4 ms·

Yes, why not? It's selfish, whoever does it. That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being clo

by batista 14y ago

Yes, why not? It's selfish, whoever does it. That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology. We're not inter-changeable thinking machines. He have cultures and we have bodies. For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. The same for not breast-feeding. Distance from father, much less so. Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. So, no, just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true.

re_todd 14y ago
You helped me realize one of the reasons I like HN: there is little fear of PC nazis here.
irahul 14y ago
> For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. Interesting. Citation please. > The same for not breast-feeding. I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? > Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. I am more interested in when the baby is out of the womb. > just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true. Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).
- btilly 14y ago
  I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? The babies have a statistically significant, but small, drop in IQ. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond-breast-feeding http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond... for verification and a theory about why.
- batista 14y ago
  >Interesting. Citation please. I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is: "The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving. Non Parental care giving involved both relatives (kinship care) and non relatives (Day care). The NICHD study was based on the ecological theory of Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979) [29]. Analysis of the effects of family and child care revealed that the characteristics of the family and the nature and quality of the mothers relationship with the child was a significantly better predictor of childrens outcome." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_displacement#Effects_on_attachment_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_displacement#Effects_on_a... Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Maternal_deprivation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Maternal_depr... Merely quoting the easiest sources, there are lots of studies to be found online. >I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Connection_to_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Connection_to_int... (Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point) >Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk). It still takes a woman to give birth to a child. And while a "man is capable of raising a child in a normal way", that doesn't say much. Also an orphanage is capable of raising a child -- or "the streets", as it happens in some third world countries. Maybe even wolves, if we believe this Mowgli story. But, some hundred thousands years of evolution say the child optimally needs two parents, female and male. That said, some people consider a child a vanity accessory one can just buy for himself --or had it delivered. From my not-so-PC standpoint, I'd call those people selfish consumers that deserve to be mocked, but sadly aren't as much as they used to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
  - kitsune_ 14y ago
    Actually, anthropology and history show that tribal human care giving and child rearing were not done by a "father and mother" or a "nuclear family". To the contrary. Tribes shared the responsibilities of raising children, including breast feeding.
derleth 14y ago
> the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology. This is simply regurgitation of conservative talking points without a citation behind it.
- lmm 14y ago
  It's not like the assumption that they are equal came with a citation.
- batista 14y ago
  Actually it's the idea that they are equal that is a "talking point" without a citation. It's pure ideology: "we should be, and therefore we are", which takes for granted what it ought to prove. Plus, when we are faced with some thousands of years of history, common worldwide family patterns, and similar observations in nature to that effect, then it's the counter claim that should come with evidence (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, burden of proof, etc). As for citations, check my post above.
  - Uchikoma 14y ago
    " and similar observations in nature to that effect" Which one? Examples without mammals that breast feed their offspring which a male in mammals can't do? Or did you mean elephants, "The females spend their entire lives in tightly knit family groups made up of mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant so we should raise our chilren in tightly knit groups and drive the males away? Should we throw marriage out because nearly no mammals have long monogamic relationships? "Plus, when we are faced with some thousands of years of history, common worldwide family patterns, and similar observations in nature to that effect" Your lack of citations seems to be a modus operandi.
    - batista 14y ago
      >Which one? One which resembles our own, duh. The idea is that each group came to develop in a specific way. So, no, a counter-example with some foreign to us animal wont cut it. >Should we throw marriage out because nearly no mammals have long monogamic relationships? This is something we developed, culturally, but since you ask, why not? Its not as if we havent already, what with divorce, polygamous arab cultures, adultery et al... >Your lack of citations seems to be a modus operandi. Its a forum, not an encyclopaedia article. Do you discuss with citations? If yes, You must be very popular at parties. In an case, the intertubes are one click away. Feel free to investigate what I said
kitsune_ 14y ago
Proof for your claims?
- batista 14y ago
  Check my later post above --or the general internets, it's not like Google is more than a new tab away.

by batista 14y ago

re_todd 14y ago

You helped me realize one of the reasons I like HN: there is little fear of PC nazis here.

irahul 14y ago

> For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. Interesting. Citation please. > The same for not breast-feeding. I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? > Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it. I am more interested in when the baby is out of the womb. > just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true. Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).

btilly 14y ago
I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? The babies have a statistically significant, but small, drop in IQ. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond-breast-feeding http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=surety-bond... for verification and a theory about why.
batista 14y ago
>Interesting. Citation please. I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is: "The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving. Non Parental care giving involved both relatives (kinship care) and non relatives (Day care). The NICHD study was based on the ecological theory of Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979) [29]. Analysis of the effects of family and child care revealed that the characteristics of the family and the nature and quality of the mothers relationship with the child was a significantly better predictor of childrens outcome." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_displacement#Effects_on_attachment_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_displacement#Effects_on_a... Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Maternal_deprivation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory#Maternal_depr... Merely quoting the easiest sources, there are lots of studies to be found online. >I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Connection_to_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding#Connection_to_int... (Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point) >Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk). It still takes a woman to give birth to a child. And while a "man is capable of raising a child in a normal way", that doesn't say much. Also an orphanage is capable of raising a child -- or "the streets", as it happens in some third world countries. Maybe even wolves, if we believe this Mowgli story. But, some hundred thousands years of evolution say the child optimally needs two parents, female and male. That said, some people consider a child a vanity accessory one can just buy for himself --or had it delivered. From my not-so-PC standpoint, I'd call those people selfish consumers that deserve to be mocked, but sadly aren't as much as they used to be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
- kitsune_ 14y ago
  Actually, anthropology and history show that tribal human care giving and child rearing were not done by a "father and mother" or a "nuclear family". To the contrary. Tribes shared the responsibilities of raising children, including breast feeding.

derleth 14y ago

> the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology. This is simply regurgitation of conservative talking points without a citation behind it.

lmm 14y ago
It's not like the assumption that they are equal came with a citation.
batista 14y ago
Actually it's the idea that they are equal that is a "talking point" without a citation. It's pure ideology: "we should be, and therefore we are", which takes for granted what it ought to prove. Plus, when we are faced with some thousands of years of history, common worldwide family patterns, and similar observations in nature to that effect, then it's the counter claim that should come with evidence (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, burden of proof, etc). As for citations, check my post above.
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  " and similar observations in nature to that effect" Which one? Examples without mammals that breast feed their offspring which a male in mammals can't do? Or did you mean elephants, "The females spend their entire lives in tightly knit family groups made up of mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant so we should raise our chilren in tightly knit groups and drive the males away? Should we throw marriage out because nearly no mammals have long monogamic relationships? "Plus, when we are faced with some thousands of years of history, common worldwide family patterns, and similar observations in nature to that effect" Your lack of citations seems to be a modus operandi.
  - batista 14y ago
    >Which one? One which resembles our own, duh. The idea is that each group came to develop in a specific way. So, no, a counter-example with some foreign to us animal wont cut it. >Should we throw marriage out because nearly no mammals have long monogamic relationships? This is something we developed, culturally, but since you ask, why not? Its not as if we havent already, what with divorce, polygamous arab cultures, adultery et al... >Your lack of citations seems to be a modus operandi. Its a forum, not an encyclopaedia article. Do you discuss with citations? If yes, You must be very popular at parties. In an case, the intertubes are one click away. Feel free to investigate what I said

kitsune_ 14y ago

Proof for your claims?

batista 14y ago
Check my later post above --or the general internets, it's not like Google is more than a new tab away.