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
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.
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
That's just because he couldn't get less funny.
Required reading for internet skeptics
He CAN'T get less funny.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
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.
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
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()
Once you have kids, those comedians become funny again, because you've lived the things they talk about when they're talking about their kids. I never thought I would find the whole "I've got a crazy family!" bits funny, but I do now. I don't think you can relate until you've lived it.
That happened to Jim Breuer (not that he was necessarily funny before). I saw his new (2-3 years ago) comedy special and he had had kids. I had not had my kid yet. I didn't think his kid jokes were particularly funny at the time, but one stuck with me. He was talking about the first time you drop your kid off the changing table and your first reaction isn't "oh my god I hope my baby's okay!" Kid's fine. Your first reaction is terror that your wife heard it. Childless me gave that a mild chuckle. When a few years later my kid took a header after crawling off the bed while I was distracted, I remembered that joke and thought it was hilarious, because it was absolutely true.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Dude, did you even read the article?
This has nothing to do with the US.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.