71–80 of 218 posts
The modern female loves the “dad” archetype because it’s non-threatening across many domains. See: all modern entertainment media (which is produced by females and the feminine-minded). Expect it to increase in representation and popularity (which can already be observed by the sharp-witted). My identity: trans woman (to ameliorate the stung feelings of identitarians, relativists, and/or feminists reading this).
I find it very odd that the rest of the comments are sort of... not agreeing with the findings in the article. I became a father recently (:D) and it's been an emotional rollercoaster for me. I had been frantically Googling my "symptoms" and asking around what's wrong with me, because it seems I've been quite sensitive since the birth of my baby. One way to explain this is the Gordon Ramsay meme ( https://imgflip.com…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a father I can assure you you have no idea what you're talking about.
Echoing this. The bond I have with my children is profound and primal. The idea that it’s “unnatural” for me to spend much time with them is so ridiculous as to be instantly dismissed. GP clearly doesn’t have kids or have close male friends who are involved with their kids.
> that men have all the necessary biological wiring to be "every bit as protective and nurturing as the most committed mother This seems like an overstatement - man can't give birth to babies (which involves transfer of the mothers biome to the baby) or feed babies (which typically involves lactation).
You're conflating nurturing and protection with birthing and nursing. I also don't understand why this opinion is so controversial. Humans, including men are one of the rare species that nurture and protect babies (consciously and beyond symbiosis) of other individuals or even species, including wild animals. Why is it so surprising then that men are good at nurturing their own babies?
The distinctive qualities of the mother's womb are not as easily studied, but on the other hand it's pretty obvious that there are functions provided by the mother and her womb that cannot easily be replicated (i.e. replicated by a father).
None of this to say that fathers cannot or do not nurture and protect. It's just that replicating certain things is difficult and we shouldn't be so sure of ourselves yet. It's like trying to grow a plant without sunlight: possible, but only very recently, and still apparently too challenging to do at absolute scale.
Saw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged. First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive. And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a…
The point of the article is that nurturing babies is one of those things that stereotypical men already do. Probably not as much as women, but it is a research result we could have guessed. Turns out that men care about the success of their children too, who knew.
> And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a worse caregiver, and that it needs to be reigned in by some adaptation.
You're reading things that the article did not write. The article did make some political calls around more parental leave and a call for fathers to be more involved with their children, but that isn't any sort of knock against all the other hormones that humans have.
Sure people might believe that; lots of people believe a lot of wildly stupid things. But it isn't in the article. There isn't anything judgemental in observing that people's lifestyles can cause hormonal shifts.
Saw this earlier today, I think it’s very flawed and ideological, unfortunately other posts mentioning this got flagged. First there’s the idea that “nurturing” is somehow what kids need and better for them automatically, that whatever a stereotypical man does with kids is bad for them, and we need to be rewired by pheromones or whatever to be more sensitive. And as a corollary the idea that a high-T man somehow is a…
[flagged]
Hadza men spend enough time with their children that their T levels drop: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2674347/
Aka men are doting fathers to the point of letting their children suck on their nipples: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/jun/15/childrensser...
This is a nice survey of the role of fatherhood in various cultures, with a focus on foragers: https://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/documents/fa_role_201...
Near the beginning, the paper states that humans are extremely unusual in the rates of paternal investment that fathers do. With most species, the male dips out. Men don't always spend a lot of time on children, but they do have the wiring for it. It seems to be one of the many traits that sets humans apart from other species.
The modern female loves the “dad” archetype because it’s non-threatening across many domains. See: all modern entertainment media (which is produced by females and the feminine-minded). Expect it to increase in representation and popularity (which can already be observed by the sharp-witted). My identity: trans woman (to ameliorate the stung feelings of identitarians, relativists, and/or feminists reading this).
This sounds like a criticism, but non-threatening seems like a really good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
N = 1. now compare the number of single mothers (≈ children abandoned by their fathers) vs the number of single fathers (≈ children abandoned by their mothers). for every helicopter dad there are ten guys who don't care about their offspring.
"Look how many people get shot versus stabbed. Obviously the natural order is for people to get shot."
I expect many major and even minor life events rewire the brain. Isn't "rewiring" the process of learning and changing thoughts/behaviours?
In which model of behaviour is it surprising that reorienting your life towards dependence won't have measurable effects on the brain?
The research is no doubt useful to some, but the way it's presented in news as some sort of mystical phenomenon feels very middle ages.