Thread: Daddies girls or Mummies boys?

We know that it is equally important to have both parents in any childs life (if either of them are any good) but is there any proof that their is a stronger connection or bond between fathers and daughters or mothers and sons? Does it effect boys if their mother isn't present in their life more so than if she wasn't present in a daughters life? or is it just a myth or is it complex?

It might have to do with male/male and female/female community competition. Young males may eventually replace their fathers as the dominant males so I suppose that could lead to a different relationship that the mother/son. This is just speculation though as I am not a behaviorist.

or is it just a myth or is it complex?

Bit of both.

As a mother of two boys I would hate to be away from them. I can't speak for fathers but we do seea lot in relationships and society how it is usually the fathers who are absent.
Could it actually be truth that mothers are more important in a childs life? We see many mothers stick with kids, we don't just go giving them up for whatever reasons.

What I'm saying is, is there strong evidence that it is harder for A MOTHER to walk away or not be involved in a childs life? Is the bond THAT strong that this is the reason we don't see as many mothers giving up/absent?

Originally Posted by hannah40

As a mother of two boys I would hate to be away from them. I can't speak for fathers but we do seea lot in relationships and society how it is usually the fathers who are absent.
Could it actually be truth that mothers are more important in a childs life? We see many mothers stick with kids, we don't just go giving them up for whatever reasons.

What I'm saying is, is there strong evidence that it is harder for A MOTHER to walk away or not be involved in a childs life? Is the bond THAT strong that this is the reason we don't see as many mothers giving up/absent?

This is a long way from my area of expertise but, in the spirit of trying to get the debate up from anecdote to the level of science, I did find this paper on the subject:
Parental Roles

which interestingly (to me at least, as a father) suggests that the role and potential importance of fathers may have been neglected for socio-cultural reasons. It ends, I suppose inevitably, with the sort of "this-shows-the-need-for-further-research" mantra that anyone seeking further research grants tends to sign off with.

Originally Posted by hannah40

As a mother of two boys I would hate to be away from them. I can't speak for fathers but we do seea lot in relationships and society how it is usually the fathers who are absent.
Could it actually be truth that mothers are more important in a childs life? We see many mothers stick with kids, we don't just go giving them up for whatever reasons.

What I'm saying is, is there strong evidence that it is harder for A MOTHER to walk away or not be involved in a childs life? Is the bond THAT strong that this is the reason we don't see as many mothers giving up/absent?

I think you're treading on thin ice with some of those comments.

I don't think that a higher prevalence among males who leave the family unit than females suggests that the mother-child bond is more important or stronger.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by hannah40

As a mother of two boys I would hate to be away from them. I can't speak for fathers but we do seea lot in relationships and society how it is usually the fathers who are absent.
Could it actually be truth that mothers are more important in a childs life? We see many mothers stick with kids, we don't just go giving them up for whatever reasons.

What I'm saying is, is there strong evidence that it is harder for A MOTHER to walk away or not be involved in a childs life? Is the bond THAT strong that this is the reason we don't see as many mothers giving up/absent?

I think you're treading on thin ice with some of those comments.

I don't think that a higher prevalence among males who leave the family unit than females suggests that the mother-child bond is more important or stronger.

I think it is a reasonable and valid question. I'm not saying they care any less but it is something we do see in many situations. Why do we rarely see the father take the kids after divorce?

Obviously law comes in to it , which begs another question. How did we get down the route of judges (and yes they do) more often than not award custody to the mothers.

Originally Posted by hannah40

I think it is a reasonable and valid question. I'm not saying they care any less but it is something we do see in many situations. Why do we rarely see the father take the kids after divorce?

I would argue that there is a legal rationale behind that and I cannot say that it is supported by some biological evidence that mothers are more competent at raising children. It seems like that would have to be decided on an individual basis.

Originally Posted by hannah40

Obviously law comes in to it , which begs another question. How did we get down the route of judges (and yes they do) more often than not award custody to the mothers.

See? This is what happens when I split a comment and respond BEFORE I read the rest of the comment. I'm not going to reformat it either. The world shall know what a dink I am.

Any child knows its mother before leaving the womb. The child must be introduced to it's father.
When soldiers die on the battlefield, it is their mothers they cry-out for.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Any child knows its mother before leaving the womb. The child must be introduced to it's father.

Eh? Link to this study, please.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Early life experiences depend more upon mom; later, dad becomes nearly as important to
a child. Occasionally AS important. But not usually.

I need to know what you have that supports this conclusion or if this is just personal opinion.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

When soldiers die on the battlefield, it is their mothers they cry-out for.

That seems to be more related to the fact that "soldiers" tend to be men rather than women.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by hannah40

I think it is a reasonable and valid question. I'm not saying they care any less but it is something we do see in many situations. Why do we rarely see the father take the kids after divorce?

I would argue that there is a legal rationale behind that and I cannot say that it is supported by some biological evidence that mothers are more competent at raising children. It seems like that would have to be decided on an individual basis.

Originally Posted by hannah40

Obviously law comes in to it , which begs another question. How did we get down the route of judges (and yes they do) more often than not award custody to the mothers.

See? This is what happens when I split a comment and respond BEFORE I read the rest of the comment. I'm not going to reformat it either. The world shall know what a dink I am.

I don't think you're a dink. It doesn't matter what the world thinks anyway. You stay as you are.

Regarding the concept of mothers and bonding...

What about if I brought this in to the equation:

Mothers carry the child for 9 months, we experience the events that take place, we go through the pain and pleasure of it all, the bonding process (for myself) started before they were born.
Is there any scientific fact to show that ACTUALLY all this does make a difference as to a possibility of a stronger bond and one that is harder to break or has more traumatic effects for the mother or child, when it is broken.

What about men and womens mental strengths because that is a factor too.

Originally Posted by hannah40

What about if I brought this in to the equation:

Mothers carry the child for 9 months, we experience the events that take place, we go through the pain and pleasure of it all, the bonding process (for myself) started before they were born.
Is there any scientific fact to show that ACTUALLY all this does make a difference as to a possibility of a stronger bond and one that is harder to break or has more traumatic effects for the mother.

What about men and womens mental strengths because that is a factor too.

I wouldn't argue that there is a special connection between a parent and child. The mother certainly has the unique experience of actually carrying the child, but I don't think this implicitly means their relationship to their child is more important to the child.

The father role often provides bonding opportunities and a learning experience that the mother role does not. I remain unconvinced that one role is more important fundamentally that the other.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by hannah40

What about if I brought this in to the equation:

Mothers carry the child for 9 months, we experience the events that take place, we go through the pain and pleasure of it all, the bonding process (for myself) started before they were born.
Is there any scientific fact to show that ACTUALLY all this does make a difference as to a possibility of a stronger bond and one that is harder to break or has more traumatic effects for the mother.

What about men and womens mental strengths because that is a factor too.

I wouldn't argue that there is a special connection between a parent and child. The mother certainly has the unique experience of actually carrying the child, but I don't think this implicitly means their relationship to their child is more important to the child.

The father role often provides bonding opportunities and a learning experience that the mother role does not. I remain unconvinced that one role is more important fundamentally that the other.

I'm not saying they should go without either parent but when you look at the amount of work women do as compared to the men, it is somewhat evenly unbalanced before the child is even born.

Shall I blame nature and it's accidentally bias way?


Notice, I didn't say 'DESIGN' grrrrr! lol

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Any child knows its mother before leaving the womb. The child must be introduced to it's father.

Eh? Link to this study, please.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Early life experiences depend more upon mom; later, dad becomes nearly as important to
a child. Occasionally AS important. But not usually.

I need to know what you have that supports this conclusion or if this is just personal opinion.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

When soldiers die on the battlefield, it is their mothers they cry-out for.

That seems to be more related to the fact that "soldiers" tend to be men rather than women.

opinion

Originally Posted by hannah40

I'm not saying they should go without either parent but when you look at the amount of work women do as compared to the men, it is somewhat evenly unbalanced before the child is even born.

Shall I blame nature and it's accidentally bias way?


Notice, I didn't say 'DESIGN' grrrrr! lol

Well, women HAVE to do some jobs that men can't. Nursing, for instance (yes, I've seen news stories about lactating men and I'm choosing to ignore them).

Originally Posted by umbradiago

No supportive evidence, just opinion. Do you suppose women who die in battle call-out for Dad ? Maybe so.

I'm not really in the business of supposing. If I had to, based upon my experience with women going through a bad event, they will blame the nearest man.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by hannah40

I'm not saying they should go without either parent but when you look at the amount of work women do as compared to the men, it is somewhat evenly unbalanced before the child is even born.

Shall I blame nature and it's accidentally bias way?


Notice, I didn't say 'DESIGN' grrrrr! lol

Well, women HAVE to do some jobs that men can't. Nursing, for instance (yes, I've seen news stories about lactating men and I'm choosing to ignore them).

Not all species of male were so lucky.

The sea horses got more than their fair share!

Obviously law comes in to it , which begs another question. How did we get down the route of judges (and yes they do) more often than not award custody to the mothers.

Well, that might have been the case decades ago. What you find in most English speaking countries now is that judges don't usually make the decision at all. Most often the issues of custody, shared parenting, who does what when, are all decided by the parents themselves and the judge just signs off on the agreement. In the rare cases when custody is contested and a judge does have to decide, fathers win more often than mothers in most countries I know of.

Is there any scientific fact to show that ACTUALLY all this does make a difference as to a possibility of a stronger bond and one that is harder to break or has more traumatic effects for the mother or child, when it is broken.

Not a lot. We've only had this luxury since the advent of good prenatal, and especially safer birth with shorter labour and less physical damage to mothers' bodies. Not many mothers are in a happy mood after 3 days' labour. They're more likely to be suffering PTSD which is not well known as a good basis for a happy relationship.

Bonding's much more likely to come from breast feeding. Several doses of oxytocin a day can do that for you.

mere opinions.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Any child knows its mother before leaving the womb. The child must be introduced to it's father.

Eh? Link to this study, please.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Early life experiences depend more upon mom; later, dad becomes nearly as important to
a child. Occasionally AS important. But not usually.

I need to know what you have that supports this conclusion or if this is just personal opinion.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

When soldiers die on the battlefield, it is their mothers they cry-out for.

That seems to be more related to the fact that "soldiers" tend to be men rather than women.

I'm not saying they should go without either parent but when you look at the amount of work women do as compared to the men, it is somewhat evenly unbalanced before the child is even born.

Shall I blame nature and it's accidentally bias way?

Let's not forget that pregnancy and birth are quite dangerous for mothers. Many women are injured, some permanently, by the process. In those first few weeks after a birth while mothers are recovering and "pacing themselves", fathers can do quite a lot of bonding with babies when their mothers are not up to much more than breastfeeding when it's required.

Originally Posted by adelady

I'm not saying they should go without either parent but when you look at the amount of work women do as compared to the men, it is somewhat evenly unbalanced before the child is even born.

Shall I blame nature and it's accidentally bias way?

Let's not forget that pregnancy and birth are quite dangerous for mothers. Many women are injured, some permanently, by the process. In those first few weeks after a birth while mothers are recovering and "pacing themselves", fathers can do quite a lot of bonding with babies when their mothers are not up to much more than breastfeeding when it's required.

Breastfeeding is important not only for bonding but for other reasons. If women can put up with it.

Pregnancy is dangerous and shouldn't be taken lightly.

Some fathers just can't be bothered, let's face it. In some households the fathers main role was to be disciplinarian.

I know girls who have grown up without a mother and actually have done well in some aspects but not others, I have witnessed boys who have grown up for many years without their mother and it shows. It is sad to see the attention seeking ways which, to me, indicates they have lacked somewhere.

agree with Adelady....bit of both

Originally Posted by adelady

I'm not saying they should go without either parent but when you look at the amount of work women do as compared to the men, it is somewhat evenly unbalanced before the child is even born.Shall I blame nature and it's accidentally bias way?

Let's not forget that pregnancy and birth are quite dangerous for mothers. Many women are injured, some permanently, by the process. In those first few weeks after a birth while mothers are recovering and "pacing themselves", fathers can do quite a lot of bonding with babies when their mothers are not up to much more than breastfeeding when it's required.

Just a creepy hypothetical here; if technology allows for an artificial womb and formula feeding and the part of the female were reduced to supplying an egg, does the playing field even?

Just a creepy hypothetical here; if technology allows for an artificial womb and formula feeding and the part of the female were reduced to supplying an egg, does the playing field even?

You have no idea how creepy. There are several discussions going on right now using this scenario in an entirely different context.

I'd suggest that if we had the kind of technology you're talking about, then these sorts of discussions would be conducted for entirely different reasons.

As far as I'm concerned, the involvement of fathers in the care and raising of infants is far better dealt with by schemes like this. All dads together: my new life among Sweden's latte pappas | Money | The Observer

Didn't read many of the posts, so sorry if this has been said already, but maybe the mother has a stronger bond with the son, because the son does not need to learn as much from his dad, as he does from his mom.

I have equally strong bonds with my son and daughter.

They come to me for anything personal or emotional, and other advice.

If they wish to invest, they talk to their Dad.

There's a rather strong biological basis connecting mothers emotionally to their children. Mother's reproductive potential is MUCH more limited than fathers--it translates into willingness to risk their own lives to protect offspring. Although feminism at it worst tries to deny these hard in the nose biological facts, the mother-child connection, particularly for young children, was expressed into more traditional cultures (as well as in most developed nation laws until recently where mothers usually got the kids). There's also a biological connection in males that tend to hunt and are physically at higher risk than mothers--something seen in most hunter-gatherer groups.

Animals tend to be either tournament species or pair-bonding species. In tournament species, the male is usually a lot bigger than the female. Humans fall somewhere in between the extremes. The male is larger than the female, but not extremely so. In tournament species, the male is just trying to impregnate as many females as possible, and let the female do the nurturing. In pair-bonding species, the male also shares the burden of raising the kids. So, because we have some characteristics of a tournament species, it is probably true that men are more likely to run off and abandon the kids. But we also do pair bonding as well. Some of us do, anyway.

The Difference Between Tournament and Pair-bonding Species - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Originally Posted by hannah40

As a mother of two boys I would hate to be away from them. I can't speak for fathers but we do seea lot in relationships and society how it is usually the fathers who are absent.
Could it actually be truth that mothers are more important in a childs life? We see many mothers stick with kids, we don't just go giving them up for whatever reasons.

What I'm saying is, is there strong evidence that it is harder for A MOTHER to walk away or not be involved in a childs life? Is the bond THAT strong that this is the reason we don't see as many mothers giving up/absent?

I am suspecting it has to do with the last place a child spends time. They are nine months in the womb, hearing the mothers voice most of the times. I think most importantly its the breast when they get on the outside, the milk is someting to be born for. I have a very close relationship with my last daughter, I think it was because I paid a lot of attention to her while she was in the womb. I kept talking to her and touching the womb all the time, now we are like one. I am not sure if daughters are more tied to mothers, I think I would go with what Adelady said, it is a bit of both.

Originally Posted by Weterman

Didn't read many of the posts, so sorry if this has been said already, but maybe the mother has a stronger bond with the son, because the son does not need to learn as much from his dad, as he does from his mom.

I beg to differ.

I would think that the relationship a child develops towards a specific parent is due to them (the child) identifying and preferring the primary or preferred caregiver and/or parental role-model, with the involvement of the parent(s) in the child's daily activities being a factor that we may also want to consider. All that is discounting the personality of the child itself as he/she matures into adulthood, such as the level of independence and/or assertiveness the child/adult possess at different stages of development.

Daddy's girl or Mummy's boy can also point towards the child taking on personality traits and subjects of interests from the parent.

My niece takes on many of the personality quirks from my sister (being a single parent), and I've noticed that even with the absence of her biological father, her uncles (me and my younger brother) have taken on the role of being the stabilizing patriarchal figure (of sorts) in her life. Being aware of this, both of us do whatever is within our means to be that stabilizing element to provide some balance in her life. I'd remember her attachment to me soon after the absence of her own father, and she would lovingly "pester" me to bring her out for icecream and "playtime" in the neighbourhood playground nearby whenever she and my sister came over regularly on the weekends for dinner.

I think it doesn't matter.

Bottom line is YOU make your connection and relationship with your children.

I think the best fun is our Christmas table....nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, spouses, strays, and the kids never leave to do something else. We can sit with each other and laugh and share and laugh and laugh and laugh.

The young ones don't move and go do something with "friends"......they share in the laughter, and the celebration of family. Even our strays are family.

You develop relationships with your children not just in the womb, but through their lives. IT takes effort and communication and simply, to me, lots of love

My niece takes on many of the personality quirks from my sister (being a single parent), and I've noticed that even with the absence of her biological father, her uncles (me and my younger brother) have taken on the role of being the stabilizing patriarchal figure (of sorts) in her life.

Exactly. My niece and nephew did far, far better with my dad, my grandfather and my husband as reliable, caring role models who enjoyed the children's company than they ever would have done with their feckless, emotionally weird father.

And you never, ever know what perfectly ordinary things make an impression on kids. In the course of one of those "remember when" conversations, these two 30+ adults enthusiastically recalled a day when they went to the city markets with mr and our two very little ones. He got them to choose items they wanted for a meal. They brought their purchases home to our place and he helped them cook/ taught them how to cook for all of us to eat that night. Who knew?

Do lots of things with them, make them feel strong and confident, laugh and make messes, play board games, wash the dishes together - and something in all of that will become a treasured memory.

Originally Posted by babe

I think it doesn't matter.

Bottom line is YOU make your connection and relationship with your children.

I think the best fun is our Christmas table....nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, spouses, strays, and the kids never leave to do something else. We can sit with each other and laugh and share and laugh and laugh and laugh.

The young ones don't move and go do something with "friends"......they share in the laughter, and the celebration of family. Even our strays are family.

You develop relationships with your children not just in the womb, but through their lives. IT takes effort and communication and simply, to me, lots of love

What are your strays?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by babe

I think it doesn't matter.

Bottom line is YOU make your connection and relationship with your children.

I think the best fun is our Christmas table....nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, spouses, strays, and the kids never leave to do something else. We can sit with each other and laugh and share and laugh and laugh and laugh.

The young ones don't move and go do something with "friends"......they share in the laughter, and the celebration of family. Even our strays are family.

You develop relationships with your children not just in the womb, but through their lives. IT takes effort and communication and simply, to me, lots of love

What are your strays?

People with no one to spend the holiday with.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by babe

I think it doesn't matter.

Bottom line is YOU make your connection and relationship with your children.

I think the best fun is our Christmas table....nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, spouses, strays, and the kids never leave to do something else. We can sit with each other and laugh and share and laugh and laugh and laugh.

The young ones don't move and go do something with "friends"......they share in the laughter, and the celebration of family. Even our strays are family.

You develop relationships with your children not just in the womb, but through their lives. IT takes effort and communication and simply, to me, lots of love

What are your strays?

People with no one to spend the holiday with.

Thanks, never heard that expression before.