That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology.
We're not inter-changeable thinking machines. He have cultures and we have bodies.
For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. The same for not breast-feeding. Distance from father, much less so. Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it.
So, no, just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true.
> For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development.
Interesting. Citation please.
> The same for not breast-feeding.
I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies?
> Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it.
I am more interested in when the baby is out of the womb.
> just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true.
Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).
I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies?
I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is:
"The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving. Non Parental care giving involved both relatives (kinship care) and non relatives (Day care). The NICHD study was based on the ecological theory of Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979) [29]. Analysis of the effects of family and child care revealed that the characteristics of the family and the nature and quality of the mothers relationship with the child was a significantly better predictor of childrens outcome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_displacement#Effects_on_a...
Merely quoting the easiest sources, there are lots of studies to be found online.
>I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies?
(Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point)
>Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).
It still takes a woman to give birth to a child. And while a "man is capable of raising a child in a normal way", that doesn't say much. Also an orphanage is capable of raising a child -- or "the streets", as it happens in some third world countries. Maybe even wolves, if we believe this Mowgli story. But, some hundred thousands years of evolution say the child optimally needs two parents, female and male.
That said, some people consider a child a vanity accessory one can just buy for himself --or had it delivered. From my not-so-PC standpoint, I'd call those people selfish consumers that deserve to be mocked, but sadly aren't as much as they used to be:
> I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now.
That's a crazy attitude. If you make statements that are not generally known by the community in question, you should back what you say up. Not expect every single person who reads your post to fact check you or (worse) blindly accept what you say.
This attitude just encourages wild, unverifiable statements.
> I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is:
This thing called Google returns results from the web, and any crackpot can have a page indexed. You are not required to, but the onus of citing is on you when you are making a claim which isn't known to the demographic in question.
> That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology.
>> The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving
What relevance you non-parental care giving has to do with a father raising a child?
> Attachment theory describes the dynamics of long-term relationships between humans. Its most important tenet is that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for social and emotional development to occur normally.
Why are you quoting "maternal deprivation" when it is superseded by "attachment theory"? Attachment theory talks about "at least one parent" and your claims are mother is more important.
>> (Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point)
You are conveniently ignoring the studies which didn't find causation or correlation.
> Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk).
>> It still takes a woman to give birth to a child. And while a "man is capable of raising a child in a normal way", that doesn't say much. Also an orphanage is capable of raising a child -- or "the streets", as it happens in some third world countries. Maybe even wolves, if we believe this Mowgli story. But, some hundred thousands years of evolution say the child optimally needs two parents, female and male.
Now you are being simple, plain ridiculous. Did I question it takes a woman to give birth? What purpose that bullshit about woman required to give birth serve?
And the bit about orphanage and streets? A father raising a child is analogous, right?
And thousand years of evolution says a child optimally need two parents? Now you are simply pulling things out of your ass. Do you even know what evolution means?
> That said, some people consider a child a vanity accessory one can just buy for himself --or had it delivered. From my not-so-PC standpoint, I'd call those people selfish consumers that deserve to be mocked, but sadly aren't as much as they used to be:
More hyperbole. I didn't click the link. I didn't put forward the argument about child being an accessory, and have no interests in knowing about your solid refutations to the points I, or no one else here made or implied.
Your disclaimer about not being PC compliant is getting irritating. That not being PC compliant disclaimer comes into play only after you are correct(and no, quoting correlation as absolutes isn't being correct). If you aren't correct, being PC or not means shit.
Actually it's the idea that they are equal that is a "talking point" without a citation.
It's pure ideology: "we should be, and therefore we are", which takes for granted what it ought to prove.
Plus, when we are faced with some thousands of years of history, common worldwide family patterns, and similar observations in nature to that effect, then it's the counter claim that should come with evidence (extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, burden of proof, etc).
" and similar observations in nature to that effect"
Which one? Examples without mammals that breast feed their offspring which a male in mammals can't do?
Or did you mean elephants, "The females spend their entire lives in tightly knit family groups made up of mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunts." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant
so we should raise our chilren in tightly knit groups and drive the males away?
Should we throw marriage out because nearly no mammals have long monogamic relationships?
"Plus, when we are faced with some thousands of years of history, common worldwide family patterns, and similar observations in nature to that effect"
Your lack of citations seems to be a modus operandi.
One which resembles our own, duh. The idea is that each group came to develop in a specific way. So, no, a counter-example with some foreign to us animal wont cut it.
>Should we throw marriage out because nearly no mammals have long monogamic relationships?
This is something we developed, culturally, but since you ask, why not? Its not as if we havent already, what with divorce, polygamous arab cultures, adultery et al...
>Your lack of citations seems to be a modus operandi.
Its a forum, not an encyclopaedia article. Do you discuss with citations? If yes, You must be very popular at parties. In an case, the intertubes are one click away. Feel free to investigate what I said
That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology.
We're not inter-changeable thinking machines. He have cultures and we have bodies.
For example, distance from mother during early months has been shown to have negative effects on the child's development. The same for not breast-feeding. Distance from father, much less so. Hell, even negative feelings felt by the mother while the child is in the womb are shown to affect it.
So, no, just because some people have wishful thinking dogmas that "we are exactly the same", "interchangeable" etc, it doesn't mean it's true.