Stress responses: seems very sexist and pro-natalist

I just heard that the response to stress/danger is different for men than women. Had never heard this before but when I researched it looks more like the response to stress/danger for women is likely only different if they have sluiced. Guessing it is part of how the brain rewires itself after a sluice.

Of course, it is so easy for the pro-natalists fools to pass it off as innate difference and here is an example of just that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/comments/zexn3q/partner_struggling_with_accepting_support/

Quote
pro-natalist slug
In the face of danger most people think of the fight , flight or freeze response as the default reaction. But that's a the common response in men. In women, the natural response is usually to tend or befriend. Tending to children helps to reduce stress biologically for cis women. When she spends time with or cares for her little one, her brain releases oxytocin. Oxytocin, a neurotransmitter, calms our sympathetic nervous systems and reduces our anxiety.

Funny, never had the desire to tend or befriend while in danger. The tendency was to flee or fight.
Maybe it is because I'm not a natural sluicing woman. I didn't have the tend or befriend response as a kid either.
I can't help but think this is another one of those oxytocin tricks to keep ma from going berserk and abandoning a brat or killing it.
It also sounds like the perfect argument for men to use to get out of child-rearing, because their fear response is different.

Articles on tend and befriend:
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/mccarthy.html
http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/tend_befriend.htm

What the fuck is this person smoking that they think caring for kids reduces stress?

I think the response to stress will differ on the basis of the situation, not the basis of gender. If someone thinks there's a chance they can escape a stressful or dangerous situation, it's fight or flight. If they don't see a means of escape, they will be more likely to befriend until they can get away.

It could also be because men are often physically stronger than women and may be more capable of defending themselves when in danger, whereas women might not be as strong, so it's more feasible to pretend to be happy than it is to fight. But this might only apply to certain situations, like if the person is held hostage or something.

So women only "tend and befriend" if they have brats, and unchilded women will have the same "fight or flight" response men have? If that's true, I imagine it's because it's hard to fight or fly when you've got a bunch of little liabilities to protect, unless you don't give a shit about your kids and are willing to ditch them and save yourself.

It seems more applicable when the source of stress if brats. When the sprogs are being assholes, men might respond with yelling, physical punishment and hiding out in the bathroom to take an hour-long shit. Meanwhile, the Moos will tend to the little fuckers, mostly out of obligation. They "can't" run away from them because the Duh already did that, so someone has to deal with it. But then some Moos will scream at their brats and whack their asses when pushed to their limits, soooooo make of that what you will.

And what of the Moos you hear about who hulk out and lift entire vehicles off their trapped kids? Surely that's not a "tend/befriend" response to a bad situation? Given that one of the articles describes "tend and befriend" as having a network of support to raise sprogs and keep them safe and given how many Moos say they have no support at all, would that mean that they are in fight/flight mode in spite of being breeder women?

Quote
Cambion
What the fuck is this person smoking that they think caring for kids reduces stress?

It is the kind of crap they push on people to keep the barf rate up. How anyone could believe it is beyond me?
Spend a casual five minutes around a brat in a grocery store or restaurant, I guarantee you your stress rate won't drop. It will increase!

Quote
Cambion
It seems more applicable when the source of stress if brats. When the sprogs are being assholes, men might respond with yelling, physical punishment and hiding out in the bathroom to take an hour-long shit. Meanwhile, the Moos will tend to the little fuckers, mostly out of obligation. They "can't" run away from them because the Duh already did that, so someone has to deal with it. But then some Moos will scream at their brats and whack their asses when pushed to their limits, soooooo make of that what you will.

I've mostly seen women being abusive towards their kids because women are the ones mostly with them.

Quote
Cambion
And what of the Moos you hear about who hulk out and lift entire vehicles off their trapped kids? Surely that's not a "tend/befriend" response to a bad situation? Given that one of the articles describes "tend and befriend" as having a network of support to raise sprogs and keep them safe and given how many Moos say they have no support at all, would that mean that they are in fight/flight mode in spite of being breeder women?

Another exception to the fabricated tend and befriend theory. Cambion kicked it to the ground!

Quote
freya
I've mostly seen women being abusive towards their kids because women are the ones mostly with them.

I've noticed this too. I think women seem to feel they are more entitled to be abusive to their kids compared to men, if that makes sense? Like since the Moos are the ones who deal with the kids most of the time, they're "allowed" to lose it and beat their kids' asses or scream at them when they act like shits. But when the father or father figure (or even someone like a grandparent) does this exact same thing in response to the exact same behavior, he'll get accused of being an abusive asshole.

I guess because Moos think that since they put up with all the shit work, they deserve to lose their shit while the Duh who spends five collective minutes with the kid per month doesn't get to respond in the same way because he hasn't had to put up with the kid for nearly as long and hasn't earned the "right" to scream and spank? I'm just speculating.

If tending to kyds releases happy hormones, why are moos so unhappy thru most of moohood, at least from where I stand? Why do they try to pawn them off on others, or ignore them in public and do nothing when they need wrangling? Why do they need breaks from their kyds? I mean, if I was experiencing some kind of joy and happiness to the point I'm releasing happy hormones, I doubt I'd go out of my way to get a break from it or dump my source of happiness on someone's else's doorstep when those ppl dont even want it.

Quote
Cambion

Quote
freya
I've mostly seen women being abusive towards their kids because women are the ones mostly with them.

I've noticed this too. I think women seem to feel they are more entitled to be abusive to their kids compared to men, if that makes sense? Like since the Moos are the ones who deal with the kids most of the time, they're "allowed" to lose it and beat their kids' asses or scream at them when they act like shits. But when the father or father figure (or even someone like a grandparent) does this exact same thing in response to the exact same behavior, he'll get accused of being an abusive asshole.

I guess because Moos think that since they put up with all the shit work, they deserve to lose their shit while the Duh who spends five collective minutes with the kid per month doesn't get to respond in the same way because he hasn't had to put up with the kid for nearly as long and hasn't earned the "right" to scream and spank? I'm just speculating.

This makes sense especially if women see their brats as their property because of all the work they invest in them. And narcissistic types do just that, along with not honoring any boundaries. Maybe that is why only they feel they've earned the right to be abusive?