Why do men love war?

[Guest]

I only want to say that it is very interesting for me to be able to see how Sweet thinks. I admire her for blurting things out, to ask for any kind of opinion, to dig until she feels she's learned. I myself am too cautious too often.

I've seen Sweet's mind working in other threads, on a variety of subjects. If I were a teacher, SnP would be my ideal student.

fini, Perdita

 

[Liar]

Sweet, I may have posted too early in this thread. The more I read from replies and your own clarifications, the less I understand what it is you are asking. So here is an answer, that might or might not be what you are trying to adress.

First of all:

war
sucks
ass

But I am still academically interrested in war. It is a major part of human history, and have played a major part in shaping us into what we are.

Is this because I'm a man? Err, no.

Men have started more wars than women throughout history. Why? Because men have much more often been in the position of power to do so. The few female reigners of nations and empires through the ages have not been much more benign and unwilling to throw armies at their neighbors than the men.

Men have fought more wars than women, becuase that is how the structure of the systems we have lived in have always looked. Men are physically stonger, so men wield the clubs. Men can't breastfeed, so men wield the clubs while women breastfeed.

Men have, through history, been taught that going to war for whatever soil they were born on is their duty. Still to this day, military service is mandatory for men where I live, but not for women, as in many other of our dear modern and progressive western nations. So even the society of 2004 tells us that war is a man's business.

Films, literature, video games and such about war follows the same structure. And reinforces it, since every time a woman in a war situation (in combat or as a leader) is portrayed, it is portrayed as something Cool and Unusual.

#L

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Kids like war. Men who've been in it generally don't care for it much, and most of the time don't even want to talk about it.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sweet,

Excuse me if I am speaking out of turn here...

But, you are coming across as if absolutely no war has ever been a necessary evil, and all wars were started by men (and men alone), purely to give them a purpose in life.

What a load of bollocks!

I am a peaceful person, by nature. I hate arguments, disagreements, and so on, but, nobody can ever tell me that some wars (most wars, in fact) haven't been necessary.

My Grandad fought in the trenches of WW1 - at the age of 16 (!!)- and watched the head of the soldier next to him get blown from his body, while he received shrapnel wounds to his own face, all in the name of giving his own life greater meaning and purpose??? I don't think so.

This thread is doing nothing but romanticising war and be-littling those who have fought to defend those freedoms which we so wantonly toss around.

There is nothing to love about the grim reality of war, but every single person who has fought in a war, in my country's name, deserves my love and respect.

Lou

Sorry Tat, if I came accross that way, that's not at all what I meant. My question is "if war is just a necessary evil, why do we include it so much in our entertainment?' movies, games, ect all center on war. If we really believe that war is distateful and something we only do because we must, why do we spend so many hours playing video games and watching movies of something that we dispise? Why are these things so popular? It seems to indicate a love of the subject matter, to choose to spend your time pretending to be at war, ect.

 

[Liar]

The Falklands - I doubt it felt unnecessary to those BRITISH citizens who live on the Falkland Islands - BRITISH territory. I guess we should've just let Argentina have 'em?

Now, I don't know the history of this particular penguin populated place (& please correct me if I'm wrong, it might have been a part of britain since the dawn of days), nor do I know enough about the war itself to say if it was justified or not, but...

...how did a place so utterly far from good old Britain become British territory in the first place, if not by aggressive empiric expansion?

Again, it is all about perspective, right.

#L

 

[sweetnpetite]

WWII - Who are you blaming for starting it? It was Chamberlain who declared war on Hitler. He should've just let him get on with his invasion of the whole of Europe, I suppose? Hitler breaking the Munich Agreement was an over-sight, I guess.

The Falklands - I doubt it felt unnecessary to those BRITISH citizens who live on the Falkland Islands - BRITISH territory. I guess we should've just let Argentina have 'em?

I suppose it's all about perspectives.



Lou

I think he's including 'invasion' in his definition of starting a war. If HItler hadn't started invading countries and acting in an egressive, waring way we wouldn't have had a war to start. (not the political aspect of declaring war, but the actual starting of it by the innitial aggressive act.)

Gotta go, hope that makes sence.

 

[dirtylover]

WWII - Who are you blaming for starting it? It was Chamberlain who declared war on Hitler. He should've just let him get on with his invasion of the whole of Europe, I suppose? Hitler breaking the Munich Agreement was an over-sight, I guess.

The Falklands - I doubt it felt unnecessary to those BRITISH citizens who live on the Falkland Islands - BRITISH territory. I guess we should've just let Argentina have 'em?

I suppose it's all about perspectives.



Lou

My point is only that war isn't ever inevitable - it just happened that way. I'll put my hands up and say I know nothing of WWII and not a great deal about the falklands.

It's very easy to have a dualistic frame of mind (damn Aristotle!), where there are good guys and bad guys, us and them, British and Argentinians...But we're all just people at the end of the day, why fight about it, and demonise our opposition, when we could sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and iron out our differences?

Because it's not human nature, that's why. We prefer to fight heroically to the death for what we believe in, even if it is just for a handful of brits that live on the other side of the world, who must've knicked the land from someone else in the first place anyway... (I'm probably wrong, but hey )

I suppose in some cases diplomacy will only take you so far though. If someone pisses me off, I'll probably want to kick their face in. Human nature - unavoidable.

 

[Liar]

Sorry Tat, if I came accross that way, that's not at all what I meant. My question is "if war is just a necessary evil, why do we include it so much in our entertainment?' movies, games, ect all center on war. If we really believe that war is distateful and something we only do because we must, why do we spend so many hours playing video games and watching movies of something that we dispise? Why are these things so popular? It seems to indicate a love of the subject matter, to choose to spend your time pretending to be at war, ect.

You don't have to like and approve of something to think that it is damn interresting and intriguing.

Why are movies about psychotic serial killers so damn popular? Because people like serial murders? Nope. Because it is interresting and exciting? Yay.

Both deals with extremities of human nature, things that drives people to altered behaviuor, to push the envelope of who and what they are. It is a safe way to put oneself in an imaginary extreme situation and explore ones own reactions to it, one that they would probablty not ever find themselves in.

Other popular topics in the same vein (but on the other end of the make believe scale) is wealth, Halequin-esque romance, and sex.

#L

 

[rgraham666]

As peace is of all goodness, so war is an emblem, a hieroglyph of all misery.

John Donne

I can only speak for myself, I am fascinated by war, but I don't love it.

My attitude could be best summed up by the opening lines of the Art of War.

Military action is important to the nation - it is the ground of death and life, the path of survival and destruction, so it is imperative to study it.

I am fortunate enough to have never experienced war myself. I have been studying it for almost forty years.

The reasons for my interest are; I like studying my species and warfare is almost one of our defining traits, it engages the competitive and romantic sides of me, and it engages the intellectual side of me.

I've been studying my species since I was sentient. I still don't fully understand them. And war is one of our chief endeavours. If I ever come to a conclusion, I'll let you know.

I should know better, but I am competitive and romantic. I'm especially annoyed by the romantcism coming to the fore. But all peoples seem to romanticize war. And I'm human enough to fall for it.

And on the intellectual side, I've been playing 'conflict simulations' for almost thirty years now. (Favourites are Squad Leader, Harpoon, Kingmaker, and Civilisation). It is fascinating to place your forces on the field, think about fields of fire and avenues of approach, set up lines of logistics and worry about what your opponent is doing. The emotions involved can be quite intense. They must be even more intense when the real thing is happening.

So I am fascinated by war, but I don't love it.

Sweet, I can recommend several books that might help you.

The first is A History of Warfare by John Keegan. This isn't a book about who fought who, but one about social and technological change and how they affected war. Of great interest to me was several anthropological studies at the beginning of the book on 'primitive' cultures and their methods of resolving and limiting conflict.

The other I recommend are in an SF series called Hammer's Slammers by David Drake.

Don't be put off by the title or genre. Mr. Drake served a year 'in country' in Vietnam with the 10th Armoured Cavalry Regiment 'The Blackhorse'. It left an idelible impression on him to say the least.

As a result, I regard the 'Slammers' books as offering the best fictional representation of what it feels like as a soldier in combat. I would recommend the novels At Any Price and Rolling Hot as well as the novella Hangman.

Oh, and many of the soldiers in Mr. Drake's writings are women.

This doesn't surprise me. I just finished a book on the Soviet Air Force in WWII. There were three air regiments composed of women in 1942. One, the 586th fighter regiment scored 38 kills with 17 of them by Olga Yamshchikova. The 588th Night Bomber Regiment, The Night Witches, flew 24,000 flights and dropped 23,000 tons of bombs. Thirty Heroes of The Soviet Union were awarded to Air Force women, 23 of them going to The Night Witches.

So I suspect that love of war is not limited to men. Except by culture.

 

[amicus]

Sid Meirer's Civilization!

Hey, rgraham, that game may be all we have in common, have been playing for diversion and relaxation for over 10 years...


Thoughts on war...postulating that evolution is fact and not theory...that is to say humanity evolved from lower forms of life and was not divinely placed here...

Survival was by the most fit, through competition...I think that is rather a given...

To acquire food and shelter and to defend and protect, required the use of force, to kill the animal to construct the hut..

Acquisition and possession...innate, I think...It becomes, 'my' food, my hut, my berry patch, my mate....

To defend a gravid mate or a helpless infant from predators, to defend what one had from others who wanted it...defense of one's acquisitions or possessions, is by definition, an honorable act...I would think...

Leaving aside the criminally insane as an aberration apart from the norm, I do not see the nature of man as being innately 'warlike' although the violent competition of young males to acquire a place in the pecking order, gives me reason to doubt.

'Modern war', speaking in relative terms, since the time of the 'city states' of antiquity...as far back as the Chinese and the Egyptians....in my studies...seem to be mainly, 'religious' conflicts. One faith demanding and forcing all others to submit....and of course the needs of an expanding civilization for land and resources...

nice thread....just thoughts.. regards...amicus...

 

[pussy chaser]

a good question! why do men love war.. i wouldn't say it is a love of war, but i suppose most of us men have fantasized about being involved in war at some stage and of course always the hero saving all our comrades, rescuing the victims etc.

As i see it, (and yes i have been involved in conflicts) can you think of a country in the world that does not have sort of armed force? even Switzerland has!. History of mankind requires to be armed and ready.

anyway i digress.. it is not all it is cut out to be, i never got to be the hero, I spent a lot of my time thinking i will never suffer from constipation ever again!! wars happen and i bet not one single person can really say why they actually happened in the 1st place. they just do! not a good answer i know.

But it is also very unlike television/cinema etc, very rarely does anyone who is shot carry on til the action is over..then collapses!! i know from experience that when wounded, it bloody hurts a lot! adn the only important things are have you made peace with your God, and hope your family will cope with out you!!.

by hell i do get carried away!!..soapbox put away..

 

[CharleyH]

SweetN, war is waged over two things possession - oops one - possession. Territory, sex and religion = possession. How primitive we are and don't even realize. What do women wage war over?

Edit: just remembered history: Men wage war for the good of MANkind

 

[sweetnpetite]

I only want to say that it is very interesting for me to be able to see how Sweet thinks. I admire her for blurting things out, to ask for any kind of opinion, to dig until she feels she's learned. I myself am too cautious too often.

I've seen Sweet's mind working in other threads, on a variety of subjects. If I were a teacher, SnP would be my ideal student.

fini, Perdita

Thank you perdita, I would be honored to be your student

 

[sweetnpetite]

Thank you.

I'm not sure if I agree 100% with your accessment, but I do appreciate the honest (non-defensive) answer.

My point is only that war isn't ever inevitable - it just happened that way. I'll put my hands up and say I know nothing of WWII and not a great deal about the falklands.

It's very easy to have a dualistic frame of mind (damn Aristotle!), where there are good guys and bad guys, us and them, British and Argentinians...But we're all just people at the end of the day, why fight about it, and demonise our opposition, when we could sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and iron out our differences?

Because it's not human nature, that's why. We prefer to fight heroically to the death for what we believe in, even if it is just for a handful of brits that live on the other side of the world, who must've knicked the land from someone else in the first place anyway... (I'm probably wrong, but hey )

I suppose in some cases diplomacy will only take you so far though. If someone pisses me off, I'll probably want to kick their face in. Human nature - unavoidable.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Kids like war. Men who've been in it generally don't care for it much, and most of the time don't even want to talk about it.

---dr.M.

Interesting.

(But) My mother always tried to shield my stepdad from war movies and such, but *he* rather seemed to want to watch them (in moderation).

Even LOTR is about war. (Guess who introduced those books to me?)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Thank you. Another honest reply.

I probably can't reply to every single one, but I do appreciate them all. And I don't mean to imply that anyone is being dishonest- I am just expressing gratitude for those who are willing to search their soul and give an 'honest' (from the heart) reply.

a good question! why do men love war.. i wouldn't say it is a love of war, but i suppose most of us men have fantasized about being involved in war at some stage and of course always the hero saving all our comrades, rescuing the victims etc.

..

ps. when I say "why do men love war?" I do not mean to imply that *all* men love war any more than if I asked "why do women stay with abusive men?" would imply that all women stay with abusive men, or that all men are abusive. Of the women who stay, why do they? Or of the men who love war-- why do they?

(I asked my b/f and his first response was that it was an outlet for agression.)

Also I know that not only men are capable of waging wars, and guilty of glamourizing wars. In some sence when I say 'men' I mean it in the universal way (mankind) and yet for the most part, throughout history this has manifested in the male segment of the species. The question was not meant to polarize men and women (ie, why do men love war and women love peace?) THe queston was mearly meant to figure out why war is celebrated, even while we often claim that 'nobody likes or wants war'

 

[sweetnpetite]

You don't have to like and approve of something to think that it is damn interresting and intriguing.

Why are movies about psychotic serial killers so damn popular? Because people like serial murders? Nope. Because it is interresting and exciting? Yay.

Both deals with extremities of human nature, things that drives people to altered behaviuor, to push the envelope of who and what they are. It is a safe way to put oneself in an imaginary extreme situation and explore ones own reactions to it, one that they would probablty not ever find themselves in.


#L

But so far, we don't have too many video games, ect were you practice being the cerial killer. WE don't have Jack the Ripper action figures for little boys to play with. Serial killers and the like remain in the domain of adults. See the difference? I see more than fascination with war- I see it celebrated over and over in our culter, and more and more we see completly senceless violence celebrated as well.

Your third paragraph however, is very thought provoking. I will be giving it much thought in my struggle to understand this aspect of human nature.(and/or nurture)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's two things you're asking about. One is why are men competitive. That's pretty much genetic in my experience. It's not a matter of enculturation.

As for war itself, to males of a certain age, what's not to like? When you're young, you pretty much feel immortal. You know ntohing's going to happen to you. So what's war about? You get to play outside, shoot things and blow things up and show what a badass you are. You get to wear sharp uniforms, hang around with your buddies, fool around with all sorts of way-cool gear, and after a while no one can tell you to go to bed or clean up your room.

I've always thought--only half kiddingly--that they should draft boys between the ages of 14 and 18. That's the perfect age to be a soldier. You really feel immortal, you're into all this stuff, and you live for your buddies. You have no moral sense, and the old testosterone is just aching to find some outlet. I have no doubt that a lot of kids join gangs and pull off other senseless acts of violence just because they have that adolescent itch.

Turns out there are plenty of child warriors in Africa now, and they make especially effective troops: ruthless and brutal and loyal as only a kid can be loyal. It's terribly sad.

---dr.M.

 

[pussy chaser]

But so far, we don't have too many video games, ect were you practice being the cerial killer. WE don't have Jack the Ripper action figures for little boys to play with. Serial killers and the like remain in the domain of adults. See the difference? I see more than fascination with war- I see it celebrated over and over in our culter, and more and more we see completly senceless violence celebrated as well.

in the same sense, i suppose, we even see in lit fantasy's of stuff we wouldn't do in real life, sexual wise like incest, BDSM, Rape etc..just like war it goes on but not everyone likes it, not many partake in it.

is it the "way of the Beast"?

 

[sweetnpetite]

One theme I see repeated here is the inevitablity of war. Although this is slightly off topic (or is it?) I would like to address the sentiment.

I think as long as we accept as a fact the inevitability of war, war will indeed be inevitable. But I do not truely believe that it is so.

Also, when I look at all the AMAZING inovations made over the years in firearms and so forth, it dawns on me over and over again- If mankind is so brilliant as to invent new and better ways to kill each other- how is it possible that mankind is *not* brilliant enough to invent a way to invent war.

The only possible answer that I can see is that we do not truely want to. Is it because of the mythology surounding war? Is it because of greed and power (one freind commented that there is no money in peace)? Is it just human agression? Do we instinctivly know that the world is overpopulated and could use some thining out?

Or maybe it's that we have been taught to believe that it's inevitable, we've been trained to think in war terms. As long as we've been trained to deal with things in that manner, and think of things in those terms, that is how we will continue to address our problems and questions.

I mean seriously, ask a soldier, a teacher and a politician how to solve any problem. Most likly the soldier will say fight, the teacher will say education and the politician will probably want to apppoint a commiitee or take a poll. So as long as we are taught that war is inevitable, and trained in warfare- that is the method we are most likely to choose. Our thoughts are in that direction, our training is in that direction, history shows us that direction; it is what we know. To do something else would be to do something untried- and why do the untried when you already know and are trained in the tried?

But I think if we truly put our minds too it, we could find other solutions, but 1. are we willing to risk it? 2. are we willing to accept the posibilty? 3. are we willing to essentially start over and think in entirely new ways? 4. Do we truly want to? We can't be smart enough to invent guns that shoot around corners, and yet not smart enough to figure out a way *not* to kill each other, can we?

It just doens't make sence.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Err, your recomending books about war? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about!

OK, ok, I know what your saying. Good points- but I don't know if I can stomach the reading. I'm sensitive that way. I did read 'Born on the Fourth of July' though. Tore my heart out.

ANd I don't *want* to toughen up. Even though it might make accepting life easier.

I can only speak for myself, I am fascinated by war, but I don't love it.


Sweet, I can recommend several books that might help you.

The first is A History of Warfare by John Keegan. This isn't a book about who fought who, but one about social and technological change and how they affected war. Of great interest to me was several anthropological studies at the beginning of the book on 'primitive' cultures and their methods of resolving and limiting conflict.

The other I recommend are in an SF series called Hammer's Slammers by David Drake.

Don't be put off by the title or genre. Mr. Drake served a year 'in country' in Vietnam with the 10th Armoured Cavalry Regiment 'The Blackhorse'. It left an idelible impression on him to say the least.

As a result, I regard the 'Slammers' books as offering the best fictional representation of what it feels like as a soldier in combat. I would recommend the novels At Any Price and Rolling Hot as well as the novella Hangman.

Oh, and many of the soldiers in Mr. Drake's writings are women.

This doesn't surprise me. I just finished a book on the Soviet Air Force in WWII. There were three air regiments composed of women in 1942. One, the 586th fighter regiment scored 38 kills with 17 of them by Olga Yamshchikova. The 588th Night Bomber Regiment, The Night Witches, flew 24,000 flights and dropped 23,000 tons of bombs. Thirty Heroes of The Soviet Union were awarded to Air Force women, 23 of them going to The Night Witches.

So I suspect that love of war is not limited to men. Except by culture.

 

[pussy chaser]

One theme I see repeated here is the inevitablity of war. Although this is slightly off topic (or is it?) I would like to address the sentiment.

I think as long as we accept as a fact the inevitability of war, war will indeed be inevitable. But I do not truely believe that it is so.

Also, when I look at all the AMAZING inovations made over the years in firearms and so forth, it dawns on me over and over again- If mankind is so brilliant as to invent new and better ways to kill each other- how is it possible that mankind is *not* brilliant enough to invent a way to invent war.

again looking back through history and especially in times of war, there seems to be a cycle of events that leads to a lot of inventions that have also served to the good of mankind as well! especially in the field of medicine, which is quite contradictionary really!

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yes, ditto what you said, Dr. Very good points all. And yes, it is rather sad.

As for war itself, to males of a certain age, what's not to like? When you're young, you pretty much feel immortal. You know ntohing's going to happen to you. So what's war about? You get to play outside, shoot things and blow things up and show what a badass you are. You get to wear sharp uniforms, hang around with your buddies, fool around with all sorts of way-cool gear, and after a while no one can tell you to go to bed or clean up your room.

I've always thought--only half kiddingly--that they should draft boys between the ages of 14 and 18. That's the perfect age to be a soldier. You really feel immortal, you're into all this stuff, and you live for your buddies. You have no moral sense, and the old testosterone is just aching to find some outlet. I have no doubt that a lot of kids join gangs and pull off other senseless acts of violence just because they have that adolescent itch.

Turns out there are plenty of child warriors in Africa now, and they make especially effective troops: ruthless and brutal and loyal as only a kid can be loyal. It's terribly sad.

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

But I think if we truly put our minds too it, we could find other solutions, but 1. are we willing to risk it? 2. are we willing to accept the posibilty? 3. are we willing to essentially start over and think in entirely new ways? 4. Do we truly want to? We can't be smart enough to invent guns that shoot around corners, and yet not smart enough to figure out a way *not* to kill each other, can we?

It just doens't make sence.

You're being ingenuous, SnP. Mankind has never been very good at social engineering. We haven't been able to wipe out hunger or poverty or disease either, not that we haven't tried like hell.

I don't get so metaphysical about war. There's way too many of them, and we go to war too quickly, especially here in the USA. But I would explain war this way: you've got some asshole who wants what you have. You can't reason with him, he doesn't want to talk about it. He hates you and he hates your family. He wants you all dead. He's not afraid of the police or of anyone. There's no reasoning with him. He wants you dead and he doesn't care if he dies killing you. He's got his family together and they've got weapons and they're coming over.

Now what are you going to do?

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

in the same sense, i suppose, we even see in lit fantasy's of stuff we wouldn't do in real life, sexual wise like incest, BDSM, Rape etc..just like war it goes on but not everyone likes it, not many partake in it.

is it the "way of the Beast"?

Well, yes this is true. Of course these are all separate questioins that have been asked and debated all over in this forum, and they all have different answers.

Why do women fantisize about being raped? (Numerous threads)

Why do people love incest stories? (a few threads at least)

Why makes a person become submissive? Why do some like to be humiliated for sexual thrill, ect ect. (and still more numourous threads)

The most difficult question to answer always, is WHY? It is also the most fascinating, open to debate and important to ask. (IMO)