what are our options?
There are lots of conversations about how to deal with the growth of Islamism and ISIL, especially in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. People seem to be polarised around the two options – to bomb or not to bomb.
I’m firmly in the DO NOT BOMB camp. I’m horrified by the number of vengeful and counterproductive military interventions led by western powers in recent years. I see cycles of violence that are ever tightly wound being fuelled by the actions of men in power wanting to demonstrate what ‘strong’ men in power do when they are threatened. Yes, I see this as a male problem, the result of too much power being in the hands of too many men.
But it’s easy to sit in my comfy chair advocating pacifism from an unaffected area. Undoubtedly if I were on the ground seeing everything around me being violently destroyed, I’d be screaming for help, any help, wanting someone to come in and save us.
Certainly there’s no painless option, there’s too much mess as it is. But are there options people are refusing to consider, options that require stepping outside of our normal responses? There may no obvious roadmaps to success, but is that because we as humans only ever do the same things in response to aggression? We try to talk, decide it’s futile, and get violent.
Let’s throw it open to any suggestions, seriously, any suggestions. Let’s never limit ourselves to think ‘war’ or ‘nothing’ are the only two options.
- All the world leaders come out and admit there are no gods (they know it), that fighting for religion is entirely futile. Copies of influential atheist books and documentaries are made available and distributed in millions, along with biographies about forgiveness, non-violence and change – Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Gandhi
- Millions of ipads with completely addictive games handed out freely in all war zones, along with lots of food. When your tummy is full and you’re in the middle of a game, killing people doesn’t seem so important.
- Start a movement for Women in Power – an experiment to see what happens when men aren’t making all the decisions. Get everyone to sign up for a 10 year experiment of all female leaders, followed by return to choice between women and men. What could we possibly have to lose?
The UK has just pledged £2 billion in additional security measures that might just as well be flushed down the toilet for all the difference it’s likely to make. Let’s redirect it somewhere innovative. Let’s strike out into the unknown and give peace a better chance than it’ll ever have by following the well-trodden paths of completely unsuccessful military interventions around the world.
The denouncing god thing is definitely on top of the list.
Women in Power. Er … the Falklands War?
LikeLike
Boudica
LikeLike
Mao’s wife?
LikeLike
That’s the one, I’m sure
LikeLike
No. I know who Boudica was. The question mark was in reference as to whether Mao’s wife was considered as guilty as him.
Yes she was. I looked her up just now. Jiang Qing.
She was part of the Gang of Four.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah
LikeLike
And of course the Falklands War was Margaret Thatcher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure you can think bigger than two isolated incidents of women in power. I’m talking about a huge culture change. If equality doesn’t appeal to you, t’s worth pursuing just even from a curiosity point of view. What are you men so afraid of?
LikeLike
Oh, I have nothing against women in power. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, my wife.
I was just pointing out that women have the penchant for a bit of a dust -up if they feel like it.
Not afraid of anything, I assure you.
LikeLike
I like the first one. We should petition Israeli archaeologists to come out, once and for all, and announce it in the most public manner possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliant idea. You have a ”hotline” to many of them at the Tel Aviv uni, how open to such a suggestion do you think they would be now?
LikeLike
Maybe moreso now than when i last asked around.
LikeLike
Maybe Colorstorm and X-Pretorious would help too?
(He says almost gagging)
LikeLike
Two truly hopeless human beings
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like the first suggestion.
I have another less expensive and requires no reading. Just get them all busy having sex. They will have no time to fight
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not just sex. They need to fall in love and feel invested in living.
LikeLike
That takes time but as a starting point, they should behave as our bonobo relatives. Sex before food, sex after food, sex to make up and so on. They will eventually grow to love life
LikeLike
You’re thinking of this from the male point of view. Sure, they’ll have sex if it’s offered. But who is going to want to have sex with them?
LikeLike
You have made a wrong assumption. All of them need to learn to love life. As long as both women and men believe there is life elsewhere, that is better than this, we have a problem.
And I believe both of them are likely to have a backward idea of sex if it is a cultural problem
LikeLike
Aren’t they already doing that with the sex slaves?
LikeLike
I doubt it. I propose a situation not of sex slavery, but of mutual desires. Sex slaves is a way to humiliate and subjugate another
LikeLike
I agree, but their needs in the immediate now are being fulfilled by the slaves.
LikeLike
You could be right. How do we make a person who thinks this life is temporary have more regard for it? This is the question and while giving them books would be cool, how do you get them to read and adopt those ideas?
LikeLike
I nominate Ark to travel to Syria and explain to atheism to ISIS.
LikeLike
One of your better suggestions. Thank you.
LikeLike
I like the new avatar, dp. Self portrait?
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Beyond my general disdain for all religion, I don’t have see a particular problem in “the spread of islam.” I’d like to see humanity in general distance itself from all varieties of superstition. As for ISIS, they’ll have to be fought in some circumstances–too many men with agendas, too many weak-minded and uneducated who have drank the koolaid. The long term success in eliminating these violent extremists will come from removing the disenfranchisement which drives people to cruelty and working hard with good works and moral behavior. In short, we need to walk the walk, as the saying goes, particularly in America.
LikeLike
Well, it seems we have backed ourselves into a corner. The long history leading to terrorism can hardly be erased by all people suddenly becoming atheists by their own volition, or by choosing only women as political leaders. We had a very ample lady as the Finnish president for full two terms and I bet if she got as much power as the US president she migh have made a change in the direction the world has taken since the start of the millenia. Yet, I do not see how the world would be any better if Sarah Palin had been chosen as the president of the USA.
The idea of distraction in the form of games is appealing. It seems much of political unrest in the west has been nulled by TV, sports and games in the west, but in reality I think the political unrest is not the expression of the fallen nature of man, rather the injustice and social uncertainty as experienced by the poor people.
Trouble is, as I see it, that the world economy today is built to facilitate the unhealthy needs of very few individuals who do not feel content unless the zero digits in their bank accounts keep growing every year. Of course competition may be a good motivator for people to do a lot of good stuff as well, but I do not see how it could create a good world for us all to live in, if we are to compete each other to death. It can not be right, that some people benefit billions of the deaths of others.
I am a socialist, so I think that all the big corporate industry and natural resources in the world should be moved to be directed by the democratic bodies of their respective governments. All political parties should have equal funding to promote their cause from taxes and no outside money could be used to sway the public opinion. Why, that is something we have never even tried anywhere. Have we? Then we could slowly remove taxes alltogether and goverment funding should come from the industry owned by the nation. This of course also requires that all education should be awailable to all citizens regardless of the wealth of their families. etc.
Maybe the UN should be reorganized so, that any member could only use it’s military if a nother member used it’s military first and all the member states would be required to attack with all force any member whom ever used theirs first…
LikeLike
Great points Raut. I don’t think there are any real answers, but humans aren’t so likely to be violent when they’re well fed, have a comfortable place to call home, and have their time occupied with work and/or play. The amount of money the west is ploughing into security and weapons could be more usefully spent elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Barry from Another Spectrum reblogged this excellent post with suggestions more grounded in reality, but just as likely to be ignored as the ipad suggestion …
LikeLike
“Yes, I see this as a male problem, the result of too much power being in the hands of too many men.”
In the U.S., it’s a political problem that transcends gender boundaries. Plenty of women here are calling for the heads of Muslims (because they don’t see a difference between terrorists and a religion). No identification with masculinity is required to demand this.
LikeLike
No, of course not. My point is that women are generally less violent than men, we generally have less testosterone influencing decisions we make. It would be interesting to see on a global scale what difference having women in power could make. I can’t see everyone agreeing to it though …
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My point is that women are generally less violent than men, we generally have less testosterone influencing decisions we make.”
What facts are you using to come to that conclusion? And are you actually suggesting that modern representative democracies are that bound by a common human hormone?
LikeLike
Men overwhelmingly are in the positions of power and have been forever in almost all societies. Men have significantly higher levels of testosterone than women. Testosterone affects decision making. Is any of that not obvious fact?
Here’s a quote and link to something related, from a business angle:
“Hormones can play a role in decision-making, particularly testosterone, which when present in high levels can lead to more utilitarian decisions being made. In a study where participants were made to answer philosophical questions involving morality, high-testosterone individuals were consistently more willing to endorse a difficult decision, if there was some ‘greater good’ involved. On the other hand, this made them more likely to violate a moral norm in doing so. ”
https://www.ideasforleaders.com/ideas/matching-decisions-to-decision-makers-via-our-testosterone-levels
LikeLike
My point here, VW, is that I don’t think you’re going to see much difference in policy based on hormonal differences. There are a lot of other factors at play in political decision-making.
One good example (link here) is how women politicians are leading the charge against abortions in the U.S. Here you have women who are trying to diminish the rights of other women for political gain.
So, what I’m saying here is that there are other factors in the political process that can override the decision making process.
LikeLike
Your point is well-made, SB. There are most definitely women politicians who are taking front and center on the abortion issue. BUT … as they are all Republicans, I would daresay that, for them, it is more of a religious issue than a political one. Although political gain most definitely plays a role because, after all, isn’t that what the entire congress bases its decisions on?
Personally, I would like to think a woman leader would make a difference, but in the world of politics, I’m just not sure it would happen (at least in the U.S.). She might try to bring more of her natural tendencies into play, but she would be fighting an uphill battle. There are simply too many males who believe they are the superior gender. (No offense intended.)
LikeLike
There’s no offense taken. I suppose if my position were summed up in a nutshell, it would be that I’m skeptical that VW’s experiment would yield statistically significant results.
Fortunately, there are more women in positions of power, so at least there are the beginnings of an opportunity to actually evaluate this. The next step would be to find nations that have majorities of people in government who are women.
LikeLike
90% of world leaders are men. There’s not been much change …
LikeLike
I see what you’re getting at. But that’s not really relevant. I’m not suggesting women will across the board share my political opinions, but that when it comes to making decisions about violent action, as a group with less testosterone are more likely to look for different forms of action. I think it’s worth a try. It’s not equality, but a worthwhile experiment to see what happens when the tables are turned. I would never advocate it as a permanent state – obviously people should be in roles solely based on merit, but in the absence of that happening in the next 1000 years …
LikeLike
No, VW, I actually do know what you’re suggesting. And I’m not saying that about women sharing political opinions with you. What I am saying is that those GOP women are following their party line in lieu of other factors which should bear on their decision. In other words, I’m suggesting that testosterone levels aren’t as controlling on decisions when other factors like conforming to group pressure are at play.
Even the study you linked to indicated that it did not test for other hormone levels or how other factors influenced decision making.
LikeLike
You seem to have an irritated objection that’s getting your hackles up about this, I’m not sure what. Can you show me something that suggests women are not less likely to make aggressive decisions than men, or that testosterone is irrelevant?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120131210259.htm
I’m not suggesting that it’s a foregone conclusion that women make better decisions, and I’m not suggesting it’s anything more than speculation – because there’s never been an experiment like it as far as I’m aware. But the information available does lead me to believe that men take more aggressive, confrontational and violent actions than women. It would be great to see what happened if we changed the current power balance. Of course it would be great if it was even just 50/50, but maybe if we start a campaign for 100% a point will be made. 😉
LikeLike
No, VW, it’s not an irritated objection. I’m pointing out an objection based on logic. You’re being condescending. I’m even conceding that testosterone is a factor in decision making.
What I am saying is that something that is a factor is not a necessary element to human decision making. In other words, people can make violent decisions for other reasons than just testosterone. Consider the Milgram experiment, which has been re-tested (in more ethical ways), and it shows that people will respond to authority over their own morality. You have communal reinforcement, which seems to be the phenomenon which governs terrorist thinking.
So, my problem with the experiment that you propose is that you’re not isolating for testosterone. In order for your experiment to work, you’d need to make sure that the people involved had less testosterone than a certain amount, and you could even have men who would qualify for your hypothesis.
LikeLike
“So, my problem with the experiment that you propose is that you’re not isolating for testosterone. In order for your experiment to work, you’d need to make sure that the people involved had less testosterone than a certain amount, and you could even have men who would qualify for your hypothesis.”
Indeed, but the range of differences that women could bring would be worth exploring.
The Milgram experiment is irrelevant because I’m talking about women leading, not how they respond to authority. Communal reinforcement works equally with men and women as far as I know, so I can’t see how that’s a factor to consider.
Small but consistent differences in a 90/10 distribution in leader roles would definitely make a difference. Thanks! You’ve shifted me from wondering if it would work, to being fairly certain it’ll work. 🙂
LikeLike
You’ve missed my point again. I’ll drop it.
LikeLike
I don’t think I did, I think we just disagree.
LikeLike