4 ms·

There's a difference between having children (which only women can do) and raising them (which both parents can do).

biomcgary 4y ago
Research has consistently shown the value of breastfeeding for development. Part of that is the biological quality of the milk, but part is also the skin-to-skin contact and emotional bonding. So, until weaning, women have a unique biological ability that men cannot quite replicate. Obviously, pumping can address some of the biology and men can cuddle their infants. However, normal emotional attachment[1] of the mother to the child also develops pre-weaning, which has its own long-term effects. Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? 1. in the evolutionary sense of what human psychology has been selected for, including the increase of maternal prolactin and oxytocin during breastfeeding
- smallnix 4y ago
  > Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? Yes. Men should be allowed the same right.
  - biomcgary 4y ago
    My argument for females to have a year off to take care of newborns (or so) was biologically based, focused on the interaction between natural selection and psychological developmental trajectories. I haven't seen any research on the history of natural selection across multiple people groups / genetic lineages that suggests the equivalent selection pressures have existed in the past for males. One might insist on equivalent policies for the biological sexes on ideological grounds, e.g., men's rights, which is perfectly fine. However, from a logical perspective, arguing for males to have time off for the first year is jointly dependent on the biological argument (which applies to females) AND the ideological argument. Alternatively, from an empirical perspective, the research around males may exist and I am simply not aware of it.
- frumper 4y ago
  As a man, I'd love to have a year to bond with my children. California is pretty good for the US at 8 weeks, and I'm thankful for that. Even here though, I know many men that wouldn't take more than 2 weeks because they worried about losing promotion opportunities.
braingenious 4y ago
There is an astonishing amount of posters that have jumped into the comments to explain that “raising a child” means the exact same thing as “breastfeeding a child” I can’t tell if it’s concern trolling, poor english comprehension, or tradwife enthusiasts tipping their figurative trilbys to one another. It’s funny nonetheless!

Research has consistently shown the value of breastfeeding for development. Part of that is the biological quality of the milk, but part is also the skin-to-skin contact and emotional bonding. So, until weaning, women have a unique biological ability that men cannot quite replicate. Obviously, pumping can address some of the biology and men can cuddle their infants. However, normal emotional attachment[1] of the mother to the child also develops pre-weaning, which has its own long-term effects. Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? 1. in the evolutionary sense of what human psychology has been selected for, including the increase of maternal prolactin and oxytocin during breastfeeding

smallnix 4y ago
> Shouldn't women be allowed to take the first year of their child's life to provide for their long-term emotional development without jeopardizing their careers? Yes. Men should be allowed the same right.
- biomcgary 4y ago
  My argument for females to have a year off to take care of newborns (or so) was biologically based, focused on the interaction between natural selection and psychological developmental trajectories. I haven't seen any research on the history of natural selection across multiple people groups / genetic lineages that suggests the equivalent selection pressures have existed in the past for males. One might insist on equivalent policies for the biological sexes on ideological grounds, e.g., men's rights, which is perfectly fine. However, from a logical perspective, arguing for males to have time off for the first year is jointly dependent on the biological argument (which applies to females) AND the ideological argument. Alternatively, from an empirical perspective, the research around males may exist and I am simply not aware of it.
frumper 4y ago
As a man, I'd love to have a year to bond with my children. California is pretty good for the US at 8 weeks, and I'm thankful for that. Even here though, I know many men that wouldn't take more than 2 weeks because they worried about losing promotion opportunities.

braingenious 4y ago

There is an astonishing amount of posters that have jumped into the comments to explain that “raising a child” means the exact same thing as “breastfeeding a child” I can’t tell if it’s concern trolling, poor english comprehension, or tradwife enthusiasts tipping their figurative trilbys to one another. It’s funny nonetheless!