I do. As a place to start, I would urge writers to write about their own solutions.
No, wait, let's back up. We aren't really ready for solutions yet. Before we ask the "how" questions, we should focus on the "why" question. Until we fully understand why we should address the issue of violent men, any proposed solution which involves some price tag will be dismissed, and we'll go running back to the comfortable assumption that the status quo is sustainable. And any solution big enough to solve the problem of violent men will come with unwelcome price tags.
If I were to knock on a reader's front door and offer to sell them a method of preventing their house from burning down, I'll get nowhere with my pitch unless the homeowner is persuaded that they have a problem which requires a solution.
Is the status quo sustainable? Is the status quo acceptable? Are we willing to pay some price to have a dramatically better future? Until we can answer these kinds of questions with some conviction, nobody's proposed solution will be welcomed.
Some people can approach this topic by examining the horrors violent men inflict upon the innocent. Others can approach the topic by focusing on what a world with radically less violence might look like. The first solution is simply to focus on this challenge in whatever manner we can.
I feel like we are all very aware of the problem of violence though? We are confronted with it everyday. School shootings always top the news, so do wars and genocides. It's not that we aren't aware of the problem, it's that people don't know what solutions there could be!
One issue seems to be that we're intellectually aware of the violence, but have become too skilled at protecting ourselves from it emotionally. So agree, we don't really need more information. We need to change our relationship with the information. And that is something which is, to some degree at least, within our control.
As to solutions: Most readers of this blog probably vote. But we never expect that it will be our vote which will make the decisive difference in the election. We show up at the polls, do our little part, and hope for the best. We show up, we don't say there is nothing we can do. Writers can show up on this topic.
There is a good news story to tell, imho. Few women are violent. Most men are peaceful. The overwhelming majority of the horror in the world arises from a small fraction of humanity, violent men. We don't need to transform the entire species, only our relationship with a small part of the species.
Another good news story is what the world would look like with radically less violence. What benefits would arise if we weren't so burdened with all the different ways we have to manage and respond to male violence? Jails, prisons, police, armies, reconstruction of entire nations etc. A HUGE expense! Writers can share visions of what such a world without that burden would look like.
Again, I don't think we're yet ready for the "how" question. We need more work on the "why" question first, imho.
In my experience, at the first moment anyone suggests any particular solution the conversation gets hijacked by enthusiasm for "here's why that won't work". And then everyone gets bored and wanders off.
I think that happens because we think that we have the option to continue as we always have in the past. We think the status quo is sustainable, so such questions can be ignored when they stop being entertaining. We haven't answered the "why" question yet.
What if Substack was the world's leading platform for discussion of world peace? Why not? We have the option to think bigger.
Do you have a proposal for how we would solve the problem of violence?
Hi Elle,
I do. As a place to start, I would urge writers to write about their own solutions.
No, wait, let's back up. We aren't really ready for solutions yet. Before we ask the "how" questions, we should focus on the "why" question. Until we fully understand why we should address the issue of violent men, any proposed solution which involves some price tag will be dismissed, and we'll go running back to the comfortable assumption that the status quo is sustainable. And any solution big enough to solve the problem of violent men will come with unwelcome price tags.
If I were to knock on a reader's front door and offer to sell them a method of preventing their house from burning down, I'll get nowhere with my pitch unless the homeowner is persuaded that they have a problem which requires a solution.
Is the status quo sustainable? Is the status quo acceptable? Are we willing to pay some price to have a dramatically better future? Until we can answer these kinds of questions with some conviction, nobody's proposed solution will be welcomed.
Some people can approach this topic by examining the horrors violent men inflict upon the innocent. Others can approach the topic by focusing on what a world with radically less violence might look like. The first solution is simply to focus on this challenge in whatever manner we can.
I feel like we are all very aware of the problem of violence though? We are confronted with it everyday. School shootings always top the news, so do wars and genocides. It's not that we aren't aware of the problem, it's that people don't know what solutions there could be!
Good points Elle, thanks for engaging.
One issue seems to be that we're intellectually aware of the violence, but have become too skilled at protecting ourselves from it emotionally. So agree, we don't really need more information. We need to change our relationship with the information. And that is something which is, to some degree at least, within our control.
As to solutions: Most readers of this blog probably vote. But we never expect that it will be our vote which will make the decisive difference in the election. We show up at the polls, do our little part, and hope for the best. We show up, we don't say there is nothing we can do. Writers can show up on this topic.
There is a good news story to tell, imho. Few women are violent. Most men are peaceful. The overwhelming majority of the horror in the world arises from a small fraction of humanity, violent men. We don't need to transform the entire species, only our relationship with a small part of the species.
Another good news story is what the world would look like with radically less violence. What benefits would arise if we weren't so burdened with all the different ways we have to manage and respond to male violence? Jails, prisons, police, armies, reconstruction of entire nations etc. A HUGE expense! Writers can share visions of what such a world without that burden would look like.
Again, I don't think we're yet ready for the "how" question. We need more work on the "why" question first, imho.
In my experience, at the first moment anyone suggests any particular solution the conversation gets hijacked by enthusiasm for "here's why that won't work". And then everyone gets bored and wanders off.
I think that happens because we think that we have the option to continue as we always have in the past. We think the status quo is sustainable, so such questions can be ignored when they stop being entertaining. We haven't answered the "why" question yet.
What if Substack was the world's leading platform for discussion of world peace? Why not? We have the option to think bigger.
Thanks for the dialog!