Good Newsweek article

Kathy do you feel the presence of
working mothers constitutes pressure on you to work?

I do not feel pressure to WOH because I've been there and done that
already. I did not quit WOH until I was 37 years old. I think if I
was young and not-yet-college-educated when I had kids (I actually did
ttc at 22 before I went to college, but was unable to conceive for 12
years), I may have felt more pressure to have a career. I also do
currently work with my dh from home, but he does the lions share of the
paying work.

KC

"Jamie Clark" wrote in message:
Well I read them all...and I expect everyone else to, too!

I've read them all myself. I happen to find this discussion very
interesting. )
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

In article , toto says...


In contrast to the widespread activation in mothers in
response to their own infant cries compared to standard
infant cries, fathers showed increased activation only in
the posterior neocortical and cerebellar regions, which
are thought to be more involved in thinking, distinguishing
between sensations, and motor planning. Unlike mothers,
they did not show increased activation in the limbic and
basal forebrain regions, which are important in emotional
responses, human addiction studies, and animal studies
of maternal behavior. The fathers' brains also appeared
to activate in the same way and to the same degree to
cries of their own offspring and to cries of an infant
unrelated to them.

Hmmm. Are they showing that "when is she going to get the baby.." brain
activity?

Banty

Rosalie B. wrote:

Given*that,*the*"no"*responses*don't*put*me*off *much.**If*one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give.**What*"no"*rationale*could*a*parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?

How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his
family?

Well, not neccessarily from a man: if the spouse has an above
average income, and the mother's job paid below or at the average
income, then the mother-with-a-well-paid-spouse might be taking
the job which could be done by the mother-with-a-badly-paid-spouse.

You could substitute other benefits (eg health insurance in the USA)
for pay, as appropriate.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Right...but have they found social behaviors to have
a strong nature component (like the things Kathy mentioned--
career, choice of car, living in city/suburbs/rural areas,
or maternal instincts)?

I know one set of identical female twins, who have maternal
instincts are on the opposite end of the scale to each other.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

wrote:

For example, I have seen shows about human sexual instincts, and one
of the instincts was parading. That is walking around alot in public
places to be seen by the opposite sex. It is especially prevalent in
late teens, early twenties, and it is found in all cultures. I had it
bad. I paraded like crazy when I was a teen. I purposely came into
ralleys late on the wrong side so I could walk where all the boys would
see me. I would go to the bathroom far more frequently than necessary
to be seen by boys. I really was boy crazy to the extreme (probably
mre than I can portray just by saying those things), and I am sure I
seemed pretty shallow and boring to the girls who were not so into the
mating dance. I think I had that instinct very strongly too, really to
the detriment of my future success as despite having an easy time with
school, I had no ambitions at that point but to do the mating dance.
Some girls very visibly were not so into the mating dance. I was at
the extreme of that behavior. Now I am sure nobody feels slighted that
I think I had more of an urge to do that behavior, but I guess when it
comes to mothering people are touchy.

But do you still do that? I rather doubt it. Are you
uncomfortable all the time because you're not doing that, struggling
all the time against your instinct? Would you be struggling all
the time against it even if you weren't married? I suspect that
you have learned and expect of yourself different behaviors and
that you are quite comfortable not doing that anymore and that
you don't spend any significant amount of time fussing about it.

To further show that I really do not think I am superior, I will say
that I am a very poor physical specimen. I have crippled feet (that
come from genetic deformities, my dd has the same feet that hopefully
with my care will note end up being crippled), diabetes, and a bleeding
disorder. I have always been slow at races even at things like
swimming and typing that didn't involve feet. I am sure many of you
are from healthier stock than I. Perhaps my family has perservered
with our physical disadvantages due to increased procreating instincts.

There it goes again...somehow you have to make this
an instinct that is an asset *in current life*. I would
continue to maintain that while the overwhelming majority
of people instinctively want to *protect* and *nurture*
their children, *how* they do that varies based on their
understandings of what it means to "protect" and "nuture."
You believe the best way to do that is for you to be home
with your children, absent an economic situation that
jeopardizes other aspects of protecting and nurturing
(like keeping a roof over their head and food on the table).
Others can believe that there are *other* ways to accomplish
this while having just as strong an instinct to protect and
nurture (and being every bit as successful at that job).

Best wishes,
Ericka

toto wrote:

On 21 Feb 2005 14:12:24 -0800, Banty wrote:


Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think
those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies
that likely have some genetic component are fascinating.

Right.

But this goes to temprament, not 'instinct'.


I found this article interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1030133456.htm

“The mammalian female brain expresses a great deal of
plasticity and creativity in service to, and in support of,
reproduction,” says Kinsley. “In other words, mothers are
made, not born.”

At least some parenting behavior is unique to females,
new work finds. Jeffrey Lorberbaum, MD, and his
colleagues at the Medical University of South Carolina
found that mothers show much greater activity than
fathers in widespread brain regions when listening to
their own infant cries compared to those of other infants.

Previous studies by Lorberbaum and colleagues had
identified brain regions important in maternal behavior
and motivation when listening to standard infant cries.
The basal forebrain, midbrain, striatum, anterior
cingulate, and the prefrontal cortex all constitute a
system Lorberbaum's group calls the “maternal circuitry.”
These regions are remarkably similar to those found to
be involved in rodent behavior studies as well as human
studies of addictive behaviors.

The group used functional magnetic resonance imaging
to study brain activity in parents. Forty mothers and 10
fathers were exposed to the cries of their own infant and
to the cries of an unrelated infant. The mothers
experienced more brain activation in response to infants'
crying, not just in the maternal circuit, but in other areas
of the brain as well. They also experienced more
activation in response to their own children than to the
unrelated child.

In contrast to the widespread activation in mothers in
response to their own infant cries compared to standard
infant cries, fathers showed increased activation only in
the posterior neocortical and cerebellar regions, which
are thought to be more involved in thinking, distinguishing
between sensations, and motor planning. Unlike mothers,
they did not show increased activation in the limbic and
basal forebrain regions, which are important in emotional
responses, human addiction studies, and animal studies
of maternal behavior. The fathers' brains also appeared
to activate in the same way and to the same degree to
cries of their own offspring and to cries of an infant
unrelated to them.

“Conventional wisdom has long suggested that mothers are more attuned
to infants, especially their own, than are fathers,” says Lorberbaum.
“Our studies suggest that this may be true. Mothers may be very
attuned to their own infant as they activate widespread brain regions
including ancient regions believed to be important in rodent maternal
behavior. Fathering behavior may be less hardwired and a more recent
evolutionary phenomenon as fathers only activate newer regions of the
brain involved in sensory discrimination, cognition, and motor
planning in response to cries.”

However, other research has suggested that fathers who
are primary caregivers have similar physiologic responses. To
me, that undermines the notion that this plasticity and adaptivity
is purely female. A very viable alternate explanation is that
our society's concepts of mothering and fathering get in the
way of supporting the sort of infant-father bonding that can
trigger many of these same changes in the *father*. Perhaps
what this research is really finding is changes associated with
being the primary caregiver (which just happens to be the mother
in the overwhelming majority of cases) rather than changes
associated with motherhood in particular.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
P. Tierney wrote:

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.
---------------------
Then she did it wrong, some do and have to stop.
Most women in it are hail and happy.
You're telling yourself what you WANT to believe. Nothing more.


She is being wildly sarcastic to make a point.


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.
----------------------------------
Nonsense. Utter nonsense that no Evolutionist would support. That's
NOT the way Evolution works.


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.
-----------------------------
In the very short rarified phenomenon of the isolated female of
the 19th century, only, and its few echoes in the rich classes.


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.
---------------------------------
Which means that women like you should keep your stupidity to
yourself.


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
---------------------------------------
Not bloody ****ing so at all, you dumb bitch.
Steve

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

However, other research has suggested that fathers who
are primary caregivers have similar physiologic responses. To
me, that undermines the notion that this plasticity and adaptivity
is purely female. A very viable alternate explanation is that
our society's concepts of mothering and fathering get in the
way of supporting the sort of infant-father bonding that can
trigger many of these same changes in the *father*. Perhaps
what this research is really finding is changes associated with
being the primary caregiver (which just happens to be the mother
in the overwhelming majority of cases) rather than changes
associated with motherhood in particular.

Right.

A male's brain has different responses depending on whether or not he hears
"Robert", or "Eric", spoken if that male's first name happens to be "Robert".

That does not therefore mean all men are hardwired to respond to "Robert". It
means people are conditioned to recognize their names.

Banty

In article , Penny Gaines says...

Rosalie B. wrote:

Given*that,*the*"no"*responses*don't*put*me*of f*much.**If*one
is to answer the question "no", in fact, I'm not sure what other
reasons they could give.**What*"no"*rationale*could*a*parent
give that would be logically acceptable to a working parent?

How about - she is taking the job from a man who is supporting his
family?

Well, not neccessarily from a man: if the spouse has an above
average income, and the mother's job paid below or at the average
income, then the mother-with-a-well-paid-spouse might be taking
the job which could be done by the mother-with-a-badly-paid-spouse.

But where are we going with this?

How about the single man who 'takes a job' away from a man with two kids?
How about the man with two kids who 'takes a job' away from a man with four
kids?

Yadda yadda.

Only when it's mothers do we worry about who is 'taking' whose job.

Banty