For all the beauty and advancement science has brought to civilization, please understand that science is a tool at the end of the day. The bias and desires of those conducting the studies, writing the papers and performing the reviews still stands. Since the creation of science there has been a desire to assert one’s beliefs and impress stereotypes with the backing of science.
So what you're saying is we should no longer believe any source because it will always be biased? No matter how much peer review from various sources it gets?
At one time science claimed superiority of the white race over other groups.
Yes, and this science was significantly contested at that same time as well. Not every scientist just nodded their heads and went: makes sense.
Women were subscribed as being incapable of logical thought and unable to physically compete with men.
Which was based on baseless assumptions.
Observations of intelligent men manipulated to satisfy their own bias and actions. So to say that there are different structures in the brain is an objective measurement which is true. Then to turn around and hazard a guess, which is what these individuals would be doing, is to support their beliefs with something possibly unrelated.
The sources I was referring to are not about women's innate abilities with children, those are purely on differences between the brains, which you say is a true, objective measurement. What flows are not always accurate assumptions on what effect these differences have, but you can also not just discredit them by claiming bias, especially given the increasing number of eyes that study every single scientific claim that gets made compared to ye olden days where it was more wild west than today.
Your wife does not have an innate understanding of children any more than you do. An increase in empathy does not give her any super abilities to change the child any faster, to understanding the cries of the child or any other skill set needed to care for a child.
The empathy was an example of one aspect and one aspect alone. I do however believe she, in particular, had a much easier time learning these things.
Indeed her only advantage is that society designated her as caregiver long ago while she was a child and so gave her tools for the task.
So you believe it is society? Perhaps, though I still think that this was shaped by these roles an extremely long time ago, long enough to have an impact on how our bodies evolved over time, brains included. Just looking at animals you can see the same tendencies, though primitive.
A stereotype supporting itself through the generations until people no longer question the origin. Men have just as much ability to care for children as men from birth and onward. That stereotype has done much to separate men from their children along with place a undeserved burden on the shoulders of women.
And I reiterate, while I think your average woman will have a somewhat easier time learning the ropes, some of which will just flow naturally and from a link with their children through pregnancy, I do not think this should be a constant and a reason to force anyone into a role they do not want or are comfortable with, just like I think it's a father's responsibility to be as involved with their children as possible (a responsibility that a lot of fathers do take up). But again, I still think that difference is there, influencing matters subtly, and I don't think it's just some social construct crafted in times anyone is going to find any records of.
Evolution plays no part in the process of societal integration and stereotype propagation. Were women in fact breed to be the true caretakers of children there would be greater ability to hold, defend and feed their children over their male counterparts. Women have no such ability beyond what is taught to them by others. Those same skills can just as easily be given to men.
I never said they just have to wake up one day and 'boom!' she knows how to hold a child. From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive. What mothers and fathers bring to the table for a child's development is different because of these differences between genders that you can't just ignore. And since I've said it about five times by now, I'll just add it again: this does not apply to all women and not all men. Can those skills be taught to men? Of course. But with your average male, just the interest and desire to learn will be less and less common.
As for my belief in your stereotypes, I am fairly certain you do believe this one as evidenced by what you have said about your role in raising your child.
Care to elaborate?
I also don't appreciate being called a liar, especially not when I've stated about a thousand blasted times that I do not think these stereotypes should be acted upon, even if some of them have a basis in rational reasoning. It's like you skip over these extremely vital disclaimers every time they're brought up.