"Improving women’s mental health could also promote family formation and fertility. If women are less isolated and better supported, having children may become a more attractive proposition. "
Nothing in this article indicates to me that this issue is about mental health and support. It seems absurd to me to argue that hunter gatheres had it better, especially with many more children that would have needed 24/7 supervision for many years. Husbands are much more involved in child rearing in modernity while daycares can take care of children for most of the day.
"Women from modern societies with less gender equality are often surrounded by extended family members who can help with childcare"
Really? We would have to differentiate between "less developed" and "higher fertility" then. I would guess that trend holds even for less gender egalitarian nations without higher fertility and smaller families.
The common thread seems to be status. Childrearing is just low status in modernity. This might better explain why less equal and less developed nations don't seem to have this issue. Other writers have pointed out that postpartum correlates with age of first sexual contact and number of past sexual partners. Modern women live life's of sexual indulgence and freedom. Infants are often their first real responsibility, which then leads to resentment.
Actual addressing this isseu would therefore not require more support for women but an increase of status for mothers and a lower status for career women and promiscuity.
There is probably no bigger lie created by our market society than the idea that being a stay-at-home mother is some sort of failure and capitulation to patriarchal oppression, but that having some type of career is the apex of achievement, expression and individuality.
I know many different women who might have one or zero kids, who've dedicated their lives to being VP of PR or to marketing and sales etc, and yet are miserable, anxious, unfulfilled and always beating themselves up about either having a hard time caring for their child or because they never had one.
This doesn't mean I'm necessarily arguing for the old ways, just that freedom and equality don't mean that women need to become men or value the things that men do, but that they should be able to choose either. Being a mother who raises her own children is as valuable and fulfilling as a desk job and corporate perch, but it's frowned upon because its bad for GDP and goes against the American creed of expressive individualism. (I'm guessing you have a lot more valuable experiences and memories from raising children than you do hitting corporate sales targets.)
I've always thought there's a hint of wish fulfillment in all the "Handmaid's Tale" cosplay of our progressive priestesses, that women just might crave a bit more structure, order and stability than liberalism acknowledges, and that a home, husband and family would do much more to ease modern female anxiety than any antidepressants.
Note that Clancy had a full-time nanny and no job. Relatively high support
That doesn't contradict the claim that other women recognize themselves in a fictional version of Clancy's situation, but if Clancy is deemed to have not had enough support, it's tough to imagine anyone who does.
"If women are less isolated and better supported, having children may become a more attractive proposition"
There is another evolutionary mismatch in society. Namely that, in the past, men generally had higher status and authority over women. Women prefer higher status men. Egalitarian societies therefore make it more difficult for women to find attractive mates.
Some billionaires offer to take care of a woman's entire livelihood if they raise his children. If women don't want to raise children while isolated this would seem like a strange proposition. Yet many women happily take it. So it seems that isolation isn't as much of a problem than the men's relative status. I'm not sure how to proof it, but I'd guess women prefer to raise children of higher status men. This also explains the lower rates of ppd in less egalitarian society.
So I'm not sure why the author doesn't address the elefant in the room. Just reduce women's status and place them under the authority of their husband. It would make them happier.
Google AI states that Lindsay Clansy did not raise her children ans suffered from her mental health issues in isolation, but involved in these her family members and professionals. Nether the lass; it could still be that 'the evolutionary mismatch' hold sway
Because without religious conviction, it would make it easier for them to get rid of their own problems and legitimize, and excuse, any kind of mental or physical need soothed by medication they might have. Because without a God, especially the God of the Bible, aren’t your own needs paramount to all others? In their case, moral clarity is inclusive and individualized, and conditional to changing times.
Although we don’t share much in the religious belief sense, it does seem a “non sequitur” of sorts to bring religion into the conversation as you astutely point out. Most couples now are, as follows the rest of the U.S., not religious in practice (ignore what is stated for pollsters). However very few murder their children—which is why this case received so much publicity.
Here’s the latest statistic available/computed from ChatGPT: “Against roughly 74 million U.S. children, that implies something on the order of only 2–3 maternal-filicide deaths per million children per year.”
We really don’t need someone’s “hobby horse” adding confusion to this issue. My apologies for the term used, but it seems to fit given the rarity of the issue.
This was good, though I still feel like there’s a lot of unexplained variance (e.g. I’ve had depression for 6 years, but that doesn’t mean I’d sympathize with anyone who commits a heinous act bc their depression drove them to do so). Some elaboration abt how modern women’s sympathy for Clancy pre-murder translates into sympathy for her post-murder would be good here, I think
Also possibly irrelevant, but how does this analysis account for women who don’t or haven’t yet had children?
Convincing, and I'd add that the mismatch has a specific cause: we dissolved the boundary between the extended household and the public sphere. These are two different orders. The household distributes according to need and grants standing by relationship rather than achievement. The public sphere allocates by competition and merit. Once status could only be earned in the second, the first lost both its people and its prestige. The isolated mother isn't an accident of modern life. She is what remains of the household after everything that gave it weight moved outside.
I suspect this is a late consequence of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Tying status to individual achievement was not an attack on the household, but it left no way for the household to earn any. I'm uneasy saying so, since I have no wish to live in a pre-Enlightenment world and no idea how one would undo this. But I think that is where it begins.
"Improving women’s mental health could also promote family formation and fertility. If women are less isolated and better supported, having children may become a more attractive proposition. "
Nothing in this article indicates to me that this issue is about mental health and support. It seems absurd to me to argue that hunter gatheres had it better, especially with many more children that would have needed 24/7 supervision for many years. Husbands are much more involved in child rearing in modernity while daycares can take care of children for most of the day.
"Women from modern societies with less gender equality are often surrounded by extended family members who can help with childcare"
Really? We would have to differentiate between "less developed" and "higher fertility" then. I would guess that trend holds even for less gender egalitarian nations without higher fertility and smaller families.
The common thread seems to be status. Childrearing is just low status in modernity. This might better explain why less equal and less developed nations don't seem to have this issue. Other writers have pointed out that postpartum correlates with age of first sexual contact and number of past sexual partners. Modern women live life's of sexual indulgence and freedom. Infants are often their first real responsibility, which then leads to resentment.
Actual addressing this isseu would therefore not require more support for women but an increase of status for mothers and a lower status for career women and promiscuity.
As MAY have happened?
Clancy admits she killed her kids. Her defence at trial was “I killed my kids but I am not criminally responsible because of post partum psychosis”
You should really get the basics right otherwise it is hard to take the rest of your arguments seriously.
The author meant that her postpartum depression may have been what led her to kill her children, not that she may have been the one who killed them.
—NC
There is probably no bigger lie created by our market society than the idea that being a stay-at-home mother is some sort of failure and capitulation to patriarchal oppression, but that having some type of career is the apex of achievement, expression and individuality.
I know many different women who might have one or zero kids, who've dedicated their lives to being VP of PR or to marketing and sales etc, and yet are miserable, anxious, unfulfilled and always beating themselves up about either having a hard time caring for their child or because they never had one.
This doesn't mean I'm necessarily arguing for the old ways, just that freedom and equality don't mean that women need to become men or value the things that men do, but that they should be able to choose either. Being a mother who raises her own children is as valuable and fulfilling as a desk job and corporate perch, but it's frowned upon because its bad for GDP and goes against the American creed of expressive individualism. (I'm guessing you have a lot more valuable experiences and memories from raising children than you do hitting corporate sales targets.)
I've always thought there's a hint of wish fulfillment in all the "Handmaid's Tale" cosplay of our progressive priestesses, that women just might crave a bit more structure, order and stability than liberalism acknowledges, and that a home, husband and family would do much more to ease modern female anxiety than any antidepressants.
Note that Clancy had a full-time nanny and no job. Relatively high support
That doesn't contradict the claim that other women recognize themselves in a fictional version of Clancy's situation, but if Clancy is deemed to have not had enough support, it's tough to imagine anyone who does.
"If women are less isolated and better supported, having children may become a more attractive proposition"
There is another evolutionary mismatch in society. Namely that, in the past, men generally had higher status and authority over women. Women prefer higher status men. Egalitarian societies therefore make it more difficult for women to find attractive mates.
Some billionaires offer to take care of a woman's entire livelihood if they raise his children. If women don't want to raise children while isolated this would seem like a strange proposition. Yet many women happily take it. So it seems that isolation isn't as much of a problem than the men's relative status. I'm not sure how to proof it, but I'd guess women prefer to raise children of higher status men. This also explains the lower rates of ppd in less egalitarian society.
So I'm not sure why the author doesn't address the elefant in the room. Just reduce women's status and place them under the authority of their husband. It would make them happier.
"Rarely does it progress to the killing of one’s own children, as may have happened in the Clancy case, but it certainly can."
There is little doubt she killed them.
Interesting proposals for corrective action in the future. What do you think is a just outcome in the Clancy case?
They’re mind-controlled by the Illuminati.
Google AI states that Lindsay Clansy did not raise her children ans suffered from her mental health issues in isolation, but involved in these her family members and professionals. Nether the lass; it could still be that 'the evolutionary mismatch' hold sway
Because without religious conviction, it would make it easier for them to get rid of their own problems and legitimize, and excuse, any kind of mental or physical need soothed by medication they might have. Because without a God, especially the God of the Bible, aren’t your own needs paramount to all others? In their case, moral clarity is inclusive and individualized, and conditional to changing times.
Why bring religion into this discussion? Do you know of research that supports your contention?
Although we don’t share much in the religious belief sense, it does seem a “non sequitur” of sorts to bring religion into the conversation as you astutely point out. Most couples now are, as follows the rest of the U.S., not religious in practice (ignore what is stated for pollsters). However very few murder their children—which is why this case received so much publicity.
Here’s the latest statistic available/computed from ChatGPT: “Against roughly 74 million U.S. children, that implies something on the order of only 2–3 maternal-filicide deaths per million children per year.”
We really don’t need someone’s “hobby horse” adding confusion to this issue. My apologies for the term used, but it seems to fit given the rarity of the issue.
This was good, though I still feel like there’s a lot of unexplained variance (e.g. I’ve had depression for 6 years, but that doesn’t mean I’d sympathize with anyone who commits a heinous act bc their depression drove them to do so). Some elaboration abt how modern women’s sympathy for Clancy pre-murder translates into sympathy for her post-murder would be good here, I think
Also possibly irrelevant, but how does this analysis account for women who don’t or haven’t yet had children?
Convincing, and I'd add that the mismatch has a specific cause: we dissolved the boundary between the extended household and the public sphere. These are two different orders. The household distributes according to need and grants standing by relationship rather than achievement. The public sphere allocates by competition and merit. Once status could only be earned in the second, the first lost both its people and its prestige. The isolated mother isn't an accident of modern life. She is what remains of the household after everything that gave it weight moved outside.
I suspect this is a late consequence of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Tying status to individual achievement was not an attack on the household, but it left no way for the household to earn any. I'm uneasy saying so, since I have no wish to live in a pre-Enlightenment world and no idea how one would undo this. But I think that is where it begins.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/predation-mutation-when-state-expansion-reaches-anthropological-limit