AUTHORS NOTE

The question of whether fathers are less emotional in taking care of babies is an interesting one to consider and discuss. Grown-ups can come in two varieties - the completely mature and generally well adjusted variety, and not-entirely-mature variety with varying degrees of being emotionally well adjusted. Fathers who fall into the first category may be the least likely to incorrectly believe that a mother's approach to caring for her baby is "emotional". Some from this category, however, may at times misinterpret mothers' thinking. Mothers in that first category know that they aren't particularly "emotional" a good part of the time. People of both sexes from the second category often misunderstand or misinterpret mothers' thinking and approach to caring for their babies.

In other words, there are an awful lot of people who don't really understand mothers very well. This discussion is intended to share some thoughts about mothers with this group of people.

It's a long discussion, so if you plan to stick around grab your tea, coffee, or flavored water and settle in. This isn't a discussion that could be adequately addresses in too fewer words.

INTRODUCTION

When it comes to how "emotional" mothers are there is a whole of misunderstanding on the part of both men (fathers or not) and some women (often not mothers, themselves - or else mothers who lack the normal maternal instinct).

Before addressing the question of whether fathers are "less emotional", I'd like to give just one of many first-hand experiences when my husband was far more "emotional" than I was. After giving that example, I'd like to discuss some of the misunderstandings/misinterpretations surrounding how mothers often approach things. Once I've built a foundation for my "argument" I'll address the question of fathers. I cannot stress early or often enough that remarks made about either fathers or mothers are not to intended to make sweeping generalizations about all of either. These remarks are intended to discuss "many" or "some" - and never "all".

FIRST, A STORY TO OFFER A LITTLE FOUNDATION FOR THE DISCUSSION

When my son was 18 months old he had what looked like a cold. He had a stuffy nose and was kind of "bubbly" sounding, so I decided not to put him into his crib to sleep. Being more than well are of the ways respiratory-related problems can suddenly turn very serious in babies, and having watched my own baby brother "snap into" febrile seizures as a baby/small child, I decided I'd hold my son as he slept. As mothers often do when they are responsible, I decided I'd postpone getting any real sleep of my own "just for the night". Not having had experience taking care of, or even being around, babies/toddlers; my husband went to sleep as usual.

As I sat with my son he suddenly snapped into a febrile seizure. I was scared (I don't pretend not to be). My toddler's eyes were open, but it looked it is my child "wasn't there". I called for my husband that we needed to get the baby to the hospital, and I ran into the bathroom to try to gently cool my son a little as my automatic response. My husband - and I'm not exaggerating or kidding here - was running up and down the hall, all "emotional", and kind of yelling (a little), "What are we supposed to do? What are we supposed to do?" I don't know how many times he ran past the bathroom door in one direction, and then in the other direction.

This all occurred in a very brief period of time, but my immediate "plan" had been to first try to get my son a little cooler (to try to get him out of the seizure as soon as possible); but not to spend a lot of time waiting around. As I intently watched my baby's eyes I calmly told my husband we had to get him to the hospital right away. It's true that I wasn't thinking about mentioning that I'd be out in a minute, and I didn't think to tell my husband to call ahead to the hospital. My thinking was about two things at the same time - get the baby cooler and out of the seizure AND get him to the hospital immediately. I knew I wasn't planning to hang around in the bathroom too long, rather than leave for the hospital. As it happened, the baby came out of the seizure in the bathroom. He was "distant" but definitely out of the seizure by the time we got him to the door.

Whether or not I handled the whole thing the way experts would today recommend, I don't know. The point is that I handled it calmly and had a plan in spite of my naturally being terrified. I did not run up and down the hall throwing my arms in the air. A few days later I was talking with a family member (also a mother). She asked, "How did you know not to put him in his crib?" This was a person who always kind of thought I was a little "over-protective" and worried. Amazed at what seemed to me like her lack of natural instinct to err on the side of the safety (when faced with very real possibility of a sick baby getting suddenly sicker), I told her how whenever the baby seemed to have even a minor respiratory thing if I didn't take him to the doctor immediately I would at least make sure I watched him closely. A few years after this happened, the family member, herself, had a "croupy" baby. She said she called the doctor, who told her to bring the baby in the bathroom and run the hot water to make steam. She did that, put the baby in his crib for the night, and later found him blue. By the time he got to the hospital he was brain dead. His throat at swollen up and blocked off air. There's a reason I've added this element to the febrile seizure story, and that reason will become clear shortly. In fact, the relevance to the whole story will become evident.

UNDERSTANDING MOTHERS

As a mother, and as a woman who is close to a lot of other mothers, it is so clear to me that there is so much misunderstanding about mothers and women. Since I can most effectively make my points by using myself as an example, that's what I will do.

Mothers will usually tell you (or at least other mothers) how, once babies are born, they can be "two people at once". What I mean by that is that we stay "our pre-baby selves" (complete with sense of responsibility, objectivity and reasoning skills) while we also become "a second person" who operates on that extremely powerful maternal instinct. With the fierce instinct to do what is right for our baby, most mothers are strong enough, sensible enough, and committed enough not to allow their emotions to govern their actions/choices. Most normal mothers will tell you that when their child appears to be in danger they will go into "some adrenalin mode" and remain amazingly cool-headed and sensible. When I was looking at my "blank eyed" baby I didn't have the time or inclination to think about my own fear, and I certainly didn't have the patience for my husband's "uncool" behavior.

What about my decision not to put the baby in his crib? Was that "emotional"? No. That was based on my solid knowledge of what can happen when a baby seems congested, but it was also based on my judgment (at the time) that the congestion didn't seem to be in the baby's chest, but, instead, in his nose; and that it didn't seem like reason enough to go out to the hospital in the middle of the night. Still, I had enough knowledge to know that the baby's condition could change, and that fevers rise; so I took the simple step to watch him. (It turned out he had an ear infection, and that ear infection fevers rise rapidly and are more likely to cause seizures as a result.) The family member who saws my choice to stay up and watch my sick baby as "emotional" and "over-protective" had not wanted to look like "that kind of mother". Instead, she wanted to be a mother who had a "cooler head". It isn't my wish to indulge in an "I-told-you-so" over such a horrible tragedy that affected me too; but my point is that mothers can't worry about "looking emotional" or like "too big a worrier".

The point is that mothers are often called, "emotional" or "over-protective" when, in fact, many have quite a bit of knowledge about babies, as opposed to many fathers who haven't thought much about learning about babies until they have one of their own (if they even do then). Normal, mature, mothers don't have the time to allow themselves to be run by their emotions. They know better, and they care too much about doing what is right for their baby.

So, is it "emotional" when a mother refuses to let her baby "cry it out" because it goes against her grain to hear him in distress? No. The fact is (and science now knows this too) it is not good to allow a baby to go without being responded to. Even without specific knowledge, maternal instinct has a way of guiding mothers to do the thing that is most beneficial to babies (provided those mothers have the normal amount of maternal instinct). The point is that well adjusted, mature, mothers generally operate on either solid understanding of child development, a natural tendency to have a good understanding of human nature, and a natural maternal instinct that guides them. None of these involve "being emotional".

Where mothers do tend to be "more emotional" than fathers may be with sentimental things. Women can lean more toward the sentimental (although not all do, and although many men do as well). Still, mothers are often more likely the ones to be shedding a tear at kindergarten graduations and weddings. Sentimental tears are not, however, an indication that in other mothering matters women operate on emotion.

AND WHAT ABOUT FATHERS?

So what about fathers? Obviously, as with mothers, fathers are individuals. The most well adjusted, mature, of them are likely to operate fairly similarly to the way mothers do. It happens to be that many fathers are, as mentioned previously, less inclined to study up on child development. Many fathers, too, may be at the disadvantage of having their stronger cognitive abilities in areas not necessarily associated with a natural understand of humans in general. (Here again, though, many men are every bit as skilled in this area, or more so, as some women.)

In general, many men do not have the same "maternal instinct" that women have. One example of how biological hard-wiring can play some role in differences in instincts between women and men; in nature, female animals not only nurture their biological offspring but are sometimes known to "adopt" babies of another species. Among even humans, however, men can have more trouble bonding with non-biological children. Again, this is not all men. Still, the problem is widespread enough that it can cause some problems in adopted and "step" relationships. This is not an indictment of all adoptive fathers and step-fathers. It is, however, a known fact that both groups are at higher risk of having bonding issues (and worse) in their relationships with children.

Less worrisome (but often a source of frustration and even anger for women) is that many fathers are oblivious to the role maternal (or primary-caretaker) nurturing plays in the actual development of a child. During the years when a baby's/young child's brain is forming connections the right kind of nurturing can make the difference between things many people would not even imagine. Things like a child's immune system and stress response system can be determined by nurturing. Brain connections aside (or not aside), the interactions between mother/primary caretaker and baby/toddler; whether or not the child's needs are met, and how secure is he made to feel; can all contribute to a well adjusted, bright, happy, child.

Again, not all but many fathers often have no idea about the kinds of interaction and nurturing that must take place in order to have a happy, secure, child who likes to learn and has a positive view of the world. Some fathers see parenting as little more than making sure a baby is fed, kept clean, and given a roof of his head. Some leave most of the "dealing with the baby" up to mothers until the baby gets beyond the stage perceived (by many less-than-knowledgeable parents) as "doing nothing but eating and sleeping". It's not uncommon for fathers to think of themselves as "entertainer" of the baby (which one good way to interact but which is only a fraction of the whole parenting picture).

Many fathers (again not all) have a tendency to think their child is whatever he is "because of genes" and remain completely oblivious to all the thought, planning, energy, and time the child's mother has devoted to nurturing. Whether such fathers mean to do this or not, what this kind of thinking does is essentially negate all the mother's interactions with/impact on the baby; and allow this kind of father to see his own "genetic contribution" as playing a much larger role than it really does/may. One might even ask whether this apparently "emotional" need to see his role in a child's development more significant than it may really be (for the father who, in fact, is away from home much of the time and who comes home only to fall asleep on the sofa until "official" bedtime) would indicate that fathers are often enough more emotional than mothers are.

There are men who are extremely "emotional" as a result of having difficulty (or being unwilling to) control their testosterone-driven emotions. Some are prone to losing their temper when something goes wrong. Some get into "control struggles" as a result of their hormones and/or "male egos". Some men become envious/jealous of the attention their wives give their children instead of them. Some essentially expect their wives to be their mothers. Others expect their wives to be their children. All of these things could be said to stem from "emotional issues".

On the other hand, well adjusted, mature, women don't have as much trouble controlling their anger or frustrations when they arise. Instead, however, women may cry after they've mustered up whatever control they needed at the time but "crash" later. For some reason "the world" often seems to associate crying with emotions more than it associates something like punching the wall with emotions. Something like punching the wall is often seen as "letting off steam" or "being intimidating". The truth is there are times when displays of temper are far more a matter of being "subject to emotions" than "after-the-fact" tears are.

There's another kind of situation that can make mothers appear "less reasonable" and "more emotional". An example might be when it comes to spending. Mothers tend to see and value the benefits of having a normal, welcoming, home environment. Fathers often don't value the "niceties" of a home. Mothers often think in terms of "what's the best, overall, environment in which to raise a family". Fathers (yet again, certainly not all) often think in terms of "all we need are enough chairs to sit on and beds for everybody". What's more, many men have a tendency to only see what need as a necessity. The typical disagreement can occur when a woman wants throw pillows to make the home to seem "warm and inviting and more pleasant", but a man can't see having them unless he can turn them into his own personal head-rest. Is it more "emotional" to recognize the value of an inviting, attractive, home; or is it more "emotional" to "need" to use those throw pillows for one's own head? Men often don't realize that women tend to take a "for the-good of-the-whole-family's-long-and-short-term-emotional-well-being" approach. Instead, they will assume women are being emotional by wanting someone as "silly" as pretty throw pillows.

It is often because our great-grandmothers (mothers, themselves) knew enough to pack away those love letters and newspaper clippings in a hat box that we get to experience a taste of history. Similarly, when today's mothers appear "emotional and sentimental" by preserving seemingly unimportant things that some people may not realize she is thinking well beyond saving drawer space and into the future, when her own great-grandchildren may gain some value from a look into their own family's past.

When a mother and father both share family or financial worries it is often the mother who "puts on a cheerful front" in front of the children, because (based on her "intellectual processing" and knowledge) she knows that children need to feel their parents are strong and in control of problems. Mothers are often the ones to do this, too, because they believe it is destructive to "inflict our bad moods" on others (particularly those who struggle with the same worries and troubles).

Some people may even believe that stay-at-home moms do so because they're "too emotionally attached" to their babies. The fact is some, when given the choice, know their own competence and love for their child, and truly believe (on an intellectual level) that it is they who can best provide care and nurturing.

So many things that mothers do and think are seen as "emotional" when, other than the fact that they love their baby, emotions are otherwise not a factor in their approaches to caring for their child. If we disregard for differences among individuals and talk only about "some" fathers, are there fathers who are more capable of appearing less emotional or being less emotion by virtue of their ability to be "colder" and less sensitive to the baby's needs? Yes. I believe there are. In the case of such fathers, though, does that make them the better parent? Obviously, it makes them the least equipped parent.

Are there mothers who aren't really emotionally mature and who approach mothering and life in general in an "emotional" way? Sure. They are not the mothers being discussed here. Well adjusted, mature, mothers are far less "emotional" than so many people think they are. In fact, as a mother, I can tell you that I have, over the course of being a mother, so often made the "cool headed" decision to risk looking "emotional" to someone simply because I knew what my babies/children needed and couldn't worry about what other people thought about me. Anyone who has been blessed with a good, loving, capable, mother knows that behind her soft-looking, loving, demeanor there was a whole lot of cool-headed reason, logic, and analysis.

Capable, skilled, mothers need to show their children that people (women) who look soft and speak in gentle voices can have strength, intelligence, logic, and good reasoning ability too. They need to show their children, too, that strong, intelligent, logical, people can also be warm, loving, and nurturing people. It's a challenge and a balancing act. Sometimes it's just a plain, old, act. In any case, mothers are often a whole lot more "intellectual" (rather than "emotional") than a lot of people give them credit for.

So, the next time you hear about a mother who won't put her sick baby to bed because she feels responsible for keeping an eye on him; or the next time you see a mother hop up to get her baby the minute she hears him cry; don't be fooled. It isn't about emotions.