No. I mean biology. It is disingenuous to put your words in my mouth. What I mean by " biology ", is the entire process of producing offspring which can survive in the world. Sexual maturity, finding a mate, sex, fetal development inutero, birth, care and protection for the infant,socialization of the child, and finally independence. There are many variables in this process, but it is quite clear what the successful formula is for humans.
As for 'ideology', I have no ideological agenda where this is concerned. It is ideology on this list, in the form of deluded feminism's attempt to separate women from nature for purely selfish reasons which prompted my response. Furthermore, when intellectuals (particularly on the left) glomb onto issues of human behavior, the whole enterprise begins to leave the terra firma like a gas filled weather balloon.
>
> 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
I don't see your point here. The rich hire nannies, and Mammy was a female slave. I have raised children communally. Once the ideology peters out, child rearing almost always becomes a female dominated enterprise by CHOICE free from external economic dictates like wages.
Joshua2