Nurev at Kreative.net wrote:
> >(Miles) 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.
>
> (Joshua2) 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.
(Ingrid) Joshua, please excuse me I'm grossly misinformed about child-rearing programs in early communistic Israeli Kibbutzim, but I was told that the early child-rearing experiments were considered a failure because parents of either sex were intentionally removed from the child-rearing of their own children, who were raised communally by other adults--a kind of forced collectivization of child care. The consequence, I was told, was that the children who grew up under this experiment often had certain emotional problems owing to their lack of parental bonding--their sense of individuality was stunted, often causing their creativity and general zest for life to be muted. I would love to know more about the subject, but if I'm not totally misinformed then the example you cite would seem to have nothing to do with whether child care is the natural domain of the mother, the father, or some combination of the two. In fact, it would make perfect sense that such a failure would produce a conservative impulse to return child care to the traditional maternal responsibility.
On the other hand, I have known many more benign "social experiments," families in which the father for at least some portion of the early child-raising years was the primary care giver. In fact, I just received a visit two weeks ago by the 19-year-old son of such an experiment, and he seemed perfectly happy, with an extremely well-developed sense of himself and no bitterness whatsoever. I really do believe that if some of the economic and cultural onus were removed from paternal child-rearing, this whole notion of a "maternal instinct"--as opposed to a simple "parental instinct"--would disappear. For instance, in countries such as Sweden that make it easier for parents of either sex to enjoy generous parental work leave, there is much more active participation in child-rearing by fathers. Which is why I think you give this whole notion of cross-cultural variation a rather short shrift:
> >(Miles) This cross cultural variation
> > is what makes your argument about "maternal instinct" dubious at best.
>
> (Joshua2) 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?
(Ingrid) No, but I do think that this whole pseudo-scientific, quasi-Darwinian notion that all men want to do is pass their seed and let the women mop up is contradicted by just about everything I see in my own life--from the fathers who regularly visit the welfare hotel down the street from me to be with their children, to male friends who take great satisfaction in assuming some parental responsibilities for the children of their girlfriends. Sure, lots of men don't have much parental instinct; the same can be said for lots of women. I just don't see what biology has to do with it.
Regards,
Ingrid
>
>
> >
> > 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