?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

In my famously favorite passage from Arthur Machen's influential short story "The Great God Pan," just before the end, one of two amateur investigators has just uncovered the secret of what it was that was driving young, healthy, wealthy, secure young men to commit suicide on three continents, in a manuscript left behind by one of the suicides. After reading only a few words, the partner says, "Take it away, Villiers, never speak of this again. Are you made of stone, man? Why, the dread and horror of death itself, the thoughts of the man who stands in the keen morning air on the black platform, bound, the bell tolling in his ears, and waits for the harsh rattle of the bolt, are as nothing compared to this. I will not read it; I should never sleep again." The original investigator assures him that it is true, but finishes by agreeing with the sentiment: "Oh, Austin, how can it be? How is it that the very sunlight does not turn to blackness before this thing, the hard earth melt and boil beneath such a burden?"

I think that 30 scientists and researchers from a half dozen or more different fields who gathered in rural France in 1990 to check each others' work must have felt something of that same horror when they found that they could not disprove their mutual finding. It was something that none of them wanted to believe. It was a thought that only one of the 30 of them was willing to confront the implications of, and do further research to explore the implications of. And I'm sure that they knew or at least suspected that no matter how important their scientific finding was, they would be vilified for a lifetime if they made society confront this awful truth, and that was a price that they were unwilling to pay. And see, that, to me, is the fascinating thing, even more fascinating than the awful truth itself. On the contrary, almost all of my friends that I've discussed this with since I read the book have agreed with me that, given the weight of the evidence, the awful truth in question is pretty undeniable, is important to know, and (contrary to what some might think) it is something we can learn to live with the knowledge of. If this knowledge becomes widespread, it may and probably will cause some hardship for some innocent people. But the good to society will, I believe, out-weigh those harms. So no, really, the awful truth that I'm about to reveal to you will seem anti-climactic compared to the dread that the scientists who discovered it felt.

After a several year career as one of the second generation of women to do fieldwork in primatology, Sarah Hrdy and her husband decided to have their first child. She was already in the middle of preparations to shift her career from primatology to a subject that would allow her to do her fieldwork closer to home, with fewer long absences from home, and in a more comfortable setting to raise a baby in, namely evolutionary biology, when it occurred to her (as a mother to be) just out of personal interest to study the mothering patterns of the colony of monkeys she was observing. She knew to expect high infant mortality. Primatologists have known for over a hundred years that baby monkeys and baby apes are at extreme risk from any male other than their father. (As are baby humans.) But Hrdy was startled to discover, when she tracked the mothers of new infants carefully, that infants were at almost as much risk of murder from their own mothers as they were from unrelated male adults. This baffled her for several reasons, not least of which that while there had been a great deal of research into infanticide in primates, nobody had ever reported a case of a female primate killing her own offspring except by freakish accident. The other reason it baffled her was that, as an evolutionary biologist, she could make no sense whatsoever as to how evolution could produce individuals that destroyed their own offspring, especially among such slowly reproducing species as primates. So she contacted a few other primatologists studying other colonies of monkeys and asked them to carefully monitor the actions of new mothers ... and to their astonishment, they observed the same thing.

So she gave a preliminary paper on the subject in 1976, suggesting that more research was needed to explain how this behavior could possibly have evolved in primates, only to be interrupted in mid talk by an audience member, a prominent expert in her field. He stood up, tried to stop her from finishing reading her paper, announced that primate females absolutely do not ever murder their own children, and that if she had observed a primate colony in which primate females were killing their own children, it could only be because of something she had done to them; she must have committed some horrible breach of experimental ethics that so deranged these monkeys that she had driven them insane enough to do something that no monkey had ever done before. He then stormed out of the talk and went directly to the scientific press to denounce her for whatever it was that she had done to that monkey colony, so it probably is a good thing that she was already planning on changing fields, no?

So she quietly continued her study, working behind the scenes with other researchers while she directed her own studies towards less controversial animals, such as insects. Eventually she discovered something that appalled even her with its simplicity. Not only do mothers sometimes kill their own children, they are almost never insane when they do so. On the contrary, for a mother to murder her own child is an evolutionary adaptation without which our species would not have survived some of the environmental and social disasters of the past. What's more, the actual reasoning behind this is so simple that a straightforward simple equation in four variables is sufficient to provide a reliable estimate of the probability that any particular mother will murder any particular infant: the age of the mother, whether or not this child is the gender that the mother wanted (which, itself, turns out to be easily and universally predicted based on only two variables, the mother's social status and the predicted reliability of the food supply), the child's birth weight (and to a lesser extent other indicators of long-term viability), and her estimate of whether or not attempting to nurture this particular child will only get both her and the child killed. When she took her early estimates for this equation to the 1990 conference, she discovered that epidemiologists studying SIDS, primatologists studying infanticide (following her 1976 tip), historians digging through old records to try to quantify infanticide throughout the ages, criminologists and social psychologists trying to come up with statistical models to predict mother-on-child infanticide, and anthropologists trying to statistically analyze what variables are most consistent with cultures that have high versus low rates of infanticide, had all independently discovered the same equation. And from her viewpoint as an evolutionary biologist, Hrdy demonstrates that any sane, healthy, normal, intelligent mothers who weren't capable of coldly murdering their own infant children almost certainly had no surviving descendants at all to be our ancestors during some of the species-wide threats that have been demonstrated to have happened from the fossil record and from studies of rates of genetic drift.

I mention SIDS. One of the researchers, she says, was an epidemiologist who, in the process of trying to quantify his hunch, initiated a study in which social workers and police very, very intensively interviewed and background checked a long string of crib deaths that had been explained away as unexplained random respiratory failure. It turns out that his equation was able to predict, with high (but not absolute) reliability, which infants had actually been the victims of homicide or malign neglect. If the infant was a boy when the mother wanted a girl or vice versa, if the infant was born weighing less than 8 pounds, or if the mother was in any kind of economic or physical danger if this child survived, then the baby was doomed. His final estimate, from that initial study, was that seventy five percent of all SIDS cases are actually homicides. But, he admitted, just acknowledging this possibility puts us in an awful dilemma. To catch the 3 out of 4 women whose babies suddenly die that were actually murderers, we have to treat all SIDS cases as potential homicides, therefore piling yet more heartbreak and tragedy on the 1 out of 4 who just randomly went through the worst tragedy any family can know, the sudden and unexpected death of a beloved child. Even using the predictive equation to narrow the field of homicide investigations, we'd still be casting a very scarily public accusation of homicide on an uncomfortably large number of grieving mothers.

I also mention social psychology. The central tenet of the field of social psychology is that if under a given situation, all or nearly all individuals will engage in the same unwanted behavior, then there is less to be gained by stigmatizing those individuals and lauding the ones who don't than by studying the situation with an eye towards changing it. And you can see in a heartbeat how that applies here: if infants are at extreme risk whenever one or more of three variables are present, then we can reduce the rate of (massively under-reported, intentionally under-investigated) maternal infanticide by decreasing the economic and evolutionary pressures behind gender preference, by providing mothers with as much economic assistance and physical protection as it would require for them to feel safe providing for this baby, and by intensify supervision for the first several months of life of mothers of infants who are born weighing less than 8 pounds or looking otherwise sickly. But addressing the issue in this way, and looking into the roots of the equation that predicts maternal infanticide, makes social psychologists confront the queasy implication of all of their work: if it's that sane and natural for them to do this awful thing, if this awful thing is so hard to resist, how can we justify stigmatizing and punishing them? And if we can't, then how can we live with ourselves having just (the historian points out) joined the 85% of all known historical societies, up to and including Christian western Europe as late as the late 19th century, that socially tolerated infanticide any time in the first couple of days after birth? There's pro-choice, I mean, and then there's being so pro-choice as to join the ranks of societies that have denied the humanity of a breathing infant up to 48 hours old ... are we willing to go there? Or to at least show understanding and compassion and tolerance towards societies that did or that do? The anthropologists at the conference were especially terrified of releasing their research findings, because they knew that the accusation that a society or tribe kills children has been used to justify no shortage of genocidal invasions.

I cultivate a readership that's willing to think the unthinkable, so perhaps most of you are still baffled by what part of this spawned such a terror of confronting their own research findings that 29 out of 30 scientists who discovered it immediately and without any external pressure moved to suppress their own research findings. Frankly, good -- I distrust that impulse, too, and think that we are always better off knowing the truth than not knowing it. But as you go about your day, remember this: research shows that your own mother consciously or unconsciously considered murdering you in your crib, off and on for at least the first 48 hours after your birth and not improbably for the whole first two weeks of your life, maybe even the first two months. And if your mother was under 30 when she had you and you were born male in a poor family or female in a wealthy family during times of economic hardship, or weighing less than 8 pounds, or at a time when your mother thought that her own chances of survival would improve if you didn't survive so (for example) she could get pregnant by her new husband more quickly or so she could return to work more quickly, you very nearly didn't make it. And she would have gotten away with it, too, because mothers have traditionally had a long list of potential murder weapons ready to hand, from handing you over to caretakers or adoption agencies even if she knew they had a 99% chance of killing you, to smothering you with a pillow, to switching you to infant formula that she knew was diluted with unsafe water, to declining to lift a hand to save you from some mortal peril. And because "everybody knows" that mothers don't kill their own children, nobody would have questioned her about it. Have a nice day!

Comments

velvetpage
Apr. 14th, 2007 12:27 pm (UTC)
I have a couple of questions, which may be answered in the book, but I have no money to buy it and no time to read it right now if I did. It's going on my long-term reading list, though.

My first question is: does the incidence of infanticide (or, if you prefer, SIDS) decrease in countries where abortion is readily available, or where the social safety network is good? My stab-in-the-dark response is yes, as witnessed by the fact that the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than any other developed nation, almost all of which have better health care than the U.S. does, at least for its poor.

My second question is: how does she define mental illness in the first forty-eight hours to two weeks after giving birth? Because I've done it, twice, and let me tell you - there's no such thing as normal in those early days. You've just been through the biggest emotional, physical, and hormonal roller coaster ride you will ever experience; it came after months of discomfort and probably at least twelve hours, possibly as much as several days, of quite intense pain; and everyone around you to whom you normally look for support, is busy pouring over the bundle of cuteness that is no longer distending your belly. Describing a woman in that situation as mentally stable is ridiculous.

My third question relates to the role of oxytocin. Oxytocin is the hormone that is responsible for uterine contractions, playing the central role in the delivery. It's also released through breastfeeding. It's been called the "tend and mend" hormone, because it makes people - especially mothers, but also fathers - bond with their children. Men's oxytocin levels will never be higher in their lives than in the six weeks following the birth of a new baby, and neither will women's. So if oxytocin plays this huge role in the bonding process, where is it when women are considering infanticide? There are factors in the birth that lead to less oxytocin - c-section and choosing to formula-feed from the outset, for example. Do these situations lead to higher rates of infant death?
bradhicks
Apr. 14th, 2007 01:55 pm (UTC)
You are correct in your first supposition. She comments on the abortion politics of this, namely that you can game this one either way. You can either use it to prove that abortion ought to be legal, as an alternative to infanticide, or you can confront the unpleasant realization that to the woman, the abortion decision is the same as the infanticide decision.

The second two are related. Evolution drugs the heck out of both mother and baby to prevent infanticide, and she shows how evolution has favored children with all kinds of "tricks" to fool the mother into making excessively favorable estimates of long-term viability. But, she shows, women have counter-evolved the infanticide reflex as a defense against those tricks and those drugs. There's a long, long section of the book before she even gets to the infanticide question on "avoidant" mothers, mothers who go out of their way to avoid handling or making eye contact with the baby (let alone breast-feeding it) in the first 48 hours, and what a reliable predictor that is of all kinds of dysfunction in both mother and child. It's only after she springs the infanticide section on you, in the high 290s through the 300s, that you realize that she brought that up to prepare you for this, to show you how it's possible for women to do so if they conclude that they have to.
velvetpage
Apr. 14th, 2007 02:02 pm (UTC)
So, the "natural birth" people have this on their side - allowing the mother to bond with her baby within the first few minutes/hours after the birth, is not necessarily creating a lifetime bond for the infant, but it IS protecting that infant from the possibility of infanticide.

Mind you, the mothers who want natural birth and breastfeeding are also the mothers who are least likely to be considering infanticide to begin with. Maybe this research explains why those who logically should be trying the hardest to breastfeed - that is, the poor - traditionally have the least success with it.
bradhicks
Apr. 14th, 2007 02:15 pm (UTC)
I don't know if you saw nancylebov's comment the other day that she bailed out of the book after being grossed out by one of the photographs? It relates to your last point. It documents the case of a woman who had fraternal twins, both a boy and a girl, under circumstances where it was disastrous for her to have a daughter but advantageous to have a son. So she decided, on no evidence, that she only just had enough breast milk for one of the children, and "just randomly" chose to wean the girl early, to shift her to formula. Everybody in the village knew that the water was mixing the gruel with to improvise formula was unsafe for children; nobody commented.

After three months, the son was perfectly healthy, and the daughter looked like an Ethiopian famine victim because she couldn't keep any nutrients in her. By the time social services noticed, it was too late, and even with hospital intervention the daughter died weeks later. The mother swore up and down that she didn't murder her daughter, that the daughter just died because of circumstances beyond the mother's control. And there is no reason to doubt that she believed this. That is, after all, how she was able to live with herself, by denying to herself that she had consciously decided to murder one of her two children and spare the other.
dreamking00
Apr. 14th, 2007 11:09 pm (UTC)
going off of memory here...
It does bring to mind one of the controversial findings in the book Freakonomics, namely that in this country at least, violent crime rates began falling in the decades after Roe v. Wade. Since economic factors are at least one consideration in the decision of whether to have an abortion, it meant that mothers in poor economic circumstances were more likely to choose to do so. And since poverty is one substantial risk factor in the incidence of violent crime, the conclusion was that adolescents and young adults who otherwise would have been in that high risk bracket were absent due to terminated pregnancies. Many people had strong reactions to that hypothesis, to say the least. To say nothing of what happened when people began tentatively mentioning that in this country, the poorest classes are heavily represented by African-Americans.
velvetpage
Apr. 14th, 2007 02:11 pm (UTC)
It seems to me that the option of early abortion moves the decision up by several months, allowing an ambivalent mother to make that decision at a time when it will be easier on her and on those around her. It probably also increases the health and survival ratio of the babies from pregnancies that are kept, because it allows the woman to choose to take better care of herself, having already decided to keep the baby when it is born.

So, fewer babies are born when abortion is legal, but fewer are also killed as infants or neglected in the subconscious hope that they will die, and the babies that are born have been better cared for in the womb, making them healthier overall (and their mothers as well.)

I see this as a reason for improving access to early abortion and contraceptives.
nancylebov
Apr. 14th, 2007 03:16 pm (UTC)
So far as oxytocin is concerned, you can assume that any physical system works better some times than other times. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if some mothers don't produce much oxytocin or don't have good receptors for it.

There's got to be a place in this discussion for the social pressure to have children, so that even people who have found out that they aren't good parents are pushed into trying again and again.
velvetpage
Apr. 14th, 2007 03:25 pm (UTC)
Since I didn't need any social pressure to have children, I can't really comment on that.

The very fact that we have defined parenting as a job requiring a skill set already puts us miles above most parents throughout history. Having people in place whose job it is to enforce a minimal parental competency (albeit not very effectively) puts us even further up the scale.

It used to be that there weren't a lot of effective ways to keep from having children, given that choice in sex was rare and contraceptives even rarer. Infanticide was the most common method of birth control because it was easiest for the mother to be sure about. Now, there are plenty of ways to keep from having kids, and the trend is starting to shift away from overpopulation towards underpopulation, at least in the West (I realize that globally, this is far from the case.) It's understandable that people who are concerned about the long-term viability of the species would be encouraging people to have children. I'm not sure that reducing that social pressure would be a good idea. Better would be doing a better job of supporting parents in their roles, so as to reduce the incidence of child abuse/neglect/murder.
ms_daisy_cutter
May. 7th, 2007 10:32 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure that reducing that social pressure would be a good idea.

Speaking as a childfree woman, I'd certainly like to see that social pressure reduced.

There is no real reason for people to be having children they don't want.
(Anonymous)
May. 14th, 2008 09:42 am (UTC)
I love your avatar ;-)
(Anonymous)
May. 16th, 2008 09:25 am (UTC)
underpopulation?
"...and the trend is starting to shift away from overpopulation towards underpopulation, at least in the West (I realize that globally, this is far from the case.)"


First, please tell me how (in reality, not economic-think) six and a half billion humans can "underpopulate" anywhere on Earth.

Do you think it matters that we see ourselves in divisions like "the West"?

And then-

"It's understandable that people who are concerned about the long-term viability of the species would be encouraging people to have children."

It's understandable only in the sense that people will believe up is down, hot is cold, and what they want to do is the best thing in spite of overwhelming evidence against it.
Long term viability of "the" species requires a healthy planet- one with a diversity of species (which requires habitat), a level of human waste/pollution that is low enough to be absorbed, and (primarily) that no one species has unrestrained growth.

Measuring yourself against previous ignorance is an inadequate way to correct a critical situation.

There is no global problem that will be relieved by having more children.
Every global problem will be exacerbated by having more children.

The long-term viability of "the" species is impossible if we maintain the attitude that to have children is to be viable.

.
rozasharn
Apr. 16th, 2007 06:26 pm (UTC)
Hormonal reactions do vary a lot across individuals. My mother wanted me, had me on purpose, loved me a lot, and took extraordinarily good care of me -- but during her pregnancy the hormonal changes put her into actual clinical depression. The other part of the story is that her depression lifted literally as soon as she got her breath back after giving birth.

And yes, a lot of people seem to have children they don't want. A lot of my classmates in school were not given anywhere near the dedicated parenting I got. (Both my parents worked full-time; I'm talking about the way other parents routinely insulted and threatened their kids, ignored them whenever possible, and generally seemed to resent the kids' existence. By contrast, my parents answered every question I asked, went out of their way to get us nutritious food, and called me loving names.)

We do need to keep producing future generations, but I'd rather see people who want to be parents and are good at it have as many children as they want, while people who'd rather not devote themselves to children would just pay taxes for the parent-support services.
ms_daisy_cutter
May. 7th, 2007 10:36 pm (UTC)
...while people who'd rather not devote themselves to children would just pay taxes for the parent-support services.

I'd rather see childfree folks like myself get a tax break. We use far fewer services than parents do, but we get stuck with the higher taxes. And in "family-friendly" America, the same parents who benefit from our involuntary largesse (and often spend it not on their kids but on things like large-screen TVs) are also eager to foist additional expenses on us (such as paying for mandatory child-safety features in vehicles) and to censor our entertainment choices For The ChildrenTM.
xratedouroboros
Jun. 20th, 2007 06:27 pm (UTC)
You pay the same taxes as everyone else to compensate for your reduced contribution to the future tax base.

I have no case against the stupidity of the THINK OF THE CHILDREN™ nannystate and would probably agree with you on most topics under that subject.
ms_daisy_cutter
Jun. 20th, 2007 07:52 pm (UTC)
You pay the same taxes as everyone else to compensate for your reduced contribution to the future tax base.

Horseshit. Parents get $1,000 per sprat. And there's no guarantee their little darlings will grow up to contribute to the tax base ... especially amongst certain segments of society.
xratedouroboros
Jun. 20th, 2007 09:04 pm (UTC)
"certain segments of society", eh?
That's a pretty thin veil on that one.

Do you have any generic arguments that would actually be relevant to a government policy applied to a diverse population or just racist anecdotal sterotyping?
ms_daisy_cutter
Jun. 20th, 2007 09:11 pm (UTC)
That's a pretty thin veil on that one.

ONOEZ, political incorrectness!!!!!

If it eases your delicate earnest-progressive sensibilities any, that goes for all colors of trash. If you think I was referring only to blacks African-Americans, maybe you're the one who has a problem with stereotypes.

In any case, fuck paying people to breed. We've got enough people and not enough resources. Funny how liberals who think they're so pro-environmental are in denial about that when it comes to people's precious "reproductive rights." Yeah, you have a right to spawn; you do NOT have a right to my goddamned money.

Thank you for reminding me why I moved out of Massachusetts.
xratedouroboros
Jun. 21st, 2007 12:44 am (UTC)
Well, I think the content of your attempted rebuttal on the racism concern speaks for itself.

You appear to be making the no direct benefit argument. Which doesn't work in light of the concept that governments aren't formed to meet individual needs but for community needs. The community as a whole, including you, benefits from having, e.g., good roads, even if you individually don't own a car. There is no way to deny you the benefits of having good roads, so there's no basis for denying your portion of responsibility for maintaining them.
snatchbeast
Jun. 21st, 2007 12:22 pm (UTC)
selfish?
Why should we support your families when you are destroying the Earth?

The average family needs 96 acres.
They will release 41,500 pounds of emissions per year.
In 25 years they will release a total of 1,037,500 pounds of emissions. Every 25 years the average family will separate to spawn and the process repeats itself.
By the ripe old age of 100 they will be responsible for the consumption of 1,440 acres and so many pounds of emissions that my calculator broke and I had to do the math by hand - 26,975,000 pounds.

A super duper green family needs 32 acres.
They will release 26,444 pounds of emissions.
In 25 years they will release a total of 661,100 pounds of emissions.
By the ripe old age of 100 they will be responsible for the consumption of 480 acres and 14,188,600 pounds of emissions.

The childfree family that lives the life of an average family needs only 16 acres.
They will release 33,755 pounds of emissions per year.
In 25 years they will release 843,875 pounds of emissions.
In 100 years the will be responsible for 3,375,500 pounds of emissions.

As you can see, a childfree family will create 10,813,500 LESS emissions than a family that does everything in the world to control their global footprint, waste, and materials.

VanillaTree.org
xratedouroboros
Jun. 21st, 2007 11:54 pm (UTC)
Re: selfish?
"Why should we support your families when you are destroying the Earth?"
For reasons unrelated to environmental impact and reproductive status, focusing on the revenue return from the point of view of the tax collecting body.
ms_daisy_cutter
Jun. 21st, 2007 05:55 pm (UTC)
Well, I think the content of your attempted rebuttal on the racism concern speaks for itself.

"In other words" (he sniffed disdainfully), "you didn't kowtow to my politically correct sensibilities, and I have no actual argument, so you're just an ebyl nasty RASSIST and I can smugly feel morally superior to you."

As for the rest of your assertions, snatchbeast addresses them fairly comprehensively. Oh, and I already pay plenty of taxes, thank you — the triple whammy of Marxachusetts income taxes, New Hampshire property taxes (which will probably rise under the Democrats), and the costs of transportation to and from work, whether by car or public transit. So, given what I know about Virginia tax rates, I'm sure that my net contributions are higher than yours — and my precious "global footprint" is a fuck of a lot smaller.

I'm really not sure why you chose to argue with a two-month-old comment I made, then throw accusations of bigotry at me, and somehow get butthurt at my reaction. Oh, wait, you're a liberal entitlement parent, and the mere fact that I don't fall on the ground and thank you for having a working vas deferens is an offense to you. I'm not sure what irks me more, your kind or fundie parents. The latter might fume at me that I'm going to hell for not worshiping Jeeeeezusss, but they don't hide their sense of "I whelped and you OWE ME!!!" under a smug patina of More Enlightened Than Thou-ness.

Oh, and by the way, if you think "eating babies" in your interests makes you all edgy and cool...think again.
xratedouroboros
Jun. 22nd, 2007 12:17 am (UTC)
snatchbeast's comment was effectively orthogonal to the previous line of discussion.

I'm unable to identify any sort of coherent counter-argument in all that abuse, so the conversation cannot proceed at this point. If you are abandoning your argument as flawed, there is no reason to continue. If you can restate yourself more clearly (and civilly, of course), please do so, and we may continue. Feel free to respond with more abuse if you'd prefer the last word.

ms_daisy_cutter
Jun. 22nd, 2007 02:48 am (UTC)
Uh-huh. You've done nothing but attempt to persuade me that I'm "selfish" and "racist," but somehow I'm the "abusive" one and you're the "civil" one.

Typical self-righteous breeder bullshit, with a heavy patina of left-wing condescension to boot (not surprising for a member of parenting101, however). Again, this is the kind of crap that makes me glad I moved out of the People's Republik of Marxachusetts.

Have a nice life, Duhddie.
rozasharn
Apr. 16th, 2007 06:07 pm (UTC)
Regarding the role of oxytocin
Our hormones influence our decisions; they do not control us. Adrenaline disposes a body to hairtrigger reactions and sudden energetic response, but a person still decides whether to run, hit, or sit still and continue having a scary, upsetting discussion. Oxytocin may promote warm, affectionate feelings, but when a woman looks at a baby she didn't want, and knows that trying to feed it will doom her five-year-old struggling against pneumonia, or knows that if she's caught with the product of sex her father will beat her to death, she may act on the real dangers rather than the hormonal response.
(Anonymous)
Jun. 21st, 2007 12:48 am (UTC)
Your questions
I have read her book _Mother Nature_ twice, but not for a couple of years. It's a superb book, sophisticated, humane, and willing to be honest about things that are hard to think about. It's an enormously (to my mind) liberating read, as it refuses the old-school insistence on essentialist stereotypes of women and also debunks the feminist dismissal of biology.

She talks about abortion in the book, comparing abortion rates nowadays with, for example, rates of newborn abandonment in Europe through the 18th century. Given the predicting factors, there are probably a number of circumstances where legalized abortion would not eliminate the possibility of infanticide: If the mother's circumstances change during the course of the pregnancy, if she's not in a position to abort based on ultrasounds that reveal the baby's sex, or if the baby is unexpectedly under-weight or has other signs of sickliness, then access to abortion early in pregnancy might not affect infanticide-SIDS rates.

I'm not sure if it's fair to describe postpartum reality as mentally ill. Is it an altered state? Probably for many people it is--not an everyday state of mind (and I've done it twice, too). On the other hand, if it's the reality for women after birth, and that's universal, then calling something that's a universal experience abnormal tends, to my mind, toward the old scientific habit of pathologizing the female. In other words, if it happens to everybody, then it is normal. Also, if we're going to view this set of behaviors through the evolutionary biology lens, then you have to think that that state of mind may be just what is called for for someone who has to make a crucial and, what would normally be, horrifying decision. Apparently that postpartum state is adaptive?

She talks a lot about oxytocin from what I remember of the book. She tells of a social experiment in France (in the 19th c.? I don't remember) where a group of prostitutes were basically forced to breastfeed their new babies, and whereas all of them had already stated their intention of giving up the babies, the number of abandoned children went down dramatically among those who breastfed for the first week. She spends a lot of time working through bonding and its implications, especially for our society.