babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Do men just want mommy?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Do men just want mommy?
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 January 2005 11:24 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not sure which forum this would best fit, but thought this piece by Maureen Dowd, although not setting forth a novel hypothesis, was interesting:
quote:

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.

Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.

. . . .

"Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."

A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors.

As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.

"The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.

A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/opinion/13dowd.html?hp


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 11:39 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Looking at the quotes on intelligence would seem to indicate that it is better to be a dumb female to increase chances of getting married. The study seems to just lead to a lot of other questions. For instance did anyone ask the smart women if they actually wanted to get married or if they had made the choice that marriage was not for them? The language in the quotes seems to indicate that women would naturally want to be married.
I seem to remember a study a few years back in which women were now choosing to avoid marriage . I remember reading stern warnings accompanying the articles from male authors warning of a lonely life if you didn't sell by your best before date.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 13 January 2005 11:42 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
well, if men really do look to "marry down" socially, as it were, while research and observation strongly suggest many women seek to marry up, looking for the beta male even when they are themselves very accomplished (Fonda/Turner, etc), then it seems to be an unstoppable combination
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 January 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
faith, I wondered that too.

The first time I heard about that second study, the British one, it seemed to be implying that smart women weren't "disadvantaged" in the marriage market: they were actually avoiding it. It went something like: smart men are smart enough to know that marriage is good for them, and smart women are smart enough also to know that marriage is good for men.

Well, these are obviously generalizations, but at that level they seem to have been true for me through my life. I think that most people are still a bit nervous of appearing unconventional, and partnerships in which the woman appears to have the upper hand for any reason still look unconventional to most people.

Most males still choose younger mates, eg. A woman earning more than her partner may be running into friction, if not from her partner, from friends and family, at least. Those stereotypes are still deeply ingrained.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Men marrying down and women marrying up is IMO largely a myth. The marriage market may have looked more like this in the last couple of centuries when women were not allowed to determine their own futures but I doubt that it is still the case.
The article on the study would seem to indicate that the male subjects were upper management types or university students that planned on being upper management types. To understand trends in society one has to look at all of society. Most people marry people from the exact same social and economic strata , and usually marry people within a 30-50 mile radius of their home.
The proximity of home towns may have decreased with populations becoming more uprooted and moving around more but the backgrounds of married couples are usually very similar.
The example of Jane Fonda and Ted Turner was not relevant to the women marrying up argument. Jane Fonda came from a wealthy and successful family and was wealthy and successful in her own right. Ted Turner had as much to gain from marrying' Hollywood aristocracy ' as Jane had from marrying a media mogul.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, these are obviously generalizations, but at that level they seem to have been true for me through my life. I think that most people are still a bit nervous of appearing unconventional, and partnerships in which the woman appears to have the upper hand for any reason still look unconventional to most people.

The trend to throw out conventional arrangements is strongest , to my surprise, in Quebec. In a province that was dominated with the power of the church and didn't allow women to vote until around 1960 ,women are now leading the way with rejecting traditional marriage in this part of the country. Common law arrangements now account for about 60% of marital relationships.
The unconventional power relationship of having women as the main breadwinners has become more common in the last 20 years. I think you are absolutely right Skdadl that power in the hands of women is still uncomfortable for some. The 'downsizing' of the 90's made many men redundant and women the only source of income for their families , creating instant power imbalance in many families. I can think of 3 of my neighbours that this happened to. Unemployed status for a man entering his 50's is absolutely devastating. In many ways the reactionary trends of 'free market' economics have actually done a great deal to undermine the status and security of men in our society. Perhaps men should look at marrying a woman that is capable of bringing home the bacon instead of cooking it.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 13 January 2005 12:21 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women.

Is Dr. Brown trying to suggest that there is some big flood of powerful women chasing after subordinate men, and that those men are frantically turning them away? Puh-leaze. If powerful/accomplished women can't find a mate (assuming they want one), it's probably just as much their own fault.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 January 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is Dr. Brown trying to suggest that there is some big flood of powerful women chasing after subordinate men, and that those men are frantically turning them away?

If so, wingnut@(really)hotmail.com.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 January 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The line forms here, grils.

Behind me.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 13 January 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
and usually marry people within a 30-50 mile radius of their home.
The proximity of home towns may have decreased with populations becoming more uprooted and moving around more

Interestingly enough, faith, there may, in fact be a developing prejudice [i]against[/] marrying within the same local area and traditional social mileau.

My evidence on this is entirely anecdotal. Last summer the son and daughter, respectively, of two prominent farm families in the semi-rural community where my children grew up were married. Both had been friends and high school collegues of my daughter. Her reaction, on hearing of the plans, was "WTF; a _____ marrying a ___ ? How friggin SICK is that ?". Even though there was no blood relationship, she viewed it as somehow almost incestuous for two people from the same home-town and such similar roots to marry, as she described her reaction to me. And most of her contemporaries seemed to share her discomfort.

As acknowledged, a single anecdote, but one that I found intriguing at the time, and perhaps relevant to this discussion. Has anyone else observed a similar "prejudice" among educated young persons ?


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 January 2005 12:41 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
James, back in the mid-sixties, when I first left home, I remember being a bit bothered by the numbers of school/undergrad friends in my circle who were marrying each other. I'd say that our circle broke almost fifty-fifty on that issue. Half of us thought that we were just at the beginning of going new places, doing new things, and the other half seemed to regard settling down fast, in the same place and among the same circle, as a mark of maturity.

And I'd say that we were roughly homogeneous in class and education terms.

Just off the top of my head, I'm guessing that about half of those early marriages survive.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The information on proximity of home base for potential marriage partners came from a first year psychology course taken many years ago. The question was asked -'why do people marry and what do you look for in a mate?' . Of course students came up with all sorts of nonsense and were quite disillusioned when they found out that it really was quite predictable who they would marry , and not that great a mystery after all.
I think the young persons reaction may be in part ,typical of the young not wanting to seem predictable. However with populations moving around more and young people leaving their home towns it is likely in my opinion that geographical proximity will become less of a factor. My whitebread computer genius cousin married an African American brainiac from the U of Chicago and they met through the internet, so there you go.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 January 2005 12:43 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it depends a lot on mileu. Interesting what James says about what appears to be a fairly traditional one. Certainly among the "nomadic intellectuals" I know - and not just young ones but also those of us who may be entering into mid-life relationships - having someone from a different background in terms of nationality and ethnicity is a definite plus.

I was going to say "cultural background" but the nomadic intellectuals also have a lot in common, culturally and politically.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 January 2005 12:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*slight drift*

I have to throw in a comment about josh's thread title.

I was expecting a slightly different topic from that title. When I first saw it, my first association was with smug, overconfident men. Forgive me -- I know this is bitchy -- but I guess I overreact to overbearing males. Maybe. Ok, I do.

And every once in a while, when I'm listening to or reading a guy who seems to have no self-doubt at all or no distance on himself, I am sorely tempted to say, "Gee, your mum really must have loved you."

Sorry. I can't help it. I know that's sexist of me. But I've known a few.

*/slight drift*


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 13 January 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If the dude's overbearing are you really overreacting?
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 January 2005 12:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh ... yeah. I can overreact, Coyote. I can.

And it's a stereotype, of course, to be blaming mama. Although, as I say, I've known a few.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 13 January 2005 01:38 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know about all this.
I have always worked with the premise that any woman that was foolish enough to think I was a good catch was a rare thing so I better work pretty hard to make sure she doesn't figure it out.

From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 01:52 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting, because smug overconfidence isn't generally what we associate with "Mama's boy" - I've met a "Daddy's girl" or two myself.

I was interested to see the reference to paternity anxiety in the article. I remember that issue was batted abbout around here a few years ago and being assured that modern, educated western men no longer care if they are raising children who are not their own. I still feel paternity is one of the fundamental organising principles of most cultures. It is almost entirely unexamined in North America, Jerry Springer aside.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ronb , some feminist historians and socioligists discuss this topic of male domination through progeny
I have read some theories that suggest that patriarchal structures first came about as the realisation dawned on humans that men actually had a role in procreation. Communal structures or tribes were the dominant organising force in early human society with care for the young a shared responsibility. Only when men discovered that the offspring were 'theirs' did the control over women's bodies and resources of the community become important.
Somewhere in the back of my mind the results of a media released modern day survey are rolling around that stated that as many as 30% of children born to the women in the study were not the offspring of the husband . Perhaps men have a reason for paternity anxiety.
I was having a similar conversation with a friend of mine , a retired nurse, who brought up a similar study done in Britain. The DNA in families was studied and proved that people who were supposed to be immediate family were not actually closely related , around 30% of them. The suggestion being that women also have a biological need to vary the DNA of their offspring , supposedly for stronger children.
Personally I think maybe people just like to screw around.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 January 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
Interesting, because smug overconfidence isn't generally what we associate with "Mama's boy"

I agree. Most of the men I've met who are like that were doted on by their fathers.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 02:33 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here I go, getting sucked in! How predictable...

Why do you assume that paternity anxiety was learned, or occured as some kind of catastrophic sudden event? Many animals also display behaviours similar to human paternity anxiety.

I have a second, more loaded question. If paternity anxiety is a driving force behind patriarchy, then to achieve equality should men cease to expect to know their biological offspring?

A corollary: should babies be switched around randomly in hospitals?

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 13 January 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I read the article by Dowd this morning and had the feeling it would end up as a babble discussion...

Also, it kind of freaked me out because just the night before I was reading "The Mermaid and the Minotaur: Sexual Arrangements and Human Malaise" (Dorothy Dinnerstein, 1976) and I had to stop cold after I read the following: "...a naturally keen childhood fantasy-wish (lived out widely by adult men with the women whom they rule) is to keep female will in live captivity, obediently energetic, fiercely protective of its captor's pride, ready always to vitalize his projects with its magic maternal blessing and to suppor them with its concrete, self-abnegating maternal help."

Help! I stopped cold because I realized how this is so often what marriage itself is all about, sometimes subtly, sometimes not-so-subtly. I was married young, and I would have to say that this was a definite tendency in my own marriage and the ones around me; luckily, I think we've mostly grown out of it (hopefully, anyways), but on the other hand I am raising two little boys who are both deep in the throes of mama-love, and although I enjoy their presence and their developing personalities, I'm glad that I'm not the only significant adult female presence in their lives.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 13 January 2005 02:53 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
... then to achieve equality should men cease to expect to know their biological offspring?

That would achieve "equality" ??? .
The complete marginalization of males as a social element of the species is what it would achieve. Frankly, that is one of the most blatently sexist suggestions I have ever heard. It is also, IMO, exactly the sort of thing that feeds the "feminazi" characterization of feminism.

edited to add -
* as I go to rummage around for that asbestos suit I've got around here someplace *

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: James ]


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
have read some theories that suggest that patriarchal structures first came about as the realisation dawned on humans that men actually had a role in procreation.

I personally have a hard time believing that humans, by the time we had developed cultures of even band complexity, did not realise full well that intercourse and procreation are related - as far as I know modern hunter gatherers like the Zhun/twasi are fully aware of the idea. By the time we had organised into tribes, planting and sowing became pretty central concepts... But certainly there is an obvious co-relation between patriarchy and paternity anxiety.

I remember those 30% findings too. Very amusing, in a way. Family values.

Edited to fix "sintercourse" - Freudian typo.

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 13 January 2005 02:55 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A corollary: should babies be switched around randomly in hospitals?

The primary reason Ms B never left my sight while in the mat ward, and one of many reasons Ms T was born at home.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 03:01 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by James:

That would achieve "equality" ??? .
The complete marginalization of males as a social element of the species is what it would achieve. Frankly, that is one of the most blatently sexist suggestions I have ever heard. It is also, IMO, exactly the sort of thing that feeds the "feminazi" characterization of feminism.

edited to add -
* as I go to rummage around for that asbestos suit I've got around here someplace *

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: James ]


The claim (which I suggest is true) is that paternity anxiety causes patriarchal behaviours and men attempt to control reproductive turf (ie women).

Consequently, how does one build a society in which patriarchy does not exist? By preventing men from attempting to assure paternity. Unless someone can come up with another way to deal with the problem of paternity anxiety that does not involve controlling women.

(Of course we now have paternity testing, but let's assume for the sake of argument that we are a century in the past.)


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 03:02 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The primary reason Ms B never left my sight ...

I was the same way with my wife before she got pregnant.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 13 January 2005 03:03 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the question of men and mommies...

I think a lot of overconfident and overbearing men ARE created by their mothers -- at least in my generation or older. If you've had the sort of mother who behaves as if the sun rises and sets for you, then you're going to not much like women who don't look at you the same way when you're an adult. We learn our place in the world from the people who raise us, and we learn how to treat people from their interactions with us from an early age.

Now, I have to admit to having been very much a Daddy's Girl (Grampa's Girl, too actually). Anecdotally, I don't think there is much doubt for me that this has shaped how I interact with men and what I expect from a man in a relationship. I can't imagine how it wouldn't.

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 03:12 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Consequently, how does one build a society in which patriarchy does not exist? By preventing men from attempting to assure paternity.

That sounds so negative. Perhaps it can be acheived in a more positive way, like making paternity somewhat less important - some cultures don't emphasize the father as the vital male role model - often the mother's oldest brother can be far more important. The father doesn't even necessarily reside in the same village, and children don't necessarily share the same father as their siblings.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[anecdote]

My best friend when I was a kid was a momma's boy. He was cocky and arrogant and he really believed the world revolved around him. His mother certainly did.

He had an interesting (and gross) habit that I think tells the whole story: if we were up in his room and he wanted to blow his nose, he wouldn't get up and go downstairs for a kleenex. He'd just get a fresh sock from his dresser, blow his nose on it, and toss it on the floor for his mother to pick up.

I watched with much curiousity as he dated (and mistreated) a string of girls and women over the years. I don't know if it's just a coincidence, or an offshoot of his cocky confidence, but the gals just loved him. He was never without women lining up to be mistreated. He finally married a smart, attractive, tough chick who's not afraid to tell him to fuck off. It's funny to see them, actually. He seems almost fascinated by her, or a little in awe, as though he married her at least in part to see how tough chicks work or something.

[/anecdote]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:

That sounds so negative. Perhaps it can be acheived in a more positive way, like making paternity somewhat less important - some cultures don't emphasize the father as the vital male role model - often the mother's oldest brother can be far more important. The father doesn't even necessarily reside in the same village, and children don't necessarily share the same father as their siblings.


Thing is, these societies are clearly outliers. I'm also not convinced that the identity of the fathers means little in these cultures. Most societies have tended to go to great lengths to satisfy paternity anxiety, some more than others. It's a (to use a loaded term) bell curve.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 13 January 2005 03:22 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now that I've been thinking about it, I don't even think we can limit it to men -- I've also met women who were Mama and Daddy's little princess*, and kept that attitude well into the adult years.

Maybe it's simply that people whose parents haven't given them a sense of perspective on their own worth, or the worth of others, grow up to be phenomenally nasty to be in relationships with. Once you're past the attraction that supreme self-confidence brings, that is.

*As a Daddy's girl, I still wasn't really a princess -- more a sorcerer's apprentice.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To put the shoe on the other foot, can any women here stand up and say they wouldn't care one way or the other if their child were switched with some stranger's child?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 13 January 2005 03:25 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
On the question of men and mommies...

I think a lot of overconfident and overbearing men ARE created by their mothers -- at least in my generation or older. If you've had the sort of mother who behaves as if the sun rises and sets for you, then you're going to not much like women who don't look at you the same way when you're an adult. We learn our place in the world from the people who raise us, and we learn how to treat people from their interactions with us from an early age.


I think this can be noted in the way that many men, most clearly articulated in (though nowhere near exclusive to) certain mysoginist forms of hip-hop culture, fetishize their mother and objectify all other women.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 03:27 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
To put the shoe on the other foot, can any women here stand up and say they wouldn't care one way or the other if their child were switched with some stranger's child?

No women claimed that they wanted to deny paternity knowledge here, so this shoe is a straw shoe. In any case, I already pre-empted this line of thought with my baby-randomization scheme. See above.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm also not convinced that the identity of the fathers means little in these cultures.

It can mean a great deal, I believe, particularly in establishing political alliances between villages. Fathers just aren't expected to provide for their offspring. Uncles are. This de-emphasizes paternity somewhat is all i'm saying.

There was doubtless a time when agrarian societies were the outliers. Things can change.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:
I think this can be noted in the way that many men, most clearly articulated in (though nowhere near exclusive to) certain mysoginist forms of hip-hop culture, fetishize their mother and objectify all other women.

I do note that, IIRC, Eminem does not fetishize his mother.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 13 January 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think so, too, Coyote, and from what little I know, there are other cultural reasons for that extreme.

I know it sounds like I'm mother-bashing. But it's also pretty significant that the primary caregivers for children, up until fairly recently, has, by and large, been mothers. Even back in the '70s, when I was a kid, there were a lot more SAHMs than there are now, and a lot of women, my Mom included (although she had to work outside the home for economic reasons) regarding child-rearing as their primary career. They were the major force in molding their children's personalities and interaction patterns.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:

It can mean a great deal, I believe, particularly in establishing political alliances between villages. Fathers just aren't expected to provide for their offspring. Uncles are. This de-emphasizes paternity somewhat is all i'm saying.

There was doubtless a time when agrarian societies were the outliers. Things can change.


But there are nonagrarian (such as nomadic) societies where paternity knowledge is still central, but still lacking fixed real estate.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 03:29 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Different fetish.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 13 January 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:

I do note that, IIRC, Eminem does not fetishize his mother.



I don't think I said it was a universal trait of hip-hop, nor of misogyny.

From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Coyote:

I don't think I said it was a universal trait of hip-hop, nor of misogyny.

True.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No women claimed that they wanted to deny paternity knowledge here, so this shoe is a straw shoe.

I'm just responding to what appears to be the suggestion or intimation (or maybe it's just a tone) that "paternity anxiety" is some kind of male pathology/obsession, or a construct.

I think all parents want to know that their children are their own.

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 03:36 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But there are nonagrarian (such as nomadic) societies where paternity knowledge is still central, but still lacking fixed real estate.

And many real estate agents who shouldn't be allowed in polite society.

You asked how to achieve a patriarchy-free society. Here's a way that some cultures have dealt with it - de-emphasize paternity. No edicts or preventing about it.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 13 January 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think all parents want to know that their children are their own.

No kidding. I'm tremendously possessive about my wild grils. Possibly even more so than the blond guy.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm just responding to what appears to be the suggestion or intimation (or maybe it's just a tone) that "paternity anxiety" is some kind of male pathology/obsession, or a construct.

If you've got a theory that "maternity anxiety" accounts for something culturally significant, by all means let's hear about it.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I've got a theory that all parents want to know who their children are. And that as such, the term "Paternity Anxiety" puts that entirely on men.

Women typically have the advantage of knowing their children are their children. If they didn't, then I believe that "Maternity Anxiety" would be just as strong or stronger.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 13 January 2005 03:53 PM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do realize that nobody here is really advocating the baby switching method, but I suppose this also includes the stuff earlier about immediate family not being as immediate as thought.

Since family history can be very useful in determining risk of many very harmful diseases, the whole baby switching thing, and also the illegitimate children thing where the believed father is not the real biological father could have some very serious implications in the life of that child, and further offspring that they might have.


From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 03:54 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Consequently, how does one build a society in which patriarchy does not exist? By preventing men from attempting to assure paternity. Unless someone can come up with another way to deal with the problem of paternity anxiety that does not involve controlling women.

The difference historically is that everyone is well aware of the birth of the child through the mother but no one can ever be sure (before DNA ) who the real father was. Whether a child is yours or someone else's is a foreign concept to most women.
Patriarchy as a form of eliminating paternity anxiety through the control of women's bodies has been woefully inadequate if the 30% figure is to be believed, obviously the women feel that what the men don't know won't hurt them, and go about doing what a woman has to do.(a woman's work is never done)

Ronb , according to most researchers into pre history sex was also somewhat communal. Pair bonds didn't form the basis of society. When a woman had sex it didn't necessarily result in pregnancy. Some women might take a year to conceive and if she had several partners who would know paternity? Some women would get pregnant quickly, so there is no obvious cause and effect relationship between a woman having sex and then 30 days later always missing her period and then 8 or 9 months later giving birth. A non scientific community comprised of nomadic early humans or even territorial humans would have had a hard time explaining miscarriage, infertility, super fertiility, and the random nature of human pregnancy. Unlike animals that usually have a mating season and then at the same time every year give birth. There are suggestions that observations about the animals they hunted gave humans their first clue that males were crucial to procreation.
The more important question relating this back to the question raised by the thread title is - does all of this early development of human society and the establishment of patriarchy have any effect on the marriage habits of modern humans?
Did strong women of pre history attract many partners, and did strong men attract many female partners? Do men marry a weak woman because of biology ( a weak argument in my view) or because they need to feel secure by ensuring their dominance in a personal relationship? A strong woman secure in her career and intelligence may have surpassed the need for marriage - the modern version being a construct of patriarchy.


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Patriarchy as a form of eliminating paternity anxiety through the control of women's bodies has been woefully inadequate if the 30% figure is to be believed, obviously the women feel that what the men don't know won't hurt them, and go about doing what a woman has to do.(a woman's work is never done)
The 30% varies a lot as I understand it depending on the study. Plus, a 70% success rate is actually pretty good success rate for biological events. Also, has this been measured in communities that are particularly restrictive of women?

But in any case, I don't think it's the result of conscious decisions by the women to exclude their men from procreation.

quote:
Ronb , according to most researchers into pre history sex was also somewhat communal. Pair bonds didn't form the basis of society. When a woman had sex it didn't necessarily result in pregnancy. Some women might take a year to conceive and if she had several partners who would know paternity? Some women would get pregnant quickly, so there is no obvious cause and effect relationship between a woman having sex and then 30 days later always missing her period and then 8 or 9 months later giving birth.
See, I'm not 100% sure I believe this, or that most researchers interpret it that way. It also depends on who these researchers are, etc, etc, since this area is very conducive to personal bias. Formalized pair bonding, maybe not, but attempts to restrict female fertility, yes.

quote:
A non scientific community comprised of nomadic early humans or even territorial humans would have had a hard time explaining miscarriage, infertility, super fertiility, and the random nature of human pregnancy. Unlike animals that usually have a mating season and then at the same time every year give birth. There are suggestions that observations about the animals they hunted gave humans their first clue that males were crucial to procreation.
Yes, this is the "catastrophic" theory of patriarchy I noted above. I don't believe it, because there are animals who appear to be paternity-aware, and sometimes even consciously. Lions often kill offspring that aren't theirs, other animals attempt to exclude other males, etc, etc. Other animals have evolved various psychological and physiological mechanisms to deal with paternity assurance. I'd say that this battle of the sexes is the rule rather than the exception. So why should it be different with humans? Why would humans be paternity-ignorant?
quote:
Do men marry a weak woman because of biology ( a weak argument in my view) or because they need to feel secure by ensuring their dominance in a personal relationship?
Note that these are not exclusive explanations. I wouldn't directly connect an individual man marrying a "weak woman" to an evolutionary notion, since such effects are only observable in the aggregate. But prior patriarchy and existing paternity anxiety may be self-reinforcing.

edited to fix quoting

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 13 January 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mandos, about animals and paternity issues, I'm just not convinced that lions would selectively kill offspring that wasn't theirs - I'd have to see some pretty conclusive studies (control groups, DNA testing, observed and recorded matings et al) and I'm willing to bet there aren't any. We're very far from knowing what animals think and why they do what they do in any given circumstance.

For example, why do so many ewes give birth to lambs...and just leave them there to starve and/or freeze to death? Some researchers think that in these cases, the birth experience wasn't painful enough to send a message to their tiny brains that something significant just happened and they'd better pay attention and do something about it. I'm not sure I believe that, but the explanation itself seems to make a lot of people stop and think. Then, why are other ewes extremely protective of their young? What motivates an animal to take care of its own young - or adopt another animal's baby - or kill? Mystère et boules de gomme...but I don't think it has much to do with what people think or believe about their own paternity issues, today. Just take adoption, for example...


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 04:46 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mandos, about animals and paternity issues, I'm just not convinced that lions would selectively kill offspring that wasn't theirs - I'd have to see some pretty conclusive studies (control groups, DNA testing, observed and recorded matings et al) and I'm willing to bet there aren't any. We're very far from knowing what animals think and why they do what they do in any given circumstance.
They do not always do it, but they do it frequently. They figure it out by realizing that cubs that existed before they joined the pride probably weren't theirs. Also note the driving out of male competition.

Of course, behaviours (and physical characteristics!) brought about by evolutionary processes are rarely ever exclusively used for one "purpose." So on an individual level there could be all sorts of reasons why particular animals care for other animals even against an abstract quality of fitness. What matters is the tendency as a whole. And the tendency of patriarchy to be ubiquitous seems to me suggestive of an evolutionary root.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barncats will do the same. If a female has cubs (or kittens), the new male will often kill them to bring her into heat sooner. Clearly the lion/cat understands (or is instinctually driven to act as though) the cubs are not his, and give his genes no benefit. In fact they compete with his, and must go.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't say I believed these theories I merely put them forward as someone , I believe ronb, suggested that paternity anxiety as a causal relationship to patriarchy had not been explored. Feminist writing explores this topic quite extensively although there is not much coverage of feminist scholars in the mainstream press.
quote:
Yes, this is the "catastrophic" theory of patriarchy I noted above. I don't believe it, because there are animals who appear to be paternity-aware, and sometimes even consciously. Lions often kill offspring that aren't theirs, other animals attempt to exclude other males, etc, etc. Other animals have evolved various psychological and physiological mechanisms to deal with paternity assurance. I'd say that this battle of the sexes is the rule rather than the exception. So why should it be different with humans? Why would humans be paternity-ignorant?


I am very wary of explanations based on lions to explain human behaviour and social development. I think that often the theory of animal behaviour is at first anthropomorphised and then in turn the explanation is related to human behaviour as a justification for 'natural law'.
Lions for instance are always portrayed as 'king of the jungle' and the pride is seen as the male's harem, totally human concepts. The pride is dominated by the dominant female and her offspring and the territory they inhabit is held by the females and passed on to their descendants, males are only tolerated one or two at a time. The males don't last very long fighting other males that would like to be 'guests' of the pride and hyenas and every other thing that might be a threat to the pride. Young males are driven out of the group while the females remain. Sex opportunities for the male lions are completely dependant on the female lion going into heat. A lactating mother is not going to go into heat so killing her offspring will make her ready to mate again which rather than easing any leonine anxieties around fatherhood , is more likely to ensure the male of a home for a few years.
And as far as humans knowing about paternity- the ignorance about women's bodies and pregnancy as I remember from my own youth was absolutely appalling and this was when all of the information you needed was as close as your local library. The fact that people even today think that by using certain charms and fertility tricks (phases of the moon, certain herbs etc.) shows that there is a residual belief that there is more to pregnancy than chemistry, that ancient people probably felt very little control over the process which with humans is very random.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 13 January 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am very wary of explanations based on lions to explain human behaviour and social development. I think that often the theory of animal behaviour is at first anthropomorphised and then in turn the explanation is related to human behaviour as a justification for 'natural law'.
Yes, this is the standard fear of people who wish to see human behaviour strictly in terms of social events. I understand the fear, but nevertheless I think it can also lead to a dogmatic unwillingness to generalize from other animals, which I think is also mistaken. The point I was making is that male animals, one way or another, often have mechanisms, behavioural and physical, to increase the chance that offspring produced by females are theirs.
quote:

And as far as humans knowing about paternity- the ignorance about women's bodies and pregnancy as I remember from my own youth was absolutely appalling and this was when all of the information you needed was as close as your local library. The fact that people even today think that by using certain charms and fertility tricks (phases of the moon, certain herbs etc.) shows that there is a residual belief that there is more to pregnancy than chemistry, that ancient people probably felt very little control over the process which with humans is very random.
Specific knowledge about the process is not required for prior awareness of a vague causal link to be codified into culture. Also, individual conscious awareness is not required for these things to be true.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 January 2005 05:03 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bears do the same thing.

Adult male Polar Bears are sometimes known to kill cubs, so mother bears are very defensive around males.

Female bears are not receptive every year, in fact they may go for 2-3 years without mating to raise their cubs. Thus male bears will readily kill cubs, so that they have a chance to mate with the mother. To avoid such conflict, females are very secretive, and have smaller ranges than the males. They will also attack the males fiercely, because she puts so much time and effort into raising her cubs, if they are killed each time she will have no reproductive success. Even so, male bears account for up to 70% of young bear deaths.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 05:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Specific knowledge about the process is not required for prior awareness of a vague causal link to be codified into culture.

In antiquity it was understood that men and women together made children (probably learned from animal husbandry, which required this knowledge).

They believed the man planted his "seed" in the woman (so far, so good), that the woman was essentially an inert furrow for his seed (Um...) and finally that his seed, if one could examine it closely, would resemble little teeny tiny men (LOL!).

But they did have enough to go on to know that their child may or may not be their child, regardless of the specifics of its conception.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 January 2005 05:08 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Enough that Roman law allowed a widows child to be claimed as the late dads IF it was born less than 10months from the fathers death
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 13 January 2005 05:09 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To observe "maternity anxiety" in a non-human model, the pig, widely thought to be the most intelligent and highly evolved of the four legged mammals. From my "farm kid" days, I know this. A mother sow will not knowingly adopt or accept a piglet that is not biologically her own. Unlike cattle, or cats, or most other of the domesticated species we are familiar with, the sow will quickly destroy any piglet not her own that attempt to mingle with her own litter or join in nursing. The only logical conclusion is that porcine genetics have dictated that the sow seeks to ensure that her limited milk supply goes only toward nurture of her own progeney.

Fortunately for orphaned piglets, and those who raise them, pigs have notoriously poor eyesight, and apparrently can't count very high. Thus they rely largely on their highly discriminating sense of smell (think of the truffle finders) to protect the "family assets". a farmer wishing to effect asucessful adoption must remove the entire litter from the mother for a period of several hours, during which time the adoptee(s) are placed with the natural offspring, and a scent confusing agent (often baby powder) liberally applied to all. When the now expanded litter is returned to the mother, she is aparently somewhat confused by the scent of the lot of them, but getting an overall impression that they all smell more or less like her own, accepts all. They must be watched very closely in the few hours following the re-introduction; for if the sow does detect an interloper; she will instantly crush it in her jaws.

I provide this observation merely as an example of a very strong "maternity anxiety" in nature. Draw from it what you will.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am very wary of explanations based on lions to explain human behaviour and social development.

How about primates?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's a model of "maternity anxiety" - thanks james. That's seems like vaguely useful line of inquiry.

quote:
Women typically have the advantage of knowing their children are their children. If they didn't, then I believe that "Maternity Anxiety" would be just as strong or stronger.

And if pigs could fly, they would poop all over us.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 05:46 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We are talking about pre-history when discussing the thesis that humans weren't always aware of the process of procreation. That is before animal husbandry or the organisation of agricultural societies. All there is to go on in these circumstances is archeological sites and art , so it is an area open to interpretation. The interpretation we got right up into the 20th century was excuslively from a male perspective.

Lions do kill other lion's offspring , but not all the time. Sometimes other lions offspring are cared for ,particularly if it is a big pride and there are many females. So while the killing does take place , it is random and sometimes the opposite takes place and until people learn to speak lionese it's again just guesswork, and or people projecting human traits onto animals.

quote:
See, I'm not 100% sure I believe this, or that most researchers interpret it that way. It also depends on who these researchers are, etc, etc, since this area is very conducive to personal bias. Formalized pair bonding, maybe not, but attempts to restrict female fertility, yes.


quote:


That statement contradicts everything I have ever read on early human development which I admit is not a huge amount. What I have read is that life was precarious, starvation common, and female fertility was a cause for celebration. We can still see evidence of this in 3rd world countries where people try to secure their future old age with large amounts of offspring to care for them. Hunter /gatherers would have required a healthy fertility rate to ensure their future.
In times of food scarcity a couple of lactating females in a group could keep 6 or 7 people alive for each female- all the tribe would have to do is feed the females to keep the milk flowing. Women who were seen as the givers and sustainers of life would have been seriously displaced by patriarchy.
Which brings me back to the modern well educated ,financially secure woman who is able to support children without the aid of a male partner if necessary or if she so desires. There are parallels between the status of women described by feminists in pre history and those in modern times that have achieved the power to reject patriarchy and make their place in society on their own terms.
The studies quoted at the beginning of the thread seemed a little antiquated in the premise that getting married is important to women when in fact many of the reasons for its development have made it an optional life choice rather than a crucial one.


quote:
I'd say that this battle of the sexes is the rule rather than the exception. So why should it be different with humans? Why would humans be paternity-ignorant?



I would say that the battle of the sexes is largely a human rather than an animal phenomenon. The only time animals seems to do battle is over the protection of the young and for the many species that mate for life or those that live in colonies that becomes a community responsibility. Rarely do animals of different genders but of the same species fight one another.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 January 2005 05:50 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In times of food scarcity a couple of lactating females in a group could keep 6 or 7 people alive for each female- all the tribe would have to do is feed the females to keep the milk flowing.

This directly violates the laws of entropy. There's no way that food could more efficiently feed everyone by first feeding the lactating women. I have to go home now, but maybe someone else can give a more detailed explanation.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 January 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

This directly violates the laws of entropy. There's no way that food could more efficiently feed everyone by first feeding the lactating women. I have to go home now, but maybe someone else can give a more detailed explanation.


It is *not* more efficient to feed a lactating woman, then for her to feed hungry people with her milk, however since the lactating woman has the ability to convert her body fat to milk - a process that slows down when the woman is consuming insufficient calories to meet daily requirements - feeding her enough to keep her lactating would probably work for a time.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 13 January 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Looking at the quotes on intelligence would seem to indicate that it is better to be a dumb female to increase chances of getting married.

i'm obviously in the minority, but isn't it sexy to have an intelligent partner, so that you can talk to -- in a stimulating way -- for more than 5 minutes at a time?

otherwise, how will you spend 40 years with them?


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
All there is to go on in these circumstances is archeological sites and art , so it is an area open to interpretation.

It's my understanding that art doesn't really appear until after what we would recognise as human culture appeared - which was why I was gently quibbling with your use of the word "tribe" before - generally tribes are a much later innovation with full blown agriculture and animal husbandry but even less "sophisticated" band cultures display some pretty sophisticated understanding of natural cycles - these are their entire means of survival after all. Honestly, you spend your entire time scanning the natural environment for signals to aid in your survival and yet you miss the fact that when you have sex with somebody, a baby results 9 moons later? Or conversely, when you don't have sex with anybody, no children result? Maybe for the first ten thousand years, but I have to suspect that this knowledge became pretty apparent pretty early on in homo sapien sapiens development.

It is an interesting idea to consider though, that there might have been a long period of human existance when sex was considered to be consequence free. Just another thing to do.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 13 January 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unless we're talking about one adult woman sustaining several babies not yet able to eat the food anyway, I think you're right. It costs energy to digest food and would cost even more to both digest and convert it into milk.

Even with an unlimited supply of food, they're still women. As far was I can tell, cows only yield about 9 litres a day. That would keep that number of people alive for a while, but it's still starvation level. I have no idea what a how much a woman can produce under optimum conditions, but it's gotta be substantially less than a dairy cow.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 06:17 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any woman who has had an abundant milk supply come in after giving birth knows that she has far more than necessary for keeping a baby growing. Babies double their birth weight in the first 6 months and then triple it within the first year. Breast milk is so rich that it is all a baby needs to digest, and it is very easy to digest.
Wet nurses for the aristocracy could keep producing milk as long as there was a babe at their breast to suckle, for years and years in other words,long enough for a great milk producer to make a career of it.
In fact the more a lactating breast is suckled the more milk is produced. Women who have multiple births who want to breast feed have no trouble feeding all of their offspring. I know I practically drowned my kids with the amount of milk that first came pumping out.
The mothers body will keep producing milk as long as there is food for her , even when she is going hungry her body will take from her own bones to create milk until it dries up.
I said that 1 healthy lactating female could keep 6 or 7 people from starving I didn't claim she could supersize them.
Entropy , expressed in my dictionary as a physics equation is a rather wierd argument when negating the possibilities of breast feeding ,but I am always ready to be educated.
A baby that had little chance of survival in a bad winter would be survived by a food producing mother , there is no way a people on the brink of serious hunger would waste the food source.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 January 2005 06:23 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
She could only feed a few other babies, not adults who would far outstrip her production capabilities
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 13 January 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
i'm obviously in the minority, but isn't it sexy to have an intelligent partner, so that you can talk to -- in a stimulating way -- for more than 5 minutes at a time?

otherwise, how will you spend 40 years with them?


Yes, I'd say that's a pretty sound strategy. It's worked for me, so far.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 13 January 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to THIS website, babies up to 6 months need 110 calories per kilo per day to maintain their weight, and mother's milk contains approximately 70 calories per 100mls.

1200 calories per day will sustain an adult for a while, but it is just above starvation level, and an adequate caloric intake for an active human is more like 2000 calories a day.

That means almost 2 litres of milk would be required to maintain an adult at starvation level.

I've scoped out several websites that say as a rule the body uses about 10% of calories consumed in order to digest food. Furthermore, they put basal female caloric requirements at an absolute minimum 1500 calories/day, and more like 22-2300 per day for an active woman.

So feeding a lactating woman in order to drink her milk would waste 10% of the caloric value of the food. Using her fat stores would work, but since each pound of fat contains 3500 calories - enough to feed an adult for three days excluding the energy required to turn the fat to milk - she'd need to have a heck of a lot of bodyfat to keep a 'family of five' alive. I think nursing a few infants and children is more reasonable.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 06:59 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anchoress I just came from a web site that sort of changed my perspective on this. I wish I had the link perhaps I can backpedal and find it but food intake has been recently found to have little to no effect on milk production.
This research indicated that the cheif criteria determining milk production was the frequency and vigor with which the mammary glands were emptied. In other words a woman that had 1 baby would settle down after a while to a normal production of about a litre a day , but , if the demand was much more significant than 1 child the mammary system of the human female responds by producing more milk.
I'm assumming that the

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 13 January 2005 07:13 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What a bizarre thread drift. Lactation rates? Yeesh.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 07:28 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I do apologise for this - I really didn't mean to put the thread off course. If you look up to 2 previous posts I tried to reconnect the original question to the discussion on human anthropology but people just kept going off track.
Perhaps I can make up for it by trying once again - is a lactating female from ancient society the right girl for 'men who just want mommy'?
sorry ..
I do feel that the original question and the article quoted at the beginning of the thread was a great topic.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 07:30 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 13 January 2005: Message edited by: faith ]


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2005 10:43 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think nursing a few infants and children is more reasonable.

quote:
She could only feed a few other babies, not adults who would far outstrip her production capabilities

According to this study of starvation in Somalia children's caloric intake is much higher than adults to stave off starvation. The longer a population starves the fewer the children as they die much sooner than the adults.
The milk production in Sub Saharan Africa is half that of cow's milk production and is being ignored as a food source according to Human Milk - An Invisible Food Source

I do have a reason for connecting this to the status of women particularly in ancient pre history. ronb indicated that there was no art in pre historic human development but the caves at lascaux and other sites prove there was very energetic art efforts by ancient society. One of the first sculptures I ever studied in art history was the Venus of Willendorf , an exaggerated seemingly pregnant female with huge breasts - this is dated to about 15,000bc. Since that discovery there have been huge numbers of these figures stretching from Europe all across Siberia. Male archeologists called them fertiility figures. I don't think for a minute if the figures had been male with huge genitals and found througout ancient archeological sites they would have been labelled as fertility figures, but that's just my opinion. In fact female symbolism is everywhere in ancient art and some of the artifacts that have been found are female imagery in the form of small sculptures of what appear to be nothing more than exaggerated female breasts on a stick. Some male archeologists have suggested that this is ancient man's first attempt at pornography - I almost snorted my coffee when I read that one.
I believe that it probably represented a talisman to ensure the presence of real lactating females for the community. I believe that the status of women was connected to this. This is my own conclusion based on the many things I have read and a real anthropologist could well blow that theory out of the water but until I read something that makes more sense , I'll hang on to it.


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 13 January 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Though I still don't see how human lactation has much to do with the original subject of this thread, I think you're onto something very interesting, faith, and I think it might explain a lot.

So I guess the prehistoric art you described is, rather than a primitive attempt at pornography, the evolutionary precursor of ...modern dairy science.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 January 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So feeding a lactating woman in order to drink her milk would waste 10% of the caloric value of the food.

Boy, take something like this out of context and it looks pretty freaky, eh?

The simplest way to think of the entropy issue is this:

1. the lactating woman consumes food with a certain amount of food energy

2. her body uses some to fuel itself, and some to manufacture milk with food energy

3. after her body uses much of the original food energy on her own metabolic processes, how can what's left for the milk be more than what she started with?

4. if there is less food energy left than the food energy she started with, how could her milk feed more than the original food could?

Note: certainly her body could break down its own stored resources to make milk, but at that point, well, exploitation of women just hit its apogee.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 14 January 2005 02:23 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This got so weird so fast that i never had a chance to address the original topic. I think i'll start a new, simpler one, in body and soul.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 14 January 2005 03:24 AM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr. Magoo go to Lactogenesis lesson at this site and it will tell you everything you need to know about breast milk and the production of breast milk , including the fact that milk production does not depend on the nutritional intake of the mother.
The more the breast is emptied the more milk it produces, just amazing isn't it?

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Raos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5702

posted 14 January 2005 04:14 AM      Profile for Raos     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But the point is that it has to come from somewhere, lactating breast is not 'magically' creating milk. If a woman is consuming 1000 Calories a day, and is excreting 1200 Calories of breast milk in a day, that is not sustainable. She may continue to excrete that greater amount of milk, but its coming off of her body. She's going to be losing fat stores, and eventually muscle and bone mass. Using a lactating woman as a source of nurishment instead of eating the food directly is inefficient in the way Magoo was saying because for it to happen sustainable, as in not robbing the woman of her own body's energy stores, she needs to be consuming more calories worth of food than she is excreting as milk.
From: Sweet home Alaberta | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 January 2005 10:21 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
for it to happen sustainable, as in not robbing the woman of her own body's energy stores, she needs to be consuming more calories worth of food than she is excreting as milk.

And even then, it's not more efficient than simply feeding everyone with the food.

Her body takes some energy for the food for her own metabolic processes, some to make the milk, and due to the inefficiency of all real-world systems, some goes to waste.

The amount of available caloric energy once she's done is going to be less than what she started with.

Think of it a different way:

There's a drought. There's not enough water for everyone. It's decided that 3 people will drink all the water that's left, and then "pee out" enough for everyone else.

So, they drink the water, their body uses a considerable amount to digest food, sweat, respire, etc., and what's left over gets excreted. Is it obvious and intuitive to everyone that what gets peed out must be less than what went in?

If it's not, could anyone who's confused tell me where they think the extra water would be magically appearing from? Humans cannot "manufacture" water any more than we can "manufacture" calories, so where would the extra water come from?

And do we all understand that any "waste" in the system is never recovered? Like, whatever the 3 volunteers sweat out or breathe out is simply gone from the water that would otherwise be available for everyone? Same with the calories. If the lactating woman uses any of the calories in the food for anything other than making milk (eg: walking, breathing, living) then this caloric energy is not going to be returned to the system.

So even if the woman is on a 6000 calorie a day diet, she cannot produce 6000 calories worth of milk (unless she's willing to break down her own tissues to do so), so this scheme either means:

1. a total waste of food energy that would better be used directly.

or

2. a human "cow" that everyone can feed from until she's dead.

This, by the way, is a common vegetarian argument. If you feed grain to a cow and then eat the cow, you can't possibly get all the calories back that you put in. How could the cow exist without using up some of them? And so 10 million calories worth of grain result in 300,000 calories worth of beef, with the difference being all the energy the cow used during its life, along with any inefficiencies in the system.

This all, by the way, is quite independent of lactation or kidney function or anything else. No system can "magically" transform a small amount of energy into a larger amount of energy all by itself. Energy simply doesn't work that way.

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 14 January 2005 10:47 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
talk about thread drift ...

Maureen Dowd, where are you ??


From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 14 January 2005 10:54 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mommies, lactation - I can still see the original topic in there somewhere.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 14 January 2005 11:08 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Breastfeeding is amazing, true enough, but I don't think I've ever heard that it was a technique for the survival of adults, save the lactating woman on a life raft I read about some time ago (and no, I can't find the link right now). It is also a MAJOR license to eat, and most women need to keep on a few pounds of body fat to sustain lactation, especially at a high volume.

I don't think it has anything to do with men marrying their mothers, though.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 January 2005 11:18 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just to drift it a bit more...

Feeding a cow actually might be more productive, since they can eat low-quality vegetation that we can't and convert it to milk.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 14 January 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is obvious to me that none of the posters immediately above has bothered to read any of the links provided.
For you guys that are suddenly experts on breastfeeding- there is no corelation to the amount of calories a woman takes in and whether she produces milk or not.. The woman would have to be starving and dangerously dehydrated for her milk to dry up and if that were the case all of the systems in the body would be effected.
The lactation process is hormonal and is
dependant on the demand put on the mammary system. If your body can produce a rich home for an embryo every month and can produce new blood cells, grow bone density, produce semen and sperm why is it so weird to you guys that a female body produces milk?
That is what defines our place in the animal world - we are mammals after all.
I was always told you had to eat well to produce good milk , but all modern research shows that the diet of the mother (except in extreme circumstances ) does not have much effect on the milk.
The practise of nursing is declining all over the world for women and babies so I doubt that women would make themselves available for adult consumption. Modern practises aren't ancient ones though, and with evidence on ancient skeletons of frequent starvation, no food source would have been ignored.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 14 January 2005 01:17 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And it is obvious to me that you are deliberately ignoring the very valid points that are being made. Yes, a woman's body will eat itself alive to provide milk for a baby -- and since it's a body, not a mind, it will do it if it is fooled into thinking that several people are nursing babies.

But no, the milk fairies don't magically create milk on demand. It's converted from the food a woman eats or her stored fat. It is in no way more efficient than simply feeding the people directly -- unless of course one hates the nursing woman and want to see her die.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 14 January 2005 01:26 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RB I have addressed the arguments made above, (as they are the same arguments made previously which are not made anymore correct with repetition) with links to university classes on lactation , and a study on starvation which proves that the caloric intake for delaying death from starvation for an adult is less than that of a child.
You do realise that we are talking about ancient man here and not proposing that all adult males suddenly start drinking breast milk?
This topic is related to the status of women in ancient society, and is not a hot trend in nouvelle cuisine, have you read through the previous posts from the beginning ? From your hostile tone it would seem that you have the wrong impression of this discussion.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 14 January 2005 01:31 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
faith, perhaps the posters above did not read the links clearly, but I think you yourself did not read their posts clearly, and I think you're oversimplifying the issue.

First, it is not true that the caloric intake of the mother has no impact on lactation - you said so yourself in your most recent post. The whole thrust of the conversation here is whether or not a woman could sustain a group of adults who would starve if they did not have her milk. Therefore, we are discussing an emergency, low or zero food situation, which would fall under the category you described in your last post (situations where the mother is not getting her nutritional needs met).

I think (hope) we all agree that the method behind this is the lactating female body's willingness to cannibalise its own fat stores (and eventually muscles etc) in order to produce milk. Obviously, if the woman is not ingesting enough food to support her own metabolism *and* produce milk the milk supply will not dry up *right away*, BUT she will be drawing on her body's nutritional stores to continue lactating.

This statement does not negate your statement that 'milk supply is independent of caloric intake' (paraphrase), but by simple logic, if a lactating female *is* consuming sufficient calories, the milk production will draw upon ingested calories for its manufacture and substance rather than wasting more energy converting fat stores.

If I can interpret some of the posts above, what is being reiterated is that *if* a lactating woman is *not* obtaining sufficient calories to use the 'extra' calories consumed to fuel her milk supply, that milk supply will come at the expense of her own fat stores.

I am assuming that you have read and agree with the numerous statements that milk supplies don't get manufactured out of the air, the calories for production and content have to come from *somewhere*, and while most women can produce milk using ingested calories, if that is not possible it has to come from her own body.

And as for the other examples, semen, eggs, menstrual blood etc all require calories to produce. As does milk. The calories have to come from somewhere, either ingested or drawn from fat stores.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 14 January 2005 01:48 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK I'm not going to argue with anyone that refuses to read the source. i was surprised by what I found when I went to the links that are provided( one doesnt work by the way and I will repost for anyone who actually does want to read the research) as I had some of the same misconceptions that other posters have, but I will take the word of medical professionals that spend their lives researching this topic over a message board conversation, particularly when the posters refuse to read the research.
for those actually interested read here
http.//classes.aces.uiuc.edu/AnSci308/HumanLact.html

for those who don't care to go there -read here

quote:
Lactation. Milk production appears to continue in women so long as the infant is suckled more than one time per day. Two hormones are necessary for this continued production: oxytocin and prolactin. As discussed above oxytocin is necessary for the milk ejection reflex that extrudes milk from the alveolar lumen. Prolactin is necessary for continued milk production by the mammary alveoli. The secretion of both hormones is promoted by the afferent nerve impulses sent to the hypothalamus by the process of suckling. However, whereas the secretion of oxytocin is highly influenced by the activity of higher brain centers, prolactin secretion appears to be determined primarily by the strength and duration of the suckling stimulus. Although prolactin levels fall with prolonged lactation, at least some basal level appears to be necessary for continued milk production.

Role of local factors in regulation of milk production. There is growing evidence that the volume of milk produced by women is primarily a function of infant demand and is unaffected by maternal factors such as nutrition, age, parity (except at very high parities). From a physiological standpoint the important question is "how does the amount of milk withdrawn from the breast alter the rate of milk synthesis?" There appears to be no direct relation between prolactin levels and milk production and therefore it is thought that the rate of milk production depends on control mechanisms localized within the mammary gland. The milk itself contains an inhibitor of milk production (Feedback Inhibitor of Lactation; FIL) that builds up if the milk remains in the gland over a prolonged period of time. Adequate milk removal from the breast is absolutely necessary for continued milk production.

Also, for further information, see the Galactopoiesis Lesson.

Infant demand in the regulation of milk production. It is becoming increasingly clear that maternal nutrition and other maternal factors play a surprisingly small role in the regulation of human milk production. Furthermore, there appears to be a quantitative link between infant demand and the amount of milk produced. During weaning, the rate of milk production decreases in proportion to the amount of supplementary food taken in by the infant. These findings are important, because they suggest that infant factors should be considered first when problems of inadequate milk production are encountered.



All I suggested was that in an emergency situation (starvation) a woman that was lactating could possibly stave off starvation for a small group of adults as their nutritional needs are less than that of a child to survive in a crisis. I have provided links to support this but I see no links to prove that a woman has to have a huge amount of calories to produce milk.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 14 January 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by faith:
I have provided links to support this but I see no links to prove that a woman has to have a huge amount of calories to produce milk.

faith, no-one is saying that a woman needs to consume a huge number of calories in order to produce milk. That's why I wonder if you're reading the posts as carefully as you could.

Also, there is *nothing* in the quotes you posted that contradicts anything Magoo, RB or I have said.


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 14 January 2005 02:18 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I believe after carefully reading every post in this thread that people are clearly connecting milk supply with food intake of the mother - I could go back and quote Magoo, RealityBites and Anchoress but I don't want to, I'm tired of making a point with evidence, and being confronted with the same misconceptions t(o negate that point), I myself had before I did some research
I have actually learned a great deal about the capabilities of the female body with the different research I've done on the internet and that is good enough for me.
The point I was trying to make was concerning the status of women in ancient society , the research I have found would strengthen my hypothesis.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 January 2005 02:29 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Except you ignore your own evidence where it says

quote:
from a mean of about 50 ml per day on day two of lactation to about 500 ml per day on day 4. After this time there is a gradual volume increase to about 850 ml/day by three months postpartum.


I doubt 850ml/day as top production isnt going to help anyone. The article you quoted shows that milk production continues and that there is evidence that production is not dependant on issues like nutrition but that has nothing to do with amounts produced which do have to do with nutrition and calorie intake.

edited to add

This site goes through the makeup of breast milk and how what the mother eats, has a bearing on its makeup

You are not looking at the whole picture of the information you are getting. The infants demands set the pace of production, adhering to a 80-20 rule of production while sticking to the 850ml top production (which occurs by about 3 months post partum).

A starving women is a different picture because the studies are not looking at that but instead the average western woman who may or may not be experincin full production and wants to know how it works to increase or make it an adequate supply (since this article makes it clear its not unusual for women to be unable to lactate or cannot produce enough, or too much).

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

Edited to add again
Here we find it says "Maternal diet affects the constituents of the lipids but not the total fat content. When a mother's caloric intake is poor, fat is mobilized from maternal fat stores (primarily in the hips and thighs). "

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 January 2005 03:18 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
that people are clearly connecting milk supply with food intake of the mother

Faith, you don't seem to understand that you're effectively describing a "perpetual motion machine". A system that runs forever with no input of energy and no loss of energy due to inefficiency.

They simply do not, and cannot, exist. At this point your insisting that they do, in the form of breasts, and you're starting to look rather like you don't understand one of the basic tenets of science.

No system, breast or otherwise, can take in a unit of energy, use some, and output more than the original unit. It's like saying that 10-3=13. Or even that 10-3=10.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 January 2005 03:21 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geez Magoo, after all the work I went to above your post to impress you with 'proof'

*sigh* I'm gonna say bad things to my freemason brothers about you and thenthe bilderbergers will get you


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 January 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Geez Magoo, after all the work I went to above your post to impress you with 'proof'
*sigh* I'm gonna say bad things to my freemason brothers about you and thenthe bilderbergers will get you

It looks like that post ended up in the wrong place. Accident, or secret government spooks??

Ed'd to add: Oops. I get it now!

[ 14 January 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 14 January 2005 04:19 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
YOU BAD PEOPLE Didn't Josh make it clear when he opened this thread that you were to restrict yourselves to answering the initial question ? And here we are, with everything from the three little piggies to perpetual motion breats ? Well, didn't he ? .... Oops, he didn't.

Well, his research fellowship at the Blueboris Institute for Philosophical Studies is hereby cancelled.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 January 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, this thread didn't exactly turn out as I had anticipated. Serves me right for not sticking to left-brain babble.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 14 January 2005 04:57 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While it is true that a woman can continue to lactate while not consuming enough calories to sustain herself and milk production -- but only for a short time, and at detriment to herself. There is a reason that women use more calories when they lactate -- you are producing sustenance for more than one body, and the calories contained in breast milk have to come from somewhere, whether it is from the woman's intake or stores present in her body.

Another thing that a lot of women with low body fat find -- they can have trouble with milk production if they are not getting enough calories. It won't stop immediately, but it will gradually decrease. Many thin women find that they put on weight while nursing, or fail to lose some weight gained in pregnancy, and this is partly to sustain milk production.

Intake of vitamins, minerals, etc, also affects what is present in the milk. It has to come from somewhere.

I'm as big a proponent of the wonders of breastfeeding as anybody else -- having nursed both my kids for more than a year each. But there are limits even to the goddessness that is the female body.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca