My mother said, "The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world." Is this a religous concept?

Question

Or more to the point, have liberated women, abandoned a natural power over the world, and it's future? I'm all for liberation, I just want to know the cost of freedom...

Answer 1

Actually the answer is no! Your mother was more than likely referring to this poem, written by William Ross Wallace that praised motherhood as the preeminent force for changes in the world:

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle

Is The Hand That Rules The World
Blessings on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace,
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy's the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mother's first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow--
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission
Here upon our natal sod!
Keep, oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky--
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

The title itself is an oft-quoted passage, which has over time been reinterpreted in various ways, particularly in recent times, as a kind of perennial example of a social norm gone awry

Answer 2

To "Q & A MAN": Your argument isn't very valid. When a woman has conceived a child, the baby, of course, isn't immediately fully grown. It starts off as a fetus without all of the bodily systems that you would see in a human. Also, even when the child is born, it continues to grow. The child even ends up with more bones than it once had; certain functions of an infant's brain get weaker as they get older too because they end up being obsolete. As we grow, our cells continuously multiply causing us to get greater in size, so the theory that we all started from a single celled organism isn't too far fetched. Not to mention, a lot of microorganisms that cause illness evolve as our medicine gets more advanced. It's all about the organism adapting so that it can be ahead of the game and insure the continuation of the species. EDIT: Another thing that I forgot to mention is that our "design" isn't even flawless. We're susceptible to mutations and illnesses. Also some parts of the body aren't really necessary; there are some things that our bodies can't naturally recover from as well. Now to the question: The only part of the 'God concept' that seems reasonable is the "let there be light" thing. Maybe this was possibly the big bang. Maybe this universe was created accidentally by some intelligent beings or some natural occurring phenomenon. Perhaps it'll happen again. The idea of an omnipotent being has simply evolved with mankind over time to explain what couldn't be explained. Even now when we can't explain something we associate it with things that we are already familiar with.

Answer 3

It's about parental influence, I don't know if it's religious in nature... But, I don't think the've abandoned a natural power.

You still have a LOT of power over children by being their parents... And on top of that, most families have two working parents nowadays... not just because the women want to work, but because they HAVE to work. I know women who'd rather stay at home with the kids, but don't have a choice. So it's not just liberation doing this...

Answer 4

well liberation and freedom per se of women (and yes I am a woman) has a cost to our families, society and our world - for as women chose to be "liberated" and work and put their families (if they chose to have any) secondary to their wants/needs - the families suffered - the children have grown up not having the security and basis of their mother's love, nuturing and of a close "nuclear" family - which means when they hit society - they have issues with rules, authority, conforming to either - which then means the world has more people who are doing "their own thing" without rules, guidelines, or society mores (other than their own conscience) guiding them -- and also these same people are searching for something to belong to - a community - a group - a meaning.... so the cost of women's freedom has cost us dearly. Yes, I do work - however, when my stepchildren are with us for a visit - I take my vacation and focus love and energy toward the most important "job" in my life - my family and our children.

Answer 5

Mothers are the greatest influence on their children. It is like saying if you really want to see yourself look at your children they are a mirror image. The cost of freedom lets others instill their values into the child. You are then looking at the mirror image of another not yourself. No this is not a religious concept it is a parental concept. My daughter refused to work til her youngest was 5 years old and ready for school because she wanted her children to know her values and concepts not someone elses. She made do on one salary.

Answer 6

Let's not forget: that hand rocking the cradle has also caused a great deal of pain down through history. Everything -- not just freedom -- comes with a price tag.

Answer 7

Since a lot of women are asking this exact question, and a study a few years ago found that a majority of working mothers would rather be home with their kids, it's awfully hard to accept the question as misogynist.

Answer 8

I don't think it's a religious matter. I think it's a matter of nature! My mom is very liberated. She works, is outspoken, active in community and political affairs. She also stands behind my dad, supports him and helps carry out decisions that he has made.

She told me once that dad was the head of the household. I got so irate! I said "that's horrible! How can you let him rule you?" She just smiled and said "Honey, he maybe the head of the household....but I'm the neck. And the head can't make a move with out the neck!" So it was a matter of letting him THINK he was in charge, when in all actuality.....lol......

Answer 9

both religious and historical

rent the movie alexandar done by oliver stone

you see the mother of alexendar pushing her son to become king

she organizes the death of his father

look at the influence of eve on history

the influence of rebechah on jacob, pushing jacob to steal esaus blessing from issac

mary was the mother of jesus

is it any secret babara bush is a giant influence in her husband and son both became president
not because of her policy thoughts or money
but her love

Answer 10

I don't think it's particularly religious; it's more in the "wives' tales" category. It means that whomever raises the children imparts his or her values, ideals and to some extent, goals to those children. When the children grow up, it's what they've learned from their parents that shapes their choices in life.