Women Are Better Parents Than Men

From the original perspective which is carried out up to date some communities and individuals, women had been regarded with the role of rearing children. Biologically it is necessity that women give birth as well upholds the responsibility of feeding the baby. Traditionally, women were thus considered as natural parents while fathers were only regarded to be important during conception after which they were considered to be nuisance. Though fathers are nowadays getting involved in child care more than they used to be, I strongly stand with the notion that women make good parents than men.

At a closer look, women start bonding with their children right from the conception. This tends or brings them closer to the children and it is further facilitated by the daily routines they carry out to their children for example feeding to them taking care of them. Worldwide, it is known that a higher percentage of women do not work. Especially in the third world countries, women often remain home with their children as me going to work. This means that they play a very vital role in determining how the child will grow and how well or bad behaved the child will.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You Only $13.90/page!

order now

Many people naturally like to make the best they can. This is why I strongly support women will make good parents and been better than men. According to studies, people tend to understand each other more through socialization. This means, women will end up understanding their children more due to the time they spend with them. It is known that a higher percentage of men whether working or not tend hang around more with their friends during their leisure time.

In most cases they will show up in their home later in the day unlike women who always feel they have the duty to attend to making them spend more time at home thus more time to be with the children. The other factor that makes women good parents is their innate nature of being more caring and forgiving. This puts them a notch higher than men for they will tend to forgive their children when they wrong unlike men who they immediate action in most cases will be to punish them. This will lead to morally upright children for they will have understood what is good and what s bad. Also there has been a lot of attention paid to the notion that there occurs some hormonal changes during birth which makes the woman to engage vigorously in care taking and happens to do it more efficiently than any body else who have not gone through the birth process. Just imagine how the bible describes the woman after they ate the forbidden fruit. She was told that she would have pain while giving birth and her hole will be to rear the children. I think most societies tended to follow the suit and thus expect women to play a greater role in parenting.

The man on the other hand was so sweat as he toiled the land in an attempt to provide daily needs for the family. Role models plays a major part in determining the direction the child takes as he or she grows up. From a tender age, girls try to emulate their mothers with duties like child rearing and that is why they are very fond with dolls, engage in cooking games among others which are more associated with what they see their mothers doing. This means even as a small girl, she clearly starts to prepare to be a parent just from the beginning.

Look at the scenario of what happens in case of a divorce. Often the courts decide in favor for women. This clearly shows that even the authority thinks and believes that women make good parents and that is why men are not given the opportunity to be the custodian of children during divorce. Emotionally, women tend to be empathetic putting them into the shoes of their children. This implies they are better placed to understand what their children are going through and gives them opportunity to advice and counsel their children in time of need.

Women carry their babies in their wombs and since birth they are attached to their babies for natural reasons, maybe this is why they feel their babies is their sole responsibility, mothers rarely abandon their children. The answer, from an evolutionary psychological perspective, is that heather instinctively knew, as do most of us that children are more important to their mothers than to their fathers, and as a result, their loss would be more devastating to their mothers than to their fathers. So it is no difficult to find abundant evidence for the fact that others are more dedicated to their children than fathers. It is like, when married couples with children get divorced, chances are that the children stay with the mother, not the father, especially if they are Young. According to the 1992 march / April current population survey in the Unite States of America, conducted by the US Census Bueau on a nationally representative simple, 86 percent of custodial parents are mothers, Further, many of the noncustodial fathers who have agreed to pay child support, either voluntarily or by a court order, default on their commitment and become ‘’deadbeat dads’’.

The first National survey of the receipt of child support, conducted in 1978, reveals that less than half (49 percent) of women awarded child support actually received the full amount due to them, and more than a quarter (28 percent) of them received nothing. The percentages have remained more or less constant since in 1991, 52 percent of custodial parents awarded child support received the full amount, 25 percent of them received nothing. So the question remains why are women so much more dedicated parents than men? Why are there so many deadbeat dads but so few deadbeat moms?

On the surface, this massive sex difference in the dedication to children may appear puzzling, since both the mother and the father are equally. Related to their children, genetically, each parent transmits half of their genes to their child. However, there are two biological factors that combine to make fathers far less committed as parents than mothers taking the paper of been a good parent. We will explain it well talking about the two biological factors that make women goo mothers. The first biological factor is paternity uncertainty.

Because gestation for all mammals (including humans) takes place internally within the female’s body, the male can never be certain of his paternity, whereas maternity is always certain. And paternity uncertainty is not a remote theoretical possibility. Because of the estimated incidence of cukoldry (men unwittingly raising and investing in another man’s genetic offspring) in contemporary western societies is substantial (between 10 percent and 30 percent). Thus, this is a very realistic possibility for any father in contemporary western society and probably elsewhere throughout human history as well.

Naturally, men are not motivated to invest in children who have a distinct possibility of not being genetically theirs. The twin concept of paternity uncertainty and maternity certainty is captured in the common saying “mommy’s baby, Daddy’s maybe. Every single mother, not only among humans but among all mammalian species, has been certain that the child that she hast given birth to is hers, no women has ever wondered, as a child is coming out of her body. In contrast, every single father wonders, either explicitly or implicitly. Some wonder more than others, but no father has ever been completely certain of his paternity.

The best he can ever say is “Maybe. ” The other reason is the absence for men of the proverbial “biological clock. ”The second biological factor that makes fathers less committed parents is their higher fitness ceiling (the best they can do reproductively). Fetuses gestate for nine months within the female body, and infants are, at least in the past, nursed by the mother for several years after birth, during which the mother is usually infertile (lactation amenorrhea). Women also have a much shorter reproductive life than men do due to menopause.

These two factors combine to create a much higher fitness ceiling for men than for women. Men can potentially have many more children than women can. The largest number of children that a man has ever had is at least 1,042. The last Sharifian emperor of Morocco, Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty (pictured above), maintained a large harem, as many ancient rulers did, and had at least 700 sons and 342 daughters. The exact number of children that Moulay Ismail had in his lifetime is lost to history, because they stopped counting them after a while.

The reason the recorded number of sons is more than twice as many as the recorded number of daughters is because they stopped counting daughters long before they stopped counting sons. In contrast, the largest number of children that a woman has ever had is 69. The wife of an eighteenth-century Russian peasant, Feodor Vassilyev, had 27 pregnancies in her life, including 16 pairs of twins, seven sets of triplets, and four sets of quadruplets; amazingly, Mrs. Vassilyeva never had any single births in her life! And all but two of her 69 children survived to adulthood. Exactly how many children Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty and Mrs.

Vassilyeva had is not important. What’s important is this: The largest number of children that a man can potentially have is two orders of magnitude greater than the potential number of children that a woman can have (thousands vs. tens). The massive sex difference in the largest possible number of children means that, while reproductive success is equally important to men and women (in fact, to all biological organisms), each child is far more important to the mother than it is to the father. Each child represents a far greater proportion of a woman’s lifetime reproductive potential than it does a man’s.

If a 40-year-old mother of five deserts her children and they die as a result, she will likely end her life as a total reproductive loser, having failed to leave any copy of her genes in the next generation. If a 40-year-old father of five does the same, he can go on to produce five (or ten or twenty) more children. Both paternity uncertainty and the higher fitness ceiling make fathers less committed parents than mothers, and this is why there are so many more deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms; very few women abandon or neglect their children.

Ironically, it is the mother’s greater commitment to her children that allows the father to neglect them even more. Knowing the mother’s greater commitment to her children, the father can abandon them, secure in the knowledge that the mother would never do likewise, because if she did, the children would be virtually certain to die. In other words, divorced parents with children are playing a game of Chicken, and it is usually the mother who swerves.

Most fathers would probably prefer to invest in their children and raise them by themselves rather than see them die, but they normally do not have to make this difficult decision, because they know that the mother would never abandon them. The mother’s greater commitment to her children ironically allows the father to have his cake and eat it too, by moving on to the next marriage and family in which to invest. Statistics show that very young mothers, are the most likely to kill their babies, and older mothers are the second most likely to do so, but for different reasons.

Very young, teenage mothers kill their babies because they still have most of their reproductive lives ahead of them, and they can make more babies in the future even if they kill the one they just had. Having a baby under unfortunate circumstances (such as without a father willing to invest in it) not only threatens the well-being of the baby but also jeopardizes the mother’s chance of finding a mate in the future. And teenage mothers are more likely than others to have their baby under unfortunate circumstances. Older mothers (above the age of 35) kill their babies for a different reason.

They are more likely to have defective babies because of their age. Every child (defective or otherwise) consumes parents’ resources. Since defective children are much less likely to attain reproductive success, from a purely genetic point of view, any resources invested in children who will not have children themselves are wasted. Such children are taking away valuable resources from other children who have better reproductive prospects. Older mothers are more likely than younger mothers to have other children they must also raise. So parents are designed not to invest in defective children.

By the same token, parents invest more in better-looking children than in less good-looking children, and in more intelligent children than in less intelligent children. Without necessarily knowing it consciously, parents do favor some children over others, and the extent to which they favor some children is strongly correlated with their likely future reproductive success. They usually favor children who have better future reproductive prospect over children who have gloomier future reproductive prospect. In other words, Tommy Smothers is right. Mom did always like Dick best.