Why is Polygamy is a male evolutionary imperative and Monogamy a woman's?

[Anonymous]

Saw this on a Facebook page, do you agree that Polygamy is a male evolutionary imperative where as Monogamy is a woman's? Is it fair to call men cheaters for exercising their evolutionary imperative?

Are we living in a gynocratic culture?

[NamerOfStars]

It's not- think it through. Human children are, at first, almost entirely helpless, and even after that, need CONSTANT supervision for YEARS. Who's more likely to have kids who survive: the guy who goes around knocking up random women and leaving, or the guy who knocks up one woman, but sticks around?

[Asker]

Prisons aren't filled with people from polygamous households..
Let's look at it your way, 2 lion kingdoms, does the lion kingdom with one male and one female, stand a chance against the lion pride with 1 male and 5 females for example?

[NamerOfStars]

Prisons are filled with people from *single-parent* households- usually single mother (which would be even more prevalent if dad didn't stick around). And a polygamous household would have WORSE results even if he did, because it's spreading available resources over more people. Humans simply aren't R-strategists.

[MountAverage]

We need to stop with the whole "evolutionary imperative" nonsense. It's nothing but a naturalistic fallacy and a total overinterpretation and oversimplification of evolutionary explanations. People just love to abuse evolution as an excuse for all kinds of shitty stuff.

It's okay for men to cheat because that's our EVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE!

Give me a fucking break.

[Asker]

Did anyone else noticed that no counter arguing point was made? Just an outburst of emotion... 🙄

[MountAverage]

I don't know who you're referring to. What I'm saying is that anyone who puts the word "imperative" after "evolution" does not understand the first thing about evolution. Again, it's a naturalistic fallacy - just because something happens in nature, doesn't mean it's "good" or it's something should continue doing. In a more general term, it's an is-ought fallacy (David Hume) - just because something IS, doesn't mean it's how it's OUGHT to be.

One of the first things you learn when you study biology, is that evolution has no "intent". Even putting all that aside, the whole premise of men being polygamous and women being monogamous, is an extreme oversimplification of evolutionary and sociocultural history.

But okay, for the sake of argument, let's pretend the premise is correct and this is our evolutionary background in terms of how humans lived. So what? Our ancestors did all kinds of shit throughout our evolution, I don't see anyone demand we keep doing those things.

If we always tried to do things how our ancestors did them, then how would we even evolve? Also, people who misrepresent evolution for their arguments always downplay or simply deny sociocultural factors of the modern era. We're not cavemen anymore, the times humans were driven exclusively by instinct are long gone.

So, how's that? Counter enough?

P. S.: I teach biology and I have degrees in psychology and philosophy. This is exactly my field of expertise, so think hard before you rspond if you wanna embarrass yourself even more.

[mr4435669]

Monogamy was imposed to reduce intrasexual male competition and the number of single men, in polygynous societies, 20% of men with higher status monopolize 80% of women.

[Asker]

Any references for your opinion?

[mr4435669]

royalsocietypublishing.org/.../rstb.2011.0290

[Asker]

There was no study cited in any of their claims. That link you posted was an opinion piece.

[SomeGuyCalledTom]

That's enough Internet for you today.