Step parenting

[Marg0]

Ok this is kind of a family question but more evolutionary science
I got interested in evolutionary adaptiveness after I read Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' but there was one thing I never worked out.
As a starting point, take my neighbours kids as an example. They are good kids and I hope no harm comes to them. But I don't help out with their welfare, cos they're not my kids. When I have my own kids, I will devote a lot of time and effort to them, they are my kids. Even my siblings kids I help out with. I know it's nice to do this but I know there are significant Evolutionary Adaptive reasons for doing so.......I'm helping 'myself' cos my genes are in them, mostly so in my own kids. If I stopped doing that and spent all my time with my neighbours kids even though it helped them it would be highly evolutionarily maladaptive. I suppose this is why society sees massive parental devotion as normal.
But why does society naturally expect step parents just to at least try to help the step kids out? As a civilized choice, I think it is a good one. But my problem is with society's *expectation*. If you expect stepparents to more often than parents to do what is evolutionarily adaptive, we could maybe be more prepared for it. Until I hear otherwise, it's my assumption that evolutionary adaptiveness for most step parents (for any species I know of) is to harm the step kids as much as possible. The step kids are the evolutionary enemy of the stepparent. The natural original parent spends time tending to the original kids, to the direct detriment of the incoming parent's kids (as far as the stepparents genes are concerned).
So it makes me wonder a bit about what goes on behind closed doors. We don't know exactly how prevalent abuse is, but it's probably vastly underestimated. What we do know is that abuse (in its myriad forms) is MUCH much more likely to happen from a stepparent.

[Marg0]

Are people who remarry and expect everything to be sweetness and light from incoming partner to preexisting children just being naive?
I know we try to live in a civilized society and the ideal is for all children to be cared for regardless, but I think we overestimate the extent to which this overrides basic hardwired inclinations. I know there is some modulation which comes from 'mating agreements' but I don't think this modulation is anything like as big as expected.
What do you think?

[figure]

Most of us live in hope and with great expectations, but, it doesn't necessarily mean life turn out as expected.

I believe very few or I should say there are more abusive step-parents than there are kind and caring step-parents. It also work both ways - kids behaving badly as much as step-parents behave despicable.

[gen2]

Marg0,

Have you read what Dawkins has to say about 'MEMES'.
Lower animals pass on the bulk of their investment through 'genes' and so are naturally agressive towards unrelated offspring of a partner. In human society, memes play a greater role and so step parents can still pass something on to unrelated offspring if they have an influence on their upbringing. That is more likely to be the case if the children are young when the step-relationship begins.

Another factor that would geneticaly select for a caring step parent is that if the step-parent can prove themselves to be a caring provider, then the other parent is more likely to go on to produce more offspring in the relationship. Agressive behaviour towards step-children is more likely to mean the relationship is going nowhere.

The difference between the majority of animals and humans is that human beings have the most complex long-lasting social structure based mostly on long-term relationships.


Finally, figure, What is the basis of your statement Quote: "I should say there are more abusive step-parents than there are kind and caring step-parents."?

My own experience of step-parents is that most are caring and non-abusive. I don't understand why this reply got 3 stars?