Skip to comments.Femina Sapiens in the Nursery - The conflict between parenting and career is hardwired in the...
Posted on 12/08/2009 3:15:05 PM PST by neverdem
The conflict between parenting and career is hardwired in the female brain.
In the struggle for equality between the sexes, it keeps coming down to motherhood, doesnt it? Consider a recent article by Hanna Rosin in The Atlantic. Rosin finds that nursing her infant is holding her back from the work she enjoys, despite her plan for a fully egalitarian marriage. We were raised to expect that co-parenting was an attainable goal, she laments, yet breast-feeding ties her, and not her husband, to their baby. She combs through research on the health benefits of breast-feeding for babies and makes a convincing case that they arent as strong as experts have insisted. So does she quit nursing? She does noteven though, she admits, Im not really sure why.
Rosin is a thoughtful writer, which makes her bewilderment all the more puzzling. She is, after all, a mammal, a member of a species that evolved mammary glands; doesnt it seem likely that this might have some impact on her experience of life? Of course, she is hardly alone in avoiding this conclusion. Evolutionary science has been nearly as vexing a subject for feminists as for rural Texas school boards. Feminists consider sexual identity a social construct, a humanor, to be more precise, a maleinvention. Evolutionary scientists, on the other hand, believe that we have inborn physical and psychological traits that result from millennia of adaptations to our natural environment. Where feminists see society, evolutionists see nature.
Especially galling to feminists has been the field of evolutionary psychology, which proposes that evolution has fundamentally shaped human sexual and reproductive behaviorbehavior that often seems to conform to the worst stereotypes. So New York Times science writer Natalie Angier refers to evolutionary explanations of why older men prefer younger women as just so stories told by evo-psychos. Recently in Newsweek, Sharon Begley critiqued evolutionary psychologyinspired apologias for poor behavior by the likes of John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer before gladly pronouncing the field dead as a dinosaur.
Begley is right that pop evolutionary psychology often bears about the same relation to science as an episode of The Flintstones does to the Pleistocene era. But shes wrong about the fields being on its way out. If anything, recent findings in primatology, neuroscience, and genetics have given evo-psych new life. Scientists in these fields, many of them women, have lent support to some deeply controversial ideas about differences between the sexes. Among the most troubling for women like Rosin is that their inner conflict between child rearing and independence may be a battle between two powerful evolutionary forces.
If theres one part of evolutionary thinking that spells bad news for the feminist worldview, it is parental-investment theory, an idea originally proposed by Harvard professor Robert Trivers. Trivers was attempting to clarify Darwins theory of sexual selection, which went something like this: females of most species are more particular about their mates than males are. That means males must compete for female attention; hence the colorful tails of peacocks and the lovely songs of many male birds.
But why should females be pickier than males? In 1972, Trivers offered an answer. He observed that in just about every species, its the females that gestate the young. When an animal nurses its offspring, as is the case with mammals, thats part of the female job description, too. It is also mostly females who feed and guard the kids. In fact, females do nearly everything that increases the survival, and eventual reproductive success, of their offspring. Trivers concluded, logically enough, that as the sex with so much more at stake in gestating and feeding, females would take a stronger interest in their young. Females, as he put it, invest more than malesand that includes being cautious about their sexual partners, the fathers of their offspring.
Scientists, including the large number of female experts who have entered the field over the past 35 years, have had plenty of time to prod Triverss parental-investment theory for weaknesses. Theyve found a few. For one thing, females dont always act as invested in their offspring as Triverss theory says that they should be. In conditions of extreme scarcity, for instance, mothers abandon or even kill their infants. Biologist Marlene Zuk has also noted that monkeys deprived of maternal care show little interest in their young. For another, males are sometimes big investors. In Why Sex Matters, the zoologist Bobbi Low cites a number of species, including the notorious praying mantis, whose males not only invest but make the final sacrifice. After mating, the female bites the males head off. (Researchers maintain thats only if she is hungry.)
Its also the case that high-investing females are sometimes promiscuous, though in accordance with Triverss general thesis, only when it benefits their young. One of Triverss students, the primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, discovered that female Hanuman langurs of India will mate with a large number of outside males. Male langurs often enter the troop and kill nursing infants, evidently hoping that the now-childless females will be available to mate with them. By sleeping around, a female langur engages in what is effectively a clever counterstrategy. She raises natures equivalent of self-conscious doubt in aggressive malesWhat if this is my baby, carrying my genes?making them less likely to kill the kids.
As a theory, parental investment is more than an addendum to Darwins original sexual selection. Parentalwhich almost always means maternalinvestment governs mating and reproduction. The profound female connection to her offspring is the Rosetta stone of female sexual behavior. Evolutionary scientists disagree on some details of sexual selection, but for all its uncomfortable implications, parental investment has been largely free of dissenters. Just about all scientists have signed on to Triverss basic template that in nature, females almost always do the kids.
The notion that females are more highly invested in their children than males is being confirmed by findings in biochemistry and neuroscience, as these disciplines clarify the role of hormonesparticularly testosterone and oxytocinin sexual and reproductive behavior. Like the male sex hormone testosterone, oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus. But in most other respects, it is the anti-testosterone. Instead of fueling aggression, it promotes attachment, reduces fear, and leads to feelings of pleasure and well-being. Testosterone appears in males at far higher levels than in females; oxytocin, on the other hand, is more prevalent in females. Women have many more oxytocin receptors in their brains than men do, and those receptors rev up during orgasm, childbirth, and breast-feedingsignaling that at a biological level, the boundaries most of us take as axiomatic between sexual pleasure, reproduction, and mothering are not all that clear. Hrdy goes so far as to conclude that the afterglow from climax is an ancient maternal rather than sexual response. In females, in other words, the maternal urge shapes the sexual urge.
Oxytocin may explain what Katie Roiphe, a journalism professor at New York University, meant when, in a recent essay, she described an addiction to her newborn baby that left her indifferent to work. Many female readers were perturbed: Roiphe was feeding the cult of motherhood, they said; maternal love is neither an interesting nor a useful subject for women today.
But surely its worth understanding the natural forces at work in our everyday experience. Evolutionary psychology tells us that our neural systems evolved in ways that enhanced survival. Maternal attachment was essential to that project, since babies without mothers were at much higher risk of death. Evolution selected for women like Roiphe and Rosin who wanted to hold and nurse their infants. Since women with more oxytocin receptors were most successful at reproducing, they tended to pass down the genes that ensured the same hormonal sensitivity in their offspring. Conversely, for survival, infants needed to attach to their mothers; not surprisingly, oxytocin is transmitted to babies in breast milk. (Researchers are pursuing evidence that autistics, who have trouble attaching emotionally to others, are abnormally low in oxytocin.)
There may or may not be a maternal instinctlike many female academics, Hrdy objects to the termbut there is a hormone that amounts to almost the same thing. It inclines females to feed, cuddle, and fuss over their young, and leaves men at peace.
If that were evolutionary psychologys whole story about women, then its experts would be proclaiming patriarchy as our destiny, which they dont tend to do. In fact, as neuroscientists and geneticists piece together the human brains evolution, its becoming clear that, if its natural for a woman to go crazy over her babies, its also natural for a woman to run the State Department. The same human female brain thats primed with oxytocin is, like the male brain, a fantastically complex machine, capable of reasoning, innovative problem solving, and maneuvering through hugely varied social environmentswhether the PTA, a corporate headquarters, or Congress.
Human beings are called Homo sapiens for good reason. We evolved brains proportionately bigger than any other animals, and when it comes to the gray stuff, size matters. The human cranial space is taken up by a large, densely wired frontal cortex, which allows us to create sentences and paragraphs, think abstractly, and plan for tomorrows meeting or next years vacation, all cognitive activities far beyond the capacity of any animal. The cortex is also the driver for human culture. When you ponder a picture of the Taj Mahal or attend a production of A Midsummer Nights Dream, thank the evolution of the human brain. In a related way, the frontal cortex gives humans, unlike animals, the potential to control urges from the limbic system, whether for the second piece of red velvet cake or for the brunette behind the Starbucks counter. Next time you go to the zoo, look at the chimps low, recessed brow. Then check out your own bulging pate. That, clever reader, is your frontal cortex.
The frontal cortex is the reason that sexual selection does not provide the rigid behavioral script for humans that it does for animals. The chimpanzee brain gives the mating male and reproducing female no choice about how to go about the business. Its humans who have invented everything from love marriages to purdah, from bordellos to nunneries.
Evolutionary psychologists are sometimes accused of not giving proper due to the flexibility of the human brain. In her recent book Mothers and Others, for instance, Hrdy argues that just as animal males dont tend to their infants, so human fathers cant be expected to hang around for the long run. But at their best, scientists are apt to describe the brain as chemically and neurologically predisposed to certain behaviorsnurturing babies in the case of women, for instancewhile capable of adapting these behaviors to enormously varied environments. Sometimes those environments even change the brains chemistry, a process that the writer Matt Ridley calls nature via nurture. When Hrdy presumes the fecklessness of men, she underestimates the environmental pressure of social norms. The human record suggests that social norms, especially the universal one of marriage, can reinforce fathers ties to their children, which in turn might even become part of the male neural architecture. Recently, neuroscientists have even discovered evidence that married mens testosterone levels fall at the birth of their baby.
Similarly, females adapt to complex societies that put a premium on abstract thinking and organizational skills. But they can do so only when the environmental conditions are right, as in the developed world today. Once again, we can thank Mother Natureor, more precisely, the frontal cortex. Using our noggins, human beings have transformed the environment in which they mate and reproduce, expanding opportunities for females to employ their three pounds of brain muscle. Most people would point to the invention of the birth-control pill as one of the key moments in the cultural transformation that culminated in this contemporary ecosystem. But other human inventions were vital as well.
Two recent papers by economists tell some of the story. In one, a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Stefania Albanesi and Claudia Olivetti show how child care was only one of the reasons women were once limited to the home; illness and injury caused by childbirth closed doors, too. Consider a typical woman born around 1900, the authors write. She married at 21 and gave birth to more than three live children between age 23 and 33. The high fetal mortality rate implied an even greater number of pregnancies, so that she would be pregnant for 36 percent of this time. Health risks in connection to pregnancy and childbirth were severe. Septicemia, toxaemia, hemorrhages and obstructed labor could lead to prolonged physical disability and, in the extreme, death. It wasnt just the Pill, then; antibiotics, blood banks, improvements in prenatal and obstetric care, and the mass production of safe baby formula fundamentally altered the human environment in ways that laid the foundation for contemporary womens achievement.
Machinery invented by the brainy Homo sapiens also revolutionized the female lot. Until 1900, the vast majority of people in the Western world lived in conditions much like those in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Middle East today. Few had access to electricity; only about a quarter of all American households had running water. In this environment, American women did what women tied to their domiciles with three-plus children have always done: cooking, making and cleaning clothes, hauling water, and the like. But by the mid-twentieth century, human innovation had considerably lightened those essential household tasks. Using U.S. Census data, University of Montreal economist Emanuela Cardia has shown how home technology, including appliances and bathroom plumbing, played a significant role in moving women into the labor force.
And so in the twentieth century, the big-brained femaleFemina sapiens, if you willfound herself living in an utterly reshaped habitat, free from sepsis, unplanned children, sewing, bread baking, and arduous trips to the well. She was ready to use her brain in new ways, not coincidentally at a time when the intellectually gratifying jobs of an advanced economy were becoming more plentiful. Its a neat coincidence that women wrote both of the papers just discussed. Men invented the antibiotic and the washing machine; today, women in economics departments calculate the benefits of these discoveries for their sex. Better yet, they themselves can make future discoveries in labs and R&D departments. (Whether their cognitive makeup makes them less inclined to take up such scientific tasks remains a matter of intense disagreement among scientists.) In a 2007 paper, economists Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson noted that young women attach greater importance than in the past to being successful in my line of work, being able to find steady work, making a contribution to society, and being a leader in my community. Given both their neural architecture and the new cultural ecology, you could hardly call this unnatural.
But you could call it problematic, as new mothers like Rosin and Roiphe are rediscovering. The contemporary woman is in a bind. Her brain (crudely put, her hypothalamus) is at war with her brain (equally crudely, her frontal cortex). She wants two things at once, and they are often contradictory. Complicating her life further, the frontal cortex of her own children will take foreversome say over 20 yearsto develop fully. That means that she faces many more years with dependent offspring than females of other species who cant write briefs or paint canvases, yet have nothing else to do with their time. Its unfair!
And heres another bitter pill for women: more complex societies like our own require a more highly developed frontal cortex. To thrive in todays complex economy, children have to undergo many years of intensive training. The final irony for Femina sapiens is that she may well find herself sacrificing some potential achievements to raise the child who goes on to invent a device that makes life richer for future generations of women.
If human society can sometimes reconfigure biologyby curing polio and increasing athletic stamina, for examplecould it reconfigure sexual selection so that fathers and mothers made equal investments in their young children? We dont have much evidence for thinking so. Until the mid-1990s, Swedish parents got nine months of leave after the birth of a child, and in theory, either mothers or fathers could use it; in practice, it might as well have been called maternal leave. Frustrated that so few fathers took advantage of the policy, the Swedish government changed the way it worked: fathers would now get a month of leave (or two, as of 2002) that they werent allowed to transfer to their wives. The results were just as evolutionary psychologists would predict. By 2004, only 20 percent of fathers were taking the two months. By contrast, a large majority of mothers made full use of their leave. Iceland launched a similar effort to equalize parental investment; fathers there are doing more, but nowhere near as much as mothers.
The predicament of Femina sapiens poses immense practical challenges that should be a subject of public debate. How do we make it easier for working women who want more time to invest in their young children to work part time, or to return to their jobs after an extended leave? What is the proper role of government in all this?
Meantime, though, it might help if women understood their predicament philosophically. Since its beginnings, many people have objected to evolutionary theory as reductive and dismissive of humanitys special place in the cosmos. I see it rather differently. Like his near-contemporary Freud, Darwin shows us to be profoundly mysterious to ourselves. We humans live on many levels: some are unique to us, but others connect us to our primordial ancestors and, indeed, to the natural world itself. Taking care of the babyphysical, draining, exhilaratingis more like farming, writes Roiphe, following the rhythms of the earth, getting up at dawn, watching the corn flush in the sunrise. It is not at all like writing. There is something thrilling in the mystery and embeddedness of this experience.
There is a grandeur in this view of life, Darwin wrote in a sentence much quoted during this, his 200th anniversary year. From so simple a beginning the endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. And so, too, Femina sapiens.
Kay S. Hymowitz is a contributing editor of City Journal and the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her latest book is Marriage and Caste in America.
I honestly couldn't read the whole thing. Only a fool fights biology.
Maybe so. But the other side of the coin is that we are humans not animals and we have a brain. Humans don’t run around slavishly chasing after every animal urge as they occur. Well, some people do. But we don’t need to talk about *those* kind of people.
However feminists don't seem to want to be their assigned sexual identity. No matter how much they claim it's a social construct, men and women are different and have different roles in life.
As a man, I don’t choose to put my career on hold to chase women or kill game. Well, sometimes I do. But not for years at a time.
Did you get the mistaken impression that the author subscribes to this feminist position?
??!? Testosterone is mostly produced in the testicles. In women, most T is produced in the ovaries, although the amount is much less than in men.
Women invest more in children because they know their offspring are theirs. Until DNA testing, men never really knew who parented their female partner's offspring. Also, women have a very limited supply of eggs, whereas men produce millions of sperm every day, so they have an opportunity to spread their genes around and improve their odds. That's why males are tempted to be promiscuous, and to switch to younger women as they age.
Women have an instinctive, hard-wired drive to reproduce and raise children, while their recent obsession with careers is the “artificial social construct” invented by radical feminists, most of whom are lesbians.
I think man has moved beyond caveman ideals. Is it your job to provide and care for your family?
I am having connection issues with the computer. And it's getting slower. I may or may not be back. lol
The dumb males do!
The smart ones know about paternity suits, child support payments and wage garnishment.
If ALL moms of young children would just stay home and spend quantity time with them, salaries would go up for men AND the women who don’t have small children.
Plus it benefits society to put care, love, and quantity of time into raising the next generation.
Polls of babies and tots everywhere conclude: They want their mommies, not ever-changing nannies or daycare. Period.
More reason why I don’t date.
Great and truthful comment!!!
IMHO, babies and smaller children NEED emotional stability, something only a close, full time relationship can provide.
Some people can't avoid daycare, but I did with my twins, and I believe they are better for it.
Yes, and I was inquiring if that was because you mistakenly believed the author was a feminist, which is the impression I got from your post.
I disagree that women are hardwired to be breadwinners. THAT is a societal pressure.
Yes, and the author of the piece also disagrees that women are hardwired to be breadwinners.
I’m just trying to make sure you didn’t dismiss the piece because you misinterpreted the position the author is coming from early on.
for later reading