This one seems a bit dubious, but we’re here to give you the information. At the website of the University of Exeter in South West England we find this news: Menopause evolved to prevent competition between in-laws. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
The menopause evolved, in part, to prevent competition between a mother and her new daughter-in-law, according to research published in the journal Ecology Letters.
Here’s a link to that paper: Severe intergenerational reproductive conflict and the evolution of menopause. You can read it without a subscription, but let’s stay with the story at the university’s website:
The study – by researchers from the University of Turku (Finland), University of Exeter, University of Sheffield and Stanford University (US) – explains for the first time why the relationship women had with their daughter-in-laws could have played a key role.
Okay, we’re curious. What’s it all about? The article continues:
The data showed that a grandmother having a baby later in life, and at the same time as her daughter-in-law, resulted in the newborns of each being 50 per cent less likely to survive to adulthood. The analysis helps to solve one of nature’s great mysteries: why female humans, unlike most other animals, stop reproducing so early in life.
There you are, ladies. Those hot flashes are for the benefit of your daughter-in-law and her children. Here’s more:
It also adds weight to the theory that the menopause evolved to allow women to focus on their grandchildren. Traditionally, this role included providing food for the family and protecting young children from accidents and disease.
Nice story, but how did they figure this out? The article explains:
The topic has rarely been analysed, because it requires detailed data on the reproductive success of several generations of women, with knowledge on who lived with whom and when. Scientists analysed 200-years’ worth of data collected by Dr Virpi Lummaa of the University of Sheffield and her student Mirkka Lahdenperä of Turku University, Finland, from church registers of pre-industrial Finland. They looked at information on birth and death rates from 1700 to 1900, before the advent of modern contraception or healthcare.
The study reveals that women had more grandchildren if they stopped reproducing around the age of 50. The research team believes this was partly because of reduced competition between the older woman and her daughter-in-law and partly because of the support she could offer her grandchildren.
Why do they keep emphasizing daughters-in-law? What about daughters? Moving along:
A child born to families with a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law reproducing simultaneously was twice as likely to die before reaching the age of 15. However, this was not the case in the instances when a mother and daughter had babies at the same time. This suggests that related women breed cooperatively and unrelated women breed conflictually.
There is a clear biological benefit to a woman cooperating with her daughter: the women share 50 per cent of the same genes so being in competition for food and other resources makes little sense. This is not the case for a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law: they are not related, so it is logical they should compete to maximise on their chances of spreading their genes.
Consequently, the Finnish data shows that the average woman would benefit from stopping reproducing at the age of 51 if she risked breeding with her daughter-in-law, but not her daughter.
Our Curmudgeon sense tells us that a tidier solution would be for the matriarch to toss her son out of the house and tell him and his bride to raise their kids under another roof. But what do we know? Anyway, that’s the news. Make of it what you will.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.