Parenting Rewires the Male Brain

sciencehabit writes: "Cultures around the world have long assumed that women are hardwired to be mothers. But a new study (abstract) suggests that caring for children awakens a parenting network in the brain—even turning on some of the same circuits in men as it does in women. The research implies that the neural underpinnings of the so-called maternal instinct aren't unique to women, or activated solely by hormones, but can be developed by anyone who chooses to be a parent."

Comments

So that's why...

[eyepeepackets]

...my hot, young honey turned into a raggy, naggy, whiney stenchcow who dedicated her life to making me miserable? Well at least now I know -- thanks Science Guy!

I call BS

[Neo-Rio-101]

As far as I can tell, the male brain is not wired for looking after a child. It's only wired to have sex with as many women as possible.
Trouble for women is that raising a child typically required male support (getting food mainly), but aside from that he was pretty much useless.
Women didn't even want men raising the children, lest they are not trained by men to look after women as a matter of priority

To that end, the concept of "love" and a "relationship" evolved whereby the woman attempts to get a man to "fall in love" so that he stops whatever he is supposed to be doing to support her. Problem is, this eventually makes the man unhappy (he's supposed to be spreading the seed), and the woman only needs to man for financial support. She doesn't *really* love him.

These days with a growing government socialist support network, the role of the male provider is being replaced by the state, divorce is on the rise, and so are the number of single mothers.

Re:I call BS

[Neo-Rio-101]

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to ... you know... feel superior on a message board and berate people for evidence, and then feel like an utter dick when someone produces it.

No, I'd never do it.... because you never know,.... they just might be able to produce it.

So perhaps then, I'd consider that the best thing to do - if I felt that more evidence would be required - would be to politely ask for it. That way if they had it, I'd be able to learn more about it, and if not, I would have made my point.
If, however, I was to be a complete douchebag and be insulting, I'd be betting on them not having a repsonse BUT *if it just so happened* that they could produce evidence.... you'd look like an utter asshole. So really there'd be nothing for you to gain from being a dick, and only self-respect to lose.

Nope. Not a smart move.

http://www.oocities.org/protop...

'stay-at-home-dad' schlock

[epyT-R]

This is just more schlock choose-your-facts 'science' to drive home the 'stay-at-home-dad' shit that feminists are pushing on men as well as to normalize same sex parents. Whether you think this is good or bad, it's pretty clear this article's language is ideologically charged. My issue is the politicization of science. It's no better than creationists cherry picking from biology, geology, and anthropology to lend false credence to their bible babble.

"But it's clear that we're all born with the circuitry to help us be sensitive caregivers, and the network can be turned up through parenting."

Because after all, that's what we're all (especially men) 'supposed' to be, right? All communal and caring 24/7? Yuck.

Re: I believe it because..

[excelsior_gr]

Unfortunately, yours didn't think this way either. And now we're stuck with an asshole too many, that thinks that people aren't entitled to their own opinion, no matter how subversive it may be.