Comments on: Ma Nature, why do you let these fools define you?

By: sigh

sigh — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:37:07 +0000

jeebus christo on a cracker, they want to define us into submission again (or is it still). not. going. to . happen. keep reading the shitty science for us. bad mother! bad mother!

“These kinds of seemingly innocuous and supposedly well-intentioned studies about women (let’s save the children!) are what make up the substantial body of work that keeps us out of the way so that men can carry on with the business of being fully realized human beings.”

Exactly!

By: carol

carol — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:17:47 +0000

Hmm, why do we need to medicalize it? I would think evolution would solve the problem. “bad” mothers wouldn’t manage to successfully raise children, so the gene dies out.

Oh, wait, that didn’t work yet? then maybe that’s not the damn problem….

By: Dizzy

Dizzy — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:57:19 +0000

Excellent point Megan. I hadn’t thought of it that way.

By: Megan

Megan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:15:02 +0000

I’m curious what kind of natural community order these mice have. If we stop seeing them in terms of western cultures ‘isolated family units’, and remember that if a gene survives (and survives prolifically) then it is frequently helpful to at least some situations, then might we not infer from the prevalence of the ‘neglectful mother’ mouse and the ability of the ‘good mother’ mouse to successfully raise foster babies that maybe there are female mice who are cut out for things other than mothering, and that it better serves the mouse community for motheringly inclined mice to raise more babies than their own so that the not motheringly inclined mice can do other productive mousely things?

No proof, of course. I just don’t get why genetics and darwinist thought always rules out the community. It always comes down to ‘good mothers make babies live and bad mothers make babies die therefore those bad mothers are unnatural.’