5 ms·

Have you considered that the primary enforcer of this curtailment is not adults but infants? I mean, I took long paternity leave, I am with my daughter at night

Have you considered that the primary enforcer of this curtailment is not adults but infants? I mean, I took long paternity leave, I am with my daughter at night, and am with her whenever I am home. She still wants to nurse on her mothers breast when she's sick or in pain. This makes sense as not only is it comforting to her (and a childs emotional need is very real) but it is also physiologically beneficial (nursing reduces stress hormones and helps her heal from disease faster). She enforces this dichotomy of roles by screaming if i try to comfort her and shes already decided what she wants by screaming mama. She'll take comfort from me only if shes decided that its something that doesnt require something no man can give. And her cry is meant to change both of our emotional states to fulfill her every desire. Is this injustice? Perhaps you could characterize it this way, but since the perpetrator is beyond reason and lacks expression, I'm not sure how youre going to fix this.

csb6 7y ago
Structural sexism is not perpetuated by infants. I mean come on. Children wanting to nurse is not the big issue; children grow up, and do not need nursing when they become toddlers. So why are women still expected to be caretakers of toddlers, middle-schoolers, and tweens? Surely, there isn’t a physiological reason. There is clearly something larger going on. In reality, men and women’s roles are arbitrary, and the sexist structures present today are not the result of children asking for it. You are overestimating the intrinsic qualities of human social and family interactions, which are not as set in stone as you claim. Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies.
- eej71 7y ago
  While its not a universal construct - it is challenging to look at the history of many cultures who arrived at a similar distribution of labor and the behavior of other mammals and not wonder if men and women aren't inherently different in some generalized way that isn't readily alterable. For those of us on the other side of the debate, there is always this vague sense of some people are underestimating the impact of these intrinsic differences.
  - kingdomcome50 7y ago
    > For those of us on the other side of the debate, there is always this vague sense of some people are underestimating the impact of these intrinsic differences. Nailed it.
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    I suspect that this distribution of labor is not due to intrinsic differences, but came with the invention of agriculture, and what we are dealing with now is just that we are used to these structures. Hunter gatherers did something else, and now that we are not all subsistence farmers we can do something else again.
  - csb6 7y ago
    Lots of things were/are found in many unrelated human societies, such as slavery, which was found all over the world for thousands of years and still exists in many places/forms today. Something being common isn’t an indication of whether or not it is intrinsic or “the only way”. We only make progress by challenging social structures and trying to improve them. Perhaps these kinds of commonalities exist all over because they are effective at controlling/enforcing oppression and power. My point isn’t that men and women aren’t at all different, it’s that institutions use the “it’s human nature and it can’t be changed” argument to hide oppressive/coercive practices that are avoidable and able to be removed.
- zajio1am 7y ago
  > So why are women still expected to be caretakers of toddlers, middle-schoolers, and tweens? Surely, there isn’t a physiological reason. Enhanced emotional bonding due to emissions of oxytocin during breasfeeding? Make men sit with children several times a day while getting oxytocin shots and perhaps they would have much stronger bonds with their children. From Wikipedia: Maternal behavior: Female rats given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior. By contrast, virgin female sheep show maternal behavior toward foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Of course not. But the average woman wants three kids. WHO says babies should breastfeed for two years. My daughter has nursed for 13 months. A mother taking off three chunks of 13 month leaves while married to a man probably earning as much or more than she does (since women disproportionately marry similar or higher earning men) is going to -- at some point -- realize that it's easier to stay at home. That is exactly what my wife did. > Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies. Yes it is. The only people who claim this are people who've never lived in an extendend family situation. You still know who your mom and dad are. They are still the primary care givers, and babies still have a primary attachment to their moms when born that self-reinforces itself unless there is some major disruption.
Damorian 7y ago
This is an obvious truth to anyone with children. Women have to carry, birth, and recover from having a baby plus raise/feed them in the first 1-2 years. There are so many biological factors here that objectively make women better primary caretakers for children, putting careers on hold because raising a child is harder than most careers, that anyone arguing it's sexism is flat out ignorant of the reality of raising a child. I hate that progressives/feminists try to paint child rearing as an inferior choice to a "proper" career when it is something women excel at, and should be embraced and encouraged. Men and women can both program, sure, but only women can make people. Society simply reflects this.
danharaj 7y ago
How many people do you think are involved in raising the average child? Two? I had a veritable village of people raising me. I can assure you that only one of them nursed me. For some reason, though, most of them were women. It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient. I'd like to get your perspective in 18 years.
- tathougies 7y ago
  I mean I was raised by my grandmother and grandfather while my parents worked. Did you think I didn't need to emphasize the importance of extended family? My father and mother also take care of my daughter, as do my wife's. However, she still wants her mom at night, no matter who is around. This makes it harder for my wife to work. It is unfair to even ask her to, given her work when dealing with the baby at night. I suppose we could bottle feed. But my wife doesn't want to, and it is linked to worse outcomes for kids so asking moms to do this for the sake of their career is like asking them to cut their nose to spite their face. > It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient. Of course, but there's only one mom still. My parents were raised in a ' non-nuclear family' where aunts and uncles lived next door. Hell, I was raised by my mom's family and my parents often living together. Do you think the mom wasn't preferred out of all these people? You have to be joking. The only people who ascribe 'the nuclear family' as a bogeyman are people who idolize extended families. Believe it or not, even in an extended family situation, with grandma, grandpa, aunts and uncles... babies still prefer their mothers.

csb6 7y ago

Structural sexism is not perpetuated by infants. I mean come on. Children wanting to nurse is not the big issue; children grow up, and do not need nursing when they become toddlers. So why are women still expected to be caretakers of toddlers, middle-schoolers, and tweens? Surely, there isn’t a physiological reason. There is clearly something larger going on. In reality, men and women’s roles are arbitrary, and the sexist structures present today are not the result of children asking for it. You are overestimating the intrinsic qualities of human social and family interactions, which are not as set in stone as you claim. Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies.

eej71 7y ago
While its not a universal construct - it is challenging to look at the history of many cultures who arrived at a similar distribution of labor and the behavior of other mammals and not wonder if men and women aren't inherently different in some generalized way that isn't readily alterable. For those of us on the other side of the debate, there is always this vague sense of some people are underestimating the impact of these intrinsic differences.
- kingdomcome50 7y ago
  > For those of us on the other side of the debate, there is always this vague sense of some people are underestimating the impact of these intrinsic differences. Nailed it.
- amanaplanacanal 7y ago
  I suspect that this distribution of labor is not due to intrinsic differences, but came with the invention of agriculture, and what we are dealing with now is just that we are used to these structures. Hunter gatherers did something else, and now that we are not all subsistence farmers we can do something else again.
- csb6 7y ago
  Lots of things were/are found in many unrelated human societies, such as slavery, which was found all over the world for thousands of years and still exists in many places/forms today. Something being common isn’t an indication of whether or not it is intrinsic or “the only way”. We only make progress by challenging social structures and trying to improve them. Perhaps these kinds of commonalities exist all over because they are effective at controlling/enforcing oppression and power. My point isn’t that men and women aren’t at all different, it’s that institutions use the “it’s human nature and it can’t be changed” argument to hide oppressive/coercive practices that are avoidable and able to be removed.
zajio1am 7y ago
> So why are women still expected to be caretakers of toddlers, middle-schoolers, and tweens? Surely, there isn’t a physiological reason. Enhanced emotional bonding due to emissions of oxytocin during breasfeeding? Make men sit with children several times a day while getting oxytocin shots and perhaps they would have much stronger bonds with their children. From Wikipedia: Maternal behavior: Female rats given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior. By contrast, virgin female sheep show maternal behavior toward foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise.
tathougies 7y ago
Of course not. But the average woman wants three kids. WHO says babies should breastfeed for two years. My daughter has nursed for 13 months. A mother taking off three chunks of 13 month leaves while married to a man probably earning as much or more than she does (since women disproportionately marry similar or higher earning men) is going to -- at some point -- realize that it's easier to stay at home. That is exactly what my wife did. > Even the concept of the nuclear family - with one possible nurse and mother figure - isn’t a universal construct of human societies. Yes it is. The only people who claim this are people who've never lived in an extendend family situation. You still know who your mom and dad are. They are still the primary care givers, and babies still have a primary attachment to their moms when born that self-reinforces itself unless there is some major disruption.

Damorian 7y ago

This is an obvious truth to anyone with children. Women have to carry, birth, and recover from having a baby plus raise/feed them in the first 1-2 years. There are so many biological factors here that objectively make women better primary caretakers for children, putting careers on hold because raising a child is harder than most careers, that anyone arguing it's sexism is flat out ignorant of the reality of raising a child. I hate that progressives/feminists try to paint child rearing as an inferior choice to a "proper" career when it is something women excel at, and should be embraced and encouraged. Men and women can both program, sure, but only women can make people. Society simply reflects this.

danharaj 7y ago

How many people do you think are involved in raising the average child? Two? I had a veritable village of people raising me. I can assure you that only one of them nursed me. For some reason, though, most of them were women. It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient. I'd like to get your perspective in 18 years.

tathougies 7y ago
I mean I was raised by my grandmother and grandfather while my parents worked. Did you think I didn't need to emphasize the importance of extended family? My father and mother also take care of my daughter, as do my wife's. However, she still wants her mom at night, no matter who is around. This makes it harder for my wife to work. It is unfair to even ask her to, given her work when dealing with the baby at night. I suppose we could bottle feed. But my wife doesn't want to, and it is linked to worse outcomes for kids so asking moms to do this for the sake of their career is like asking them to cut their nose to spite their face. > It was even more obvious before the establishment of the nuclear family that a whole bunch of people should work together to raise children because not only does it improve the outcome, it's more efficient. Of course, but there's only one mom still. My parents were raised in a ' non-nuclear family' where aunts and uncles lived next door. Hell, I was raised by my mom's family and my parents often living together. Do you think the mom wasn't preferred out of all these people? You have to be joking. The only people who ascribe 'the nuclear family' as a bogeyman are people who idolize extended families. Believe it or not, even in an extended family situation, with grandma, grandpa, aunts and uncles... babies still prefer their mothers.