While Morris's explanation has issues, you've just demonstrated some pretty severe bias of your own in your critique of Morris's bias.arildno said:His project is, in essence to "explain" modern, Western lifestyles as somehow "natural" (in this case, that women has an instinct for longtime pair-bonding), even though from a historical point of view, most of his ideas can be dismissed as necessarily wrong.
He simply doesn't know enough about the variety of human cultures and lifestyles throughout history.
It is in the best evolutionary interest of women to maintain a long-term pair bond. Clearly, pair-bonded women have access to more resources to raise their children. However, women who are bonded to the father of their children are better off than those who practice serial monogamy. Numerous studies have shown that step-children are more likely to be abused and eve killed than natural children. Step-children are also less likely to be financially supported - I seem to remember a massive gap in the percentage of natural children whose parents funded their college education versus step-children.
I'd also challenge this idea that it's all about being Western culture to talk about long term pair bonds - most cultures have marriage. Most cultures let men divorce, or take additional spouses, but not women. Interestingly, this fits well with men's ability to function as r-strategists, where women cannot (as effectively).
So, while Morris MAY be full of it, his explanation is based on real female optimal reproductive strategy, and deserves to be mocked only for the faults it actually possesses.