CHILDREN NEED FATHERS, according to an article in New Scientist, 25 July 2009, p12. Following on from sociological studies, two biological studies have reinforced the evidence that fathers have a key role in rearing children. One study used an animal model – Californian mice....... They found the fatherless mice did not engage in normal interaction with other mice and showed a blunted response to oxytocin, a hormone released during social interaction and personal interaction. These results fit with a human study carried out by Ruth Feldman of Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan,Israel. She visited 80 couples after childbirth and six months later, and found increased oxytocin levels in both parents. The increased hormone levels had different effects. “Mothers with highest levels of the hormone engaged in more gazing at the infant, affectionate touching and speaking in a sing-song voice. Fathers with higher oxytocin played more with their child, who displayed more attachment to them than did kids whose fathers had lower oxytocin.” Feldman commented that "fathers and mothers contribute in a very specific and different way" to their child’s needs and development. In their editorial, (p5) New Scientist wrote: “There are those who will over interpret these tentative findings as proof of the need to maintain "traditional" family values and oppose adoption by same-sex couples. They are not. But, for men at least, biology is delivering a reassuring message: they have their uses.”HOW CAN the last sentence make any sense in the light of the contradictory nonsense in the penultimate?
Thanks due to John Mackay.
