Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For every research out there that claims to prove it is a social construct there is equal, if not more, research that claims to prove it is innate. It would be reasonable that mothers have a greater instinctual drive to care for young, they had nine more months to bond with the child than a father and, prior to current societal constructs that are capable overriding instinct and easy access to usable nutrition created outside the human body, if the mother didn't sacrifice her wellbeing to care for the child that child died - unless some other woman appropriated the child. Prior to formula a child could survive without a father, they could not without a mother. I know these days we like to pretend biology doesn't matter when it comes to anything related to gender, well sorry, it absolutely does unless our intellect has contrived a way to bypass natural functions.
So, we have created a social construct that negates innate gender roles. Based on that, it is no longer an automatic assumption that a mother should spend more time child rearing than the other parent.
So that sounds like an argument for social construct. If we can, and we are, creating a society where dad is as capable and willing to nurture and care for his children in a way that has previously been done by mom it would support social construct over innate behavior.
Because most of the society (men AND women) think that women have the "maternal instinct" BS and should do most of the work
It's family planning. People should not bring a person into this world if they don't have the means to raise them or in agreement with their outlook on society.
So that sounds like an argument for social construct. If we can, and we are, creating a society where dad is as capable and willing to nurture and care for his children in a way that has previously been done by mom it would support social construct over innate behavior.
My arguement is that Dad's "maternal instinct" is a social construct and Mom's maternal instinct is primarily innate, although it is generally reinforced by social constructs.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
According to opinions i ve been reading in other threads in this forum, it seems that people here seem to assume WOMEN are responsible for raising kids for the most part. They might have a job or work few hours but they expect them to do the most part of the raising. They assume its gonna be like that. I get it, this is a highly conservative forum, and those are for the traditional values of family, etc.
But if you think like that, can you justify it? Is it from a biological point of view? Purely social? Why?
I know some fabulous dads who equally share child raising duties and I even know some super ones who are 100% responsible. Kudos to them, make that huge kudos. HOWEVER, the mother-baby bond is real and it's proven to be beneficial. There are numerous reports in scientific journals, it's biological in nature. The mom shouldn't have sole responsibility, that's ridiculous. But, in order to maintain the mother-baby bond, the mom should have the most one on one time with the baby.
No. I don't think the time demands are equal, but children have to spend a substantial amount of their time with their father to become successful adults.
The amount of time may not be as important to the quality of the time spent. Fathers teach their daughters what a loving, responsible man is all about and how they work, and fathers teach their sons how to be that kind of man when they are grown and having children of their own.
Fathers also teach their kids of both sexes things like mechanics, math, tool usage, and other essentials that are equally useful to both boys and girls, and that knowledge also gives them a sense of confidence and self-confidence.
Mothers are vital to all children. But a well-nurtured child needs both parents' nurturing to be at their best through life. Parent's jobs may differ, and the amount of time differs, but both are equally needed.
Yes, it has been that way in nature for millions of years. Mothers are more nurturing due to instinct. That's not to say that men can't help, but the primary role holder should be the mother.
I think this is obvious to just about everyone... until they encounter feminist propaganda.
According to opinions i ve been reading in other threads in this forum, it seems that people here seem to assume WOMEN are responsible for raising kids for the most part. They might have a job or work few hours but they expect them to do the most part of the raising. They assume its gonna be like that. I get it, this is a highly conservative forum, and those are for the traditional values of family, etc.
But if you think like that, can you justify it? Is it from a biological point of view? Purely social? Why?
Well most men are raised by women and the results are generally thought to be a less than desirable result.
Go figure, so much disappointment in the product that women produce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
