If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
|
#367
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Newsweek article | Sue | General | 353 | March 22nd 05 03:19 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | March 3rd 04 10:06 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |