Scan barcode
theoglibrarianmom's review against another edition
4.0
This was a labor of love to read. It's fascinating subject and so well researched. I will say though that it can get very in depth into science that leaves the causal reader's head spinning a bit. All in all though a wonderful tome about mothers.
megatsunami's review
4.0
A feminist Darwinian! Bring it on. If you want to know about the biology of motherhood, this is the book for you. True, it's kind of long and full of scientific and anthropological detail. But it's also well written, interesting, and even funny. I really appreciated that the author is committed to understanding what it means to be a mother (and, to a lesser extent, any parent) without getting sentimental or making assumptions. At times, she shares her own anecdotes of being a mother (including being a working mother) to illustrate her points.
I didn't understand everything in this book, and I didn't agree with everything either. I'm still skeptical about evolutionary psychology, and find the near-exclusive focus on natural selection to be somewhat reductionist (Hrdy doesn't discount the impacts of culture and temperament, but doesn't spend much time on them). I either don't understand or don't agree with the whole "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" concept. Also, there were a few times when I thought she contradicted herself (but frankly I didn't really have the energy to track down the conflicting statements in such a long book). I thought some of her forays into developmental psychology were skewed toward Bowlby and attachment theory, sometimes at the expense of other important concepts.
A few of the things I learned about in this book (though there are many more):
- Mothers have always been willing to delegate care to "alloparents" (other caregivers), as long as safe care is available. (In some environments, safe care was not likely to be available, so mothers and infants have had longer-term exclusive bonds.)
- Mothers have always been ambivalent about having children, usually for good reason (e.g. if they don't have kin or "alloparents" - including fathers - to help raise the child, or if resources are scarce). There has always been infanticide (prior to availability of safe abortions), usually by abandonment/ exposure. In some cultures this has reached epidemic proportions (43% of infants baptized in 1840's Florence were abandoned!).
- Infants are cute for a reason: to convince mothers/ tribes not to abandon them. (OK, I didn't learn that from this book... I learned it from my infants.)
- Mothers have always been ambitious in their work (whether that is foraging for nuts and berries, or running experiments in a lab). One could argue, as Hrdy does, that this is for evolutionary reasons (to increase their offspring's status and therefore their chance of reproductive success), or else one could argue that it's a human trait to love useful work ("The pitcher cries for water to carry/ and a person for work that is real." - Marge Piercy), but regardless, boo-ya to those who claim working mothers are unnatural.
I didn't understand everything in this book, and I didn't agree with everything either. I'm still skeptical about evolutionary psychology, and find the near-exclusive focus on natural selection to be somewhat reductionist (Hrdy doesn't discount the impacts of culture and temperament, but doesn't spend much time on them). I either don't understand or don't agree with the whole "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" concept. Also, there were a few times when I thought she contradicted herself (but frankly I didn't really have the energy to track down the conflicting statements in such a long book). I thought some of her forays into developmental psychology were skewed toward Bowlby and attachment theory, sometimes at the expense of other important concepts.
A few of the things I learned about in this book (though there are many more):
- Mothers have always been willing to delegate care to "alloparents" (other caregivers), as long as safe care is available. (In some environments, safe care was not likely to be available, so mothers and infants have had longer-term exclusive bonds.)
- Mothers have always been ambivalent about having children, usually for good reason (e.g. if they don't have kin or "alloparents" - including fathers - to help raise the child, or if resources are scarce). There has always been infanticide (prior to availability of safe abortions), usually by abandonment/ exposure. In some cultures this has reached epidemic proportions (43% of infants baptized in 1840's Florence were abandoned!).
- Infants are cute for a reason: to convince mothers/ tribes not to abandon them. (OK, I didn't learn that from this book... I learned it from my infants.)
- Mothers have always been ambitious in their work (whether that is foraging for nuts and berries, or running experiments in a lab). One could argue, as Hrdy does, that this is for evolutionary reasons (to increase their offspring's status and therefore their chance of reproductive success), or else one could argue that it's a human trait to love useful work ("The pitcher cries for water to carry/ and a person for work that is real." - Marge Piercy), but regardless, boo-ya to those who claim working mothers are unnatural.
crystal_reading's review
4.0
This is a great look at the ways we look at maternal instincts. It really opened up new ways of thinking about the ways we mother and why.
vladthescholar's review
5.0
This book challenged some of my long held assumptions about mothers and women in general. I was happy to expand my knowledge in this area. I was expecting it to be a harder read but was surprisingly easy to understand.
greeniezona's review
5.0
I was finally motivated to pull this weighty tome down off of the shelf after an intriguing review by my sister of Hrdy's most recent work: Mothers and Others. An anthropologist, Hrdy uses human history, observations of our closest evolutionary relatives, and even social insects to examine what is really the true nature of motherhood. As a feminist, she is perhaps not surprised to find that much of what we have traditionally viewed as natural maternal behavior is in fact wishful thinking.
I found this book incredibly impressive and profoundly influential. Many times I've found both Andrew and I reciting anecdotes and arguments from this book in discussions on gender and parenting. (There were quite a number of sections I just had to read aloud to Andrew.)
Though I didn't always agree with her every point, I look forward to reading other work by Hrdy, and will continue to recommend her far and wide.
I found this book incredibly impressive and profoundly influential. Many times I've found both Andrew and I reciting anecdotes and arguments from this book in discussions on gender and parenting. (There were quite a number of sections I just had to read aloud to Andrew.)
Though I didn't always agree with her every point, I look forward to reading other work by Hrdy, and will continue to recommend her far and wide.
mossoffa's review
4.0
I had some trouble separating the ideas in this book into what was supported by much evidence versus what was more speculative. I also thought the book lacked structure. So in the end, I can't say I learned anything very specific from it. However, it still managed to paint a picture of motherhood that was more comprehensive than anything I've read before, by integrating theories from many different disciplines. It also provides some historical context for many hot button issues modern parents are confronted with. It's a good book to read as counterpoint to Steven Pinker's views in The Blank Slate. I'd recommend that all parents read both these books to ground themselves before reading any of the more practical guidance for parents.
em_reads_books's review
4.0
No spoilers, just hiding this part b/c it's about bad things happening to babies, and I don't want to drop it in my friends' feed with no warning!
I came across this book after reading a fact from it cited in some tangentially related article, and having this conversation with myself:
BRAIN: Oh, that's interesting. It says here that something like 40% of infants in medieval Florence were abandoned by their parents, and 2/3 of those died in the foundling homes.
HEART: Oh, no, that is the saddest thing! Those poor parents, having to give up their babies and knowing they probably wouldn't survive.
BRAIN: Is it though? I mean, we're talking about tens of thousands of people over many years. They were probably making the best choice they could.
HEART: Of course it's the saddest thing. How could a mother go through that without being completely wrecked?
BRAIN: Okay, but we're pro-choice, we think abortion is a good thing when people need or want it, and we know women who choose that react with a whole range of emotions, including happiness and relief. So why wouldn't we believe that women with unwanted pregnancies in medieval Florence had the same range of emotions?
HEART: But...but...wouldn't carrying a child to term and giving birth make it impossibly awful to abandon it like that? Even if you knew you couldn't raise them? Even if half your neighbors were doing it?
BRAIN: I dunno. Want to read this book and find out?
HEART: [cringes] Are there going to be a lot of dead babies?
BRAIN: Probably. I'll take over when we get to those parts and you can cover your eyes.
(Brain was right about women practicing infanticide and abandonment throughout history; turns out they pretty much always have, and have constructed many religious and folklore beliefs that let them see it not as a criminal act or something they were directly responsible for, and considering it a monstrous criminal act is fairly recent. Heart was right about the number of bad things happening to small children in this book, though the tone of scientific detachment throughout the whole thing made it surprisingly painless to read about. At some point, talking about China's one child policy, the author says something like..."why subject such a stark matter to dispassionate analysis? Well, why wouldn't you?" And outside of excerpts from diaries or literature, that's pretty much what her writing sounds like.)
Anyway, this was fascinating all over, the kind of book I frequently felt compelled to share fun facts from. The author is rightfully skeptical of so much discourse about parenting that focuses on what mothers "naturally" ought to be doing, and it's refreshing to read instead about what they have always done, on every step of the evolutionary ladder from bees to monkeys to ancient humans to modern civilization. They've always worked on things besides childcare, sought out help from others, taken advantage of whatever level of "choice" they have, and taken care of themselves without being self-sacrificing - all things that make sense from an evolutionary perspective, at least if you weren't raised in Darwin's time and projected your Victorian values all over your observations.
This was hard for me to read sometimes as a more social science-y person - shutting off my "but what about---" reaction every time I saw a biological fact that definitely has some social/cultural factors was difficult! Plenty of things that I consider important are smoothed away in an effort to write about humans at the species level. I had to tell myself pretty often "she's not denying any of that stuff, it's just not what the book is about." So, big grain of salt needed for how much any of this applies to your own life or beliefs or politics, but overall it was fascinating and eye-opening.
BRAIN: Oh, that's interesting. It says here that something like 40% of infants in medieval Florence were abandoned by their parents, and 2/3 of those died in the foundling homes.
HEART: Oh, no, that is the saddest thing! Those poor parents, having to give up their babies and knowing they probably wouldn't survive.
BRAIN: Is it though? I mean, we're talking about tens of thousands of people over many years. They were probably making the best choice they could.
HEART: Of course it's the saddest thing. How could a mother go through that without being completely wrecked?
BRAIN: Okay, but we're pro-choice, we think abortion is a good thing when people need or want it, and we know women who choose that react with a whole range of emotions, including happiness and relief. So why wouldn't we believe that women with unwanted pregnancies in medieval Florence had the same range of emotions?
HEART: But...but...wouldn't carrying a child to term and giving birth make it impossibly awful to abandon it like that? Even if you knew you couldn't raise them? Even if half your neighbors were doing it?
BRAIN: I dunno. Want to read this book and find out?
HEART: [cringes] Are there going to be a lot of dead babies?
BRAIN: Probably. I'll take over when we get to those parts and you can cover your eyes.
(Brain was right about women practicing infanticide and abandonment throughout history; turns out they pretty much always have, and have constructed many religious and folklore beliefs that let them see it not as a criminal act or something they were directly responsible for, and considering it a monstrous criminal act is fairly recent. Heart was right about the number of bad things happening to small children in this book, though the tone of scientific detachment throughout the whole thing made it surprisingly painless to read about. At some point, talking about China's one child policy, the author says something like..."why subject such a stark matter to dispassionate analysis? Well, why wouldn't you?" And outside of excerpts from diaries or literature, that's pretty much what her writing sounds like.)
Anyway, this was fascinating all over, the kind of book I frequently felt compelled to share fun facts from. The author is rightfully skeptical of so much discourse about parenting that focuses on what mothers "naturally" ought to be doing, and it's refreshing to read instead about what they have always done, on every step of the evolutionary ladder from bees to monkeys to ancient humans to modern civilization. They've always worked on things besides childcare, sought out help from others, taken advantage of whatever level of "choice" they have, and taken care of themselves without being self-sacrificing - all things that make sense from an evolutionary perspective, at least if you weren't raised in Darwin's time and projected your Victorian values all over your observations.
This was hard for me to read sometimes as a more social science-y person - shutting off my "but what about---" reaction every time I saw a biological fact that definitely has some social/cultural factors was difficult! Plenty of things that I consider important are smoothed away in an effort to write about humans at the species level. I had to tell myself pretty often "she's not denying any of that stuff, it's just not what the book is about." So, big grain of salt needed for how much any of this applies to your own life or beliefs or politics, but overall it was fascinating and eye-opening.
mamakass's review
5.0
I LOVE this book. It was revolutionary and world-view changing for me. In it, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy challenges patriarchal assumptions in evolutionary theory and social science to discuss the way females impact the evolution of a species through their parenting, as well as how babies impact their parenting and likelihood to survive through various evolved and behavioral traits. She also discussed the uncomfortable but very real and long history of child abandonment and infanticide, and how mothers use a variety of factors when deciding how much care to give each child; challenging the assumption that mothers evolved to self-sacrificially love every baby they have.
It is amazing.
It is amazing.
More...