Conscription in Wartime & S-A-H-Parenting (aka SAHD =/= SAHM)
- Thread starter mandy123
- Start date
-
- Tags
- stay-at-home parents
@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).
@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.
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.
@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)?
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)?
@jeff333 I think that I'm just assuming evolution develop "hardware and firmware" (so to speak) that is specialized to newborns, infants, and young children ... and mothers ... and the relationship between them.
Now, fathers' "hardware and firmware" lacks those specialized features.
But - as I think we all agree - the modern workplace and military do not require the "hardware and firmware" that men have. So women can participate in the modern workplace and military. Because - as you put it - they don't have to lift hundreds of pounds.
So baby formula and food preservation do make it easier for a man to be a SAHP. I agree with that.
But I guess I'm assuming that evolutionary "hardware and firmware" is not limited to food production. So the gap is not closed for men performing SAHP duties the way the gap is closed for women flying fighter jets.
TLDR: I'm not discounting the value of food production and delivery helping men to SAHPs. But I think caring for and raising newborns, infants, and young children is about more than food production. And I think evolution would have specialized for those non-food needs as well.
Sorry that I'm sort of thinking through this in real time so it isn't as concise or punchy as one might want it to be ... thanks for being patient with me.
Now, fathers' "hardware and firmware" lacks those specialized features.
But - as I think we all agree - the modern workplace and military do not require the "hardware and firmware" that men have. So women can participate in the modern workplace and military. Because - as you put it - they don't have to lift hundreds of pounds.
So baby formula and food preservation do make it easier for a man to be a SAHP. I agree with that.
But I guess I'm assuming that evolutionary "hardware and firmware" is not limited to food production. So the gap is not closed for men performing SAHP duties the way the gap is closed for women flying fighter jets.
TLDR: I'm not discounting the value of food production and delivery helping men to SAHPs. But I think caring for and raising newborns, infants, and young children is about more than food production. And I think evolution would have specialized for those non-food needs as well.
Sorry that I'm sort of thinking through this in real time so it isn't as concise or punchy as one might want it to be ... thanks for being patient with me.
@mandy123 Hardware I’m on board with. That’s the pregnancy, milk production, post-pregnancy hormones, etc.
Firmware is where we disagree. So far you have only made assumptions. What “firmware” do women have that men do not have specifically? The ability to be caring and loving? The ability to bond with a child? The ability to teach a child?
Where does that information come from? Studies? Social norms?
Firmware is where we disagree. So far you have only made assumptions. What “firmware” do women have that men do not have specifically? The ability to be caring and loving? The ability to bond with a child? The ability to teach a child?
Where does that information come from? Studies? Social norms?
@jeff333 I am not well-educated in these technical areas and I won't pretend to be. I'm not equipped nor do I have any desire to engage in a battle of the studies or "my expert is more expert than your expert" style argument that is all-too-common on Reddit.
I really am just proceeding along these lines:
(1) I believe in evolution [even though I'm no expert in evolution]
(2) I believe evolution shapes are biology, our neurology, or endocrinology, and our psychology and sociology [even though I'm no expert in any of those fields]
(3) I believe each of those (and possibly other) aspects of human existence shape our capacities, talents, behaviors, performances
(4) I believe that in the human species, men and women have evolved to specialize [but I don't know exactly how to draw that Venn-diagram of what things are identical between the sexes versus distinct]
(5) I believe one aspect of that specialized evolution is child-bearing, birthing, and caring. The first two are clearly manifest in biology: actual organs and bone structure and so forth.
(6) We know that men and women are different neurologically, endocrinologically, psychologically, and sociologically.
(7) Therefore, it would be a valid inference to draw that at least some of those differences are the result of evolution-driven tailoring toward better child-care.
...
So, before we get studies and experts and empiricism involved (which I'm open to; I just don't want to jump ahead) --- it seems to me that #4 and #7 above are the most tenuous.
Do you agree #4 and #7 are the most tenuous (e.g. would benefit most from further argument or evidence to revise or validate them); or do you see other, more pressing issues with this chain of logic ?
I really am just proceeding along these lines:
(1) I believe in evolution [even though I'm no expert in evolution]
(2) I believe evolution shapes are biology, our neurology, or endocrinology, and our psychology and sociology [even though I'm no expert in any of those fields]
(3) I believe each of those (and possibly other) aspects of human existence shape our capacities, talents, behaviors, performances
(4) I believe that in the human species, men and women have evolved to specialize [but I don't know exactly how to draw that Venn-diagram of what things are identical between the sexes versus distinct]
(5) I believe one aspect of that specialized evolution is child-bearing, birthing, and caring. The first two are clearly manifest in biology: actual organs and bone structure and so forth.
(6) We know that men and women are different neurologically, endocrinologically, psychologically, and sociologically.
(7) Therefore, it would be a valid inference to draw that at least some of those differences are the result of evolution-driven tailoring toward better child-care.
...
So, before we get studies and experts and empiricism involved (which I'm open to; I just don't want to jump ahead) --- it seems to me that #4 and #7 above are the most tenuous.
Do you agree #4 and #7 are the most tenuous (e.g. would benefit most from further argument or evidence to revise or validate them); or do you see other, more pressing issues with this chain of logic ?
Just putting this here for ease of tracing the thread:
@jeff333/
>My initial set of questions would be:
>What did men evolve to specialize in?
Hunting & Gathering.
>What non-biological factors are impacted by that?
Spacial relations
Risk-taking
Dissociating from stress
>Why does the non-biological specialization factor in for men caring for children, but not for women entering the workforce or military?
Because the modern workforce and typical military function involves less risk-taking and less stress than primitive hunting and gathering; and spacial relations are augmented by technology.
>Why does this all only apply to newborn/young children? (like what happens at the age of 6ish that suddenly makes men on par with women for childcare?)
Because at that (or some-such developmental milestone), children become less dependent, develop more cognitive abilities, etc. Like - that's the age of 1st grade-ish.
>Without relying on actual studies, how can we separate what is evolutionary and what is due to societal pressure and norms?
Maybe we will need some study to do that. I just want to precisely identify and scope what it is we're trying to validate or revise so we can find the right study (if one exists) to address the linchpin issue(s).
@jeff333/
>My initial set of questions would be:
>What did men evolve to specialize in?
Hunting & Gathering.
>What non-biological factors are impacted by that?
Spacial relations
Risk-taking
Dissociating from stress
>Why does the non-biological specialization factor in for men caring for children, but not for women entering the workforce or military?
Because the modern workforce and typical military function involves less risk-taking and less stress than primitive hunting and gathering; and spacial relations are augmented by technology.
>Why does this all only apply to newborn/young children? (like what happens at the age of 6ish that suddenly makes men on par with women for childcare?)
Because at that (or some-such developmental milestone), children become less dependent, develop more cognitive abilities, etc. Like - that's the age of 1st grade-ish.
>Without relying on actual studies, how can we separate what is evolutionary and what is due to societal pressure and norms?
Maybe we will need some study to do that. I just want to precisely identify and scope what it is we're trying to validate or revise so we can find the right study (if one exists) to address the linchpin issue(s).
@mandy123 My dude. You should have just stopped when you admitted you had zero expertise here. You can believe all you want, but what most people these days don’t get is that if you don’t already have some expertise, just simply reading a study or two often leaves one unable to correctly interpret the results so people just make up their own interpretation to fit their schema, which is very often completely incorrect. And no, I don’t care to elaborate here because it’s not only impossible, but also very unpleasant to even try to distill knowledge gained in many years of study into a comment or two to an already disingenuous question. But if you’d like to hire me for tutoring, I’d consider it if you pay me enough.
@tiffiena I invite you to explain how people are supposed to navigate life if they are only allowed to think, speak, or act within arenas where they are not experts.
Navigating life cuts across countless arenas.
Nearly all people are not experts in nearly all arenas.
So there seems to be no way for people to navigate life at all, by your way if thinking.
Navigating life cuts across countless arenas.
Nearly all people are not experts in nearly all arenas.
So there seems to be no way for people to navigate life at all, by your way if thinking.
@mandy123 Lol. One can always learn. But speaking with an air of authority on something you haven’t spent any time actually learning is the problem. You’re not really seeking to learn here. You’ve developed some uneducated hypotheses backed up by nothing more than “this seems about right to me” and that just so happens to fit your already existing schema. And then you try to actually educate others on this drivel.
@mandy123 I’d be interested to hear what others have to say about this as well, but from my point of view, the differences in the built-in “mom” vs. “dad” wiring my husband and I have compared to the built-in “parent” wiring that we both share is fairly minimal.
My hormones from birth helped me bond quickly with baby, and I feel I had an adrenaline boost that helped me cope with the first few intense weeks of interrupted sleep a bit better than my husband. But after that short period of time, it was mostly learning on the job with practice and trial and error for me the same as it was for my husband. My husband used to speak to our babies in the womb and he did skin-to-skin with them after they were born which both help facilitate similar bonding that mothers and babies experience.
My hypothesis is that pre-existing beliefs about the significance of gender in regards to childrearing often become self-fulfilling prophecies. If one or both members of a couple believe that a woman is inherently going to be more gifted in caring for the children, that gets reinforced through behavior like the dad being more stand-offish and the mom more often taking charge and doing the majority of caregiving tasks. Then the mom does become a more skilled caregiver because she’s the one getting the majority of experience with it.
My husband had a 6-week paternity leave with our firstborn and during that time we divided the labor so that I was doing the majority of feedings and he was doing the majority of everything else (diapers, soothing, putting down for naps, baths, etc.) He’s still the expert between us in most of those things because even after going back work at his paid job he’s still putting in a lot of time with them. I would (and still will) be asking him for tips about how to successfully get our little ones to transfer to the crib for sleep and things like that.
My hormones from birth helped me bond quickly with baby, and I feel I had an adrenaline boost that helped me cope with the first few intense weeks of interrupted sleep a bit better than my husband. But after that short period of time, it was mostly learning on the job with practice and trial and error for me the same as it was for my husband. My husband used to speak to our babies in the womb and he did skin-to-skin with them after they were born which both help facilitate similar bonding that mothers and babies experience.
My hypothesis is that pre-existing beliefs about the significance of gender in regards to childrearing often become self-fulfilling prophecies. If one or both members of a couple believe that a woman is inherently going to be more gifted in caring for the children, that gets reinforced through behavior like the dad being more stand-offish and the mom more often taking charge and doing the majority of caregiving tasks. Then the mom does become a more skilled caregiver because she’s the one getting the majority of experience with it.
My husband had a 6-week paternity leave with our firstborn and during that time we divided the labor so that I was doing the majority of feedings and he was doing the majority of everything else (diapers, soothing, putting down for naps, baths, etc.) He’s still the expert between us in most of those things because even after going back work at his paid job he’s still putting in a lot of time with them. I would (and still will) be asking him for tips about how to successfully get our little ones to transfer to the crib for sleep and things like that.
@alearose
I really do think there is a lot to this.
At the same time, I wonder about the extent to which there are self-fulfilling prophesies that cut in the opposite direction as well. For example, if we place greater value and incentives and positive feedback on adolescents and young adults of both sexes focusing on academic and career achievement rather than domestic roles and responsibilities, then you end up with women and men who are equally unprepared for parenting and family life. But that equality of (un)preparedness is a consequence of cultural currents and social decisions.
Now, that doesn't say anything about hardware and firmware "wiring" one way or the other. It's only to observe that any decision anyone makes is going to put a thumb on the scale - whether you're telling young women ...
"we expect you to settle down and raise a family"
or you're telling them "we expect you to be an independent, educated professional"
or you're telling them "we expect you to do it all"
or you're telling them "we don't care what you do - do whatever you want"
... each of those will yield some benefit and some cost / risk - to that young woman; to her future marriage (if any) and family (if any); to her children (if any); to the economy ... etc.
So, I have to think more about the self-fulfilling prophecy paradoxes [shouldn't that be paradoxeN?] - but I agree it's a major consideration.
Thank you.
I really do think there is a lot to this.
At the same time, I wonder about the extent to which there are self-fulfilling prophesies that cut in the opposite direction as well. For example, if we place greater value and incentives and positive feedback on adolescents and young adults of both sexes focusing on academic and career achievement rather than domestic roles and responsibilities, then you end up with women and men who are equally unprepared for parenting and family life. But that equality of (un)preparedness is a consequence of cultural currents and social decisions.
Now, that doesn't say anything about hardware and firmware "wiring" one way or the other. It's only to observe that any decision anyone makes is going to put a thumb on the scale - whether you're telling young women ...
"we expect you to settle down and raise a family"
or you're telling them "we expect you to be an independent, educated professional"
or you're telling them "we expect you to do it all"
or you're telling them "we don't care what you do - do whatever you want"
... each of those will yield some benefit and some cost / risk - to that young woman; to her future marriage (if any) and family (if any); to her children (if any); to the economy ... etc.
So, I have to think more about the self-fulfilling prophecy paradoxes [shouldn't that be paradoxeN?] - but I agree it's a major consideration.
Thank you.
@mandy123 Yeah, definitely the self-fulfilling prophecies can go in any direction to a large extent. My husband and I were both raised in a conservative religion with rather strict gender roles (Mormonism), but by the time we had our children we had mostly left the church and taken some time to try to disentangle what we had been taught about human nature from what we believe is actually fundamentally true. I wouldn’t say we both were unprepared for being parents, but rather that we both thought we were each capable of being good parents as we made the effort to become so. There’s a lot of other factors in our relationship with our different personalities, extended family backgrounds, and professional training as well, but my comment could go on indefinitely if I started to go into that. 
@alearose That's very interesting - thank you for sharing that.
My wife and I were both raised in a basically secular, left-leaning way - both believing that we should focus on our careers and earn enough that we could afford childcare and schools and programs to take care of raising our children.
That didn't work out for us - either our marriage or our children.
That's why I'm a SAHP (hence "Mr. Homemaker").
So part of this is me trying to understand where the truth is behind all the cultural, political, and religious ideology and propaganda.
My wife and I were both raised in a basically secular, left-leaning way - both believing that we should focus on our careers and earn enough that we could afford childcare and schools and programs to take care of raising our children.
That didn't work out for us - either our marriage or our children.
That's why I'm a SAHP (hence "Mr. Homemaker").
So part of this is me trying to understand where the truth is behind all the cultural, political, and religious ideology and propaganda.
@mandy123 I don’t mean to cross the threads here, but since you directed me to this comment, I have a few follow up questions.
How do you define a SAHP? Is it any parent who spends any amount of time away from work to be with their child? Or is it someone who has left (or never entered workforce) the workforce in order to raise kids? Or is there another more nuanced definition you have?
I’m assuming you aren’t defining a SAHP based entirely around breastfeeding and the time before a child is weaned, but your comment implies that that’s the main factor.
How do you define a SAHP? Is it any parent who spends any amount of time away from work to be with their child? Or is it someone who has left (or never entered workforce) the workforce in order to raise kids? Or is there another more nuanced definition you have?
I’m assuming you aren’t defining a SAHP based entirely around breastfeeding and the time before a child is weaned, but your comment implies that that’s the main factor.
@kglahoda I hadn't given any thought to the boundary around or definition of "SAHP." I guess I mean anyone who is primarily focused on homemaking and child rearing.
I didn't mean to limit the scope or focus on breastfeeding. I'm assuming that evolutionary specialization extends beyond impregnation, childbirth, and breastfeeding; that evolution has tailored and specialized a mother's biology, neurology, endocrinology, and psychology to effectively care for infants and young children, even after they are weened.
I didn't mean to limit the scope or focus on breastfeeding. I'm assuming that evolutionary specialization extends beyond impregnation, childbirth, and breastfeeding; that evolution has tailored and specialized a mother's biology, neurology, endocrinology, and psychology to effectively care for infants and young children, even after they are weened.