A reminder to all the feminists who go around saying women are better at certain things: If that's true, you'd better be ready to accept the idea that MEN are better at certain things. You just might not want to go down that road....

...and then there's my wife, who once declared war on the mother of a boy who was teasing and picking on our daughter at a preschool picnic, and refused to do anything about it. That picnic... heh, talk about shock and awe!

That kid and my daughter are in the same first grade class now, and curiously enough, it has been incident-free between the two of them.

I think Sally got it completely bass-ackwards - a good mother is going to take action and defend her children with all means necessary faster than you can say "appeasement."

Anyway, I always thought, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

*****

"Why would the library ban a book like The Six Bunny-Wunnies Freak Out?" - Linus Van Pelt

I was pondering how Sally would rectify her Oprah appearance several years ago when she said, "Yeah a woman gets in her few good shots with a man in a fight, but she looses in the end because the man is bigger".

This was right after her crash and I always wondered what kind of liberal wonders like Burt Reynolds let her get so out of control she was wailing on them and then they had to beat the bajesus out of her to settle her down.

Which brings one to modern Sally in wondering if spouse abuse is part of her pacification process of no wars for the world.

I will instead choose to remember her 30 years ago in a Burt movie wearing a t shirt and looking hot back then and not the current idiot liberal who wasted her entire life.

Thankfully FOX bleeped the dunce and saved her from herself.

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Any one heard of Boudicca?

How about Joan of Arc?

Loraina Bobbits? 

What about Wendy O Williams?

I spent 10 years in the Navy, doing a job that was restricted to men only. I spent another 14 years working for the Navy to support the guys who were doing what I used to do, so even though we were contractors we were 100% men. I think I have a pretty good read on how men run things when they are in charge. Now I work for a company of over 9,000 employees, and women make up about 80% of the workforce. Women dominate every level of management, so I think it's fair to say that this is a great example of how things run with women in charge.

So, what is the difference between how men run things and how women run things? Not much. The only difference I've seen is in the dress code. In a male-dominated environment, the dress code is "business attire, business casual attire, or casual attire. In this company it's broken down for men into shirts with collars, dress slacks, shirt and tie, and for women into just about every manner of dress you can imagine. All the rest of the work environment, the back stabbing, apple polishing, ass kissing, screwing over, lording over, inefficiency, cost over-runs, schedule non-adherence, etc., is all here.

Okay, Let me try to understand what this statement implies: "And, let's face it, if the mothers ruled the war, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place,".

Are we supposed to gather from that statement that Mothers are incapable of killing? Oh, I beg to differ.

According to NRLC.org there have been "Over 40 Million Abortions in U.S. since 1973";

100% of those abortions were committed by a mother and nearly 100% of those abortions resulted in the death of at least one innocent and helpless human being.

"11 mothers are on death row for killing their own children." - About.com

There are "several thousand cases from 1990 to 1999 involving mothers who killed their children" - WomensEnews.org

What about Mothers who go to war?

"More than 155,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among their ranks are more than 16,000 single mothers." - Truthout.org

That should be enough to shatter any illusion.

Why do women fall into the silly trap that they're completely nonviolent and can solve things without fighting? Would the world really be a better place if mothers like Ma Barker and Susan Smith were in charge of it?

1. There would be wars.

2. Only men would be sent to fight them.

I guess women never argue.  Evidently Sally has not seen Reality TV shows such as the Bachelor. 

And let's be clear, Fields wasn't saying it was "women" who are better than men, just "mothers".  So apparently only if you have given birth to a baby are you capable of being compassionate, smart, wise, etc. 

So women who cannot or choose not to have a baby are on the par with us evil, stupid men.

Dutch

I decided to check and see how many nations have women at the helm. I was surprised by how many.

http://en.wikipedia....

And that's only currently; not historically.

The only way this rant is anything other than a narcissistic, misandristic/philogynistic outburst is if every one of them have found solutions to tenuous situations without the need for military or police force. Based on about 5 minutes of reading, I'm thinking that's not true.

On the other side of Kevin McCullough's assessment ...

How responsible are the (proud) mothers of homicide bombers, IED makers, knife sharpening beheaders, and half-assed pilots who fly planes filled with innocent people into buildings filled with innocent people ... mothers included ... for starting, participating in and promoting war, Mrs. Gump??!!!?

On another note, does anyone know if Fields DOES have a son/daughter in the war?

She sort of gave the impression she does.

What part of STUPID is in question here/

McCullough's list from his "Yes, Sally Field, There Really Are Evil Mothers Too" forgot the one massive war totally in the hands of mothers, the killing for convenience, of millions of babies through abortion.  I imagine Sally Fields is an advocate of that war, which costs more than any other we can list.

My son returned from Iraq where he served 11 month as a Navy Corpsman with the 5th Marines. He was on a convoy almost every day. We are so proud of his service and as a mother I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE MISSION. I so resent these loser Hollywoodites speaking for "all Mothers". The first thing I did this morning is email Roche, the drug company she is a spokesman for, and let them know I was changing any drugs they make to drugs from other companies. This is especially for boniva, her "signature" drug. Hit them in the pocket book...I guess it is all they understand.

could there be any more of an idiotic rambling um um um um um um what is the word im looking for, oh yeah stoooopid way to set an example.

thank you sally, you are a perfect example of the non thinking left.

lunaticcringeradio

I agree with the general thesis, but I don't think it's fair to say Thatcher and Meir "led" their countries into war (don't know enough about Ghandhi to make a call) it's more accurate to say they dared to fight back and defend themselves from tyranny and the evil actions of others individuals and nations.

That said, there are certainly women leaders throughout history who started or created wars for no really good reason or at the least more selfish reasons. Cleopatra, Queen Elizabeth 1, Mary Queen of Scots, and Catherine the Great come immediately to mind.

And that's the problem with feminism, non-pacifist woman like Thatcher and Meir are the role models girls and young woman *should* look up to. Tough women who were willing to make a stand against tyranny and oppression, who were willing to fight for freedom. Not cream puffs like Sally Field or the flip side of the coin militant feminist autocrats like Hilary Clinton.  Or women like Paris Hilton who "dare" to defy "convention" by being as boorish and hedonistic as the worst male philanderers.