Ask Dr. Helen
My latest "Ask Dr. Helen" column is up at PJM:
Read the column and let me know if you think we'd really have world peace if moms ruled the world.
Actress Sally Field made headlines with her Emmy Awards acceptance speech by claiming that there wouldn’t be any more wars “if mothers ruled the world.” PJM advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith offers her opinion on the likelihood of world peace if moms were in charge.
Read the column and let me know if you think we'd really have world peace if moms ruled the world.
Labels: PJM column
posted by Helen at 4:55 AM
23 Comments:
Since moms are not in charge, I can't say really whether there would be world peace or not. Most violent crimes are conducted by men, most wars are started by men, gun crimes are mostly committed by men. If moms ruled the world there might be fewer wars over land disputes, natural resources, and economic centers but maybe many more wars over "she looked at me funny and deserved the invasion". Moms scare the crap out of me and I do my best to avoid them like the plague. Yikes.
World peace likes me! It really, really likes me!
Cham,
I don't think moms in and of themselves are "scary" unless they are perhaps, Andrea Yates--hopefully a rarity, but many mothers are good people-why do they scare you?
Helen:
For whatever reason, the minute women become mothers they get the impression that their opinions and needs trump all others, consideration of anyone else becomes a lost are. Mothers become microfocused on their immediate families and less well-rounded a as people. This behavior seems to end once their children hit puberty. Perhaps this phenomenon is due to our culture letting them get away with it or biology.
Indira Gandhi ruled India like it was her personal fiefdom from 1965 till she got shot in 1984. She was a mom and had 2 sons. And she was a s bad as any male dictator who claimed tobe a "democraticlly elected" Prime Minister. Made no difference that she was a mom. Was as corrupt,as devious, as ruthless and as uch of as bad person as any man could.
Cham,
Thanks for clarifying--I was just curious as to what your thoughts were.
While I probably wouldn't go as far as Cham, I have observed that the vast majority of mothers are, as is natural, I suspect, very focused on protecting their children and their children's interests.
Regardless of whether one considers it a good thing or a bad, I suspect if that tendency made its transition to the national scale, a "mommy government" could produce a national-interest-centric foreign policy beyond the wildest nightmares of the postnationalist left...
(Of course, on the same principle, it might also produce a fairly smothering nanny state; while I've known quite a few mothers who appreciate that their children have to stand on their own, I've also known quite a few with real trouble letting go.)
Could be good. Could be bad. Could be pretty much the same as currently. Could bring passive-aggressive behavior to a scale never before imagined. (The jokes available there are literally endless.) Since I don't much foresee it happening, what difference my guesses? Or to put it another way: what if there were no hypothetical situations?
I think she might be right. There would be no more wars. Just a totalitarian nanny state that breeds serial killers, gangsters, etc....
Being male, I am probably disqualified from offering opinions, but maybe I can get a couple of questions in.
Who was Elizabeth I? What happened during her reign?
Who said "Let them eat cake."? What was going on at the time.
Have you ever been to a little kids soccer game?
Ever heard of somebody named Anne? What was she noted for?
What was going on in the years 1702-1713?
And who did what in Russia prior to 1917?
Who was "Sheba"? "Cleopatra?"
What happened to John the Baptist.
Oh. Yeah.
Who is often said to have been running the United States in fact during the 1940's?
As far as Moms (or women) running the world, I think Camille Paglia nailed it when she said that if women ran the world, we'd still be living in grass huts.
And I still don't think we'd avoid war.
This is completely politically incorrect, but here goes. Women who are unmarried and without children tend to vote for far more government control than men. Check out election returns for the evidence. Married women vote very close to their husband, single women are "the gender gap". Add to that the fact that most prohibition comes from women: alcohol, abortion (check the polls!), smoking, bike helmets, mandatory seat belt laws, etc. I'd argue that voting for women is fine, there have been many great women leaders, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, or at least not until they're married. I'd be happy to apply the standard to men as well, to avoid discrimination, maybe just raise voting age to the age you need to be President: 35.
Should say unmarried women with or without children
a problem i see if women ruled the world, is that it could be a petty kind of world.
if anyone has ever seen the back stabbing, the sniping that women in offices do.
women can be more malicious than men. women forget but never forgive, men forgive but never forget.
matthew:
The gender gap is not really a gender gap at all. It's a racial gap.
Typically, Democrats outpoll the GOP among women by about 10 points.
Assuming black women account for 12% of the female vote, and they vote 92/8 for the Democrats, that means that the black female vote group of 12% breaks down as 11% for Dems, 1% for the GOP. That is your "gender gap" right there.
But it is not a gender gap. Black men, also vote overwhelmingly Democratic, so their votes are based on racial, not gender issues.
Take out the black vote, and women split 50-50.
The genius of feminism is illustrated in the fact that an aged (nice cosmetic uplift!) b-picture actress can get up and state, without ridicule --
"If moms only ruled the world then..."
It is a very strange kind of Evil Patriarchy, a very dysfunctional type of male oppressor...
who conspires to engineer a society dedicated to serving the oppressed persons they supposedly dominate.
The simpler version?
Men enslave themselves, through false chivalrous beliefs.
Even simpler version?
Women believe they are smarter than men, and are taking it to the bank.
So far, men have offered no evidence to refute women's claim.
A mom, who would not be capable of waging wars by her nature, would probably have no desire in ruling the world. Actually the comment Ms. Field made doesn't make any sense. Neither does taking Fosamax.
I am surprised anyone cares what Sally Fields says. I am not so sure she wasn't speaking about whirled peas.
Helen is uncharacteristically silent.
She must be musing.....
It's like waiting for your psychoanalyst to inquire --
"How do you feel?"
anti-climaxville.
And then?
"Feminism" has shown that the only difference in ability between a man and a woman is the role in reproduction. Women can be as strong, as fast, as smart, and as painfully thick-headed and violent as men. So no, there wouldn't be "world peace" if moms ran the world.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
視訊交友90739視訊交友哈啦聊天室哈啦聊天室6k聊天室6k聊天室小莉影像館小莉影像館尋夢園聊天尋夢園聊天視訊女郎視訊女郎視訊美女彩虹視訊交友網彩虹視訊交友網情色視訊交友情色視訊交友546視訊聊天室85x1x成人影院85x1x成人影院
Post a Comment
<< Home