'Mothers play key roles in the upbringing of children. But in the recent times both parents are getting busy with professional life. Who in your opinion should take the responsibility of child care now?' Give your opinion in no less than 250 words.
'Mothers play key roles in the upbringing of children. But in the recent times both parents are getting busy with professional life. Who in your opinion should take the responsibility of child care now? ' Give your opinion in no less than 250 words. Dakyp
There’s no denying how important a role the mother plays in the upbringing of her
children. But torn by modern economics, mothers are leaving home for professional
practice, raising the question “who now takes care of the children? ” In my belief, though,
all efforts to replace the proverbial mother are destined to be futile.
Observing Nature, scientifically or other wise, tells us that being a mother, if it were a
social role, is ideally possible by the child bearing female and others may only be nurses
or patrons. The physiological and psychological exclusiveness of the mother means all
the other social entities and all the greatness of science and civilization can only
supplement, and never replace, her part in the upbringing of children. Any one else
trying to don her role is simply unnatural.
But of course there is opinion in the contrary also. Modern science flaunts its age old
practice of replicating nature and natural processes. Now more than ever humans and
their society are evolving frequently against the tide of Nature, and civilization sustains
this evolution. Such evolution has also effected the socio-economic distinction of men
and women. Now in the industry women are producing as much as men do. So “women
are better off in the house” is no longer true.
While such human evolution is true and should morally be supported, going against
Mother Nature, when we’re clearly not in a position to, is immoral. Science has not yet
found a biological and psycho-social alternative for the natural mother. And while
gender equality is great, it never means fusion of the two poles of our species. I don’t
believe science never has strived to eliminate sex because it is simply impracticable. So
men and women, so uniformly productive as they recently are, don’t have to utilize their
worth in the same end of civilization.
If one person, or sex, is naturally gifted to play a special and vital role in the society, it
is her duty to thrive in it. I therefore conclude that in a child’s life its mother is
irreplaceable, and, hence, it is she who should rear her child.
There’s no denying how
important
a
role
the
mother
plays in the upbringing of her
children.
But
torn by modern economics, mothers are leaving home for professional
practice, raising the question “who
now
takes care of the children? ” In my belief, though,
all efforts to replace the proverbial
mother
are destined
to be futile.
Observing
Nature
,
scientifically
or
other wise
,
tells
us that being a
mother
, if it were a
social
role
, is
ideally
possible by the child bearing female
and others
may
only
be nurses
or patrons. The physiological and psychological exclusiveness of the
mother
means all
the other social entities and all the greatness of
science
and civilization can
only
supplement, and never replace, her part in the upbringing of children. Any one else
trying to don her
role
is
simply
unnatural.
But
of course
there is opinion in the contrary
also
. Modern
science
flaunts its age
old
practice of replicating
nature
and natural processes.
Now
more than ever humans and
their society are evolving
frequently
against the tide of
Nature
, and civilization sustains
this evolution. Such evolution has
also
effected the
socio-economic
distinction of
men
and women.
Now
in the industry women are producing as much as
men
do.
So
“women
are better off in the
house
” is no longer true.
While such human evolution is true and should
morally
be supported
, going against
Mother
Nature
, when we’re
clearly
not in a position to, is immoral.
Science
has not
yet
found a biological and psycho-social alternative for the natural
mother
. And while
gender equality is great, it never means fusion of the two poles of our species. I don’t
believe
science
never has strived to eliminate sex
because
it is
simply
impracticable.
So
men
and women,
so
uniformly
productive as they recently are, don’t
have to
utilize their
worth in the same
end
of civilization.
If one person, or sex, is
naturally
gifted to play a special and vital
role
in the society, it
is her duty to thrive in it. I
therefore
conclude that in a child’s life its
mother
is
irreplaceable, and,
hence
, it is she who should rear her child.
Do not write below this line