Maternal Love

[latraviata]

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.

Scheper-Hughes isn't the first one to come up with this phenomenon.

The French feminist author and philosofer Elisabeth Badinter wrote about it in this book:

L'Amour en plus : histoire de l'amour maternel (XVIIe-XXe siècle), 1981

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/fashi ... wanted=all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lisabeth_Badinter

[Soldier of the One]

Sure, I can understand the context. And I can understand the rationale. But I am torn between wanting to understand and not-wanting to understand. There is a moral dimension involved, but God forbid, that moral dimension does not only implicate the mothers. It implicates the system as a whole that keeps people in such degrading and abject and dehumanizing poverty. Even so, there is also a factor of personal responsibility involved.

In any case, I am profoundly thankful for and humbled by the fact that I will - most likely - never find myself in such a scenario. It's a terrible, terrible thing.

[emmiedahl]

Soldier of One, I know what you mean about not wanting to understand. I cannot bring myself to admit that I might be the same way in that context. That's why I was really challenged in attempting to *not* judge. And then, the whole cause of this economic situation is the sugar industry. Am I buying Brazilian sugar? I cannot find it on my C&H label, but I sure as hell hope not.

One thing, for those of you who are going to read it, it feels kind of disconnected in the first half. The author was in the area originally in the sixties for a UN relief project and then returned several times on her own as an anthropologist. She does imo a poor job of connecting the narratives and making the timelines clear. It all pulls together toward the middle, but there is a lot of political background and stuff in the beginning that makes it difficult to follow at first. Like, she talks about a community daycare, but then in some of the narratives the people are leaving infants home alone for a lack of childcare, and I was thinking, Hello? there is a free daycare down the road, right? Then at the end she discusses that the daycare was created by the UN and that the government sabotaged it as soon as she left in the sixties. There's a lot of stuff like that, so you kinda have to take things at face value and remember that she is simultaneously discussing several decades of work.

This was assigned for a gender studies class, so I am assuming that the prof's intent was to get us thinking about and questioning the most sacred of gender stereotypes. At least, that is what I hope, because my paper was on the issue of maternal instinct.

[Soldier of the One]

Thanks for sharing this info, Emmie. It is really interesting, in a deeply tragic way.

I try also not to judge. But I also cannot, in good conscience, ignore my moral instincts. I also think that 'non-judging' can backfire into condescension and contempt of the disempowered if we excuse abhorrent behavior. Every human should have dignity and dignity is maintained by trying to keep on making moral choices, even if the moral action radius is very small because of very difficult circumstances. On the other hand, I kind of feel bad for articulating this, given that I am living a privileged life as a Westerner and like you, I am not sure what I would do. I am also not a mother.

So yes, maybe it isn't my place to judge. But I have all these thoughts and feelings about the topic that I don't want to ignore.

In any case, thanks for some stimulating conversation.

[bananacat]

Years ago I read about a survey that found that half of mothers and half of fathers don't love their newborn right away, and it takes some time to bond with them. So I think it's "normal" to feel that instant connection but just as "normal" to need some time. I do think there is extra pressure on mothers to instantly bond moreso than fathers, and I'm sure it makes plenty of mothers feel bad about it. So yes, I do think there is some sexism involved in having a double standard and expecting mothers to bond instantly when mothers and fathers both have the same rates of needing time to bond. But no, I don't think it's sexist to expect any parent to meet the physical needs of their baby. It is a problem that the fathers aren't even mentioned here. They're as much responsible for the starvation as mothers are. There is something else going on here, because I have babysat infants and even though I obviously didn't feel any maternal instinct toward them, I would still never intentionally withhold food for them. These women aren't just lacking maternal instinct; they are lacking basic human empathy. And the fathers are just as bad and need to be held responsible.

[bananacat]

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.

I was once babysitting two kids. The toddler went down for a nap and the older girl wanted to ride her bike around the neighborhood (a very rich, safe area). I took the baby monitor and went outside, and the girl kept wanting to go farther and farther until eventually we were pretty far away from the house with a sleeping toddler. I probably was outside the range of the monitor for about 10 minutes, but I've never felt bad about it.

I actually don't think it's so bad to leave a sleeping baby alone for 10-15 minutes to go to the store, especially if you know the child well enough to know they'll sleep through it, and if they are young enough that they can't crawl out of the crib. What's the worst that could happen? Sure, someone could break in and steal the baby, but if you took the kid to the store someone could snatch it out of your arms and both cases are equally unlikely. I probably wouldn't do it in the society that I live in, but I really don't think it's such a bad thing.

[Guest Anonymous]

Hmm, I don't see an issue with taking the baby monitor outside while the baby is sleeping but I wouldn't leave the house entirely and take off for 10-15 minutes while I go to the store. What if you get into an accident? I think the chances of someone snatching my baby from me at the store is pretty slim compared to a robber casing my house waiting for me to leave to rob me.

[Deleted12]

My understanding is that infanticide is historically common in many parts of the world. My understanding is also that much of our modern concept of childhood was developed during the Victorian era, and before that time children in the west were routinely put to work, neglected, beaten, and subjected to other things that would be unthinkable today.

In the Botkin spanking lecture, Victoria gets very emotional when talking about beating her children. She justifies it by saying that it's what the Bible wanted her to do. :(

(I know that C&H traditionally came from Hawaii, but I can't tell if it still does. The "C&H" stands for California and Hawaii.)

[bananacat]

I wonder if the detachment from children was a way of coping with the knowledge that they would likely lose several of them. I can't even imagine how horrible it would be to lose a child. I was really sad when my cat nearly died, and losing a child would be a million times worse. I have always wondered how anyone ever managed to get on with life during the times when children frequently died. Maybe they just didn't let themselves get attached until later to make it easier when they lost them.

[Alcyone]

It, took me a few weeks to bond with some of my children. In fact, with my last one, I intentionally engaged in bonding behavior that would trigger faster attachment. I think I can understand deliberately trying NOT to attach, if it was not perceived to be in anyone's best interest (ie baby going to die anyway and probably better off dead than struggling through a gruesome life ). What I am having a harder time grasping is how the women in these circumstances bear to go on living themselves. I mean, it sounds like there is literally no hope of a better life for them or for their children. In light of the extreme hardship, I could imagine *myself* slowly starving or just giving up and giving in to illness and death. The will to live is astounding to me.

And yes, I do think that peculiar theology affects bonding. The most heartbreaking example I saw was a woman who had been married many years with unexplained infertility. She finally became pregnant as she approached her fortieth birthday but at one point she was told something "might" be wrong with the baby. As she wept, she explained to her friends that she had come to the point where she could truly say that she would rather that the baby die, than that it live and not grow up to "love the Lord" (in this lexicon, that meant become a Calvinist). I was shocked that she would feel that way, but I did see how what she heard in the pulpit contributed heavily to what I would call repudiation of normal maternal feeling. (The baby was fine and is a beautiful toddler.)

[treemom]

I am getting all personal with my andecdata here today. So as many of you know I had a last term abortion due to the unlucky lottery of chromosmal disorders. But before that I also had a still born daughter due to my screwed up reproductive area (see over sharing in conservpedia thread)

One of the things I struggled with the most is the miscarriages and pregnancy losses were common place just a couple of generations back and even in my own community and other countries today. Why couldn't I deal with it? Why did I seem to be paralyzed by grief?

Is it because as an American, I felt so confident that I should have a live child once you get past that 12 week mark? Or did it feel the same to everyone but that I wasn't required to get on with life? I don't know....but I can understand wanting to reduce to pain.

I another offering much in this discussion, but...well it was interesting and I wanted to share.

[Guest Anonymous]

I am so sorry for your losses Treemom. My sister was pregnant with twins a couple of years ago and at 26 weeks found out one of the twins died because of something called twin to twin transfusion. Basically, one twin takes all the nutrients and oxygen away from the other twin. It was devastating to my sister and frankly to the whole family. My sister is dealing with her grief every day as best as she can. I, as her sister, want to be there for her and help her but I don't know how. I don't know how she feels and I don't pretend too. I just try to be there for her whenever she wants to talk about it or if she wants to cry about it. It's hard because the surviving twin (my beautiful niece) is a reminder of what was supposed to be. We can't help but look at her and think of the loss but we do know how blessed we are to have this little girl here.

Thankyou treemom for telling your story.

[skankbiscuit]

treemom, just wanted to say I am very sorry for your losses.

[Witsec7]

Tree Mom thank you for opening your heart to us.

[skankbiscuit]

I wonder if the detachment from children was a way of coping with the knowledge that they would likely lose several of them. I can't even imagine how horrible it would be to lose a child. I was really sad when my cat nearly died, and losing a child would be a million times worse. I have always wondered how anyone ever managed to get on with life during the times when children frequently died. Maybe they just didn't let themselves get attached until later to make it easier when they lost them.

This.

[skankbiscuit]

I just wanted to add that I turned into a huge pile of crazy mush after my kids were born. My firstborn had to go under bili lights for 24 hours when she was 2 days old and I couldn't hold her - and I thought it would destroy me. I could not bear to be away from my babies and not hold and touch them.

I STILL can't bear to be away from my kids, and they are now 8 and 5. I have never gone away from them overnight. The thought is just horrific to me! People think I am insane, and I probably am in a way.

[kb2]

If anyone wanted an example of infanticide by mothers in nature, I have one. When I was in elementary school, someone donated two hamsters (male and femaie) to our class. They had babies. During the pregnancy, the father ran away and was never seen again. After they were all born, when the mother hamster got stressed, (like if we moved the cage to another part of the room) she would hold baby hamsters in her mouth until they suffocated. We lost about half the litter that way before they were weaned.

ETA: (It's a hard moral question, and I don't mean to be flippant with my hamster story. I just happen to disagree with the argument that since lots of mothers around the animal kingdom are very protective of their offspring, then humans should be too. Perhaps humans should be held to that standard, but the animal kingdom is not. ETA2: I kinda thought anyone, anywhere referenced the animal kingdom in this discussion, but now I cannot find where this happened. Forgive me if I have strawmanned anyone.)

[skankbiscuit]

If anyone wanted an example of infanticide by mothers in nature, I have one. When I was in elementary school, someone donated two hamsters (male and femaie) to our class. They had babies. During the pregnancy, the father ran away and was never seen again. After they were all born, when the mother hamster got stressed, (like if we moved the cage to another part of the room) she would hold baby hamsters in her mouth until they suffocated. We lost about half the litter that way before they were weaned.

ETA: (It's a hard moral question, and I don't mean to be flippant with my hamster story. I just happen to disagree with the argument that since lots of mothers around the animal kingdom are very protective of their offspring, then humans should be too. Perhaps humans should be held to that standard, but the animal kingdom is not.)

I think that is very interesting. I wonder if there is mental illness/depression in other species besides humans?

[Guest Anonymous]

My daughter is leaving for a school camping trip in February for four days and I am seriously dreading it. Like counting down the days on the calendar and knots in my stomach dread. So no skankbiscuit, I don't think you are insane at all :)

[latraviata]

I just wanted to add that I turned into a huge pile of crazy mush after my kids were born. My firstborn had to go under bili lights for 24 hours when she was 2 days old and I couldn't hold her - and I thought it would destroy me. I could not bear to be away from my babies and not hold and touch them.

I STILL can't bear to be away from my kids, and they are now 8 and 5. I have never gone away from them overnight. The thought is just horrific to me! People think I am insane, and I probably am in a way.

No, you are not insane!

[treemom]

Lots and lots of creatures in nature do infanticide, the idea of eating our young didn't come from nowhere

I also think it tends to happen in stressful situations and in animals that have had just one litter.

[Austin]

If anyone wanted an example of infanticide by mothers in nature, I have one. When I was in elementary school, someone donated two hamsters (male and femaie) to our class. They had babies. During the pregnancy, the father ran away and was never seen again. After they were all born, when the mother hamster got stressed, (like if we moved the cage to another part of the room) she would hold baby hamsters in her mouth until they suffocated. We lost about half the litter that way before they were weaned.

ETA: (It's a hard moral question, and I don't mean to be flippant with my hamster story. I just happen to disagree with the argument that since lots of mothers around the animal kingdom are very protective of their offspring, then humans should be too. Perhaps humans should be held to that standard, but the animal kingdom is not. ETA2: I kinda thought anyone, anywhere referenced the animal kingdom in this discussion, but now I cannot find where this happened. Forgive me if I have strawmanned anyone.)

I referenced that animals protect their young, as in "even animals protect their young". I did not mean for it to be an absolute statement and certainly I am aware that some animals "eat their young" and allow weaker ones to die, etc. Sorry that I did not say "some".

[Kelya]

It makes practical sense to me if I divorce all emotions from the reality of this situation. I'm just so sad that the living conditions for these people are so awful in general. The favelas are no joke- I wonder if in some way the mothers are "saving" the children they see as not being able to make it by not giving them a chance, as strange as that sounds?

[debrand]

It makes practical sense to me if I divorce all emotions from the reality of this situation. I'm just so sad that the living conditions for these people are so awful in general. The favelas are no joke- I wonder if in some way the mothers are "saving" the children they see as not being able to make it by not giving them a chance, as strange as that sounds?

I was thinking somethign similar. On a purely logical level, this makes sense. Putting your energy and emotion into children that you believe will reach adulthood instead of the ones that won't, probably helps the overall survival rate fo the entire family.

I place the fault for those children's death on the society that does nothing to help provide the women with hope for their futures.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2007/05/29/pill.html

It sounds like some people in the Brazilian goverment are trying to provide less expensive birth control.

[kayray]

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.

That is not mentally ill. It is also more than okay for a mom to have feelings like that, but I do know what you mean, there is a huge trend of mother guilt/shaming these days. Not all women feel that "maternal" love. There are some women who never quite bond with their children, or at least some of their children. I know a mother who told me they never bonded or liked one of their children, for example, who is now an adult. She cared for him, and he is a perfectly healthy and interesting adult, but she just never felt that maternal love for him.

I highly recommend the book "I'm Ok...You're a Brat". It talks a lot about some of the myths of parenting, including the myth that all mothers feel a maternal instinct or love; and how culture/society also puts pressure on women to "feel" what they don't. It speaks more to those women who don't feel that huge maternal love (or just find they don't even really like parenting). It is kind of interesting. I do not think I am going to have children at all, but I still find the whole area of parenting/motherhood an interesting subject for the social & psychological aspects.

Just an interesting factoid. In older times, it was not uncommon for French women to send their kids off to wet nurses from birth until they were 3-5. It was not because they could NOT nurse them, but as they chose not to. If they saw the kids at all, it was rare, and many children died during that period but the parents did not even generally attend their funerals. Apparently, it was not because of a fear their child would die (indeed, the risks of their death increased by sending to a wet nurse since the wet nurses tended to live in much poorer conditions) but it was because it was not seen as sexy or feminine to be caring for young children. Nor was this a trend limited to the upper classes! It seems like the total opposite of maternal love was encouraged and expected! Now we have attachment parenting, it's like a complete flip!