Maternal Instinct Isn’t Real, But the Myth Makes Parenting Harder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a biologist, I would need to see a non-biased, scientific study, instead of this Fatherly fluff piece that merely highlights some people’s opinions. There are decades of research across animal species, including humans, that show how most adult females have much stronger tendencies to care for young.

I understand society has a strong incentive to persuade males that they need to raise kids too, for the benefit of the group, but you have to realize that Homo Sapiens has already made incredible strides in that direction in recent centuries. The trend will probably continue.

OP here, did you read the whole article? I agree it’s a little fluffy with lots of anecdotes and quotes from experts, but it also cites several research studies that show that many women have trouble bonding with their infants.

I see that many PPs are responding with their own anecdotes which they feel support the existence of “maternal instinct.” Nonetheless, I think the point of the article is many women don’t feel this, much of it is a social construction, and relying on this notion of maternal instinct is associated with a lot of ill effects. This includes shaming/silencing of those who do have trouble feeling bonded, and a belief that women ought to be fulfilled by their parenting roles alone, not to mention implications for the involvement of fathers, adoptive mothers, two-dad families, etc.

Biologist here.
You are confused.

The article does not cite the studies correctly and only cites those that support the initial bias of the piece. This is the epitome of bad writing. There are many more primary research studies (not vulgarizations for the general public) showing how mothers are wired to protect their offspring than the opposite.

The controversy lies in the inevitable guilt and shame that humans pile on other humans for behaving in ways that society does not expect. That's a different topic, OP, and is explained by the ancient need of pack animals to all behave in the same, easily-understandable way, so as to maximize survival in a hostile environment. Most behaviors exist on a spectrum, and there will be outliers at each extreme. Mothers who fail to exhibit motherly traits are excoriated, and judgement on fathers largely depends on whether their circle is socially progressive or conservative. My Japanese father made cute bento lunches throughout my childhood, cleaned the house, sewed curtains and made my theater costumes, but did he outwardly show this in his very patriarchal, conservative environment? Of course not. Most people attempt to conform to what their community expects.

OP here. I guess I should say I'm a researcher, with a Ph.D. in a health research field. I appreciate that this is not a "legitimate" research article with all the appropriate checks, and that they've cherry-picked some data to support their argument. Nonetheless, I still ask--have you read the whole article? They specifically address the above point you've made--there is still a limit to translational research. Research on "pack animals," even if primates, will not necessarily extrapolate to homo sapiens. Your point about your Japanese father exhibiting parental traits but hiding them given societal expectations could actually be seen as supporting the point that nurture is more important than nature in parenting behaviors.

I am actually not arguing that there is hard proof to the argument presented, as one couldn't conclude hard proof from the article given the drawbacks; however, I do agree that too much is made of "maternal instincts" and that this can definitely be harmful--for example, for the 40% of women cited in one quoted study (methodological problems aside) who felt indifferent when holding their babies for the first time.

PP you replied to.

I apologize for being rude, but frankly you don't deserve your PhD if you post such drivel with the background you have. It's extremely disappointing.

[Anonymous]

It says in the Bible..

"And now these three remain: Research.. Articles.. and Agenda But the greatest of these is is..__________ ???? "

[Anonymous]

The words we use are interesting to me. My experience of being a mom felt like duty, not instinct - I cared for my baby not because I was emotionally driven to do so, but because he was totally helpless, I was the one there, and what was the alternative? Maybe that is instinct, I don't know, but it sure didn't feel like having a sense of WHAT to do, or doing it out of love.

I felt that way about how little kids love their parents, and vice versa, too. It's not earned and it's not transcendent. They're completely dependent and can't not love the people taking care of them unless something has gone badly wrong. We love them at first, before they have personalities, because they need us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The words we use are interesting to me. My experience of being a mom felt like duty, not instinct - I cared for my baby not because I was emotionally driven to do so, but because he was totally helpless, I was the one there, and what was the alternative? Maybe that is instinct, I don't know, but it sure didn't feel like having a sense of WHAT to do, or doing it out of love.

I felt that way about how little kids love their parents, and vice versa, too. It's not earned and it's not transcendent. They're completely dependent and can't not love the people taking care of them unless something has gone badly wrong. We love them at first, before they have personalities, because they need us.

DH struggled with a bond at first and something I read and then said to him really resonated with him: we don't take care of them because we love them, we love them because we take care of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a biologist, I would need to see a non-biased, scientific study, instead of this Fatherly fluff piece that merely highlights some people’s opinions. There are decades of research across animal species, including humans, that show how most adult females have much stronger tendencies to care for young.

I understand society has a strong incentive to persuade males that they need to raise kids too, for the benefit of the group, but you have to realize that Homo Sapiens has already made incredible strides in that direction in recent centuries. The trend will probably continue.

OP here, did you read the whole article? I agree it’s a little fluffy with lots of anecdotes and quotes from experts, but it also cites several research studies that show that many women have trouble bonding with their infants.

I see that many PPs are responding with their own anecdotes which they feel support the existence of “maternal instinct.” Nonetheless, I think the point of the article is many women don’t feel this, much of it is a social construction, and relying on this notion of maternal instinct is associated with a lot of ill effects. This includes shaming/silencing of those who do have trouble feeling bonded, and a belief that women ought to be fulfilled by their parenting roles alone, not to mention implications for the involvement of fathers, adoptive mothers, two-dad families, etc.

Biologist here.
You are confused.

The article does not cite the studies correctly and only cites those that support the initial bias of the piece. This is the epitome of bad writing. There are many more primary research studies (not vulgarizations for the general public) showing how mothers are wired to protect their offspring than the opposite.

The controversy lies in the inevitable guilt and shame that humans pile on other humans for behaving in ways that society does not expect. That's a different topic, OP, and is explained by the ancient need of pack animals to all behave in the same, easily-understandable way, so as to maximize survival in a hostile environment. Most behaviors exist on a spectrum, and there will be outliers at each extreme. Mothers who fail to exhibit motherly traits are excoriated, and judgement on fathers largely depends on whether their circle is socially progressive or conservative. My Japanese father made cute bento lunches throughout my childhood, cleaned the house, sewed curtains and made my theater costumes, but did he outwardly show this in his very patriarchal, conservative environment? Of course not. Most people attempt to conform to what their community expects.

OP here. I guess I should say I'm a researcher, with a Ph.D. in a health research field. I appreciate that this is not a "legitimate" research article with all the appropriate checks, and that they've cherry-picked some data to support their argument. Nonetheless, I still ask--have you read the whole article? They specifically address the above point you've made--there is still a limit to translational research. Research on "pack animals," even if primates, will not necessarily extrapolate to homo sapiens. Your point about your Japanese father exhibiting parental traits but hiding them given societal expectations could actually be seen as supporting the point that nurture is more important than nature in parenting behaviors.

I am actually not arguing that there is hard proof to the argument presented, as one couldn't conclude hard proof from the article given the drawbacks; however, I do agree that too much is made of "maternal instincts" and that this can definitely be harmful--for example, for the 40% of women cited in one quoted study (methodological problems aside) who felt indifferent when holding their babies for the first time.

PP you replied to.

I apologize for being rude, but frankly you don't deserve your PhD if you post such drivel with the background you have. It's extremely disappointing.

Wow. I guess I must have touched a nerve since you went all ad hominem and didn’t address my points. Also, several women in my academic circles with Ph.D.s in research fields have also been discussing the general ideas raised in this article—that many women don’t feel much “maternal instinct,” however defined, and socialisation can play a big role in parenting behaviours—so I guess we all don’t deserve our Ph.D.s? Anyway I thought it was interesting but I am not surprised by the reaction on a mom’s site (where women self-select and probably are more likely to identify strongly with their role as mothers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the hormones do make you responsive to your kids, and I think it works for moms and dads (although I think moms often get more of the hormones through pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding).

However, I don't think this equates to "bonding" or knowing how to care for a child. You might be responsive but not know what to do intuitively -- in fact, I think a lot of parents do not "intuitively" know what to do, and that's the part of the "instinct" discussion that rubs me the wrong way. I also don't think you necessarily have to feel bonded in order to care for a child.

PPD can also really mess with this supposed "instinct," and all the talk about the instinct can worsen PPD if you feel like you don't have the instinct and aren't all that gaga over your baby. I had PPD with my friend, lots of trouble with breastfeeding, and a really difficult baby. We were not bonded well, although I took care of him fine. I didn't have PPD with my second, and I bonded much more with him, but I think I cared for both similarly in terms of actually making sure their needs were met.

omg. This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh. I think a lot of this has to do with the "independence" mantra of western child-rearing. Mammals co-sleep, cuddle, wear, etc their babies constantly. THAT is the motherly instinct and every parent is told the following:

"Youll spoil him/her if you hold him/her all the time"
"Youve got to let him/her self-soothe"
"Let them figure it out themselves"
"Dont make a rod for your own back"

So when social and cultural "norms" clash with what is biologically normal, moms cant listen to their instincts because they are told they are wrong.

Mammals dont feed and cuddle their babies constantly. On the contrary, they leave them unattended for long stretches of time to hunt in order for mother to eat and survive and feed her young. Am all for maternal instinct, but lets not make up stupid falsehoods about animals to make a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. I think a lot of this has to do with the "independence" mantra of western child-rearing. Mammals co-sleep, cuddle, wear, etc their babies constantly. THAT is the motherly instinct and every parent is told the following:

"Youll spoil him/her if you hold him/her all the time"
"Youve got to let him/her self-soothe"
"Let them figure it out themselves"
"Dont make a rod for your own back"

So when social and cultural "norms" clash with what is biologically normal, moms cant listen to their instincts because they are told they are wrong.

Mammals dont feed and cuddle their babies constantly. On the contrary, they leave them unattended for long stretches of time to hunt in order for mother to eat and survive and feed her young. Am all for maternal instinct, but lets not make up stupid falsehoods about animals to make a point.

Well, specifically primates do- I should have been more clear. And we arent out having to hunt for our food so whats your reason for leaving babies unattended?

https://www.apa.org/monitor/sep07/teaching

"One of her central observations came from the tamarins who had rejected their offspring: Good parents are made, not born. Tamarins learn to parent by observing their own parents care for young siblings and by babysitting new additions to the family. Without this crucial early experience, parenting ability is seriously impaired, she says.

"So when a client comes in and says, 'Oh, my God, I have no maternal instinct,'" my answer is, 'Well, nobody does,'" Smith says. The up side of this picture, of course, is that both men and women can learn to be better parents. Indeed, in tamarin families and a few other monkey species, males babysit from an early age and provide as much or even more of the child care than females, she notes.

Single parenthood is another arena where knowledge about our nonhuman primate cousins can prove useful, Smith says. While many simian moms are single parents-that is, they don't have a mate-many species live in groups where they get lots of help from female relatives, and occasionally from adult males as well. When single mothers tell Smith they feel overwhelmed, she'll say, "'Absolutely-it's not the primate way to raise a child in isolation from others,'" she says. "I really try to normalize their experience and help them figure out how to reach out for support from others."

Simian behavior has something to say about modern day-care and babysitting practices as well, Smith believes.

For instance, many nonhuman primates rely on babysitters, but they're picky about who they let do it, Smith says. Sitters must either be kin-and therefore invested in the survival of the infant-or subordinates who recognize that the mother is in charge. Mom is never out of her infant's earshot, either: "When the baby cries, the mother immediately takes over," Smith says. Moreover, the simian world has no equivalent of human day care where someone besides the mother watches a large group of youngsters, Smith say"

and

""Unlike most parents in the United States today, wild monkey mothers have the luxury of being able to feed on demand, carry their babies all the time, sleep with their babies and be responsive rather than doting," says Smith. All of this lays a foundation of attachment and trust that lasts a lifetime, she has observed: "As primate mothers show, when you respond quickly to your baby in the first few months, you can't spoil it!" she says."

Also

"Not long into her doctoral studies, a professor asked her to take home three cotton-top tamarin triplets to observe and care for as part of a research study. Over time, she adopted other tamarins who were no longer needed for research, and a life path was born.

Three years after bringing the first infants home, her charges started to have babies. And when they did, Smith faced a disturbing reality.

"I'd hear these bloodcurdling screams in the middle of the night, and there were the parents, careering around the cages, terrified, with their babies on their backs," she recalls. "They were doing everything they could to dislodge the [babies]-biting them and trying to fling them off." In essence, because Smith had parented the original tamarins, they hadn't grown up in a normal family group and therefore lacked a template with which to raise their young, she explains."

[Anonymous]

How funny! So, maternal instinct isn't real yet all the women in one household sync their periods? DD got hers yesterday morning and I by the afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How funny! So, maternal instinct isn't real yet all the women in one household sync their periods? DD got hers yesterday morning and I by the afternoon.

What a weird thing to offer as proof. Wouldn’t this tend to cause births to cluster and therefore force men to do more childcare, if it had ANY relevance to this topic at all (which is surely doesn’t)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. I think a lot of this has to do with the "independence" mantra of western child-rearing. Mammals co-sleep, cuddle, wear, etc their babies constantly. THAT is the motherly instinct and every parent is told the following:

"Youll spoil him/her if you hold him/her all the time"
"Youve got to let him/her self-soothe"
"Let them figure it out themselves"
"Dont make a rod for your own back"

So when social and cultural "norms" clash with what is biologically normal, moms cant listen to their instincts because they are told they are wrong.

Mammals dont feed and cuddle their babies constantly. On the contrary, they leave them unattended for long stretches of time to hunt in order for mother to eat and survive and feed her young. Am all for maternal instinct, but lets not make up stupid falsehoods about animals to make a point.

Well, specifically primates do- I should have been more clear. And we arent out having to hunt for our food so whats your reason for leaving babies unattended?

https://www.apa.org/monitor/sep07/teaching

"One of her central observations came from the tamarins who had rejected their offspring: Good parents are made, not born. Tamarins learn to parent by observing their own parents care for young siblings and by babysitting new additions to the family. Without this crucial early experience, parenting ability is seriously impaired, she says.

"So when a client comes in and says, 'Oh, my God, I have no maternal instinct,'" my answer is, 'Well, nobody does,'" Smith says. The up side of this picture, of course, is that both men and women can learn to be better parents. Indeed, in tamarin families and a few other monkey species, males babysit from an early age and provide as much or even more of the child care than females, she notes.

Single parenthood is another arena where knowledge about our nonhuman primate cousins can prove useful, Smith says. While many simian moms are single parents-that is, they don't have a mate-many species live in groups where they get lots of help from female relatives, and occasionally from adult males as well. When single mothers tell Smith they feel overwhelmed, she'll say, "'Absolutely-it's not the primate way to raise a child in isolation from others,'" she says. "I really try to normalize their experience and help them figure out how to reach out for support from others."

Simian behavior has something to say about modern day-care and babysitting practices as well, Smith believes.

For instance, many nonhuman primates rely on babysitters, but they're picky about who they let do it, Smith says. Sitters must either be kin-and therefore invested in the survival of the infant-or subordinates who recognize that the mother is in charge. Mom is never out of her infant's earshot, either: "When the baby cries, the mother immediately takes over," Smith says. Moreover, the simian world has no equivalent of human day care where someone besides the mother watches a large group of youngsters, Smith say"

and

""Unlike most parents in the United States today, wild monkey mothers have the luxury of being able to feed on demand, carry their babies all the time, sleep with their babies and be responsive rather than doting," says Smith. All of this lays a foundation of attachment and trust that lasts a lifetime, she has observed: "As primate mothers show, when you respond quickly to your baby in the first few months, you can't spoil it!" she says."

Also

"Not long into her doctoral studies, a professor asked her to take home three cotton-top tamarin triplets to observe and care for as part of a research study. Over time, she adopted other tamarins who were no longer needed for research, and a life path was born.

Three years after bringing the first infants home, her charges started to have babies. And when they did, Smith faced a disturbing reality.

"I'd hear these bloodcurdling screams in the middle of the night, and there were the parents, careering around the cages, terrified, with their babies on their backs," she recalls. "They were doing everything they could to dislodge the [babies]-biting them and trying to fling them off." In essence, because Smith had parented the original tamarins, they hadn't grown up in a normal family group and therefore lacked a template with which to raise their young, she explains."

so we should not use daycare because it doesnt exist among squirrel-sized monkeys? Okay...