Teen Love and FAT KISS

Last month I was invited to speak at a women’s conference in Washington DC. How interesting, and how difficult, to be amongst thousands of women, talking about women. As one of the few men there, I have to say there were times when I felt a little out of place.

We were talking about culture, maternal mortality, early marriages and religion. I didn’t know how to address the delegates, or what to say. As a man, it can often be difficult to sound intelligent and to the point with women – some of them have a completely different intellectual standard from their male counterparts (a much higher standard, it goes without saying!).

The week before I arrived in DC, I was in Canada. A very intelligent young man had driven me from Toronto airport to Hamilton, and it was he who gave me the theme for my speech: ‘teen love gone wrong’. I always like a catchy headline!

This is a story which started 29 years ago, when I travelled as a young doctor from a different culture to work in Birmingham, UK. I examined an 11 year old girl who was pregnant. For me, this was a culture shock at the time. I ran to my consultant to confirm the result; he did, but it was sadly not such a shock for him. He told me to write up the report.

This is where we look at different cultures differently. What could be abnormal in the West is normal in the East and vice versa. I went on to put the comparison between the young, free girls and boys who can enjoy having sex in the West, and the young girls and boys who reach the same state through underage marriage in the East. I asked myself: who is right and who is wrong? Or really, is there much difference in the outcomes of the two situations? Maybe we’re both right or both wrong. Personally, I’m not promoting or condoning either situation. Both cultures seem to be failing our young people in one sense or another.

But here’s another question: is maternal mortality in the East caused by underage sex or the lack of labour and medical facilities available to young married girls? Obviously, seeing an eleven year old pregnant in East or West is a shock to the system. But the problem is compounded in many Eastern countries, where the girl would not have resource to the medical and social support she would receive in Western countries.

Maternal mortality, and the poor treatment of women and girls in general can often be a sign of a greater, community-wide problem. Often the position of women in a society can be a key indicator for society as a whole: maternal mortality, rape and violence against women, and the position of women in society can underline wider, systematic problems within that community.

To create real change in such societies, we have to use a mechanism which we at the Humanitarian Forum call the FAT KISS. FAT is what the rich donor countries and agencies must develop in poorer societies: Fundraising, Advocacy and Training. Our role as donor agencies and countries is to uplift societies using the FAT mechanism. If we do that, the recipient countries will be able to deliver the KISS: Knowledge-based, Innovative, Sustainable Solutions for their own communities. The relationship between us as donor countries and agencies and them as recipient countries and agencies must be one of equal yet different partners. Equal in that we are all striving for the same goal: to lift that country out of poverty and dysfunction, not by imposition of our rules and regimes, but by two partners complimenting each others’ work.

Through the knowledge-based, innovative sustainable solution, such communities will be able to rise to the standard of the international community. The support we’ll be giving will be grounded in dignity and respect for the sake of humanity, not for economic, political or cultural supremacy.

Is humanitarianism enough?

Lately I wonder if being humanitarian will be enough to save our planet and ourselves. The whole world has been witnessing what President Barack Obama characterised as an ' environmental 9/11', as millions upon millions of barrels of oil have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, devastating the ecosystem. There have been no human fatalities, but shouldn't we also weep for the devastation to the creatures we share the planet with? Shouldn't we all be calling for the end of the pollution of the planet, the global warming, the destruction of species which disasters like the Gulf of Mexico spill bring about?

A comment made by one analyst was particularly shocking. He said that it would not be economically sound to plug the well unless the cost of the disaster reaches a trillion dollards. Is this how we value our planet? Is this how we value the role of our partners on this planet: the creatures we share it with? Surely, if we have the technology to plug the leak, there should be no further argument. But apparently our human feeling towards living beings is measured only in their economical value to our projects. We reduce God's magnificent creation to the yen, the dollar, the pound.

If our leaders and decision makers do not work with a deap seated, wide sense of duty, to protect all life, then we will only accelerate the rate of extinction of other species - and undoubtedly, ultimately our own.

If a human looks inside himself, he'll see billions of living bacteria living in his body. Such organisms are there to help man live a happy, healthy life; we can't survive without them, Hypocritically, the same man destroys species after species outside his body; in the greater organism that is earth, we so often upset the delicate balance, out of greed, ignorance or even for sport. How does it befit human beings to cause the extinction of other species which God has created to help, support and make our lives sustainable?

I suggest that the word 'humanitarianism' is out of date. If we want to ensure the planet's survival, and our own, we need a new dialogue and a new terminology to reflect it. We need a word which refers to the origin of our existence, the relationship to other creatures, and the support of our creator.

Instead of 'humanitarianism', which puts us at the top of the pyramid, why not 'creaturitarianism'? In creaturitarianism, man would not be the ruler or user of the planet, or else concerned exclusively with humans, but rather the custodian and guardian of all living creatures. Humans are a central player, but they are not the ultimate focus; they have partners who live with them and make life sustainable and reciprocal. Man is not the reference, we should instead defer ourselves to the Creator.

Unfortunately nowadays man is not only the custodian, but also the ultimate focal point and the reference as well: he's appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. That's why intentionally or otherwisewe're exterminating other species under the label of our own self interest. But a belief of creaturitatianism would ensure a wider world view.

I hope we can save our planet; and I hope we can save our partners: the other species on earth with whom we are intended to live in harmony.