Good Newsweek article

wrote in message
oups.com...
My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to
feel
bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts,

Where did she make this claim?


P. Tierney

In article lgbSd.13284$kS6.9388@attbi_s52,
"P. Tierney" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to
feel
bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts,

Where did she make this claim?


P. Tierney



She says that women have maternal instincts that make it painful for us
to be away from our children, and that men do NOT have this instinct.
She listened to this instinct, and so is now home with her children. If
we accept the premise that women are genetically hardwired with a
maternal instinct that would make them want to stay home with their
children, there are only two conclusions:

1 - Many women choose to ignore this instinct, and feel no great pain in
doing so. In order to do this without pain, they must be less in touch
with their true selves.

or

2 - Many women must be lacking in this maternal instinct.

She accepts that some women must work outside of the home for economic
necessity, but assumes that they do so in pain and anguish (if they are
proper mothers with the proper maternal instinct and aren't refusing to
listen to their instincts) and that they'd quit and stay home with their
babies if they wanted to.

When she continues to assert that a woman wanting to stay home with her
children (and a man wanting to go out and earn a living) is natural and
normal, she is saying that people who choose otherwise -- women who are
happy working outside of the home, or men who want to stay home with
their children -- must be doing something unnatural and abnormal.

I know she doesn't intend to be insulting -- but that's how it feels to
many of us.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote:


Nope, I said I thought the majority wouldn't like it. And I never said
anybody was lacking in maternal instinct, just that we had varying
amounts, but that all were acceptable as long as children survived.

Hmmm...how would you feel if I said that our parenting
success was based on having a high IQ. I'm sure that other parents
aren't lacking in intelligence. We just all have varying
levels, and it really doesn't matter as long as the kids
survive. For us, though, because of our intelligence, it
was natural to do things this way. It's hard for me to
understand how other people make their parenting choices;
I mean, I'd feel terrible going against what was natural
for me, but I suppose others must be able to cope somehow
even if it doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't make
me superior to them, of course. I'm just smarter, and so
that's how it's natural for me to parent.
That doesn't seem somewhat patronizing (even though
it's demonstrably true that people have varying levels of
intelligence, while it's not demonstrably true that people
come with significantly different levels of biologically
driven instincts).

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Beach Mum wrote:

I think, as usual, we're not the ones the article was discussing. It would
have never ocurred to me that a child would be scheduled to attend more than
one activity in an evening, but my friend thinks that this may be reasonably
common. Can you imagine?

Actually, I can imagine, as there were many times in my
childhood when I did that ;-) Sometimes the activities I
*really* wanted to do just didn't work out so that I could
do them on different days. I recall one time when I would
have been in 5th grade when I had three activities in one
day. I didn't have a steady diet of that sort of thing,
but it fell out that way on occasion. It was busy, but
I didn't mind. I was just happy to be able to do the
things I was doing.

When we lived in RI, on one day, I picked the kids up at school, they
went to their piano lessons (and did their homework while the other
one was having a lesson), went to swim team, had dinner in the car,
and went to the night ice skating session in Providence.

We also went ice skating twice on weekends, they had 4-H after school
(went on the bus) another day, had ballet and gymnastics after school
at school (picked up from school) with swim practice afterwards on two
other days and at some point had scouts also on Saturday.

They were never seriously into team sports, but I've just been
visiting dd#2 and her son had a school night baseball game that didn't
start until 7:30 pm. It was their third game that week. Fortunately
it was a late start school day the next day because they didn't get
home until 9:30 or 10, and his sister was quite cranky when gotten up
the next morning. She had a game the next night, but it was right
after school.



grandma Rosalie

wrote:

When more women started WOH in the 70s and later, both the women's
movement and a recession were going on. Financial need would make more
women have to do what made them uncomfortable. Then, when times
improved in the 90s, more women who could afford to not work started
being SAHM again. It is hard to pin the movement of women into the
workforce on social changes when economic changes were happening
simultaneously. Perhaps you have other examples.

Well, you never get a perfect situation because everything
is always changing to some degree ;-) But aside from pure economics,
the women's movement *is* about making choices more socially
acceptable--and when it was more socially acceptable for women
to work, more women *chose* to work. There are many women
working today because they have to, but there are also many
women working because they choose to work. It's not just
economics changing the number of mothers in the workforce.
Women's (and men's) opinions have changed over time as to
whether it is appropriate or good for families to have mothers
choose to WOH. That *IS* socialization. When it's more
acceptable, more women choose to work even when they don't
have to. When there is social pressure not to work outside
the home, fewer women choose to work when they don't have to.
What is that, if not socialization?

That's what I really don't get. I never meant it as an insult. I just
knew it made me feel bad in a very gut way, and when I have those very
gut feelings, that is what I think of as my instinct. I just assume
not everyone feels that way, so there is the varying instinct. I am
very sorry anyone got offended by that.

Perhaps you might choose a different word than instinct,
then? Instinct has a particular meaning, especially when you go
on to describe it as a biological imperative. Here are some
definitions:

1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a
species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli:
the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social
animals.

That appears to be the definition you were using, given your
discussion of biological/evolutionary issues. This sort of
instinct doesn't vary as you describe in a species. A biological
or evolutionary sort of thing would be much more constant
across the species.

2. A powerful motivation or impulse.

I don't think that anyone would have complained about
your use of the term in this context. If you had simply said
that your instinct (meaning what your gut told you) was to do
as you did, no one would have been offended.

3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and
diplomacy.

Because definition 1 doesn't make any sense, and
you clearly didn't mean number 2, I think most would interpret
your statements as meaning more this third definition. In
that case, the pretty much inescapable conclusion is that
you are somehow blessed with a capability or aptitude that
others are lacking (or quashing).

Personally, if I were in your shoes, I'd go with definition
number 2. You had a powerful motivation or impulse to stay
home, and you worked to arrange your life to make that happen.
That's all well and good and fabulous for you and your family.
Why need it be something that has to do with your having
better maternal instincts (or being better at listening
to your maternal instincts) or about whether women are
biologically wired to stay home with their kids? Frankly,
there is quite a lot of research on those latter issues,
and in my opinion, aside from stuff that is funded out of
conservative think tanks with pretty shoddy methodology,
there is little evidence that there are any such biological
or evolutionary instincts that make women "naturally"
superior to men as SAHPs or less able to abide separation
from their children in order to work (barring lactation
issues). Lots of women have a hard time being away from
their kids. Lots of men do too, especially those who
have been given the time and space to develop a similar
level of bonding with their children.

Really, if there is such a thing as biological instinct operating
at this level, it makes utterly no sense to on the one hand
insist it's a biological imperative and on the other admit
a great deal of variation in the same gene pool. It just doesn't
work that way. If there were that much variation in the gene
pool, those instincts would have been washed away years ago.

I don't see why.

An instinct (by this sort of definition) is an
unthinking response to external stimuli. Evolution
happens over a *very* long time, barring odd catastrophic
events (e.g., where an adaptive instinct suddenly becomes
maladaptive due to an environmental change and results in
the extinction or virtual extinction of individuals with
that instinct). Instincts don't change within a generation
or two. Whatever biological instincts we have now are likely
virtually identical to the biological instincts women had a
hundred (or even more) years ago. What changes, because
humans have the cognitive ability to do so, is how we
*think* and what we choose to do based on our interpretation
of our situations.

Best wishes,
Ericka

toto wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:56:43 -0500, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:


Similarly, although we know there are some
differences between men's and women's brains, I think
it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited
to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number
of other things that have been said.


I would agree with this because the overlap between what
men's talents are and what women's talents are is quite
large.

OTOH, humans are a very complex mix of biology and
environmental influences. I do think that we cannot totally
discount some biological instincts that are hard wired
in and linked to the Y chromosome that only men have.

It depends on what you mean by that. Is it possible
that men's and women's brains are wired differently to some
degree? That's not only possible, it's virtually certain.
What is questionable is taking the next step and proposing
that these differences result in significant differences
in capability.

Also, I believe nurture influences biological functions to
a certain extent. The research certainly implies it much
more complex than just hard wiring since chemicals
play a large part and the chemical balances are influenced
by the environment too.

Absolutely. Much of this is terribly confounded
by the old "chicken and egg" dilemma. To the extent that
men's and women's brains are different, are they different
because of genetics, or are they different because of
environment? It is virtually certain that at least some
of the equation is environment--and not just the chemical
environment. We know that the stimuli we provide to our
children, especially in the early years, makes a big
difference in how their brains are wired. We also know
that we treat boys and girls differently from a very
early age. It's not such a great leap to wonder how
much of observed sex-based differences in brain wiring
is really genetic and how much is environment.
Still, even when one nibbles around the edges
of these issues, it still appears that the differences
that have been found seem to explain relatively
little variance and have little impact on relative
capabilities. So, I am very cautious about how such
research is promoted. Inevitably, it is seized upon
as a way to explain why men aren't good at this or
why women aren't good at that. Rarely does the research
provide any real evidence of that.
Take, for instance, this recent research that
the corpus callosum is thicker (or has more connections)
in women than in men, and that this explains why women
are better at multi-tasking (never mind other research
suggesting that chronic multitasking is a Bad Thing which can
even lead to the destruction of brain cells...). Do
women have thicker corpus callosums because they're
genetically programmed that way? Or because they were
expected to multitask from an early age and trained to
do so? Probably both. However, it's also clearly the
case that men can multitask--many of them very well--
and some women suck at multitasking. So, what are you
left with? A distinction without a difference? Actually,
I think there are very interesting bits of insight to
be gained, but I think we lose the important bits if we
leap to unwarranted conclusions like "it is natural for
women to be in agony when apart from their children" or
"men are more capable at math and science" or "women
are better caregivers for children" or "women are less
competitive" or any number of other unjustified conclusions.

Best wishes,
Ericka

On 20 Feb 2005 17:29:33 -0800, wrote:

My problem is with your belief that EVERY mother who works ought to
feel
bad, and if she doesn't, she is lacking in maternal instincts, thus
stating that YOUR way is the best way for "proper" mothers.


Nope, I said I thought the majority wouldn't like it. And I never said
anybody was lacking in maternal instinct, just that we had varying
amounts, but that all were acceptable as long as children survived.

KC

And you still dont seem to realize how judgemental that sounds?

YOu really think that because I choose tow ork outside the home that
my maternal instincts are less than yours???? Or th at I am ignoring
them more than you are??

Similarly, although we know there are some
differences between men's and women's brains, I think
it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited
to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number
of other things that have been said.

I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things
like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning
anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree,
and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids
more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical
thinking.

KC

wrote in message
oups.com...
Similarly, although we know there are some
differences between men's and women's brains, I think
it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited
to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number
of other things that have been said.

I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things
like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning
anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree,
and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids
more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical
thinking.

Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable
of doing such things. I know this for certain.

You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences.
It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked
at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It
made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out
at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane.

So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles
was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts
for the sciences. We think that it may be because women
are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver.

Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles
in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear,
from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and
that she stay away from those things that, through no fault
of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since
she is female.

Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for
everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years
and let men do the sciences rather than the women.

And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be
offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know?


P. Tierney

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
That's what I really don't get. I never meant it as an insult. I
just
knew it made me feel bad in a very gut way, and when I have those
very
gut feelings, that is what I think of as my instinct. I just
assume
not everyone feels that way, so there is the varying instinct. I
am
very sorry anyone got offended by that.

Perhaps you might choose a different word than instinct,
then? Instinct has a particular meaning, especially when you go
on to describe it as a biological imperative. Here are some
definitions:

1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a
species and is often a response to specific environmental
stimuli:
the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social
animals.

That appears to be the definition you were using, given your
discussion of biological/evolutionary issues. This sort of
instinct doesn't vary as you describe in a species. A biological
or evolutionary sort of thing would be much more constant
across the species.

In evolution there is natural variation in the individuals. Each
individual animal is not exactly the same. Evolution occurs because
each individual is different. I take definition 1, but you are
incorrect in saying there is no individual variation.

That's all well and good and fabulous for you and your family.
Why need it be something that has to do with your having
better maternal instincts (or being better at listening
to your maternal instincts) or about whether women are
biologically wired to stay home with their kids?

Because it feels like instinct to me. To resay an earlier point I
think many people think they are deciding more things than they are. I
saw a twin study before where these 2 twins separated at birth ended up
as adults with the same career, the same car and wives that looked
alike. It is things like this that have made me think many decisions
people think they are reasoning out, they are actually following their
instincts. My brother and I (though not separated at birth) ended up
in the same career, with very similarly looking and acting spouses, and
we both ended up moving out into the woods despite our parents being
raised in a city and us being raised in suburbia. Because we were not
separated at birth I am sure you would point to socialization, but me I
am a believer in nature over nurture because of things like the twin
studies I have seen.

Another thing about being biologically wired to want to stay with
babies is that in the absence of breast pumps and formula, it simply is
100% necessary for moms to be with babies, so since for the greatest
part of the evolution into humans and the prehistory and history of
humanity women absolutely had to stay with babies, it makes a ton of
sense that we would be evolved to do so, and that it might be
uncomfortable for some or most women to be apart from their babies.
And really, how many women can say they felt no worry, angst,
unhappiness or uncomfortable feeling at all at least the first time
they had to leave their baby.



Frankly,
there is quite a lot of research on those latter issues,
and in my opinion, aside from stuff that is funded out of
conservative think tanks with pretty shoddy methodology,
there is little evidence that there are any such biological
or evolutionary instincts that make women "naturally"
superior to men as SAHPs or less able to abide separation
from their children in order to work (barring lactation
issues). Lots of women have a hard time being away from
their kids. Lots of men do too, especially those who
have been given the time and space to develop a similar
level of bonding with their children.

Really, if there is such a thing as biological instinct operating
at this level, it makes utterly no sense to on the one hand
insist it's a biological imperative and on the other admit
a great deal of variation in the same gene pool.

But, like I said above individual variation is the way evolution works.
If an individual has a variation and if they survive and procreate
well with the variation, the variation lives on. If enough individuals
have that variation and survive better than others, that variation
becomes the norm for the species. Everything is subject to variation
including instincts. Instincts are not exactly the same from person to
person or from animal to animal. If some animal or person gets a
variation that doesn't work in some way, then it will not persist.

Some physical variations do not even allow the individual to survive to
adulthood or even survive to birth, so with that kind of variation in
traits, I do not see why you would think there would be no individual
variation in instincts. How would instincts ever evolve if their was
no individual variation?

Instincts don't change within a generation
or two. Whatever biological instincts we have now are likely
virtually identical to the biological instincts women had a
hundred (or even more) years ago.

Or way way way more time ago. Yes, I do think the majority of women do
have instincts to stay with their children, just like they did for a
long long long time. But, that totally does not mean they will not
vary in strength from individual to individual, and it does not mean
the instinct will not be absent from some.

humans have the cognitive ability to do so, is how we
*think* and what we choose to do based on our interpretation
of our situations.

I agree that humans also are able to adapt as needed. That is our
strength, but it does not mean the instincts are not there.

Like I said many posts ago, I really think the nature of our
disagreement is that I am a big believer in nature over nurture and you
are not.

KC