Good Newsweek article

dragonlady wrote:
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,

I said uncomfortable.

and that men do NOT have this instinct.

Actually I never commented on whether men have this instinct or not.

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.

But don't most feel some discomfort when first leaving their infants?

In order to do this without pain, they must be less in touch
with their true selves.

Never said that.


or

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


I actually don't think many women are lacking this instinct. My point
was that the majority have it. IRL I have never really met any mother
who did not express some anxiety at leaving her infant (if we talked
about the subject).


She accepts that some women must work outside of the home for
economic
necessity, but assumes that they do so in pain and anguish

Discomfort.

(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.

I had no thoughts about being proper. I did say that I think many
people think that they decide everything they do rather than realizing
they have instincts (or something to that effect), but that did not
mean that they are not listening to their instincts.

I do think that if women wanted to and could, they would stay home with
their babies.

And I did think that I had the instinct to be with my babies quite
badly, and since others didn't there was probably some variation in the
instinct. It was all other people who acted like I ever said my
instinct was better in any way. I did not say it or imply it. I was
just being my old boring, scientific, analytical type self, and alot of
people thought I meant alot more than I did (as I can see by your recap
of what you thought I said). I even said all levels of instinct were
fine as long as the babies survive. I do not mean to make anyone feel
bad in any way. I am sure you are fine mamas. I am far from perfect.
I let my kids watch too much tv and eat too many sweets. I do not
think I am better than you. And yet I am still a believer that there
is this instinct to be with my babies.


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,

Yes, I do think it is probably what the majority will prefer if the
economy allows.

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.

Never said that, and am not at all against people doing what they want.

I know she doesn't intend to be insulting -- but that's how it feels
to
many of us.

I will probably start a whole new rant by saying this, but what you say
is not what I have said, and I think it is just other people's
touchiness on the subject that is making them read more into what I am
saying and get so defensive. In the absense of technology, breastpumps
and formula, it would not be possible for us to be away from our
babies, and we haven't had those for many generations at all, so I do
not see why it is so farfetched to think we may have instincts to stay
with our babies when it was physically necessary not very long ago.
That is not to say that we cannot go against our instincts.

If anyone replies to these last few posts, I am not sure I will reply
again. This is just taking too much of my time. I say we agree to
disagree.

KC

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you
care

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:

And going back to my original point, I was talking about how it made my
dh and I feel bad to switch roles. For me it made me feel bad on a
very gut level which I think was from me going against my instincts
(cause I am really not too worried at this point in my life about
following social norms :-), but if anybody wants to think I was feeling
bad due to violating some social norm, feel free :-)


KC

You really don't get it.

No one is saying your family should have been happy with Dad at home and
Mom at work. You weren't. So you found a way to change that, and now
you are at home (and, though you haven't said so, presumably Dad is at
work.) That's fine. Frankly, WHY you felt bad is irrelevant: you did.

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.


Someone brought this kind of thing up as an example of pressure for society
to be super mom, or to that effect. Does anyone feel that Kathy's belief
constitutes pressure on them to stay home? Kathy do you feel the presence of
working mothers constitutes pressure on you to work?

S

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, thus
stating that YOUR way is the best way for "proper" mothers.


Nope, I said I thought the majority wouldn't like it.

Well that one is an easy one to test. What do stats show about the number of
women who work outside of the home because they want to?

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

"Emily" wrote in message
...
Stephanie Stowe wrote:
I volunteered to write it for our agency in this area. They turned me
down! Go figure.

Just now, or at some time in the past?

Emily

At some time in the past. I told them that I thought this was a useful
service, and would write it for them if they wanted. They apparently did not
want it.

wrote:

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.
[snip]

Well, no, not all mothers have stayed with their babies: before formula,
people would use wet-nurses to feed their babies if for some reason the
mother was not going to. Apparently it was unusual for a Tudor noble-woman
to look after her baby, rather then use a wet-nurse. In some parts of
Africa, small babies are sent to live with grandmother (who re-lactates)
while the mother works in the cities.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

However dh found the multitasking involved in being a SAHP very
stressful, and he thought that perhaps men were less evolved to that
because their prehistoric role as hunter needed more focus on target
rather than keeping a broader view of many things going on like you
have to when taking care of kids. I do not mind the multitasking. It
does not stress me out. I doubt that has been studied, but that male
and female minds are different in other ways has been documented, so it
is not unreasonable to postulate that they could be different in this
way.


If that were true, then the Information Technology field, in which I have
worked for 18 years, would be mostly female-dominated. In this field,
complicated multi-tasking can be involved depending on what one does,
particularly with deadlines to meet. Yet, many men do just fine.

Marie
DD-1yo

"P. Tierney" wrote in message
news:dEhSd.13870$4D6.10058@attbi_s51...
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


Man, I was having a totally crap day. Thanks for perking it up! I really
needed a good laugh!

Marie wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

However dh found the multitasking involved in being a SAHP very
stressful, and he thought that perhaps men were less evolved to that
because their prehistoric role as hunter needed more focus on target
rather than keeping a broader view of many things going on like you
have to when taking care of kids.


If that were true, then the Information Technology field, in which I have
worked for 18 years, would be mostly female-dominated. In this field,
complicated multi-tasking can be involved depending on what one does,
particularly with deadlines to meet. Yet, many men do just fine.


I was thinking exactly the same thing. Those poor guys I worked with,
having to fight against their hunter role to handle the constant
interruptions, schedule changes, new assignments, and emergencies that
went along with IT work. They seemed to be handling it well, but I
guess they were crying inside.

Clisby

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:14:50 GMT, "P. Tierney"
scribbled:

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?

Hahaha!
Bet she still doesn't get it ;-)

Nan

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:29:45 GMT, Clisby
scribbled:



Marie wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

However dh found the multitasking involved in being a SAHP very
stressful, and he thought that perhaps men were less evolved to that
because their prehistoric role as hunter needed more focus on target
rather than keeping a broader view of many things going on like you
have to when taking care of kids.


If that were true, then the Information Technology field, in which I have
worked for 18 years, would be mostly female-dominated. In this field,
complicated multi-tasking can be involved depending on what one does,
particularly with deadlines to meet. Yet, many men do just fine.


I was thinking exactly the same thing. Those poor guys I worked with,
having to fight against their hunter role to handle the constant
interruptions, schedule changes, new assignments, and emergencies that
went along with IT work. They seemed to be handling it well, but I
guess they were crying inside.

You guys are cracking me up this morning G
That said, my dh is *much* better at multi-tasking than I am, and
handles many of the domestic duties more efficiently in addition to
working full-time.
He'd be great as a SAHP, but his earning capacity exceeds mine too
significantly for us to make the switch.

Nan