1

SINGLE MOTHERHOOD AND THE NEW

SOCIETY
Is sex on the way out?
by Subroto Mukerji

Motherhood! For the majority of women, it is a deep

visceral longing beyond thought, beyond reason, beyond compulsion —
beyond even comprehension. It is a genetically-driven craving, a
biological imperative, an irresistible call in the blood that brooks no
argument. ]
 2

But wait! There are exceptions! Some women, especially

those who do not wish to marry on account of a variety reasons,
proceed to dismiss the atavistic craving to reproduce as a vestigial
instinct that has no place in the 21st century. They choose to see it as a
molecular remnant of anachronistic sexual slavery, a prehistoric
carryover that robs women of their right to live their own lives, free
from the shackles of male ‘domination’.

Sweeping the call to motherhood under the carpet, they

deride it for its implications of surrender to the sperm. Castigating it for
its overtones of dependence on ‘the enemy’, they take shelter behind a
smokescreen of sophistry. They say they are much better off without it
and its concomitants such as lifelong commitment to the fruit of their
womb—a fruit that will, in time, dictate their life choices and force them
to compromise their lifestyles, hobble their personal development,
cripple them emotionally, submerge their personalities and reduce
them to simpering nursemaids whose very existence is determined by
the whims and fancies of another. They insist that motherhood is
incompatible with their professional goals, their freewheeling lifestyles
or their ‘outgoing’ personalities. Are they confusing marriage with
having children? This also begs the question: “Is sex becoming
redundant?” No. Only its role has changed.

Many sexually liberated women are the first to champion

free sex. They fling their hedonistic lifestyles in the face of a bemused
society. Psychologists see this dichotomy as a concession to the
maternal instinct mutating from procreation to recreation. Recent
surveys reveal that many women insist that can live without men but
not their mobile phones !

But is bonding (not to be equated with bondage) to be done

away with simply because it has transmogrified? Perhaps it is, to these
women in denial. Let’s go back to what history tells us, beginning
arbitrarily with Socrates. This early freethinker, a very clear-headed and
logic-driven person, was accused of being ‘a corrupter of young
morals’.
That’s because he maintained that morality is a social
construct; he never said anything about an absolute standard of
morality. Thus, if he, Socrates, chose to be an independent thinker in a
society that prohibited free thought, he lived outside its laws and thus
lost the right to be a member of that society. Not wishing to shift to any
other, he stood by his convictions and opted for the cup of hemlock
rather than abandon his principles by escaping from prison, as his
friends urged him to do (with their active connivance).

Before the advent of Gutenberg’s printing press, it took a

long time for new ideas to percolate. The aristocracy, the landed gentry
 3

and the clergy – keen to perpetuate a social order that gave them an
upper hand – safeguarded their monopoly over knowledge. They
controlled the production of the few books that could be turned out
manually by their underlings—the scribes. These monastic appendages
were transcribers whose output was mostly confined to laboriously
copying the Bible and other classical texts by hand. Even these copies
were not for the eyes of just about anyone; medieval laws greatly
circumscribed the circulation of religious texts. Knowledge was not
allowed to proliferate because knowledge was dangerous. It
encouraged thinking…and thought was frowned upon as the work of
the Devil. Thought heralded the coming of Reason…too risky a thing to
allow.

So the spread of the 3 R’s was restricted by the State, and

released in such parsimonious doses that even freemen had but limited
access to it. Most freemen were compromised inasmuch as they too
had a stake in maintaining the status quo ante, so they exchanged their
scruples for access to the right to read religious texts and be ‘holier
than thou’. It was as unjust and as unfree a society as it is possible to
imagine—one where men were slaves without actually being called so.

The Lord of the Manor or even the local Fief enjoyed vast
powers including the right to spend the first night with a serf’s newly-
wedded wife ― Ius Primae Noctis. This was Western civilization long
after the classical Golden Age of the Guptas, the exemplary reign of
Ashoka Maurya or the coming of the Buddha—more than a thousand
years before the times we speak of. This was the state of Europe even
as late as the end of the 12 th century (the 13th century Magna Carta
notwithstanding), a little after the time when Bakhtiar Khilji and his
murderous hordes ravaged the Gangetic plain, put all the non-violent
and helpless monks of Nalanda University to the sword and reduced the
priceless Buddhist scrolls in its famous library to ashes.

That is not to say there were none who strayed to more

esoteric endeavors in medieval times. But these were in the minority
despite the huge demand for ‘underground’ material including
pornography—always popular with the masses (in mid-19th century
Britain, the so-called ‘Penny Press’ rendered yeoman service in this
direction). Within fifty years of the coming of the mechanical printing
press, we see the old order begin to crumble under the onslaught of
new ideas sweeping across Europe.

The study of history, philosophy and ethnology opens our

eyes to the different (and often diametrically opposite) moral values of
various cultures. An Arab would (and often still does) keep his women
out of sight of others, especially strangers—the times were not good in
Medieval Arabia, and frequent internecine wars and invasions meant
that women, the first targets for invaders, were kept out of sight in
 4

fortified harems. An Eskimo, on the other hand, would offer a stranger

his igloo for the night— with his wife thrown in for good measure —the
hallmark of ultimate hospitality! It’s all a matter of perspective.

How perceptions change, over geography and over

millennia! Latter-day France outlaws women who wear the veil, risking
the unwelcome attentions of Muslim fanatics! Modern Saudi Arabia
awards lashes to women who are caught in the company of a man who
is not related to them. Nudist beaches are commonplace in Europe and
America; tourists caught en flagrante delicto making love on Dubai’s
beaches are arrested and deported. French liberals, intellectual
descendants of Voltaire, don’t exactly support Muslim women wearing
veils in public, but they support their right to do so! Perhaps that’s as
good a way as any of determining what constitutes a free society.

Why are things (are they things? Or hallucinations?) like

morals and ethical standards under siege across large portions of the
planet? Is society disintegrating to integrate globally? Is it in the early
stages of an evolutionary jump? Does moralistic transformation herald
the coming of a New Society?

With the emergence of the global village, first enunciated

by Marshall McLuhan, precipitated by faster communications, better
transport and uniformity in education, we are seeing the emergence of
a common global language and culture (especially for the youth of the
21st century), thanks to satellite-driven media and communication
networks. What has not been adequately commented upon is the
emergence of a new morality. As the economies of countries mesh
even closer together, a process of globalization has been unleashed
that has forged a global economy with a common destiny. This explains
why near-identical socio-economic forces are seen acting on disparate
societies to produce near-identical results.

So whether one lives in New York or New Delhi, Los Angeles

or La Paz, one is subject to identical socio-economic forces. The clutch
of problems—and perhaps solutions—has assumed a remarkable
similarity worldwide. Breakdown of joint families, younger people
asserting their right (and their ability) to live their own lives in a pattern
vastly different from the one their parents led, a need to express one’s
individuality in a faceless city, the need to feel in control: these are
important mantras for the young. The institution of marriage has taken
several hits below the waterline, and is showing signs of mutating into
forms rarely seen before. The New Science and its test-tube babies is
old hat now.

New Age philosophers have unwittingly given a boost to a

new, self-centered, holistic spirituality where the old questions of
sexuality and morality are being ruthlessly re-examined. Myths and
 5

hangovers of past ages are evaporating. The instinct to mate and

reproduce is now tempered by the foreknowledge of the disruptive
forces that will reduce the pair bond to a meaningless ritual sooner or
later (as in the 40-year-old Al – Tipper Gore 'ideal' marriage gone bust).
Books on the divergent priorities and motivations of the sexes are
selling by their millions. Even the Wars of the Sexes are no longer what
they were. The Egg and the Sperm are now more evenly matched, with
the tide of battle turning in favor of the former. Woman always had a
mind of her own, no matter that it was muzzled for millennia. That is no
longer the case. Freshly empowered, she is forging a new, more
aggressive lifestyle for herself with a vengeance, as she makes up for
the past.

The single most important factor in human affairs is the

need for self-expression (which includes child-bearing, a concession to
the powerful maternal instinct). And it is important to have a way out—
an escape hatch—if something goes wrong in the relationship.
Hesitation to make a lifelong commitment is increasingly seen among
the so-called ‘jet set’: and what they do today, the hoi polloi follow
tomorrow, recognizing a good thing when they see it. Pre-nuptial
agreements are iii, vows are out.

‘Letting Go’ and ‘How to Make the Most of Your Love-life’

are perennially popular themes in books and media articles/ programs.
It is good to have a satisfying love life, they say. But it is even better to
have a way out ready when life spoils it all. ‘Have your cake and eat it,
too!’ was never more relevant as a formula for living a happy life.
Proximity has lost out to giving one’s ‘significant other’ more space.
Intimacy, not proximity, is the way to go. This new mantra sanctions
independent career paths that crisscross continents and occasionally
bisect. Like it or not, ONS (one-night stands) are going to happen, but if
they come to light, a limping pair bond is likely to disintegrate.

Such once-remarkable incidents are becoming less so by

the day. Italian and French Heads of State are demonstrating that they
are too powerful to be bound by conventional rules of morality and
ethics and that they are above them. Berlo installed a jamming system
aboard his multi-million dollar yacht to cripple the electronic cameras of
paparazzi that kept snapping telephoto pictures of his on-deck
shenanigans with one bevy of beauties after another; Sarko keeps poor
old QE II cooling her heels in the lobby while he makes whoopee with
wife Carla Bruni, a celebrated model and dream girl of many a voyeur.
Money and power have always attracted women in droves…

France and Italy are, as always, leading the charge. “When

France sneezes, Europe catches cold,” said Metternich, former Austrian
chancellor. How true! We are probably witness to the death throes of
an outmoded ethical and moral system that supports a lifestyle
 6

belonging to an age that is past. The Man-Woman thing is under

construction as never before.

Tiger Woods has clubbed his way into another Hall of

Fame…for his prowess between the sheets, not on the links. Too much
money, too much pressure…and something’s gotta give. He gave…and
how! Poor Elin Nordegren? Aw, c’mon, honey! In her own way she was
as 'popular' a model as was Carla. And she got the big prize she was
after—millions of greenbacks and a pair of babies with supergenes. No
one loses at this level of play. Not surprisingly, ‘live-in’ relationships are
mushrooming all over the place, the stress (no pun intended) being on
giving room to one’s partner, and the need to retain the spontaneity
and initiative in a relationship…so often a casualty of marriage.

Laboratory breakthroughs have led to DNA–based, near-

foolproof IVF (in-vitro fertilization) procedures. A recent news report
reveals that these IVF procedures are now 100% effective, as opposed
to the mere 25% success rate of the good old hit-or-miss (but more
fun?) method. This has enormous implications: a woman can have a
baby anytime she wants, for one. Two, she need not know who the
sperm donor – the biological father – is. All that really matters is the
child, whether it’s the fruit of her womb, cultivated to maturity in a
surrogate mother’s uterus, or adopted. That spares her emotional
attachment to a co-babymaker and lets her focus all her attention on
bringing up the youngster.

Three, by side-stepping emotional attachment to a mate—a

potential source of misery—she can satisfy her career urges. Four, she
can have sex anytime with any person she fancies without guilt. This is
true sexual freedom…not a bad thing at all for the amoral. Five, she
can acknowledge her destiny and allow it to come to fruition by giving
birth to a child and caring for it till adulthood. Six; by doing so, she
need not lose touch with the human race.

Lastly, she can face up boldly to the consequences of her

choices; she does not have to undergo the trauma of having to blame
someone else for where life took her. In other words, we are talking
about CONTROL. Women crave it. They’ve been deprived of it for
millennia. That is why they’d much rather have control than have sex.
Her mobile phone signifies she’s in control. That’s why women are
always fiddling around with their cellphones, clutching them in their
hands all the time. It’s not a phallic fixation, as some maintain. It’s a
sceptre…the tangible symbol of her liberation—her ticket to freedom.

To sum up, with the emergence of the modern woman of

the 21 century: cerebral, aggressive, versatile, financially independent
st

and eager to live a full life unentangled in old webs, single motherhood
has finally come of age. A woman can now choose to stay childless or
 7

have the baby of a man she loves or admires (or whose genes her Egg
unconsciously wants: which often means the same thing; see Ancient
Chemystery also in this collection) and yet not succumb to the
pressures and compromises of a marriage that is likely to degenerate
into a farce – messy or even impossible to terminate when it goes off
the rails.

She can love a man but need not feel compelled to marry
him. She can have a baby where, when and if she wants. She can have
sex or skip it. She can pair-bond with another woman if she feels like it.
It’s entirely up to her. She has bid farewell to a world of obsolete sexual
prescriptions designed to cramp her style. The Asian woman has waved
goodbye to a system that married her off at ten and saddled her with
eleven children by the time she was in her mid-twenties. She knows
where she’s going and she‘s determined to get there—alone, if need
be. She’s snapped her chains, burnt her bridges behind her. At last,
she can ‘go naked in the world’― to borrow the title of a celebrated
Brigitte Bardot / Roger Vadim film. It’s her world, after all.

Gay marriages are out in the open. Many celebrities are

self-confessed gays. ‘Homosexual’ is no longer a dirty word. Gays are
set to invade the ultimate macho bastion ― the US Army! Brokeback
Mountain would have been panned and banned a decade ago, instead
of becoming a cult film.

These multiple choices are all parts of an increasingly

complex set of acceptable behaviors that people are embracing—and
will continue to embrace in larger numbers—as society evolves further.
Such isolated instances will become the norm as human life adds
dimensions to itself that were undreamt of even half a century ago, as
it stretches its arms towards the emerging New Society.

~ from World in Transition: The Age of Aphrodite by Subroto Mukerji