[em-bee]

It sounds like this was the case for you, but it doesn't mean it is the case for other men. It isn't the case for the dads I know who didn't have an in being around their babies/toddlers. They simply did not have an interest.

i don't understand how you see a contradiction here. you are observing that men have no interest in childcare, and i am explaining why.

it's a lack of role models.

unless your friends did have fathers who had in interest in child care but your friends had no interest despite that.

the problem with nurture vs nature is that it is difficult to prove one way or the other. beyond pregnancy and breastfeeding everything else can be learned. and it's difficult to prove that it isn't

[apparent]

According to your line of thinking, anything that results from nature can be attributed to nurture because "we can't prove 100% that it isn't nurture". This is a terrific example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Secondly, even your description of your own experience undermines your theory. You say you didn't know what to do with your kids, so you didn't want to spend as much time with them. That is different from what I said my dad-friends have expressed, which is lack of interest that is not related to not knowing what to do with them. They just don't have an interest in being with a baby/toddler. Their experience is not yours, but you try to twist it to fit your narrative.

In general, it makes sense to be open-minded about how others' internal states, perceptions, etc. When someone says they don't have the same reason for doing something that you do, maybe don't tell them that yes they do. This is good general practice, but it's especially important for personal and perceptual matters, where outsiders literally have no idea why someone is doing something.

[em-bee]

According to your line of thinking, anything that results from nature can be attributed to nurture because "we can't prove 100% that it isn't nurture". This is a terrific example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

all correct. but the reverse is true too. you can't prove that any of it is nature.

both are beliefs. the reason why i side for nurture is because nature is used as an excuse to defend bad behavior or to discriminate. i have written about this before.

"men should not be teachers because they can not be trusted with our children" or "men should not be single parents because they don't have the capacity to care for children" or "he could not help raping her. her clothing provoked him, and he could not control himself"

the teacher comment was shared by someone in new zealand, the single parent one is common in germany and i believe in the US and many other place too. the last one has been used as a defense before. discrimination and excuses. fortunately much of that is no longer accepted. but only because we accept that nurture matters more than nature.

[apparent]

Look at the animal kingdom, my friend. There is very clear evidence that for nearly all species, mothers are more nurturing.

[em-bee]

but we aren't animals. as humans we are not bound to our instinct. we have the capacity to overcome our nature. of course not everything is learned. breathing for example, but heck even properly latching on to a breast is learned, whereas for many mammals it is instinct. so using animals here as example is not evidence.

the point is that nurture is stronger than nature and every human behavior can be learned and override any instinct. what i am trying to say is that while by nature mothers may be more nurturing, males can learn to be just as nurturing and therefore the advantage women may have in nurturing is small enough as to be insignificant.

the only natural advantage is that the mother by default has more contact with the mother though pregnancy and breastfeeding. but take an adopted baby by a childless couple, and even that advantage disappears.

what remains is the raw difference between man and woman, most of which is governed by learned behavior, and not by nature. whether that can be proven or not is another question that we already addressed.

[apparent]

> but we aren't animals

You lost me here. Good day!

[em-bee]

you are ignoring that even among animals, and mammals specifically the amount of nurture vs nature varies a lot. some animals, especially those who are prey, are born with the capacity to run. others are born blind or weak and need more nurturing before they can get around on their own.

but no matter which animal you look at, none of them spend nearly two decades or more in training their children before letting them go off into the world. (ok, the orang utan comes close with 8-12 years, but that includes everything they ever have to learn for their life before they go off to live on their own, unlike humans who don't stop learning from their parents until they have children of their own)

how can you even argue that the influence of nature on humans is comparable to any animal in the world? regardless of the classification of humans