I don't watch the Emmys. Can't stand that lot. But I couldn't help hearing about some of the nonsense that took place. The one remark that stands out is Sally Fields' gem: "If mothers ran the world, there wouldn't be any more f**king war."
That is such a breathtakingly stupid remark on so many levels, I've been worrying it like a broken tooth all day.
And though I've heard several Conservative commentators' views on it, none of them plumbed the true depth of its absurdity.
Let's start with the fact that mothers are women. Last I checked women were individuals, not some collective monolithic block of undifferentiated attitudes. Exactly what mothers was Sally Fields talking about? Spartan mothers? Roman mothers? Celtic mothers (some of whom were also combat instructors), Conservative Republican mothers?
But, let us stipulate, just for the moment, that all mothers are the possessive, obsessive, overly-protective, immature women that would not, under any circumstances allow their own darlings to go to war. (Or ride a bicycle without full body armor.)
What does this say, first about THESE women...and about the speaker's attitude about all women who are mothers?
It says a mother is incapable of rising above her personal needs to see the larger needs of community, culture, even civilization itself. It says that a mother is no more than her nurturing instincts, and forever forfeits her ability to make decisions based on ethics, honor or reason rather than personal needy emotions.
It says that mothers are the most selfish, virulently self-centered creatures on earth. Women who would gladly deform their sons' characters and souls in order to keep them firmly tied to their apron strings, safe, warm and cozy, forever toddlers.
How disrespectful of women and mothers can you get? Does Sally Fields and all the imbeciles who applauded such a statement understand what she was saying?
I am a child of the 60's. I can tell you without hesitation that the boys who dodged the draft, or went to Canada were not "conscientious objectors" to anything except putting themselves at risk. They were afraid of going to Viet Nam. In other words...in the world of MEN, they were cowards. The only difference was that my generation invented a nifty cover story for them: "Principled objection to an illegal war." Right.
Can I say it any clearer? Not one boy who dodged the draft did it for any principle beyond not getting his ass killed. (And a single look at the Liberal politicians and Liberal educators from my generation will demonstrate what happens to boys who never become men, who never face their fears, who never do their duty, who never pass their initiation, but stayed, safe, protected from manhood by mommy.)
Now. How did the this sort of mother feel about their sons punking out? Their little darlings survived the war after all. Most important mission accomplished! But in their heart of hearts, do you suppose they respect those boys who never became men? Oh they may dote, love, serve and support them. But they do not respect them. There is no doubt in this woman's mind that even to the most shallow, selfish, over-protecting mother, such a son, the "boy who ran away" will always remain, in her mind, less than a real man; less than the returning heroes—dead and alive. And she will always suffer a little envy of mothers whose boys manned up and served.
Never doubt it. Women know the difference between men and boys. The very sons they warp to protect from danger and keep safe for themselves will always be less than men to them.
It is, in fact, unnatural for a mother to keep her son from becoming a man. Normal healthy women—mothers, no matter how difficult, how painful, and sometimes how devastating, don't do it. It's crime against nature. And mature, healthy, adult women know it.
Yet, Sally Fields spoke as though all mothers would do just that, if only they had the power.
And it seems never to have occurred to her, anyone applauding in the audience, or even the Conservative Talk Show Hosts I heard today, to question whether such women would make good leaders. They talked as though this obssessive, possessive, controlling, "compassionate" mother love would save the world.
Do they all imagine that the sort of women she's describing—so self-absorbed, so selfish, so personal, emotional and so willing to cripple the soul of a son to keep him near her and safe—would run the world better than men? Or childless women? Does she suppose this sort of woman would choose truth over attachments? Justice over affection? Duty over passion? The needs of the many suffering strangers over the needs of her adored loved ones?
Does she actually think such a leader would put the rule of law, of abstract principle, honor or world peace over the interests or needs of her family and her circle of intimate and dear friends?
This sort of Mother Instinct without benefit of a reasoning mind to mitigate its emotionalism is not "leadership", it is immature, pubescent, hormonal femininity run amok. And the only possible, necessary and logical result is tribal i.e. "family" warfare. Bitter, vicious and personal.
Perhaps old Sally Fields would like to take a gander at Africa and the Middle East and see how that's working out for "peace" so far.
And maybe before you open your mouth to chew on your size sevens, Sal, you might just want to sift your emotional epiphanies through a logic matrix. If you can't manage it by yourself, ask a man to help (if you can find one in Hollywood.)
Apologies to Aesop
13 hours ago