Patriarchy = evolutionary advantage?

Just posted a piece over on my other blog that ASS readers might be interested in. It's my somewhat belated response to Phillip Longman's piece in the latest issue of Foreign Policy called "The Return of Patriarchy." A sample:

[Longman] appears to argue that only those societies operating along patriarchal lines can survive and flourish. "Jigga-who?" you may be asking, and indeed, it's not what I'd call an intuitive argument - at least not unless you're a sexist twit - but wait: you haven't grasped the jist of it. See, the reason why patriarchy is necessary for the survival of the species is that it's the only social model (according to Longman) that encourages high rates of reproduction. Because once the womens gets a taste of self-determination and agency, you can kiss the childbearing and rearing goodbye!

Throughout the broad sweep of human history, there are many examples of people, or classes of people, who chose to avoid the costs of parenthood. Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy.

Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents’ investments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.

Boy. Well, that sure is a downer for a Monday morning. So, once again we can see that the decline of civilization is women's fault. We're just not reproducing enough, or ... not investing in our children enough? ... or ... something, and so we'll soon be taken over by those societies who "get" that strength lies in numbers. Patriarchal, conservative numbers.

The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of their parents.

"No genetic legacy." Um. I thought, like, enlightenment and progressive politics was more, you know, nurture than nature, no? I mean, there's no guarantee that my progeny will be liberal just because I am. Ima have to work a little harder than that, right? And as far as the "emotional and psychological" influence goes, gee, I'd love to see a little actual evidence on that one, Phil. From where I'm sitting it seems like the progressive baby-boomers have had a pretty fucking HUGE emotional and psychological influence on the culture. And isn't that, in fact, what has Longman worried? I mean, if they haven't had the influence then how come I'm not safely ensconced, barefoot, in the kitchen? You can't claim little influence from the generation on the one hand and then blame it for declining reproductive rates on the other.

Read the rest at the Snarky Squab.