Slashdot Mirror
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."
I have been discriminated against a few times because I choose to be childless.
This must be the process that makes it possible to see humor in dadjokes. Warrants funding research in that field.
One assumption of this study is that because homosexual men have a specific reaction in their brains, that all men have it. It ignores the possibility that homosexual men's brains are different from the start. It doesn't consider/ignores the fact that homosexual men are wired differently from the start which means they may have the same ability as women from the start as well. The wiring that makes a man homosexual may be the same wiring that makes them more nurturing/worrying/ect like mothers.
There isn't enough evidence to draw the conclusions they are drawing. This is a simple matter of someone deciding correlation is causation. It may be true, it may not, but this study is pretty inconclusive and jumps to conclusions that it shouldn't
I see nothing referencing heterosexual single fathers and how they compare/contrast to all this, which would be much more telling as far as the conclusions they've drawn.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
They always get less funny once they become parents.
Our brains learn things by "rewiring" themselves. Why should we be surprised that spending a large amount of time causes a detectable difference in the action of the brain? Implying that men don't have the neural circuitry required for parenting is as retarded as implying that women don't have the neural circuitry required for mathematics.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
YOU Don't Understand why some particular $SCIENTIFIC_KNOWLEGE is of value...
therfore:
$THEY are "fools"
A few years ago, my ex had a miscarriage at three months. By that point I was already accepting that there was going to be a kid and planning accordingly (adding another room to the house, telling friends and co-workers, etc). We dated for five years and the stress that caused ended an already fragile relationship.
Since then, I've noticed a distinct change in my personality. It's subtle and hard to quantify in absolute terms, but it's definitely there and I'm not the only one who noticed. I'm a lot less interested in women than I was before. I'm a lot more interested in stability, especially financial, and I'm finding myself doting on my cat a lot more (she's the bestest). While I'm still in many ways "an overgrown college kid" I've noticed that I'm also assuming a lot more responsibilities with my life, especially cleaning, cooking, and being a lot more timely and responsible* in my behaviour.
It's hard to assign causation to something like this -- I'm nearly 30 now. Did I just get older and is that adequate enough to explain it? Was it because I was exposed to a lot of new things, such as The Atheist Experience which I started watching just after the breakup? Or maybe it was just a change in the social and political climate locally, here in Australia? Or possibly the change in friend circles (I moved across the country afterward) that did it? I lost a lot of weight, maybe that's it too? Or the change in career (IT to full time writer)?
It's hard to pin down, but something changed and although a lot of factors I can think of were environmental I'd find it quite plausible that there is a distinct bio-chemical trigger at play here too. Probably 75% environmental, 25% chemical?
The whole thing is very interesting at any rate.
*I bought a Pikachu onesie a week ago so maybe not too responsible.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
If parents were not rewired to care for their spawn, they'd just eat their young...or use them as fertilizer.
The mutant teen gene can devour an adult alive, so its best to negotiate their release into the wild before they destroy any hope for your surrender to a glimpse of serenity or even a little boredom now and then.
Suddenly the Thanatos seems a welcome notion once you can extract the parasites from the host wallet and car keys. Too bad that libido had you fooled long enough to spew the infectious malignancy. We're just biological slaves to hormonal catalysts and cataclysmic degradation of personal goals or self interest.
Sounds convincing, good thing I am an uncle, with limited liability dna by proxy.
It's so wonderful you value your opinion more than evidence-based investigation. How special.
Here's something you should consider: maybe, just maybe, someone in the world can dive into an issue, draw a conclusion based on data, and disagree with you--yet they're right. How does that sit?
Oh wait, that can't happen because men who go to prison and start engaging in homosexual activity are clearly doing so because they were simply sexually repressed homosexuals before being liberated by prison life.
Seastead this.
Jeebus... I try and have an opposing view and suddenly I have the white-knight brigade out in force.
Way to go "democracy"... let's just slam the other person with another point of view, rather than explain the counter-argument
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
That's what your wife tells you when she wants you to fix the fence and get off your computer.
"Grow up and be an adult!"
Does it get the correct pavlov dog reaction?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Men have traditionally wanted to have their own children, and ensure that they were their own. There is some "selfish gene" biology going on here, as well as something more tangible. During the transition to hunting-gathering society to farming based, a man needed extra workers on the farm. To that end he needed to be sure that the children were his, and in order to do that he invented marriage and "chastity" and "virginity" for women to ensure that he got his bit out of the deal when he took possession of them. The honey "moon" so called because a month away on holiday away from any other people would ensure that pregnancy with that woman would happen (as she gets estrus once a month)). As is the plan with marriage, even traditionally.
Of course, virginity, woman-ownership, etc. were necessary because women aren't instinctively monogamous either.
If anyone reading thinks I'm talking nonsense, let's hear your theory....
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Well to be sure accumulation of assets was a big deal, but there are people who posit other, not necessarily mutually exclusive, reasons that farming societies invented the concept of chastity outside of marriage. One compelling argument is that they used it as a form of birth control.
From what evidence we have we can see that starvation was relatively rare in hunter-gather societies, but it was really common in farming communities, especially when there were more mouths to feed than the land could support. The lords needed some way to make sure that the population couldn't rise above what the land was able to support, so they used marriage, especially church-sanctioned marriage, as a way to control the peasant population. According to Dr. Wyman only 40% of people in medieval Europe were married(Sorry for the zip, lecture #9 is the one that lists this info if you are interested, fascinating course overall). The landlords simply controlled the church who in turn controlled marriage. Civilizations have been using marriage, and the taboos of sex outside marriage, to control population for eons.
Monstar L
who persistently find in favour of the woman, ignoring the benefits that a father can bring to children: if mother does not want her ex-partner around the courts do little to help dad remain in the kids lives. She can break court orders with little penalty while dad is faced with huge legal bills and delays. The courts pretend to act in the best interests of the children - but really they are prejudiced in favour of mothers.
No True Not All Men?
Each to his own. It seems you "choose not to be" a father and thus the effects described don't apply or make sense to you. I have seen the changes described in this article myself and it only confirms what I have seen. I don't think the stay-at-home-dad thing is a bad thing or even being forced upon men in general - hell I hear more men arguing *for* the right to be a stay-at-home-dad than against it. I think you're seeing ideologically charged language where there is none; perhaps the mention of a same-sex couple or the mention that the effect is triggered differently in women has skewed your opinion.
Just to be clear, I am certainly not a feminist. I'm not narrow minded enough for that. I'm an egalitarian.
(clearly my opinion)
Now who are the fools who paid for this so desperately-needed research? Oh yeah. My own government. Once again.
The government has no money. It was paid half by taxpayers, and half by US-bond holders.
But yes, kind of obvious. We used to call it bonding.
Perhaps, but these days, it's hard to separate the science from the politics. I'm leery of 'studies' like this as they're usually put out by some think tank or other that's looking to provide 'scientific' justification for a particular ideology.
I know three stay at home dads who thought it would be wonderful. They are now shells of their former selves as their wives treat them as thankless slaves. Also, thanks to lizard-brain dynamics, the women don't find their husbands attractive anymore. Nothing dries a vagina faster than a guy who's providing less than she is while doing 'womanly' things. It doesn't matter how logical the trade offs and value propositions are, that she's making the 200k while he's changing diapers and keeping house. This is a case of animal imperatives conflicting with social conditioning. One described it as being the one sitting in the 'guy chair' at a women's clothing outlet, holding her pocketbook, except it's 10x worse and it's 24/7. No sense of self respect for him, and she has no respect for him. Feminists say that male distaste of traditionally feminine tasks is proof of provincial attitudes, but really all they're doing is shaming men for being men. A lot of guys fall for this now as that's how the current crop of 30something fathers was brought up. I realize this is just anecdotal and that there are cases that work out, but it does mirror the trends, tropes, and stereotypes, seen in the media. This is clearly the direction society is headed in and it's really quite sad.
Exactly how is disproving stereotypes feminist shit?
At the end of the day, some men are good fathers just as some women are good mothers. There is nothing special about that, even though societal prejudices seems to believe that is the case.
Now if you choose to live up to the male stereotype, that's up to you. If you choose not to have children, that's fine. Personally, I don't care if you live up to the stereotype and have children (as long as no harm is coming to your children).
But also realize that some men do have a paternal instinct. In those cases, the prejudices against men (or same sex couples) represents a direct harm to them and it has the potential to harm their children.
So live your life how you want, but please ditch those stereotypes so that others can live their life how they see fit.
(Oh, and what is it with this "stay-at-home-dad" nonsense? Many children are being raised in families where both parents work these days. In the 80's we called it latchkey kids. These days we call it two-income families. Not only is it a common situation, it ain't exactly new.)
I had the luck of finding a husband who cared about me keeping my job. That meant sharing of the parental duties, except the obvious ones like breastfeeding. I noticed that not only his parental instinct was at least as developed as mine -- and getting better with each subsequent child, but also that he is more comfortable than me in this parenthood thing. The reasons being:
1 - he's more sure of himself than I am, because society taught him to.
2 - he gets less hen-pecking and judging that I do. With our first-born, family would let me know that I "was doing wrong", and I'd believe it (see number one). But a caring father is like a super-hero here and does not get that much crap. And also can find better company (but that's just here where I live I guess as I heard horrible things from other dads). Also random people compliment him for being so involved with our kids.
3 - he can lift 2 kids at the same time
What else could explain a man's willingness to become monogamous despite his overwhelming desire to lay every female he encounters? The desire to procreate is overwhelming in normal human beings and only a genetic deathwish could motivate one to not pass on his DNA.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Look, look, another woman here! :) Anyway, I was considering joking that as an expecting geek mom, that if men's brains get rewired, then perhaps there's a chance that I'll become more maternal. I worry about it.
The rest of your commentary makes sense to me. So far, I haven't been getting much advice that is critical of our plans, except from one person: my very traditional mother, who is probably secretly horrified that my husband is going to stay at home. She's already claimed that my longterm breastfeeding plans will never work out (no, not _that_ longterm, I just mean that I'm not doing formula if I don't have to), that trying to use cloth diapers is silly and my plans to downsize to reduce debt so that we can afford for my husband to not work mean I'll "never live in a house that big again".
Okay, I've gotten it off my chest now.
So far, I haven't been getting much advice that is critical of our plans, except from one person: my very traditional mother, who is probably secretly horrified that my husband is going to stay at home.
I've got two kids and a third due in about 9 weeks. My best advice to parents-to-be is to ignore all the advice you'll get (small joke there.) Everyone you meet will think they know better than you what being a parent will be like, and that they know best how you should raise your child. Many of them will then offer that advice in strong terms, even when you clearly don't want/need it. Listen to them, nod politely, and go on doing it the way you think best.
... perhaps there's a chance that I'll become more maternal. I worry about it.
Annecdotal, but: We both became more maternal/paternal when our son was born. I had trouble bonding the first couple of weeks - they just cry, sleep and poop the first while, and nursing didn't go well (apparently the stats are that 50% of women have trouble with nursing for the first child. Ignore anyone that pressures you for or against nursing - it's your choice to try and for how long.) But taking time to just sit quietly and take care of him, hold him when he's sleeping, stuff like that helped us bond. Looking back now, I do wish I'd taken some videos of us having that quiet bonding time.
So, trust yourself and good luck - it's a hell of a ride, but totally worth it!
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
You may be correct in some respects, but not in others.
I will admit to having a bias here. I am a male who works in childcare, and seem to enjoy it far more than many my colleagues (including the women). My experience suggests that neither men nor women have an advantage here in terms of ability to care for or our desire to care for children. There are differences in how we approach our responsibilities, but it is unclear whether it due to biological or social factors. Obviously those observations are non-scientific in nature, and I'll admit that it could influence me to "cherry-pick" studies.
On the other hand, there are problems with your assertions. The first is that the "feminist" claim has no basis whatsoever, beyond particular people's points of view. The second is that a properly conducted study does constitute scientific proof, though clearly the reproducibility of results is desirable and contradictory results can invalidate the study. The third is that there are studies about the role of men in childcare and education. I am aware that such studies are outside the scope of parenting, but they do research the role that men perform in child development outside of the traditional context.
The child production strategies with which I am most familiar leave no doubt as to the female DNA source. The male parent's genes have a more difficult time ensuring that child-rearing resources are spent on the right combined DNA complex. Should we be surprised at the existence of various strategies to decrease the probability of the male DNA source rearing the wrong DNA complex?
... to the old saw that, "Insanity is hereditary; you get it from your kids"?
2 - he gets less hen-pecking and judging that I do. With our first-born, family would let me know that I "was doing wrong", and I'd believe it (see number one). But a caring father is like a super-hero here and does not get that much crap.
This one is huge IMHO. Probably people who aren't looking at it from the outside like I do as a dad don't notice this so much, but society is just insanely judgmental toward mothers. There are shelves full of books with contradictory things in them that mothers are told they have to follow exactly, or risk their kids turning into mental defectives and/or serial killers. TV and radio is chock full of these snake-oil salesmen too. Anybody who listens to all that crap is guaranteed to be driven insane. Other parents are horrible too, as they are constantly telling you about their kid's latest exploits, or the ridiculous amount of activities they have the poor little bastards doing. And then grandparents, teachers, and random people in general expect that you've somehow got a magic remote control for all your little mentally-developing rugrats, and thus any misbehavior or unseemly exuberance on their part is somehow the mom's fault.
But not a single one of these folks knows your specific kids very well, or the context in which they are operating. Only you know that, and thus only you really have all the information to know how to deal with them properly. Everyone else should really be told to pound sand. Daily.
The fact is that kids are their own people. They aren't our slaves, parents don't get to tell them what to think, and have only very limited control over their behavior. The best we can really do is try to steer them in the right directions as they slowly (painfully slowly) learn how to behave in the world in a way that won't get them beaten up, fired, or arrested as adults. Every single one of them will screw up, no matter how awesome their parents are. You can't program them, and the right source code for them isn't in a book somewhere.
Some are even flat out doomed from the start. Everyone is born with different brains, and it takes a certain amount of empathy and self-control to be a functioning human being in our society. If you don't have that capacity, no amount of great parenting is going to fix it. Its a hardware problem, not a software problem. Beating up their parents, who often raise multiple other wildly successful kids, doesn't do anyone a lick of good.
I've got two kids and a third due in about 9 weeks. My best advice to parents-to-be is to ignore all the advice you'll get (small joke there.) Everyone you meet will think they know better than you what being a parent will be like, and that they know best how you should raise your child. Many of them will then offer that advice in strong terms, even when you clearly don't want/need it. Listen to them, nod politely, and go on doing it the way you think best.
Father of three now all in "endgame" (college, high-school, and jr. high) here. This is the single best piece of advice that can be given IMHO. Some of us have a personality that is naturally inclined this way anyway. However, you may have a partner who is not. Some people live for praise and really take any criticism to heart. If so, its part of your job to help them deflect the bullshit. Believe me, it is incoming from every quarter.
This makes perfect sense - you no longer need the portions of your brain that store your hopes and dreams, so those portions can transition to finding ways to push your kids to be good at something so that you can live vicariously through them!
Why the hell would a man need a child to be "his" to do physical labour? What an absurd line of reasoning.
Many species display hostility toward offspring not their own (eg. lions). A "selfish gene" as you put it would most certainly have positive effects on selection. Protecting your own offspring over others would help them survive over others and lead to more gene replication.
"He" invented marriage for this did "he"? How rich. I could just as easily claim that "she" invented marriage to ensure "she" continued to get support, shelter, protection, etc. after she got her child. The truth is marriage was invented by people because people of both genders benefited from and wanted it. People may not be strictly monogamous but we certainly tend toward pair-bonding (if even for a limited time).
Many species attempt to trick others into raising their offspring (it is a successful strategy) one of the responses to this is instinct to prioritize your own offspring.
Dude, did you even read the article?
This has nothing to do with the US.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The specific fact chosen seems to be that you get better at things you practice. That's not exactly an outlandish proposal.
Please explain why this idea is "shit"?
Please explain why this shouldn't be normal?
Please explain why you find this notion disgusting?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Cutting to the chase, having kids is fine as long as you're willing to make the sacrifices necessary to raise and support them. So is not having kids. So is waiting to have kids. So is adopting. So is marrying someone who has already had kids and becoming a (hopefully non-evil) stepparent.
What surprises me is the number of people here who feel that they have some right to criticize others' choices on this particular issue (although the choice of taking unruly kids onto planes and into theaters probably is OK to criticize). What surprises me more is the defensiveness that some people have around their choices, even to the point where folks are seeing posts on different choices as attacks on their choices. Just because someone makes a different choice than you, it doesn't invalidate your decision. Yes, I know that you who don't have kids like to gloat about your freedom. I'm glad you have it, but no one likes an smug asshole. I know you who have kids like to tout your responsibility and the joys you get from parenting and your oh-so-excellent child-rearing skills. I'm glad you have those, but, again, no one likes a smug asshole. So just lighten the fuck up, OK?
I had kids. I have friends who didn't. I respect their choices, they respect mine. There are advantages and disadvantages to each choice. That's the way life is. Now STFU and enjoy the life you've chosen and let others enjoy theirs.
Why does this discussion remind me of a vi/emacs war?
That is all.
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.
Biologically the reverse is more true. Semen contains a cocktail of hormones and neurotransmitters that elevate mood and promote feelings of intimacy.
http://gawker.com/5936835/wome...
Do anything for 40 days and it forms a habit - i.e. rewires the brain.
Not answering your question directly but after having kids I get a kick out of young couples who get dogs or cats to prepare them for having children. It's nothing like having children- not even a little bit.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Not another woman, but...
Although some women will experience considerable difficulty breastfeeding a particular child it is not just an accident that humans survived as a species before formula. One thing I have noticed is that breastfeeding makes for a lot easier nights *if* you are doing co-sleeping. If someone has to drag themselves out of bed to get to the baby it makes the night a lot less restful -- preparing formula is more work in addition, but just having to get up will significantly impair restfulness. As you want to do breastfeeding do yourself a favor and reach out to the La Leche League before your baby is born. A support network that includes parents with children of about the same age helps a lot with dealing with age-related issues or activities and generally requires going outside of family.
I thought my wife was a little crazy wanting to do cloth diapers, but I'm so glad she did. It does require doing laundry frequently, but cloth diapers are multi-purpose cleaners around babies. The sprayer we got for the bathroom to help knock stool off really helped as well.
Finally, I think the notion that "maternal instinct" exists and will miraculously kick in when you become pregnant or have a kid is dangerous because it creates false expectations. Having a kid is easy, caring for kids is hard. It takes work, and you are not going to have the right answers or know what to do automatically. There'll be minutes, hours and days when you won't want kids. That's healthy, and its okay as long as there's another parent to take up the slack. Even the best mother (or father) will not be a model parent all the time.
Dude, did you even read the article?
Did I what!? Welcome to slashdot, BTW.
OK, I did read a bit, but it was so stupid I had to stop. Terrible assumptions. I hope TFA does not accurately reflect the study.
In other news, it is often assumed that men are natural drivers, but if women practice motor racing, their brain is rewired to improve performance. Duh!
This has nothing to do with the US.
I wouldn't say "nothing". US taxpayers have long been propping up Israel to the tune of $billions per year.
lack of sleep