The diverse faces of modern motherhood

First the funny side.

This video had me laughing so hard I may have ruptured something :-)

 

All this to advertise a car? :-)

Well at least this is one contraceptive The Church will not disapprove of :-)



It seems not too long ago we were ringing in a brand new year.
And already, I am back to asking questions.

No longer just why, but also nowadays how?

Like...how can these women be women?
Yes, South Africa has 'special' problems, but can this ever be explained by socio-political unrest?


Crass fatherhood is never to be excused, of course. And it takes many forms.
But I don't think I have ever come across a tale like this one before...

Children whose parents break up often blame themselves to some degree.
This poor child will one day know that she is indeed the reason her parents divorced.
For being 'ugly'. And she isn't even ugly at all!

But the first man in her life thinks so.
So she will always believe this.

This father has ruined the life of his daughter before it has begun.
Every young woman needs to know that she is pretty. Especially to her father or his substitute.
This doesn't mean she has to flash her bosom on Facebook.
But she has to know in her soul that she is attractive to someone important to her.
Daddy is the most important man until someone else takes over :-)





This is a highly dangerous woman.
Other than to share her ideas, I shan't discuss her further.

Let's hope she never has a son.
But even so, she is still dangerous to society.

With her ideas, she is condemning her daughters to pain and solitude.
Unless they choose not to listen to her.





Has it always been this diverse?
Or is this a relatively new phenomenon...

La mia santa Mamma!

I had meant to write about something else this week.
But a number of recurring themes kept distracting me.

And I realise now that the one thing in common with all these themes is...motherhood.
This post should really be called 'Motherhood: the good, the bad and the ugly'.

Or rather, 'Motherhood:the beautiful, the sad, and the downright confusing'.


No-one is surprised to hear that a major part of femininity is being a wife and mother. If women are honest, this is what they seek, even without the social pressures.
It is an innate thing, and is stronger than the need (of men) to become a husband and father, evidently :-)

And this is why it is so frustrating for me to hear women who have jumped eagerly on the feminist bandwagon proclaiming that they are so jolly happy being single and childless when the reverse is true. It is deeply upsetting for me to witness people trying very hard to lie to themselves. It should be OK to wish for something. No-one should be brainwashed into believing what they should or should not want.

Because I know that those who actually are happy to be single and childless, are not trying to convince anyone that they are. They simply go about their lives in a quiet manner, and only defend their stance when challenged.

But I mustn't get distracted.


I addressed motherhood before, where I painted a pretty bleak picture of obviously bad, sad and complex motherhood, with the caveat of course, that we all know pretty well what bad fatherhood looks like, because we are fed this image in a never-ending campaign against fatherhood - for who's benefit, I am not entirely sure.

But anyway, must not get distracted again.


In two directly opposing 'verdicts' of the children, I present to you, the saint and the (d)evil.


First the saint:

This woman refers to her mother as My saint Mamma :-)
(Which I guess could also be translated as 'my holy Mamma', but I do believe she intends the first meaning).

But then again, not many of us have mothers who have actually been canonised as saints by the Catholic Church (even if we feel they deserve that accolade anyway :-). So she is in a unique position, and her amusing and endearing way of talking about her mother is perfectly justified.

Dr. Gianna Emanuella Molla would not be alive at all if her mother Saint (also Dr.) Gianna Beretta Molla hadn't opted to exchange her life for hers. It was a simple choice in that sense. Despite her doctor colleagues' advice, she went ahead with her high risk pregnancy and lost her life as a result.

Her (youngest) daughter, who never knew her, as she died soon after her birth in 1962, is her biggest fan. As are her other children who of course lost their mother as young children.

She has an unusually high-pitched voice for a 50 year old :-)
(I am not sure there are videos of her speaking english, although I am pretty sure she does speak english).

It is obvious that The Church agrees with her that her mother is a saint.
But I am slightly uneasy about this one, and have been for a long time: The elevation of one child (albeit unborn) over all the other children and spouse (not to talk of self, which happens to be responsible for all the already born children) seems a bit...not correct, no?
But I can see why St. Gianna Molla is a saint nonetheless.
As is this Australian woman:

However I feel about the dilemma St. Gianna Molla undoubtedly faced with bravery, it has to be said that at least she is a thousand times better than this woman, whose own 10 year old child refers to her as 'evil'.

 This should never be a word that a child uses to describe his mother.

And yet, and in increasing numbers, I am coming across many comments by Manosphere denizens (and they are not the only ones!) who have nothing but disdain for their mothers.
And it is the same disdain that dissatisfied men have for women in general. One would presume that their own mothers would be 'immune', right?

Apparently not so fast.

I choose not to post the comments here, because they really are filled with 'choice' words that make one uneasy when it is known that someone's mother is the subject thereof.

Other than the more usual complaint that their mothers 'divorce-raped' their (beta) (sorry Bob!) fathers, these men also have a new complaint that I am only now beginning to get wind of:

One man's complaint could be summarised thus:

'My (expletive) mother wanted me to 'man up and marry a single mother'.

Now, this complaint is different from the usual 'man up' one. Because at least that is an (albeit thinly veiled) attempt by mothers to get their sons to produce grandchildren for them. I understand this completely, although I also of course 'get' the frustration that this elicits in the young person.
If it is any consolation, we women have to face this on a daily basis too :-)

But what I don't understand (and clearly neither does the man who makes this bitter complaint against his Mum) is how a mother would not only be happy with seeing her son commit to a woman who already has a child or children by another man (and it certainly is not rare, this phenomenon - just ask Queen Sonia of Norway), but is actively pushing her (unwilling) son into such a situation.

It really does not make sense to me.

And I can see why the son feels his mother does not have his best interests at heart. If the woman who should love you the most does not have your back, you are truly doomed.

Interestingly enough, I don't think I would necessarily feel the same way if my father wanted me to marry a man with children.
Sure, that wouldn't be my first choice of marriage partner, but I imagine there's a real difference in judging this sort of situation by the different genders.

I would however feel as this man did, if my father encouraged a PUA to 'pump and dump' me.
So perhaps this is the kind of equivalent level of betrayal, that this man feels from his mother.
Seen from this angle, I can very much feel his pain.




It is deeply worrying to me that the reputation of motherhood has sunk this low. It used to be that motherhood was sacred.
Now I am not so sure it has the same 'sparkle' it used to.
Respect seems to have flown out the window quite a bit. Thrown out, seemingly by mothers themselves.

Is this a new phenomenon?
Am I imagining this?
I sure hope so...
But something tells me I am not.

It is bad enough that women are getting such bad press in the SMP from men.
It is infinitely worse that these same men are not impressed with their mothers.

In ten years' time, that ten year old who described his mother as 'evil' will be encountering women as romantic partners. How tragic that his experience so far with women has been less than sterling.

And sadly, the growing army of single mothers who are giving themselves medals for being 'brave' will be forced to look at themselves hard in the mirror when their children who would undoubtedly have harder lives than would have been the case fail to be impressed at their 'bravery' and question their choices instead.

Elevating child over spouse/'partner' is not the way (unless of course you are St. Gianna Molla).
After this 'rule number one', with respect to said child, having their best interest at heart always, should be 'rule number two'.

Everything else is just icing on the cake.



Is this a good way to go about things?
Or is this the rambling of a deluded soul who doesn't understand motherhood? :-)

Don't be kind on this post.
Educate me.
Especially if you are a mother, but not exclusively.

Don't touch his manhood, or hers

I was already thinking a lot about this topic when Bellita made this comment in the post 'Grace? Oh dear...':

"Do you remember my "Masculine Women" post, ST? It attracted a couple of male commenters (new visitors) who said they believed that femininity is natural to women, that it is easy for us to give into it, and that women who are "masculine" are just fighting their true nature. I thought it was an odd thing for them to say, given how many women had already chimed in to say that being "girly" had never come naturally to them . . . and I wondered whether that was a pretty fantasy they needed to cling to at the time. When a man is surrounded by harsh women but keeps telling himself that all they have to do is "stop fighting" their "natural" feminine energy, then he won't have to be bitter about them just yet."

And this was my reply:

"And it seems you are reading my mind again, for just today, I was thinking about masculinity and femininity in this same light. I think I agree with you that femininity does not come as naturally to (some) women as masculinity does to men. It frustrates me to think this, but I have a theory or two as to why this might be the case. Draft of post in progress."

I had come to a profound and sad conclusion that (at least today), femininity is more fragile than masculinity.
But why do I think this?
And why did Bellita also seemingly think that femininity is not necessarily a feature for (at least some - but maybe I would venture most?) women?
In some, it is actually a bug...

It frustrated me to think this way. Because the only possible follow up questions to all the above would be:

1. Is this fragility to do with femininity itself?
2. Is it to do with the people on whom it is supposedly bestowed, i.e. women?

Which is it?

Consider this.
A man is prepared to go to war with another if his masculinity is called into question. In reaction to an offending man he may come close to drawing blood. In reaction to an offending woman (as perceived as 'lack of respect') he will become extremely belligerent.

A woman nowadays is more offended by her shortcomings in 'masculine pursuits' being pointed out, than those in 'feminine pursuits'. I fully recognise that there is a good reason for that. The 'rat race' of life is not the exclusive preserve of men. It has not been for the last 100 years or so. So a woman needs to be just as good when it comes to 'masculine pursuits' as men.

The problem with this is that femininity becomes the first casualty in the war of survival.

The sequence of events is as follows:

Feminism gets born.
Women are given the drive and the incentive to go out there and 'get their own bacon'.
Women do.
They are now in direct competition with men who now view women as 'in their face'.
Men, who are naturally dominant become even more so.
Women become even more 'masculinised' in order to cope with this increased resistance from men.
Men react by becoming, well, more masculine.
So do women.
And all the while, femininity disappears little by little until such time as a search warrant is issued.
By which time it is too late and the search is called off. The search party is recalled and the memorial service begins...

Femininity is all but dead in western society now.

We now have two classes of men in the current SMP:
1. The men without breasts.
2. The men with breasts.
    That's it.

The men without breasts are not happy with the men with breasts because the men with breasts are not women. Which is what the men without breasts want.
The men without breasts keep saying they want women.
The men with breasts don't know what a 'woman' is, so they ignore the men without breasts.
So the men without breasts decide it's time to GTOW.
And the men with breasts are forced to do the same. But not out of choice.

How did we get here?

I know exactly why.
If this sounds like a bold statement, here is an even bolder one:

I don't need a man.

Rule number one of Feminism Inc.
And the killer of normal male-female relationships since 1952. Or thereabouts.

Whilst it is true that no human being needs another to survive (unless they are an infant), the ideology that a woman does not need a man (for the simple joie de vivre that this should evoke in her) is a destructive one which has seen the anticipated 'dominoes effect' come into play ever since.
We are where we deserve to be.

This article is extreme (as with all my examples!) but consider that in Britain today, this young woman is typical.
There is plenty depressing about this article, and I got a sense of what others thought about this young woman by reading as many of the (1000+) comments as possible.

The most depressing thing I thought was (and surprisingly, no-one made this point so far), her total lack of a desire to be a wife.

It used to be that young girls would dream of becoming a bride, and a wife, and a mother, in that order.
The dream of motherhood persists for most women of childbearing age who are not already mothers.
More and more, the deam of 'bride' is fading.
The dream of 'wife' already died. And for some, it was never in the offing.
Why?

The last bastion of femininity to die would be motherhood.
Even the 'butchest' of lesbians want to be mothers (or 'fathers').
Of course there are women who don't want to be mothers, ever, who are still feminine women.
I limit this discussion to those who have the usual (for want of a better word) 'feminine/maternal instincts'.
If and when the dream of wearing the pretty white dress dies, a woman still wants to be a mother.
Hence the rise of the turkey baster.

Motherhood is (one of) the most natural of feminine instincts.
It is only right. I have no problem with this, of course. As a woman myself, I am only too familiar with this phenomenon affectionately dubbed 'baby rabies' by our sweet cherubic brothers of The Manosphere :-)
(You toerags*, you :-)

Petty insults aside, whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with following one's natural instincts, there arises a major problem however when anyone (man or woman) wants 'something for nothing'.
A free lunch.
Those who say there is no such thing are right.

The girl in the above article (and I refer to her as such because it is clear to me that her level of maturity is still sadly in the 'girlhood' range. She is not yet a woman. But she has two children entrusted to her care. If I weren't  an optimist, I would exclaim 'Tragic!'. But she can turn things around, if she wants to one day soon).

This girl has no need for a man.
Because The State is her man. Many men in The Manosphere have previously made this point.
She is also justifying her one night stand at 12 and again at 16 (resulting in the birth of her two children) as 'doing the smartest thing in her life' to date.
On one level she is right. Children are a blessing, no matter how one acquires them. But more relevantly to this discussion, The State has aided and abeted her in her wayward folly, because she is not being made to see the error of her ways. And more importantly, she is not made to suffer any penalties. It is her children who will suffer on her behalf, of course.
Fatherless and relatively poor (because Mother is spending her money in the clubbing scene) all their childhood, they won't have it easy, for sure.
But I am sure and I hope they will eventually overcome the obstacles we can all see ahead.

This is the reason I am so much against the 'single mother by choice' brigade.
It denies children their right to their father.
It denies men the chance of a good wife (note I do not consider this a 'right' - but that's another discussion).
Because a selfish woman wants to indulge her desire to become a mother without the 'hassle' of a man.
Some will go as far as the fake wedding, so they can at least indulge in the dream of wearing the pretty white dress for a day. But after that lovely day, the dream is over.

The current problems in the SMP will never be solved unless women get it into their minds that they need men. Even if this is technically false as I alluded to above.
And the first step is to recognise the problem.
There are many women who do not even know that they harbour 'I don't need a man' thoughts.
And yet they cannot put their finger on the source of their cognitive dissonance.

How nice would it be (at least for men and future children, and then for society at large)  if every woman said to herself...
I plan to become a good wife first, then a good mother, then a good grandmother...

Not everyone will win at every step.
But it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

For the girl above, this thought was absent. So of course the behaviour which follows should not surprise.

Perhaps the best way to resuscitate femininity is for women to aim to be good wives. Whether or not they succeed.
At least for those who want to be mothers (but of course not exclusively).
And let Nature or Providence or whatever esle we can call it take its course.



* 'toerag' is Brit slang meaning 'rascal' or 'rogue'.

Single Mum - by choice

I really cannot believe I am revisiting this topic. Because the logical thing to do would be to avoid issues that enrage me.
But alas, I claim not to be a logical creature.
Maybe I am wearing 'red' today, Grasshopper.
In any case I am definitely seeing red.
The gloves are off.

Let the rant begin.

In the post on intimacy I hinted that my personality type is often characterised by passivity, so much so that we are often mistaken for the dead. In my case this is no exaggeration.

But even I come alive when a principle is at stake.

In the post 'The sins of the Mother', I was in a subdued mood describing a phenomenon which is sad, with the full recognition on my part that some of the perpetrators of these 'sins' are largely unaware of the consequences of their actions.

In the case in hand, my reaction is very different. Because the intent here is all too clear.
Here is a woman choosing to be a bad mother even before she becomes a mother.

Single motherhood is tough. Men who abandon their children willingly are cowardly and unjust. Women who prevent ex-partners from seeing their children (for no good reason) are unfair to their children, not to talk of the ex-partner.
The point of this post is not single motherhood per se.
I daresay, given the right conditions, no woman would choose to become a single mother.
Given the right conditions.
What are these right conditions?

1. She is right in the head. Even an idiot like me knows it is very hard work being a parent. Nobody should be looking to do the whole single parent thing. It's not normal.

2. It is socially stigmatising to want to be a single parent. Note I did not say, to be a single parent. I do not believe it is right to point fingers at a general group when individual circumstances are not known.
There are many reasons why people (men or women) end up raising a child alone.

3. The state is not encouraging this phenomenon.

In Britain, it has become quite the fashion for a 16 year old girl, bored of school and living with the parents, to decide to become a 'baby mama' to get herself a new apartment and all the mod cons, paid for by you and me. I am sure that phenomenon is not unheard of in other countries too.

The scary thing is, material gain is sometimes the sole reason for her pregnancy. That, and the fact that she is looking for someone who will 'love her' unconditionally when it becomes clear that the randy 16 year old boy she is consorting with is not really in the 'love' business, despite what he says. The irony is, she herself may not know what real love is, either. She may really be as immature as she acts.

When I think of this issue, I always remember a former female boss of mine, not known for her tact or subtlety. She would read in one of those tabloids about yet another 12 year old expecting twins, and she would say something like, 'No ponies to go riding on?'
Particularly hilarious as it would appear she was completely oblivious to the fact that these urban kids did not quite live in the same world as her. Or perhaps she was being ironic, and I am the one who is missing her point...

Anyway, it came as quite the surprise to see this article referenced in one of Dalrock's posts.
An educated woman who is financially independent and who was herself raised by a single mother wants to become a single mother.

This woman's mother became a single mother not by choice, as she states early on in the article. Which makes her decision to become a single mother all the more hard to digest.
This woman is not the daughter of some narcissistic mother who wanted a 'mini-me'.
Her mother never said negative things to her about her father growing up. Even though it is clear that her father was not an ideal father.
The problem was not his large beard, as she claims. The problem goes far deeper than she lets on.
Society dies another little death each time a young woman adopts her kind of attitude.

Each to his or her own. Life is full of choices.
But hopefully, one is allowed an opinion.
Here's mine.

Do we not yet have enough evidence to suggest that it is better for children to have two loving parents rather than one, in general?
Not to say of course that children of single parents are necessarily worse off.
Everyone would agree that on the whole an abusive parent is worse than no parent. Children who have had to grow up without one parent make do, and overcome, but often not without a lot of hardship first.
The point is, given the choice, why would anyone want to deny a child something that is good for them? Deliberately.

The whole 'single by choice' thing by women and men is cool. Everyone is free to make a choice that affects them.
'Single motherhood by choice' is not cool. Because a bad decision is being made for another human being even before they have begun life.


'Single motherhood by choice' is bad motherhood. Because any woman who does not know by now that denying a child their God-given right to a father (if that father is a good enough fellow who is not abusive or dangerous) is at risk of one day becoming a bad mother. It cannot be stressed enough the importance of Father in the lives of both boys and girls. Why must people always be left to discover this the hard way?
Not enough feral kids on the streets already? Not enough damaged people to make us all sit up?

Adults who were adopted as children go through this yearning to find out their roots practically their whole lives until they get the information they need. It has been likened to the need to scratch something that is not there, ala the 'phantom limb syndrome' of amputees.

Is this what we want for our children?

This woman doesn't want to be bothered by the stresses of a relationship with a man. But she wants a child.
Is this woman even mature enough to be a mother?
What if said child becomes too difficult to live with? Will he or she be chucked out too?

She doesn't give a sensible reason to choose what she has. Her father was not the best, agreed. But should this not be the impetus for her to improve things for the next generation?
Most people who are born poor strive to do better for their children one day. Most people who grew up without a father either want to be a good father or ensure they couple up with a good father for their future children.
This woman seems to have had a great mother. This exemplary mother did the best she could so that her daughter had a great upbringing and life. Mother did so well in this task that daughter now believes that single motherhood is easy.
Unfortunately, Mother's heroic efforts are about to be nullified by a daughter who doesn't get it, who doesn't understand the sacrifices Mother made.

She just doesn't want the 'hassle' of being with a man, the possible father of her desired child.
She is proving the point that a woman essentially brought up exclusively in a matriarchy ala Kim K is at high risk of becoming a narcissist. Unless she gains insight into the problem and self-corrects. Such women are unfit for marriage because they are way too selfish, so they will try to find alternative family-building strategies, like this woman is trying to do. She sees it as her 'right' to have a child, by any means necessary. Who gives a monkeys about the needs of the child? As long as she gets what she wants, stuff the rest.
It is not her fault. We are all products of our environment afterall. But Mother cannot be held responsible for this selfish woman's decisions. If what she says about her mother is true, Mother did a great job, along with her grandmother.
But I fear daughter is showing exactly why she needed a father growing up. Pity she cannot see it herself. Let's hope she does not succeed in propagating this problem.
And this should be a lesson to voluntarily absentee fathers, and mothers who deliberately separate their kids from their fathers. This situation creates little Frankensteins.


Which conditions have gone awry in this woman's situation allowing her to unashamedly declare her abhorent intentions to the world?
All three.


Quite rightly, what incensed a lot of men in the comments section was her noble promise that she would somehow provide a 'male role model' for her future fatherless child.

Yes. Some poor man who may or may not have ties to her will be roped in to play part-time 'daddy' to her kid from a distance, at occasions and in a manner of her choosing. Just like in the movies.

In all humility, might I appeal to her better nature here, fully acknowledging the possibility that this young woman, like the rest of us may have been 'misguided' in her thinking?
That she simply needs to wake up soon and say to herself: 'Something's wrong with our modern life. Things are not supposed to be this way'  like many women are doing now.

Because those who do not, ever in their lives, are the ones on the non-stop express train to Crashville. Some are in the first-class compartment paid for by feminism.


Can and will this woman get off the poisoned train?

She has a chance to prevent this 'part-time daddy' nonsense she wants so badly from becoming a reality now.


Doesn't she know that it is a last resort option that people (including her lovely, commendable mother) have to take when all other attempts to prevent this have failed? Does she really believe it is fun for a kid to have a 'part-time' father-substitute? To watch as Uncle X leaves to go home to his own children? To always feel that no-one is his/her own to keep, that every adult man he/she comes into contact with is 'borrowed'?
From what she says in her article, she should know!

You are not supposed to be choosing this option for your future children from the get-go, Dear Friend.
Uh-huh.
You go, girl.


I really must stop here before I implode.

Too late!

The sins of the Mother

This is arguably the most painful post I shall ever write. Because this subject delves into the greatest fears of both men and women. It is almost taboo to 'go there.'

We have all heard of the sins of the father.
Deut 5:9. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

I am not sure the bible ever touches on the 'sins of the mother'. If it does, I stand corrected.
However, I would be surprised.

It is said that the only reason that lesbianism was never a crime in Britain (as opposed to male homosexuality) during Victorian times was that Queen Victoria simply did not believe that women could be homosexual. She did not therefore feel the need to outlaw something which did not exist.

During the Iraq war, the British press went crazy on the topic of 'weapons of mass destruction'. Several comedians picked up on this, some of them making jokes about a certain part (or two) of a woman's anatomy being 'weapons of mass destruction'.

A woman's breasts can never really be her best or worst (whichever way you look at it!) weapons of mass destruction.
In a tragic twist, it could be her motherhood.

A woman's greatest fear is abandonment. Of herself and her children. As a lot of single mothers would testify to, it is incredibly hard to raise children alone.

So a woman who finds herself in this position has to survive somehow. No matter how she got to this state of affairs.
She may have been unlucky. The man she trusted with her body betrayed that trust. She may have been irresponsible. The man she should never have gone near, she defied her innate intuition and did. She may be divorced. She may actually have conceived with another man to break up her marriage. She may have been widowed. She may have been a 'reluctant bride' and chosen 'anyone' because she wanted a child, but not the man. She may have decided to 'go it alone' right from the start and naturally or 'artificially' became a mother with a known or unknown man.

For some women, motherhood is a noble art.
Unfortunately, for some, it is a chance to have a bargaining tool at one's disposal. 
Ugly.

For others, it is totally subconscious what plays out. And for yet others, it is a conscious choice to have a child, a "mini-me" to groom into the role of helper and future provider.


A man's greatest fear is betrayal by a woman. Whilst this often means betrayal by a 'mate' in the form of cuckoldry, consider this:
What if the traitor is his own mother?

The post on MGTOW produced a lively debate on the various reasons for MGTOW. Some of them were due to a man just wishing to live his own life with no disturbances from female influences, some were as a direct result of previous bad experiences with women, some were to do with the anti-male and prohibitive laws regarding fatherhood, child custody, alimony, etc.
All valid reasons.

This comment from BeijaFlor* stood out:

I'm very familiar with women's fear of abandonment. I saw it in my (single) mother's eyes, heard it in her voice, when I grew to manhood and could have struck out on my own. I stayed with her instead, but picked up the load of "breadwinner" and even bought a house for the two of us ... she died in that house, died of cancer, with her hand in mine, ten years ago. I was 48 that day, with friends that age who were grandparents. So I believe I know what it is to "man up."

No-one else had touched on this particular issue.

A lone mother sometimes depends on her child(ren) to shoulder the burden. That's to be expected to some degree. I would even argue that it is good for the child(ren) to understand how hard life can be.

But when a son is forced to take on an absent father's role, sometimes before he is emotionally ready, I find that criminal. Because it reveals a certain selfishness in the mother (which, tragically she may not even be aware of).

A son like this will pedestalise his mother. He wants to help a woman, as his male nature dictates. Especially if that woman is the one who gave him life. It may follow on from his natural Oedipus complex.
But if this woman denies him what is rightfully his, i.e. the right to make his own choices in life, follow his own dreams, live his own life, then she is doing him a great disservice.
This man will pedestalise women until one day he will wake up and realise that he was betrayed. His whole life up to that point was a lie.

And worse, the traitor is also the one he loves the most.

This is one of the rare sources of cognitive dissonance in a man. He understands women so well because he was around one a lot, more than was necessary in fact, but at the same time he is seething with rage at a wrong that was done him. Especially if there was no other man around to take him on the road to manhood. Psychologists believe that the Oedipus complex is finally resolved in a boy when, instead of childishly competing with his father for his mother, resolves to become a man, like Father.  But what if there is no Father figure to allow this to happen?

This man often seeks out women, because on principle he loves women. He wants a fulfilling relationship with a woman, just as much as the next guy. But he will struggle to form meaningful relationships with them. Until that is, he finds the key to the riddle in his heart. By himself.

For him, it is not so much a mistrust of women, but an unresolved, sometimes subconscious fear.

A fear that can be entangled with an anger, tangled further with his love for Mother and his shame at feeling such rage. It may remain sealed away, bubbling inwardly like a pressure-cooker. And his efforts to seal it away could leave him sealing away his emotions - or it could erupt inside him, doing who-knows-what greater damage to his own soul.

Outwardly, this man may appear to be a 'principled mangina'. Or the worst woman-hating PUA there is. Or both. At the same time. Which will be confusing, even to him. Until he works out for himself what is going on in his soul.


And there is no guarantee that he ever will ... which could leave him endlessly wandering that dark wilderness, stripped of inward mercy, that is finally all that is left in his scarred, cankered heart.
In the end, that road can be both excruciatingly painful and at the same time headily redeeming. A man who can bounce back from this kind of trauma is the ultimate hero, because, to face one's worst fear and win is the ultimate test of life.


The daughter of a mother like this also suffers.

This woman is usually on one of two trajectories:
On the one hand, she becomes a 'son' in her drive to please Mother. She loses out on her femininity because she is 'replacing' an absent man. She is acting out the role of 'husband' without her express knowledge or consent. This woman will usually have a deep love for men, because she will have lived most of her life as one, but will struggle to form a relationship with (a masculine) one because she is, at least in her head, not feminine enough. She has been too busy playing 'husband' to another woman to know what it is to be 'wife' to a man.

On the other hand, a daughter of a lone mother could also be 'trained' by Mother to become 'strong and independent'. Never need a man! would be all she hears from infancy. They are bad for you. They will break your heart. Earn your own money, kill your own snakes, buy your own jewellery.

Mother thinks she is helping. She wants to 'save' daughter from a fate similar to hers. But she is in fact doing the opposite. Because in this mindset, daughter's worst fear will be realised.

Both these daughters have a saving grace though. Like Mother, they are also women. So they can recover more easily from the sins of Mother than their male counterparts.
One day they will wake up and reject Mother's brand of womanhood as they come into their own.
What they may suffer more from, is the absence of the mitigating influence of Father.

We all know the effects of fatherlessness, in both sexes.

Motherhood is a powerful force.
Rarely, it can be devastatingly destructive.
Strangely enough, I do not believe that this form of destructive motherhood is connected to feminism per se. Although of course it can have a perjorative effect on it.
Because feminism, with its core of rage against men and manhood, is fighting to make single motherhood the norm, and thus multiplying not only the victimisation of the children, but also the power of destructive motherhood.

Let us minimise the risk of destructive motherhood.

And let us bring back Father into the home.


*A massive humongous 'Thank You' to BeijaFlor for his help with this post.