In every traditional culture in the world, it was axiomatically understood that a woman’s primary role is that of mother (which should be obvious, because the female body is biologically made for giving birth). As stated in the Manusaṁhitā (9.96), women were “created to be mothers.” Yet feminists consider that to be a stay-at-home mother and housewife is the most absurd, demeaning, antifemale thing a woman could do. They insist that women should be ambitious to “achieve” and “do something,” to “make their mark.” They maintain that women should not be tied to hearth and home but should realize their full potential as politicians, soldiers, airline pilots, and so on.
Although a number of women have indeed achieved top-paying positions, most women, including some who are highly educated, end up in dull, low-paying jobs or cannot find work at all. But because of the deep materialism that has overtaken society, it has become a necessity for women to join the work force.
They have been duped by impious feminists and greedy business magnates into believing they need more money, to maintain what Śrīla Prabhupāda called “unnecessary necessities.”
Women are exhorted to maximize their potential, but what about the natural potential of a woman’s body for bearing children? Undeniably, the female psychophysical constitution is specialized for bearing and rearing children. And because these activities are natural for women, it follows that women are generally happy when they are able to engage in them and unhappy when they cannot.
Although feminists like to present women as being morally superior to men on account of women’s natural propensity for nurturing, they nonetheless encourage women to engage in occupations for which that propensity is actually detrimental.For example, a nurturing and caring attitude in business, diplomacy, or politics is typically regarded as a weakness, as it invites opponents who are all too willing to take advantage of it. Better to let the men tend to those kinds of occupations, for which their psychophysical makeup is optimized.
In the natural course of life, the motherly nurturing spirit, which is so intrinsic to womanhood, manifests even in small girls from the youngest age. As I have seen in traditional villages of Bengal, young girls even from the age of four or five, without any training or inducement, automatically start caring for babies – picking them up, carrying them around, and soothing them when they cry.
But nowadays the motherly inclination is crushed at the outset by feminism. In the current demonic society, young girls are taught, “You should become a doctor or a lawyer, or a head of state, or a business magnate, or an airline pilot. Why do you want to be a housewife?” Feminists have labeled the natural female inclination for motherly affection as foolish. How horrible! Emotionally and psychologically, a young child needs to be with his mother, and a mother needs to be with her child. This is seen even in animals like cows and female monkeys, who become almost mad with distress if forcibly separated from their offspring.
Therefore, even if a woman becomes materially “successful,” she will always remain frustrated, because of transgressing her natural psychology.
Reproduced with permission from the book Women: Mothers and Masters by Bhakti Vikasa Swami.