Comments on: Machiavellian Motherhood

By: Freeman

Freeman — Thu, 11 May 2006 09:31:56 +0000

I once read about an African culture where newborn babies are placed in a hut, alone, for first 48 hours of their lives–some duration of time, at any rate. The child is not named and in fact, barely acknowledged, until it has outlived that culture’s traditional window for the expectation of infant mortality. For this culture, life only begins once it can be assumed that the baby is not automatically doomed to die.

I do wish I could find that link, but it really does a lot to shatter all those right-wing arguments about fetal viability. “Motherhood, red in tooth and claw.”

Also, my wife once recently said, regarding the fetishization of motherhood and unborn children, “We’ve practiced death control for thousands of years. Isn’t it time to practice birth control?” She’s got a sharp point.

By: Ledasmom

Ledasmom — Wed, 10 May 2006 19:39:46 +0000

So that’s why old ladies pinch babies’ thighs – they’re testing for tenderness.

By: hexy

hexy — Wed, 10 May 2006 05:32:35 +0000

Heh. I’m showing this to my sister. Then, next time she asks me to babysit, I’m just going to narrow my eyes, lick my lips and say “Mmmm.. lipids….”

By: Medicine Man

Medicine Man — Tue, 09 May 2006 22:59:42 +0000

The great part about Mother Nature is that she’s wonderfully dispassionate and amoral. Most of the Disney creatures of the world do the things they do out of pure, ugly, biological imperative. Humans, on the other hand, get pretty damned personal about how and why they jack up their fellow man.

Zuzu: Great link. I think I won’t show this one to my mother though — she’s a very kind hearted woman and an animal lover to boot. She’s generally not fond of black humour and probably wouldn’t appreciate this article.

By: Shasta MacNasty

Shasta MacNasty — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:53:58 +0000

On Sunday I’m going to tell my mom that even though I’m sure there were times when she wanted to, I’m glad she didn’t let me starve, “roll me out of the nest”, or let any of my half-siblings pick on me to death.

This is a great post, thanks. :)

By: piny

piny — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:51:18 +0000

Ha ha ha ha! What Rose said. That’s exactly what I thought.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:47:04 +0000

I highly recommend a book by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, “Mother Nature,” which says something similar to this article, but is mostly about humans. Ms. Hrdy is an expert in languar monkeys of southern India, but expanded her research into human motherhood. Much of her book is devoted to the prevalence of infanticide in human societies. She is sort of the anti-Paris Hilton, too. Her grandfather founded one of the companies that merged to become Exxon, but she still grew up to be a scholar. Now that is the way to use a trust fund.

By: Rose

Rose — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:44:20 +0000

Lipids. I am so showing this to my mother.

By: Jodie

Jodie — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:42:54 +0000

Exactly. It should not be any more necessary to sacrifice everything you are to be a mother, than it is necessary to sacrifice everything you are to be a father.

Besides, being “self-sacrificing” means you wind up with spoiled rotten, selfish children.

By: Red Queen

Red Queen — Tue, 09 May 2006 17:57:31 +0000

“it’s a good way to get lipids”

That is the best line ever.

My point was that I think that the idealized image of motherhood*†, i.e. self-sacrificing, loving, protective, we have is appropriate for humans
† I also believe in a sentimental ideal of fatherhood; I think that fathers ought to provide for, love, and care for their children.

The problem with Glaivester’s argument is that self-sacrificing is only an ideal quality for mothers- not for fathers.