BTW, the upper class people, who have a financial ability to surround their infants with any number of nurses, servants, etc., never seem to give a damn about 'biology' and 'instinct' when it comes to taking care of their infants and children. Nor have they ever in the past. Just remember the social relations of the plantation economy from which the 'Mammy' stereotype originated, for instance.
Yoshie
********************
<<Joshua2: I guess in the intellectual's universe biology is merely theoretical. Instinct is not a factor where ideology dictates that egalitarian ideals are on equal footing with, or even more desirable than mother / infant bonding.
As long as we reproduce in some natural manner, females will be the primary care givers to offspring. That is not to say that this situation can't be modified for social reasons, but this system apparently works well for anthropoids no matter how male / female wages compare.>>
>nick:
>point well taken, a male would likely stay home if that brought more total
>income to the household. however, denying the stronger bond that exists
>between a mother and a young child is ludicrous. have you ever listened to
>a baby that doesn't stop crying until the mother holds it? that isn't just
>because the mother is spending more time with the baby as a result of social
>constructs - that baby wants the person with whom it is most connected. and
>the mother - does she not feel a bit more connected to a child than a
>father? does shared pain not create the deepest bonds?
>
>i agree that we need to address the issues of pay differentials and
>opportunity, but we won't be very credible without acknowledging the
>existence and power of some of these biological realities.