22 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: …excuse me sir?
The most famous example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect[1] it’s also likely the example this tweeter is bastardizing to apply to human women.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_effect
I have someone who is like a feminist activist in the literature on my thesis committee and she hates the explanation given for it. She thinks it’s not about trying to secure a better mate but a way to avoid violence from the male who has invaded the territory and not wanting to waste her resources on offspring the new male will kill anyway. It wouldn’t happen in human females (sorry) who conceal when they’re fertile so males can’t have certainty of paternity(or non-paternity). Not saying I endorse this explanation, but it’s the other side of the coin.
Comment by Kiri_serval at 26/04/2022 at 13:12 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I don't know enough about rat and rodent behavior, and the Bruce effect is primarily studied in that group. My knowledge is focused on carnivores. I agree with your friend in the case of lions and geladas (if the same effect exists in those species). Female lions already give birth alone and hunt for their young for a few weeks until rejoining the pride. That's a lot of energy to expend on cubs who won't survive.
Considering the effect is correlated with polygynous species (dominant male with multiple females) with a higher risk of infanticide, it doesn't sound like this is a "better" male, but a way to lower the risk to the female of her offspring being killed.
I'm asking if there is a species where the female determines a new male is a "better" parent to her offspring and intentionally miscarries. Where she identifies she now has "genetically superior seed" available and terminates a viable pregnancy?