A less chauvinism, racist and homophobic world

A more westerniced World perhaps for most of the things you want with yout thread are most widespread in the Western World(US and Western Europe)

Not convinced this will work. We already have a westernized world for 100 years now. I think it's more about economic development and domestic politics. Democracy can't be dropped from the bomb bay of a B52 superfortress onto the non-western "other".

Such thinking is pretty unhelpful and at worst counter productive. In Libya, western intervention resulted in the spread of head-chopping jihadis who brought back slavery and sell women in open slave markets. Western support for al Qaeda buddies al Nusra in Syria is another example. Not to mention the western "friends" in Saudi Arabia, currently bombing the crap out of Yemen with their western supplied Eurofighter jets and causing the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. So, no. We don't need more "Western" intervention in the world. That is the LAST thing we need right now.
 
Why do they exist, then?

How about "because they are cultural"? :)

If they are biological then all complaints about them are preposterous: you can't change biology and can't blame individuals or society for the things which are caused by the genes. Anyway, there are plenty of the reasonably modern facts showing substantial changes in attitudes within decades or even years based exclusively on the social factors.
 
It's actually quite strange how female rulers, even when powerful and respected, have a weak effect on sexism in society - can we really say that lands under the "Salic Law of Succession" were notably more sexist than lands where women could rule in their own right?

Not at all. While the Protestant spiritual leaders had been gushing about Elizabeth I their fundamental position was that the women in general (with the exception of Elizabeth) don't have mental capacities. AFAIK, in the contemporary Catholic France the women had been routinely playing a very noticeable role in politics and society in general.

And powerful, respected female goddesses seem to have no correlation whatsoever with the way women are treated - see ancient Hellas...

Or see Russia circa XVIII century. Or Victorian Britain until at least mid-XIX. :teary:
 
I could not tell you why I'm a monarchist, because I do not know myself. I have always had a great admiration for the monarchies. Maybe I have become when I realized that my most favorite countries sweden / norway / denmark and netherlands have kings / queen and little social inequality / gender etc.

But Saudi Arabia is also a monarchy and the attitudes are quite different.
 
How could we have a less chauvinistic, racist and homophobic world today? I have been thinking that some achievements could be initiated after the French revolution of 1789 Monarchs and heads of state could take less authoritarian actions and grant rights and better conditions to the workers, etc.
Poverty -Almost impossible but could significantly reduce
Housing Problems -It ends in its majority
Health - It reaches a level of development 59% higher than currently
Machismo - It ends in short
** Women are gaining political rights between 1809-1857
** Beginning to enter universities between 1821-1887
** Entering the labor market with force since 1830
Gender Equality - It is achieved until 1900
Racism - It is criminalized between 1837-1887
** 1913 -First marriage of a negro with a member of a royal family
Homophobia - It is criminalized between 1873-1911
** Marriage becomes lagalized between 1887-1929
** Adoption becomes legalized between 1892-1941
** Artificial insemination appears in 1957
** 1921 First Gay Royal Wedding
Violence - Remains, although less than currently
Agrarian Reform - It happens in sum between 1800-1876
Social Inequality - Remains
Monarchies - Not only do they remain, but other countries adhere to this system
Communism - Chinnese Revolution of 1871 adheres to this system, But since 1909 the Chinese have adopted market communism (about 15 countries are currently market communists)
Africa - Black Revolution of January 1803 ends European domination
** France of Napoleon supports the Revolution.
**Even with all these rights conquered royalty continues to marry royalty many times by the pressure of their families who are afraid to mix the royal blood with of common - This explains the permanence of the 18-23 years as marriage age of real women in the nineteenth century while normal women began to marry between 25 and 27 years. At the beginning of the 20th century this changed completely IMF - Created in 1901
No Cretaceous extinction
 
Not convinced this will work. We already have a westernized world for 100 years now. I think it's more about economic development and domestic politics. Democracy can't be dropped from the bomb bay of a B52 superfortress onto the non-western "other".

Such thinking is pretty unhelpful and at worst counter productive. In Libya, western intervention resulted in the spread of head-chopping jihadis who brought back slavery and sell women in open slave markets. Western support for al Qaeda buddies al Nusra in Syria is another example. Not to mention the western "friends" in Saudi Arabia, currently bombing the crap out of Yemen with their western supplied Eurofighter jets and causing the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. So, no. We don't need more "Western" intervention in the world. That is the LAST thing we need right now.

Well, we can safely say you aren't George W. Bush.
 
Look at their religion and get your answer

Yup. What's the difference between Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and ISIS? The difference is that the West is allied with one while fighting the other. This piece of hypocrisy exposes the moral bankruptcy and rot at the very heart of western interaction with the region.

That's why it's so ironic/moronic that, 17 years after 9/11, the US secretary of state is currently threatening to attack Syria... for wanting to take back its own territory from al Qaeda terrorists.

Let that sink in.
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Yup. What's the difference between Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and ISIS? The difference is that the West is allied with one while fighting the other. This piece of hypocrisy exposes the moral bankruptcy and rot at the very heart of western interaction with the region.

That's why it's so ironic/moronic that, 17 years after 9/11, the US secretary of state is currently threatening to attack Syria... for wanting to take back its own territory from al Qaeda terrorists.

Let that sink in.

Yep.
 
Yup. What's the difference between Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and ISIS? The difference is that the West is allied with one while fighting the other. This piece of hypocrisy exposes the moral bankruptcy and rot at the very heart of western interaction with the region.

That's why it's so ironic/moronic that, 17 years after 9/11, the US secretary of state is currently threatening to attack Syria... for wanting to take back its own territory from al Qaeda terrorists.

Let that sink in.

Well, it probably can be said that the problem with our foreign policy is in an attempt to mix moral issues with a pragmatism: presumably, we must look good (no matter what are the real motivations) but in quite a few places all around the world that means selecting one of the bad guys because the good ones are not available. It would be fine if not the attempts to depict the chosen scumbag as being "pro-democracy" and blahblahblah. A pure imperialism could be much more practical and less bizarre ideologically.
 
What's the difference between Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and ISIS?
Possibly the fact that one of the two is selling the West oil and buying up investments and consumer goods and the other is hijacking aeroplanes and flying them into major population centres on suicide missions?
How people respond to you is part of how you regard and interact with them. What is the difference between the elderly Italian-American widow who welcomed you to the neighborhood with a home baked lasagne and the elderly Italian-American widow who short changed you at the store? Same culture, same ethnicity, same religion both with views and values you don't share yet you will obviously regard the two of them somewhat differently. You end up cutting the lawn of one while you do your own and never setting foot in the other's store again. Does that make you a hypocrite?
 
Possibly the fact that one of the two is selling the West oil and buying up investments and consumer goods and the other is hijacking aeroplanes and flying them into major population centres on suicide missions?
How people respond to you is part of how you regard and interact with them. What is the difference between the elderly Italian-American widow who welcomed you to the neighborhood with a home baked lasagne and the elderly Italian-American widow who short changed you at the store? Same culture, same ethnicity, same religion both with views and values you don't share yet you will obviously regard the two of them somewhat differently. You end up cutting the lawn of one while you do your own and never setting foot in the other's store again. Does that make you a hypocrite?

It's a nice analogy but Saudi Arabia's regime is not a kindly grandma giving out lasagne. It is a state that actively promotes a dangerous and extremist ideology which teaches people virtually an identitical creed to what ISIS does. These beliefs are then spread around the world via a network of preachers, schools, madrasas, television channels and more. The same beliefs teach that any one who isn't a Wahhabist fanatic is a heretic deserving of death. These beliefs are poisonous toxin that attacks and corrodes societies from within. It must be stopped.
 
Top