WI: Fatherhood doesn't evolve with humans?

Currently, in most species, the father does not take care of the young. In only 6% of Mammalian species does the father play any key role, humans among them. Research shows that the brains of men whose partners are expecting a (wanted) child go through similar changes that mothers do, that they experience hormone changes in the brain to display parenting behavior, and they bond with babies in a way similar to the mothers, and that a father figure is crucial to a child's development.

Suppose, however, that humans evolved in a way that the fathers' role was no more than conception, that his work in the creation was finished after a one-night stand? How would human society and civilization develop, and in what ways would it be different today?

EDIT: Sorry, meant for Before 1900.
 
Requires a PoD rather earlier than 1900, unless J'Accuse suddenly becomes a world-changing polemic about the right of the man not to be tied down by paternal responsibility.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
isn't biological POD should be at ASB thread ?

that depending on how male function on human society. since POD change basic human behaviour, anything could happen.

possibility is widespread matriachy, like Musuo and Nayar, if father still care about their Mother and Sister.

another is male entirely establish separate society, only visit female-only village during mating.
 

NothingNow

Banned
isn't biological POD should be at ASB thread ?

Yep, and one that's fairly far back. About 40% of Primate genera display serious parental investment, although it depends on the sort of groups humans would tend to be in.

Siamangs and Gorillas are the only apes that actually show it according to this source while Chimpanzees and most Gibbons (the Siamang being the exception) don't display much in the way of paternal investment.

But you get all sorts of unexpected relationships that might not be predicted by the structure of society in which it develops. We see evidence of that IOTL in human societies, including the major split in cultural norms evident in Agriculturalist and Hunter-Gatherer societies.

So asking what would happen if there is no serious paternal investment, is actually a seriously complex question, and one that requires pretty rigorous thinking, along with a working POD of ~4-5 MYA. This would probably have serious knock-on effects regarding tribe Hominini, definitely butterflying H. sapiens, but not comparably sapient humans over-all.
 
More recent?

Here's a variant I've been musing on, regarding the development of fatherhood, in particular as we know it in the last century. Anything earlier seems to be invalid, intriguing in itself, but not under the After 1900 section.
If we want to keep the POD recent, these would be the critical periods:
The upheavals of the 1920s, with Women's Sufferage, and of the 1960s, with Women's Liberation. The most significant time might be 1972, with passage of the Equal Right Amendment in TTL, and women deciding they did not need a man in order to have a home, children. The idea of marriage and parenthood would undergo major change; a man would still pay for the upkeep of his children (think Maury Povich but in the 1970s) but not stay in the same house with them. At the same time, women would be freer to pursue whatever relationship was significant.
It's still a good idea, just needs work.
 
What is the role of a father in a polyandrous system, where a woman lives with more than one husband? Though not so common as polygamy, polyandry too exist in certain societies. In this system one woman is sexually shared by two or more men. In polygamy, as in normal monogamy, fatherhood cannot be contested. But in polyandry fatherhood cannot be established without doubt. There is a saying that while motherhood is a fact, fatherhood is only a belief. In certain societies there is a tradition of the brothers sharing a wife. The woman married by the eldest brother is shared by the younger brothers as well. All women married into the family become common wives of the brothers. One purpose of this system was to prevent the division of the family property.
 

scholar

Banned
Fatherhood, and even motherhood, are not evolved traits. They are learned social traits. Animals in zoos grown without contact and upbringing by other animals of the same species often times ignore or kill/eat their own young, even in mammal groups. We don't like to think that animals learn social behavior, but they do.
 
But, can it work, given the long pregnancies, riskier births and the long time it takes for a human to be somewhat self dependant?
I might be wrong, but I guess without at least a tribe, homo sapiens wouldn't survive.
Maybe this requires the evolution of another sapient branch of the homo genre, better suited to childbirth, with shorter pregnancies and faster children's development?
 
But, can it work, given the long pregnancies, riskier births and the long time it takes for a human to be somewhat self dependant?
I might be wrong, but I guess without at least a tribe, homo sapiens wouldn't survive.
Maybe this requires the evolution of another sapient branch of the homo genre, better suited to childbirth, with shorter pregnancies and faster children's development?

What he said.

You simply cant support the long childhood development necessary for Hsap without male involvement.

Suppose you had two populations, call them H uxoris with male involvement in parenting, and H hefneri without. Then the former population will massively outcompete the latter, which will go extinct, or at least be relegated to some specialized ecological niche. Then when Hsap evolves out of uxoris, theyll probably push hefneri out of even that niche.
 
Top