I don’t bother with trifles such as the Emmys, but apparently Sally Field — being brave and bold before the assemblage of liberals — declared that:

“If mothers ruled the, ruled the world, there would be no [G-word] wars in the first place.”

To which Don Surber comments:

Many of the soldiers fighting in Iraq are moms. How does Miss Field explain that?

She cannot. All moms are not like her anymore than all dads are like me.

In her column this week, Michelle Malkin wrote, “Motherhood and peace-making are not synonymous. Motherhood requires ferocity, the will and resolve to protect one’s own children at all costs, and a life-long commitment to sacrifice for a family’s betterment and survival. Conflict avoidance is incompatible with good mothering.”

Which is quite true. As Mrs. Malkin observed, there are lion moms and sheep moms. Sheep moms require sheepdogs. Lion moms do not.

Women have led some of the bloodiest wars. Joan of Arc and Queen Elizabeth come to mind. Of course, neither was a mother. But Cleopatra, Catherine the Great and Queen Victoria presided over a few wars when they ruled their nations. So Miss Field is inaccurate.

But let us be charitable and attribute the statement to hyperbole. Rather than no wars, perhaps Miss Field meant fewer wars. Again, the evidence shows this is not the case. Queen Elizabeth II and Margaret Thatcher, mothers both, led England to victory in the Falklans.

Golda Meir, a mom, led Israel in the Yom Kippur war.

In nature, as Mrs. Malkin alluded, predators kill not only to eat but to protect their progeny. Female bears and female lions are deadly whenever a human nears their cubs. Males, they could care less. In fact, male lions are the pimps of the animal kingdom, sending out their ho’s to hunt down the zebras.

Among humans, societies usually divvy up the workload with women ruling the house, men ruling outside the house. To conclude that if the roles were reversed that the outcome would be improved relies on a belief that women — excuse me, moms — are superior to everyone else.

That is both chauvinistic and comedic.