selfishness

Mothers have been esteemed throughout history. They are so powerful an influence on their children, that their sons, when grown men, call for them as they die on the battlefield - I say die, but not in despair - because they know there is one who loves them, and who would risk her own life if she could, to come to his aid. Whilst a career might have worth, might generate benefits for society and humanity, who knows whether any successes really depend on the individual, or whether in fact someone else might do the job as well, or perhaps better. There may be exceptions, but if so I suggest they are rare; women like Florence Nightingale come maybe once a century, equally great men are as rare, perhaps even rarer. But a mother, no-one can replace a mother in a child's heart. A mother who has cared for a child through his or her youth, a mother who can never be replaced in the child's affections, as the opportunity to play the role is never again offered - that is a unique and special role. No-one can step into her place, as people are regularly replaced in the professions. Yes, a mother's importance and unique contribution stands well above that of any career women, and that is perhaps why they are revered so highly, why their good opinion is cared for so much, why they have so much influence on not just the child, but the adult. Why is Motherhood so noble? Because it demands self-sacrifice, the mother puts her own needs aside for those of her children, to nurse them, to teach them, to tend to their needs. How can this be looked on as anything but the highest nobility? Raised even further as it is done without any demand for recognition, not even the possibility of it in the broader world? And how does a career compare? It is done often not only for material gain, but also for status, and at the higher levels for worldly acknowledgement and fame. Thus a career is infinitely less noble than Motherhood, and any nobility it has decreases in proportion to its prominence and success. Now today many women require a career just to survive, but such a necessity is not nearly as adequate as motherhood when it comes to achieving nobility. It really makes you wonder why motherhood is so derided today. Is it that career women - aware of their disadvantage and their own motives - seek to denigrate motherhood so as to decrease the nobility of mothers and increase their own? Such wiles would never cross the mind of a devoted and loving mother, but may well pass through a more mercurial and selfish mind. Certainly today a lot of effort seems to be going into artificially stimulating the virtues of career success. I also think that a woman does not need to necessarily give birth to be a mother. I think that people like Florence Nightingale and Mother Theresa, were in fact first mothers - unselfish carers and nurturers, and that that their fame was merely incidental to this due to their fantastic impact on the world. In the same way many women (I believe) can act as mothers in the role of nurses, teachers, and carers in their communities. And they often do this despite there being little, or perhaps no, material rewards. And perhaps it is better that way, as if these roles were high status and highly paid, then they might well attract people with an entirely different spirit and motivation. At the university level I am sure they do. Anyway, I lament that the status of motherhood has declined in recent times, and also that Mothers are often now afforded less time for this most important role due to the financial demands of our modern, materialist age. And I find myself in agreement with the sentiments of G.K Chesterton on this issue, as he states below: When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets cakes. and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness. Extracted from: To be Everything to Someone I also feel that motherhood is a prime example of where those who are seen by some as the least, are in fact the greatest (Luke 9.48). Certainly to their children mothers have an irreplacable home everlastingly in their hearts.