Mothers, chil-care, biology

Nurev at Kreative.net Nurev at Kreative.net
Thu Jun 25 04:56:10 PDT 1998



> > 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.
>
> Do you actually consider these to be biological processes? If so,
> you disagree with virtually all developmental psychologists. All of
> these processes are wholly dependent on social relations! Or have
> you simply subsumed "social" under the supreme category of biology?

Yes, but not all things social are biological too. The exutero part of the process described above is vital to species survival. The fact that it takes place outside the individual organism does not make it non-biological. Learning how and what to eat depends entirely upon social relations. Is this not a biological process?

On the other hand, learning the personal stats of baseball players while watching a baseball game with friends, though the same process, would not be biological because the species could easily survive without it.


> > 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.
> >
> This is simply incorrect.
> Child care norms vary across time and
> societies. In some human societies, men participate actively in
> child care; in others, it's women's work.

In the early days of the purely communistic Israeli Kibbutzim, a high value was placed upon gender equality. Men and women were active in the communal child rearing. After a generation or two this was no longer the case. I use this as an example for two reasons: 1) I experienced it, and can vouch for the authenticity of the statement. 2)It came about entirely by free choice. That is to say, there were no external causes to force the change.


> This cross cultural variation
> is what makes your argument about "maternal instinct" dubious at best.

Why? The existence of gay men, does not negate the fact that there is an instinct in men to have sex and produce offspring with women. Do you deny this as well?


>
> Miles Jackson
> cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu

I don't understand what point you are arguing. Are you saying that Maternal Instinct is not real? Are you saying that it's not important. Or are you saying that it ought not be as important as egalitarian wishful thinking?

Human child rearing is a group activity dependent on women in MOST societies now and throughout our evolution. This in no way justifies oppression of women. Fortunately for us, This hasn't yet changed.

Joshua2



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list