This is a hugely important article. Gender equality has become a Trojan horse, pushing through an ideology based on sameness and denial of sex difference. This initially seems benign, positive even, but ends up with the undermining and inevitable erosion of women’s rights as they relate to motherhood, birth, breastfeeding and workplace maternal support. Men and women are not the same, and they are not interchangeable in every area of life, targeted and nuanced supports for families but particularly for mothers are key both in the fiscal and welfare or public spending space, but also in the workplace, since it is mothers - as a direct consequence of gestation, birth and their unique role in care - who experience barriers to their progression and participation in work and society. Thank you Elena for raising this issue.
I love this piece. I was a radical leftist for decades until I started interviewing neuroscientists on the link between infant neglect and addiction. (In short, reliable maternal affection helps build an *adaptive* response to stress and the oxytocin system: two things we need to stave off addiction—an affliction that piggybacks off the “love and attachment reward centres” of the brain.)
This led me to understand feminism as the Trojan Horse of the patriarchy it soon became—I mean, look at society and tell me all the wishes of men haven’t come true: they no longer have to provide, protect, or even commit—and to detest some feminists along the way. I’d love to watch the Steinheim types who deride and ridicule the gravely important 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.)
All the coming-of-age/teen movies have a familiar plot line: the comely nerdy girl, after getting belittled by the populars, starts dressing and acting like them to try 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!”
Certainly they’re 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.) When cis 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 newborn, comprehending their needs and emotions based solely on non-verbal cues; increased threat sensitivity/risk aversion etc.)
In turn, rather than stand up for our damn selves, feminists told us that cis male traits, values, behaviors, etc MUST be more valuable and therefore we should start acting like them and shun the women who don’t.
Imagine instead, feminists stood up for the feminine. Imagine we actually GREW THE MATRIARCHY. Imagine we insisted on explaining the value of the softness of 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.
I truly believe that if the Oster 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 virtue signal how much they love their work more than 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 and neuroimaging data 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.
Why don’t we all *finally* agree on the extreme value that sensitive and present mothers bring to humanity, so that policy can follow—as you suggest in this brilliant piece—to finally support mothers.
Wow thanks for the long and thoughtful comment Tracy. This is SUCH a complex and loaded topic and one I keep revising my own position on but it’s a conversation that NEEDS TO BE HAD. Motherhood is really the sticking point of feminism. How can we take it into account without forcing women out of the workforce? How can we acknowledge it without engaging in more mom blaming?
What about providing mothers (or fathers!) a stipend to stay home for the 0-3 years. That, in effect, forces them *back into the workforce* after their important work is done—while also recognizing as a society the extreme value of mothers (or parents rather. I don’t care if it’s mom OR dad who stays home; let families choose) …Or we allow parents to remain at the daycare centres with the child until the child chooses on their own to be lured away from the parent. Once they’re comfortable with the caretakers. And obviously we need to agree on the importance of the 0-3 years to get more funding to make these centres better. Hell, hire neuroscientists and high-nurturers to work there and pay them six figures! Signal to society that THIS IS IMPORTANT WORK! I mean, we do it with the army: seek out “talent” (those with innate abilities of toughness, resilience, stoic nature, physical endurance etc) and then, as a society, we pay them handsomely. Why don’t we seek out high-nurturers and train them for care work. Front load the mental health work to the 0-3 years. We would reduce future spending on addiction treatment, incarceration, crime, healthcare etc. Massively.
Absolutely! I don’t mean to press hard. I think you’re getting to really important topics here. (Re: my other comment. I would also love to be convinced that modern day care centres are a good thing! Or more similar to the Hunter-Gatherer societies you know so much about. I’m in to hear it all!)
Adoptive mom here. Think about how you are thinking about biology. You’re so close with the hunter gatherer communal parenting perspective. But… How is this only about cisgender mothers? You have the seeds of some important insights, but your idea of biology is too simple, and you are still thinking about “mom or dad” in a nuclear family based way.
An adoptee here! I think she's addressing how to do the most good and change for the overwhelming norm, which are cisgender biological mothers (only about 1% of US children are adopted, and with better sex ed and more financial options for mothers, that number could hopefully grow smaller.)
Hi I just happened upon your substack! I’m currently a stay at home mom of three littles, but worked in “men’s” jobs (agriculture and maintaining infrastructure) until I had kids. It’s great to read your insights on this important and tricky stuff, thank you
This is a hugely important article. Gender equality has become a Trojan horse, pushing through an ideology based on sameness and denial of sex difference. This initially seems benign, positive even, but ends up with the undermining and inevitable erosion of women’s rights as they relate to motherhood, birth, breastfeeding and workplace maternal support. Men and women are not the same, and they are not interchangeable in every area of life, targeted and nuanced supports for families but particularly for mothers are key both in the fiscal and welfare or public spending space, but also in the workplace, since it is mothers - as a direct consequence of gestation, birth and their unique role in care - who experience barriers to their progression and participation in work and society. Thank you Elena for raising this issue.
Thanks for engaging! I’m glad you enjoyed the article. It’s a tricky subject but we need to be talking about it.
I love this piece. I was a radical leftist for decades until I started interviewing neuroscientists on the link between infant neglect and addiction. (In short, reliable maternal affection helps build an *adaptive* response to stress and the oxytocin system: two things we need to stave off addiction—an affliction that piggybacks off the “love and attachment reward centres” of the brain.)
This led me to understand feminism as the Trojan Horse of the patriarchy it soon became—I mean, look at society and tell me all the wishes of men haven’t come true: they no longer have to provide, protect, or even commit—and to detest some feminists along the way. I’d love to watch the Steinheim types who deride and ridicule the gravely important 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.)
All the coming-of-age/teen movies have a familiar plot line: the comely nerdy girl, after getting belittled by the populars, starts dressing and acting like them to try 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!”
Certainly they’re 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.) When cis 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 newborn, comprehending their needs and emotions based solely on non-verbal cues; increased threat sensitivity/risk aversion etc.)
In turn, rather than stand up for our damn selves, feminists told us that cis male traits, values, behaviors, etc MUST be more valuable and therefore we should start acting like them and shun the women who don’t.
Imagine instead, feminists stood up for the feminine. Imagine we actually GREW THE MATRIARCHY. Imagine we insisted on explaining the value of the softness of 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.
I truly believe that if the Oster 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 virtue signal how much they love their work more than 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 and neuroimaging data 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.
Why don’t we all *finally* agree on the extreme value that sensitive and present mothers bring to humanity, so that policy can follow—as you suggest in this brilliant piece—to finally support mothers.
Do you mind if I share your comments to my Instagram story?
Wow thanks for the long and thoughtful comment Tracy. This is SUCH a complex and loaded topic and one I keep revising my own position on but it’s a conversation that NEEDS TO BE HAD. Motherhood is really the sticking point of feminism. How can we take it into account without forcing women out of the workforce? How can we acknowledge it without engaging in more mom blaming?
What about providing mothers (or fathers!) a stipend to stay home for the 0-3 years. That, in effect, forces them *back into the workforce* after their important work is done—while also recognizing as a society the extreme value of mothers (or parents rather. I don’t care if it’s mom OR dad who stays home; let families choose) …Or we allow parents to remain at the daycare centres with the child until the child chooses on their own to be lured away from the parent. Once they’re comfortable with the caretakers. And obviously we need to agree on the importance of the 0-3 years to get more funding to make these centres better. Hell, hire neuroscientists and high-nurturers to work there and pay them six figures! Signal to society that THIS IS IMPORTANT WORK! I mean, we do it with the army: seek out “talent” (those with innate abilities of toughness, resilience, stoic nature, physical endurance etc) and then, as a society, we pay them handsomely. Why don’t we seek out high-nurturers and train them for care work. Front load the mental health work to the 0-3 years. We would reduce future spending on addiction treatment, incarceration, crime, healthcare etc. Massively.
Absolutely! I don’t mean to press hard. I think you’re getting to really important topics here. (Re: my other comment. I would also love to be convinced that modern day care centres are a good thing! Or more similar to the Hunter-Gatherer societies you know so much about. I’m in to hear it all!)
Adoptive mom here. Think about how you are thinking about biology. You’re so close with the hunter gatherer communal parenting perspective. But… How is this only about cisgender mothers? You have the seeds of some important insights, but your idea of biology is too simple, and you are still thinking about “mom or dad” in a nuclear family based way.
An adoptee here! I think she's addressing how to do the most good and change for the overwhelming norm, which are cisgender biological mothers (only about 1% of US children are adopted, and with better sex ed and more financial options for mothers, that number could hopefully grow smaller.)
Hi I just happened upon your substack! I’m currently a stay at home mom of three littles, but worked in “men’s” jobs (agriculture and maintaining infrastructure) until I had kids. It’s great to read your insights on this important and tricky stuff, thank you
Get wise to the dark side of feminism in my podcast her:
https://soberchristiangentlemanpodcast.substack.com/p/s1-scgp-feminism-deception-rebroadcast