The Truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian View of Parental Love

by Martin Daly, Margo Wilson

A child is one hundred times more likely to be abused or killed by a stepparent than by a genetic parent, say two scientists in this startling book. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson show that the mistreatment of stepchildren, long a staple of folk tales, has a solid basis in fact; Daly and Wilson apply the perspective of evolutionary psychology to investigate why stepparenthood is different from genetic parenthood and why steprelationships succeed or fail.

Genres: Psychology, Science, Nonfiction, Evolution, Anthropology

80 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1998

Reviews

[Ashley Reynolds · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't live in a family with a step-parent, or even have any close friends that do, but it was still a very interesting read, if you like to read about human behaviors.

[Jeni · Rating 3 out of 5]

'A child is one hundred times more likely to be abused or killed by a step-parent than by a genetic parent' Seriously scary reading but if you are thinking of providing your child with a new mummy or daddy you might want to read this first - and think twice.

[Mark Blane · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting quick read, but it simply did not go deep enough (for me) into the perceived evils of stepparents and stepchildren. Sure, it cited one study in Canada, and Australia of this violence, but in the end, it sort of side stepped the violence and neglect. Perhaps there is not that much research on the topic? Yet, for such an alluring title for a book, I was expecting something more.

The book takes the Darwinian view of how step-parental investment is low and they cite several examples of this found in nature. From birds, and a lion's pride, etc. The premise makes sense, and one can appreciate the use of the "evil stepmother" in fairytales. The book brings up the point that way in the past, when such stories were written, the population of step mothers were more numerous than we find them today. This could make sense as the mortality rate of child birth was higher in the past which would explain the step mother surplus.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

The older I get, the more weird things pop out when I read these. The weird insistence that Sarah Hrdy needs to be "put over" for any little nothing she's ever said, for example. In another way, it's the repetition of common errors like the "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" nonsense concept that stick out to bother me. On the more esoteric end: the bizarre attribution of SIDS to infanticide. Why do they say these things? No idea.

But, anyways, I'd say this is what it set out to be. This is what the EPs teach, and it's how they do business. For some reason.

[Kaelen Kinnaman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely an intelligent, brief, and convincing excavation of step parenthood with humans and other animals

[Hannah Terrey · Rating 1 out of 5]

Adhoc thinking at it's best.
Let's explain child abuse by saying its genetic, sure that makes sense.

Couldn't possibly be to due to the enormous social and cultural pressure on parents in which stepparents have to navigate.
Couldn't possibly be due to frustrations with the other parent.
Couldn't possibly be that the authors have inflated their own numbers to make their argument more valid.

Just because things are the way they are doesn't necessarily make it an evolutionary adaption and in a book like this with their reputation as scholars the authors have been downright unethical and irresponsible in not thinking about how this book could be abused.
Read with a cup of salt

[Cody · Rating 4 out of 5]

An unpleasant truth: step-parents are far more likely to abuse or kill their stepchildren than genetic parents. This book outlines the evidence and the Darwinian reasoning; perhaps even more interestingly, it describes decades of resistance to their findings. Policy bodies and researchers alike find this idea (step-parental abuse) to be extremely unpalatable.

[António Gomes Coelho · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sendo eu um Darwinista por convicção não fiquei convencido com a informação prestada. Demasiados números para justificar as ideias psicológicas dos autores. Concordo com o factos, são factos, mas o livro é demasiado alarmante para o meu gosto.

[saadia k · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am so not into social Darwinism. More on that later...