Cooperative and Competitive Mothering

Abstract

Mothers face a novel situation compared to other human roles. While there are benefits in cooperating with others for shared resources, there are simultaneously benefits in competing for one’s own gains. Moreover, infants pose unique challenges to mothers, requiring extended provisioning and protection. Women cooperate and support each other to benefit the group and in particular their children; however, mothers may benefit from competing for limited resources that directly impact on them and their children and, hence, engage in indirect reproductive competition. The quandary for mothers becomes whether they should cooperate or compete with other mothers, especially when resources related to reproduction and child care are in limited supply. We review literature on cooperative breeding and allomothering, present literature on women’s reproductive competition, and explore limitations on investigating cooperation or competition. We then bring cooperation and competition together and address how mothers follow both strategies, concluding with suggestions for future work.

Resolving the tension between feminism and evolutionary psychology: An epistemological critique.

“…Another example involves research on the criteria by which women tend to use to select desired mates within particular cultural and environmental circumstances (i.e., female choice; Frederick, Reynolds, & Fisher, 2013). The interesting case of competitive mothering has also been recently explored by evolutionary psychologists, whereby mothers vie for limited resources that impact their own and their offspring’s reproductive success (Sokol-Chang, Burch, & Fisher, 2017).…”

More than just a pretty face: The overlooked contributions of women in evolutionary psychology textbooks.

“…There was even a response directly after the publication of Man, the Hunter in Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology (Linton, 1971) that this hypothesis was not supported by data on traditional societies. This body of literature has continued to show the importance of women in provisioning (Sear & Mace, 2008; Sokol-Chang, Burch, & Fisher, 2017). For example, among the !Kung, women provide as much as two thirds of the food in the group’s diet, set up shelter, cook, and help with hunts, in addition to being pregnant and raising children (Lee, 1979).…”

“…In short, not only has this bias existed for 50 years, knowledge of the bias has existed for nearly that long. There is a substantial literature on how women (a) consistently procure food for the family, (b) recruit female caregivers far more often than fathers in childcare, and (c) spend a large amount of time without males present (Fisher, Burch, & Sokol-Chang, 2017; Sokol-Chang et al, 2017). The data show that a high status male would be less important to every day survival than commonly thought, and women are more important than previously thought.…”

“…Because of the aforementioned increased maternal investment, women show a great deal of cooperation and allomothering beginning at a young age. Studies have shown that when women need their children cared for they actually choose other females that are preferably, but not always, related (Sokol-Chang, Burch, & Fisher, 2017). Hewlett (1991) found that among many foraging societies, for the 20–50% of the time an infant is held, it is by someone other than the mother, and most often a close female relative or trusted babysitter.…”