| I want a baby, but my husband is not so sure Carole Jahme shines the cold light of evolutionary psychology on readers' problems. This week: Absence of paternal instinctFrom Feeling Motherly, aged 30Dear Carole, I got married last year to a man I love dearly. I've always loved babies and children, but lately I notice pregnant women everywhere, make faces at strangers' babies, and generally feel a powerful urge to be a mother myself. My husband is far more ambivalent about the idea of children, and has said that he thinks he could be happy with or without them. My father-in-law swears that women have a natural maternal instinct, while men rarely feel paternal until presented with their own offspring. Is there any evolutionary evidence to that effect, or is he making excuses for his son?Carole replies:Dear Feeling Motherly, Thanks for your email. It is common for women's maternal instinct to appear out-of-sync with their chosen man's paternal drive. There is a plethora of research highlighting significant differences between the genders when it comes to parenting. It has been argued that men's paternal strategies have evolved from ancestral gorilla-like family set-ups, where, like contemporary gorillas, a dominant male controlled a family group of breeding females and all infants were likely to be his progeny.1 It is predicted that the ancestral dominant male's parenting role was a territorial one, defending ecologically rich grazing areas and giving protection from interloping aggressors who would murder his infants and mate with his females once his prime has passed.Research on family life in traditional societies such as the Aché (a hunter-gatherer tribe living in Paraguay) has revealed that if a child becomes fatherless at any point before reaching age 15, they have a juvenile mortality rate of 45% compared to 20% for children under age 15 with fathers.2 Not only are children of absent fathers more vulnerable, but further research on the Aché has also revealed that children with "secondary" fathers have a 20% greater chance of surviving beyond age 15. Some women actively seek out extra male companionship as a means of increasing resources and family security. (Children born to skilled hunters had a lower mortality rate than children born to less able fathers.)Research across all human cultures has revealed a far greater female/maternal engagement with the needs of juveniles than paternal involvement with the young.3 In general, females naturally incline towards nurturing roles and this difference between males and females is in evidence from infancy with girls preferring to play with dolls and boys preferring to play with machines (such as toy cars).4 This gender divide is driven by empathic ability, which is usually higher in females. But there are always exceptions and some males are highly nurturing while some females are entirely without the ability to listen and give understanding.Due to the massive discrepancy in paternal investment, with females spending nine months gestating, and in traditional societies at least two years lactating, women have evolved different behaviours to help them cope with the enormous burden of motherhood, and due to this burden women are rarely indifferent to the types of men they breed with. In general women have evolved to be superior at mind reading, enabling women to correctly second-guess men, find the man they want to breed with and anticipate unwanted sexual coercion and if need be outwit the female competition.5,6Intelligent females seek out resourceful, skilled males who will protect and provide for any resulting infants. But how "broody" these males are prior to the birth of their children remains unclear. Research shows some males are ambivalent about their impending children right up to delivery and that this ambivalence will persist if they are in any doubt about their paternity. It has been noted that mothers and maternal relatives show a united behaviour of manipulating the father into believing the new baby resembles him, irrelevant of whether it does or not.7 "He has his father's nose!" Or "She has her father's eyes!" are familiar comments made by the maternal family soon after delivery. Comments like this help the new father to commit to raising the child. Having given birth, the mother's input is clear and the postpartum oxytocin coursing through her veins facilitates her bonding with her child.8I don't think you should be dissuaded from feeling motherly, nor should you feel hurt by your partner's paternal ambivalence. My interpretation of your father-in-law's comments is that he has reflected on how he felt before and after the birth of your husband, and predicts that his son will react similarly to him and will show an interest once the infant arrives, particularly once your mum waxes lyrical about how much the baby looks like him!I think your in-laws are giving you the green light to act upon your maternal urges and allow your husband's evolved gorilla-like paternal behaviour to be triggered once you start lactating.Good luck with it all.References1. Geary, D. C. (2010) Male and Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (2nd Edition). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 2. Hurtado, A M, et al (1992). Trade-offs between female food acquisition and child care among Hiwi and Ache foragers. Human Nature. 3.3: 185-216.3. Belsky, J, Rovine, M, Fish, M (1989) The developing family system, in Gunnar, M R and Thelen, E (eds) Systems and Development: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (volume 22, chapter 4, pages 119-166). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.4. Baron-Cohen, S (2003) The Essential Difference. Penguin Press.5. Rosenthal et al., (1979) Sensitivity to non-verbal communication: The PONS test. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.6. Rehnman, J, Herlitz, A (2007) Women remember more faces than men do. Acta Psychologica; 124 (3): 344-355.7. Daly, M, Wilson, M (1982) Whom are new born babies said to resemble? Ethology and Sociobiology; 3 (2): 69-78.8. Insel, T R, Shapiro, L E (1992) Oxytocin receptors and maternal behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences; 652: 122–141.EvolutionBiologyRelationshipsReproductionCarole Jahmeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Let's put a stop to this cliche – right now|Mind your language At this moment in time, an even more annoying expression has emerged. It's just not rightRight now the most irritating expression doing the rounds is … right now. It's everywhere – TV, radio and in the public prints – giving apparent urgency to what are usually vague general statements about tendencies in contemporary society. Nick Clegg has even tried, somewhat fruitlessly, to turn it into a soundbite: "This is the right government for right now." Ugh.Here are some other examples:"AKA Radric Davis is rap's go-to guy right now." (Guardian Guide)"There is a huge focus self-evidently on the global economy right now." (Tony Blair)"Right now it is a political jungle out there." (Nancy McLernon)"Right now the issues are around the economy, around the Green new deal, around social justice and fairness." (Caroline Lucas MP)"If we were in the euro right now, all of your taxes, all of your national insurance – some of that would be taken to bail out Greece." (David Cameron)"I wouldn't be able to be playing this very important role right now as the party goes forward" (Harriet Harman, deputy Labour party leader, on Radio 4's Woman's Hour)Now read those sentences without the "right now". They mean exactly the same. The right now adds nothing. It doesn't mean "right now" as in "I need to go for a wee right now!" What, I ask, is wrong with that serviceable old periphrasis "at this moment in time"?This isn't the only fashionable phrase that has emerged in recent years, usually from America, to infect our language – rogue memes subtly infesting our speech patterns and thus changing the way we think. Their function seems to be to associate the users with something they feel is modern, fashionable and cool. Indeed "cool" itself has had a very good run of late, tending to come towards at the end of an informal business discussions and meaning: "Excellent. We are in agreement. Let us proceed on the basis of our consensus."Or take the expression "Can I get an espresso and a bagel". This use of the word "get" crossed the Atlantic and replaced the perfectly acceptable and polite: "I wonder if I might have a buttered scone and a pot of Earl Grey" some time in the Gordon Gekko 1980s when "getting" seemed the most important thing in the world. It felt insistent, edgy, impatient. For a brief few seconds the speaker was in a trendy New York coffee bar, not just his or her local greasy spoon.Harman in the above quotation also comes close to a "going forward". You know the one: "We will be able to leverage synergies from this, going forward." It is a wholly redundant way of saying "in the future" – redundant because it is always in a sentence implying or formed in the future tense. Yet the people who say it just can't help saying it. It is their badge of acceptance within a particular narrow community. It shows they are corporate, entrepreneurial, in with the particular in-crowd that's particularly in right now (oops) – the business/marketing community. That's why politicians say it: it is a signifier to show they are on message with the corporate world.I'm pretty sure Clegg's somewhat uncomfortable use of the phrase will have come at Cameron's suggestion. He is a serial user, as in his first speech as prime minister: "And I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our really big challenges ..."You can imagine, as he was checking Clegg's notes for the keynote Lib Dem speech, Cameron might have said: "Why not try this line: 'This is the right government for right now'? I was going to use it myself, but your need is greater than mine, old chum."So by their expressions shalt thou know them – who they want to impress, whose gang they want to be in, even what particular fantasy world is playing out in their minds. Right now, it is a hyped up, jargon-ridden US corporatism that holds sway so that's the way we want to speak.But, you know what? You won't likely find me slipping into modish Americanisms any time soon. No way, Jose!LanguageNick CleggRichard Alcockguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Light drinking during pregnancy 'does children no harm' Study reporting on group now aged five says none suffered as a result of their mothers having an occasional drink while pregnantLight drinking in pregnancy does babies no harm in the long run, according to a substantial new study which challenges the government's advice that women should abstain completely for nine months.The study showed that the children of mothers who drank one or two units of alcohol a week during pregnancy have suffered no ill-effects by the time they are five. They do not have behavioural difficulties and nor are they behind in their intellectual development.The work is published online today in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. It should help to give women credible information on which to base their choice, said joint author Dr Yvonne Kelly of University College London's department of epidemiology and public health."This isn't about heavy consumption or foetal alcohol syndrome in any sense or about binge-drinking," said Kelly. "It is about the occasional drink and whether that is associated with developmental problems."She did not want to comment on the current advice from government. "I'm not sure we're in the business of acting as advocates but if women have information, it is plausible that they can make informed choices," she said.The study is based on a large sample from the millennium cohort study – 11,500 children who were born between September 2000 and January 2002. The mothers were interviewed in person about their drinking patterns while they were pregnant.They were placed in one of five categories: teetotal; those who drank but not in pregnancy; light drinkers (one to two units per week); moderate (three to six units a week or three to five at one sitting); and binge or heavy drinkers (seven or more units a week or six at one sitting).Just under 6% of the women never drank and 60% abstained during pregnancy. Just under 26% said they were light drinkers, 5.5% were moderate drinkers and 2.5% were binge or heavy drinkers.The team have already published their results for children up to the age of three. The latest paper follows them to the age of five, to ensure there is no "sleeper" effect of the alcohol their mothers drank during pregnancy.They found that children whose mothers had been heavy drinkers were more likely to be hyperactive and have behavioural and emotional problems than those whose mothers abstained during pregnancy.But there was no evidence to suggest that the children of light drinkers, whose mothers had no more than the odd glass of wine a week, had been in any way harmed.Women who drank occasionally tended to be from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, which the authors took into account in their calculations.Their children were 30% less likely to have behavioural problems and had higher scores in mental development tests than those of women who abstained in pregnancy.But the government reiterated its advice that pregnant women should not drink at all."After assessing the available evidence, we cannot say with confidence that drinking during pregnancy is safe and will not harm your baby," said a spokesperson."Therefore, as a precautionary measure, our advice to pregnant women and women trying to conceive is to avoid alcohol."Dr Anthony Falconer, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said current evidence showed one to two units a week was acceptable. The key public health message is that "light drinking is fine but heavy and binge drinking should be avoided", he said."Anecdotally, the majority of women are responsible and tend to stop drinking once they find out they are pregnant," he said. "But with rising levels of binge drinking among younger women, we are concerned about those who find it difficult to wean themselves off alcohol, as heavy, sustained drinking will damage the foetus."These women should be given the support they need, not just during pregnancy but in the longer term."PregnancyWomenAlcoholChildrenHealthFood & drinkSarah Boseleyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Britain's 'earliest hospital' discovered Radio carbon analysis of site in Winchester provides date range of AD 960-1030 – preceding Norman conquestArchaeologists have uncovered a site that may house Britain's earliest known hospital. Radio carbon analysis at the former Leper Hospital at St Mary Magdalen in Winchester, Hampshire, has provided a date range of AD 960-1030 for a series of burials, many exhibiting evidence of leprosy.A number of other artefacts, pits, and postholes relate to the same time, including what appears to be a large sunken structure underneath a medieval infirmary.Most historians and archaeologists had believed hospitals in Britain only dated from after the Norman conquest of 1066."This is an important archaeological development," said Dr Simon Roffey from the University of Winchester, which conducted the dig."Historically, it has always been assumed that hospitals were a post-conquest phenomenon, the majority founded from the late 11th century onwards."However, our excavations have revealed a range of buildings and, more significantly, convincing evidence for a foundation in the 10th century."Our excavations at St Mary Magdalen offer an intriguing insight into a little known aspect of the history of both Winchester and England. It is undoubtedly a site of national importance."Among the earliest known hospitals in the UK is Harbledown in Canterbury, founded by Lanfranc in the 1070s, following the Norman conquest.Professor Nicholas Orme, a leading researcher on medieval hospitals, added: "I have only studied the documentary evidence but I could not find any such evidence for a hospital before 1066 except perhaps as an activity within a monastery or minster."A late Anglo-Saxon hospital would surely be a first for archaeology and indeed for history."Winchester was the capital of England throughout a large part of the Anglo-Saxon period and after the Norman conquest. The capital was moved to London from the Hampshire city in the 12th century.ArchaeologyHeritageguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Study probes links between cannabis and schizophrenia The University of Wollongong is heading-up new research into the links between cannabis use and drug induced schizophrenia. abc.net.au |