Do Women Really Have a Nurturing Nature?

[MMX2010]

I don't see how anyone who read "The Origins of War In Child Abuse" can seriously believe that women have a nurturing nature. 

 

The book chronicles, in gut-wrenching detail, the ubiquity of violent parenting practices from the dawn of man up until about 1850.  At this point, the author confidently states, "Every child born on or before 1850 can be classified as a battered child."  In anthropological terms, this means that only six generations of women have thought, "Hey, maybe we shouldn't be violent towards our children.  Maybe there's a more peaceful way to raise them."

 

And even today, Stefan has repeatedly cited studies indicating that 75% (or more) of modern women support violence against children. 

 

Thus, there is no evidence to support the argument that "Women have a nurturing nature".  If anything, the available evidence supports the opposite argument that either, "Women have a violent nature." or "Women have a non-nurturing nature." 

 

Agree or disagree? 

[shirgall]

What I have seen is the claim that women are "more nurturing than males" but that's a comparison to a poor substitute and not a paragon. "More nurturing than a cat" is similar, as recent studies indicate that cats won't even wait until your body is cold before eating your face if they're hungry.

[J. D. Stembal]

Can hypergamy or evolutionary biology have any moral content?

 

We need to explore this question before going down the road of discussing female nature. I don't know if violence against children is borne out of tribalism, religion, or biology, but I think we can all agree that it exists and that women contribute a key role in promoting it. As Mr. Molyneux says (paraphrased), "If we can convince women to stop dating assholes, we would have a more peaceful society."

 

If we only limit our scope of discussion to biological determinism, we run the risk of letting violent people off the hook for their actions, just like the feminists do with their theory of the patriarchy. It is important to consider our animal origins, and our close proximity to the instinct to kill and eat babies, but only after all parties involved accept free will.

 

MMX, have you read Sex at Dawn? It would be very insightful to read it after OWCA for a comparison especially with consideration for the question of nuturing. Feminist ideology tends to paint our tribal past with a rose-colored hue while glossing over our shared history with the animal kingdom. Evolution doesn't care about the moral content of the four categories of property rights violations. Many parents punish their children because they claim their children are possessed by a demon or animal spirit. How can we begin to convince people that although we have a very violent history as a species, humans are not evil in nature?

[PGP]

Sometimes I think about child-rearing like this: it is preparing the child for the reality of the adult world they will have to operate in. Therefore, for most of human history, perhaps brutalising your child and turning them into a monster was necessary to their survival. 

This is why peaceful parenting is a revolutionary act because it is trying to prepare a child for a future that will be shared with brutalised, traumatised adults.

[MMX2010]

What I have seen is the claim that women are "more nurturing than males" but that's a comparison to a poor substitute and not a paragon. "More nurturing than a cat" is similar, as recent studies indicate that cats won't even wait until your body is cold before eating your face if they're hungry.

 

Right.  And framing the question that way presumes that most women are capable of raising children effectively, whereas my question, "Do Women Really Have A Nurturing Nature?", is open to the possibility that most women aren't capable. 

 

 

 

Can hypergamy or evolutionary biology have any moral content?

 

 

In my opinion, hypergamy is anti-social / sociopathic, whereas evolutionary biology is amoral.  People who wish evolutionary biology is false will incorrectly label it as anti-social / sociopathic, but it is completely unconcerned with either maintaining / destroying civilization.  Hypergamy, on the other hand, prefers to destroy any civilization.

 

 

 

If we only limit our scope of discussion to biological determinism, we run the risk of letting violent people off the hook for their actions, just like the feminists do with their theory of the patriarchy. It is important to consider our animal origins, and our close proximity to the instinct to kill and eat babies, but only after all parties involved accept free will.

 

My question doesn't want to let anyone off the hook for their violent actions.  Instead, it's focused on "the degree to which women pad their resumes by extremely large amounts, in order to garner resources from men and society". 

 

If women do indeed have a nurturing nature, then my general distrust of women is idiotic and harmful to everyone.  But if women don't have a nurturing nature, then anyone who presumes that women are nurturing in nature is idiotic and harmful to everyone. 

 

 

 

MMX, have you read Sex at Dawn?

 

Not yet, but it's on my reading list. 

 

 

 

Sometimes I think about child-rearing like this: it is preparing the child for the reality of the adult world they will have to operate in. Therefore, for most of human history, perhaps brutalising your child and turning them into a monster was necessary to their survival. 

This is why peaceful parenting is a revolutionary act because it is trying to prepare a child for a future that will be shared with brutalised, traumatised adults.

 

I don't agree with your definition of child-rearing.  I'd say, "Preparing your child for the reality of the adult world they will have to operate in, while also minimizing the amount of pain / suffering caused to the child."  When I frame child-rearing this way, it automatically asks, "Do the majority of parents actually minimize the pain / suffering they cause their children?" 

[PGP]

Definition of nurture: 

1.  to feed and protect:

to nurture one's offspring.

2.

to support and encourage, as during the period of training or development; foster:

to nurture promising musicians.

 

Why would nurturing involve peaceful means? Rearing is primarily to raise the likelihood of survival. Happiness is a possibility if survival is achieved.  Brutal childhoods were a means to an end, an innoculation against the likely future environment and a desensitisation. The peaceful parenting approach is likely only a possibility and a capability for a small percentage of the planets population in 2015, never mind the past. Peaceful parenting is an adaptation to the current conditions of the species. It is an effort to ensure the future existence of the species because the old ways will simply lead us to ruin. As long as women can brutalise their children with the notion that it will be advantageous to their survival or because they or too dumb to see the difference, they will continue to do so. Raising children in a rational and loving manner is the kernel of hope for the future and I think it will be championed by men, not women. A look at the profile of those on this forum is circumstantial evidence in this regard but what else do we have to go on?

[J. D. Stembal]

In my opinion, hypergamy is anti-social / sociopathic, whereas evolutionary biology is amoral.  People who wish evolutionary biology is false will incorrectly label it as anti-social / sociopathic, but it is completely unconcerned with either maintaining / destroying civilization.  Hypergamy, on the other hand, prefers to destroy any civilization.

 

http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf (Just search the document for relevant parts on the institution of marriage. Do not attempt to read the whole piece!)

 

Many, in traditional conservative circles, have argued that hypergamy is the evolutionary force that propelled civilization. I know some in the MGTOW community would disagree and cite Tesla and the Wright brothers, but by and large, you would have to debunk the institution of marriage and its role in promoting the industriousness of disposable men who like having access to teats and wombs. If deep down in our lizard brains, we understand our wives will leave us and take the kids if we cannot provide resources, isn't that an incentive to keep providing resources? Or is it a deterrent? Does it promote risk avoidance in men?

 

There are so many more great questions I haven't thought of yet.

 

My beef is that the state is now so intimately tied in with marriage that there is very little trust left in the jar. No man wants to rock the boat in a marriage for fear of a John Woo movie erupting from the baby's crib. Try convincing your future spouse that you want no marriage license and no birth certificates, no circumcision and no religion, no public school, no politics, no state, and no feminism in the family. She will most likely label you as insane, as I was.

 

It is well established that hypergamy comes out of the biological necessities of pregnancy and child rearing, so by definition, it should also have no moral content.

 

 

My question doesn't want to let anyone off the hook for their violent actions.  Instead, it's focused on "the degree to which women pad their resumes by extremely large amounts, in order to garner resources from men and society". 

 

If women do indeed have a nurturing nature, then my general distrust of women is idiotic and harmful to everyone.  But if women don't have a nurturing nature, then anyone who presumes that women are nurturing in nature is idiotic and harmful to everyone. 

 

Is there a required resume for motherhood? I'm more than reasonably sure all you need is a turkey baster and a homeless man to fill it up (also, some food to barter for the sperm).

 

Don't paint yourself as an idiot. I'm sure your fear and distrust is well-founded. As a man, I know why this would be the case. It's because mom didn't tell you what to expect from women, and you were not prepared, just as I was not prepared. My sex talk was my mom tossing a book at me while I was doing homework, and running away.

 

You want to know how my mother responded when I told her that I was raped by my ex-girlfriend in this past year?

 

That is more information than I want to know about you.

 

Literally, I was brushed off with a TMI by my own mother.

[shirgall]

Sometimes I think about child-rearing like this: it is preparing the child for the reality of the adult world they will have to operate in. Therefore, for most of human history, perhaps brutalising your child and turning them into a monster was necessary to their survival. 

 

This is why peaceful parenting is a revolutionary act because it is trying to prepare a child for a future that will be shared with brutalised, traumatised adults.

 

However, we know that the most effective and resilient child is not the brutalized one. The most effective and resilient adult only has to slay demons outside of him or herself, and isn't held back by the additional ones inside. The most effective and resilient society engulfs traumatized children like white blood cells to empathetically support them when they need it most, instead of eating our young like an autoimmune disorder.

 

It shouldn't be revolutionary. Prominent child experts have risen for generations giving loud and strident advice on peaceful parenting.

[J. D. Stembal]

Regarding Sex at Dawn... (fake edit)

 

One of the most relevant sections of the book talks about life expectancy and child mortality of Paleolithic and Neolithic humans. It is often erroneously thought that no one lived past twenty or thirty as hunter gathers, but that's simply a side effect of how life expectancy is calculated. Our species now lives no longer that early humans did. On average, we live longer, but that's mostly thanks to medical science and philosophy decreasing child mortality. I want to stress the philosophy part because it is hard to say how many child deaths were the result of parents simply eating the kids, or deeming them "evil" and leaving them in the woods to die alone.

 

The authors also discuss a common tribal belief that adults do not consider children to be full-fledged humans until the age of five or six when they are old enough to start learning how to hunt by the males. They think that this is to make the pain of child mortality more spiritually bearable. During that six year period, where children are under the mother's supervision almost exclusively, they are conveniently not given human status.

 

When the men are supervising hunting activities, then the children's lives have meaning, but if they should die under female care, then they aren't yet human, just as the fetus is not considered to be complete living person before birth.

 

I find this to be a chilling discrepancy, and also find it equally chilling that we've extended this trial human status to 18 in most countries all the while forcing men out of families at a greater rate. Tribal hunter gatherer societies granted women a wide birth to abuse, maim, kill and eat their offspring. We aren't so keen on cannibalism any more, but you can certainly see that with modern feminism, it is almost unthinkable to blame a woman for killing her own children. Look at the story of Andrea Yates. No one can believe that a sane woman could drown her five children.

 

There is a part that also discusses child abandonment in France during the industrial revolution, but Sex at Dawn strongly avoids the characterization that child care-takers, mainly women, were ever intentionally abusive or murderous toward children.

[Pepin]

It depends on if we are speaking culturally or genetically.

 

As far as I am aware, there is reason to believe that female humans adapted to be gatherers and caretakers, while male humans adapted to be hunters and warriors. There seems to be a lot of specialization, and it might be advantageous for females to specialize in caretaking. A blatant piece of evidence for this is the ability for women to breastfeed, which men can apparently do as well, but the shape of the breast is fitted for an infant's face while an male's chest is more likely to cause suffocation.

 

Specialization in caretaking wouldn't imply that females would be the best nurturers, as it could be possible that offspring which were hit were more likely to survive due to increased aggression, but it would imply that females are genetically programmed to be caretakers.

 

Perhaps some evidence against this would be the very high death rate of women in labor. This could have caused males to evolve to become caretakers as well. Granted the large time investment in respect to the human lifespan, it seems unlikely to me that so much would ride on the mother when the mother was so likely to die, meaning that caretaker genes in the father were likely also very important.

 

I think my conclusion is that genetically, mothers likely have more of an instinct than fathers, but fathers also likely have a good instinct. Also, a caretaker instinct could imply a lot which we would not consider very nurturing, such as abandoning newborns who are much too small or deformed, or abusing them to increase aggressive tendencies.

 

Culturally, I really don't know.

[hannahbanana]

If women ever had a nurturing nature, I don't believe that it is prevalent or even useful as a justification for parenting anymore. What matters more is how the person (man or woman) was raised. A woman who grew up in an abusive home can only change herself through serious work at self-knowlege and education about peaceful parenting; there is no "instinct" that can miraculously save her. If she doesn't do anything about it, she will be just as abusive as her parents. And the same goes for men, unless I am mistaken, which would indicate that parenting abilities are not a gendered issue (I stress abilities because I am aware that there are certain steps in a child's development that require a male role and/or a female role). Basically, just because a woman is a woman, does not mean she will be  more nurturing than a man.

[Pepin]

However, we know that the most effective and resilient child is not the brutalized one. The most effective and resilient adult only has to slay demons outside of him or herself, and isn't held back by the additional ones inside. The most effective and resilient society engulfs traumatized children like white blood cells to empathetically support them when they need it most, instead of eating our young like an autoimmune disorder.

 

It shouldn't be revolutionary. Prominent child experts have risen for generations giving loud and strident advice on peaceful parenting.

 

I don't think anyone would disagree with you in regard to a modern context, but say ten to fifty thousand years ago it could have been the case that abused children were more successful than nonabused ones. If more aggressive individuals were more likely to survive due to the environment, parents who acted in a way to make their children more aggressive would be increasing the child's likelihood of surviving.