insideMAN

  • Who we are
  • Men’s Insights
  • Men’s Issues
  • Men’s Interests
  • About Men

15 articles about men and war that will make you think again

July 1, 2016 by Inside MAN 3 Comments

Since we launched insideMAN in the Summer of 2014, the subject of men and war has been a theme we’ve touched upon on many occasions. As today marks the 100th anniversary of the the Battle of the Somme, we decided it would be a good opportunity to re-post a series of our articles about men and war.

1. Why Kitchener’s finger gives me the arsehole

Dan Bell’s insightful critique of the famous Lord Kitchener poster—Your Country Needs You—is one of our most popular posts, you can read it here.

2. Do I look like I’m ready for war

To help us think about the experience of teenage boys going to war, we asked a 17 year old Josh O’ Brien to give us his views on conscription, you can see his video here.

3. Gaza: Why does it concern us more when women and children die?

In July, Glen Poole asked: “if 80% of people killed in the Gaza airstrikes are male, why is no-one talking about gender”. You can read the article today here.

4. So why are men disposable?

In a follow up to our Gaza article, reader Darren Ball asked “why are men disposable”. To find out what he said read his article here.

5. Who wants to hear about the psychological damage that war does to men?

Mike Payne, who supports men living with the wounds of armed conflict, gave us a personal insight into the damage that war does to men. You can read what he shared with us here.

6. This is what war is still doing to young men (and why you don’t know about it) [GRAPHIC IMAGES]

Wounded soldiers are not allowed to speak to the press unless given permission by their chain of command. Find out what Dan Bell saw when he visited a military rehabilitation centre in this article here.

7. Why did so many men volunteer to fight in 1914

Historian Toby Thacker explains why so may young men volunteered to fight in World War 1. Read what he had to say about this here.

8. Yoga helps veterans with post  traumatic stress disorder

Flora Lisica of The Conversation reveals how researchers are finding that yoga is helping men affected by war to overcome post-traumatic stress disorder. You can find out more about this research in this article.

9. Do men start wars? 

If you’re trying to make sense of gender and war then try Glen Poole’s philosophical piece, Do men start wars?

10. Why are some young men drawn to terrorism

As we tried to make sense of why some young British men are drawn to violent terrorism, this article from David Plummer of Griffith University in Australia helped shape our thinking. You can read David’s article here.

11. He refused to fight: the bravery and brutality of being a conscientious objector 

Read about the “The White Feather Diaries” project that serialises the diaries of conscientious objectors who faced the shame of refusing to fight in World War 1 here.

12. How the local media shame male readers into fighting in WW1

As part of our ongoing conversation about the “shaming” of men into war, we take at look at the role that local newspapers played in this process in World War 1 in this article here.

13. Why does Sky’s comedy series Chickens think it’s funny to humiliate men who didn’t fight in WW1?

Another popular piece questioning our modern views on conscientious objection as depicted in Sky’s TV comedy “Chickens”, which you read about here.

14. 100 years after WW1 the UK still sends teenage boys to fight its wars 

In 1914 the official age for joining the army was 18, though boys as young as 12 were sent to war. Today the UK is the only country in the EU that recruits boys aged 16 as this article revealed. 

15. This Remembrance Day, remember men aren’t to blame for war

What do you remember on Remembrance Sunday? Glen Poole says he counts his blessing that he wasn’t born a man at a time of conscription. Find out why here.

YOU CAN SEE ALL OF OUR ARTICLES ON MEN AND WAR BY FOLLOWING THE MEN AND WAR TAG.

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Issues Tagged With: men and war

Why Kitchener’s finger gives me the arsehole

July 1, 2016 by Inside MAN 16 Comments

Image: BBC Radio Times

If there is one image from the First World War that’s more iconic than any other, it is the Big-Brother stare and jabbing index finger of Lord Kitchener.

A century after the propaganda campaign ended, it’s an image that is still all around us — the original now re-versioned and re-deployed on everything from coffee mugs and duvet covers, to jaunty student union flyers, tourist T-shirts and even for David Cameron’s Big Society.

It’s so ubiquitous, in fact, as to have morphed into kitsch; the lazy go-to stock image for anyone who wants to knock-up a quick call to action.

But that accusatory forefinger isn’t just an old bit of Keep-Calm-And-Carry-On retro irony. It stands for a unique and brutal form of discrimination. What’s more, no-one either seems to notice or even care if they do.

The shame of fear

The explicit purpose of the Kitchener recruitment poster was to shame every man of enlistment age who saw it into signing up. It was a demand by the state that men and boys risk death and trauma or face becoming a social pariah if they refused.

In short, it is an expression of ultimate, state-sanctioned, socially-reinforced gendered discrimination – total control of the state over the bodies of one half of the population.

I’d like to suggest that you put yourself in the position of a young man walking past those posters back in 1914.

As he walked down the high street, or waited for a bus, or went into a post office or a library, that finger was pointing at him.

Jab in the chest

But more than that, no matter how crowded those streets and buildings were with women, each of them remained entirely untouched by its accusation. Every man, however, would have felt that finger jabbing into his chest, those eyes boring into the back of his head.

And the young man would have felt the force of that shame from the women who stood beside him too.

Kitchener’s two-dimensional jab in the chest was made flesh by women’s unique power to shame men for cowardice, a power that was ruthlessly exploited by the state and often enthusiastically adopted by women themselves.

Take a moment to think about it. An image that makes no explicit gendered statement at all – the simple words “Your Country Needs You” makes no reference to men or women – yet it was nonetheless totally understood only to apply to men.

What else must we be blind to?

That silent image was a manifestation of society’s deep and iron-clad demands on men and the stigma that stalked them should they refuse to conform.

The shame of male cowardice must have been like the weight of the atmosphere, so close to your skin that you couldn’t feel where your body stopped and it began.

The fact that now — fully 100 years later – we glibly fail to notice that this is the core meaning of that poster says a lot about how we view male suffering and disadvantage today.

Take a look at the Radio Times’ interpretation of the Kitchener poster on its front page. Then notice the headline for Kate Adie’s two-page spread on women entering the work force as a result of WW1.

Which one of these is most sensitive to the gendered sacrifices of the First World War?

If we can’t, even today, see conscription and pervasive social stigma as a gendered injustice for men, what else must we be blind to?

By Dan Bell

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

Also on insideMAN:

  • Do I look like I’m ready for war?: 17 year-old boy on conscription and WWI
  • Gaza: why does it concern us more when women and children die?
  • ‘He refused to fight’: The bravery and brutality of being a conscientious objector
  • 100 years after WWI the UK still sends teenage boys to fight its wars

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: cowardice, First World War, Lord Kitchener, men and war, Propaganda posters, The Great War, white feather, White feather movement, WW1, WW1centenary

How the local media shamed male readers into fighting in WW1

July 1, 2016 by Inside MAN 8 Comments

Reporting what happened in World War One won’t make a difference unless we also take time to reflect, writes Glen Poole.

I spotted a fascinating article in my local newspaper this week, revealing how the paper had done it’s bit for the war effort in 1914 by shaming its male readers into signing up.

The article interested me for two reasons. Firstly it added to my understanding of the great web of social pressure that pushed men into the “protect and provide” mode of masculinity a century ago. In particular, it highlighted the role that employers played in pressurising their young male staff to die for king and country, a factor I hadn’t previously considered.

Secondly, it provided evidence of the way local newspapers shamed their male readers into sacrificing their lives and it did so with no sense of guilt, regret or reflection. In a section dedicated to showing today’s readers what the local media was talking about 100 years ago, the paper proudly declared:

“Sussex men were being castigated for any unwillingness to sign up……The Argus reported an appeal for the Sussex battalion of Lord Kitchener’s expeditionary force of 100,000 men was short of soldiers. Our reporter said the response from the county had not been sufficient, that our men were “lagging behind” and were in danger of reflecting badly on the honour of Sussex.”

Taking pride in shaming men

That’s right, the newspaper told its young male readers that they were bringing shame on their county by failing to join the slaughter of the First World War and appealed to all local men under 30 to enlist.

Furthermore, the paper gave its backing to local companies who were openly dismissing young male workers who failed to put themselves in line to kill and be killed, describing the businesses who sacked these young men as “patriotic employers”.

The paper gave the example of a local tailor who responded to the initial article “by questioning why shop assistants and clerks with “no outlook” were hanging around the streets after hours rather than enlisting”. Taking the matter into his own hands, the tailor told the paper that he “approached two assistants in his employment who were under 30 and left them under no illusions that he would have no need for their service unless they attempted to enlist”.

And that was it. No reflection, no regret, no shame (or justification even) for the newspaper’s role in shaming its young male readers into overcoming the most base, individual, human instinct—to survive—and to sacrifice their potential futures to the horrors of industrial warfare in the name of the greater good.

The silence is deafening 

Unwritten, between the casual lines of nostalgia that mark the violent deaths of young men in their millions one hundred years ago, is a huge, collective, silent shrug that whispers “what else could we do?”

It’s understandable. How can any individual make sense of the mass killing of global war? But this little question, the simple, childlike question “Why?” is so overwhelmingly ponderous, there is a danger we will avoid it altogether and simply report the centenary of World War One without reflection.

I don’t pretend to have the answer to this question. When I reflect on World War One, I simply count my blessings that I wasn’t born a man at a time when I would be required to either fight for my country or face the consequences of objection. I don’t have an answer to the question “Why?” but I will keep asking this question throughout the centenary of World War One.

Maybe the conscientious objectors in my local area didn’t dare to go to war, but they did dare to question it and when they asked themselves “Why?” they should enlist for the Sussex Battalion, they could come up with no acceptable answer.

As we look back on 1914 and consider the experiences of the men and boys who faced the fears of fighting (and the men and boys who faced the shame of not fighting), we owe it to each and every one of them to keep asking the question: “Why? Why? Why?”

—Photo credit: Flickr/Jenny Downing

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

Also on insideMAN:
  • Why does Sky’s comedy series ‘Chickens’ think its funny to humiliate men who don’t fight?
  • Why Kitchener’s finger gives me the arsehole
  • Do I look like I’m ready for war? 17 year-old boy on conscription and WWI
  • The bravery and brutality of being a conscientious objector: one man’s story
  • 100 years after WWI the UK sill sends teenage boys to fight its war
  • Gaza: why does it shame us more when women and children die

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Latest News Tagged With: articles by Glen Poole, conscientious objection, conscientious objectors, Conscription, First World War, men and war, women and children first, World War I

10 Ways the State divided men and women in World War One

November 24, 2014 by Inside MAN Leave a Comment

Does the state play a part in conditioning men and women into gendered roles? 100 years  ago it was certainly the case that millions of British men were sent to war because they were men, often being pressured into fighting by Kitchener’s omnipresent finger.

We’ve published numerous articles on men and war during the centenary of the outbreak of World War I, but we haven’t looked at the impact of war on men AND women. Then on International Men’s Day, I stumbled across a collection of World War I propaganda posters that made me think about the way the State ensured men were men,and women were women.

I’ve captured 10 of the posters below which show some of the ways the State divided men’s and women’s roles one hundred years ago.

1. Firstly, all fit men should rally around the flag

2. Young men should definitely be wearing a military uniform

3. Real men should follow their sporting heroes 

Don’t be a soft lad, be a real man and die hard, just like your favourite football players.

4. A good woman should get a good job

Meanwhile with the domestic workforce depleted by the recruitment of men into the armed forces, women were told to do their moral duty and serve the nation in the workplace.

5. Let women do women’s work

Try reading this one out loud and imagine the kind of clipped, stoical voice you’d need to say: “Keep the flag flying! Let women do women’s work and Essex Men join the Essex regiment.” Yes, fighting is definitely men’s work and anything else is unmanly and should be left for women to do.

6. Why should women join the army? 

From 1914, women’s organisations began to be structured along quasi-military lines, such as the Women’s Emergency Corp and the Women’s Volunteer Reserve. One of the primary aims was for women to do tasks previously viewed as “men’s work” in order to make those men available for the “real man’s work” of fighting the Germans. As this poster for the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps says, “every fit woman can release a fit man”.

7. There are only three types of men, which one are you

For those men who weren’t first in line to sign up, there were constant reminders to think about what type of man they were—-do you obey, do you delay or are you a coward, Sir?

8. This one brought a tear to my eye

While the thought of being conscripted is terrifying, there is something brutally honest and straight forward about the finger-jabbing “you country needs you” approach to military recruitment. But this next approach really messes with the emotional bond between men and women and calls on couples to put their country (and the man’s life) before their love for each other. The thought of the state trying to persuade my partner to set aside her love for me and send me off to war to die in the trenches, touched me deeply…….

9. Women against the U-boats 

During World War 1 the Germans made a concerted effort to blockade Britain to prevent food imports such as wheat and flour entering the country. With the menfolk out of the country fighting the war, it became the patriotic duty of housewives as controllers of the nation’s domestic economy to make food stocks go a long way.

10. Get back in the kitchen! 

Cooking was definitely women’s work in World War I, when making food go a long way elevated women on the home front to an equal footing with men on the fighting front.

—Union Flag Image: Nicolas Raymond

—Posters: Methodist Central Hall

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

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

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Interests Tagged With: articles by Glen Poole, First World War, gender and war, men and war, wartime posters, World War I

Are the dead really being heard on Remembrance Sunday?

November 11, 2014 by Inside MAN Leave a Comment

Mike Payne is an ex-serviceman who thinks our current approach to remembrance does not fully honour all those who died.

— This is article #51 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

With the anniversary of the Great War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Remembrance seems to be more valued in society than when I served. I also sense something missing despite many thoughtful and respectful acts. I sense the voices of the dead are not being fully heard.

This year in particular there have been images of Poppies in railways stations and public places, most notably the field of Poppies around the Tower of London which is beautiful, powerful and reflective. However it concerns me that many of these displays feel like the hand of marketing, not the soul of the War Poet.

With the Poppy season extended into October you now have a situation where those in the public eye wear Poppies, indeed have to wear them, yet at the same time they are noticeable by their absence on the high street. I would expect more not less Poppies being worn given there is more support.

It’s difficult for soldiers to speak out

Maybe there is a disconnect between what is felt and how the Poppy is perceived, maybe the season is too long. Maybe it is because of the emotional and mental juggling act of not supporting recent wars, alongside a genuine desire to support those fighting them. Is there a sense we look to the past yet are not addressing the repeat patterns today?

It is difficult for serving soldiers to speak out, not least because they are willingly subservient to the democratic authority and are censored; also because they have to enter a mindset to the job.

Had I been killed on operational tour it would have been while trying, imperfectly, to create a safe framework where people could make daily choices safely e.g. pop down to M&S or vote without being kneecapped. To me that self evidently includes freedom of choice in whether or not to wear a poppy, or indeed a white or a black one.

War is not glorious 

For me wearing the red Poppy includes the reality that war is primal and revolting and not glorious. For me Remembrance is best served by wearing the Poppy for a short period for collective impact, not a damp whimper over a few weeks.

In the British Armed Forces there are 10 principles of war, the first being: Selection and Maintenance of the Aim. Apply that to Iraq and Afghanistan; in Iraq there were no ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and politicians routinely say they were deceived into voting for war because the Prime Minster misled Parliament. Yet the political class have not resolved this and all wear their Poppy. How would the dead feel about that?

What if alongside the Tower of London display was the rotting corpse of a soldier, the smell hitting the back of your throat as you look on. The reality of a dead young man, a son, brother, father, lover, friend. Where is the essence of that element of Remembrance being held? The never again, or if you must, do it properly next time.

Is it time to take the marketing out of Remembrance so that the voices of the dead can be fully heard?

—Picture credit: Saxon Moseley

Mike Payne is an ex-serviceman who now works to support people living with the hidden impacts of armed conflict or military service. For more information  visit the unload website.

Also on insideMAN:

  • The psychological damage that war does to men (Mike Payne)
  • Remembrance poem: my voice if I had died 
  • All our articles on “men and war”

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: #100Voices4Men, men and war, Mike Payne, remembrance, remembrance day, unload

Remembrance poem: my voice if I had died

November 11, 2014 by Inside MAN 1 Comment

By Mike Payne 

At Remembrance I rarely hear what is in my heart.

I do hear lots of people say they talk on my behalf. But they do not.

Had I been killed in Northern Ireland I would want my voice to heard at this time of Remembrance.

This is my voice.

I remember all those who served and died.

For those who hated the war, hated what they were being forced to do yet did so out of duty, of being caught up in a collective power beyond their control.

For those who wore their service like a pair of old boots, with fondness and pride.

For those caught between another’s sectarian hatred.

For those who despite their soul ripping fear stood up in their trench, and fought and died.

For those too exhausted to fight anymore.

For those who fought so long they had no fight left and just let themselves linger too long in the line of fire.

For those who broke and hid.

For those who fought hard.

For those whose time was more a whimper than a bang.

For those who became disillusioned.

For those who lost sight of themselves and their humanity within the inhumanity which became their new norm. “I am in blood Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”

Who later killed themselves rather than live a half life of guilt.

For those left behind during a retreat knowing their life blood was dripping away and fought on so others could have a chance to live.

For those begging to be killed seeking release from the agony of their wounds.

For those waiting in the aid post having just been told others have priority, yet still thanking those who could not help and quietly and graciously meeting death.

For those seeing and meeting inevitable death with confusion, rage, despair, acceptance, relief, fear…

For those who killed themselves in quiet places when the booze could no longer hide the knowing that part of their soul was left alongside those who died; for the memories of those they loved and died, for the loved ones that they knew they in turn killed.

For those whose heart was broken.

For those who never fully returned.

For the women and families left behind, bereaved, soul withered.

I remember the war poets. A picture of Wilfred Owen hung on the wall of my Regiment’s Officers’ Mess, my home as a young man.

I remember so all these voices can be heard.

I remember all of the dead.

Because they would want those living to be fully alive.

That is their wish.

I remember, but I didn’t wear a Poppy this year.

Mike Payne
Founder
Unload
11th November 2013

—Picture credit: Flickr/striatic

 

Mike Payne is former serviceman who now works supporting men and women living with the wounds of armed conflict. For more information  visit the unload website.

Also on insideMAN:

  • The psychological damage that war does to men (Mike Payne)
  • The soul of the war poet is lost in our branded approach to Remembrance (Mike Payne)
  • All our articles on “men and war”

Follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: men and war, Mike Payne, poetry about men, remembrance, remembrance day, unload

Since 1914 there has not been one year when Britain was not at war somewhere

November 10, 2014 by Inside MAN Leave a Comment

“The video with Vincent Burke’s On Remembrance Day is a timeline for Britain’s 100 years of endless war. Since 1914 and the ‘war to end all wars’, there has not been one year when Britain was not at war somewhere.” This video was originally posted on the website of the Stop The War Coalition.

— This is article #50 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys series

Lyrics

On Remembrance Day
When the army prays
And the flags go up
To remind us that they do it for us

On Remembrance Day
By the flower display
Where the church explains
How the heroes keep the villians away

There I’ll tell it to the careless wind
I’ll tell you when the good guys win

On Remembrance Day
I should stay away
From the BBC
Where they tell you how a real man should be

And the children watch
As the vicar walks around with a cross
‘Cause to love is fine
If you do it at a sensible time

Yeah, I’ll tell it to the careless wind
I’ll tell you when the good guys win
Yeah, I’ll save it for the next of kin

On Remembrance Day
On Remembrance Day
On Remembrance Day

You can visit Vincent Burke’s YouTube channel here

—Photo Credit: flickr/The Hills Are Alive

ALSO ON INSIDE MAN:

  • Fifteen articles about men and war that will make you think again
  • This remembrance day remember men aren’t to blame for war

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Interests Tagged With: #100Voices4Men, men and war, remembrance day, stop the war coalition, Vincent Burke, WW1

Is Remembrance Sunday a load of poppycock?

November 10, 2014 by Inside MAN 2 Comments

Have we learnt the lessons of war? Michael Peters of Tiemo Talk of Town says that as long as we view men’s lives as disposable, then war will always be an option.

—This is article #48 in our series of #100Voices4Men and boys 

Remembrance Sunday is a day we are encouraged to remember and commemorate the fallen dead who fought in World War I, World War II and countless other wars since.

Yesterday I visited the Polish War Memorial in West London and took a moment to reflect.

Whilst I fully applaud the soldiers of African, American, British, Caribbean, Polish and all other nationalities who fought for us, something jars with me about this whole remembrance and Tower of London Poppy exhibition business.

I understood the message to be “never again”. Yet, just 21 years after World War I ended in 1918 we had World War II upon us in 1939.

100 years on from the start of World War I there are at least 10 wars (defined as those with at least 1,000 battle related deaths per annum) currently going on and 8 serious armed conflicts (defined as those resulting in deaths of 200-999 people).

What would the world look like if we were sending women to war?

The world didn’t really learn from World Wars I and II as war has been ever present since then.  Thousands of men have died in all of these wars. I understand and value the role of soldiers all too well. My own Father was a Soldier in the British Army.  At times like this, as world peace has not truly been established, it does make you question the point of war.  What exactly was the point of the sacrifices made, which, for many men, cost them their own lives, in order to protect our nation and other countries around the world.

Furthermore, what signal does this send out to our young men about the value we have put on their lives’, for after all, the reality is that it is predominantly men sent to war? Men putting their lives on the line. Are world leaders telling us that a man’s life is easily dispensable? That a man’s life is far less valuable than a woman’s?  If 99% of soldiers were women what would the world be like today? (You can read a short article I wrote about this here).

On top of that, we have instances in Britain and right across the world of young people and grown adults seemingly disrespecting the peace that these soldiers have died for by valuing another human beings life so lowly that they will kill for something as relatively trivial as another person’s mobile phone or trainers; or because someone happens to be in the wrong “Endz” at the wrong time or because someone upset them at school or university so they go on a mad, desperate shooting rampage.

Do we love and value our men as much as our women?

We have all manner of unspeakable child abuse and cruelty rife around the country and around the world.  Is all this what brave soldiers laid down their lives for?

If we want a better world, a more peaceful, less violent and cruel world, surely we need to bring back the love.  To create an environment where decisions are made where love for mankind is at the core of decision making – be that political or personal. That it is important to love one another irrespective of differences in religion, faith, race, culture, wealth, gender, sexuality, disability and for all manner of reasons countries and individuals go to war, including territorial disputes. 

If that is central to your thinking, the option to go to war or remain at war arguably becomes less of an option.

Maybe it would help if world leaders with the power to lead their countries into or out of war consider more carefully these matters. Consider the purpose, value and likely outcomes of being at war; the society and moral values they are creating and equally the value they are putting on men’s lives. Do we love and value our men as much as our women?

That to me seems far more relevant and of more importance than wearing a poppy, visiting the Tower of London and harking back to past conflicts that in the long term do not really seem to have made the world a safer place.

—Picture credit: Flickr/Rev Stan

You can see more of Michael Peters writing by visiting the Tiemo Talk of the Town blog. 

© Tiemo Talk of the Town

ALSO ON INSIDE MAN:

  • Fifteen articles about men and war that will make you think again
  • This remembrance day remember men aren’t to blame for war

You can find all of the #100Voices4Men articles that will be published in the run up to International Men’s Day 2014 by clicking on this link—#100Voices4Men—and follow the discussion on twitter by searching for #100Voices4Men.

The views expressed in these articles are not the views of insideMAN editorial team. Whether you agree with the views expressed in this article or not we invite you to take take part in this important discussion, our only request is that you express yourself in a way that ensures everyone’s voice can be heard.

You can join the #100Voices4Men discussion by commenting below; by following us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook or by emailing insideMANeditor@gmail.com. 

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: #100Voices4Men, men and war, remembrance

This Remembrance Day, remember men aren’t to blame for war

November 9, 2014 by Inside MAN 1 Comment

What do you remember on Remembrance Sunday? Glen Poole says he counts his blessing that he wasn’t born a man at a time of conscription…….

It’s 100 years since the First World War began and millions of men gave their lives and laid the foundation for billions more to grow up in peaceful times. Life is full of polarities and one of the apparent contradictions of humanity is that sometimes we fight for peace.

And when nations fight for peace, men and boys die. At the last count, more than 3,000 people still die in war and conflict every week and 83% of them are men and boys. In the UK more than 99% of soldiers who die each year are men and in more than 80 countries, men and boys still face conscription into the armed forces. Men are still the first line of defence in our search for peace.

Of course there are many different motivations that drive nations (and individuals) to war—security, power, control, greed, revenge, fear—and if you look hard enough you’ll generally find a collective desire for peace (and prosperity) is mixed in there somewhere.

Fighting for peace

The desire to be at peace is a noble human intention that we all share and that doesn’t mean the actions we take to find peace are always noble or great—all humans have the capacity to take actions that damage and hurt others (and still be convinced that we only had good intentions).

For more than a decade I have observed men and women go to war in the family law courts and seen the weapons they use as they fight—driven by a heady mix of anger, revenge, fear and love. In the process they often kill each other off—not literally, though if we gave separated parents a big red button labelled “press this to kill your ex”, I’m sure many of them would be tempted.

But they kill each other in their words or actions as the man or woman who was their “one true love” becomes “that bitch” or “that bastard”. When mums demonize dads as the most evil man alive, they can kill not just a man’s reputation but his relationship with his children—the real man ceases to exist in the eyes of his children and he becomes alien to them.

And when dads relate to their ex as “pure evil” they kill off the parts of her they loved and in the process often destroy their chances of remaining a significant part of their children’s lives—why would any parent want to encourage their children to go and spend time with someone who believes you are “pure evil”?

We all have the capacity for war

What I’ve learnt in all my dealings with hurt human beings at battle in the family courts is that all men and women have the capacity for war within us. So when I hear war or violence described as “men’s wars” or “men’s violence” I reject those labels as a man both for myself and on behalf of all men and boys.

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.”

I didn’t take Britain to war with the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher did; I didn’t take India to war with Pakistan, Indira Ghandi did; I wasn’t Secretary of State when U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden, Hilary Clinton was.

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 just last month 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 women were the only adults deemed worthy of safety.

To war is human 

Men don’t have a monopoly on war and violence—we all use the weapons available to us in our personal wars whether that’s using our children as weapons in custody battles or using the might of our armed forces when we have political power —it’s not just men that use weapons when they have them.

And the biggest weapon of war remains to this day men and boys—remember this statistic and repeat it often—83% of people who die in war and conflict each year are men and boys. And what Thatcher, Ghandi and Clinton have shown us is that women have political power, they will still send men to die and take action to protect women and children.

We all—men and women—are collectively more tolerant of the harm that happens to men and boys. Today—on Remembrance Sunday—I will be thankful that I wasn’t born a man in a time or place where I was required to fight and die; I will contemplate what “weapons” or “tools” I need to develop to help create a peaceful world and I will consider how men and women can work together to go beyond the need for both personal wars and global wars in future.

But most of all I will remember the millions of men who have died in war with a deep sense of gratitude for the peaceful times that most of us benefit from and take for granted.

—Picture: Peace Quest 

Article by Glen Poole author of the book Equality For Men

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

Also on insideMAN:

  • 15 articles about men and war that will make you think again

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: Men’s Insights Tagged With: Are men to blame for war?, articles by Glen Poole, female politicians who vote for war, Is war men’s fault?, men and war, remembrance, Women MPs who vote for war, Women who started wars

Why are some young men drawn to terrorism?

October 23, 2014 by Inside MAN 3 Comments

By David Plummer, Griffith University. This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Recent coverage of counterterrorism raids in Australia featured hard-core gyms, anabolic steroids, nightclub bouncers, gangs and weapons. Footage from the Middle East regularly depicts truckloads of young bearded warriors bristling with ordnance.

Is this a view of masculinity that merely happens to be violent? Or does masculinity actively underwrite and sustain extremist movements?

The paradox is that while the world sees extremism as dangerously anti-social, the men themselves appear to see it as a profound social duty.

They exhibit dogmatic conformity to group social norms, they see an opportunity for masculine notoriety and to have a risky “boy’s own” adventure. Above all, they see it as the ultimate demonstration of manhood.

Understanding how this occurs should be a top priority – especially how young boys go down the path of terror – because this understanding ultimately paves the way for interventions, de-escalation and peace.

From quiet kid, to terrorist warrior

A number of alternative explanations exist for the prominence of hypermasculine imagery in reports of terrorism. The imagery may well reflect Western media biases and serve the propaganda purposes of Western governments. That is to say, the reports largely speak to Western cultural viewpoints and political agendas.

While this may well be the case, there is clearly much more to the story. It is also possible that hypermasculinity is a side-effect of the posturing of war. But this merely reinforces the view that masculinity is indeed a potent force at work here.

In addition to obvious hypermasculine imagery, three other features strike a chord with my own research:

  • First is the youth of the recruits, including many teenagers
  • Second is the transformation from quiet kid into terrorist warrior – think “lone wolf”
  • Third is the way that young men identify with a cause and affiliate with extremist groups

These features – young male, group identification, transformation into warrior – have much in common with, and should draw our attention to, the more familiar rites of passage that mark the transition from childhood to manhood.

The Boy Scouts is one way many Western countries have imparted masculine ideals to boys. Freeparking/Flickr, CC BY

The transition from boyhood to manhood is a crucial time in boys’ lives. Becoming a man is the ultimate social endorsement and personal accomplishment.

Most boys apply themselves to the task without question. In part, this is because the change seems so normal and because they rightly sense that failure is associated with some of the deepest social taboos of all.

Most cultures, including those in the West, have limited tolerance for members who “deviate” from accepted gender norms. For all intents and purposes becoming a man is compulsory.

Initiation to manhood invariably involves confronting fear

For most, becoming a man seems natural, probably because it appears to stem from the biological changes of puberty. But there are actually many pathways to manhood and many possible outcomes. The natural “feel” is deceptive.

There is plenty of research that shows that masculinity is highly variable and above all is a social achievement, which is largely independent of biology.

Different societies define manhood very differently: they define what a “real man” is, set the standards that boys ought to aspire to, and orchestrate the transition to manhood through a variety of mechanisms.

Indeed, becoming a man is potentially so variable that anthropologist David Gilmore reminds us that:

Boys have to be encouraged, sometimes actually forced, by social sanctions to undertake efforts toward a culturally defined manhood, which by themselves they might not do.

Traditional societies seem to have addressed the uncertainties in the transition to manhood by developing initiation rituals to guide young men through. These rituals typically entail some form of risky challenge, which boys use to prove their manhood and to earn the right to be called a man.

The boys always underwent initiation under the guidance of older mentors and in the company of their peers. The rituals served to make the transition orderly, meaningful and invested it with shared social purpose.

Boys teaching boys

Modern-day social change has witnessed a decline in all but the most basic rites of passage. Yet becoming a man is as important as always, and the transition to manhood remains very challenging.

This raises the question: how do boys navigate the transition now? I argue that many boys now invent their own rites of passage.

Research in the West Indies showed that social change has led to a loss of older mentors from boys’ lives due to long working hours and commuting times, fewer men in teaching, suspicion about men in youth clubs, changing family structures and so on.

These shifts have left a power vacuum that is vulnerable to exploitation. Boys are spending more time in the sole company of their peers: on street corners, in shopping malls and in their cars.

Instead of growing up with the role models and standards of older, more experienced men, most of their role modelling comes from peer groups. In the absence of alternatives, these groups resort to raw physical masculinity as the yardstick for what masculinity should look like, how boys should behave and who should dominate.

Terrorism as a passage to manhood

They also develop their own rituals to admit members, some of which are extreme, anti-social and high-risk. It is a willingness to take risks that is considered the hallmark of a “real man”.

So how does this relate to terror? Hypermasculine imagery is prominent in the media. Terror recruits are young, group-affiliated and primed to take risks. They are supposedly disaffected and therefore susceptible to mentoring by like-minded peers and older men, whose motives differ from those of their parents and community.

There are key similarities with classic rites of passage and key parallels with my own work on masculinity elsewhere. The social pressures and events around the transition to manhood are especially susceptible to exploitation.

It is difficult not to conclude that masculinity is a key force that underwrites and sustains extremism. In terrorism, we are witnessing a very specific configuration of the passage to manhood.

David Plummer does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

Read the original article.

Photo: Flickr/DVIDSHUB

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

Also on insideMAN:

  • Land diving: Courage, endurance and the cost of becoming a man
  • Do men start wars?
  • Eight things that Fight Club taught us about masculinity

Share article

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email

Filed Under: ABOUT MEN Tagged With: David Plummer, Initiation rites, ISIS, male rites of passage, Manhood, masculinity, men and war, rites of passage, sub-story, terrorism, The Conversation

Next Page »

InsideMAN is committed to pioneering conversations about men, manhood and masculinity that make a difference. We aim to create spaces where the voices of men, from many different backgrounds, can be heard. It’s time to have a new conversation about men. We'd love you to be a part of it.

insideNAN cover image  

Buy the insideMAN book here

Be first to get the latest posts from insideMAN

To have new articles delivered direct to your inbox, add your name and email address below.

Latest Tweets

  • Why Abused By My Girlfriend was a watershed moment for male victims of domestic abuse and society @ManKindInit… https://t.co/YyOkTSiWih

    3 weeks ago
  • Thanks

    5 months ago
  • @LKMco @MBCoalition @KantarPublic Really interesting.

    5 months ago

Latest Facebook Posts

Unable to display Facebook posts.
Show error

Error: Error validating application. Application has been deleted.
Type: OAuthException
Code: 190
Please refer to our Error Message Reference.

Copyright © 2019 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.