Behavioral evolution dictates that males invest less in offspring (males of this species, at any rate) because the creation of offspring costs them less than the female.
It's like a poker hand - the female is the big blind, and no matter what the cards are there is an investment of time and energy into the child, in the form of the pregnancy term. The male is the dealer - he may fold at any point for no loss in terms of resources expended. This dictates classic behaviour - men seek physical relationships because it is expedient to invest as little and spread the genes as wide as possible. Females seek commitment because they stand to lose in abandoning offspring, and they stand to lose if a partner should abandon them. Men invest nothing from a purely reproductive standpoint (or almost nothing beyond the energy used to create the sperm, which is nothing compared to the burden of carrying the child).
This might dictate societal standards, which are largely females' play at evening the playing field - males are expected to invest in relationships more so than females, from a societal standpoint. Time and resources are expected from men. They are expected to make the move. This is a form of investment demanded by society, and the penalty for disobedience is ostracism.
just a little thought. I'm sure any real biologists could put me right on any salient points I misrepresented.
No comments:
Post a Comment