The most extensive and authoritative report … concluded that 2 percent of men with “high paternity confidence” — married men who had every reason to believe they were their children’s father — were, in fact, not biological parents. Several studies indicate that the rate appears to be far higher among unmarried fathers. …
Hanson argues for mandatory paternity testing. He examines justifications which are weakly based on the best interest of the child and correctly finds them wanting.
Here is my case against mandatory paternity testing: disguised paternity is the most powerful weapon women have in the battle of the sexes. Male barn swallows can roughly be divided into three categories: alpha males, alpha husbands, and (ahem) losers. I use the term 'alpha husband' instead of 'beta' because even though female barn swallows generally prefer alpha males, they are faithful to alpha husbands who are good providers. Let me anthropomorphize. I wonder that she acts faithfully and carries a big stick. If her husband neglects his duties as a provider then she will exercise her right to procreate with an alpha male. In keeping with sociobiology, which studies patterns of animal behavior, I think barn swallows teach us something about humans.
When a man and woman get married the woman typically gives up some of her negotiating power. Even progressive women do the bulk of the homemaking and child rearing. That means that women make sacrifices in their career in order to raise children. Men gain relative power because they have a greater ability to walk away from the marriage. Now, I don't think many men want to abandon their wives or neglect their parenting duties. But deep down everyone knows how the power dynamic changes. If a man spends all his time at work or with his golfing buddies then his wife knows the score. Her choice is a paycheck and an absent husband or a child support check and an absent husband. Many women suck it up and take what they can get. On this view I have to side with the progressives. The ability to cuckold her husband is a power that women don't want to use anymore than men want to walk away. But simply having that threat will partially offset the power she gives up with marriage and childbearing.
What's more interesting is to imagine the second order effects. The first theory holds that paternity testing makes females more likely to seek alpha males because they have an extra method to keep high status males on their best behavior. But I think Joan Roughgarden's theory of social selection is the correct one (once you realize that there is such a thing as "good genes" and even "great genes.") It holds that reproduction is an economic market in which males provide (1) genes plus (2) help raising children. In return they get sexual access to females. Alpha males don't need to offer help raising children because they have such good genes. They can "buy" sexual access to females on genes alone.
Low status males have to supplement their genes with help raising children. But realistically females have to discount their bids because talk is cheap. Even a costly signal of paternal investment, like building a large nest or getting a college education, is cheap in that bargaining power changes after the relationship has formed. The extra bargaining power that women retain in the form of disguised paternity means that they don't have to discount the bids of low status males as much. Paternity testing hurts low status males even though, ironically, they are the ones most likely to be cuckolded.
If my reasoning is correct - and I could easily be wrong - alpha males should against paternity testing. It increases their bargaining power relative to beta males. Beta males should be opposed. Now comes the tragic part. Because of what Robin Hanson calls the One Ring of all biases, beta males usually do not admit to themselves that they are beta males. That's true no matter how much they play Worlds of Warcraft on Friday night. So I put my hope in the political power of feminists over the political power of libertarians. Once again the odd alliance between feminists and conservative Christians asserts itself.
7 comments:
I am confused why you think a libertarian would be for mandatory anything?
As a libertarian of sorts I am vehemently opposed to forcing people to do anything.
The only possible action here would be for a father who has doubts to refuse to pay for the upkeep of the child unless the mother consents to a paternity test.
That would mean 98% of men would have accused their wife/partner of cheating and be wrong as well as refusing to pay for their own child's well-being. The odds are massively stacked against this ever happening so a reasonably rational male (alpha, beta or gamma) would not ever ask for a paternity test if they had any wish to stay with the mother.
Hi March,
I am confused why you think a libertarian would be for mandatory anything?
See Robin Hanson's comment in the original thread on his blog. It might actually be a worth a post: the growing backlash against the "axiomatic libertarian." I am not a libertarian but my take is that sophisticated libertarians are far more open to coercion than less sophisticated libertarians. Obviously there are exceptions like David Friedman.
I think Hanson would argue that the situation you describe is inefficient. If you could create a situation in which men could get the same information but without essentially making an accusation of infidelity then the efficient outcome would be reached. But of course, that requires government coercion in the form of mandatory paternity tests.
It seems that cuckolding is a little harsh though. Women reserve the right to essentially cut off a man's genetic line because he plays golf with his buddies too much? Can't she just burn his dinner or something?
The whole alpha, beta, omega is just modern mythology. Sure there may be a sliver of evolutionary truth but it over simplifies to the point of absurdity. It’s basically a male rationalization to act badly in reaction against feminism. But as a male, I will play along. :)
You are using the term “alpha” to mean genetically superior where I would view it as a type of strategy. If a male has had hundreds of sexual partners then I would say that he would fit the “alpha” definition but that doesn’t necessarily mean he has better genes especially in modern society. We could define better genes in a lot of ways but lets use the term to mean the likelihood of having offspring and I would wager that the “beta” strategy is more likely to have children then the “alpha” strategy in modern society. With birth control, abortion, and a self centered culture that views children as a burden, the alpha strategy doesn’t seem to get’er done. Hanson recent post on monogamy is also interesting in this light.
Personally, I would rename the term “alpha” as scoundrel and view the relationship between man and woman as cooperative in the divine plan as opposed to a battle between the sexes. Doing this seems more Biblical anyway.
One last thing, Hanson’s view on mandatory paternity testing is a terrible idea.
One of the ironic twists of modern technology is that alpha males now have the fewest children. But if alpha status is about gaining sexual access to women rather than procreating we have the same dynamic.
I think the logical fallacy of the appeal to nature runs deep in human nature. As a conservative Christian who believes in abstinence, I don't approve of alpha behavior. I just want people to realize that Roissy has a firmer grasp on reality than your typical feminist.
One of the problems I have with your view, Justin, is that women are seen not as autonomous beings with their own goals and strategies.
Women have various goals and strategies, one of which is to snare a man (rarely an alpha, more likely a financially stable beta - if only you'd properly define what an alpha is and what a beta is!) and settle down. Other women want careers and will try to 'bag' as many alphas as possible, some will try to tame an alpha.
Obviously a theory has to simplify certain aspects of what it is describing, but your seems to accept many differences between males and ignores differences between females.
Hiya March,
That's not true. I'm a big fan of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. She is a feminist sociobiologist. Thus her research basically boils down to "women are mean SOB's too." For example, high status women can claim a larger share of the group's food supply for her own offspring even if the children of other women go hungry. High status women can also secure the support of allomothers (generally low status females) to watch the kids while she gathers food. The "career vs. kids" debate is nothing new in human nature. Women have to choose between competing strategies: gain high status and let others raise her kids, or raise the kids herself?
See my review of one of her books here.
But this is a blog not a philosophy journal. My posts are already pretty long and I can't explore the entire body of sociobiology in every post. Particularly since I tend to go with the flow of the conversations on other blogs and most men talk about status competitions from a male persepective.
Post a Comment