Well this book won't help CF women

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-genes-explores-biology-motherhood-134407507.html

The "Mom Gene" book, cause it is moo day and it needs to be advertised

Just another something to make the breeders feel good.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Mmkay, so I wonder what this drivel has to say about women who have kids and then feel nothing toward them, abuse them, neglect them or murder them. If "mom genes" were so real, then why don't women know precisely how to perfectly care for a child from infancy to adulthood? Surely if we are born with motherhood programmed into our genetic code, that would have to include a full set of intrinsic directions on how to manage a child, right? If motherhood is written into the genetics of all women, why are so many of them so bad at it? Or why do so many hate it so much? Did mommy genes tell Susan Smith to kill her kids for a may-unn, I wonder?

If it's so hard-wired into our very genetics, why do some of us plain not have the urge to be mothers? Some people are born with missing chromosomes, so I imagine it's very possible to be born without certain genetics. If it is genetic, then could it run in families? Will it show up in a genetic test? If someone didn't want to feel the effects of such a gene, could they take medication to manage it as if it were a genetic disease?

OR it could be this is a big pile of horse shit to stroke all the under-appreciated mommies on their bullshit holiday.

Quote

"Now I know that one woman has the potential to become many different mothers, depending on conspiring circumstances, support systems, and access to resources, including powerful strangers' sympathy and respect."

I do agree with this part to an extent, but let me explain why. I do think that anyone of any gender can have a nurturing nature, and I can see how that could be construed as a maternal nature. People nurture different things, ranging from animals and plants to other people's kids and inanimate objects (like project cars), but if someone has the urge to nurture something, everyone seems to think the answer to that urge is MAKE BABBY. Nobody ever tries nurturing a vegetable garden first if they want to take care of something, but a vast majority of other things that need caring for that aren't kids are either much more affordable or much more worthwhile than children. If you nurture a tomato plant, you can grow your own fresh produce. If you nurture a can and restore it to it's former glory, you can drive a bitchin' car around and possibly sell it for a mint. If you nurture a pet, you have a loving low-maintenance companion for at least a decade. You nurture a kid and you get a little asshole that screams, says it hates you, never moves out and costs you well in excess of $200K.

If Moohood is supposed to be in my genes, then I'm glad to be a genetic defect. I'm fairly sure if I had a child, I'd nurture it the same way I do a cake: beat it well and then bake at 350 for 45 minutes or until the middle is no longer raw.

People are far too eager to attribute to nature what is clearly culture. I'll grant that there is probably some biological drive to fuck, since that imperative would keep the species going, but even that isn't universal, since some people are asexual. Until quite modern times, there would have been no need to create a maternal drive since there were few options to prevent procreation following sex, and fairly recently (in evolutionary terms) people had no way of knowing that sex was linked to conception, so again, all nature had to do was generate a sex drive. No need for a "biological clock" or other nonsense.