Motherhood and Feminism

Many moons ago while I was working towards a degree in psychology, a very good professor taught a course titled “Developmental Psychobiology.”  It was one of the most interesting courses I ever took loaded with a plethora of information from theories on the genesis of homosexuality to autism.  But, one thing I will always remember and take from that course is the statement from the professor that the one thing in biology and psychology that cannot be adequately explained with surveys, probes or electrodes is the mother-infant bond.  He concluded that it was truly magical and mystical and one of the mysteries of nature.

Despite what the culture warriors say, from the biological evolutionary standpoint, the primary role of women in nature is to give birth to progeny.  Obviously, throughout nature, animals have adopted various reproductive strategies.  The fish, for example, living in a harsh aquatic environment full of predators, lays many eggs that will hatch “knowing” that many will not survive.  Other animals have less offspring, but invest more in care of the young until they can go out on their own.

In a New York Times article on motherhood, a writer posited the notion that having a child is not the worst thing that can happen to a woman.  The comments received were 2:1 against her and ranged from those like “motherhood is the toughest job on earth” to “she must be wealthy to make such a statement.”  Time magazine ran a front page story on “The Goddess Myth” about motherhood and a new social phenomena called “mother-shaming” where people are put down because they do not conform to certain expectations such as breastfeeding.

To hear today’s modern woke woman, having a child is like having a kid born with a gun in his hand with the barrel pointed at the head of the mother.  In fact, it is the other way around.  When not avoiding pregnancy (contraception) and having access to killing one’s offspring (abortion), many now who opt to have children spend their lives talking about how hard it is to have a child.  For a society obsessed with sexual rights, it is certainly strange that so many women are out-of-touch with their biological purpose in life.  Today’s modern woke feminist woman believes that the joy of sex can be completely disassociated from the joy of having children, that a honeymoon should last forever, that self-selected sterility makes you more of a woman, or that is a kiss from a child is somehow less important than a 9-5 job with benefits.

These are weak-willed, weak-kneed ignorant people who believe in the importance of evolution and one’s sexuality, yet devoid of a sense of the purposes of sexuality and its evolutionary purpose.  This is not progress, enlightenment or even female empowerment.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  Instead, they want “girl fun” all the time, but accept motherhood begrudgingly.

We may be the first culture in the history of mankind to fail to grasp the importance and seriousness of motherhood.  The pagans deified maternity and indeed turned it into a goddess.  We may have gone completely in the opposite direction and treat motherhood like a disease or an obstacle.  Yet, those who embrace motherhood with all its trials and tribulations and setbacks are doing a wonderful, beautiful, joyous and essential thing.  Our society and our civilization depend on them doing it well.  No one else can make such a claim- not the architect, doctor or street cleaner whether they are male or female.  Being a mother is not a “job.”  A job is something you do for eight hours a day, then stop.

This is why the feminist denigration of stay-at-home mothers is so odious.  While today’s woman according to feminists should be privy to choice, especially in the reproductive area, when a woman exercises the choice to be a stay-at-home mother, they are the objects of derision and stereotypes.   Census Bureau statistics show that stay-at-home mother households make less than $100,000/year which makes intuitive sense since there is only one wage earner.  The Left portrays this income level as if stay-at-home mothers are all living in some self-imposed poverty.

But, if we take into account the amounts saved in child care, food and other items because the mother stays at home, that less than $100,000 household income goes a longer way than those who opt to immediately re-enter the workforce.  We can consider this “social capital.”  And the primary engine for the growth of social capital making this country one of the sociological wonders of the world are people without full time jobs, namely wives and mothers.  Every aspect of family and community gets an infusion of vitality from the stay-at-home mother.

The hypocrisy of the feminist Left in this area is overwhelming.  One feminist writer said that in order to build a more progressive America and increase revenue for it is to put stay-at-home mothers back to work.  By opting to stay at home, they argue that these women are skirting their civic duty.  They are narrowing their interests to their families and children rather than the wider community.  That is, they are not viewed as “mothers;” they are tax-paying cogs.  Says one feminist: they are worse than the unscrupulous banker hiding profits in the Cayman Islands.  They claim having the mom at home does more harm than good, especially daughters who are likely to achieve less than their peer’s mother’s who do work.

What a load of crap!  On the one hand, being a stay-at-home mother is an uncompensated job foisted upon women by the oppressive patriarchy.  On the other hand, its not a job at all because staying at home is skirting one’s civic responsibility to be a taxpayer.

There is no “Goddess myth;” there are goddesses.  Truth cannot be a myth.  Motherhood is a wondrous thing that everyone- including feminists- should be celebrating and holding up.  Society has “advanced” so far that we now tend to discard those ideas and actions that got us this far.  This writer does not consider that “advancement.”  I consider it stupidity.