To be human is to be animal. There is no question that we are, at the heart of it all, just animals sharing the planet with other animals. What makes us different is our unique ability to reason and communicate as such. In the animal world there is the underlying notion of survival of the fittest. It is ingrained. It is evolution. It is written into our DNA.
In 2005 a study was released that discovered that cute children receive more time, love and attention from their parents. The premise of the research finding is that "Humans have evolved to give the most attention to their children who are most likely to survive in our world and therefore to pass on genetic material". One must wonder if this is true, and if true, does this also affect those who care for children not their own.
I am neither a sociologist nor have I studied evolution and the concepts presented by Darwin at length. But I do have some knowledge of basic biology and an understanding of how the animal kingdom operates. I understand the animalistic predisposition to prefer some inherent genetic traits over others. I am knowledgeable of the allele factors at play in the animal body and I also know that some gene combinations are more favourably accepted than others in their outward expression. If human beings are animals why then should we be so arrogant to think we would be exempt from that which has proven to dominate the instincts of the animal kingdom?
The greater point to be made here is that we have life experience to draw upon. If we were perfectly honest would be answer that, yes, pretty, cute babies and children are easier to grow close to and care for then those who perhaps lack the traits that their attractive playmates possess? The raw question is - are attractive kids really and truly cared for better? Be honest.
I am brave enough to pose this question as a daycare provider and take responsibility for the backlash it might create. I am an honest individual who has the courage to look inside myself and answer with the basic and unembellished truth. Yes, for me, good looking kids do make their way into my heart with much less effort than others. It's the truth. It's carnal and it's raw but it is the truth.
Over the years I have had many children in my care. Some of them have been children who could easily support the allure of the cover of a parenting magazine. Others not so much. The attractive kids pull on my heartstrings in a fashion different from their less attractive playmates. There is more tolerance toward them. I am less annoyed by their crying and quicker to respond to their distress.
These revelations I place in print are new to me. It wasn't until I recently stumbled upon the articles of the study that I had the epiphany of actualization. For even I was unaware of my preference until I took the time to look inside myself and demand a truthful answer. The question is, can you, the reader, look inside yourself and answer the question with truth and honesty?
There is no wrong answer. There is no blame to cast. It's innate. You can not win in a battle with evolution. But you can answer the question with honesty and go forth with the knowledge of your humanity and the fallibility that comes with it. One can not grow without truth. We, as a humanity, can not change our perceptions without first recognizing them. Read the link provided and give yourself the freedom of truthfulness. Are you just an animal or are you celestial and bigger than the rest of us?
Link to CTV report on the study
For concerns, advice or suggestions I welcome your email at judytrickett@yahoo.ca
17 comments: