Conscription in Wartime & S-A-H-Parenting (aka SAHD =/= SAHM)

[jeff333]

@mandy123 I don’t think being a SAHP maps onto serving in the military (or the reverse). Since this is a parenting subreddit, I don’t really feel like delving into thoughts on the military beyond that.

 

[mandy123]

@jeff333 Ok.

Thanks anyway.

 

[alearose]

@mandy123 Do you have any empirical basis for thought 2? I’m not inclined to agree that it’s true in either case (military or being a SAHP) that one gender has a significant advantage over the other. Obviously there some biological differences between the sexes, but I’m not sure that matters in contemporary warfare or parenting. It seems like the use of technology evens out a lot of things that might have mattered in ancient times (the military seems to involve less man-to-man combat than long-range weapons which women are perfectly capable of operating; breast pumps and/or formula and bottles make men as able to feed and care for young children as women).

 

[mandy123]

@alearose I do think you're really onto something to point out the impact of technology - I do believe that is a linchpin to everything we think and do. However, I think the impacts of technology have been far greater in the arenas of (a) military, and (b) white-collar careers than they have been in (c) SAHP-ing.

I think there's a strong argument that while it may have made sense for Roman Legions to be men only, technology has dramatically reduced the biological advantage or rationale for choosing men over women as fighter pilots or radar operators.

Similarly, I think there's a strong argument that while it may have made sense for coal miners and steel workers to be only men, technology has dramatically reduced the biological advantage or rationale for choosing men over women as crane operators or lawyers.

So both of those (^) are "Pull Factors" for women entering those arenas. I get that.

But help me out here - because I really don't think we can say the same thing with regard to newborn, infants, and young children. Biologically, neurologically, psychologically - a newborn is still working on the "hardware and firmware" developed by evolution hundreds or thousands of years ago. And so are the mother and father. So if we entertain any theories that newborns and women have evolved specialized biology, neurology, endocrinology, or psychology capabilities and systems ... then those capabilities and systems are still in full effect today for newborns and mothers ... and fathers don't have those specialized capabilities and systems.

There are no comparable "Pull Factors" for men entering SAHP-ing.

So, acknowledging baby formula as a substitute for breastfeeding - it would be surprising to me for us to expect that (a) there is no evolved specialization relevant to newborn, infant, or young-childcare; or (b) that evolution is keeping up in real time with our technological advances.

I'm eager to hear you thoughts on this.

 

[jeff333]

@mandy123 You’re discounting technology from the SAHP realm because it doesn’t fit your narrative. Breast pumps, food preservation advances, formula… these are huge advances that allow men to fulfill the role of SAHP for newborns. Those are the pull factors.

You don’t need the strength to lift hundreds of pounds, because now we have the technology that supplements that.

You don’t need to produce breast milk to care for a newborn, because now we have the technology that supplements that.

As for the psychological and neurological side of things, what are the systems you’re referencing? How have been proven to exist, and in what ways do they give women advantage in child rearing? And if they do exist, why are out-of-home technology advances a pull for women (who under your assumption are evolutionarily primed for child rearing), while in-home advances are not a pull for men (who under your assumption are not evolutionarily primed for child rearing)?