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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what about women who don't immediately bond with their babies? A lot of women feel guilt when they don't immediately feel this instinct that everyone says they are supposed to have, when it's perfectly normal. When my baby was born, I cared for her, I was thrilled she was here, but I felt like we had just met. I was fine with her going to the nursery for a while so I could rest. It took some time before we bonded.

Bonding isn't the same thing as maternal instinct.

Agree, I remember as a mom to a newborn a stron instinct to protect my baby from any bit of discomfort and I was constantly on protective guard. That was a feeling I had never had but it was not this bubbly loving bonding happy feeling. I didn’t feel a rush of love hormones, I felt a rush of “protect this baby at all costs!” and the bonding came months later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom slept through my and my sibling’s cries when we were infants. She even admits that if my dad hadn’t been around to feed us, we would have died. Not all moms have a maternal instinct.

Saying 'not all moms have a maternal instinct' isn't the same as saying 'maternal instinct isn't real'.

Some people are born without a limb or without a part of their brain or without a certain protein, it doesn't mean that that is normal. Maternal instinct has kept the human race alive. I'm not saying its some perfect or universal feeling, but the human brain is built for maternal instinct when its running on optimal.

Agreed. In situations like the ones above, if the mom wasn't cutting it, then someone else would step in to make sure the babies thrive. Or the babies would die, and those genes would stop replicating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom slept through my and my sibling’s cries when we were infants. She even admits that if my dad hadn’t been around to feed us, we would have died. Not all moms have a maternal instinct.

I often slept through my baby's cries (DH too) and it was fine. My kids were always chubby (they got their nursing in during the day instead of at night I guess), happy and a good side effect is that they sttn by 8 weeks. DH and I were just delirious from sleep deprivation and often I didn't know if I was dreaming that the baby was crying or they actually were. My kids are still great sleepers.

Not sure why you think babies would die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moms are into kids more 0-6

Dads are into kids 6-12

12+ it's a mixed bag

Scientific Research backs this up

What happens after 12?.. you are scaring me!!!!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a mom of 3 and don’t feel a maternal instinct, never did. I love my kids and of course take care of them, but don’t feel the “mama bear” thing, whatever it is. When DH was hoping I would become a SAHM (I did for a little while), I would sometimes ask him to think about how he feels after x hours of being with the kids. That is exactly how I feel, too. I don’t enjoy or dislike it any more than he does.

Anyways, it works for us. He does almost as much of the emotional and physical work with the kids as I do.

Same. I'm an excellent mom. I read to my kids, hug them, care for them, love them, but didn't feel the maternal instinct. I actually felt pretty depressed when my kids were first born and wondered where my instinct was. What was wrong with me? Pretty sure nothing is wrong with me though. Crying doesn't spur me to action. I'm calm and collected when they cry. I'm a pro at dealing with tantrums because they don't frazzle me. I don't feel some innate need to protect them at all costs or jump into burning houses. My mom couldn't deal when my babies would cry in the car (they rarely did, but all babies hate car seats sometimes) and I didn't care. I knew it was safety and they had to be buckled in. I'm firm and loving and I think I parent just like DH does. Still raising my kids, but I feel like they're well adjusted, happy and caring individuals.

Wow...the new generation of parents is like IDGAFFF

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a mom of 3 and don’t feel a maternal instinct, never did. I love my kids and of course take care of them, but don’t feel the “mama bear” thing, whatever it is. When DH was hoping I would become a SAHM (I did for a little while), I would sometimes ask him to think about how he feels after x hours of being with the kids. That is exactly how I feel, too. I don’t enjoy or dislike it any more than he does.

Anyways, it works for us. He does almost as much of the emotional and physical work with the kids as I do.

Same. I'm an excellent mom. I read to my kids, hug them, care for them, love them, but didn't feel the maternal instinct. I actually felt pretty depressed when my kids were first born and wondered where my instinct was. What was wrong with me? Pretty sure nothing is wrong with me though. Crying doesn't spur me to action. I'm calm and collected when they cry. I'm a pro at dealing with tantrums because they don't frazzle me. I don't feel some innate need to protect them at all costs or jump into burning houses. My mom couldn't deal when my babies would cry in the car (they rarely did, but all babies hate car seats sometimes) and I didn't care. I knew it was safety and they had to be buckled in. I'm firm and loving and I think I parent just like DH does. Still raising my kids, but I feel like they're well adjusted, happy and caring individuals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom slept through my and my sibling’s cries when we were infants. She even admits that if my dad hadn’t been around to feed us, we would have died. Not all moms have a maternal instinct.

Saying 'not all moms have a maternal instinct' isn't the same as saying 'maternal instinct isn't real'.

Some people are born without a limb or without a part of their brain or without a certain protein, it doesn't mean that that is normal. Maternal instinct has kept the human race alive. I'm not saying its some perfect or universal feeling, but the human brain is built for maternal instinct when its running on optimal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mom slept through my and my sibling’s cries when we were infants. She even admits that if my dad hadn’t been around to feed us, we would have died. Not all moms have a maternal instinct.

I often slept through my baby's cries (DH too) and it was fine. My kids were always chubby (they got their nursing in during the day instead of at night I guess), happy and a good side effect is that they sttn by 8 weeks. DH and I were just delirious from sleep deprivation and often I didn't know if I was dreaming that the baby was crying or they actually were. My kids are still great sleepers.

Not sure why you think babies would die.

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.

Anonymous wrote:My mom slept through my and my sibling’s cries when we were infants. She even admits that if my dad hadn’t been around to feed us, we would have died. Not all moms have a maternal instinct.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a mom of 3 and don’t feel a maternal instinct, never did. I love my kids and of course take care of them, but don’t feel the “mama bear” thing, whatever it is. When DH was hoping I would become a SAHM (I did for a little while), I would sometimes ask him to think about how he feels after x hours of being with the kids. That is exactly how I feel, too. I don’t enjoy or dislike it any more than he does.

Anyways, it works for us. He does almost as much of the emotional and physical work with the kids as I do.