Maternal Love

[emmiedahl]

Whenever I read about fundie child training methods, I wonder how the women can suppress their maternal instinct enough to hit an infant. I have always considered the mother-child bond to be a natural thing.

I recently read a book, Death Without Weeping, that calls out this belief. The author, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, is an anthropologist that studied the poor in Brazil for more than twenty years. The women there do *not* bond to their infants. In fact, they often withhold food and water to the point that it kills the child (this happens in select circumstances that I can elaborate if anyone wants to hear about it). When an infant dies, there is usually no mourning; the women generally express relief and actually laughed at the anthropologist when she cried over a baby's death. Scheper-Hughes calls mother love a bourgeois, Western notion born of material privilege and defends the mothers' actions as pragmatic approaches to a difficult lifestyle. "In a context of high infant mortality a woman must be well convinced that infants are, at the very least, replaceable."

Scheper-Hughes notes that emotional work is usually gendered work, so it is inherently sexist to suggest that a Brazilian mother should grieve the loss of an infant, which is interesting. The Brazilian women laugh and say, "Little critters have no feelings" as their babies starve, sometimes from the purposeful withholding of food, which really disturbed me.

The culture and social circumstances of Brazil create a situation in which maternal love does not develop until a year of age or later. Are fundies creating a similar culture? Is it anti-feminist to suggest that a woman should feel more compassion for their offspring? This was a sad and interesting book.

[snarkbillie]

I never felt the "maternal" bs that I was supposed to. I love my kids and all but they're not the most important thing ever in my life. I get called out repeatedly for saying that. It's not okay for a mom to like...have feelings that aren't complete and utter worship for their children.

I had them, I took care of them, I fed them, I changed them, I bathed them...... not once did I feel all warm and fuzzy about it. Work had to be done, kid was hungry, I was the milk machine.

When they get hurt or sick I'm worried, but I'm not devastated.

Maybe I'm mentally ill.

[Austin]

Emmie, I've often wondered the same thing about why the maternal instinct doesn't override the religious belief that one must beat the child. I realize everyone is different, but even an animal will try to protect her young.

[Guest Anonymous]

I only have one child. Is she the center of our world? Yea kinda. Do I have a life beyond her..yes absolutely. She comes first and my husband feels the same way. I'm a worry wart by nature so when she is sick or hurt inside i'm going crazy with worry but I don't let her see it because she will pick up on it. I didn't always feel "warm and fuzzy" when tending to her needs especially when she was a baby (especially at 2am changing diapers etc) but for the most part I did.

I was never maternal before having kids. I never really even liked kids very much but when I had my own that changed. I'm glad it did.

[yetanothermeg]

I'm no psychologist, but I often wonder if many of these people have personality disorders, which from my understanding, can occur from a combination of genetic predisposition and enviornmental factors (ie abuse in childhood).

[atheistjd]

Whenever I read about fundie child training methods, I wonder how the women can suppress their maternal instinct enough to hit an infant. I have always considered the mother-child bond to be a natural thing.

I recently read a book, Death Without Weeping, that calls out this belief. The author, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, is an anthropologist that studied the poor in Brazil for more than twenty years. The women there do *not* bond to their infants. In fact, they often withhold food and water to the point that it kills the child (this happens in select circumstances that I can elaborate if anyone wants to hear about it). When an infant dies, there is usually no mourning; the women generally express relief and actually laughed at the anthropologist when she cried over a baby's death. Scheper-Hughes calls mother love a bourgeois, Western notion born of material privilege and defends the mothers' actions as pragmatic approaches to a difficult lifestyle. "In a context of high infant mortality a woman must be well convinced that infants are, at the very least, replaceable."

Scheper-Hughes notes that emotional work is usually gendered work, so it is inherently sexist to suggest that a Brazilian mother should grieve the loss of an infant, which is interesting. The Brazilian women laugh and say, "Little critters have no feelings" as their babies starve, sometimes from the purposeful withholding of food, which really disturbed me.

The culture and social circumstances of Brazil create a situation in which maternal love does not develop until a year of age or later. Are fundies creating a similar culture? Is it anti-feminist to suggest that a woman should feel more compassion for their offspring? This was a sad and interesting book.

Wow... I would love to read that book when I have time. Fascinating and sad.

I do think the fundie, particularly QF, lifestyle creates a sense of replaceability. However, I also can see how the amount of time, attention and emotion the "Western" world often suggests we lavish on our children is a bit bourgeois as well. I work hard so that when I have children, I have the time and money to lavish on them, but I can see how, in the face of that being impossible, one would react the way these women/cultures seem to have. It is just a defense mechanism, albeit a seeming unnatural one.

I would love to hear you elaborate on the purposeful starving - that definitely strikes me as more than a defense mechanism/not bonding.

[Witsec5]

I did not immediately fall in love with my son when they handed him to me. But I loved him and wanted to form a bond we developed one rather quickly. Although he is 16 now, we have a very good relationship and are very close. The kid knows there is nothing I would not do for him. I chose to protect him when times got rough with his father and he knows I would walk over hot coals if it meant that he would be happy and safe. So I guess I am just chock full of maternal love. And the kid is turning out very well so far. He is an excellent student and has good judgment. He has never given me any big problems even though I divorced his dad when he was 8.

Anyway, I guess my point is that a normal mammal mother bonds with her children. There may be exceptions out there--like Michelle Duggar who might be more reptile than mammal--but I think the lack of maternal instinct is not the norm. My puppy would make a better, more attentive mom.

I don't know what has been happening in Brazil but in most other parts of the world, creatures have a strong interest in protecting the next generation.

[Soldier of the One]

That's interesting. Why would these Brazilian mothers without food and water from their infants? I'm curious.

Sure, I think it's possible to override it. We probably did for most of human history due to infant mortality. But I also think that Western culture has become more emotional with the rise with individualism (which I think is a good thing, for the most part). In times past, constraint and discipline - including on an emotional level - were considered virtuous traits.

Even in Judaism, the delayed bonding of mother and child is reflected in our mourning rituals. According to classical, rabbinic Judaism, there are no full funeral rights for an infant under 30 days old. At the time, it probably was a compassionate measure given that so many infants would die.

Now, of course, this position is being challenged.

[emmiedahl]

snarkbillie, I don't think that is mental illness. Some women are more "maternal" than others. Would you think a man was mentally ill for feeling the same way? Probably not. Your gender should not define your emotional range.

Austin, I wonder if the women who participate in infant abuse are late "adopters" of their children. The author I was discussing suggests that all infants have to be "adopted". The mother must consciously assume the maternal role which comes with the gushy love and protectiveness. She feels that, while Western women do this at birth, Brazilian women merely do it later. Perhaps fundie women who believe in original sin "adopt" their babies later.

An animal will defend their young in most circumstances, but it is not unusual either for a mammal to eat their young or (like the Brazilian mothers) refuse to feed certain offspring.

The personality disorder hypothesis might be valid in our culture, but in the Brazilian underclass these beliefs and behaviors are commonplace, too much so to be blamed on mental health issues. I should add that the mothers do not beat or punish their infants; they merely let the ones that they perceive as "not having a taste for life" die of dehydration and starvation.

[CanadianHippie]

I don't think the fundies are operating under the idea of no emotional attachment between mother and child for x number of years.

Now I have no knowledge of how things are done in Brazil, but other cultures I've read about who have limited attachment to a new born baby often don't consider it a full baby, or a 'blessing', until after it's passed the critical age and there is no longer a worry about death. Other cultures (and there is some crossover) won't name a child until it has passed the critical age. This mainly seems to be a mechanism to help mothers who otherwise don't have the luxury of taking time to grieve and/or related to superstition that such distance from the child will prevent it from getting sick and dying.

This is direct opposition to fundie belief that a baby is a baby from conception and a blessing from that point on (unless it's a single and/or teenage and/or LGBTQ parent).

That being said, in the grand scheme of things, every person is different. Some women take time to form an attachment, other's form an attachment before the baby is born.

[emmiedahl]

That's interesting. Why would these Brazilian mothers without food and water from their infants? I'm curious.

Sure, I think it's possible to override it. We probably did for most of human history due to infant mortality. But I also think that Western culture has become more emotional with the rise with individualism (which I think is a good thing, for the most part). In times past, constraint and discipline - including on an emotional level - were considered virtuous traits.

Even in Judaism, the delayed bonding of mother and child is reflected in our mourning rituals. According to classical, rabbinic Judaism, there are no full funeral rights for an infant under 30 days old. At the time, it probably was a compassionate measure given that so many infants would die.

Now, of course, this position is being challenged.

Most commonly, the mothers withhold food from infants that they perceive as having "no taste for life". If a baby is small or quiet or prone to illness, the mothers basically neglect it. This makes the baby even weaker, which confirms the mothers' belief that they are bound to die. A malnourished child will eventually refuse to eat or drink, and no one stops them. Because the babies are usually fed cornmeal gruel and powdered skim milk, this leads to an infant mortality rate of around 50%.

Sometimes the withholding of food comes from limited resources, but the author notes that there will often be starving babies in homes with well-fed adults and older children.

[CanadianHippie]

Most commonly, the mothers withhold food from infants that they perceive as having "no taste for life". If a baby is small or quiet or prone to illness, the mothers basically neglect it. This makes the baby even weaker, which confirms the mothers' belief that they are bound to die. A malnourished child will eventually refuse to eat or drink, and no one stops them. Because the babies are usually fed cornmeal gruel and powdered skim milk, this leads to an infant mortality rate of around 50%.

Sometimes the withholding of food comes from limited resources, but the author notes that there will often be starving babies in homes with well-fed adults and older children.

Tradition takes longer to change than the financial situation.

[fundiefan]

That is an anthropological, social, psychological question that can be discussed for years. In fact, it is.

Human bonding is part of what makes them unique. At least to the levels we do. Having children has not always been about love and family. Just as marriage wasn't. Western society and the different 'ages' humans have gone through in the last several thousand years have changed motives, reasons, obligations and focus.

Without getting into any of that though, and as someone who doesn't have children to know how I would be, when it comes to fundies...remember, these are many of the same people who view marriage as an arrangement and go out of their way to keep love and emotion out of it. They're not exactly pillars of 'love' as a whole. When someone like Peter Bradrick takes a sense of pride in the fact that he never told his future wife he loved her or that she was beautiful, it can't really come as a surprise that they've turned off any and all instinctive emotion and replaced it with rules and directives.

[kamcho_papio]

Interesting...I now have Death Without Weeping on reserve at the library. It's been awhile since I even read an excerpt from it, but when I did, it was in context with other topics like infanticide and primate motherhood (I recommend the work of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy without hesitation). I think there's a lot of evidence for the maternal instinct, especially in apes--I believe comparatively, orangutans have a longer "childhood" than even humans do, and increased parental investment is marker of almost all primates; I've read that caring for pets and even houseplants can cause oxytocin to spike.

That said, there's also a huge amount of literature about cultural differences in how women are "supposed" to feel about their babies. Some cultures don't name the baby until it can talk, others as a rule do not practice child-directed speech and the children learn language more passively, allowing orphans to die (or even having a mercy killing) because no one can nurse an abandoned baby, and so on. Some of these practices might have pragmatic origins but others, it's hard to say. I don't have children so I can't speak personally to this, but as an anthropologically affiliated person, it's crucial to not underestimate the role of culture.

I'm kind of dying to know what else you're reading in that class, emmiedahl. :geek:

[fundifugee]

I would agree that it is cultural, perhaps bourgeois. In Rwanda, babies are not even named until they are 6 weeks old or something and before that they are not really people. I don't know if that is a defence mechanism based in the high infant mortality rate, but it was shockingly common for one of our expat staff, when cooing over a newborn in the hospital, to be offered the baby.

Similarly, I have a cousin-in-law who was a neonatal nurse starting her career back in world war 2 era, both in Europe and North America. She said it was common for babies with Down's and other congenital anomalies to just not be fed. I know for a fact that two of my cousins were starved to death in this way in 1960s Canada because they were deemed to have physical deformities incompatible with long-term survival.

What I don't get is the disconnect -- these religious fundamentalists are the same folks who want to charge folks with murder for providing abortions, are rabidly against anything resembling euthanasia, would immediately call any of the above examples savages and criminals, yet they beat babies.

[Guest Anonymous]

I searched for this book on my Nook but couldn't find it. I want to read this!

[jockosmom]

An observation on maternal love, from my own experience:

I had my first child when I was 17. I got pregnant at 16 and my boyfriend and I (both still in high school) were pressured to get married by our parents. The morals of the time and our upbringings dictated that getting married was the right thing to do in this situation and so we did. I was the oldest of five siblings, most of whom were quite a bit younger than me so I spent a lot of time babysitting and was very familiar with the care and handling of a baby. The thought of having my own baby to take care didn't freak me out or intimidate me; I knew I could be a good mom.

Having said all that, the biggest surprise for me was after my son was delivered. This was back in the days when you didn't get to hold your baby in the delivery room. They told me he was fine and they whisked him off to the nursery. I got to hold him for the first time almost four hours later when it was the prescribed feeding time. They wheeled his little bassinet in my room and the nurse handed him to me. I felt nothing. I remember looking at him, thinking, "How do I know this is my kid? They could have given me anybody's kid. How can I tell this baby is mine?" It's like I thought I would recognize him or something; that I would see his little face and know without a doubt that that was my son and I would joyously take him in my arms, etc. etc. I was very surprised that the bonding or maternal love or whatever you want to call it, was not an immediate reaction for me. The bonding and love had to grow as I held him and nursed him and looked him over during the first couple of days in the hospital.

Because of that initial moment of having basically no feeling toward that baby and wondering if it was even my baby, I've never had trouble understanding how some of these poor teenage girls can hide a pregnancy, deliver in secret, and then do away with the child. If you've been hiding the pregnancy and denying it for nine months, even to yourself, I can see how, when delivery occurs, you can detach yourself and not have any feelings toward the child. I was looking forward to my baby coming and I still had no initial feelings the first time he was placed in my arms. Maybe it's not the same for everyone but what I took from my experience is that the mother-child bond is not instantaneous; it has to grow during the first hours and days.

[emmiedahl]

Interestingly, the Brazilian mothers were almost overwhelmingly against abortion. That was shocking to me--that they would be against ending a pregnancy, but then let an infant die of dehydration without a second thought. The author notes several cases in which she noted that the baby was starving to death and gave the family food for the baby, only to have them eat it themselves while the baby continued the long death process.

This was possibly the most difficult book I have ever read. I usually get through a book in a few hours. I had to read this one in bits over several months, and then finish it quickly this weekend so I could write and turn in the paper last night. It is so disturbing to read endless descriptions of babies starving to death. One toddler had a high fever and the mother decided to leave it at home alone while she went out to the Carnaval celebrations. When she came home, it was dead and she proceeded to buy an expensive coffin and new clothes. It was buried without any ceremony, and no one in the community thought any of this was out of line.

I had to really fight my urge to judge them from my own culture's lens. I tried to put myself in their shoes mentally, but it was just so uncomfortable. I kept coming back mentally to my youngest, the smallest and weakest of my babies. I can't imagine not caring. I just can't go there.

[Austin]

It is available for Kindle from Amazon, but not at my kindle borrowing library in kindle format, although it is there in other formats (Adobe EPUB eBook or Adobe PDF eBook).

[emmiedahl]

The author wrote several articles defending her stance, which I found online when I was writing the paper.

She was criticized for being anti-feminist and betraying the women she worked with. She responded basically that telling women how they should feel about their shitty lives is the real anti-feminism. The author was also an advocate for more active anthropology, helping people rather than just describing their living circumstances. She felt that anthropologists should serve as witnesses of injustice and use their knowledge to bring about change.

eta she was a Marxist and critically examined the Catholic church's role in this mess. Hint: they had a big role.

[Soldier of the One]

Interestingly, the Brazilian mothers were almost overwhelmingly against abortion. That was shocking to me--that they would be against ending a pregnancy, but then let an infant die of dehydration without a second thought. The author notes several cases in which she noted that the baby was starving to death and gave the family food for the baby, only to have them eat it themselves while the baby continued the long death process.

This was possibly the most difficult book I have ever read. I usually get through a book in a few hours. I had to read this one in bits over several months, and then finish it quickly this weekend so I could write and turn in the paper last night. It is so disturbing to read endless descriptions of babies starving to death. One toddler had a high fever and the mother decided to leave it at home alone while she went out to the Carnaval celebrations. When she came home, it was dead and she proceeded to buy an expensive coffin and new clothes. It was buried without any ceremony, and no one in the community thought any of this was out of line.

I had to really fight my urge to judge them from my own culture's lens. I tried to put myself in their shoes mentally, but it was just so uncomfortable. I kept coming back mentally to my youngest, the smallest and weakest of my babies. I can't imagine not caring. I just can't go there.

Fascinating and disturbing.

So... this is where 'Cultural Relativism' is starting to fail me.

[vicka]

certainly a part of it is cultural. i grew up in russia, and things were quite different there. for instance, it was not uncommon for parents (both parents) to live an infant sleeping in a crib to go run to the store or somewhere local. yes, that means the baby would have been home by themselves. it was quite common to let your child out by themselves at the age of 5 or 6 outside, and we are talking a major metropolitan area not a countryside village.

i have found in america than when a woman has a baby she seems to define herself as a mother first, everything else second. in russia this would have been unusual. you are a woman first and so you are expected to spend a lot of time taking care of yourself (especially when you are under 30) and the household because its all considered women's work. then comes the husband if you have one, and the kid is kind of after that. in general the kid is not #1 priority in anybody's life. the culture of driving from activity to activity with your kids in a minivan is purely american. the stay at home mom thing is really the realm of the privileged.

[Austin]

I don't doubt that some of the level of maternal love we feel for our infants is a somewhat bourgeois luxury/construct. OTOH, though, I know that I underwent physiological, no doubt hormonal, changes after my babies were born and the depth of it was almost irrational. I felt out of control of myself to an extent, and it was almost like my usually non-dominant right brain was calling all of the shots.

For instance, we brought both of our newborn twins home from the hospital, but one had a higher than normal bilirubin and they wanted us to bring him back the next morning to be rechecked. We did and it was higher so they admitted him into NICU to get some phototherapy for a few days. I cried like I have never cried before or since that he was going to be admitted. I just couldn't bear to be separated from him and it was all I could do to hand the baby over. I cried for hours. Ridiculous, I know, but that's the cold truth. My husband didn't know what to make of it, bless him, but he just helped me through it, mostly by holding me. :shock: The staff must have thought I was completely nutz. That's just one example. There are others that are equally embarrassing, but it was almost like I couldn't let anything get between me and my baby(ies). Not "wouldn't", but "couldn't".

That sort of behavior so far out there from the "normal me" that I don't believe it was a choice. And it never really went away, although certainly attenuated enough so that I could function without making my kids paranoid neurotics :D So what is that? Bourgeois maternal love? Not being sarcastic, but really wanting to know what others think of this or their own experiences.

BTW, before I had kids, I didn't even like kids that much. So I was never sentimental over babies before.

[emmiedahl]

Fascinating and disturbing.

So... this is where 'Cultural Relativism' is starting to fail me.

Well, you have to see the behavior within a cultural context. The women live in a society where they are used by the government and upper classes as cheap labor and must work 2-3 full time jobs just to feed a family. The slums have schistosome-infested water, rabid dogs running around and just are terrible places for anyone, especially an infant. Within this context, the culture values infants very little and sees them as interchangeable, because infant mortality is bound to happen. How else could a women who will lose more than half of her children feel? This attitude in turn leads to the active neglect. If life is so hard that only the strongest survive, and babies are not really human beings, then why should someone who has an established place in the family give up their much-needed share of the resources for an infant who (according to the mothers) does not even want to live?

Austin, I don't think I chose my maternal feelings either. I have been a goddamn mess over such minor issues with my children. That is why the premise of the book is so interesting. It goes against my own personal experience as a mother, but the author makes a compelling, logical and fact-based argument.

But if culture determines your maternal instinct to some extent, even without us really knowing it, then this could explain the maltreatment of an infant viewed as willful and sin-ridden.

[Austin]

Well, you have to see the behavior within a cultural context. The women live in a society where they are used by the government and upper classes as cheap labor and must work 2-3 full time jobs just to feed a family. The slums have schistosome-infested water, rabid dogs running around and just are terrible places for anyone, especially an infant. Within this context, the culture values infants very little and sees them as interchangeable, because infant mortality is bound to happen. How else could a women who will lose more than half of her children feel? This attitude in turn leads to the active neglect. If life is so hard that only the strongest survive, and babies are not really human beings, then why should someone who has an established place in the family give up their much-needed share of the resources for an infant who (according to the mothers) does not even want to live?

Austin, I don't think I chose my maternal feelings either. I have been a goddamn mess over such minor issues with my children. That is why the premise of the book is so interesting. It goes against my own personal experience as a mother, but the author makes a compelling, logical and fact-based argument.

But if culture determines your maternal instinct to some extent, even without us really knowing it, then this could explain the maltreatment of an infant viewed as willful and sin-ridden.

No doubt. It's certainly an interesting thing to think about. I plan to read the book - will probably start it tonight. Thanks for starting this thread.