Parent Investment Theory

There is a strong interactive relationship between dating, parenting and careers. Individuals who invest more time in caring for their young children (1-5 years) generally have substantially less time to commit to careers than those who invest less time in caring for their children. The parental investment theory asserts that males on average invest less time in direct care taking of young children (1-5yrs) than their female counterparts. Therefore, this could explain the career choices females make and why female lag behind males in pay. If mothers on average dedicate 1-5 years being stay home parents and rely on their male counterparts to provide financial resources, it clearly explains their inability to commit towards a career within this time frame due to the decision of being a stay home parent.

Dating strategies clearly would have an indirect influence upon this stage of social development. The vast majority of marriages that bear children are the result of relationships that stem from pre-marital dating. This is why it is so puzzling when I research the parental investment theory it is only fixated on mating strategies where the male is indiscriminate and the female is choosy. If promiscuity is innately discouraged in the female brain due to claim that it will interfere with her ability to invest in her newborns, why should it be dismissed the possibility that the vast majority of women with newborns are encouraged to at least suspend their careers due to the fear that it will prevent them from providing direct care to their offspring?



My View: First, I would like to state that I have many serious problems with the parental investment theory and I do not think women are under represented in elite political or business positions due to the parent investment theory. I do not think political leadership and business leadership positions are better suited for males.

However, it seems to me that many proponents of parental investment theory overlook the other implications of this theory and fixate on mating strategies. Although mating strategies is the claimed consequence of this theory that is primarily discussed in pop psychology, it is hard to overlook other consequences that can be logically implied from this theory. It seems to me that this theory is often exploited by those outside the scientific realm to justify that female promiscuity is due to sexual abuse and other ulterior motives while male promiscuity is reflective of the masculine sexual nature while insisting the under representation of women in elite scientific and political fields is entirely caused by social factors.