Skip to content
Home » content

Is there really a ‘mommy’ gene in women?

Basic principles of biology rather than women’s newfound economic independence can explain why fewer of them are getting married and having children, and why the trend may only be temporary, says a Queen’s researcher.

“Only in recent times have women acquired significant control over their own fertility, and many are preferring not to be saddled with the burden of raising children," says Lonnie Aarssen, a Biology professor who specializes in reproductive ecology. "The question is whether this is just a result of economic factors and socio-cultural conditioning, as most analysts claim, or whether the choices that women are making about parenthood are influenced by genetic inheritance from maternal ancestors that were dominated by paternal ancestors.”

In a paper published in the current issue of Oikos – an international journal of ecology – Dr. Aarssen suggests that because of inherited inclinations, many women when empowered by financial independence are driven to pursue leisure and other personal goals that distract from parenthood.

“The drive to leave a legacy through offspring can be side-tracked by an attraction to legacy through other things like career, fame, and fortune – distractions that, until recently, were only widely available to men”.

Dr. Aarssen speculates that the now widespread incidence of childlessness in developed countries will subside, not because of cultural evolution but because of biological evolution.

The women who leave the most descendants will be those with an intrinsic drive for motherhood. The ones who would rather forego parenthood in order to have a career, lavish vacations and leisurely lifestyles will of course leave no descendants at all. Over time those genetic traits that influence women away from motherhood will necessarily be ‘bred out.’

In this way future generations of women will inherit a stronger genetic predisposition for mating and having children as a priority in their lives. Dr. Aarssen predicts that an increased desire for marriage and having children, in both men and women, will be an inevitable product of evolution within the next few generations.

“The bottom line from a biology viewpoint is: in order to have your genes live on, you’ve got to have kids. If you don’t, then they’re going to disappear,” says Dr. Aarssen.

http://qnc.queensu.ca

Permalink

September 21, 2007

Comments

Supposition much?

September 24, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 25106

Is there any science here, or just a bunch of supposition? Any research, data?

Education, too

September 22, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 25073

More people are becoming educated and are aware that health problems can be genetic.

In some cases people are aware enough to choose not to pass on their genes because it's risking giving birth to a child that will suffer with health/psychological problems that are not detected via amniocentesis.

Choosing not to have a child can be more caring than taking a chance with another person's life.

"Mommy" gene may exist - and still not change birth rates

September 22, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 25070

The central premise aluded in this article is that birth rates dropped because some women didn't ever want to have children, but used to be forced into it. While it's true that married women now have more control of birth rates due to contraception, the real reason birth rates dropped is that childhood mortality dropped! It used to be that if a woman wanted to ensure that she had decendents, she had to have lots of pregnancies. Now, almost every child born is likely to grow up. This means that one can reduce the number of children one has.

Second, the assumption that society has changed to allow women more control over marriage is also bunk. In most societies, women have always had the right to say no... save for a few very aberrent and ugly societies. Frankly, this hypothesis doesn't pass my 'sniff' test.

Third, the idea that a "mommy" gene that decides that one is going to have children is a strange one in evolutionary terms, since most animals, including early hominids, wouldn't have needed, nor benefitted from such a gene. No, all that is needed is a gene, or set of genes, that encouraged heterosexual sexual relations! Wanting to be pregnant is irrelevant, having sex is all that is needed. Wanting to be a "mommy" after the infant is born, is another matter entirely.

I can see that a "maternal caring" gene or set of genes, might exist. I know that I certainly have it, if it exists! But only in modern humans, having the ability to connect the dots between sexual behavior and becoming a 'mommy', would evolution have come into play. Maybe it will become a factor in future, but given that the human population is in the several billions, the evolutionary pressure would have to be *enormous* to cause any noticable change in the aggregate gene frequencies in the population.

Finally, I would assert that the number of women who are childless entirely is probably not higher now than in historical times. Only the number of children per child bearing woman. That being true... I think noise in the system is larger than the evolutionary pressure, coupled with the large base population, there won't be any evolutionary change noticable in less than fifty or more generations.

--Candice H. Brown Elliott

Genes & Memes

September 21, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 6 weeks ago
Comment id: 25056

I don't think the choice of not having kids is because of genes, but rather because of memes.

...Bernie of sciligion.org

Post new comment



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.