democracy is the new motherhood.docx

7/27/2019 Democracy is the new Motherhood.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/democracy-is-the-new-motherhooddocx 1/3

Democracy is the new Motherhood

A century ago, most women were expected to stay home and take care of their

home, husband and kids. To properly motivate them, we exalted motherhood.

When we wanted to present an idea as irrefutable we compared it to motherhood. Well, times changed, women got the vote and their role in the workplace

began to change. When women worked in earlier times, their roles were limited

to service as surrogate wives and mothers. Women could care for people as

nurses, support men as secretaries, or nurture children as teachers. But more and

more women became doctors and executives and had their own nurses and

secretaries who often were men. Then the economy began to change. Where once men proudly accepted the

role of sole family provider, the need for more than one breadwinner per family

began to grow. And then there was the growth of a new industry called childcare

to take care of kids while mom was driving a bus, heading for a war zone,

managing a business, or running for office. And the special role of motherhood

seemed to slip down the slope of importance. Something new was needed. And now we have it. Democracy is the new Motherhood. Like the idea of

motherhood it replaced, Democracy is exalted everywhere. Almost everyone

claims to believe in it. Politicians running for office all maintain that their

support of democratic principles exceeds that of their opponents. And where

once, motherhood could justify many acts that might otherwise incur the

disapproval of society, now democracy serves that function. Invading another country is not generally an especially nice thing to do,

especially if the invasion and subsequent occupation calls for the slaughter of

innocents. But if it is done to advance the cause of democracy, it acquires a rosier

tint — or at least the color of blood is seen in a rosier way. Abraham Lincoln said it very well: “that government of the people, by the

people, and for the people shall not perish f rom the earth.” Who, listening to Mr.



Lincoln’s speech, would have guessed that hundreds of thousands of the people

he referred had or wouls come to violent and bloody ends. A grammarian would

have better luck understanding the line. After all, Mr. Lincoln said nothing about

preventing a single individual from perishing. What he was exalting was

democratic government. In recent weeks, the people of one Islamic nation after another have taken to

the streets. We hear that these are democratic movements. Well they are, in the

sense that they are movements of people. But imagine for a moment that

absolutely nothing changed in their lives other than the guarantee of fair

elections. Would they all go home? Do we really believe that they are risking

their lives and some are dying, simply for access to the ballot box? We often speak of what government is or should be doing for people, but the

uprisings we are now seeing have more to do with what governments are doing

to people. In Egypt, the military took charge. Whenever military takeovers of

nations occur, the usual pattern is to promise an eventual return to democratic

rule. There’s that word, democracy, again. It seem that no matter what you do,

from invasion, to occupation, to military takeover, if you can somehow dress it in

democratic clothing it’s OK. And now we’re bombing Libya in the name of democracy. Many civilians will

die, but in the end upraised purple fingers will announce a rebirth of

democracy…at least until the next military leader steps up to defend Libyan

democracy once more.

The chorus of a song written in 1941 says it pretty well:

Oh, Franklin Roosevelt told the people how he felt

We damn near believed what he said

He said, “I hate war, and so does Eleanor

But we won’t be safe ’till everybody’s dead.”



The names change, but the music plays on.

democracy is the new motherhood.docx

Documents