The Erasure of the Mother
In that Nashville home we see, in miniature, the spiritual condition of the late West. Two men proudly exhibit their “family”: a baby purchased from a woman whose name, face, and existence are carefully removed from the scene. They offer the child a choice between “pop” and “dada.” The child, not yet re-educated by our professors, answers with the oldest and most natural word in the human vocabulary: “Mama.” The enlightened reply is: “There is no mama.” The child cries. The men laugh.
This is not only bad taste; it is a new metaphysics. It is the regime speaking.
The child’s appeal to “mama” is not a political opinion. It is nature asserting itself in the only language it has at that age. Before the child knows “values” or “identities,” he knows that he comes from woman. Her body has carried him, her pain has delivered him, her love — whether brief or long — is the original experience of the world’s hospitality. The cry for “mama” is the soul’s first acknowledgement that its existence is received rather than chosen or purchased.
The answer, “there is no mama,” is the principle of our liberal democracy in its late stage. It declares that the given, especially where body and sex are concerned, is an offense. Reality must be redesigned to suit adult desire. A woman carried this child; the child knows it; the situation depends on it. So, she must be erased, not only from contracts and birth certificates, but from the child’s imagination. The men’s pride, and the regime’s self-image, requires that there not be a woman at the center of this story.
Here one sees how much contemporary “progress” is, beneath its sentimental rhetoric, a hatred of women as women. We must be clear about the character of this act. It is not merely indifferent to women; it is hostile to them at the core of their distinctiveness from men: the power to give birth. It is a new injustice, which pretends to honor women in the abstract while purchasing their bodies and then decreeing their erasure from their indispensable place in the right ordering of human life.
The family is the child’s first regime. Before he knows the State, the Market, or the University, he knows the household. It is there that he encounters laws, love, God, reward, and punishment: what it means that some rule over him and that this rulership can be either benevolent or capricious. Every political philosopher from Plato onwards understood this perfectly. The formation of citizens begins in the nursery.
Our regime, however, is tired of nature. The woman is not honored as mother; she is instrumentalized as “gestational carrier.” The baby is not recognized as the fruit of a union; it is a product of a supply chain. The Nashville couple are simply the avant-garde consumers of this arrangement. They have acquired a child the way one acquires anything else: with money and legal counsel. They are the “parents” because the contract says so. The woman who made their parenthood possible must disappear.
Feminism was supposed to liberate women from male domination. Instead, in alliance with individualism and technology, it has often helped to eliminate women as a distinct principle altogether. The highest female achievement is now to approximate the unencumbered male: careerist, mobile, unattached. Motherhood is treated as a lifestyle option: a hobby for those who failed to find more serious work. At the same time, the most characteristically female power, the power to bear children, is separated from the woman’s person and put at the disposal of the market. The surrogate is the emblem: her body used, her relation to the child voided.
This is not the abolition of patriarchy; it is its modern perfection. The ancient male tyrant still had to live with the inconvenient presence of women as wives, concubines, mothers of his children, who could not be entirely ignored and whose existence shaped the affections and loyalties of the young. The modern enlightened male, backed by law and science, dreams of children without women: wombs rented, eggs bought, mothers deleted.
The hatred of women here is subtle. The regime can tolerate women as workers, voters, consumers, and sexual partners; it cannot tolerate them as the non-negotiable origin of human life, as beings whose role in forming souls precedes the State and stands partly outside its reach. That female authority must be broken into functions: gestation outsourced, early childcare professionalized, the word “mother’ diluted into “primary caregiver,” or in this case, handed to two men while the true mother is forbidden even from entering the child’s imagination.
Conservatism, at its best, begins exactly where our clever progressives now choke. It says: some relations are not invented. They are given. They are not infinitely malleable. The mother-child bond is such a relation. It is prior to choice. It structures the soul before the language of rights and preferences ever appears. To recognize this is not to endorse every “traditional role” or to canonize every bad marriage. It is to accept that men are born into a world they do not make and that the family, anchored in this maternal reality, is the school in which they first learn what it means to be human.
To treat the mother as optional is therefore not simply a private experiment; it is a political revolution. It attempts to found the regime not on nature and its urgencies but on will and its whims. The child in Nashville is being educated into that revolution: your origin is a contract; your longings are mistakes; the word that nature gives you first, “mama,” is to be corrected with a smirk. He is being trained to forget that he came from a woman, so that he can more easily believe later that he belongs entirely to himself or to whatever power claims him.
One hears a great deal of moral rhetoric these days about “harm” and “trauma.” Yet the deliberate erasure of a child’s mother, contrary to his deepest instinct, is treated as a charming novelty and evidence of our society’s progress towards “inclusion.” And anyone who objects is accused of cruelty to the adults whose feelings the arrangement flatters. The woman whose body bore the cost of this whole scene is nowhere in the frame.
The baby’s cry is the only serious voice present. It is the protest of human nature against a civilization that regards nature as an insult. It says, wordlessly, what no contemporary philosophy department dares to affirm: that there are loyalties and limits written into our being that precede choice, and that to violate them is to injure the soul.
The last reliable commentary we have are those baby’s tears in Nashville. Everything else, from rhetoric to laughter, is evasion.
READ MORE:
Halftime Hype and Cultural Blind Spots
It’s Not About the Guns: The Wrong Lesson From the Bondi Beach Attack
When Honor Walks Into a Liberal Democracy
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.