So, What If Mothers Ruled the World?

During her acceptance speech at the Emmy Awards the other evening, actor Sally Fields said in reference to the war in Iraq, "And, let's face it, if the mothers ruled the (world), there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place."

.

Apparently much of what she said was edited by the network. Exactly what was omitted I do not know; I wasn't watching. I find the many narcissistic and self-congratulatory Hollywood awards shows to be quite uninteresting. But since I am a news hound, I have read what she said and her follow-up comments.

.

When I first heard what she expressed, I had one of those, "That's so wrong," moments, but I had to think through why I believe what she said was simply not true. What better way to think through it then by writing a post.

.

Why do I seriously doubt that war would cease if mothers ruled the world? Consider the following:

.

First, specifically in reference to the war in Iraq, I know some mothers who have a child or children stationed there who oppose the war, and others who support it. Most of us know mothers who have children stationed there. Ms. Fields said she simply wanted to recognize the mothers who wait for their children to come home. But, what mother doesn't want her son or daughter to come home from Iraq? It is quite beside the point from claiming that if mothers were in charge, war would cease. Ms. Fields, please don't bait and switch the issue. Mothers wanting their children out of harm's way is different from whether or not they believe in the cause that puts them in such peril in the first place.

.

Second, the presumption behind Ms. Fields' comments is that mothers are nurturing while fathers are authoritarian. (Once again, the "all the problems in the world are the fault of men" view rears its ugly head.) Thus if we had nurturing female leaders as opposed to authoritarian male leaders, we would eliminate wars, since no mother would ever send her child or anyone else's child, for that matter, into a war zone. Other then the sexist nature of her comment (As a father of four, I resent being told that I am less nurturing toward my children.), one could make the case that the nurturing model of authority could lead, not to less war, but to war for different reasons.

.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that Ms. Fields' presumption that mothers are more nurturing than fathers is correct, it may indeed be the case that a "motherly" president would not have sent the military into Iraq, but instead she may have ordered soldiers into Darfur, where several hundred thousand children have died at the hands of violence and starvation, and where UNICEF estimates that over a million more are heading for death if no one intervenes. Of the children that do survive, many will grow up as orphans having lost their parents on account of the genecide taking place there. One of the important charateristics of nurture, it seems to me, is to instill in children the significance of right and wrong and of securing justice. Perhaps a "nurturing" president would send our "children" in the military to war in Sudan in order to seek justice for the children over there. Perhaps a "motherly" president would be more disturbed by the horrendous pictures of children who are nothing but skin and bones, and be prompted to act when a "fatherly authoritarian" president would not be so moved? I do not understand why some people assume that it is easier for fathers to send their sons and daughters off to war than it is for the mothers, but in any case we should not assume that nurture is a quality of leadership that would lead to less violence and war. It is not a matter of degree, but of a kind.

.

Third, there are more than a few examples in history of woman in positions of power who have been quite "hawkish" in reference to foreign policy. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher comes immediately to mind, as well as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who finds herself in a tense position with the left-wing of the Democratic Party precisely because she has not been enough of a "dove" when it comes to the war in Iraq. I believe both women are mothers.

.

Finally, the issue of war and its prosecution and/or elimination is not a gender issue; it is a matter of whether and/or when nations should resort to war to achieve desired ends. To frame the discussion in reference to mothers may have a certain emotional appeal, but it does nothing to deal with the heart of the matter. Christians need to take their cue, not from Sally Fields, but from Jesus, whose teachings on war and violence are based, not on gender, but on a way of life for those who have been caught up in God's Kingdom, and who seek justice only in ways that are in keeping with that Kingdom.

.

+ + + + + + +

.

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian