ANSWERS: 96
  • I believe there would certainly be less wars.
  • Haha, no. Moms can be violent and utterly stupid, too. Look at Andrea Yates.
  • Have you ever seen a bunch of moms fighting in a PTA meeting, or during one of their kids soccer matches, or over the last "Tickle Me Elmo" at Toys R Us? Moms are human, just like everyone else!
  • Margaret Thatcher, anyone? :) If Mothers ruled the world they would have wars over whose parenting methods were the best. I can't say I agree with the statement at all.
  • I kinda do, yeah.
  • i do see her point...of course moms don't want their kids to go to war...but i think it would be a little more complicated than that. at least until they find a cure for PMS.
  • There would be less, definitely. That is, until a dictatorship took over America, and started forcing EVERY son into military service, or be assassinated, as happens now in so many countries. Then, after years of oppression and slavery, the Moms would, definitely, raise up in unison, and overthrow said government, probably more brutally than said government took power in the first place. You just don't come between a Mom and her babies!
  • The statement didn't convey that moms are kinder and gentler. It meant that no mother would have the heart to send her son or daughter off to war. Therefore, if mothers ruled they would never sanction war for fear of losing their children.
  • I don't know if it is true or not. But I have seem women with PMS and I just find it hard to believe there wouldn't be just as many if not more wars.
  • I think should was over exaggerating it a bit but I do see her point.
  • I disagree, and think Sally Field went off the deep end, especially with that staged rant at the Emmy's. These fools don't realize they loose credibility when they drop off the deep end with out of place rants.
  • I do understand her point...
  • One of the most ignorant statements evwe made.
  • I have seen a few pissed off mothers who could start a war. Do you know a mother who would not kill to protect their children?
  • Aree somewhat.
  • Possibly...but at least once a month there would be an international incident. Margaret Thatcher is a mother and she was a tough lady.
  • A small band of bad mothers would rize up with thier razed children, but they are infinitly out numbered, so yes.
  • disagree You've never seen a women with PMS? The name Iron maiden comes to mind,and Janet Reno,Congo lisa rice
  • It would be dependant upon the individual competence of the mother in question. One would think that an intelligent and loving mother raised sons adequately, with the correct administering of love and support, the menfolk should be equally if not more effective at governance than the mother who nurtured them. Mothers are creators, teachers, pastoral guides. They are judged upon their creation. Some offspring have the advantage of excellent parenting whilst others less fortunate thrive despite them. Life is a game of cards.
  • go to a frigg'n soccer game -scary to think these people have kids in the house
  • I tend to agree. I think it would be less likely to have wars because I think most women (in general) are slower to place in harm's way the lives they carried, birthed and cared for -- their emotional connection coupled with their instinct to keep their offspring alive and safe is intense.
  • sure, and women never get angry. or have relgious or political views.
  • I disagree. Mom's tend to be VERY competative when it comes to their children. There might not be all-out war, but there would DEFINITELY be a LOT of fighting.
  • Perhaps -- then the generals would just nag each other to death...
  • Sure I agree 3 out of 4 weeks a month they'd be peaceful as can be. That is, until some other mom's kid made fun of her precious Billy at school. Then we'd show their family what a nuke is!
  • Parenting does not affect the propensity of the individual to war. There are plenty of trigger-happy soldiers out there who also happen to be parents.
  • Oh no! There would be war! Just a different kind of war! (Think desperate housewives on a global scale!)
  • Come on! Have you ever been to a kid's soccer game, or Xmas shopping at the mall? Just being moms doesn't preclude people from being violent, self-righteous, ignorant, or compassionate toward other humans. Perhaps Sally meant that no mother would want to see her own child have to fight/die in a war. But moms would still fight each other.
  • Stupid, idiotic statement from another delusional hollywood star. Margaret Thatcher certainly didn't hesitate going to war. In fact, in European history, there have been a number of female rulers that could easily qualify as warmongers. I hate it when wacko hollywood elitists spout such nonsensical drivel based on their own outdated fantasies (which they think are feminist but really are quite sexist).
  • 1. In the history of the world there were and still are many mothers that send their sons to fight for their country, an ideal, or money, with good knowledge of what they are doing. 2. This whole assumption rests on some romantic view of motherhood. Nazis women and women in the German SS were plenty of times mothers. It didn't appear to make them any gentler than their male counterparts. So I disagree and think it is a silly thing to say.
  • I heard that if there were only Jehovah's Witnesses, there would be no war.
  • I do agree with th answers below, in the from the angle they are presented... Tho what about the 'keeping up with the joneses, disagreements about childcare. Not to mention, single mothers, seeking revenge on lowlife ex bf's n husband. The general keeness of women to gossip, and 'oo er' other women, cld also easily spark war!
  • Uh, you know, some moms drown their kids. So, yeah, I think there would still be some nasty stuff going on.
  • I don't think Laura Bush would have invaded Iraq..mothers' primary directive is to protect their children..you cannot manufacture reasons to go to war that kills our children if you are a mom..those who were responsible, that made the decision to invade, have no children they were willing to put up as "collateral". They made their decisions based on whatever incestuous reasons they could devise..none of them had anything to do with protecting our children. :) Just the opinion of a mom. :)
  • You know, there are a lot of answers that say that this is stupid, ridiculous question. It is because it's suppose to be a joke! The Reverend Soleil is the only one that came up with the punch line. I don't know if Sally Fields said it or not, but the way I heard it was .... "If all the world's leaders were women, there would be no wars. They could just nag each other to death."
  • Yes of course there would, Mothers can be very protective and would fight for their kids, at the same time the ones who aren't protective of their kids would allow them to do whatever, and they would all be fighting just as much as the system now... Also does it mean all mothers collectively or one mother per country??
  • Sally Field is just another bygone celebrity trying to stay in the news in her waning hours. Lets not forget she is Forrest Gumps Mother.
  • NO!! where do children first learn violence from, being spanked by mom.
  • No not all moms are kind
  • Not all Moms are good moms. I agree based on my own semantic definition of the word Mom. Since I have a good relationship with my Mom, that seems like a lovely sentiment. But not all people have had good relationships with their mom, so that generalized statement, I don't necessarily agree with...... (strong coffee causes run on sentences...lol)
  • Disagree my mum would be at war with everyone who did'nt do what she told them to lol.
  • I disagree. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq.
  • Katherine The Great and Queen Victoria had no problems with war.
  • If you ask this question 1000 years before I might be able to give you th best answer but as a woman I never had a woman as a rolemodel that wasn't trully selfless.Only Mother Theresa of course.
  • I agree with Sally Field, there is not a single mom who would send their sons and daughters to war and get them back in a casket. Reason why they would do what ever was necessary to avoid wars and useless deaths.
  • That's utter nonsense. Not all people are the same. Though there are good moms out there, there are also bad moms; it's as simple as there are good people and bad people. Not everyone is devoted to peace and never will that happen. Call me a pessimist if you like, but I live in reality.
  • Well if that keen intellect Sally said it it must be true.
  • Try telling that to Boudica.
  • Disagree. Moms play a tremendous role, true. But it is the mans' mind instilled unto our children that gives them the other aspects of war and peace that a woman just cannot fulfill.
  • Disagree. Most Mom's I've met aren't as stupid and/or naive as Sally Field. Any intelligent mother understands that protecting their young could, at some point, require killing an enemy.
  • Women have been forced by society to distrust each other for centuries. And what's wrong with single women?
  • Disagree. My grandmother would wage war against everyone and everything.
  • I agree, us Mums are too busy for war.
  • Margaret Thatcher Chamira Kumaratunga Wanda Wasilewska etc etc
  • I disagree! Look at that Clinton woman, here is a world threat of its own! Threat to world stability and safety!
  • Clearly, Sally Field has never dined with my family, nor has she visited any normal household at bath-time.... War is in the eyes (and ears) of the beholders.
  • AGREE? After seeing how nasty women can be in a fight? NOT LIKELY!
  • no...if my mom or sisters ruled the world ...weve all had it
  • Anything said by the flying nut should be taken with a grain of salt and a box of chocolates.
  • I agree. As much as I love my country I love my child more. Would you rather have a living son or a dead hero? A mother has spent her whole life protecting that child, of course she doesn't want to see someone else send him off to possibly die. I just watched a Marine boot camp graduation and those new soldiers looked so young, it was hard to think of what they are likely to face. Right or wrong we should SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!
  • Totally disagree have you ever seen women fight? We'd have the war of make up and such.
  • LOL! I think that there would be some Mother VS. Child (aka teenagers) battles!
  • I'm sorry but that statement is ridiculous of course there would still be wars if anything there would be more.PMT! and stubbornous.No offence to women but its true.
  • Awesome Q. I think that there might be wars still if the children were competing for recognition. Cheerleaders anyone?
  • Not if it was MY mom!
  • Since they wouldn't be fighting in them, YES, and there would be more of them and they would be worse. . At least old men worried about going to war when they were young. Women? . I can also believe that Sally Field said it. I can believe all of Hollywood agreed. . "Who wants to hear an actor talk?" - H M Warner founder of Warner Brothers. .
  • I agree because women are better diplomats than men, and wars start when diplomacy fails (or is abandoned). All the traits to avoid war--compromise, patience, trust, willingness to talk--are more commonly found among women than men.
  • Women are "gifted" by a noticeable increase in spiritual depth to man. I often think back to a sociology professor of mine that was doubling as an instructor in gender based studies. He used what appeared to be a ridiculous illustration for our class at first, but not so ridiculous after one thought about man through out history. Actually, I believe it was quite thought provoking by any means. Loosely stated his narrative went something like this..."An ocean liner had foundered at sea. Ten men had survived by escaping into the water off the starboard side of the ship. They swam to what appeared a tiny speck on the western horizon, an uninhabited island far off in the distance, all made the island. Ten women survived also, by escaping into the water off the port side of the ship swimming to a tiny spot on the eastern horizon, an uninhabited island far off in the distance, all made the island." "Five years later the hapless women were found, all ten alive. They had survived by building primitive huts for shelter & eating what amounts of food they could scavenge. The pathetic establishment was landscaped with beach gravel walkways & various plants/flowers. A message written on a hut wall said...God take care of us. Not a hut was square in design & all roofs leaked from rain". "Finding the other island the men had swam to, the rescuers were shocked to find all ten men dead. The more the shocking this was as these men must have been talented in construction & engineering. The men had built a fair sized castle complete with fifteen foot tall stone walls, a massive wooden gate & had excavated a large moat all around the structure". "The castle was stout, square & absolutely weather proof. A Large plot of land used as a garden for growing food was found. Primitive but effective tools were found that had been fabricated by them. Most amazing of all was that all ten men were found dead in side of the closed gate. There was even a primitive ladder resting against the wall by the gate, as if someone tried to scale the stone wall surrounding the castle". "Their skeletons showed signs of bone damage & all skeletons were in close proximity to one another. Around the skeletons were primitive knives, spears & swords. The puzzled rescuers were stupified, why would they kill one another? Just then one rescuer inside the walled compound hollered out, I found something! All rushed into the compound to the rescuer that had told them he had found something". "There on the ground was a grayed long piece of driftwood. When they all stared down at the piece of driftwood they saw a message carved into the wood. The message said... I am your God. You will worship Me & Me alone & bow to my chosen four"! Given mans record of rule, I must ask, how could woman rule worse???
  • Disagree. Hillary Clinton is a Mom and she voted for the war.
  • not with my mom
  • Disagree, I have seen women more violent than violent men. Even if that was true, you can only take so many terrorist attacks before you have to retaliate. You can't negotiate with people that want to die.
  • It's silly, sexist, and simply not true. . How many moms in have sent their sons off to war hoping they would defend the hearth? Just look at Chechen suicide bombers, they ARE moms. . And how many moms are proud of their sons who fought and died for whatever their "right" cause.
  • There would be more war especially if their child was wounded
  • Please, women are just as hostile and bitchy as men. We'd have jsut as much war... though our military might have nicer looking uniforms...
  • This is assuming women are special entities and completely separate and different from men. Psychologically men and women have differences but I don't think they're significant enough to overcome politics as usual.
  • Based on the few examples in history like Amazons and a handful of Asian cultures...nothing is 100% but in general, there would be less war. Moms (and just plain old females) would exhaust every option before putting their offspring in harm's way. Esp for ideology-based war, she would be happy with a compromise. She is less- likely to "need" to wipe out the enemy.
  • No, I don't think so. There would be Cheerleader Wars for real. Lots of casualties.
  • disagree some women want their sons to fight. i don't know if it's more or less, but moms to some extent rule the basic unit of society - family. and uh...there's plenty of war to be found as it is.
  • disagree
  • Which moms? Indira Ghandhi, Golda Meier, Maggie Thatcher, Bandarineike of Ceylon? Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Cleopatra? Not exactly a list of pacifists.
  • How would a woman or a man being president determine the fate of war? Could a woman handle it better... in my opinion no.
  • there would definately still be war. i dont think there will ever be a day when there isnt killing. as much as some of us hate it. its true.
  • Consider the following scenario: Your dog just bit little Timmy from nextdoor. Who would you rather talk to about it: - Timmy's father? - or his MOTHER! I trust I don't need to elaborate. And btw, Mom's already do rule the world. They always have.
  • That's such a stupid comment ,of course if you could choose the leaders of all the countries in the world it wouldn't matter if you were a woman or a man so where is the point in something like that being said,just another Actor who thinks they are smarter than the rest of us.
  • There would be fewer wars most likely. But if there were, they would be brutal. And over quickly.
  • Horse shit, but in a way she'd be right. Most guys let a war stop after the point is made. women would keep attacking long after the point is made and the body counts stack up.
  • Please ... women with power are scarier than men. And what makes you think women in those positions would even have kids?
  • She meant to say that there would be no peace ever.
  • lol..i think , or hope she was joking, cause i have always liked her...but that is quite a foolish thing..she must not have to many mother influences to compare to!!!the world is too full of the more"jezebellike,fabulous moms" than the " Hannahlike,Marylike moms...."too many women would kill for their daughters to be cheerleaders ,etc....and sons too for that fact..too full of greed and jealousy...good,unselfish ,loving parents are not of Sally Feilds upbringing era anymore... I definitely disagree...very shallow comment..justme:)"if good mom's rule" might of helped her a little...we got smothering, castrating,dominate women today!!!!!
  • you should find a better source for your social principles. wars made sally field free to say something that stupid.
  • I disagree, i think that moms would still wage war, but they would try to force moms that had "less desirable sons" into fighting. I also think that if moms ruled the wars would be more petty, i could imagine a war because a guy got a moms daughter pregnant and dumped her.
  • Yes i would ofcourse.
  • Moms in Power First order of business... Burn the Generals...good idea
  • disagree. there have been moms in control of nations that have been every bit as warlike as dads.
  • Marget Thatcher was a mother and she gave the order to take back the Falkland Islands in 1982.
  • I AGREE, LIKE MEXICO. WHEN WOMEN WERE IN CONTROL ALL WAS PEACEFUL, BUT A MAN TOOK OVER THE PRESIDENCY, NOW AMERICA'S BEEN UNDER ATTACK BY MEXICO AND OBAMA GIVES HIM A BILLION OF OUR MONEY TO SPREAD A DISEASE IN AMERICA AND OTHER COUNTRIES. IF THE WOMEN WERE IN CONTROL, THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy