Feminism vs. Maternal Bonding
Posted by Socrates in child abuse, children, children and parenting, feminism, feminism as fraudulent, Feminists, feminization of the West, Socrates at 12:01 pm | 
Permanent Link
They call feminism “the destroyer” for good reason.
Feminism, as we know it today at least, emerged in force in the Western world circa 1972 (remember the infamous Billy Jean King/Bobby Riggs tennis match in 1973?) [1].
Maternal bonding (i.e., mother/child bonding during the first year or so after childbirth) is “essential” for normal infant development, said one expert.
Feminism ruins maternal bonding. If Mommy is always absent from the home due to work, the child won’t bond with her properly.
Most criminals never properly bonded with their mothers [2]. Which is probably why they are in prison. Child/mother bonding during the first several years of a child’s life is crucial, with the first year being probably the most critical.
It’s downright abnormal for a woman to deliver a baby and then, just 8 weeks after maternity leave, return to work at that shiny office building downtown to work for Mr. Goldberg doing unimportant tasks like answering the telephone (let Goldberg answer his own phone). Eight-to-ten weeks (on maternity leave) is not at all enough time to properly bond with your child. It requires a year at the least and maybe longer than that. In fact, it could be argued that early-return-to-work is a form of child abuse.
.
[1] the King/Riggs game
[2] “There is increasing evidence from the fields of development psychology, neurobiology and animal epigenetic studies that neglect, parental inconsistency and a lack of love can lead to long-term mental health problems as well as to reduced overall potential and happiness.” — from a 2016 British child-care study titled “The Importance of Early Bonding on the Long-Term Mental Health and Resilience of Children”