Author
|
Topic: Do men just want mommy?
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 13 January 2005 11:24 AM
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
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 13 January 2005 12:05 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 13 January 2005 12:34 PM
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 12:51 PM
*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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 13 January 2005 02:33 PM
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 13 January 2005 03:01 PM
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
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 13 January 2005 03:03 PM
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 January 2005 03:16 PM
[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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 13 January 2005 03:29 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 January 2005 03:35 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 January 2005 03:41 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888
|
posted 13 January 2005 04:16 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 January 2005 04:50 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 January 2005 05:03 PM
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
|
|
|
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341
|
posted 13 January 2005 05:09 PM
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
|
|
|
|
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348
|
posted 13 January 2005 05:46 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 13 January 2005 06:47 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 January 2005 12:38 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 14 January 2005 10:21 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650
|
posted 14 January 2005 01:31 PM
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
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.htmlfor 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
|
|
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 14 January 2005 02:29 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 14 January 2005 04:57 PM
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
|
|
|