The mother’s first duty is to raise the child and no one else can subsititute for the mother

Even in cultures where mingling of two sexes is considered sacrilegious, the weaker sex has shouldered equal responsibilities in battles and wars.
It can be argued that the troubled times or emergencies are exceptions and the role of women in normal times should be only to raise their children. "Although the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 established a permanent presence for women in all branches of the armed forces, a new Army regulation in October 1949 required the discharge of female servicewomen with children under the age of 18. Thus mothers of dependent children were ineligible to enlist in reserve units and were discharged after childbirth or adoption. In the following Congressional session, the Senate passed S. 1492, allowing the reinstatement of women with dependent children. The bill, however, died in the House Committee on Armed Services and failed to become law. The testimony of Women’s Army Corps Director Colonel Irene O. Galloway, to the Senate subcommittee on S. 1492, presented the Department of Defense position opposing the bill (History Matters). "Galloway argued that in the event of an emergency mobilization, such women could not and should not be counted on to leave their duties as mothers to join activated units. In the 1970s, Congress finally passed a law that allowed women with dependent children to enlist" (Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services).
The topic, ever since the beginning of civilization, has been argued upon by philosophers, reformists and preachers. But ever since the history has witnessed the same philosophers, reformists and preachers were also, at certain other times, siding with the opposite as well. Those in favor take nature as their best defense and those against fight it with the necessities of their time.
There are only a few to be found in literature opposing the topic. It seems that the poets and writers are bent upon not to let their mothers do anything else but to love them, ignoring the fact that there are other chores for them to attend to.
After searching the available sources there could be found only one novelist, who admits, that children grow up by themselves whether a mother looks after them or not. "A mother! What are we worth really They all grow up whether you look after them or not. Christina Stead (1902-1983), Australian novelist. ‘The Man Who Loved Children’ (1940)"(Microsoft Corporation).
The reformists disagree, the naturalists defend it and the philosophers stress on what is required by the prevailing conditions. It is difficult to say if the topic in itself or the opposite can at any time be taken as a rule for any group of people. One has to agree with the philosophical view.
Coming to terms, the closest we can come is to say that a mother’s role is vital in building the character of her child and character building is one of the major responsibilities of motherhood.
Now to the second part of the topic, "No one else can substitute for mother". Well, if this part of the topic is analyzed further one would initially certainly come across conditions in which an alternate to mother is impossible. Like, in giving birth. Come to think of it again, this is exactly what is being done now, the surrogate mothers. Civilization would have seized to exist if a replacement to mother was

You Might Also Like