So get this, when you develop a relationship with a human being you love and care about, your brain responds differently to that individual than it does to any other person. Shocking, I know. But it appears researchers are just discovering this! (perhaps I should have majored in the sciences…) From the nytimes:
A mother’s impulse to love and protect her child appears to be hard-wired into her brain, a new imaging study shows.
Tokyo researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (M.R.I.) to study the brain patterns of 13 mothers, each of whom had an infant about 16 months old.
First, the scientists videotaped the babies smiling at their mothers during playtime. Then the women left the room, and the infants were videotaped crying and reaching for their mothers to come back. All of the babies were dressed in the same blue shirt for the video shoot.
M.R.I. scans were taken as each mother watched videos of the babies, including her own, with the sound off. When a woman saw images of her own child smiling or upset, her brain patterns were markedly different than when she watched the other children. There was a particularly pronounced change in brain activity when a mother was shown images of her child in distress.
The scans suggest that particular circuits in the brain are activated when a mother distinguishes the smiles and cries of her own baby from those of other infants. The fact that a woman responds more strongly to a child’s crying than to smiling seems “to be biologically meaningful in terms of adaptation to specific demands associated with successful infant care,” the study authors noted.
Now, this all does seem pretty obvious, right? You raise a baby, you take care of it, you love it…you’re probably going to have a specific reaction functionally in the brain when you see your baby expressing an emotion. The problem is regarding these things as “natural” and referring to it as exclusively a “maternal instinct.” I have a real problem when the word “natural” is just thrown around. What happens when some mothers outside this group of 13 women don’t happen to respond the “natural” way? Also, where were fathers in this study? Or adoptive parents? All things equal, I’m pretty sure the results would have been similar for fathers or adoptive parents which is why I just can’t comprehend the author’s link to “instinct” and “hard-wiring” in the brain. This “study” sure looks to be a waste of someone’s money and tis a shame. The other possibility is that the author of this article is just looking for a way to conveniently support a stereotypical gender role and if that’s the case, tis a greater shame. She seems to create conclusions that do not necessarily go along with the data and if that’s the case, she seriously needs to check the wiring of her own brain.
Filed under: health
Dashaway
femmemeister
Bento
wow, dashaway, you’re completely missing the point of this study and you’re making comments that i simply can’t understand. to reiterate, the entire point was to use a novel technique (fMRI) to quantitatively show that mothers respond uniquely to their own children. what is hard to understand here? the “link” between ‘instinct’ and ‘hard-wiring’ is that an objective measurement (made via fMRI) has now confirmed what our common sense instincts tell us to be true. as a non-science major, i guess i could see where you wouldn’t see the importance of that…but as an engineer who has worked extensively with fMRI, i know that it’s vital. wouldn’t you agree that it’s beneficial to OBJECTIVELY know some things versus just taking them to be true? i would encourage you to google fMRI. it’ll take you all of 3 minutes to realize the tremendous impact the technique has had with regards to both understanding the human body/psyche and furthering the advancement of modern medicine. dismissing this study as a “waste of someone’s money” is crazy!!
one last thing: the subject population was only women, but that doesn’t mean that the study was biased nor does it mean that a father/adoptive parent wouldn’t react in the same way. when you say “All things equal, I’m pretty sure the results would have been similar for fathers or adoptive parents,” you’re probably right! in that case (assuming a similar finding), the ‘hard-wiring’ would be present in mothers, fathers, AND adoptive parents. just so you know, isolating subject populations is commonly seen in the scientific community and is done for a number of reasons too numerous to list here.
as you might have guessed, my pick isn’t “stupid study” or “weak-minded writer”….it’s simply a confused and naive reviewer.
Hi J,
I appreciate your comments as coming from someone more familiar with science and fMRI studies. However, I believe that dashaway’s point has more to do with the interpretation of the study and its implications. (After all, the majority of people who read the NY Times article won’t be science majors, right? Therefore, the explanation of the data is as important as the data itself in terms of meaning-reception.)
I don’t see the study itself as problematic–however, the fact that only women (and a fairly small number of subjects at that–I think that 13 women would not lead to a conclusive study at all) were looked at adds to the idea that women are the “born child-care givers,” when men are not. Now, I realize that the study does not SAY that at all–perhaps men would be the next test subjects. However, given that so many women worldwide are limited to childcare as their ONLY option for self-fulfillment/employment, I believe that scientific studies such as this need to be careful in how they throw around the term “natural”. And, they need to evaluate why women were chosen as the first test subjects instead of men or couples.
There is actually a very interesting subject in feminism that deals with science and epistemology. While the feminist interpretation of science does not directly contradict scientific data, it serves as a check against certain reductive tendencies in Western society. For example, feminists in the sciences often challenge why certain groups were studied instead of others, question interpretation of data, and question why the topic in question is phrased in the manner it is. Thus, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that the study in question can be valuable, and that it might actually be scientifically correct, while still asking questions about the reasons behind certain methodologies that lie behind the study.
I understand that scientific study might require the segregation of the sexes in order to come up with valid data. However, the fact that women were chosen first, and the fact that men were not mentioned as future test subjects, might lead one to believe that women are the “natural” child care-givers–and thus that women are “wired” to be the only ones giving that care.
Again, I am not saying that the data shows that conclusively–I am saying that the question asked, and the way in which the question was investigated, might lead someone to believe that. It also gives ammunition to those who argue that women’s place is only in the home (after all, if their brains are hardwired that way, then that is what they are born to do, right?).
What dashaway was saying, therefore, is that this data is underdetermined. There are lots of value-laden issues that lie behind this study that are not accounted for. Thus, to take the study as “pure, rational science” might be leaving out some important things.
Science always comes from somewhere, and there is nothing wrong with questioning where the science comes from–especially when people are so keen on jumping on any published study as unquestionable fact, and when there might be some real consequences that arise from the study.
To conclude: science is valuable, and this study might lead to some great discoveries about child-care in the future. But, those who have written the study up as a story should also think hard about why the study was done, why only women were test subjects, and why the conclusions of the study do not take into account socialization/upbringing. When caring for a child is reduced to “natural” instinct, there might be some dangerous consequences, and women would bear the brunt of that. Thus, science = good, but only when its methodologies and conclusions are questioned from a values standpoint–otherwise, the very important implications of studies might be sublimated to a reductionistic viewpoint incapable of breaking away from what a double-blind study (even a flawed one) might say.
So i realize that what ive typed below is ridiculously condescending and, honestly, i kind of hate myself for having written it. but, its too late.
After reading the boring as hell scientific article this nytimes article is based off of, i’ve dreamt up a conversation between the scientists performing this study.
-hey, so you ever notice that, in the natural world, female higher vertebrate species take care of their young with special care? Like more than they would other young?
-yeah, so what?
-well, i was just thinking, what with humans being higher vertebrate species, maybe thats true for our females too.
-word. what the fuck, im bored. lets find out.
later.
-dude, did you notice that a part of the brain that women can’t voluntarily control responds biologically and chemically to the cries of their own baby? more so than even the cries of other babies?
-yeah, it’s almost as if her body is responding even if she is not consciously trying to make it respond.
-yeah, like, its “natural”. by all definition of the word.
-so, the only conclusion we can draw, i guess, is that women involuntarily respond to the cries of her own baby as compared to other babies, as demonstrated by our fMRI.
-should we test males or adoptive parents?
-shmeh. it’s kind of irrelevant. we’d never get grant money for that kind of study because we have no scientific basis to justify needing to test males, like we did with the females.
-thats true, this study was to draw another connection to humans as biological beings and find out whether or not females, heaven forbid, are born with a natural predisposition towards something. It’s not like we have an agenda.
-what if someone gets all up in our grill about how we left out males?
-bitch please. this is science. not politics. besides, we’re not here to censor reality. and if people really want to yell at us, it had better be after reading our scientific article itself, and not some abridged, un-justifying version.
“However, the fact that women were chosen first, and the fact that men were not mentioned as future test subjects, might lead one to believe that women are the “natural” child care-givers–and thus that women are “wired” to be the only ones giving that care.”
Women are the natural child care givers–in just about all of nature. It’s why men can’t support a fetus, and it’s why they can’t breast feed. We’re born child care givers!! It’s not the only way, but it is nature’s way. And it’s a beautiful thing.
It’s interesting that you would say this study is silly and obvious, but then say that we don’t want to use these ridiculously obvious results, because they might influence people’s opinions.
Hi Katie,
I am very glad you posted. Your response to the article is exactly what dashaway and I were worried about, proving that science often goes beyond hard facts and data into that nebulous realm of interpretation.
Perhaps the most severe problem here is a conflation of “a natural caregiver” and “THE natural caregiver.” Dashaway’s point that the study was obvious is quite valid: those who spend a great deal of time with a particular child develop a bond with that child that is stronger than a bond with other children. The fact that women who spend time with children experience the bond neurologically is thus not surprising at all.
However, the study irresponsibly does not out the fact that social forces could be working on the brain (as opposed to the brain influencing social forces). Hence, the criticism that only biological mothers were studied, as opposed to adoptive mothers or fathers. After all, what if men have the exact same response? That would show that parental love–not just maternal love–is powerful enough to affect our brains.
Thus, the study is obvious, in that women (as human beings) would care for children; the problem with the article is that it gives ammunition to those (like, I would guess, yourself) who believe that ONLY women should be primary caregivers. (It’s in nature! Science proved it! Women–flock to your kitchens!)
Well, perhaps I was exaggerating right there–but maybe not. Your points that women have unique relationships with children, as the only sex that can give birth to and nurse children, is valid. However, to extend those particular unique relationships to ALL of caregiving is irresponsible and illogical. Why is it that a woman who gave birth would be expected, for example, to stay home to care for the child instead of the child’s father? That notion is reductive, is insulting to both men and women as well as to all adoptive parents, and seems to lead to an animalistic view of society that I am not comfortable with.
After all, there are a lot of “natural” things in the animal world that are bad: starvation, fighting over mates, crapping on my car, etc. Human beings, as self-aware beings that exist within cultures, have the special ability to choose what is right for them and their families. Thus, just because an ape family might have the female as the primary caregiver does not mean that a human should point to that, say, “By Gum, that there’s the NATURAL thing to do!” and then do that. (And, by the way, not all animals divide labor this way–there are some species in which the male plays a dominant role, but I digress.)
To sum up: mothers caring for children is natural. Yes. But so is fathers caring for children. Or an aunt or uncle caring for children. Or an adoptive parent. Or a grandparent. People like babies. They are cute and have big eyes and say funny things. We bond with babies, and, as you say, “it’s a beautiful thing.”
But it is not a “beautiful thing” for women alone. That deprives men of the joys (and the burdens too) of parenting, and it turns motherhood into something oppressive, which it should not be. Motherhood should be empowering and awesome–it should not be something a woman is stuck doing because someone read a shallowly-investigated study using the fMRI.
Well said, femmemeister!
sheesh…look what I started!! anyways, I guess the majority of this goes to femmemeister (it’s not even worth trying with desi. for the record, i stopped reading after you dropped the f-bomb):
you’re a talented writer and obviously crafty with respect to diction. as such, it’s important not to get lost or stray from the main points when reading your responses. first off, 13 women absolutely, positively constitutes a ‘conclusive’ study by scientific measures. it would be utterly fruitless to conduct a study that wasn’t scientifically conclusive. we nerds ensure we have enough subjects by running a statistical test called a ‘power’ test (google for more information).
i’m not at all surprised that feminists question the motivation behind studies like this one. to me, it does and probably always will seem like ya’ll are reading a bit too much into things; indeed, i like to absorb and reflect on the science for what it is. but that’s just me…the world wouldn’t be so fun if we didn’t have you gals around. that said, though, i would argue that the possible ‘interpretations’ you’ve laid out here don’t even cross the mind of the vast, vast majority of people (men AND women) who have read the NY Times article. i think you’d be lying to yourself if you thought otherwise. just a few more things before i say adieu:
we don’t know for sure that fathers/adoptive parents won’t be included in further studies, so it’s a vapid argument to fault the researchers for first looking at a biologically ‘natural’ care giver. keep in mind that studies often build on themselves…you never know what subject population will be next!
so that’s it. this is an interesting topic, to be sure. btw, nice work with the site (especially when it remains tasteful).
Hi J,
I just wanted to respond to a few of the points in your last post. I agree with you that the study was probably conducted well and that its results are valid. I think that femmemeister’s (and dashaway’s) main point, however, was not that the study results are wrong, but that the way they are presented can be misconstrued.
I also think that in saying this, they are not arguing that most men and women who read this will think to themselves, “After reading this article, I now know that women, and only women, are biologically meant to be caregivers.” For the average reader of the article, the effect would be more subtle and less consciously noted than that. I think that it’s fair to say that, whether or not they believe it, most people have heard of the idea that women are naturally more nurturing and thus are better suited to child-rearing. I think that femmemeister and dashaway are mainly trying to point out that this study, when read casually over breakfast as so many people do, could unjustly reinforce that belief.
I say “unjustly” not because the study was invalid, but because of the way it is presented. As femmemeister noted in her first post, it is very possible that they will repeat the study with fathers or adoptive parents. But by studying women first, and by reporting the results without any mention of testing the same phenomena with men or adoptive parents, they do (whether they meant to or not) imply that this is a feature unique to women.
hi kelley,
after re-reading dashaway’s and femmemeister’s posts, it’s clear that (at some point or another) they both tried to find fault with the science behind the study. as you know, that was my main gripe. i feel like between my 2 posts i’ve said all i can say to dispel the notion that this study was scientifically flawed. it seems i’ve been at least moderately successful.
what you’re talking about–femm’s (and apparently dash’s) main point as you’ve outlined above–is something that we could debate until kingdom come. if i understand this correctly, what you’re all saying is that the study COULD imply that only women are meant to be caregivers. my response (and, incidentally, what Katie was getting at) is simply that women ARE the biologically natural caregivers. if you (kelley) mean that most people have heard that women are naturally more biologically nurturing, then you’re right…everyone has heard of that because it’s 100% true. to reiterate, i just think it’s a bit presumptuous to conclude that the term ‘caregivers’ (note the biological is removed) excludes men and adoptive parents…but that’s my subjective opinion. i realize that it’s possible for other people to draw the same conclusions that you do after reading an article like this!
i wonder…i wonder if the issue of women and empowerment is at the core of this discussion? is the real issue that certain women want to feel as though their ‘caregiving’ lot in life isn’t predetermined or stereotyped in any way? why is it this issue in particular that strikes a dissonant chord with certain women? i’d love it if femm would explain what she means when she says that being a mother should be “empowering.”
then again, maybe this is all better saved for a rainy day!
After reading this comment thread, I must say, great discussion! I’ve learned a lot, J, from your analysis, and thanks femme and kelley for clarifying my points in the original post while I have been busy with midterms. (ugh). To respond to your main gripe, J, I guess I found fault with the science behind the study to the extent that I thought it wasn’t some “great big finding” that we all should be ooo-ing and aaahhh-ing over (like the article seemed to describe). The design and conclusion of the study seemed obvious and while I did mention something like how it was a “waste of someone’s money,” please understand that as a sarcastic exaggeration. I don’t think the study was scientifically flawed, just interpretively flawed. As reiterated multiple time, my main concern was with the conclusions being drawn in the nytimes article that attempted to link what was found in this study to a universal and exclusive “maternal instinct.” My main gripe is with the author of the article. The study appeared to me to deal more with societal conditions that influence the brain rather than something hard-wired and present in every woman. I am fascinated by this subject but the extent to my knowledge on it comes from watching discovery health. I think an interesting study would attempt to create the same conditions but test the group of women almost immediately after birth. I’m all for science (go science!) but I’m for a science that takes into account the social conditions and normative ideas that are out there when discussing the findings of their study so as to prevent further perpetuation of myths about what is “natural.” After all, the notion of science itself is socially constructed.
Hi J,
Since you asked me a direct question, I thought I would respond again, though I believe that Kelley and dash made some excellent points regarding the socially-constructed nature of science and the subtleties of scientific interpretation.
I am not exactly sure what you mean in your second paragraph, though. I don’t think you want to say that women are born to be the primary social caregivers (staying home, feeding and clothing children, taking care of them when they are sick, etc.) based on their unique capacities for biological caregiving (giving birth, nursing, etc.), right? I think Katie WAS saying that–but it seems like you are trying to distinguish between these two types of caregiving. Is that a fair assessment?
Well, if that is the case, I would certainly agree. Men cannot give birth, and men cannot nurse. However, those biological facts do not predetermine the social facts of caregiving. After all, there are many families in which couples share the raising of children equally, many in which there are stay-at-home dads, and many families in which the mothers are the primary social caregivers. Here, I think you would also agree.
However, there are those people who believe that women ARE bound to be social caregivers because they also provide unique biological care. That is what I have a problem with, and once again we come down to an issue of the interpretation of science.
“How does this relate to the study?” you might ask. Well, people have a tendency to look at science as determining socialization (as opposed to socialization working along with science). Let me give you an example:
Many people think that women are “born caregivers” because men are the fighters. They say that men are more violent, more competitive, less likely to be nurturing–and they often look to testosterone as the reason. I have heard some people argue, “Men have testosterone! This makes them all angry and beat their chests at each other. They cannot raise a baby! Women secrete estrogen. This makes them all happy and motherly, and thus the proper caregiver for children.”
Now, while I entirely admit that hormones do make a difference in personality (sometimes), it is not NEARLY to the extent that those reductive science dilettantes say it is. For example, we are now learning that behavior itself can have a large effect on hormone secretion. Boys who are encouraged to be more violent through socialization secrete more testosterone, for example. Thus, it is important not to equate a scientific fact (men have testosterone) with a social fact (men are more violent/can’t nurture children).
In terms of this study, therefore, it seems that what people MIGHT take from it (just as they do from my hormones example) is, “Women’s brains light up when they see kids. Therefore, they must be the ones meant to care for kids!” when it might actually be the other way around.
Now, I guess I’ll actually answer your original question. (I have length issues–can you tell?)
I think motherhood IS empowering. I would define empowering motherhood as
1) Being the mother’s choice–not feeling guilted into it or obligated to do so by society or any other party. (This also includes her being able to decide how many children she wants.)
2) Including enough free time for the mother to pursue her own interests and to be employed if she so chooses. (Some things that can help in this regard: subsidizing day care costs, encouraging men to be more involved in their children’s lives (if there is a male partner in the picture, that is, which is not always (nor should it be) the case), and ensuring that jobs that “skew female” are not underpaid because they are seen as less-important (es: teaching, nursing, child-care, etc.).)
3) Not to be criticized if she is not as “maternal” or “domestic” as certain factions of society might wish her to be. On the same token, not to be criticized for staying at home if that is her free choice.
If women are seen as the sole proper givers of care, then I am not sure that “empowering motherhood” can take place. This is not to say that mothers who have been obligated or pressured into having children do not love them any less–but rather that in an ideal world, motherhood would not be used as a means to guilt women into certain occupations instead of others. Motherhood should not limit women’s choices, and parenting should not fall to the mother alone, unless (of course) that is her choice.
I hope that clarifies things–though I am so exhausted right now I cannot vouch for the coherence of the above post, and it’s too long for me to proofread. Good luck reading it!