(highlight:: The Conditioning of Men for War: The Traits of masculinity and a good soldier are the same
Summary:
Getting men to fight is not a natural thing, so historically, many cultures have resorted to conscription and the use of drugs to motivate soldiers.
Societies often raise boys to be tough and suppress their emotions, emphasizing that participating in war is a way to prove their manhood. This idea challenges the notion that men are naturally violent, suggesting that cultures create the need for violence and associate it with traits of a good man.
Transcript:
Speaker 5
But the pattern of history shows across the board is that it's really hard to get men to fight. It's not a natural thing. So just look at the pervasiveness of conscription through history. You have to draft men into the army. And then when it actually comes time to fight, a lot of armies have used either drugs, the rum ration and the British army. A lot of these militias in Africa and recent civil wars giving various combinations of drugs and phetamines. And then after the fact, people are very traumatized by it. These cultures have to work at men from childhood. One of the strong motivations that a lot of cultures have found effective is this appeal to gender that you're not a real man unless you confide in a war. And so we raise boys to be tough, to not cry, and to suppress their feelings except for anger, is okay, but sadness and stuff. Not supposed to feel it, not supposed to show it. Man up, tough it out, soldier on. And after year after year after that, then they're ready to put into the military and they'll be able to do these unnatural, horrible things and follow their orders. We could do that with women as well, but it would undermine the appeal to men that they're proving their manhood. When women have gone in the military, sometimes the men say, hey, if a woman can do this, this job, then what's that make me? I thought I was proving what a man I was.
Speaker 1
Goldstein became interested in the provocative idea that the need to prepare men for the violence of war is where our ideas of manhood come from. This idea runs counter to the view that men are in some ways biologically or naturally violent and aggressive, and that they are the source or cause of war. Instead, Goldstein likes the view that a culture perceives a need for its members to engage in violent force on its behalf. And it fulfills this need by establishing for its members that the traits that make a good man are the very ones that make a good soldier.)
- Time 0:18:31
-

(highlight:: Prejudice Against Femininity in Military Contexts
Summary:
Women wearing makeup are often seen as less serious and ambitious.
Boys who don't conform to gender norms are called sissies, while tomboy girls are accepted. This asymmetry exists because tomboys don't threaten society's ability to fight wars, while boys who deviate from toughness are seen as a threat and could set a bad example for others.
Transcript:
Speaker 8
Pretty or feminine as seen as a weakness. So women who wear makeup are many times, not always, but many times assume to be lesser quality officers, less serious, less ambitious. They call it parade pretty. It's kind of what they say when a woman's wearing makeup, things like that. And that a woman who is very stern looking and serious, not wearing makeup in a shorter hair is obviously, you know, there for business.
Speaker 5
Boys who act girl-like or generally don't conform to the norms, and I'm talking about young boys here, they will just be squashed. They're called sissies, which is short for sister originally. They'll be taunted and teased and their fathers will come down on them. By contrast, girls who become tomboys play with boys, dress like boys, enjoy those boy-like activities. Those tomboys will be pretty well accepted by both genders. And they come back to their girlfriends and like, oh yeah, you're still cool, you're one of us. So why is that asymmetry the case? And I think it's pretty obvious that girls that go over to the tomboy side are no threat to the society's ability to fight a war if it needs to. And in the contrary, they might get in there and help with it. But boys who allow themselves to fall off the path of toughness that's going to lead to being a soldier someday, they are a threat. Because not only will they be unavailable to fight the war, but they could set a bad example for other boys. And then you're going to start to lose your soldiers.)
- Time 0:27:00
-

(highlight:: The Conditioning of Men to View Themselves as Expendable
Summary:
Men's reluctance to seek help and take care of themselves may explain the higher suicide rates and shorter lifespans.
The idea of men being more disposable in war and their role in replenishing the population contributes to societal expectations of toughness. This cultural programming leads to men sacrificing their health and lives.
The emotional makeup required for war cannot be easily switched off.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
Tom Digby The higher suicide level, the fact that men diet younger ages, one explanation that I've sometimes considered is that men simply don't take care of themselves as well. They don't take care of their health. They don't seek medical help, and they don't seek emotional help.
Speaker 1
Which brings us to the ultimate reason why men and women have been divided in war.
Speaker 3
If a lot of men get killed, you can still replenish the population. One man can produce lots of offspring, but a woman can produce far fewer offspring. So men are more expendable, basically.
Speaker 1
Tom Digby thinks internalizing this sense of your life and health, being expendable in the service of your community, is what helps explain the masculine norms of toughness, and the Side effects this has on men in civilian life.
Speaker 3
It seems to me that men are culturally programmed to sacrifice their health and their lives. The kind of emotional makeup that's needed for war is not something you can just turn on or off like a light switch.)
- Time 0:33:32
-

(highlight:: The Conditioning of Men for War: The Traits of masculinity and a good soldier are the same
Summary:
Getting men to fight is not a natural thing, so historically, many cultures have resorted to conscription and the use of drugs to motivate soldiers.
Societies often raise boys to be tough and suppress their emotions, emphasizing that participating in war is a way to prove their manhood. This idea challenges the notion that men are naturally violent, suggesting that cultures create the need for violence and associate it with traits of a good man.
Transcript:
Speaker 5
But the pattern of history shows across the board is that it's really hard to get men to fight. It's not a natural thing. So just look at the pervasiveness of conscription through history. You have to draft men into the army. And then when it actually comes time to fight, a lot of armies have used either drugs, the rum ration and the British army. A lot of these militias in Africa and recent civil wars giving various combinations of drugs and phetamines. And then after the fact, people are very traumatized by it. These cultures have to work at men from childhood. One of the strong motivations that a lot of cultures have found effective is this appeal to gender that you're not a real man unless you confide in a war. And so we raise boys to be tough, to not cry, and to suppress their feelings except for anger, is okay, but sadness and stuff. Not supposed to feel it, not supposed to show it. Man up, tough it out, soldier on. And after year after year after that, then they're ready to put into the military and they'll be able to do these unnatural, horrible things and follow their orders. We could do that with women as well, but it would undermine the appeal to men that they're proving their manhood. When women have gone in the military, sometimes the men say, hey, if a woman can do this, this job, then what's that make me? I thought I was proving what a man I was.
Speaker 1
Goldstein became interested in the provocative idea that the need to prepare men for the violence of war is where our ideas of manhood come from. This idea runs counter to the view that men are in some ways biologically or naturally violent and aggressive, and that they are the source or cause of war. Instead, Goldstein likes the view that a culture perceives a need for its members to engage in violent force on its behalf. And it fulfills this need by establishing for its members that the traits that make a good man are the very ones that make a good soldier.)
- Time 0:18:31
-

(highlight:: Prejudice Against Femininity in Military Contexts
Summary:
Women wearing makeup are often seen as less serious and ambitious.
Boys who don't conform to gender norms are called sissies, while tomboy girls are accepted. This asymmetry exists because tomboys don't threaten society's ability to fight wars, while boys who deviate from toughness are seen as a threat and could set a bad example for others.
Transcript:
Speaker 8
Pretty or feminine as seen as a weakness. So women who wear makeup are many times, not always, but many times assume to be lesser quality officers, less serious, less ambitious. They call it parade pretty. It's kind of what they say when a woman's wearing makeup, things like that. And that a woman who is very stern looking and serious, not wearing makeup in a shorter hair is obviously, you know, there for business.
Speaker 5
Boys who act girl-like or generally don't conform to the norms, and I'm talking about young boys here, they will just be squashed. They're called sissies, which is short for sister originally. They'll be taunted and teased and their fathers will come down on them. By contrast, girls who become tomboys play with boys, dress like boys, enjoy those boy-like activities. Those tomboys will be pretty well accepted by both genders. And they come back to their girlfriends and like, oh yeah, you're still cool, you're one of us. So why is that asymmetry the case? And I think it's pretty obvious that girls that go over to the tomboy side are no threat to the society's ability to fight a war if it needs to. And in the contrary, they might get in there and help with it. But boys who allow themselves to fall off the path of toughness that's going to lead to being a soldier someday, they are a threat. Because not only will they be unavailable to fight the war, but they could set a bad example for other boys. And then you're going to start to lose your soldiers.)
- Time 0:27:00
-

(highlight:: The Conditioning of Men to View Themselves as Expendable
Summary:
Men's reluctance to seek help and take care of themselves may explain the higher suicide rates and shorter lifespans.
The idea of men being more disposable in war and their role in replenishing the population contributes to societal expectations of toughness. This cultural programming leads to men sacrificing their health and lives.
The emotional makeup required for war cannot be easily switched off.
Transcript:
Speaker 3
Tom Digby The higher suicide level, the fact that men diet younger ages, one explanation that I've sometimes considered is that men simply don't take care of themselves as well. They don't take care of their health. They don't seek medical help, and they don't seek emotional help.
Speaker 1
Which brings us to the ultimate reason why men and women have been divided in war.
Speaker 3
If a lot of men get killed, you can still replenish the population. One man can produce lots of offspring, but a woman can produce far fewer offspring. So men are more expendable, basically.
Speaker 1
Tom Digby thinks internalizing this sense of your life and health, being expendable in the service of your community, is what helps explain the masculine norms of toughness, and the Side effects this has on men in civilian life.
Speaker 3
It seems to me that men are culturally programmed to sacrifice their health and their lives. The kind of emotional makeup that's needed for war is not something you can just turn on or off like a light switch.)
- Time 0:33:32
-