Maternal Love

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think I'm going to be haunted by this thread and the thought of active neglect of babies for a while. It's horrifying, but I've heard some similar stories from the Innuit and from India (esp. when it comes to treatment of girls).

While it's hard to separate out nature and nuture, I suspect that being loving and protective toward one's children may be the natural default, but it can be interrupted by various individual or cultural factors. Maternal love exists across too many cultures and even in some mammals, so it can't be just a recent American thing. Whether or not one believes in the Bible, there is a no doubt that it documents powerful maternal longings and feelings existing a few thousand years ago. What IS relatively recent is the lack of fear of loss. In a society where a woman may choose to have only 1 or 2 children, she may be fortunate enough not to experience pregnancy or infant loss.

I admit to a combination of Jewish tradition and my own losses affecting my view of pregnancy. For example, I won't automatically say "congratulations" on a pregnancy. Congratulations comes with the birth. Pregnancy comes with wishes for a healthy and easy birth. Baby showers and referring to a baby by name before birth weird me out a bit, although I know it's common. It's not that I felt nothing with my own pregnancies - it's that I felt enough with my first pregnancy to have been plunged into depression when I was diagnosed with a missed miscarriage, and that I went through my subsequent pregnancies with the constant knowledge that that they could end.

I think that use of physical discipline on children is also tied to fear of loss. In some religious communities, it's fear for the child's soul. In other communities, it may be fear for the child's future prospects (cultural issues came up with a Sri Lankan family that I represented in a child protection case, and the lawyer for the children, who also happened to be Sri Lankan, confirmed that beating children to get them to do well in school was quite common because in a poor country, schooling was the ticket to the ultra-competitive few jobs that would provide a living wage). I've seen discussions in the African-American community where physical discipline is seen as a defense against the very real perils jail or gang violence.

While I don't believe that physical displine is effective, I can understand a loving parent choosing to do something that seems painful out of fear that something worse will happen if they do not do it. When I try to convince fundies or anyone else not to use physical discipline, I focus less on "it hurts" and more on the fact that it is possible to raise children who are disciplined, successful and religious without it.

In terms of cultural relativism - understanding a cultural context is crucial, but I don't think this means that we can't have a personal or moral response to human suffering. So hell yes, I think that starving babies and selectively killing girls and beating your kids is wrong - I just recognize that there is a cultural dimension to the problem that needs to be addressed as part of the solution.

For anyone concerned about "western cultural bias", let me ask you this: do I have the moral right to snark about the Pearls? Think about it. I'm not Christian, I'm not American, I've never been to Tennessee and don't know anyone IRL who is, and I am certainly not a part of their culture.

[fundifugee]

Ok, two more random points / examples:

When I was growing up, my folks worked in the amazon part time as missionaries. There were a number of christian missionary groups giving out birth control as the lesser of two evils, to avoid infanticide. The rainforest has a very limited carrying capacity for human population numbers, so infanticide was common. In general families had two kids or less, and needed to space the children's ages so that having too many young'uns at home did not limit the necessary nomadism and hunting/gathering/growing practices.

I have heard of similar institutions existing in fragile environments in West Africa (twin infanticide in a few different Nigerian cultures for example).

Perhaps that cultural institution has translated itself into more urban Brasil as well.

I also note that during courses about child protection/child abuse, I read of a few research studies (sorry, too distracted to look for references) showing that it was most common for children to be physically and sexually abused by a stepfather, and that there is a definite maternal tendency to choose keeping the man over the well-being of her children; as well as a paternal tendency to destroy offspring from other fathers. Evolutionary biology types point to the reason being the woman ensuring future fertility with a provider for offspring during the dependent years; and the man wanting his resources to ensure the survival of his offspring. I don't recall exact stats but I remember feeling pretty shocked at the numbers given, all featuring US populations. Now, perhaps it is more common for women to leave an abuser to protect her children and the study methodology produced just a bunch of outliers, but still, the numbers and the documented tendency were appalling.

[Austin]

I think I'm going to be haunted by this thread and the thought of active neglect of babies for a while. It's horrifying, but I've heard some similar stories from the Innuit and from India (esp. when it comes to treatment of girls).

While it's hard to separate out nature and nuture, I suspect that being loving and protective toward one's children may be the natural default, but it can be interrupted by various individual or cultural factors. Maternal love exists across too many cultures and even in some mammals, so it can't be just a recent American thing. Whether or not one believes in the Bible, there is a no doubt that it documents powerful maternal longings and feelings existing a few thousand years ago. What IS relatively recent is the lack of fear of loss. In a society where a woman may choose to have only 1 or 2 children, she may be fortunate enough not to experience pregnancy or infant loss.

I admit to a combination of Jewish tradition and my own losses affecting my view of pregnancy. For example, I won't automatically say "congratulations" on a pregnancy. Congratulations comes with the birth. Pregnancy comes with wishes for a healthy and easy birth. Baby showers and referring to a baby by name before birth weird me out a bit, although I know it's common. It's not that I felt nothing with my own pregnancies - it's that I felt enough with my first pregnancy to have been plunged into depression when I was diagnosed with a missed miscarriage, and that I went through my subsequent pregnancies with the constant knowledge that that they could end.

I think that use of physical discipline on children is also tied to fear of loss. In some religious communities, it's fear for the child's soul. In other communities, it may be fear for the child's future prospects (cultural issues came up with a Sri Lankan family that I represented in a child protection case, and the lawyer for the children, who also happened to be Sri Lankan, confirmed that beating children to get them to do well in school was quite common because in a poor country, schooling was the ticket to the ultra-competitive few jobs that would provide a living wage). I've seen discussions in the African-American community where physical discipline is seen as a defense against the very real perils jail or gang violence.

While I don't believe that physical displine is effective, I can understand a loving parent choosing to do something that seems painful out of fear that something worse will happen if they do not do it. When I try to convince fundies or anyone else not to use physical discipline, I focus less on "it hurts" and more on the fact that it is possible to raise children who are disciplined, successful and religious without it.

In terms of cultural relativism - understanding a cultural context is crucial, but I don't think this means that we can't have a personal or moral response to human suffering. So hell yes, I think that starving babies and selectively killing girls and beating your kids is wrong - I just recognize that there is a cultural dimension to the problem that needs to be addressed as part of the solution.

For anyone concerned about "western cultural bias", let me ask you this: do I have the moral right to snark about the Pearls? Think about it. I'm not Christian, I'm not American, I've never been to Tennessee and don't know anyone IRL who is, and I am certainly not a part of their culture.

I'm only part way through the book, but I believe what you posted (bolded). Certainly, in developed countries, we kind of have "the luxury" of maternal instinct and we can express it and feel it to the max. When I was expecting, I was preparing a nursery, buying needed items, having baby showers, living in great comfort, and not looking forward to a life of constant childbearing and endless drudgery. When these women are expecting, they live in the most abject poverty, lug five-gallon jugs of water up hills, and are severely malnourished. I think those factors certainly could interfere with the ability (luxury) to develop a strong maternal instinct. I don't doubt that not bonding to a baby is a defense mechanism, as well, as the infant mortality rate is high even without infanticide as a factor.

I do believe there is an innate maternal instinct in human beings and many mammals. Rodents are not the best examples, but if primates, elephants, and even dolphins are considered, they seem to take care of their young with great frequency. We get the term "mama bear" from somewhere. I don't think this is necessarily something that is strongly felt in some sort of sentimental way for many human mothers, but more mothers than not do seem to take care of their children. Some people are just not necessarily "deep feelers" and I don't think that means anything bad about the mother. Taking good care of a child is love in action.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ok, two more random points / examples:

I also note that during courses about child protection/child abuse, I read of a few research studies (sorry, too distracted to look for references) showing that it was most common for children to be physically and sexually abused by a stepfather, and that there is a definite maternal tendency to choose keeping the man over the well-being of her children; as well as a paternal tendency to destroy offspring from other fathers. Evolutionary biology types point to the reason being the woman ensuring future fertility with a provider for offspring during the dependent years; and the man wanting his resources to ensure the survival of his offspring. I don't recall exact stats but I remember feeling pretty shocked at the numbers given, all featuring US populations. Now, perhaps it is more common for women to leave an abuser to protect her children and the study methodology produced just a bunch of outliers, but still, the numbers and the documented tendency were appalling.

I've seen child abuse by the step-parent/partner in my child protection work, but wouldn't link it to evolutionary biology.

Instead, I'd just say that step-parents in general have the pressure of raising children, without having the corresponding feeling that the child is their own. When it comes to sexual abuse, they are also living in close quarters with children or teens, without having the same taboo against sexual involvement with a biological relative (anyone remember what Woody Allen said about Soon Yi?). It's also not just men who abuse. Step-mother abuse is an issue as well

I don't think that it is "maternal tendency" to choose to guy over the kid. Many make the opposite choice. Those who chose the guy tended to be economically dependent on him, or so emotionally dependent that they couldn't figure out how to go on without their partner's love. Incidentally, one of my cases with child abuse by the partner involved a lesbian couple - so much for the "ensuring future fertility" argument. I've also seen it in post-menopausal women.

[FlorenceHamilton]

This is a difficult topic to wrap one's head around. On the surface, as person from an affluent culture with reasonably abundant resources even amongst people at or near poverty, the concept of allowing/encouraging some children to die is reprehensible.

As the thread has progressed, several things have occurred to me. Under the stress of extreme poverty and extreme danger, the hormonal/neurochemical milieu of humans will be different. These new mothers conceive while under stress, carry their pregnancies through stress and deliver under stress. Besides the normal pituitary-ovarian axis, the adrenal gland is pumping like crazy. This affects both the behavior of the mom and the babies.

My thought is that the continuous "fight or flight" state of the people who live in the zones can disrupt the maternal/fetal bond. The overall effect is that survival for the group actually improves. Not only are weaker humans allowed to pass, but the mother is better able to continue to mother the healthier children and to do the things she needs to do to survive and thrive for her family.

Conceptions are often not loving events in these societies and so the initial percption of the impact of a pregnancy may actually be quite negative.

The unique qualities of higher mammals, such as nurturing require a certain degree of safety. It is uncomfortable to think in these terms. The longer I ponder it, the more it does make sense.

That said, I think that humans and other mammals continue to behave in a nurturing manner under quite a bit of stress. But there is a limit.

[kb2]

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".

Bah, I wrote a response to something and then couldn't figure out what, exactly, I was responding to. I'm mostly just babbling over here.

[liltwinstar]

I think that use of physical discipline on children is also tied to fear of loss. In some religious communities, it's fear for the child's soul. In other communities, it may be fear for the child's future prospects (cultural issues came up with a Sri Lankan family that I represented in a child protection case, and the lawyer for the children, who also happened to be Sri Lankan, confirmed that beating children to get them to do well in school was quite common because in a poor country, schooling was the ticket to the ultra-competitive few jobs that would provide a living wage). I've seen discussions in the African-American community where physical discipline is seen as a defense against the very real perils jail or gang violence.

Wow, you really hit the nail on the head for me with this. I can't always wrap my head around *why* someone would follow the Pearl's advice or James Dobson's or whatever... and this makes sense. The fear of loss is greater than the instinct not to hurt one's children...interesting.

In fact, my mom was just explaining to me the other day that she *had* to spank my sister and I when she changed our diapers when we were babies, becuase we wouldn't stay still. She said she used big ol' diaper pins and she didn't want to stick us. So, in her mind, sticking us with diaper pins would have been *way* worse than smacking us. I'm not sure that I agree, but it does explain the behavior.

[Mythicwings]

This is a difficult topic to wrap one's head around. On the surface, as person from an affluent culture with reasonably abundant resources even amongst people at or near poverty, the concept of allowing/encouraging some children to die is reprehensible.

As the thread has progressed, several things have occurred to me. Under the stress of extreme poverty and extreme danger, the hormonal/neurochemical milieu of humans will be different. These new mothers conceive while under stress, carry their pregnancies through stress and deliver under stress. Besides the normal pituitary-ovarian axis, the adrenal gland is pumping like crazy. This affects both the behavior of the mom and the babies.

My thought is that the continuous "fight or flight" state of the people who live in the zones can disrupt the maternal/fetal bond. The overall effect is that survival for the group actually improves. Not only are weaker humans allowed to pass, but the mother is better able to continue to mother the healthier children and to do the things she needs to do to survive and thrive for her family.

Conceptions are often not loving events in these societies and so the initial percption of the impact of a pregnancy may actually be quite negative.

The unique qualities of higher mammals, such as nurturing require a certain degree of safety. It is uncomfortable to think in these terms. The longer I ponder it, the more it does make sense.

That said, I think that humans and other mammals continue to behave in a nurturing manner under quite a bit of stress. But there is a limit.

Yes. And personally I think that the author of that book didn't get much maternal love as a child, and has a huge disconnect that would allow her to think that oh maybe it's normal to just let your kid die, instead of thinking "what kind of hellish environment would lead a mother to do this". Of course I haven't read the book, just going on what was said here.

Across the board, and yes I will bring up animals, it is the norm to care for your children. Some, like hamsters or gerbils, when they are very stressed and "trapped" i.e. living in a tank, can kill their babies. I've seen that happen Yeah, it's possible for any mother of a species to pass the limit where she can have enough emotional resources for her kids. But that doesn't mean like several of you have seemed to say, that all is relative and maternal love is simply learned, or a result of a bourgeois culture. My animal comparison - I did wildlife rescues for a lot of years, and always, with never an exception, it was hard to separate an injured, dying mother from her babies, so that I could take her to be humanely euthanized and have her babies live. She could be in a physical condition I won't describe here, but damn no way would she leave her babies to me. And I really don't think any of those animals grew up in a bourgeois culture. It is the OPPOSITE, a culture so devoid of life-sustaining qualities that would make a mother resort to killing her kid, and even without much emotion. How fucked up is that?

And yeah, maybe not all women are nurturers and so it's great that any of you who don't really love your kids would bother to feed, clothe, bathe, blah blah blah them, YAY. But I sure wish it was legal for you to give your kids to me. I'm not blaming you for not feeling maternal, and I am applauding you to bother to care for them, but don't make it relative to mothers in general, let alone when societies make a whole class act like that.

[kayray]

And yeah, maybe not all women are nurturers and so it's great that any of you who don't really love your kids would bother to feed, clothe, bathe, blah blah blah them, YAY. But I sure wish it was legal for you to give your kids to me. I have friends who were raised like that and it screws them up, maternal love is a literally vital nutrient. So, I'm not blaming you for not feeling maternal, and I am applauding you to bother to care for them, but don't make it relative to mothers in general, let alone when societies make a whole class act like that.

:roll:

No one said they did not LOVE their children or take steps to nurture and care for them. They just did not feel "maternal" which seems to be some sort of "extra" feeling that society has deemed is appropriate and a "must" in this day and age. Big difference. The whole "maternal love" thing seems to be constructed as some sort of feeling that should have you seeing your children as the be all end all. So what if mothers have other things in their lives that bring them just as much, or more, enjoyment and satisfaction - be it their careers, their spouses, their hobbies or other passions? So what if they realize only after being a mother that being a mother was not all they had been told it was cracked up to be. It is ridiculous to try and place guilt on mothers for not feeling the maternal feelings (that society tells them they should feel) that they simply don't. No wonder so many have such a difficult time with not feeling like everyone has told them they should feel and instead hide, and feel worse.

And since you provided such great anecdotal evidence, I will refute with some of my own. I have seen PLENTY of instances where moms profess all sorts of "maternal love" for their children and their children grow up "screwed up". The outcome of a child is not ALL about the mother's influence. Everything from friends, teachers, extended family, diet, and so on ALL can influence a child. Siblings can end up going down very different paths, yet have the same mother, so this whole mother-blame thing is crap.

I've seen animals kill their young immediately after birth, even in a very comfortable situation, so it is hardly like all animals are hard to separate from their young. Animals also do not have to raise their "kids" from infancy to 18 and often beyond. Animals born disabled will be left to die. Animals become self-sufficient very quickly and go off on their own. It is much easier to deal with nurturing something that will be off on its own in a few weeks and when you are an ANIMAL that knows nothing else (like that great career they left, or the impact that having a child has had on their relationship, or the effect that being totally needed all the time has had on their privacy or freedom).

I think you would be very surprised how common it is for women to not feel "maternal" as you seem to describe it. Try entering search terms like "I hate being a mom" and see the thousands of "confessions" you stumble upon that women are afraid to share because of judgmental people like yourself.

[Shirley MacLaine]

And yeah, maybe not all women are nurturers and so it's great that any of you who don't really love your kids would bother to feed, clothe, bathe, blah blah blah them, YAY. But I sure wish it was legal for you to give your kids to me. I have friends who were raised like that and it screws them up, maternal love is a literally vital nutrient. So, I'm not blaming you for not feeling maternal, and I am applauding you to bother to care for them, but don't make it relative to mothers in general, let alone when societies make a whole class act like that.

How's the view from up on that cross?

[DinnerPlateDahlia]

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.

Treemom, I've read a bit of your story in the thread with the anti-choice troll, and the first thing I want to tell you is that I am so, so, so sorry.

I just lost a very loved, wanted, fought-for pregnancy of a 13-week little boy. Just two weeks ago, so I'm still a bit of an emotional mess. As horrible as I feel, I can only imagine that what you went through was very much worse. For whatever it's worth, I think you've been incredibly brave in heartbreaking circumstances.

I have struggled with the same questions that you have to some extent. Especially because when we told my mother-in-law (the queen of undiagnosed narcissistic personality disorder) about the miscarriage, she scoffed, saying "Well, people used to take miscarriage much more lightly." As if my grieving my baby* was part of some undiscipherable fad, like wearing brown flat boots with black leggings or going gluten-free when you're not Celiac. (She also blamed my morning-sickness related weight-loss of five whole pounds.)

The thing that I've found out, in the last two weeks while I've been, much like you, literally helpless with grief, is that it isn't just us. I have talked to so many women who have lost pregnancies that I never knew about. Almost all of them were grief-stricken. Almost all of them still mourn their pregnancies years or even decades later. Yes, in previous generations and even now, pregnancy loss was/is considered a private subject at best and taboo at worst, but from what I've heard that doesn't mean many (maybe most) women don't sincerely mourn and grieve. Even my grandmother who was born in 1913 and had four children who are alive to this day mourned her one lost pregnancy (stillborn) until the day she died at 93. She was, in the 1950's, like us, paralyzed by grief. Treemom, you are NOT alone.

I can completely understand how women like you and I might react differently if we were born and lived in a different society where life is hard and desperate and survival is at a premium. But we weren't. We're middle-class Americans with the wonders of medical science at our fingertips and yes, we do expect our later-term pregnancies to survive. There's nothing wrong or selfish about that, it just is what it is. We are a product of our circumstances. And it's okay for us to burst into tears at the sight of Christmas lights because we were supposed to be pregnant during the holidays, or to lay in bed for a whole day--or more--, or to look with anguish and bitterness at glowy pregnant ladies, or to drink wine all day the day we were supposed to go to a baby shower.

Oh girl. Not everybody just gets on with life. I can't. I hope you give yourself a little leeway to cry and heal and I hope you find other parents who've lost pregnancies to lean on (they're everywhere).

You're in my thoughts and prayers.

*I hope no one is bothered by my use of the term baby instead of fetus here. I am 110% pro-choice, but for me, emotionally, this was our baby.

[Mythicwings]

Dinnerplatedahlia I'm so so so sorry about your baby!!! If only there was some way to have that grief be like other grief, that goes through stages and at some point comes to some form of acceptance. With a miscarriage or stillbirth, that acceptance is so hard to come by. And for that baby who only lives a few days. Those babies are full of dates that we never got to live with them. And how other people handle it, like your MIL, can make some people feel like their grief is wrong somehow. I'm so glad you know yours is real, and that you reache out to treemom.

Treemom

And don't worry, everyone knows a fetus is a baby, whether they are prochoice or not. Fetus is a medical term. There was a tv movie a long time ago, like I think in the 1980s, it was suppose to be this huge thing for both anti-abortion and prochoice viewpoints, and they had a panel discussion afterwards and the anti-abortion woman was insisting that the fetus is a baby, that there is life there, and the prochoice woman said, "Yes there is life there, everyone knows there is life". Everyone knows that what is lost in a miscarriage, or a stillbirth, or an abortion that breaks the woman's heart is a baby, it's what the anti-abortion discussion doesn't understand, and why people who have to have late-term abortions are persecuted by them, when their hearts are already grieving for their child.

[DinnerPlateDahlia]

I also wanted to add, I know several women who didn't grieve or get heartbroken over miscarriages, and there's nothing wrong with that either. I've known women who've had abortions and grieved, or emphatically not grieved them, too.

It's tremendously personal. I just happen to be in the camp, like Treemom, of being crushed with mourning a pregnancy loss, and I think in an anti-choice society that likes to tell us how we should feel about our own reproduction, it's important to recognize that it's okay and normal to feel our feelings without guilt about how we "should feel".

[chaotic life]

Follow up research, including follow up by Scheper-Hughes found that the societal dynamics she found in the 50s and 60s appeared to be a transient condition of Brazilian mothers, thought to be a product of a shift in society whereby mothers were forced to work and before governmental programs for adequate childcare were implemented. The infant mortality rate of those mothers was greater than 50% and it was felt that the shear knowledge that a mother was more likely tlose her child than raise them strongly inhibited any maternal bonding.

I would not argue that all maternal love is instinctual. Certainly, the highest rsik of death in an infant's life is during the neonatal period and the most likely cause of death is homicide at the hands of the biological mother in that time frame. However, it is unfair and inadequate to imply that what Scheper-Hughes found is indicative of any byeond a severe stress reponse at a point when women were extremely stressed and experiencing disruption of their ability to attach to their infants.

[bananacat]

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're not insane, although you might have some kind of anxiety disorder. It's great that you are that attached to your kids, but it's not as great if it starts impacting them (and you) negatively. It can be hard for an 8 year-old to never be allowed to have sleepovers at a friend's house or go to camp or even an overnight field trip. If it is stunting your child's social development then that doesn't make you a bad mother, but you could consider a few sessions of family therapy. And if you would allow the kid to go on sleepovers but just would feel really bad the whole time, you could still benefit from therapy to just feel better about it. You can often get a lot of help with just 2 or 3 sessions with a counselor. They're not just for helping with major disorders. Your feelings are common, but sometimes you have to do the hard thing for the good of your kids.

[Mythicwings]

:roll:

No one said they did not LOVE their children or take steps to nurture and care for them. They just did not feel "maternal" which seems to be some sort of "extra" feeling that society has deemed is appropriate and a "must" in this day and age. Big difference. The whole "maternal love" thing seems to be constructed as some sort of feeling that should have you seeing your children as the be all end all. So what if mothers have other things in their lives that bring them just as much, or more, enjoyment and satisfaction - be it their careers, their spouses, their hobbies or other passions? So what if they realize only after being a mother that being a mother was not all they had been told it was cracked up to be. It is ridiculous to try and place guilt on mothers for not feeling the maternal feelings (that society tells them they should feel) that they simply don't. No wonder so many have such a difficult time with not feeling like everyone has told them they should feel and instead hide, and feel worse.

And since you provided such great anecdotal evidence, I will refute with some of my own. I have seen PLENTY of instances where moms profess all sorts of "maternal love" for their children and their children grow up "screwed up". The outcome of a child is not ALL about the mother's influence. Everything from friends, teachers, extended family, diet, and so on ALL can influence a child. Siblings can end up going down very different paths, yet have the same mother, so this whole mother-blame thing is crap.

I've seen animals kill their young immediately after birth, even in a very comfortable situation, so it is hardly like all animals are hard to separate from their young. Animals also do not have to raise their "kids" from infancy to 18 and often beyond. Animals born disabled will be left to die. Animals become self-sufficient very quickly and go off on their own. It is much easier to deal with nurturing something that will be off on its own in a few weeks and when you are an ANIMAL that knows nothing else (like that great career they left, or the impact that having a child has had on their relationship, or the effect that being totally needed all the time has had on their privacy or freedom).

I think you would be very surprised how common it is for women to not feel "maternal" as you seem to describe it. Try entering search terms like "I hate being a mom" and see the thousands of "confessions" you stumble upon that women are afraid to share because of judgmental people like yourself.

Someone DID say she didn't feel real love for her kids, I forget who. And yeah, I have seen plenty of mothers who love their kids and completely screw them up - you are mixing apples and oranges. I am saying that people who just don't have maternal feeling shouldn't then place that feeling into mothers in general and act like maternal feeling is not natural, or is a result of living in a middle class society. Animals kill their kids, I said that. So do mothers around the world. But it is almost always due to stress, due to a LOT of stress. That stress interupts what is naturally there. It's dangerous to try to make people think that because human and non-human animals have this capacity under stress, that therefore maybe parental love is some kind of modern notion of the wealthy and well-fed. You seem to think that I am being judgmental to people for how they FEEL, when yes I am being judgmental, but on them leaping from how they feel to making the whole world of parental love something that meh we can take it or leave it. I'm glad you feel protective of people who feel that way, but I will protect people who love children they have never even laid eyes on and want to parent, because they love without being asked.

And this has nothing to do with the bonding people need to go through when their child is born or thir newly-adopted child arrives. Of course people need bonding time, especially women who have just given birth and whose bodies are flooded to the point of it being hard to feel anything at that moment. Once again, because you don't seem to get what I am saying - if someone never gets to the point of loving their child in that overwhelming way - which someone did say here - the argument cannot leap from that to that love is a modern luxury.

Mostly I think that the reason I feel so protective of this is that it undermines the grief of people who have lost an unborn child. That may not be the intention, but it does, and almost everyone who has lost an unborn child has felt that from our society.

ETA: you also seem to assume that I think kids should be at the center of the parents' lives. Nope. Very definitely not, in fact that whole really is not my favourite thing, so please stop putting words in my mouth. You seem to be reading a lot into what I said.

[Mythicwings]

How's the view from up on that cross?

Could you explain what you mean, please?

[Austin]

No one said they did not LOVE their children or take steps to nurture and care for them. They just did not feel "maternal" which seems to be some sort of "extra" feeling that society has deemed is appropriate and a "must" in this day and age. Big difference. The whole "maternal love" thing seems to be constructed as some sort of feeling that should have you seeing your children as the be all end all. So what if mothers have other things in their lives that bring them just as much, or more, enjoyment and satisfaction - be it their careers, their spouses, their hobbies or other passions? So what if they realize only after being a mother that being a mother was not all they had been told it was cracked up to be. It is ridiculous to try and place guilt on mothers for not feeling the maternal feelings (that society tells them they should feel) that they simply don't. No wonder so many have such a difficult time with not feeling like everyone has told them they should feel and instead hide, and feel worse.

Is the only way to discuss this to suggest something is wrong with women at the other end of the spectrum? Feeling maternal love does not mean that one sees one's children as the "be all end all" and have no identity of their own. One can experience strong maternal love and have a career, hobbies, a spouse, and other passions.

As with most issues, I believe there probably is a spectrum of maternal feelings that are "within normal limits", so to speak. While I described earlier the strong wave of maternal love that swept over me (making me a bit unrecognizable even to myself for a bit as it was a brand new feeling), it didn't sweep over me the minute I gave birth. It happened over a period of time with our first baby.

When our first son was born, I had a very difficult, protracted labor and ended up with more stitches, internal and external, than I could count. Quite simply, I was pretty traumatized, not to mention exhausted. When I got settled in my room and they wheeled my baby in, I couldn't even react right away. It was almost like I was stunned, like I remember feeling after a car accident. Over the next hours and days, I bonded very strongly to him, but it wasn't like I took one look at him and melted, which I know is the experience of some other moms. Plus he was pretty funny-looking at first, big-time conehead because of the protracted delivery.

With the twins, I had a much easier, shorter delivery and I think since these neural pathways had been traveled before, it happened right away and took my breath away. So even the same mother can have differences with this experience with different deliveries.

I think if someone is caring for and nurturing their child, it isn't necessary to feel overwhelmed with love every minute. Different personalities will react and feel all sorts of ways that are completely normal.

[snarkbillie]

And yeah, maybe not all women are nurturers and so it's great that any of you who don't really love your kids would bother to feed, clothe, bathe, blah blah blah them, YAY. But I sure wish it was legal for you to give your kids to me. I'm not blaming you for not feeling maternal, and I am applauding you to bother to care for them, but don't make it relative to mothers in general, let alone when societies make a whole class act like that.

I think you might have misunderstood my post. I love my kids. My love tends to express itself in more of a "mama grizzly" way than a "aww, look at her widdle feets" type of way. I'm not very cuddly and sunshine, and I never have been. I'm fiercely protective of my cubs when I feel they're threatened.

I didn't spend nights awake watching them sleep, I didn't cry when they went off to overnight camp for the first time, I don't feel like my life is over when they aren't around. I know some women feel this way, and that's okay for them. Really. I'm just not one of those women.

Luckily for my kids (I guess) is that my husband is one of those types of men. He is more nurturing than I am, he probably will cry when/if they get married...... and that's okay with me too.

[Mythicwings]

kayray"]

As with most issues, I believe there probably is a spectrum of maternal feelings that are "within normal limits", so to speak. While I described earlier the strong wave of maternal love that swept over me (making me a bit unrecognizable even to myself for a bit as it was a brand new feeling), it didn't sweep over me the minute I gave birth. It happened over a period of time with our first baby.

Yeah, I was off thinking exactly that about it being a spectrum, while I was off feeding critters just now.

Before I say anything else, I want to very much apologize for sounding like I did to people who don't feel on the stronger end of the spectrum I did not mean to attack you, but when I read what I wrote, it did very much sound that way, and I am so so sorry. ACK I REALLY sounded horrible. What I meant to say, and I hope I can say it better this time, is that - you know what, I can't rewrite it, I can only explain why I sounded like that.

Snarkbillie, especially if you felt I was attacking you, please forgive me, or at least - I apologoze, you certainly aren;t required to forgive me. I don't even remember if I was taling about you, I was just pretty upset and feeling messed up.

This is no excuse at ALL, but I am feeling overly overly sensitive right now over the whole mothering thing. I can't have live children, and I watch people who can and with my close friends I am so happy for them. But someone I know just announced another pregnancy, and for past reasons I just have issues with her pregnancies and parenting, she blatantly disregarded the mourning I was going through a few years ago while shoving her pregnancy in my face, she's one of those people who feel being a mother is the only reason to be (and she has been involved with the whole QF/submissive thing to some extent anyway) I have never gotten over it, and so this new announcement has left me shaking. And so when I hear about mother's not overwhelming loving their kids (although I know you LOVE them, but yo know what I mean, that whole head-over-heels thing) I just - Im sorry, I just fall to pieces for my own kids who I will never get to be with, and SHIT - I AM NOT asking for sympathy or anything, I know this must sound like a huge sob story, I am simply trying to be completely out there about why I flew off the handle. It was a miserable thing to do, coming from me feeling in a pretty miserable place rght now, and PLEASE do not take what I said to heart.

[Austin]

Yeah, I was off thinking exactly that about it being a spectrum, while I was off feeding critters just now.

Before I say anything else, I want to very much apologize for sounding like I did to people who don't feel on the stronger end of the spectrum I did not mean to attack you, but when I read what I wrote, it did very much sound that way, and I am so so sorry. ACK I REALLY sounded horrible. What I meant to say, and I hope I can say it better this time, is that - you know what, I can't rewrite it, I can only explain why I sounded like that.

Snarkbillie, especially if you felt I was attacking you, please forgive me, or at least - I apologoze, you certainly aren;t required to forgive me. I don't even remember if I was taling about you, I was just pretty upset and feeling messed up.

This is no excuse at ALL, but I am feeling overly overly sensitive right now over the whole mothering thing. I can't have live children, and I watch people who can and with my close friends I am so happy for them. But someone I know just announced another pregnancy, and for past reasons I just have issues with her pregnancies and parenting, she blatantly disregarded the mourning I was going through a few years ago while shoving her pregnancy in my face, she's one of those people who feel being a mother is the only reason to be (and she has been involved with the whole QF/submissive thing to some extent anyway) I have never gotten over it, and so this new announcement has left me shaking. And so when I hear about mother's not overwhelming loving their kids (although I know you LOVE them, but yo know what I mean, that whole head-over-heels thing) I just - Im sorry, I just fall to pieces for my own kids who I will never get to be with, and SHIT - I AM NOT asking for sympathy or anything, I know this must sound like a huge sob story, I am simply trying to be completely out there about why I flew off the handle. It was a miserable thing to do, coming from me feeling in a pretty miserable place rght now, and PLEASE do not take what I said to heart.

I'm sorry about you not being able to have children.

If this is too personal, please excuse and ignore it, but would you consider adoption or fostering?

[snarkbillie]

Mythicwings- I couldn't find a proper hugging smiley but *hugs*. I think I didn't word my original post as clearly as possible which is why I came back to clarify. My "mama grizzly" keyed in on someone, somewhere, possibly maybe thinking I didn't love my kids and it went all :evil:

I can't judge you for getting emotional when you've got so much emotional stuff going on. We all have our own stuff that biases our reading, it's normal.

[kayray]

Is the only way to discuss this to suggest something is wrong with women at the other end of the spectrum? Feeling maternal love does not mean that one sees one's children as the "be all end all" and have no identity of their own. One can experience strong maternal love and have a career, hobbies, a spouse, and other passions.

Austin,

Just to clarify, I was not saying anything was wrong with the other end of the spectrum and I see why my post was however, not exactly clear. I did not mean to convey that women who felt that maternal love did not have any thing else in their life at all, or that there was something wrong with them feeling that maternal love either. It was, and is not, my opinion that women who feel maternal love have nothing else going on in their lives! I was actually trying to say that women are far more complex, and may have feelings that are far more complex, than fit into what appears to be a social pressure or "expectation" of maternal love that mandates that women should feel that their kids are the "be all end all" that overcomes any of their other feelings or desires, and such an expectation places pressure on women who do not feel that way or who do admit they do not feel that way.

ETA: not sure if that cleared it up ar all, I am on my iPhone and it is a bit tough to edit and write it out properly!

[Austin]

I would definitely agree that women (and men) are complex and this is a complex issue.

[emmiedahl]

The conditions that these women endure are crazy-bad. Like, the worst I have ever heard of. That could definitely interfere with bonding. I personally bonded with my children from the second I knew about them. I get very emotionally invested in my pregnancies, and after several miscarriages I still could not make myself stop doing that. Every pregnancy was a baby to me, a baby that I loved and wanted. But there is a normal range, and I am far at one end of it.

I thought the author did a good job of pointing out indirectly that the political, social and economic situations contributed to this issue. I cannot blame any of the mothers for what they did, because I am living such a comparatively spoiled, rich existence here in American subsidized housing. I think Scheper-Hughes' conclusion that mother love is not universal is a little off. I think that there are conditions that can stop it from happening or delay it for a long time, but I do believe that primate mothers "naturally" love their offspring within a certain time period after birth. These Brazilian mothers just were not given the opportunity to care, and that is more tragic even than the infants' death.