I’m still recovering from the sleep deprivation. Sahm whose husband is a good provider and we had 3 kids in 4 years and damn that nearly made me sick as a dog with the interrupted sleep. Now I take my sleep seriously and I won’t be making the 5 AM body pump class until I feel the sleep tank is fully topped off - maybe I’ll never make the class from sleep deficit trauma (I made this term up). I tell our kids don’t have your kids back to back unless you sleep train them.
This is spot on! This article irritated me as well, and I hate the fact that they take advantage and misguide women in this way. Also, I especially liked your line "make paper from scratch in billowy dresses". lol!
I loved a lot of this. But, as a decades-long radical leftist/progressive (turned full-time mom), there is one line I contest: "...convincing women that having choices was the problem."
Because women don't currently have true choice. In the West, both social and economic forces mean a new mom must leave her very young baby and return to the office—unless her husband agrees to financially support that decision. And a lot of men (even the wealthy ones) don't want to. The Tate manosphere distrusts women, citing tropes of being "robbed" after divorce, women mishandling "their" money etc. When that is the cultural environment, there's no choice. Yet a lot of second wave adherents pretend choice exists when they say: "Because of the second wave, today you can choose to stay at home or choose to work!" But right now, you don't "choose" to work. You're forced to.
Additionally, in liberal society women are shamed, stigmatized, or relegated to the right for staying home. You are viewed as either aiding conservative ideology, anti-feminist (Gloria Steineim) or worse: unintellectual or unambitious. (Which is heartbreaking because, as your writing shows, I can't think of anything more ambitious than attachment-informed motherhood.) Today's Ivy League parenting pundits (Emily Oster et al) give off the "I'm too interesting and intellectual for the simpleton work of raising babies" vibe. All of this social stigma takes "choice" right off the table.
(I’d love to watch the Steinem types who deride and ridicule the important and highly demanding work of mothering sit face-to-face with hunter gatherer societies and tell the women they’re being lazy or anti-feminist for not hunting and acting like men.)
In my opinion, 70s feminists shouldn't have abandoned the early "Wages for Housework" movement or the maternal feminists/care feminists, and instead, just progressed their work.
But it's not too late. Why not pay mothers—and a whole ton of "alloparents" to support them in the first three years—as handsomely as we pay our military. (Hello $997 BILLION.) With even a fraction of that we could create a department of neuroscienece-informed in-home care workers, and select for warmth and empathy the same way we select for stoicism and strength in our generals.
For this cultural-shift to happen, we need to start taking our evolved neurobiology—and women's critical role in shaping it—seriously.
We know, from advances in neuroimaging during the 90s "decade of the brain," that when a mother is present to soothe an infant's distress, a "cascade" of oxytocin (followed by dopamine, endorphins, and GABA) get released, buffering the toxic effects of elevated cortisol, adrenaline, and glutamate. Babies get stressed by separation: evolution made sure this stress could be be soothed by skin-to-skin touch, eye contact, holding, singing, rocking, etc. Warm, emotionally-attuned parenting is key to build the early limbic architecture of the brain. The more consistent and reliable this parental warmth is to a baby's distress, the better the brain wires into an emotionally (stress) resilient one, into adulthood.
The renowned Italian neuroscientist Lisa Mosconi has written: “When women become pregnant, the brain’s very architectural design and internal connectivity are all recalibrated; a neural overhaul to equip a new mother with some nearly superhuman abilities: the precision to distinguish her own child among a sea of faces; an enhanced auditory sense to detect the softest of whimpers; the unparalleled capacity to empathize with her baby, comprehending their needs and emotions based solely on non-verbal cues.”
As a card-carrying progressive journalist on the "addiction" beat, when I started interviewing neuroscientists on the link between infant neglect and addiction, ("infancy" being 0-3 in neuroscience) I was blown away. Maternal affection to infants' cries and responsiveness to their bids for connection ("serve and return" interactions), create lifelong mental health by wiring the proper functioning of the amygdala (the brain's stress "alarm bell"), hippocampus, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex. These systems, if robust, protect us against addiction—an affliction that piggybacks off the “love and attachment reward centres” of the brain. Oxys are especially addictive in those who didn't have this warmth during 0-3. (Mothers stimulating the release of the "oxytocin cascade".) Endorphins are endogenous (internally produced) morphine. Neglect in the 0-3 years heavily predicts addiction.
I write this to show that mothering does matter. And many women are feeling lied to, having been told that it should be outsourced to low-paid, understaffed daycares—with zero longterm consequence to their children.
When I read the title of your piece, I was expecting that THIS was the greatest trick the patriarchy ever pulled. Convincing women that they could do it all: pay for everything, birth and raise kids alone, have sex like a man does (lots! with no hesitation!) and never complain because it was all in the name of "feminism". Finally, the men could just sleep around, with no consequence, and then play video games or air guitar all day.
Libertarian second wave "feminism" is so obviously the Trojan Horse of the patriarchy. I mean, look at society and tell me all the wishes of the toxic male manosphere hasn't come true. They no longer have to provide, protect, or commit.
The good ones who rebel against these modern social norms are there (I’m beyond fortunate to have found one) but it's rare. And even the good ones feel pressured to “let” women be the providers and to disparage soft or sensitive women. Look how many men say they want a “strong” or “independent” woman. If they actually knew the science of brain development, or what makes a meaningful life, this would not be at the top of their list. When our single male friends meet a woman, what's the first thing they brag about? It's not "Oh she's so soft and sweet, she'll be a good mom." It's always, "Dude, she makes bank! It's so sexy, she's a boss." or "She's so dope, she always picks up the bill." They want a man in a hot girl body. (Just take Angelina Jolie, circa 2004: a perfect example of the female ideals millennial feminists were badgered with. She was punk rock, independent to a fault, covered in tattoos, rode motorbikes, flew airplanes around the world, and could shoot guns off horseback, all while wearing black lingerie. Oh and also sleeping with two men she doesn't require commitment from. Don't get me wrong I love her, I just feel SHE, too, was lied to about what women *should be*.)
Here's what's odd about all this. Every coming-of-age/teen movie has a familiar plot line: the nerdy girl, after getting belittled by the populars/boys, starts dressing and acting like the ones who hold power (the popular girls) to gain their approval. We, the witty viewers, scream, “Don’t conform girl! You are awesome as you are!!”
But somehow, boomer feminists and the generations of women following in lockstep don’t see that this is exactly what they’ve advised us to do. “Act like a man to get his respect!”
To throw them a bone, feminists were right in one regard: some men started to belittle the feminine nature of women. (Others, the value of women entirely.) Possibly due to a lack of physiological understanding after seeing the behavior that resulted from the significant brain changes in mothers, some men insisted “Welp, they’re crazy” (or hysterical, or “fussy”, etc.)
In turn, rather than stand up for our darn selves, feminists told us that masculine traits, values, behaviors, etc MUST be more valuable and therefore we should start acting like them and shun the women who don’t. (And use the dystopian term “internalized patriarchy” on them: how wildly un self-aware!)
Imagine instead, feminists stood up for the feminine. Imagine we actually GREW THE MATRIARCHY. Imagine we insisted on highlighting the social value of the sensitivity in new mothers; the strength of a woman bearing, birthing, and feeding children; the important brain and limbic system-building work their focused affection does for children? Why not stand up for the extreme value that all these superhuman qualities bring to society. Qualities that all indigenous societies knew and upheld before European Imperialism.
I truly believe that if the Oster and Steinem types—rather than being celebrated and rewarded solely for their credentials and academic work, were instead cheered by society (and paid handsomely) for their mothering—they would not constantly trumpet how much they love their work more than they like being with their kids. (Effectively denigrating mothers’ work to all.) We have over 50 years of quality, cutting-edge neuroscience research and rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, alongside hefty meta analysis showing that maternal affection builds resilient brains—into adulthood. And still, the feminists tell us not to be there for our infants, not to confess our love for our children, and not to celebrate motherhood in any way. And that Yay! we have "Choice" now!
I say, instead, we *finally* agree on the extreme value that sensitive and present mothers bring to humanity, so that policy, society and family will follow, to finally give mothers the support they so desperately need.
Sorry for the essay - and if you made it here, thank you!
I love the idea of wages for housework, unpaid work is estimated to be worth a trillion dollar in the US alone and it's mostly done by women. I also agree that we should elevate kindness, empathy and nurturing, the incredible value of good parenting, as highly as we do aggression and militaries. Yes to all of this. But though I agree the landscape for mothers in the US is dismal, we do have more choices today than in the early 70s when women couldn't even get credit without a male co-signing. Imho, it's important to see the progress as well as the great work still to be done, otherwise how will we get the energy to keep fighting?
Agree entirely. In their context, I can see what the second wavers were fighting for—I just believe that those who bully others (today) in the name of this early context are doing a disservice to both new moms and babies. But yes, Steinem et al absolutely did pave the road for these female neuroscientists and attachment theorists to actually do this science in the first place! So agree ten fold with you on all the above. (And having just finished Hope for Cynics, I second the recognizing progress habit and using it for motivation/energy part!)
“ The greatest trick the patriarchy ever pulled was convincing women that having choices was the problem.” 👏👏👏
I’m still recovering from the sleep deprivation. Sahm whose husband is a good provider and we had 3 kids in 4 years and damn that nearly made me sick as a dog with the interrupted sleep. Now I take my sleep seriously and I won’t be making the 5 AM body pump class until I feel the sleep tank is fully topped off - maybe I’ll never make the class from sleep deficit trauma (I made this term up). I tell our kids don’t have your kids back to back unless you sleep train them.
Same - 3 kids in 4 years. NOT recommended. Just a decade of fog
This is spot on! This article irritated me as well, and I hate the fact that they take advantage and misguide women in this way. Also, I especially liked your line "make paper from scratch in billowy dresses". lol!
Thanks! Isn't making paper from scratch all we've ever wanted? ;)
:-D
I loved a lot of this. But, as a decades-long radical leftist/progressive (turned full-time mom), there is one line I contest: "...convincing women that having choices was the problem."
Because women don't currently have true choice. In the West, both social and economic forces mean a new mom must leave her very young baby and return to the office—unless her husband agrees to financially support that decision. And a lot of men (even the wealthy ones) don't want to. The Tate manosphere distrusts women, citing tropes of being "robbed" after divorce, women mishandling "their" money etc. When that is the cultural environment, there's no choice. Yet a lot of second wave adherents pretend choice exists when they say: "Because of the second wave, today you can choose to stay at home or choose to work!" But right now, you don't "choose" to work. You're forced to.
Additionally, in liberal society women are shamed, stigmatized, or relegated to the right for staying home. You are viewed as either aiding conservative ideology, anti-feminist (Gloria Steineim) or worse: unintellectual or unambitious. (Which is heartbreaking because, as your writing shows, I can't think of anything more ambitious than attachment-informed motherhood.) Today's Ivy League parenting pundits (Emily Oster et al) give off the "I'm too interesting and intellectual for the simpleton work of raising babies" vibe. All of this social stigma takes "choice" right off the table.
(I’d love to watch the Steinem types who deride and ridicule the important and highly demanding work of mothering sit face-to-face with hunter gatherer societies and tell the women they’re being lazy or anti-feminist for not hunting and acting like men.)
In my opinion, 70s feminists shouldn't have abandoned the early "Wages for Housework" movement or the maternal feminists/care feminists, and instead, just progressed their work.
But it's not too late. Why not pay mothers—and a whole ton of "alloparents" to support them in the first three years—as handsomely as we pay our military. (Hello $997 BILLION.) With even a fraction of that we could create a department of neuroscienece-informed in-home care workers, and select for warmth and empathy the same way we select for stoicism and strength in our generals.
For this cultural-shift to happen, we need to start taking our evolved neurobiology—and women's critical role in shaping it—seriously.
We know, from advances in neuroimaging during the 90s "decade of the brain," that when a mother is present to soothe an infant's distress, a "cascade" of oxytocin (followed by dopamine, endorphins, and GABA) get released, buffering the toxic effects of elevated cortisol, adrenaline, and glutamate. Babies get stressed by separation: evolution made sure this stress could be be soothed by skin-to-skin touch, eye contact, holding, singing, rocking, etc. Warm, emotionally-attuned parenting is key to build the early limbic architecture of the brain. The more consistent and reliable this parental warmth is to a baby's distress, the better the brain wires into an emotionally (stress) resilient one, into adulthood.
The renowned Italian neuroscientist Lisa Mosconi has written: “When women become pregnant, the brain’s very architectural design and internal connectivity are all recalibrated; a neural overhaul to equip a new mother with some nearly superhuman abilities: the precision to distinguish her own child among a sea of faces; an enhanced auditory sense to detect the softest of whimpers; the unparalleled capacity to empathize with her baby, comprehending their needs and emotions based solely on non-verbal cues.”
As a card-carrying progressive journalist on the "addiction" beat, when I started interviewing neuroscientists on the link between infant neglect and addiction, ("infancy" being 0-3 in neuroscience) I was blown away. Maternal affection to infants' cries and responsiveness to their bids for connection ("serve and return" interactions), create lifelong mental health by wiring the proper functioning of the amygdala (the brain's stress "alarm bell"), hippocampus, hypothalamus, and prefrontal cortex. These systems, if robust, protect us against addiction—an affliction that piggybacks off the “love and attachment reward centres” of the brain. Oxys are especially addictive in those who didn't have this warmth during 0-3. (Mothers stimulating the release of the "oxytocin cascade".) Endorphins are endogenous (internally produced) morphine. Neglect in the 0-3 years heavily predicts addiction.
I write this to show that mothering does matter. And many women are feeling lied to, having been told that it should be outsourced to low-paid, understaffed daycares—with zero longterm consequence to their children.
When I read the title of your piece, I was expecting that THIS was the greatest trick the patriarchy ever pulled. Convincing women that they could do it all: pay for everything, birth and raise kids alone, have sex like a man does (lots! with no hesitation!) and never complain because it was all in the name of "feminism". Finally, the men could just sleep around, with no consequence, and then play video games or air guitar all day.
Libertarian second wave "feminism" is so obviously the Trojan Horse of the patriarchy. I mean, look at society and tell me all the wishes of the toxic male manosphere hasn't come true. They no longer have to provide, protect, or commit.
The good ones who rebel against these modern social norms are there (I’m beyond fortunate to have found one) but it's rare. And even the good ones feel pressured to “let” women be the providers and to disparage soft or sensitive women. Look how many men say they want a “strong” or “independent” woman. If they actually knew the science of brain development, or what makes a meaningful life, this would not be at the top of their list. When our single male friends meet a woman, what's the first thing they brag about? It's not "Oh she's so soft and sweet, she'll be a good mom." It's always, "Dude, she makes bank! It's so sexy, she's a boss." or "She's so dope, she always picks up the bill." They want a man in a hot girl body. (Just take Angelina Jolie, circa 2004: a perfect example of the female ideals millennial feminists were badgered with. She was punk rock, independent to a fault, covered in tattoos, rode motorbikes, flew airplanes around the world, and could shoot guns off horseback, all while wearing black lingerie. Oh and also sleeping with two men she doesn't require commitment from. Don't get me wrong I love her, I just feel SHE, too, was lied to about what women *should be*.)
Here's what's odd about all this. Every coming-of-age/teen movie has a familiar plot line: the nerdy girl, after getting belittled by the populars/boys, starts dressing and acting like the ones who hold power (the popular girls) to gain their approval. We, the witty viewers, scream, “Don’t conform girl! You are awesome as you are!!”
But somehow, boomer feminists and the generations of women following in lockstep don’t see that this is exactly what they’ve advised us to do. “Act like a man to get his respect!”
To throw them a bone, feminists were right in one regard: some men started to belittle the feminine nature of women. (Others, the value of women entirely.) Possibly due to a lack of physiological understanding after seeing the behavior that resulted from the significant brain changes in mothers, some men insisted “Welp, they’re crazy” (or hysterical, or “fussy”, etc.)
In turn, rather than stand up for our darn selves, feminists told us that masculine traits, values, behaviors, etc MUST be more valuable and therefore we should start acting like them and shun the women who don’t. (And use the dystopian term “internalized patriarchy” on them: how wildly un self-aware!)
Imagine instead, feminists stood up for the feminine. Imagine we actually GREW THE MATRIARCHY. Imagine we insisted on highlighting the social value of the sensitivity in new mothers; the strength of a woman bearing, birthing, and feeding children; the important brain and limbic system-building work their focused affection does for children? Why not stand up for the extreme value that all these superhuman qualities bring to society. Qualities that all indigenous societies knew and upheld before European Imperialism.
I truly believe that if the Oster and Steinem types—rather than being celebrated and rewarded solely for their credentials and academic work, were instead cheered by society (and paid handsomely) for their mothering—they would not constantly trumpet how much they love their work more than they like being with their kids. (Effectively denigrating mothers’ work to all.) We have over 50 years of quality, cutting-edge neuroscience research and rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, alongside hefty meta analysis showing that maternal affection builds resilient brains—into adulthood. And still, the feminists tell us not to be there for our infants, not to confess our love for our children, and not to celebrate motherhood in any way. And that Yay! we have "Choice" now!
I say, instead, we *finally* agree on the extreme value that sensitive and present mothers bring to humanity, so that policy, society and family will follow, to finally give mothers the support they so desperately need.
Sorry for the essay - and if you made it here, thank you!
I love the idea of wages for housework, unpaid work is estimated to be worth a trillion dollar in the US alone and it's mostly done by women. I also agree that we should elevate kindness, empathy and nurturing, the incredible value of good parenting, as highly as we do aggression and militaries. Yes to all of this. But though I agree the landscape for mothers in the US is dismal, we do have more choices today than in the early 70s when women couldn't even get credit without a male co-signing. Imho, it's important to see the progress as well as the great work still to be done, otherwise how will we get the energy to keep fighting?
Agree entirely. In their context, I can see what the second wavers were fighting for—I just believe that those who bully others (today) in the name of this early context are doing a disservice to both new moms and babies. But yes, Steinem et al absolutely did pave the road for these female neuroscientists and attachment theorists to actually do this science in the first place! So agree ten fold with you on all the above. (And having just finished Hope for Cynics, I second the recognizing progress habit and using it for motivation/energy part!)
Don’t forget about the moms who can’t afford to work bc decent childcare is way too expensive tho 😅
I'm not! affordable childcare is absolutely necessary, both to keep women in the workplace and prevent parental burnout.