Why do we have wars?

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.

The latter Blinko

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

M0nica read my subsequent post.

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

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?

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.

Anyway Franbern - having started this thread, what do you 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!

Yes, it was a play by Aristophanes I think

I tend to agree with you, Aveline.
When I was a child during WW2 I was so angry with the male gender for starting wars and taking my dear Dad away from us I organised a mass fight between girls and boys and the girls won! But that contradicts my support of Aveline.
Does anyone remember the Ancient Greek (or Roman?) story about women becoming so sick of their husbands going off to war that they got together and decided to refuse men their marital "rights."

Megalomania

Top answer Grannyactivist.
They hide away like cowards and appear hands waving in the air if the war is won by them.

Because of egos

True!

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

volver no I don't but cabinets are usually collaborative. It would never be just one person's idea, at least not in democracies. Not sure where that puts Putin?