FUCK FACEBOOK (because I know you all want to)

FUCK FACEBOOK

Have you ever been in the mood to say eff you to the world on Facebook? I’m not saying “eff” you to anyone. Just because I hate the world right now doesn’t mean that I am definitively saying “eff” your I am just inquiring as to your interest in saying fuck you to the world while on the internet and engaging in artificial communication on the phenomenon called Facebook.

I’m not passively saying eff you to the world I am just impassively saying that I may or may not aggressively distain everyone I know on Facebook. Not because I particularly hate anyone I know but that I impaticularly (this is a made up word) may or mat not be repulsed by everyone that is currently living and a few individuals that are not living. This is not to say that I am saying Fuck the world or anything I am just reverting to a confusing way of expressing my loathing for the living organisms that utilize Facebook to engage in artificial interaction whist using the a CPU or other electronic device that is also utilized to pretend to experience an emotional connection.

I could postulate that I infact do not actually distain or loathe the actual persons behind the profile on Facebook but that artifices that represent the actual persons or the persona of individuals on Facebook are socially dissatisfactory to my emotional and social needs. This is not meant in anyway to offend the persons on Facebook but to unemotionally express my sentiments and dissatisfaction on the subject of the FUCKING FAKE PHENOMON CALLED FACEBOOK!!! !

The Dynamic Illusion and Veracity of Death

When discussing my sister's death my friend often reminds me of the law of conservation of energy which states, "energy cannot be created nor destroyed." The thoughts that we have in our minds are an actual beam or electrical current of energy. Science learned long ago that sound travels into outer space indefinitely and that if you go deep enough into space you could listen to the dinosaurs. Can't the thoughts that we have also have real physical tangibility, because they are an actual form of energy? Can't the individual thoughts accumulate to be perceived as the whole of our consciousness? If our consciousness is the accumulation of all our thoughts then that energy in theory cannot be destroyed. What I'm proposing is that our consciousness will continue to exist throughout the eternities just as the words we speak do. I see our thoughts as little waves of light that compile to make our "soul." Perhaps the notion of a soul is just a mythological or magical way of perceiving the scientific truth of what our consciousness truly is..... eternal, indefinite, infinite, alive. In this way you can see how death is so real and yet if energy cannot be created nor destroyed then the energy of our thoughts, our soul, our consciousness was also not created or destroyed. Through this you can see the illusion of death. Along with this post on death I wanted to share a poem that I wrote about my experiences with my dear sister's death.

POST GRACIA

Here alone I sit,

Yet this isolation is just a fit of regret.

Here alone I fear,

            But my fear affords only an occasional tear.

Here alone I want,

            But we both know that escape is just a taunt.

Here alone I cry,

            Because you have and tortuously can’t ever die.

Here alone I ache,

            And my love for you can now only ever take.

Here alone I feel,

            Your presence, your occupation so real.

Here alone I see,

            My pain is all that you can ever be.

Here alone with me,

            I can’t say goodbye, I can’t let you flee.

Here alone I die,

            Every breath is one breath closer, and yet you fie.

Here alone I be,

            You and me. 

Cavemen In A Modern World

Modern life, with its electronic era, every thing is electric, from our speech cell phones, to our letters, email, to our transportation, cars, to our hospitals and modern medicine being so dependent on electricity that its non existent without it. Even our sex is electric, its so rare that our sexual experiences are two people with only their flesh participating, usually it’s a man masturbating to a video, or the TV or stereo is on, or we employ some electric device to aid us in our sexual endeavors. Our food and our water exist because of electricity. None thing in our lives is void of this electronic existence.  Its salient nature so contrasting from the life of the people we received our genetic traits.

Some people seem to lack understanding about the fact that our genetic code comes from an entirely different world, and not to say a different planet but a different environment, physically and socially. What this means is that our species was designed for an entirely different life than the one we live.

If you take a tropical animal from its home it will certainly die. Dogs are more adapted for modern life as a result of genetic mutation, selection and breeding. Humans haven’t been breed and this results in an ancient man in a modern world. Completely unaware of his and her needs, completely incapable of identifying as to why something is wrong, only that it feels wrong. If you took a baby parrot and raised it in a human household you learn overtime that this animal is meant to fly and be free and socialize with other animals, this animal was deigned to migrate and have a sense of its whereabouts on the planet. These natural instincts are apart of the core of this animal’s physiological well-being. Modern humanity is so much the same. We have not genetically mutated to fit our modern environment. Humanity is the caged animal and the greatest travesty is that we have shackled ourselves. Often in our society people refer to apocalyptic events, world wars, global epidemics, aliens arriving to earth, saviors, second comings, devils and all sorts of human drama that the creative mind can perceive.

 I believe this is an aberration of the collective subconscious of the people of this planet. The subconscious minds of the people are screaming out that something is wrong, very wrong. Like the caged parrot, we don’t quite know what’s wrong but we feel that something is wrong. Our imaginative minds conceive all sorts of creative stories to place the blame on. In the end the only way we would know what is really wrong would be to take a modern man and place him in the social and physical environment that our ancestors lived in. Only then would he stop and look and perceive that he is living the life he was designed to live. At this point you may be wondering if I am attempting to eradicate modern life and live as our ancestors lived. Quite the contrary, I propose that through neurology, sociopsychobiology, psychology, sociology and all the other humanities we discover the truth to our ancient or old genetic code. Because our minds have a certain set of predispositions and needs that can only be fulfilled through our social interactions. I propose that we seek out and learn to identify the missing components in our modern society.  Because we are missing so much in our day-to-day lives that we are being robbed of social actives that result in psychological triggers, which induce endorphins such as oxytocin, and dopamine. Meaning that our lives are not making us happy because they just can’t. We don’t know why is the travesty, we don’t understand why our brother is a drug addict, sister a sex addict, mother is a thief, father is a recluse, why so many millions upon billions of people are depressed and suffer from psychological disorders of every imaginable condition. The answer is that they are not receiving these, “magical social conditions” that make us happy people. Instead of seeing that the root of the problem lies within ourselves we search outside our selves for comfort and relief. The outlets that people find are insatiable and unending in their demand for a person’s time money and emotional energy. The obviously unhealthy outlets of the modern world are the addictions, others include obsession with work, church, school, excessive behaviors plague almost every person on this planet and every plagued person is an unhappy person. We live unhappy lives and breed unhappy lives all the while searching for some savior when we are the only ones who can save ourselves. A society that fosters love in every facet and experience from birth to death is the society that will have happy participants. This is the society that will have made an ancient society for a modern man. 

Nature vs. Nature and the Masculine and Feminine Ego's

Nurture vs. Nature is one of the largest arguments of all time and the argument has had many faces. Science will soon be and is eliminating this argument entirely. What we’re learning is that the argument is morphing from nurture vs. nature to nature and nature in as dependent and mutually exclusive events in a person’s life. I am both a minimalist and a maximalist. I am both an essentialists and a constructionist.

What we are learning about our species on a scientific level is that our brains are genetically far more complex and varied than the obvious physical appearance of genetics. Our unique brains that distinguishes our species in such a contrasting way form all the other species on this planet, is the catalyst of what will become our most complex form of scientific research into our species. Our brains are what caused us to walk upright, to make tool, to hunt, to survive. The most powerful research and new science into sociobiology, neurology is showing that of our minds vast array of differences is that the obvious prime directive is to survive and survival is impossible without a society to survive in. When our  species experienced our last wave of genetic mutation we were highly socially dependent individuals. Our offspring is the most dependent of any species, we require loving affectionate mothers, and supportive societies to raise our young. This shows conclusively that we are a social species and this is the turning point in the research of nurture vs. nature argument.

This means that above all our brains are genetically designed to adapt to many, if not all, social environments to survive. What is also true is that with our vast array of social adapatablility that we genetically inherited we also inherited a set of predispositions that can be, “triggered” from the environment. This is the environment and biological component but it gives more power to the socialization aspect of things. This means that a child raised in the most fortioius of envidorments will have all the correct genes triggered while a child in the most corrosive environment will have all the socially negative predispositions triggered. The child raised in the negative environment will be told it was his genes that caused the animal, that he was defective from birth and that he is doomed to a life of social anomaly, and deviance. This is simply untrue because what sociobiology is displaying is that the environment was the catalyst for triggering a genetically socially deviant personality.

What this all means for the masculine personality versus the feminine personality is that our minds were designed to adapt the social constructs that were presented from birth. However, the question still lies that how many genetic predispositions exist amongst men and women. What I believe is that the genetic predispositions are far greater from individual to individual rather than from men and women. Some women will have very contrasting predispositions from other women and those inclinations will far more resemble other men than women and vise a versa. I think the greatest biological difference that will effect psyche is that of hormonal variability for men and women, such as higher testosterone levels in men and higher estrogen levels in women. Other than that it is not a black and white picture, each individual was born with their own unique genetic coding for their brain that is more varied that a fingerprint.

                  What I consider to be a feminist is different that the widely held social fantasy of the notion. Feminist is defined to be a person that supports the equal rights and equal treatment of women. Society has a very different view on the subject viewing a feminist to be fanatical, wanting the oppression of men and the supremacy of women, that women want to rule the world and subject men and often times a feminist is viewed as a lesbian. This is simply not true and has a very socially corrosive effect for the women’s movement.

In conclusion I would like to bring to light an idea for society. What if women and men were allowed to be individuals and to explore the full potential of their unique genetic predispositions, to pursue their individuality without repercussion, to purse the measure of their happiness without inhibition or prohibition on every level from the social to the constitutional? What if society allowed people to be who they were inclined to be and fostered a nurturing environment for individual expression, what then would the world look like?

UnConflict Theory

As I read about Marx I realize that he had many genius ideas and with Engels the two were a philosophical force to be reckoned with. Like many sociologists he wasn’t quite on target with his predictions. Although I agree that some form of communism or socialism will eventually replace capitalism he failed to see the extent that capitalism would come to dominate this planet and become so corrosive in its environmental and social devastation. Another one of his philosophies that I think is incorrect is that of conflict theory. In ancient times the only way for social change was through bloody violent and irreprehensible violence that at times completely annihilated groups of people. I am a strong antagonist of conflict theory, rather I am a believer in peaceful movements and I believe that the only type of social change that is permanent is that of peaceful origins, women’s right, civil rights and such weren’t accomplished through blood shed and shouldn’t be. Gandhi freed India through peaceful means, Martin Luther King made massive progression through peaceful means and the women’s rights movement wasn’t done though masses of women disavowing themselves from their husbands who where vehicles of oppression and going on masculine killing sprees, rather peaceful demonstrations were the means by which women were allowed to vote and progress their rights as individuals. I believe that when a society comes to a place of enlightenment that the most powerful, most formidable means of true and comprehensive change is that of the people peacefully enforcing the new social standard. This is a process that must start with an enlightenment period where literature, including articles, books, movies, music and the like are freely distributed to the people so they can see that a social movement is necessary. Then that group of people can get together and peacefully boycott their movement. At times the greedy will want to force people into submission through violent means and in those cases physical defense should be a last resort. Global pacifism needs to be the political priority whilst creating these peaceful movements of progression. True social change in our modern world cannot take place through violence; the old forces of habit will eventually reinstate themselves and slowly revert to the old system before the violence. Look at Iraq for example the country was invaded and over 600,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the ensuing bloody crusade to enlist democracy. Although I am in favor of democracy in opposition to their form of government I would rather the people be the ones through peaceful means liberate themselves, because as we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq the old system is slowly reenlisting itself. I wouldn’t debate that some powerful change has taken place in those country’s but a much more powerful movement is taking place in Libya and other Islamic countries because they are making the choice for change. The same concept can be applied to simple human psychology in that the dependent addict cannot be freed of their addiction through parents enablement, the addict must see the need for change themselves, and make that individual inspired action to change. And so too must the people under any of the array of humanities oppressive institutions. Freedom, that all elusive and nebulous concept, must be in the mind and heart of the individual and collectively of the people, before it can be embraced or even felt. 

Suicide Part 2

Some people make the argument that suicide is a personal choice and this is my argument to their small-minded thinking. I would never contest that it was an individual’s decision, however, personal decision is not an item of consideration when it comes to cause, because cause comes before effect. After cause has taken place then effect or choice comes into understanding, however, effect (choice to commit suicide) cannot exist without cause, the first line of consideration. After cause has taken place the effect is inevitable.  For example if I choose to steal bread they are saying that its was my choice that lead me to steal the bread and I am saying that; first it was the starvation that lead me to make the choice. The cause was hunger, the cause and the choice were separate and in sequence, I would not choose to steal the bread without the hunger. Someone would not choose to commit suicide without the cause. Obviously, any intelligent person would not venture into the realm of choice being so vast; which I see is the premise of the choice argument, they don’t want to consider the cause, they want to write it off as a personal choice and therefore personal problem. This is short sighted and fails to address the reality of cause. Cause is also quite different from impact, which they say is the cause component. When a parent beats their child and the child grows up to become violent, the beating did not impact the violent behavior, it generated the violence it is the cause. Impact is watering down the effect of a series of events and the degree of influence that has on a person’s psyche. Socio psychology shows that the imperative years of development are the ages of birth to 5yrs old, the time in a persons life that is the determining factor of the degree of emotional intelligence, and psychological health that individual will possess. Is it the choice of the 3 year old to be beaten, assaulted, and unloved? Did that 3 yr. old choose to have certain neurological pathways carved in their brain as a result of the abuse and violence they experienced? Those neurological pathways are very real and definable and result in depression and emotional sickness of every variety and those conditions are so painful that some people choose to self terminate but the choice came many years after the cause, the trauma. The emotional trauma is the cause of suicide not the choice to end the pain. If I fall, hit my head and suffer from a concussion, did I choose for the brain trauma? The physical trauma of brain damage is as real and identifiable as the trauma caused by early childhood abuse. The fact that someone would call it a choice is absolutely absurd to me, as if a person would choose emotional sickness.

No Religion

I am not interested in obsessing in the transitions from life to death. I am not interested in the state of consciousness that my mind cannot connect with in life, I am not interested in some unknowable conception of the afterlife or the transition my consciousness will take when my body transcends life. I am interested in the power of the present and it’s the present’s ability to transform my consciousness into a state of absolute harmony with the now. I am not interested in knowing what will happen to my consciousness when my body transcends life. I am interested in knowing what will happen to my body when my consciousness is fused with the power of the moment.

            So often in life we obsess about the unknowable, I tend to think of this as an inherent defect of unbridled inquisitiveness. I know that so many times in my life I have asked questions that were far beyond the realm of human comprehension and I felt and ensuing pain and sense of loss when my questions weren’t answered. This of course can be an addicting and unfulfilling conquest. Despite the fact that asking these unknowable questions was an infinite pursuit, the question in and of itself frequently brought to light understanding in other aspects of life and therefore, I cannot be ungrateful for my obsession with the unknowable. In seeking the infinite or in seeking god, I have found that I find life and not some unknowable creature of infinitely unknowable proportions. I have come to the conclusion as a result of these findings and that is, that either god is too infinite to be known or that god is simply just that, life and probably both. I am amazed at the complete overwhelming feelings of harmony and tranquility that I feel when I consider that all life, all existence, all matter, and every energy system, from the power of the sun to the beauty of a microorganism, is in fact an expression of god, that all is god. For some reason this concept is far more compelling that any other conception of that infinite and unknowable equation of who is god? This explanation of the creator being the created, of life and death, of darkness and light, of pain and love, all being infinite components of that infinite being, the universe, god, is so powerfully simple and knowable in my limited perspective. All is god. Perhaps that is a better way of describing god than just the universe; perhaps that intimate love being is simply All.

            At this point you might be wondering how the first and last paragraph could possible be related, we’ll I will tell you how they are intimately connected. Both are actually my interpretation of religion. The first is relating to the afterlife, and the second is referring to god. These two components make up the basic construct of all religion. Who is god, and what happens to us when we die, are the unknowable questions that religion seeks to answer? If you surpass these questions then you no longer need religion to guide you into the unknowable.  If you surpass these questions you are not finding resolution or answers, rather the opposite you are transcending the unknowable and finding peace with what you do know the power of living life in the moment. This appears to many simpletons as a powerless proposition, on the contrary, it is the most powerful thing a thinking being can do.  How powerless is the individual who accept someone else’s construct of these notions? How powerless and unfulfilled is the individual who refuses to do the work of knowing peace in unknowing? How powerless is the individual who accepts some knowledge of god without asking who god is? Furthermore, I propose the simple argument of if we were truly meant to know more than the moment then wouldn’t we? If we were meant to surpass the moment to all dimensions of time and being, past present and future then wouldn’t we? I believe that what is meant, or designed or even what we are fated to know is nothing more than what we do know which is the present, the moment. And I challenge you to find fulfillment in simply this, the power of the present. 

On Suicide

Before I ever started studying sociology I had ideas on the nature of suicide some of which are based on second person experiences on the subject and others on the biology and sociobiology that I studied before switching my major. If you look at suicide from a strictly biological standpoint then it is the most impossible gene to possess if the act is committed before procreation. A species cannot pass on their specific genetic code if they die before procreation and therefore it is impossible for an individual to possess that specific mutation or even more so for a species. Think about it from this perspective; if an individual was born with a mutation that caused them to self terminate before they were able to pass on that trait then that trait, “suicide,” would never be passed on. 

This is a very detached way of viewing the subject but for people to see that it cannot be biological factor you have to view this emotionally crippling subject in biological terms. In America, the majority of suicide is committed by younger adults, who have not passed on their genes. So the whole argument of nature vs. nurture is just not logically applicable in the case of suicide. A single generation could be eliminated if just half of those individuals possessed this gene. If suicide is not a biological cause then it must be a environmental or social cause. Of course Emile Durkheim’s Suicide was controversial on the subject that was later proven true with a plethora of scientific evidence. The number of deaths as a result of suicide can be seen as an indicator of how well that specific social construct is serving its individuals, its people. Meaning that if a society is fully serving all the emotional and physical needs of its individuals then the suicide rate will be none existent. From a biological perspective we see that our species is highly social and adaptive to a variety of social environments. 

However, there are limitations to extent that the human psyche can fully develop cognitively, emotionally, and intellectually and an absence of development can actually trigger genes that in our early history would encourage survival but in our modern social environment lead to depression, the main cause of suicide. Our sociobiological genetic needs were developed in a culture of deep emotional connectivity and interdependence upon our peers. Or to put it simply people need to feel loved to survive and so do most species as science has shown. In my opinion when individuals in a society experience a sense of importance and feelings of love through all stages of development, childhood being the most important, through old age, then the suicide rate will be nearly nonexistent. Of course there exists a variety of reasons and causes to each specific incident and there is always exceptions to every generalization. My heart goes out to the loved ones this horrific act leaves behind. 

I would definitively agree that suicide is primarily the cause of mental illness.

However, I believe that the majority of mental illness is caused by social problems. To simplify the argument we can say that either the body or mind of the individual or the life experiences or both causes mental illness.  I think that the majority of the time it is in fact both circumstances.

However, sociobiology has shown us that certain psychological conditions are the results of environment effects. For example recent social psychological research has shown that there is in fact a serial killer gene, however, individuals who have been raised in nurturing non-violent homes are peaceful without any violent tendencies, whereas the individuals with the gene are at a high risk for sociopathic behavior. Refer to this link http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976

            This is a very simple example how the environment triggers an emotional disorder. Therefore if a person with the serial killer gene lived a happy normal life then they would be a happy normal person and conversely a person with the serial killer gene who lived a violent life is very likely to be violent. This is an example of how the environment or society is the factor. The human mind is an amazing thing that was designed to adapt to a variety of social environments and if the environment is the final executor of a genetic code then it needs to be the first line of consideration. This means that the environment has the final say, that the society that one is raised will cause them to be depressed, ADHD, diabetic, schizophrenic etc.. I see the degree of depression that a society suffers from as a indicator of how well that society is fulfilling its deign. Meaning that society is a group of people and the constructs, government, religion it employees to control its members can be measured for its efficiency. One of the best measurements of how well a society is performing is by how many people opt out, how many people would rather cease to exist rather than exist in any given society.  In all reality I would make the argument that all suicide caused by depression can be blamed on society, because in one way or another the society failed that individual, more than likely during the primary imperative psychological growth period of birth to five years old.  During this period the brain is developing the cortex and neurological receptors that enable serotonin reception and creation amongst many other hormones that contribute to emotional wellbeing. Therefore, if a child isn’t shown love then they grow up and don’t have that part of their brain developed for receiving love. How on earth can a person say it is that child’s fault? It’s the fault of the parents and the bigger picture the family that raised those parents and even bigger picture the culture that raised that family and even bigger picture the norms, ideas, traditions that fostered that culture.I call this the society and we see that if we step back after examining the individual that it was created by the culture and that as much as we want to feel that we are individual in control of our own thoughts and actions is a very real way we are all products of our environment.

 “And so every person, at every stage of his growth, is free or unfree in proportion as he does or does not find himself in the midst of conditions conducive to full and harmonious personal development. So far was children are ill nurtured or ill-taught, as family training is bad, the schools inefficient, the local government ill-administered, public libraries lacking, or private associations for various sorts of culture deficient, in so far as the people are unfree. A child born in a slum, brought up in a demoralized family, and put at some confining and mentally deadening work when ten or twelve years old, is no more free to be healthy, wise and moral. Every social ill involves the enslavement of individuals,” Charles Horton Cooley.

How I Would Change The World

HOW I WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD

In my childlike abandoned attempt to grasp the nature of pain and suffering on the Earth; I developed a degree of indistinct sympathy and as I grew up, I wondered how I could make the world a better place, my intellectual aging, aged my ideologies, as well. Chances are you’ve wondered how you would change the world, and if you’re like me, you’ve grown to wonder if true change was really possible. I refuse to give up hope on the subject, and I’ve realized that some changes are going to have a much more powerful and effective impact than others. Just like the effect of stopping a pandemic at the source. Changing you’re focus from the effect, to the cause is obviously the most efficient way to maximize your equitable gain from an action. What is not obvious is, how to maximize your energy when it comes to; mass starvation, economic depressions, warfare, inequality, genocide, human labor exploitation, human trafficking, environmental rape, and the list goes on, to which the ails the world. Most people don’t want to consider it all at once, and for good reason, the encompassing nature of the world’s crisis is exhaustingly overwhelming. I think that when sociologist’s foci are on particular problems, it is imperative to consider the macro, bigger picture, in synchronization with the micro.  Each individual problem has its own specific needs, and set of causations, however, the result and its impact locally and globally should be considered, to find an unprecedented yield. Again this may seem obvious to many, but is less obvious is what exactly it is that can eliminate or alleviate the host of the world’s problems. I think that the cause of many or all of these issues are the result of human greed, and the ability of the few in power to dominate, the majority who are in a place of vulnerability. So how can we displace the assembly of power from the avaricious to the principled? This is the philosopher’s concept of democracy, which was beautifully put by Aristotle, “In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.” Supposing the indiscriminate observations on the weighted nature of modern democracy, I’m going to venture out on a limb and say that Aristotle’s idea of democracy is not a reflection of our current application of democracy.

            I’ve drawn some conclusions on the ways in which we as philosophers and sociologists can maximize our efforts or energy to better humanity, save the planet and aid the disadvantaged and impoverished. The ardent nature of some of my fellow humanitarians, to better the world has lead many down various paths to success and humanities most lucrative gains. I would only say that an adoption or agreement with my perspective, presently unnamed, could only be a positive and assisting one. To clarify I want to come from place of congratulations rather than criticism, which, could be misinterpreted from my assessment.

            My perspective affords a view, of the alleviation, of feminine oppression, as being the method most efficiently maximizing the efforts of humanity. This being an element of consideration when approaching a social issue, which may seem like an overly simplified ideology on the reasoning of global disharmony. Agreement is found in shifting the position of power from the financially zealous to the principled, is more than likely going to bring balance and harmony.

            In my efforts to use my overly simplified macro assessment, I will also use three concepts to prove my point. The first basis of my argument being the highest degree macro perspective which, being that if you agree that displacing the power from the avariciously dissolute to people of neglect, then more than likely a degree of harmony will be found. The most general grouping of people that fit that description is that of women; the main inequalities vary from culture to culture and from continent to continent but one universal truth that spans the globe and crosses all borders, nationalities, times, and religions is the oppression of women. Women have been more oppressed than any race or religion that has ever conceived a complaint, of social injustice. “Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent women, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites,” Thomas Jefferson. Women are abused physically, emotionally, and sexually, as well as, every other form of human exploitation, for every feasible cause. Currently there are over 100 million women missing between China and India alone, according to estimations of Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Amarty Sen. Every act of genocide, slavery and extortion bears the largest weight on women. “The Nazi regime targeted all Jews, both men and women, for persecution and eventually death. The regime frequently subjected women, however, both Jewish and non-Jewish, to brutal persecution that was sometimes unique to the gender of the victims,” Holocaust Encyclopedia.

Perhaps, this vague description of the weighted feminine nature of human exploitation is agreeable, but still not perceived as one of the strongest remedies to world’s travail. During times of warfare the women are abandoned and bereft to care for the wounded, the old and young. During times of starvation, sociologists note the “feminization of famine,” where the women are most deprived of nutritional needs, for example consider the Great Chinese Famine that took 30 million lives, “girls were around 7% more likely to die than boys. They attribute this to a general neglect of female health and food intake during the famine, reflecting a cultural bias towards boys. They suggest that girls bore the brunt of the excess deaths caused by the famine,” Tue Gorgens and Xin Meng.

Second basis to my argument is that women’s caring nature would vastly assist the political, religious, racial and human disharmonies, and balance the psychology of the male/ female egos. Even an all male rock group, Tool agrees with me in their song Aenema, their description of the global social corrosive state is going to be a healed by mom’s.

“Some say the end is near.

Some say we'll see Armageddon soon. -

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.

Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be. Tool.”

I would say that using the basis of women’s specific nurturing psychology as a global aliment, is an over generalization, and fabrication, if attempting to explain the extensive nature of human suffering. However, if you stop and imagine women on a global scale, instantaneously receiving social, economic and political equality, what type of world do you imagine? I see a world where women are universally equal, as being a world where; wealth is more even distributed, where starvation is significantly decreased, education is universal, warfare is far less common, if not entirely absent, the maternal instinct to protect the planet is exhorted, and a philosophical degree of compassion is extended in politics.

         Goldenberg (1998) discussed the connectedness, nurturance, and care giving in women's memoirs and stated,"... such bonding was not exclusive to women but is difficult to find consistent evidence of men's caring about one another to the extent that women did" (p. 337). During times of warfare and famine, women show the most amounts of unity and compassion. The caring and nurturing nature of women would vastly assist all global political positions.

         My third and final point is that women alone can’t save the world from its current state of chaos, nor would I profess that women are solely victims of male suppression, in all circumstances. I will say that if we as a society create an element of awareness revolving around the feminine nature of global suffering then we can use that as an item of consideration when addressing the vast array of social issues. I vehemently deny the nature of my opinions bearing a consequentially masculine flavor or solely impugning men for global unrest. Society as a whole has caused our global gender imbalance. The resolution of the situation takes a focus on the remedy, rather than focusing on culpability. 

         The method of greatest attack is to educate women of all ages but to have a specific focus on the young. The rising generation can rise out of the ashes of subjugation and the ensuing revolt will be one of equality and peace. I would reiterate after my little tirade, that the methods best prescription of feminine oppression is that of education. Each educated young woman will find confidence in her community, hope in her future, intuitive understand of her intellectual contribution to society and assurance in her role as a mother and wife.

Krista Huff