Taking simple natural and biological view
point implies two conflicts. First, the
conflict between individualism and the family, Second, a deeper conflict
between the sterile philosophy of the intellect and the warmer philosophy of
the instinct. A man believing in
individualism and carrying to its logical consequences can still be a very
intelligent being but a man believing in the cold head as against the warm
heart is a fool.
Man cannot live alone in the world and be
happy, but associate himself with a group around him and greater than
himself. Man’s self is not limited by
his bodily proportions, for there is a greater self which extends as far as his
mental and social activities go. The
real life that means anything to a man is never co-extensive with his country
or his age, but consists in that smaller circle of his acquaintances and
activities which we call the “greater self”.
The young should learn to be filial in the
home and respectful in society. They
should be conscientious and honest and love all people and associate with the
kindly gentlemen. If after acting on
these percepts, they have energy left, let them read books.
Nature has endowed women with too powerful
a material instinct for it to be easily put out of the way by an artificial
civilization. Nature conceives of woman
chiefly as a mother, even more than as a mate, and has endowed her with mental
and moral characteristics which are conducive to her role as mother, and which
find their true explanation and unity in the maternal instinct – realism,
judgement, patience with details, love of the small and helpless, desire to
take care of somebody, strong animal love and hatred, great personal and
emotional bias and a generally person outlook on things.
We are concerned only with the question,
“How to live a happy life?” No ones life can be happy unless beyond the
superficial attainments of the external life, the deeper springs of his or her
character are touched and find a normal outlet.
Celibacy as an ideal on the form of “personal career” carries with it
not only an individualistic, but also a foolishly intellectualistic taint, and
is for the latter reason to be condemned.
This spectacle of individualism, unmarried
and childless, trying to find a substitute for a full and satisfying life in “careers”
and personal achievements and preventing cruelty to animals has struck me
always as some what foolish and comical.
Successful politicians have thrown up
politics, successful editors have thrown up magazine work, successful aviators
have given up flying, and successful boxers have given up ring. Successful actors and actresses have given up
stage. But imagine mothers, successful
or unsuccessful giving up motherhood. It
is unheard of. The mother has a feeling
that she is wanted she has found a place in life, and has the deep conviction
more profound than Hitler’s that he must save country.
The chance of finding real happiness is
surer and greater for a woman if she is engaged as a mother rather than as an
architect, since nature never fails? Is
it not true that marriage is that best profession for women?
We have incompetent department’s chiefs,
incompetent business managers, incompetent bankers, and incompetent presidents
but we rarely have incompetent mothers.
The ideal woman for me is one who loves her
cosmetics along with her mathematics, and who is more feminine than feminist.