Why do men love war?

[sweetnpetite]

I had to look up ingenous, this is what I found:
Noble; generous; magnanimous; honorable; upright; high-minded; as, an ingenuous ardor or zeal.

I'm thinking that we can't get rid of any of these problems either because *a* we accept there inevitablity (what phychologist might call *learned helplessness*) or *b* they are desirable for some reason, for some segment (that one with the power) of the population. [or *c* both]

This conversation is beginging to remind me, as almost everything eventually does of 1985 and the discusion of the prolateriates. They alone had the power to make change, but sence they didn't believe that they could they never would. Keeping them believing as they did kept the power structure as it was.

ANd so the common man learns to accept the inevitablilty of war while the powerful manipulate it for their gain. I guess a part of that manipulation would be the glamourizing of it and the exploitation of mankinds natural agressiveness. (all animals are agressive, but only two engage in what could be called warfare- man and chimps)

And the same goes for poverty, disease and hunger.

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.

I think that your example is an oversimplification. And I think the oversimplification of us vs them is exactly what leads to war. Us good, Them bad. They are unreasonable, they have no motivation other than evil. Our actions are all reasonable and our motivations all pure.

Also, world leaders don't tend to get there family membors to fight you, but young men that they whip into a nationalist furvor- groups of men who have little to do with what the fight was about,and who have been taught that you are the evil, and they are the good. (nobody wants to believe that there side is the badguy)

 

[Pure]

I think dr. m is on the right track, though, sweet.

Let me have another go at it.

The new guy wants what the others have (e.g., Japan wants empire).
He sets out to get it; he will cloak the effort in patriotism, but there is a grain of truth in that he 'needs' something.

Older guys (France, Britain) and the not so old (US) say "no, fuck you."
They cloak their empire in patriotism, but in truth they do need the resources and/or geopolitical clout (client gov in the region).

So the skirmishes begin, and the propaganda sets in. Each points to atrocities by the other. Each comes to more deeply hate the other.

So the new guy (Japan) launches a war; grabs vietnam from the French; HongKong from the Brits and Phillipines from the US, and eventually strikes Pearl Harbour.

There will always be 'need' for new land and resources, in some country somewhere; there will always be 'historical' lands that can be claimed ("greater Serbia"); all formerly muslim countries (al qaeda and others claim Spain).

So this cannot easily be resolved, lacking an international referee.
It can no more be resolved than the fact that someone is going to want to burgle your house and take your new widescreen and sell it to get dope.

IOW, "Interests" are key {wants that are considered important or vital; generally tied to needs considered essential}. Interests clash. War is a common, though not inevitable result. (This formula can be applied back to the alleged 'conquest' of Canaan; of the Mongol empire, or whatever; the Muslim empire at its greatest extent).


You say,
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.

Of course. If Japan and the US were feuding neighbors in Chicago, the courts and police might settle it, or there might be arbitration or compromise under pressure from the community. BUT that would mean renouncing some hopes.

Also to be fair to the new guy (Japan), the older guys are pretty intransigeant/stubborn; they tend NOT to want to part with one square inch of "French" (Algeria); British (Falklands) or American (Philippines, Panama) territory. And they have the power to hang on, as the last three cases suggest.

Just as two kids either fight over the toy both want, or have mommy intervene, nations either war or compromise (under pressure, usually). If you want to see a particulary nasty example, look at Kashmir.

Interesting questions.

----

Add
SnPWE 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.

My nephew plays (playstation?) Grand Theft Auto II which is serial killing, including cops. There are, independently, serial killer 'cards' -- like baseball cards of old.

 

[Liar]

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.

As you yourself is hinting, it is not about "toughening up".

I'm a bit of a knowledge buff. I go to a library and read stuff that is interresting. I read quite a lot about diseases. I do this because they are important, and affect alot of peoples lives in very big ways. The same thing with war. I don't want to like war, I want to understand it. In fact, the more I understand about it, the more I am disgusted with the concept. I too ran around as a kid with my friends, pretending that my hockey club was a sniper gun. But that romantisism of it wore off as I started to understand what it is really like, something that I pray that I only will have to find out by reading and watching the occational Discovery documentary.

#L

 

[Sappholovers]

For a long answer, check out "From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity," by Leo Braudy (Knopf, 2003).

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

There are two things in life that have always amazed and puzzled me:

1. Why men, especially young men, LIKE to risk death and injury,

2. Why any woman would ever, willing, have a second kid.

In case no one else has mentioned this, the explanation for guys and war has more to do with science than culture--although both are involved. Guy's have a testosterone based condition called a "risk taking factor." It explains why for every one female who is a quadraplegic due to an accident, there are ten males.

War, bar fights, contact sports, climbing mountains, racing cars, all of these are manifestations of that risk taking factor. Cultures might glorify or magnify this condition, but the root is in nature not nurture. Keeping little Johnny from playing soldier may lower the chance he'll ever want to be a US Marine, but it won't, it can't insure he'll grow up to be sensitive and sensible. Sorry.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

here, here, Rumple. note for sweet

I might add, however, that stopping warplay as a way of lessening future desire to enlist in the military may be like the parents who try to keep the kid out of (or in) church and end up with a Moonie (militant atheist).
-----

Sweet: before we get too 'scientific' and testosterone based. check this, april 12, globe and mail www.globeandmail.com

Alexandra Gill
...
In fact, women over 40 spend more time playing on-line than adult men or teens, according to a new survey of casual on-line game players released last month by AOL (American Online) Games.

Even though men spend more time on the Internet each week than women (23.2 hours compared to 21.6 hours), women over the age of 40 spend the most hours per week playing games (9.1 hours, or 41 per cent of their on-line time, compared to 6.1 hours, or 26 per cent, for men).

The study also shows that women are also more likely to play on-line games every day than men or teens of either sex. And 28 per cent of gals who game report they usually play into the wee hours of the night, between midnight and 5 a.m.

Have you checked on your mother lately?

Catharine Hortsing says the studies are believable. "Those games are addictive," the 38-year-old Torontonian says with a shudder. "That's why I don't go near them any more."

Last summer, Hortsing started a job as vice-president of business development for Espresso Code, a web-based logistics software company. Newly immersed in the world of technology, and surrounded in the office by young intern software developers, the former high-school English teacher soon found herself hooked on a group video game called Counter-Strike.

"The first time I played, I was appalled," she says of the shooting game in which two teams, terrorists and counterterrorists, amass weapons in their mission to plant bombs, rescue hostages and kill off their enemies.

"It's just so incredibly violent. But once you let down that barrier, it's so much fun. Everyday at 4 p.m., we'd shut down the office and start up the game. We'd play for hours."

The appeal? "Winning!" she exclaims. "And being sneakier than everyone else."

Even outside the office, Hortsing found herself strangely drawn to the casino and crossword games at the end of the bar at her local pub. She compares the guilty pleasure to reading a mystery novel: "Everything's wrapped up at the end. And when you're playing, you have to focus completely. It totally shuts out whatever other stresses are going on in your life."

 

[lewdandlicentious]

OK everybody, for what it’s worth, after considerable consideration, here’s my tuppence worth:

It’s been said, here I think and in other conversations that subjects and reasons cannot simply be explained away with genes and hormones etc. I disagree: Genes and hormones etc are the very life source within us. They make us what we are and who we are and very much decide how we react.

Let’s break it right down initially, and go back to those basic instincts. And this will open a whole other can of worms but hey……

You walk out of your front door to pick up the paper that’s been delivered. Just as your fingers reach it, as if from nowhere another hand grabs it at the same time. You stand up and look at the other person who’s holding your paper.

Remember now, you paid for this paper, it belongs to you. The other person says that they’re having the paper because they want it.

What do you say??

Do you just say: “Oh ok!” and let go, or do you tell them to back the fuck off and give you your paper?

What if they continue to argue and struggle, do you let them have it??

OK, it’s only a paper you say, so you might let it go.

What if it’s your car? Your house?

Do you just give it up because they’re bigger/stronger than you etc?

No I think not. You argue and eventually someone throws a punch and it escalates from there.

Similarly, sometimes you’ve got to stand up for what you believe. Sometimes you have to hit the big boy in the playground to stop him hitting you. Yes you’ll get hurt in the process, but the respect gained by the pain you inflicted is generally enough to prevent it happening again. From that bully at least.

Sometimes a country or countries have to stand up and be counted. And sometimes that country might not be standing up for it’s own interests, but the interests of others.

And sometimes, just sometimes, we have to place enough faith and trust in our leaders, and believe that they are doing what they are doing for the greater good. We do not know everything they do. Even in today’s world of ever inclusive media coverage, we still do not have the intelligence sources and info that the leaders do. Sometimes you have to trust.

And sometimes, we all get it wrong.

 

[rgraham666]

I have been thinking about this since yesterday. (My fascination with war and all that)

Currently, my thoughts are leaning towards war being popular because of the human propensity for lying to themselves.

Young men, the ones that fight the wars, lie to themselves about what war is like. They lie to themselves that they won't be killed or maimed. They lie to themselves that it will be fun. They lie to themselves about the humanity of the people they shoot at.

Old men, the ones who start the wars, lie to themselves about their motives for starting a war. They lie to themselves about the superiority of their motives. They lie to themselves about the cost in lives and pain.

War would be a lot less popular if we didn't lie to ourselves.

 

[sweetnpetite]

For a long answer, check out "From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity," by Leo Braudy (Knopf, 2003).

This does sound like something I could probably try to read

thanks for the recomendation.

 

[sweetnpetite]

"It's just so incredibly violent. But once you let down that barrier, it's so much fun. Everyday at 4 p.m., we'd shut down the office and start up the game. We'd play for hours."

The appeal? "Winning!" she exclaims. "And being sneakier than everyone else."

And when you're playing, you have to focus completely. It totally shuts out whatever other stresses are going on in your life."

 

[sweetnpetite]

----

Add
SnPWE 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.

My nephew plays (playstation?) Grand Theft Auto II which is serial killing, including cops. There are, independently, serial killer 'cards' -- like baseball cards of old.

Yes, I know all about the serial killer cards, I actually went to school with the brother of the guy who makes them. Quite a bit more controversial than GI Joes. I think they are also a bit more obscure.

Grand Theft Auto, I'm pretty sure is rated M for Mature- meaning that your *supposed* to be adult to play/purchase. I'm fairly sickened by that game as well. I could actually go off into a whole new thread on that topic, but for now I'll just say that society's glaourazation of violence both war and otherwise obviously has a 'trickle down effect' and I don't think it's good.

Suffice it to say that overall, society doesn't look down on Grand Theft Auto and Serial Killer trading cards with a smile of approval as it generally does with GI Joe cartoons and dolls.

 

[sweetnpetite]

accidental double post.

 

[sweetnpetite]

This is a very astute observation.

I think you are right on target.

I have been thinking about this since yesterday. (My fascination with war and all that)

Currently, my thoughts are leaning towards war being popular because of the human propensity for lying to themselves.

Young men, the ones that fight the wars, lie to themselves about what war is like. They lie to themselves that they won't be killed or maimed. They lie to themselves that it will be fun. They lie to themselves about the humanity of the people they shoot at.

Old men, the ones who start the wars, lie to themselves about their motives for starting a war. They lie to themselves about the superiority of their motives. They lie to themselves about the cost in lives and pain.

War would be a lot less popular if we didn't lie to ourselves.

 

[Sappholovers]

Women and men and war

Now for the funniest--and perhaps most intriguing--look at men and war, try Aristosphanes' "Lysistratra." The women in this play stage an amusing form of war protest: They refuse to have sex with men until the war stops.

For another humorous take on why men love war, I recommend Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" with its linkage between missile envy and penis envy (the Russians and the Americans seem to want to prove to the other that they have the biggest and most powerful missiles). The movie begins with shots of B-52s being refueled in the sky by tanker planes as a form of simulated sex.

 

[rgraham666]

This is a very astute observation.

I think you are right on target.

Merci, sweet.

just some of my thoughts though.

If I knew all the answers, I'd be God. And then I certainly wouldn't be hanging around this silly planet now, would I?

 

[raphy]

I think Lew's hit the nail on the head. War is nothing more than the escalation of a neighborly dispute taken to physical means. Should we turn the other cheek? I am not the noblest roman of them all.

In the end, every dispute comes down to violence and strength. Every single one. The stronger get their way, the weaker are forced to submit. War is nothing more than that on an international scale.

But that's more on the necessity of being able to defend yourself by being stronger than the other guy .. Or having access to people who are, either a friendly country (in war), a bigger brother, being able to dial 911, etc etc.

Slightly more on topic:

Why do men like war is exactly the same question as why do men like to fight?

I don't know. I was a martial artist for 15 years. I fought in national contact tournaments. I was a nightclub bouncer and I worked security at entertainment venues. I've been involved in some form of violence for most of my teenage and adult life.

And you can sniff disdainfully all you like, but there's still something visceral and genetically satisfying about coming out on top of a conflict.

It's just like winning an argument, or a tennis match, or a spelling bee, or any kind of competition. And you can't tell me that people don't like to win. Of course they like to win. No one likes to lose. That's drummed into us from before we're born.

"Second place is first loser."

"He who dares, wins."

"If you can't win, don't play."

All that kind of crap. So of course people like to win. But to be able to win, you have to be competing against someone. And in the end, every conflict can be ultimately resolved by violence - But in our civilized society we tend to reserve violence for when it's necessary.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Thanks for your reply. For once, I have no argument with anything you've said (although I wish it weren't so)

Why do men like war is exactly the same question as why do men like to fight?

ANd thanks for pointing that out.

 

[raphy]

Thanks for your reply. For once, I have no argument with anything you've said (although I wish it weren't so)

I'll try to make sure it won't happen again *grin*

Don't forget, men like to be heros, too - And you can't be a hero unless there's a bad guy to defeat and a maiden to rescue.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I have been thinking about this since yesterday. (My fascination with war and all that)

Currently, my thoughts are leaning towards war being popular because of the human propensity for lying to themselves.

Young men, the ones that fight the wars, lie to themselves about what war is like. They lie to themselves that they won't be killed or maimed. They lie to themselves that it will be fun. They lie to themselves about the humanity of the people they shoot at.

Old men, the ones who start the wars, lie to themselves about their motives for starting a war. They lie to themselves about the superiority of their motives. They lie to themselves about the cost in lives and pain.

War would be a lot less popular if we didn't lie to ourselves.

Sorry RG, almost totally disagree.

As far as young men are concerned, in this instance, they can't lie to themselves. They know nothing of what they speak, so how can it be lies?? They know not the realities of war.

They're simply wrapped up in the illusion, which is promoted by almost everything around us, Hollywood, the media etc, that war is romantic. All films make it seem like buddy/buddy, heroic action etc every minute.

War is not like that. For every one day's battle, there are 20+ days of boring, exhausting build up. Too much time for train of thoughts to develop into emotions. Too much time for those emotions, primarily fear, to get in the way.

In the build up, fear is bad. You dread the thoughts of placing yourself in peril, but know it is your duty to do so. Fear can overcome you if you're not careful.

Once battle commences, fear is good, it develops adrenaline which heightens the senses and promotes maximum performance.

Once you've been close to the reality of combat, believe me, the rush is amazing. It's no wonder that men and boys want that feeling again.

Fighting in the street or as a bouncer (club security) has similar results. The buzz may not be quite so extreme but it is the same.

The post-battle feelings are slightly different.

In the street, there's a pride if you won, and generally an immediate wanting for more due to the adrenaline still flowing. This fades in time, and sleep comes fairly easily.

After battle, the adrenaline flows for days. Sleep doesn't come easily. In time there's a longing for home, for normality. Once there, life takes on a completely different meaning for most. Things that were important before, suddenly lose priority.

Once another battle presents itself however, even if it's only a street fight, you want in. You want that buzz again. You know you can get it without, in general, fear of death or serious injury. You want it, the feel, the buzz, the rush!

It's fierce, it's carnal, it's brutal but it's true.

The buzz of combat on any level is extreme. The higher the risk, the higher the buzz.

It is a drug, and people do become addicted.

Young men don't lie, they tell it how they believe it, as told to them by others.


As for the old men lying?? Again, if they've not been there, they don't know what they're talking about. They aren't lying, they're telling the truth as they see and believe it. They simply don't know the realities.

Ask one who's actually been to war. He won't lie either. He'll tell you how he see's it.

Back to my original post:

It's basic human instinct. It's what makes us.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I'll try to make sure it won't happen again *grin*

Don't forget, men like to be heros, too - And you can't be a hero unless there's a bad guy to defeat and a maiden to rescue.

Further to that Raphy:

There's a hero in most men. Fortunately in most cases, due to our way of life now, that heroism is rarely if ever, put to the test.

Even the soft-boy down the street, might be a hero if put in those circumstances!

 

[Guest]

Further to that Raphy:

There's a hero in most men. Fortunately in most cases, due to our way of life now, that heroism is rarely if ever, put to the test.

Even the soft-boy down the street, might be a hero if put in those circumstances!

"A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around." - Edgar Watson Howe

I loved your long post, Lew, and I also know how tough it must have been for you. Expressing those kinds of emotions and how things feel isn't easy, and I've not been through anything like you have.

You are my hero. Have I told you that recently? I know you don't see yourself that way, but I do. Not even for what you have done so much as the person you are now. I love, admire and respect you.

Sorry, everyone, for getting mushy, but I'm just saying it as it is, for me.

Just one final point, from a woman's perspective: the fighters - the soldiers, the tough guys (at least on the exterior), the ones that come out on top - are the sexy guys. To me, anyway. That's primal, base animal instinct at work. It does all come down to our genetics, our ancestry - deep down we all want the strongest, most powerful mate.

Lou

 

[raphy]

Just one final point, from a woman's perspective: the fighters - the soldiers, the tough guys (at least on the exterior), the ones that come out on top - are the sexy guys. To me, anyway. That's primal, base animal instinct at work. It does all come down to our genetics, our ancestry - deep down we all want the strongest, most powerful mate.

Lou

And men always want to be that one.

 

[raphy]

Lew, thanks for your posts. I find I totally agree with them. You put it better than I have, but then you've been there, I haven't. Closest I ever came was not being accepted by the RAF (after 2 years of cadets) for having bad eyesight. But by god, I wanted to fly. Still do. Ah well.

Yes, there is a buzz, a thrill from combat. Adrenaline heightens the senses, makes you faster, stronger, quicker, more able to defend or attack. And yes, it definitely can be addictive - Lew speaks the truth - I've felt it myself.

"It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog"

 

[rgraham666]

Lewd? Thanks for your thoughts. It sounds as if you've been at the sharp end. So I'm going to consider your thoughts carefully.

Still, lies are often very useful things. And when you're putting your life on the line, you pretty much have to lie to yourself, just to keep going. One of the main reasons I got so ill a while ago is that I ran out of lies to tell myself.

And as far as the top dogs go, it would be a lot more dfficult to start wars if they were honest about the reasons.

Let's take the current Iraqi kerfuffle. What if Shrub II had said they were invading Iraq to get the oil, establish bases to extend their reach in the Middle East, to prepare a fall back position in case Saudi Arabia became unfriendly, to establish new markets and to reward their friends in Big Business? Probably the people, 9/11 not withstanding, would have responded with a collective 'Bite Me!' I would have given them points for honesty while disagreeing with them myself.

I won't argue that some people become addicted to warfare. But many more become sickened by it.

There's a little occurence in my life that popped to mind today.

Many years ago, I was eating dinner in a restaurant, reading as usual. The book I was reading was How to Make War. Mostly it was comaprative statistics of NATO and Warsaw Pact weapons.

When I went to pay for my meal I put the book on the counter next to the cash register. The cashier read the title and said, "If I had known that was what you were reading, I wouldn't have served you."

My reply was, "If I was reading a book on cancer, would you have assumed I was in favour of that as well?"

To me, war should be like surgery. The absolute last thing you should do. And if you must, plan it carefully and execute it quickly.

Otherwise the patient may not survive.

Sigh. I've been pondering this for years. No real answers yet.

 

[raphy]

Lewd? Thanks for your thoughts. It sounds as if you've been at the sharp end. So I'm going to consider your thoughts carefully.

Still, lies are often very useful things. And when you're putting your life on the line, you pretty much have to lie to yourself, just to keep going. One of the main reasons I got so ill a while ago is that I ran out of lies to tell myself.

Honest question. Lie to yourself how?

I've never fought in a war, but I've been in violent situations where I believed my life was threatened. Obviously, I prevailed, otherwise I wouldn't be here right now. I'm not quite sure where I lied to myself though..

Not a sarcastic question. I do want to know where you're going with this