Sex at Dawn

Go Chris. Way to punch holes in the curtain of assumptions. You know what they say about those dang things: Assumptions making an ass out of u and me.
Right on! Hope you send this letter to the NYT...
~Rachel

Frankly, both Hrdy's comment and yours seem to have nothing to do with the assertions made elsewhere in the NYT article. Nowhere in the article is there any suggestion that the drop in testosterone is related to biological fatherhood. Indeed, the article makes clear that other non-biological events, such as marriage, result in the testosterone plummet. To me, it was quite clear from the article that the phenomenon would apply to any male who takes on child-care duties. By using the term "fatherhood" perhaps the NYT article implied that a male is not likely to take on childcare duties unless he views the child to be "his" either biologically or by adoption. This is not an issue directly addressed by the NYT article or the underlying study. However, the study did show that high testosterone is associated with high reproductive fitness. Evolutionary principles would suggest that a man is not likely to undertake a task that does not benefit his progeny and also compromises his own reproductive fitness. So it is difficult to swallow your idea that the low-T phenomenon suggests that human males have a natural tendency to nurture "anyone's kids." Studies show that a step-father is far more likely to abuse the children in his household than is a man who is (or believes himself to be) the biological father of the children in his household. Similarly, it is common among many primates, including gorillas, for an alpha-male to systematically kill the offspring of other males. So, while it would be nice to believe that our pre-historic male ancestors were happy to expend time and resources to nurture anyone's child, I just don't see it.

You think that human mothers - like mothers in all species - don't put their own kids first? DOH!

Not spent much time around mothers at the school gate or watching their children in sporting activities, have you ;)

To Rachel - are you arguing that stepfathers are no different from biological fathers in caring for kids?

Children experience higher rates of physical and sexual abuse from stepfathers than natural fathers - that's very well established. I guess it's possible that the testosterone drops for stepfathers too but that other factors - all the social/emotional disruptions that can be attendant on blended family situations- counteract that drop. But it seems like the difference could also easily just be a sign of the testosterone maintaining at the same levels as usual, instead of dropping.

Either way it seems like the article just reports on one limited piece of research, without covering complexities. Not the research to answer the more interesting questions, but... I'm seeing more general huzzahs for fatherhood than the crushing weight of the 'marital industrial complex' here.

Incidentally I'm all for a broader conception of families - but I don't think you can magic away the hard realitles of stepfather violence, wherever it comes from, just out of optimism.

Has anybody considered that the dads (or non-dad kid-minders) might just be really, really *tired*? I speak as the father of two and stepfather of one.