On Sex, Fertility & Motherhood

Catallaxy is blogging about an opinion article in the Sydney Morning Herald "In praise of female sexuality." It's ironic that the poster and all the commenters are male, so I thought a working mother should chime in with an opinion.

(1) Why does a woman have to choose exclusively motherhood or a career? Especially when a man is not required to make this choice? Are we that bound by biology that simply having a uterus means that if I want to procreate that I must spend 24/7 caring for my child and do nothing else? That no other caregivers will do? There's been plenty of studies about the good that daycare can do for children, the good that daddy-care can do, and the good that can come of children seeing their mothers achieve something outside of the home. It's high time that men pitch in -- and not just with supplying income. It's time that both parents forge a balance between family and career. This may mean an adjusting of society in the future. I can only hope so.

In the journal Brain and Mind (vol. 3, 2002, p. 79-100) Dr. Bruce D. Perry wrote the article "Childhood Experience and the Expression of Genetic Potential: What Childhood Neglect Tells Us About Nature and Nurture" where he says:

"For more than 90 percent of human history we have lived in bands, clans or extended families of roughly 40 persons. In the West, by 1500 the average household had decreased to 20 persons; by 1850 to ten; in the United States to less than three persons in the average American household by 2000.

"Our brain evolved over hundreds of thousands of generations in hominid and pre-hominid social groups. In these small hunter-gatherer bands a complex interactive dynamic socio-emotional environment provided the experiences for the developing child. At equilibrium in a group of fifty, there were three or more adult caregiving adults for every dependent child under age six. And there was little privacy. A dependent child grew up in the presence of the elderly, siblings, adults — related and not. There was a more continuous exposure and wider variety of socio-emotional interactions. The child in this situation had many opportunities to form relationships and, in a use-dependent way, develop the capacity to have a rich array of relationships. The genetic potential for healthy socio-emotional functioning — to be empathic, to share, to invest in the welfare of the community —is better expressed in children living in hunter-gatherer bands or extended families or close-knit communities in comparison with our compartmentalized modern world." (Read the entire article here, or read a Science News article on a similar topic here.)

Childcare has been shared for eons. The present notion of a mother being the only caregiver is not how our brains are wired.

(2) The SMH article cites prime fertility for females between the ages of 17-23. While men don't have a fertility peak, they do have a sexual peak in their early twenties and it's well-known that women don't hit their sexual peak until around 35. Certainly, it's true that while sperm quality or quantity may not wain with age in the healthy male, the ability to ejaculate does change with age and vascular deterioration. What this comes down to is that hormonally both sexes are primed for procreation in their late teens and early twenties. However, there are all sorts of other medical problems for mother and baby associated with teenage pregnancy. So, even if the ovaries are primed to procreate before age 20, other parts of a woman's body aren't ready at all and can actually be detrimental to life. This dicotomy means that biology isn't everything. Older parents are more patient and concentrate more of their time willingly to parenting because they've already experienced having a career.

Certainly having parents who want to be parents, and have the maturity and the income to support children, are advantages that outweigh any biological clock ticking.