Motherhood - myths and facts

Myth -- There is no such thing as "maternal instinct" at all.


Fact: “To the extent there are biological forces at work in connection with mothering behavior, they also are not necessarily "maternal instinct" as that term has been used to mean indiscriminately nurturing. While "maternal responses that are biologically based are surely going on in the human species," nevertheless "mothers do not automatically and unconditionally respond to giving birth in a nurturing way."

Hrdy, Sara Blaffer (Anthropologist specialist in primate sociobiology): Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection, 1999.

Fact: While there is no scientific support for the kind of "maternal instinct" that has been used for ages to restrict women into child-bearing, child-rearing and homemaking roles, there is some scientific evidence that during pregnancy, women are physiologically "primed" for the tasks of nurturing their own infant.

Walsh, Anthony (Psychology Dr.): The Science of Love, Prometheus Books (59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197, USA), 1996.

Fact: "Despite clear evidence of hormonal and physiological factors in maternal instinct and behavior, there is no indication that this applies to the care of grown men, let alone those outside one's immediate family. "

Davis, Elizabeth (women's health care specialist): Women, Sex and Desire, by arrangement with Hunter House Inc., Publishers, 1995.

Fact: Mothers have a lower threshhold of response to their infant's needs than fathers, that is, they are physiologically aroused to a greater degree by infant signals and cries, and also respond more readily; however, in instances of severe distress, the response reactions of mothers and fathers (and probably other adults in proximity) are similar.

Hrdy, Sara Blaffer. Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection, 1999.

Fact: While there indeed may be no universal longing of all women for motherhood (which sometimes has been mis-called "maternal instinct"), or instinctual knowledge of women about how to care for infants, as applied to women's actual pregnancy and post-childbirth experiences, "scientists have yet to find a definitive explanation for the heightened sensitivity so often associated with mothering... Some research and informal observations suggest that the caregiving experience develops a stronger intuitive tie between the infant and the parent most often responsible for meeting the infant's needs. But, other studies -- and many women's experiences -- suggest that there is something beyond the caregiving duty that produces the responsiveness called maternal instinct. Extensive animal studies indicate that among rats, rabbits, mice and hamsters, for instance, hormones trigger a maternal response that prompts the female to ready a nest or engage in other such activities before or after giving birth. However, researchers say the hormone-related response is not so readily or uniformly clear among humans."

Lowell General Hospital, Massachusetts."How Natural is Maternal Instinct?"












Sara Blaffer Hrdy, a professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California at Davis, says in a book published in 1999, Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection, that it is because there is no such thing as a maternal instinct.

She has been studying maternal behaviour for more than three decades, and her research has covered both languor monkeys and centuries of birth records and even telephone directories in Europe, which show a frighteningly frequent history of infant abandonment. In addition to humans and monkeys, thirty-odd other species carry out infanticide.

Hrdy says: "Mothers do not automatically and unconditionally respond to giving birth in a nurturing way.”

I thought that prolactin was supposed to promote nurturing behaviour. It seems though, according to Hrdy, that while prolactin encourages nurturing, protective and defensive behaviour, even in men (yes, they too secrete prolactin), it is also linked to other emotional tendencies, including aggression and postpartum depression.

She says later: “A woman who is committed to being a mother will learn to love any baby, whether it's her own or not; a woman not committed to or prepared for being a mother may well not be prepared to love any baby, not even her own."

What Hrdy rejects is the convenient idealisation of motherhood. She agrees that there are maternal responses, but thinks they are biologically conditioned, and cautions against the improper use of the word instinct.

Given the history of infanticide, I tend to agree somewhat. There can be some doubt about who the father of a child is, but there cannot be any doubt as to its mother. This means that based on natural selection, mothers are more sensitive that fathers to the needs of their children.

It does not mean that they will be unconditionally sensitive, or that when other concerns, such as social status, money, revenge, convenience and career are present, the women will invariably choose their children.
(Rosemary Ekosso)

Also see: Schore, Alan, "Effects of a Secure Attachment Relationship on Right Brain Development, Affect Regulation, and Infant Mental Health," 2001; Carter, C.S., Willams, J.R., Witt, D.M., Insel, T;;.R. (1992). Oxytocin and social bonding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Jun 12. 652:204-211; Prescott, James W., PhD, "The Origins of Human Love and Violence," From Pre and Perinatal Psychology Journal, Volume 10, #3: Spring 1996, Henry Holt, 1997; Montagu, Ashley, "Touching : The Human Significance of the Skin," Harper, 1986; Ainsworth, M.D.S., "Attachments Across the Life Span." Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 61, 1985; Ferris, C.F., Foote, K.B., Melster, H.M., Plenby, M.G., Smith, K.L., Insel, T.R. (1992) "Oxytocin in the amygdala facilitates maternal aggression," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. June 12. 652:456-457; Gutkowska, J., Antunes-Rodrigues, J. and McCann, S.M., "Atrialnatriuretic peptide in brain and pituitary gland." Physiological Review 1997; 77; 2:465-515; Insel, T.R. (1992). Oxytocin--a nuropeptide for affiliation: evidence from behavioral, receptor autoradiographic, and comparative studies. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 17(1):3-35; Kamimura, S., Eguchi, K., Sekiba, K. (1991). Tryptophan and its metabolite concentrations in human plasma and breast milk during the perinatal period. Acta Medica Okayama. April 45(2):101-106; Winslow, J.T., Shapiro, L., Carter, C.S., Insel, T.R. (1993), "Oxytocin and complex social behavior: species comparisons," Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 29(3):409-414

Evolution of women

I find that most illustrations and other representations depicting the evolution of humankind depict the evolution of males by default. A Google image search of "evolution of man" turns up a plethora of illustrations depicting the evolution of exactly that … MAN. Women, for some strange reason, are nowhere to be seen, though I'm sure we were part of the process.


Even though I have studied a great deal of anthropology, including some physical anthropology, and have always been interested in evolution, I find that only the image of males evolving is stuck to my brain. What women looked like through the years? The gradual progression of sexual dimorphism, when things happened and what it looked like? Not so sure. If anyone knows where I could see an illustration of the evolution of women – that is, something that doesn't depict us constantly cleaning the floor – I would be much obliged.

Even though anthropology has taught me a lot about how women as gatherers were usually responsible for bringing in the most sustenance, and how societies with matrilineal kinship systems and egalitarian property structures are typically more peaceful and less patriarchal, I still get other messages from a lot of the images and language associated with our discipline. This is despite the fact that the canon of anthropology – at least on the cultural side – has been developed and influenced by female scholars. Many of these anthropologists have questioned traditional philosophical paradigms that were based on deeply rooted Western canons whose development were heavily centered on the male perspective. Despite this, anthropology still seems alarmingly malecentric.

For a field so heavily developed and influenced by women, I have to wonder where the women are depicted, and who understands their impact. It has been said that the way we talk about things filters what we understand of our reality. Images work the same way. If I'm a woman and I want to know how we as humans evolved, but all I can find are pictures of apes turning into men, I can't see where we are in the picture. I don't see humans, I see men. There are a lot of discussions going on in our field about how science textbooks, particularly in the field of biology, reinforce patriarchal notions – associating the male body with the stereotypical role of aggressor and sexual predator, for example – through the use of precise language and visual depiction. It seems that anthropology should be at the cutting edge of questioning and confronting those stereotypes … (Anthropology.net)


My Theory course last semester was about how ancient women have been described in the archaeological literature and how such portrayals are a reflection of the decidedly sexist history of academic archaeology. While much progress has been made since the days of "man the hunter," a piece published today revisits the debate and how many portrayals of "cavewomen" in the popular media continue to be a caricature of reality. Accounts of man the hunter, woman the gatherer have become so entrenched in our culture that it still passes as the way things were. a new book by James entitled The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory that should prove to be an enlightening read." (Anthropology.net)

The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory

This jauntily written, highly convincing analysis by influential anthropologists Adovasio and Soffer and former editor of Natural History and Smithsonian Page argues that women of prehistory were pivotal in a wide range of culture-building endeavors, including the invention of language, the origins of agriculture and the conceptualization of boat building. Although based on the most current scientific evidence, these theories are presented as accessibly as possible, with frequent humorous asides and a wide range of popular cultural touchstones, from Charles Darwin to The Clan of the Cave Bear.

The authors offer concepts that radically challenge our preconceptions of human behavior and history. They argue, for instance, that brain development and an increase in longevity that produced extended families, especially grandmothers, brought about a "creative revolution" in the Late Paleolithic period (about 30,000 years ago). The authors also include a fascinating discussion of the possible role of goddess worship in prehistoric society and its relationship to contemporary New Age feminism. Highly readable, well argued, and always fascinating, this critique of traditional anthropology is an important addition to both scientific and feminist literature.

Although more than half the graduates of academic programs in archaeology are women, bias still haunts the profession. Because the artifacts of prehistory are themselves mute, the stories told by their interpreters create an apparent reality of what the past was like._Written in graphic, often novelistic prose, this book deconstructs those stories and finds that, consistently, they assume a world controlled by men and almost devoid of women and children, except as hungry mouths for ancient hunters to feed. Prehistoric women, however, are thought to have invented many things we take for granted: language, for instance, to say nothing of cooking and weaving. An engaging book that sets the record straight while describing current theories and trends in archaeology. (Salon.com)