis might suggest that our predecessors had to deal with a lot of affairs and intrigues.
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that the only genetic imperative for males is to fuck anything that moves and that any constraints on that are solely cultural? That’s not where you started.
Well, whatever the individual sexual attraction is, but yes. At least, I’m arguing that we can’t reject that possibility.
Your initial question was: But how significant is the ‘traditional’ male father role for a good upbringing of a child?
That’s part of the same complex: If it hasn’t been significant then there wouldn’t even have been be evolutionary pressure for caring farthers (assuming high-level stuff like that can be selected for at all).
I don’t see support of this statement in your linked text (which, by the way, dips into politically correct idiocy a bit too often for my liking).
I’m easily amused :-P
What exactly is “this”? Are you saying that there is no genetic basis for males to be attached to their offspring and any attachment one might observe is entirely cultural?
Here is the part I’m referring to: “Nor does the ethnographic record support the idea of sedentary women staying home with the kids and waiting for food to show up with the hubby. We know that women hunt in many cultures, and even if the division of labor means that they are the plant gatherers, they work hard and move around; note this picture (Zihlman 1981:92) of a !Kung woman on a gathering trip from camp, carrying the child and the bag of plants obtained and seven months pregnant! She is averaging many km per day in obtaining the needed resources.”
Attachment to cute babies is clearly genetically predetermined, but I’m trying to argue that it’s not clear at all that considerations whether or not to have sex are genetically determined by other things than physical attraction.
Yes, and how does it show that “it’s not clear that the food provider role of males was actually widely present in prehistoric people”? The observation that women “work hard and move around” does not support the notion that they can feed themselves and their kids without any help from males.
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that the only genetic imperative for males is to fuck anything that moves and that any constraints on that are solely cultural? That’s not where you started. Your initial question was:
At least it provides evidence that upbringing of the offspring could have worked without a father role. Here are a couple of other hints that may support my argument: Among apes the father is mostly unknown; The unique size and shape of the human penis among great apes is thought to have evolved to scoop out sperm of competing males; The high variability of marriage types suggest that not much is pretetermined in that regard; The social brain hypothesis might suggest that our predecessors had to deal with a lot of affairs and intrigues.
Well, whatever the individual sexual attraction is, but yes. At least, I’m arguing that we can’t reject that possibility.
That’s part of the same complex: If it hasn’t been significant then there wouldn’t even have been be evolutionary pressure for caring farthers (assuming high-level stuff like that can be selected for at all).