Monday, September 24, 2007
If Moms Ruled the World There Would be No Rules in War
At the Emmy Awards earlier this month Sally Field made the claim that if mothers ruled the world there would be no war. (hattip: Michelle Malkin)
This outrageous claim by an actress at an awards show has generated a surprising (at least to me) amount of commentary in the non-moonbat blogosphere. Dr. Helen ends her column on the topic with the question:
"What do you think, would the world really be better off if moms ran it?"
If the world was run by democracies of mothers, then it would be different in a way that the majority of mothers would describe as "more protective" and "more stable" and "fairer" and "better regulated", but which others (especially young men) would describe "suffocating" and "stifling" and "stagnant" and especially "oppressive." I would be in the camp that called it "oppressive."
I think that wars in particular would be much worse and much bloodier if moms ran the world. To support this assertion I offer this quote from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity in which he defends the Christian doctrine of husbands being the head of the family:
"The relations of the family to the outer world -what might be called its foreign policy- must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
If mothers ran the nations of the world then I believe wars would be waged without quarter or mercy, as the mothers would be fighting for the survival and prosperity of their children... to hell with the children of the enemy. Please do not take this to be an insult against mothers or motherhood. Thank God for mothers. I only mean that a world with too much feminine influence is as much a dystopia as one with too little. Anything, in too high a dose, can become a poison. Even a mother's love. If you doubt this, then ask yourself C.S. Lewis's question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress?
CS+Lewis Sally+Field mothers motherhood war
This outrageous claim by an actress at an awards show has generated a surprising (at least to me) amount of commentary in the non-moonbat blogosphere. Dr. Helen ends her column on the topic with the question:
"What do you think, would the world really be better off if moms ran it?"
If the world was run by democracies of mothers, then it would be different in a way that the majority of mothers would describe as "more protective" and "more stable" and "fairer" and "better regulated", but which others (especially young men) would describe "suffocating" and "stifling" and "stagnant" and especially "oppressive." I would be in the camp that called it "oppressive."
I think that wars in particular would be much worse and much bloodier if moms ran the world. To support this assertion I offer this quote from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity in which he defends the Christian doctrine of husbands being the head of the family:
"The relations of the family to the outer world -what might be called its foreign policy- must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?
If mothers ran the nations of the world then I believe wars would be waged without quarter or mercy, as the mothers would be fighting for the survival and prosperity of their children... to hell with the children of the enemy. Please do not take this to be an insult against mothers or motherhood. Thank God for mothers. I only mean that a world with too much feminine influence is as much a dystopia as one with too little. Anything, in too high a dose, can become a poison. Even a mother's love. If you doubt this, then ask yourself C.S. Lewis's question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of the house or the mistress?
CS+Lewis Sally+Field mothers motherhood war
