A Practical Method of Creating a Loving and Caring World

How do we create, in practical terms, a more peaceful, loving and caring world? This is a very difficult question, when throughout recorded history, all religions, political systems and philosophies have completely failed to do this

And there doesn't seem to be nowadays, anything that can bring love and peace to our world. As the result of this, people either give up, or try to update old failed solutions

What is frustrating about all this, is that we know all people are capable of being loving and caring persons. So if that is the case, why do we learn to hate each other? Why do we have wars, genocide, and a very large gap between rich and poor? Some people put the blame completely on man, claiming that man is driven by unreasoning basic animal instincts. So what are these instincts that drive men into conflict, violence, war and inequality?

We can see this clearly in most male animals like bulls, rams and stags, which fight for dominance and access to females. Every spring, these males have a trial of strength, where the strongest get to mate with the largest numbers of females. Evolutionists tell us that this is very important in the survival of the species, as it allows the strongest and fittest males, to pass on their genes to the next generation

Now, although human males do not physically fight each other, to see who can mate with females, they still have very similar competitive instincts. Men greatly enjoy competitive sports, and we can see that in some sports like rugby, gridiron, wrestling and boxing, are also trials of strength.

Now, if men were willing to leave their competitive instincts on the sporting field, there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately when men's competitive instincts are taken into politics, it is a disaster, as they drive governments into conflict, war and genocide. It is made worse by the way men have used their intelligence to invent, more efficient ways to kill people

When male animals compete against each other, they fight with horns, claws and teeth. But unfortunately, men have invented far more destructive weapons, than this, like spears, swords, cannons, rifles, machine guns, bombs, rockets and even nuclear missiles. So when they compete with each other in wars, millions of people have been killed and wounded by these very destructive weapons. The tragedy of this, is that men do have the intelligence to understand that war is total insanity. But it seems that man's basic instincts, override their reason and still drive them to fight and kill each other

It is men's basic competitive instincts that also create unequal societies. In every society ruled by men, we have a small ruling elite who have the majority of wealth and power, while large numbers of the common people live in poverty. In the past, it was even worse, when you had slaves and serfs

Again men have seen the gross unfairness of this, and we have had uprisings like the French and Russian revolutions where the people have overthrown the ruling class. Unfortunately the men who took over, ended up being as bad, if not worse, than the rulers they replaced. This is because if all men are competitive in nature, then it doesn't matter what type of men you get into power, they will always act in the same way.

So that's it. Man is driven by his basic competitive animal instincts and this overrides his reasoning and any sense of caring for others, which means, we will always have wars and poverty. The problem with this conclusion is that it leaves out half of the human race, who are women

Women are generally left out of any theories about, "how to put the world to rights", because for most of our recorded history, they have been shut out off having any political power. The reason for this, is that women are not so competitive as what men are. In the past, the leaders of countries tended to be the most successful warlords. A leader then, had to be a very good general and successful in war, if he wanted to gain and retain power. Because few women fight in wars, they were mostly excluded from power and wealth. This resulted in them only being able to obtain it from a man, either a father, husband or lover. It is true there were a few powerful women in the past like Queen Boudicca and Cleopatra, but they were, "the exceptions prove the rule".

In more recent times, with attempts to create more stable government, it became possible for a leader who wasn't a great general in war, to retain power. As the result we have seen a few more women in positions of power, like Queen Elizabeth, Queen Ann and Catherine the Great. Although all these women still had to fight in wars, to retain their power, and save their country. But now, they used generals to do this for them. Then later on, with the rise of democracy and women getting voting rights, we have seen more women in positions of power. In the 20 century, we have had women leaders like Indra Gandhi, Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, but again, these leaders were still forced to fight wars.

Although in theory, in most countries of the world, women are free to compete for political or economic power, women who do this, find they have to learn to be as competitive as men. This is because; all societies were created by men, for men. So as a general rule, if any man wants either wealth or power, he has to compete against other men for this. The only exception to this rule; is if he was born in a very wealthy and powerful family. So again, this means that although things have improved for women through democracy, most women still lose out, if they cannot learn to be very competitive. It is claimed, that women only have 1% of the world's wealth, even though they are over 50% of the population. This shows how much women lose out, because of their uncompetitive nature.

The reason for this; is that women are driven by a maternal instinct rather than a competitive instinct. After the stags have finished fighting each other and the strongest ones fertilize the females. Then the young grows inside the bodies of the females until she give birth and she has to feed it with milk. She then has look after it, and protect it, until it is capable of looking after itself. What makes these mothers do this; is the maternal instinct.

Without this powerful maternal instinct, most animals would quickly become extinct. This is because, it is how successful mothers are in keeping their young alive, until they can breed themselves, is the most important factor in the survival of any species. This instinct is stronger in human females than most other animals, because the human baby is a very helpless infant, compared with all other animals

In most animals their young can walk, or even run, within hours of being born, but a human baby is totally helpless when it is born, as it cannot even crawl. Also, a human baby takes far longer to mature than most other animals, so a mother is committed to looking after her child for up to 20 years. This means human mothers had to have, a powerful maternal instinct to care for her children, for the human race to survive before we had civilisation

This suggests that if women were ruling the world. Then because of their far stronger maternal instincts, they will be far less interested in fighting wars than men. Also because of this instinct, they would care far more for the people they rule, like those living in poverty. We can see this in the caring professions, like nurses, teachers, social workers and care workers which are dominated by women. So women rulers would want to care and nurture the people. Instead of competing against them for wealth and power, like what male rulers tend to do

This then leads us to a Catch 22. Yes, women would be far more caring rulers of our world, because they are more nurturing and less competitive than men. So we would have less wars and poverty. But, because they are less competitive than men, very few women are likely to get into any position of power, for that reason. So how do we get around this paradox?

It would have been totally impossible for women to rule while our world, while it was ruled by warlords. This was because, in history, we have never seen a successful Amazon army defend itself from invasion. We haven't even had a greatly successful female war leader, in the past. We have to remember that both Queen Boudicca and Cleopatra were finally defeated. Though later on with more stable government female rulers like Queen Elizabeth, Queen Ann and Catherine the Great, were able to continue to rule, even in times of war. As they could use generals to fight their wars for them. Then in more recent times, with the success of democratic governments, it now becomes possible for women to be a major force in world politics.

In the 20th century, it is possible for women to be elected as politicians and even become leaders of countries. The trouble is, that because these women have to learn to be very competitive, to get anywhere in the world of power politics, we hardly ever see the nurturing and caring side of female politicians. For instance, Margaret Thatcher, who was once the British Prime Minister, was accused of behaving more like a man, than a woman. So the deal seems to be, that a women can become a politician or even a leader, providing she learns to act and behave like a man. This is no help whatsoever, because if female politicians have to act like men, then we are unable to have a nurturing and caring government, while women have to compete against men for power.

The only way around this, is for women to create their own political parties. This means that female politicians will not have to compete against very competitive men within their own party. This will allow them to behave like normal maternal and nurturing women. It also means that women can directly attack male dominated politics, pointing out that while men continue to rule our world, we will always have wars, injustice and poverty

As Winston Churchill once said during WW2, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat". This is unfortunately true, of all male dominated governments. If we did have a female political party, it can offer the voters something a lot better than this. If the voters were given the choice of voting for male dominated political parties that always seem to find reasons to go to war, and always seem to protect the interest of the rich. Against a female dominated political party that has far less interest in wars, and have a greater commitment to close the gap between rich and poor. Then we would assume that most people would want to vote for the female party. But if they did get into power, then they have to keep to their promise and show they can rule countries better, than what men can do, because if not, they will be quickly voted out of power again.

Female governments wouldn't be able to fix all the world's problems overnight. They will probably still have to fight wars, against aggressive male dominated countries. While basic problems like poverty will take time to sort out. But they would be driven by their nurturing instincts, to solve these problems, and in time, we will see a huge difference.

The Dalai Lama has spoken out about this, he has said. "Western women can come to the rescue of the world….Some people may call me a feminist....But we need more effort to promote basic human values -- human compassion, human affection. And in that respect, females have more sensitivity for others' pain and suffering.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said similar things. “The world would be a peaceful place if it were ruled by women…Women were by nature more inclined towards compassion, whereas men tend to feel they have to be macho. You are basically life-giving, life-affirming. That is what you are naturally when you are unspoilt… Women can actually make society civil…Actually it is very straightforward: let women take over.” What if Women rule the World?