Monday, September 17, 2007

Mother Instinct = Peace?

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 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.)

The Gunslinger


  1. Good post GS, it was an intellectually lazy statement for an intellectually lazy audience.

  2. Excellent Post, Gunny!

    I was going to do one this morning on darling Sally, but you say it much better!

    I took the liberty of adding a link to the video and added a picture of little Sally on my blog as the "Flying Nun" when she was, indeed, cute.


    In regards to her appearance, the smart money says Ms. Flying Nun was bombed out of her ever loving mind with adults brews and/or illegal drugs the night in question.

    In any event, typical comments from a Raving Leftard Moonbat with an I.Q.s of Forest Gump and of no importance to the public debate on the war, or anything else for that matter.

    Cheers, Staff Sergeant Ronbo (USA-Retired)

  3. To MK

    I expect nonsense from mindless Liberals, but not from Conservative Male commentators, who seemed to have a hard time refuting her "logic".

    They seemed to think she had a point, that "mommies", whose first and only concern are their own children, would somehow make a safer more peaceful world.

    Several only focused on her swearing...not her illogical and idiotic statement itself.

    It was they I was scolding, really, I think.

    They've got a touch of the PC disease without even realizing it.

    Don't get me wrong. I think women can be great national leaders. But not the sort of blinkered, emotional woman Sally clearly has in mind.

  4. Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/18/2007
    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

  5. As a woman and a mother (with a son currently serving in Iraq) the one thing everyone seems to forget when a woman makes such an incredibly stupid comment such as this...

    Have you ever had to deal with a group of women running something? EVER? I have. It's not pretty. And it wouldn't take long before major bloody war broke out because of "peaceful nice mommies" running things.

    For heaven sake, these same women have complete meltdowns when someone dares to criticize their little darlings! Yet they are expected to keep cool heads when dealing with the heads of states... Riiiight.

    Now excuse me while I break into gales of laughter at the thought of these people "running things".

  6. I didn't watch, either.

    Part of the reason i don't watch these things is because "celebrities" rarely take their responsibility seriously.

    Case in point with Ms. Fields.

    I'm proud to be a "lowly" soldier and to have raised four proud "mini-mes" in a culture that does not encourage nor value their warrior spirits. I've been reported to CPS, called to school campuses, and berated by other parents because I've allowed my children to make mistakes, I've allowed them to get injured, and I've taught them - sometimes aggressively - how to NOT be victims.

    If this makes me a bad mother, then so be it. Because here in SoCal, you've got to get tactical just to drive to work in the morning, and just walking into a 7-11 can mean you've found yourself in a gunfight. MY children are prepared.

    War is everywhere, every day. In my opinion, I'm a bad mother if I allow my children to face each day, each battle unarmed and unready.

    Great post, Gunny.

  7. Thanks, fellow women!

    You're both SO on my wave-length!

    Daughter - I couldn't agree more. It can't be easy raising kids...they gotta break your heart. But it's selfish and childish to try to keep them so safe they never grow up. That's not doing them any favors. It's a dangerous world. And naiveté can get you killed.


    The only person I ever knew who shot at someone OUT OF PURE ANGER, was a woman who picked up her husband's gun and shot at him during a furious argument.

    The only reason she's not in prison today is that the gun wasn't loaded.

    I guess he was no dummy.

  8. "...the gun wasn't loaded."

    LOL - yeah, I can see that.

    Yet these same women will prate on and on about how badly "men" run things. How mean, nasty, and brutish they are, until I want to scream!

    They seem to have a failure to realize that they can get down and dirty and run things if they really wanted to... but no... they only want to b(*&^ about it. That's more fun and if you don't ever DO anything - you can never be blamed when things don't go the "right way" Heh.

  9. Yes, Sally seems to think that people like her, emotional women, who "think" with their hearts, are better, higher, more caring, loving, peaceful sort of people

    They always do. They are quintessential Liberals: If it makes me feel happy, it must be TRUE. If it makes me feel sad/bad, if must be FALSE.

    And this is how they arrive at opinions, and make choices. And it is on this basis that they vote.

    And it is just this sort of person, whose entire lives are lived in the subjective case, without any objective standards, that can rationalize any behavior, any crime, any outrage, any injustice... that serves their emotional preferences.

    Carried to its logical conclusion, it becomes psychopathology.

    I'm perfectly CERTAIN, this is not the sort I want running MY world!