Why do we have wars?

Yes, it was a play by Aristophanes I think

These women that are cited are just figureheads for large cabinets mostly consisting of men. A great deal if pressure is brought to bear on them - by men.

Mrs Thatcher, Mrs Meir, figureheads bowing to male pressure.

What a patriachal suggestion! buying into the male argument that women are inherently the weaker sex and will always expect to follow and submit to male direction and male leadership.

I never expected to see that argument on GN!

Anyway Franbern - having started this thread, what do you think?

It is hard-wired as part of the natural order of things .... watch any wildlife programme and it is mostly about killing.

Animals kill for food or males fight each other for possession of females, though not usually to the death.

What wildlife programme has shown a group of animals organising a violent attack on another group of their own species?

Like Calendargirl I think it is predominantly a man thing.

Wars are begun by men who hate each other but don't fight or kill each other. They are fought by (mostly) men who don't hate each other but who do kill each other.

Where's the sense?

Blinko Is that how you would describe WW2 and the fight with the Nazi ideology?

M0nica read my subsequent post.

I agree with the post by grannyactivist that those who start wars, and only they, should fight them as individuals, face to face on a field of battle. That way, there would surely be fewer wars. It’s never going to happen, though.

Blinko, Is that any fairer? To use a very current example. Why should President Zelensky of Ukraine have to meet Putin in personal combat when he has never shown any inclination to go to war with Russia or any other country. why not include the whole command structure that make it possible for someone like Putin do what he has done.

Should Ukrainians, to avoid war, just accept the Russian invasion rather than respond to violence with violence??

Many wars are caused by strong violent leaders trying to take over other non-violent countries. Not by two strong leaders threatening each other.

Any violent leader is backed by support of other people mor than willing to fight and die for their cause. Look how Ukrainians, men and women, have rallied to a call to defend their country from Russian invasion.

Bear in mind that if the Russians had walked in and taken over Ukraine without protest, many Ukrainians would have been arrested and killed because they were deemed to be anti-Russian and best out of the way. Are those deaths less reprehensible because the Ukrainians would have acquiesed in their own takeover.

I am amazed at the number of women acuiescing with the patriachal idea that women are weak and need defending because they are incapble of saving themselves. that women behave that way is just patriachal indoctrination.

As we have seen, when armies have opened their ranks to women serving on the front line, they have no difficulty in recruitment. Women having been volunteering for front line duties in Ukraine. We have women on the frontline in the British defence forces, as do many other countries - and the numbers are growing.

I am sure if we went back in history we will find women's stories of women in battle. Certainly in the English Civil War, several women of high rank, when their houses/castles were attacked in the absence of their husband, led and actively managed the resultant siege and taking the battle to the attacker. Women were on Nelson's ships at Trafalgar and did not just cower in the bilges but, apart from nursing the injured, such a suitable job for a woman, were carrying gunwder and other supplies from stores to gunners with other sailors. No, they were not officially in the navy, but they played an active part in battles.

I do not submit to the patriarchy, I think whether women or men run any situation the propensity to violence is equal in both.

Scarily, I fear that women can be just as ferocious as men. They are the mothers, the wives the sisters the daughters.
Look at cheerleaders for example.
I have always thought that the epitome of what not to do.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rmRuGJ-qHc
Why do we have wars?
I wish I knew and could help to stop them.

MaizieD

^It is hard-wired as part of the natural order of things .... watch any wildlife programme and it is mostly about killing.^

Animals kill for food or males fight each other for possession of females, though not usually to the death.

What wildlife programme has shown a group of animals organising a violent attack on another group of their own species?

Like Calendargirl I think it is predominantly a man thing.

chimpanzee troupes fight their neighbours troup. On a fairly regular basis.
Apparently they have the capacity to work out the ratio of their numbers against their neighbouring group.
When it reaches an optimum number they launch a raid. Picking off their enemy one by one. Only when they can outnumber him by 8 to 1, 2 on each limb pulling the opponent apart.

There are a number of reasons for male violence, but blaming wars only that isnt a reflection of the truth imv anyway.

I was wondering about chimpanzees. Fairly closely related to humans, of course.

Any other examples from the animal kingdom?

I know that women can be aggressive in a defensive role, but are they, on the whole, instigators of an offensive role.

It's no help to cite modern examples, war has been institutionalised for hundreds of years and we're mostly likely to accept it because of that, But for hundreds of years it has been a male dominated, male initiated process. Can we change our thinking about its apparent inevitability?

grannyactivist

I think there would be far fewer wars if the people that caused them had to personally fight on the front lines.

Excellent point.

I've noticed that politicians (of all stripes) don't volunteer themselves nor their offspring as cannon-fodder. Nor do the offspring themselves.

grannyactivist

I think there would be far fewer wars if the people that caused them had to personally fight on the front lines.

I’m currently reading a biography of The Black Prince. It’s basically a saga of non-stop fighting between the Plantagenets and King John II of France as part of the Hundred Years War. They each did their own fighting and also wreaked havoc upon the local populace with a scorched earth policy, as is Putin today.

SueDonim

grannyactivist

I think there would be far fewer wars if the people that caused them had to personally fight on the front lines.

I’m currently reading a biography of The Black Prince. It’s basically a saga of non-stop fighting between the Plantagenets and King John II of France as part of the Hundred Years War. They each did their own fighting and also wreaked havoc upon the local populace with a scorched earth policy, as is Putin today.

It's true of course that even in the days when society's leaders did go into battle themselves, wars persisted. However, wasn't this still a parade of 'my gang's better than your gang' mentality?

M0nica

*Blinko*, Is that any fairer? To use a very current example. Why should President Zelensky of Ukraine have to meet Putin in personal combat when he has never shown any inclination to go to war with Russia or any other country. why not include the whole command structure that make it possible for someone like Putin do what he has done.

Should Ukrainians, to avoid war, just accept the Russian invasion rather than respond to violence with violence??

Many wars are caused by strong violent leaders trying to take over other non-violent countries. Not by two strong leaders threatening each other.

Any violent leader is backed by support of other people mor than willing to fight and die for their cause. Look how Ukrainians, men and women, have rallied to a call to defend their country from Russian invasion.

Bear in mind that if the Russians had walked in and taken over Ukraine without protest, many Ukrainians would have been arrested and killed because they were deemed to be anti-Russian and best out of the way. Are those deaths less reprehensible because the Ukrainians would have acquiesed in their own takeover.

I am amazed at the number of women acuiescing with the patriachal idea that women are weak and need defending because they are incapble of saving themselves. that women behave that way is just patriachal indoctrination.

As we have seen, when armies have opened their ranks to women serving on the front line, they have no difficulty in recruitment. Women having been volunteering for front line duties in Ukraine. We have women on the frontline in the British defence forces, as do many other countries - and the numbers are growing.

I am sure if we went back in history we will find women's stories of women in battle. Certainly in the English Civil War, several women of high rank, when their houses/castles were attacked in the absence of their husband, led and actively managed the resultant siege and taking the battle to the attacker. Women were on Nelson's ships at Trafalgar and did not just cower in the bilges but, apart from nursing the injured, such a suitable job for a woman, were carrying gunwder and other supplies from stores to gunners with other sailors. No, they were not officially in the navy, but they played an active part in battles.

I do not submit to the patriarchy, I think whether women or men run any situation the propensity to violence is equal in both.

Very strong arguments here, M0nica and you are right in that where there is a determined agressor like Putin (and like Hitler, back in the day) the only viable option would be to defend threatened territory, otherwise the agressor is allowed to march in unhindered.

I'm not sure that women as a sex are inclined to be as agressive as men. Though we do see evidence of cruelty and agression by women in everyday life, more of it is demonstrated by the male of the species. Is it that women in general do not hold the political power to launch bouts of international agression in the same way? Or are women a more moderate bunch by nature?

The latter Blinko

I think women are as aggressive as men but I think aculturation and relative lack of physical strength, means they are more devious in their use of violence.

It is used on those less strong than themselves. Many GN members have written about nasty and unpleasant mothers, anyone who has been the victim of physical bullying at school from female bullys, as I was, will attest to how violent vicious and nasty, female children can be.Many women suffer bullying from other women at work.

Again I refer to the willingness of women to join the army and take frontline roles. Read political threads on GN or those about the Royal family and you will see female viciousness and verbal violence in spades.

Key word is 'verbal' though!

Yes on an individual level physical violence is much more prevalent in men, the statistics for sexual violence in particular are very clear. Whether this translates on a societal level in terms of women being less likely to start wars is I would have thought very difficult to prove one way or the other.

I have been asked what I think.......

I agree with lady in the picture I posted . Pyschopaths who own the banks and media and make vast profits through the arms industry which funds both sides in each and every conflict.

I note that we (via our beloved leader) are offering more and more arms etc. to Ukraine -just wondering if this is being given free by those arms dealers - or - if we are paying for them.

I am also fascinated as to how differently the media here in UK has treated the refugees from Ukraine (white and European) to those those from other currently war-torn countries.

PS - it was the Sabine Women, who refused sex to their husbands if they continued with wars

I can assure you the bullying at school was physical, and done by a group of girls in my girls school, who knowing I had a bowel condition that required several extended periods in hospital, thought it was funny to get me into a corner and punch me hard and repeatedly in the stomach.

I learned to avoid occasions that put me at risk. The girls concerned were all from nice homes where such behaviour would not have been encouraged.

Girls can be just as violent as boys. It is just that girls are accultured not to be violent and violence in women is disapproved of and condemned and boys are brought up, if not to be violent but in a culture that disapproves but understands that violence is natural in men..

There may be many reasons why men are more prone to violence than women and the way society interacts with the different sexes is I am sure one of them. However the reality of one sex committing the majority of violent crimes, in particular violent sexual crimes does not alter because of this.

It's true of course that even in the days when society's leaders did go into battle themselves, wars persisted. However, wasn't this still a parade of 'my gang's better than your gang' mentality?

Absolutely! I learnt from the book that Edward III created the Order of the Garter, with its chivalric principles and knightly members as a response to one of France’s leaders’ creation of the Order of the Sash.

In some ways I suppose they were a bit like today’s SAS in that you weren’t invited to join because of who you were but because of what you’d achieved in the field.

Glorified gangs, though.

A whole gamut of reasons. Civil wars opposing ideologies/religion/sectarianism/tribalism, "divine right of kings" or indeed of any one ruler who wants absolute power and won't yield to representation by the the people. The desire for autonomy/ aggressive tyrants trying to annexe neighbouring countries, impose their rule by subjugating indigenous populations. Look at all the early civilizations has being going on one way or another all over the world since the beginning of time. Sometimes it's patently clear what people are fighting for, for example WW11, the brave Ukrainians right now, absolutely no choice when up against megalomaniac tyrants, and other times, can't help pondering "what the hell was that all about?" The Great War and why couldn't those differences have been sorted out by diplomacy