That breaks my heart as well. I would hope a mother would not choose murder over BFing. >>>
But that is too black and white, Stephanie. It's not necessarily "kill or BF". It is an evaluation of all the implications of having a newborn, not just the feeding. The decrease in mobility, the subtraction of a nursing mother from work, the extra food she requires, and that her child will require in time, the liability of having a baby who will make noise and possibly attract predators or rival tribe members - it's an aggregate risk to bring a child into a tribe. Even if a pregnancy was welcome, it is highly possible that circumstances could ahve changed during the pregnancy or after the birth that would sway the opinion of the tribe as a whole. Environmental factors, too many women getting preg, a recent skirmish with an enemy tribe, etc. It's definitely more than just "kill the baby or breastfeed". :D
I think that bears repeating. "You suck it up and do what you have to for your baby." IMO, that means you don't stop nursing because you have mastitis, because you have thrush so badly that your nipples are bleeding, or because you're just tired with a baby that seems to hate your breasts. BTDT with all three scenarios, and I know they suck. But I guess I've always looked at it as I'm not nursing for me. I'm doin' it for my babe.>>>
I see it the same way. Of course, I'm sure I'll be thought of as a martyr mother for that, but I just see it as part of mothering. I believe I've been called archaic for thinking that way, but of all the things I'm not archaic about, I'll take the mothering thing. Archaic, to me, is similar to instinct.
Does it mean you are a "bad mother" if you abandon, kill or eat your child?
"So with this strata of support, I have concluded that it is a normal — a "natural"— trait for a human being to be willing to kill his or her own child, especially during the first year of life, and that there are genetic factors which are determinative of this compulsion."
"Conversely, studying societies that practice infanticide Géza Róheim reported that even infanticidal mothers in New Guinea, who ate a child, did not affect the personality development of the surviving children; that "these are good mothers who eat their own children"."
No matter what decision you make in your life, or your child's life - there will always be someone just waiting to tell you what a stupid idiot you are for doing so...
If we are just going with instinct, I can't imagine the instinct to kill your own newborn. That is way harder for me to imagine than wet nursing your niece or nephew.>>>
If you subscribe to the Aristotelian mode of virtue ethics (and I do, personally), it would be easier to understand this. The theory behind the system is that instinct is something we do without thinking, but that with proper training and indoctrination basically from our societies, any action can become so accepted that it feels like instinct. I don't think mothers ever instinctually wanted to kill their babies, but it was such a norm in that society and that time frame that she didn't question it. She was raised to believe and understand that this is the way things were - so it isn't instinct, per se, but it is a belief so deeply ingrained that she doesn't think to question it. These sorts of norms are in every society worldwide. To accept it, we have to realize that anthropologically speaking, ethical relativism exists and while we find it shocking that a woman could accept the slaying of her child, we are also biased towards that thinking. In that society, it isn't shocking, it is what survival depends on.
I thought it would also include when there were too many babies being born, or not enough food to go around (that baby might nurse at first, but then will be another mouth to feed for a good number of years).>>>
Yes, definitely. It wasn't just about immediate rations, I believe it also occurred with the forethought that the child would be demanding resources beyond the initial nursing relationship. I'm just theorizing here, however, as we haven't really discussed this in depth in any of my anthro or history classes to date.
If I was a nursing mom in a tribe where food is in short supply, and another mom decides she just doesn't feel like feeding her baby, I would take on her baby, but I would also expect to get her food share as well, since I need enough energy to now keep two babies alive.
So I gues the non-nursing mom had better find herself more food that the tribe hasn't already found - or slowly strave to death. I can't imagine that the rest of the tribe would feel to sorry for a mom who refused to feed her own child?
<>
I can see it happening as well, but I think that natural justice would be much quicker back then. Don't feel like working? You starve. Can't get along with your tribe/rather be alone? Well, you better be a good hunter, or you starve. Don't feel like feeding your baby? OK another mom will, but she will also get your food share too, and you starve.
<<<<
Yes, yes, yes, I completely agree! I was thinking that all this talk about other women being ABLE to nurse is neglecting the reality that a lot of these woman probably did not want to nurse another baby. Having one nursling is feasible in trying to put one's fair share of work in, but having two, or three? One woman would be completely laid up with nursing, right? In HG societies, there was a distribution of work that was kept to.
And about natural justice, yes, definitely. There wasn't as much entitlement in a traditional HG society - you put your work in, you got to eat. And I think I would take it a step further and say that if mom didn't feel like feeding her baby, the baby would die. That is, after all, nature.
"What do you expect me to say? Breastfeeding is less risky and healthier for infants? I agree. That formula is so risky no woman in her right mind would use it unless she had to? I would not agree."
However, new human life didn't seem to be all that sacred, and if the first mom couldn't nurse her baby enough to keep it alive and healthy, it likely would be accepted that the baby would likely die.<<<
Exactly. We have this conception in our society that every life is sacred, and everyone deserves to produce and to live. It's not natural.
Pages
That breaks my heart as well. I would hope a mother would not choose murder over BFing. >>>
But that is too black and white, Stephanie. It's not necessarily "kill or BF". It is an evaluation of all the implications of having a newborn, not just the feeding. The decrease in mobility, the subtraction of a nursing mother from work, the extra food she requires, and that her child will require in time, the liability of having a baby who will make noise and possibly attract predators or rival tribe members - it's an aggregate risk to bring a child into a tribe. Even if a pregnancy was welcome, it is highly possible that circumstances could ahve changed during the pregnancy or after the birth that would sway the opinion of the tribe as a whole. Environmental factors, too many women getting preg, a recent skirmish with an enemy tribe, etc. It's definitely more than just "kill the baby or breastfeed". :D
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
I think that bears repeating. "You suck it up and do what you have to for your baby." IMO, that means you don't stop nursing because you have mastitis, because you have thrush so badly that your nipples are bleeding, or because you're just tired with a baby that seems to hate your breasts. BTDT with all three scenarios, and I know they suck. But I guess I've always looked at it as I'm not nursing for me. I'm doin' it for my babe.>>>
I see it the same way. Of course, I'm sure I'll be thought of as a martyr mother for that, but I just see it as part of mothering. I believe I've been called archaic for thinking that way, but of all the things I'm not archaic about, I'll take the mothering thing. Archaic, to me, is similar to instinct.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
Does it mean you are a "bad mother" if you abandon, kill or eat your child?
"So with this strata of support, I have concluded that it is a normal — a "natural"— trait for a human being to be willing to kill his or her own child, especially during the first year of life, and that there are genetic factors which are determinative of this compulsion."
"Conversely, studying societies that practice infanticide Géza Róheim reported that even infanticidal mothers in New Guinea, who ate a child, did not affect the personality development of the surviving children; that "these are good mothers who eat their own children"."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
~*~ Catherine, "Internet Research Specialist" ;)
No matter what decision you make in your life, or your child's life - there will always be someone just waiting to tell you what a stupid idiot you are for doing so...
Some of my blogs:Life Begins... (miscarriage)
Frugal Baby Tips
Frugal Freebies
Pregnancy Stories By Age - 43-56+yrs old!
You Can Get Pregnant in Your 40's
Edited 12/19/2008 4:37 pm ET by witch_power
~*~ Catherine, mom to three grown men - Jason, Michael & Joshua and Granma to Christopher & Leia.
If we are just going with instinct, I can't imagine the instinct to kill your own newborn. That is way harder for me to imagine than wet nursing your niece or nephew.>>>
If you subscribe to the Aristotelian mode of virtue ethics (and I do, personally), it would be easier to understand this. The theory behind the system is that instinct is something we do without thinking, but that with proper training and indoctrination basically from our societies, any action can become so accepted that it feels like instinct. I don't think mothers ever instinctually wanted to kill their babies, but it was such a norm in that society and that time frame that she didn't question it. She was raised to believe and understand that this is the way things were - so it isn't instinct, per se, but it is a belief so deeply ingrained that she doesn't think to question it. These sorts of norms are in every society worldwide. To accept it, we have to realize that anthropologically speaking, ethical relativism exists and while we find it shocking that a woman could accept the slaying of her child, we are also biased towards that thinking. In that society, it isn't shocking, it is what survival depends on.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
I thought it would also include when there were too many babies being born, or not enough food to go around (that baby might nurse at first, but then will be another mouth to feed for a good number of years).>>>
Yes, definitely. It wasn't just about immediate rations, I believe it also occurred with the forethought that the child would be demanding resources beyond the initial nursing relationship. I'm just theorizing here, however, as we haven't really discussed this in depth in any of my anthro or history classes to date.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
<>
If I was a nursing mom in a tribe where food is in short supply, and another mom decides she just doesn't feel like feeding her baby, I would take on her baby, but I would also expect to get her food share as well, since I need enough energy to now keep two babies alive.
So I gues the non-nursing mom had better find herself more food that the tribe hasn't already found - or slowly strave to death. I can't imagine that the rest of the tribe would feel to sorry for a mom who refused to feed her own child?
<>
I can see it happening as well, but I think that natural justice would be much quicker back then. Don't feel like working? You starve. Can't get along with your tribe/rather be alone? Well, you better be a good hunter, or you starve. Don't feel like feeding your baby? OK another mom will, but she will also get your food share too, and you starve.
<<<<
Yes, yes, yes, I completely agree! I was thinking that all this talk about other women being ABLE to nurse is neglecting the reality that a lot of these woman probably did not want to nurse another baby. Having one nursling is feasible in trying to put one's fair share of work in, but having two, or three? One woman would be completely laid up with nursing, right? In HG societies, there was a distribution of work that was kept to.
And about natural justice, yes, definitely. There wasn't as much entitlement in a traditional HG society - you put your work in, you got to eat. And I think I would take it a step further and say that if mom didn't feel like feeding her baby, the baby would die. That is, after all, nature.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
Malcolm Gladwell Blink
"What do you expect me to say? Breastfeeding is less risky and healthier for infants? I agree. That formula is so risky no woman in her right mind would use it unless she had to? I would not agree."
I "expect" debate, lol.
However, new human life didn't seem to be all that sacred, and if the first mom couldn't nurse her baby enough to keep it alive and healthy, it likely would be accepted that the baby would likely die.<<<
Exactly. We have this conception in our society that every life is sacred, and everyone deserves to produce and to live. It's not natural.
Powered by CGISpy.com
Powered by CGISpy.com
Pages