I’ve often heard it said that “If men got pregnant, abortion would be legal and free” or words to that effect. Another meme is that “If women ran the world, there’d be no more war”. The implication is that men are warmongers and women are nurturing souls that would never send their children to die.
So, on the hypothetical planet of Narsia, which for all intents and purposes is exactly like Earth, motherhood is a requirement for entering into politics. Not only motherhood, but having raised a child to the age of 18. Men need not apply.
Would society really be all that different? In the US, we’ve had a dearth of high-ranking political mothers. Secretary Clinton, had she been elected president, wouldn’t have been discernibly different than any of her predecessors IMHO. However, I believe this is because she is a product of her environment, as we all are. If only mothers ran things, who knows?
As a male citizen of Narsia, I protest the disempowerment of my fellow males. We want to hold public office, too!
There are moms who are monsters. There have been female officeholders who, if anything, are tougher than their peers (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Queen Elizabeth I spring to mind, although the queen was childless). Requiring public officials to have given birth at some time is no guarantee of either international peace or official competence.
I don’t think it would be meaningfully different. The thing is, I think politics tends to largely self-select a certain type of individual who, more often than not, craves power. I also think that it is more this craving for power, than maleness, that tends to result in a lot of these sorts of stereotypes. Even though men are generally more likely to have this craving, women who have similar motivations will likely behave in much the same sort of way.
Ironically, I think in this world of the disempowerment of men, you’d end up with a lot of the same type of silly quotables, except lauding the virtues of the stereotypical man, like perhaps decisiveness or being more logical rather than emotional or whatever.
In short, if we as a society dislike the way that the people that tend to become politicians, we need to find better ways of encouraging other people with better aligned motivations to run for office and discourage people with misaligned motivations from running for office.
Elizabeth Bathory was a mother. Mahatma Gandhi wasn’t.
Just looking at British history, Empress Matilda (aka Maud) kept up her end of a civil war over who should get the crown. Margaret of Anjou did the same kind of thing in the Wars of the Roses. Both of them were mothers.
If you made being a mother a prerequisite for entering politics, you’re going to have some ruthless and ambitious women who might not otherwise have children having them to go into politics. I don’t know about you, but “ruthless” is not a quality I’d want in my mother.
If we’re going to open up politics to all women, not just mothers, then Mary Tudor was pretty ruthless in burning heretics alive. She also got into a war in which she lost Calais to the French.
Statistically it is parents that tend to take more conservative viewpoints.
Assuming in the hypothetical that remains the case, the society could be one where gay marriage, abortion etc are banned, with little opposition. And I suspect where science and tech progress is generally hampered, because IMO, I think it’s a demographic more swayed by media scare stories than published science.
All these effects would be more extreme if the hypothetical were that all candidates must have young children.
Genghis Khan was regularly advised by his mother, and his wives not only sat in on his court but were encouraged to offer their opinion on matters. That didn’t stop Genghis from creating the largest empire in history.
And the Spartans weren’t exactly known for their caring mothers either.
Anyone who believes this has never been a part of a small group dominated by women. They’re just as vicious as men. The world of Narsia wouldn’t be any different from 21st century Earth.
Personally I’ve never bought it; I think it more likely that if men got pregnant abortion would still be a crime. We are as a species much less compassionate towards males.
While in reality plenty of women throughout history have cheerfully, enthusiastically sent their men out to die; and often been brutal themselves when given the opportunity. “Come back with your shield, or on it.” “Kill their men and rape their daughters, and if your sister is likewise despoiled cut her throat.” “If you’re captured by the enemy, never let them give you to the women.”
More warlike I bet since the people doing the dying would be politically voiceless.
I’ve also heard that “If men got breast cancer there would be a cure for it by now”, which conveniently ignores the facts that 1) men DO get breast cancer and 2) there’s no cure yet for male-only cancers such as prostate and testicular cancer.
Mostly what this proves is that people say stupid things.
Heinlein, in Expanded Universe, was toying with various concepts for the polity (as he has before) and suggested that the vote be restricted to mothers, since they clearly had a stake in the future. I think he wasn’t considering this very seriously, as with most of his suggestions in that piece. His point, of course, was that there were lots of ways you could rationalize who got the vote. it’s not at all clear to me that this would really be any better, and would cause at least as much (and probably more) grumbling than restricting the vote to men alone.
Restricting politics to any subsection of society, be it mature mothers, Christian fundamentalists, gay fashion designers or old white men will always result in an unfair society, tilted in the direction of one group and away from another. It’s in all our best interests to look to a more balanced representation in Government - checks and balances and all that.
I certainly wouldn’t look to any current women leaders to be our template. The Iron Lady being a case in point, shudder.
If motherhood were required to enter politics, we’d have as much conflict as we do now.
Ask yourself two questions:
Suppose there was a household, with children in it, to whom you presented a possible threat, but you had to convince said household that in fact you were no threat and could be trusted and regarded as a safe neighbor. Heck, let’s go all out and say you are pleading for your life while they have you at gunpoint and are trying to convince them that honest to god you won’t hurt their family … to whom would you rather make the case, the mother or the father?
Who was it that said “Return either with your shield or on it.”
