> I am unsure now as to whether you agree with me or not if we are referring from the same 2016 study.
I disagree with you, specifically about mental performance. Women's mental performance does not drop significantly before, during, or after pregnancy, at least not because of the pregnancy itself.
You keep linking me to pop-sci summaries of Hoekzema's study to try to support your claim. Please go read Hoekzema's paper instead and read it beyond the abstract.
Your assumptions about the academic potential of mothers are not only NOT supported by the data, they are also exactly the kind of attitudes that for centuries have forced women to attribute their accomplishments to men in order to be taken seriously.
My point is, there's a reason that what you are claiming is unpopular, and it's not because of some liberal agenda to silence you. It's because the facts do not support your claims.
I also linked to two 2019 papers after the 2016 paper. Nature Neuroscience is not ‘pop-sci’. What data do you have to make your claim? Have you conducted any independent studies? Published any? Got any ‘pop-sci’ reference? What is your reasoning? I don’t see anything other than an unsupported opinion in your argument against me.
I don’t think there is anything more to say if you believe that pregnancy hormones does not affect the female brain.
‘Performance’ is relative. A ticket puncher can probably still perform at the same level on pregnancy brain. A student attempting competitive exams may be flailing. Maybe you have a specific job in mind when you say ‘mental performance’ doesn’t change with pregnancy. But I don’t think we should be taking the specificities into account to be objective.
ETA: it’s terrible when random claims are made that women’s performance and mental acuity doesn’t alter due to pregnancy. Other than that it flies in the face of reality for millions of women who have had the experience of birthing and pregnancy, it sets an impossible standard for other women. Mental health that has nothing to do with pregnancy occurs now and only harms women.
Such claims are a stunning display of ignorance about the toll pregnancy and child birth takes on a woman. It’s many times more drastic for multiple back to back pregnancies.
Women should be mad about such ignorant expectations rather than accept unreasonable expectations after pregnancy. Insane and mind boggling. It beggars belief that it’s more important to gain some kind of politically correct position of equity than acknowledge some of the serious issues that women face here. It’s a mass burial of facts. And denial of biology. This harms women in worse ways than ‘gender inequality’.
Some would call this gaslighting of an entire gender of a certain age. It’s worse than ‘mental performance’ in a job. Post partum depression and other mental health issues are caused by an entire mismatch of pregnancy hormone cocktails.(/end addition to comment)
On the same note, in this case..Mileva Einstein who was a mathematics student sitting for exams failed likely because of pregnancy brain because she became pregnancy thrice back to back, robbing her of her previous brilliance in her field. It was due to pregnancy hormones. That’s my stance.
I disagree with you, specifically about mental performance. Women's mental performance does not drop significantly before, during, or after pregnancy, at least not because of the pregnancy itself.
You keep linking me to pop-sci summaries of Hoekzema's study to try to support your claim. Please go read Hoekzema's paper instead and read it beyond the abstract.
Your assumptions about the academic potential of mothers are not only NOT supported by the data, they are also exactly the kind of attitudes that for centuries have forced women to attribute their accomplishments to men in order to be taken seriously.
My point is, there's a reason that what you are claiming is unpopular, and it's not because of some liberal agenda to silence you. It's because the facts do not support your claims.