insideMAN

Do men start wars?

by 13 Comments

As we mark the centenary of the start of World War I, Glen Poole considers the question: “Do men start wars?”

Asking if men start wars may seem like a stupid question. Whoever heard of a warmongering leader called Adele Hitler, Wilma the Conqueror or Matilda the Hun? Nobody!

It only takes a cursory glance at the history books to reveal that the major players in the history of warfare have always been men. But then again, how many of us actually know a man who has started a war? I certainly don’t and the last time I looked, I was still a man and I still haven’t launched any major armed conflicts.

And yet somehow, as men, we are expected to share collective responsibility for the horrors of war (in a way that women aren’t). In February, for example, the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, told us the use of rape as weapon of war “should shame all men” and that to avoid confronting this issue “is in itself unmanly”.

Do “men as a class” start wars? 

And therein lies the true meaning in the question “Do men start wars?” It is not a question of whether men like Adolph, William and Attila start wars, because we know they surely do. The actual question I want you to consider is this: “Do all men— men as a class—start wars?”

It’s certainly a belief that many people hold. As the anti-war MP, George Galloway, righteously observed on BBC Question Time this year:

“[We were told]…for years in the Labour Party, if only we could get more women into parliament there’d be fewer wars, less aggression and all of that. There was 101 ‘Blair babes’ elected in 1997 and all but three of them voted for every war that Tony Blair took us into.”

So where does this idea come from, this notion that men as a group collectively start wars? Is it a post-modern invention of what the right-wing media might call the trendy, liberal left?

The ancient Greeks linked voting and fighting

It may sound like a feminist-inspired belief, but you could argue that the idea that “all men” start wars is at least as old as the ancient Greeks, whose democratic city states were founded on the principle that citizens were given the privilege of voting, only by accepting the responsibility of fighting.

Fast forward to 1914 and in Britain, millions of men bore the responsibility of fighting, without enjoying the privilege of voting. These brave men fought for King and country, not because they were male and liked to have a bit of a war every now and then, but because of the social expectation that it is “men’s work” to protect women and children, even if that means putting your own life at risk.

Some experts, like Dr Amanda Robinson at Cardiff University claim that “masculinity is associated with violence in most cultures”. If this is true, then we should ask ourselves if masculinity is a cause of violence or a consequence of violence?

Is masculinity a cause of violence?

When war kicks off, do we want the men around us to be more or less masculine? As conscientious objectors have learnt at times of war, we all (men and women) seem to carry an expectation that men will live up to the primordial masculine directive to protect the weak.

If men as a group are responsible for starting wars, then we should also remember that men and boys die disproportionately in wars accounting for 83% of violent deaths in global conflicts each year. And more importantly, men should be given credit for ending wars too.

In reality, war is far too complex to dismiss as a manmade problem. It wasn’t a man who took us to war in The Falklands, it was Margaret Thatcher; it wasn’t a man who took India to war with Pakistan, it was Indira Ghandi; it wasn’t a man who was Secretary of State when U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, it was Hilary Clinton.

And it was Hilary Clinton who famously said in 1998 that “women have always been the primary victims of war”; the same Hilary Clinton who complained last year that the media failed to highlight the fact that when bin Laden was killed, they moved wives and children “to a safe location so they wouldn’t be hurt”.

Notice how politicians like Clinton and Hague tell a story of war where women and children are the victims and all men should be ashamed. This demonstrates just how deeply ingrained our beliefs that “men should protect women” are. For as long as women and men believe this, there will always be an expectation that men should be “real men” and fight our wars if needed.

So what does this tell us about the question “Do men start wars”?

War is simply and brutally the use of force to get others to do what you want them to do. It’s a tendency that is inherent in all human beings, as a trip to any pre-school nursery at playtime will show you.

To war is human and it is not men, but the people in power who ultimately make the choices that take us to war. If the last Labour government is any guide, more women in power does not mean fewer wars, it just means more women have the opportunity to vote for men to fight and die.

From Boudica to Bloody Mary to the Iron Lady, British women in power have been sending British men to war for centuries and as we have written elsewhere this week, women who are not in “power” can also play a huge role in applying social pressure on men to fight.

What’s changed in the last 50-100 years is that there are now more women than ever before with the political power to vote for or against war. The “masculine” role of political leadership is no longer reserved exclusively for men of  the political classes.

It’s still men who are dying in war 

At the same time, the “masculine” role of warrior, as defined by the people we send to kill and be killed, has remained almost entirely male, for example, 99% of the 453 British military personnel who have lost their lives in Afghanistan since 2001 are men.

Our belief that women and children’s lives are more valuable than men’s lives has also not changed. If we want to approach war as a gendered problem, it’s not the proportion of women in power we need to focus on, it’s the proportion of women in the military and our unequal concern for the death of men and boys in conflict.

Men don’t start wars, humans do and most humans still have the expectation that if a war comes our way, then it’s men who should protect us with their lives. For as long as we hold onto that expectation, men and women will continue to send men and boys to their deaths.

As we continue to mark the centenary of the start of World War I, it’s time to question the sexist use of men’s lives as the primary human resource in the wars that men and women start. It’s time to ask the question “Why do we send men and only men to die in war?”

—Photo credit: Flickr/Jayel Aheram

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

Also on insideMAN:

  • CitymanMichael

    Absolutely fantastic argument by Glen on the reality of war from a sex perspective.

  • Nigel

    As women are the overwhelming consumers in our society clearly they “caused” supermarkets or indeed “consumerism”. Evidently not but an example of the nonsense of assuming the participants in something caused it. I think your analysis is good. It seems simple logic that in any conflict over resources(which until very recently would be desparate, one would deploy those assets best able to carry out the job and whose loss were least likely to cause problems. Small tribes appear to go to at lenghts to have “ritual wars” (Champions fighting) as apposed to the industrial slaughter of WW1(were even the huge losses barely made a dent in the population’s survival). In either case disposable males are the logical choice(just as in ants or bees it would be infertile females ). Of course being a communication based social animal we would develop a narrative to ensure our best chnce of keeping th oasis or siezing the hunting rounds.

    • Nigel

      Oh dear no spell check!

  • Wilma

    Here is an interesting article on the subject of the female inciting war in European history.

    http://freya.theladyofthelabyrinth.com/?page_id=334

  • Nigel

    Rather than violence masculinity does have a strong link with competition , mainly between males. Wars and violence are not universal however there are a myriad of ways to compete. The vast majority peaceful and even those that may include violence ( contact sports for instance ) are bounded by rules to prevent, or minimise damage. The animus for competition (nature or nurture?) is of course precisely what framed much of the recruitment propaganda in early WW1 often expressed as sport. Along with “Hun” atrocities against women and children. Of course women can be competitive but the myriad of ways males find to compete with each other (from racing insects to tussling supermarket CEOs) suggests it is a deep rooted need and one that can purposely or irrationally spiral into violence. Or maybe manipulated into violence.

  • http://www.nickwoodall.net Nick W

    I’m surprised to find no mention of white feathers, Glen.

    • Inside MAN

      Hey Nick

      Yes the white feather’s in there but it’s a bit hidden. Where I say:

      From Boudica to Bloody Mary to the Iron Lady, British women in power have been sending British men to war for centuries and as we have written elsewhere this week, women who are not in “power” can also play a huge role in applying social pressure on men to fight.

      If you follow the link “elsewhere this week” you’ll come to an article we published about White Feathers and in particular “The White Feather Diaries” that tell the stories of conscientious objectors describing the prejudice and personal conflict they faced. The diaries are published in conjunction with powerful filmed oral-history accounts from their children. The series is named after the symbol of shame and cowardice given by women to men who were out of uniform — a white feather (as you know)

      That article can be found here:

      http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/08/05/the-bravery-and-brutality-of-being-a-conscientious-objector-one-mans-story/

      Thanks Nick

  • Jenny

    Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. – Hillary Rodham Clinton

    • seabird

      Hillary Clinton….what a despicable woman. She has blood on her hands left from her being Secretary of State. From Libya to Syria and Iraq. Obama and Hillary being responsible for the slaughter and persecution of all the thousands and thousands Christians in Syria and Iraq with funding ISIS was and is a disgrace. Obama turned his back on these people and left them totally defenseless against these monsters. It totally disgusts me and makes me sick to my stomach. Most Americans aren’t even aware of this. The clueless ignorant Democrats voted this pathetic man for a second term. Unbelievable! I pray to God that Hillary does not get elected. She is a liar and is very dangerous. A sociopathic, narcissistic, and a conniving despicable liar who thinks she is above the law.

  • Pingback: “Do men start wars?” Repost from Inside-Man.Co.UK | Men’s Psychology()

  • http://philosophyofmensissues.blogspot.ca MikeZhao

    You use the word ’cause’. I would have used the word ‘declare’.

    Of course some men have declared war.

    Every claim about causation entails a corresponding counterfactual claim.
    “An arsonist caused my house to burn down.” (Claim)
    “If there had been no arsonist, my house would not have burned down.” (Counterfactual)

    So to answer whether “Men cause wars”, we can ask the counterfactual question “If there had never been men, would there have been wars?” However the answer is, of course, no; there would not be any humans if only one gender existed.

    So we should ask something else.
    “Does male leadership cause wars?” (Claim)
    “If there were no male leadership, would there have been (as many) wars?” (Counterfactual)

    Ignoring the possibility of no leadership at all; hence assuming female leadership. From history, it seems like female leadership would cause at least as many wars as male leadership does.

    Margaret Thatcher: Falklands War
    Indira Gandhi: Indo-Pakistan War
    Golda Mier: Yom Kippur War
    Elizabeth I of England: Nine Year’s War, Irish War, Elizabethan War
    Anna of Russia: War of Polish Succession, Russo-Turkish War
    Elizabeth of Russia: War of Austrian Succession, Seven-Year’s War
    Catherine the Great: Russo-Persian War

    A look through English and Russian history confirms that most female leaders have declared war. I don’t know about the history of other nations. More recently, Hillary Clinton voted for war.

    It seems that men do not “cause” wars anymore than women do.

  • Pingback: How did a women’s equality campaign get turned into a social media movement against male circumcision……..? | insideMAN()

  • seabird

    Men are 100% total azzwipes in this area!