back

by masswerk·11y ago·view on hn ↗
I think, going to war has much to do with the construction of the male gender. (We're talking seldom about the male side in the gender discourse, but we may be allowed to do so in this context. Please read the following cum grano salis.)

In most cultures and societies males start life on the female side along their mothers. They are special, they are beloved, they are cared for – but they are also objects. When entering adolescence and adulthood, males are essentially losing their identity. They are no more special or unique, they are disposable (as in "women and children first") — and they have to accept this insult. They have to redefine themselves. Moreover, there are some preconditions in most cultures to becoming eligible as a subject. Some of these are related to inheritance, but it really goes a bit deeper than that. So, if they are not born rich or not the eldest son, they are asked to prove they were eligible for being a valued member of society. One way to do so is founding and supporting a family, but there are also preconditions here. To most, the final proof is showing their willingness and to prove being able to "burn themselves" (sometimes literally as in the trenches of war) for societies sake, to accept disposability. (Staying up late coding is yet another way of burning yourself, while not that drastic.) — This may be underpinned by an institution known in some cultures, the institutions of "sworn virgins", where women would enter the male side on the precondition of never returning the realms of female definitions. Ever thereafter they are part of the male side and accepted as males, but they also have to adhere to the socials contracts related to this definition. — Following to this, war is a major means of regaining identity and uniqueness – and becoming an eligible member of society. Small wonder that this often connected with pride.

In my humble opinion, these patterns are also to be observed in the discussion of gender diversity in IT and other male dominated environments. Most of the objections and/or insults against females are rather pretexts or symptoms for a basic mistrust against members who do not adhere to the laws of disposability. (Problems often evaporate as the gender-definitions are crossed by "sworn virgin coders". But this isn't a solution to the problem at all.) In this context, the presence and acceptance of "real females" is a real threat to the construction of these environments. This isn't just a show. It's more about accepting that these are not protected realms of males joined in their attempt to become eligible to the honors of society, accepting that these environments are rather part of society themselves. (So, is coding war? Swallow your pride. Nobody should be forced to burn. Does this align with the structures of business as we know it? No. – Hint: Businesses are not only burning money.)

1 comments
I was with you until you introduced the need for voluntary "disposability" on the part of males as a requisite to earn a place in society. I don't see self immolation in any form as being respected or admired, in the USA anyway.

I think all adult males don't inherit a natural place in society simply because they are males, the way that females do as mothers. Fatherhood just doesn't fill the bill comparably, perhaps because it's seen as only a part-time vocation. Thus a man must seek other ways to demonstrate his value.

Making lots of money or attaining power are perhaps the chief means to earning respect. But becoming a Warrior is widely seen as a good way to demonstrate the requisite desiderata -- leadership, courage, self sacrifice, inner strength, outer strength, loyalty, stoicism, a sense of purpose, a sense of honor, and more. Having more of these makes you more of a constructive contributor to society. You're a man among men.

Very few jobs or social roles can serve even a few of these components of character. Historically, going to war has been an established and respected way to demonstrate you are indeed made of sterner stuff.

Of course, if your war has a dubious justification or muddied purpose, that will complicate its ability somewhat to define you favorably. Aside from WWII and perhaps WWI, American wars since 1865 largely have been Faustian bargains. The fact that young Amercian men continue to enlist in the service of what are too often Wars of Opportunity indicates that, in our culture, alternative ways of proving your mettle have proven elusive.

There have been attempts to rewrite world history based on statistics of how many young man to "burn" there were in a society at a given time – and it works out greatly. While I do admit that this isn't of that importance in modern societies, I would still maintain that the patterns are still to be observed. Also, war has been one of the first means of making a fortune, with trade becoming another one only in the 18th century or so. Still, we may observe some inheritance here, by the emphasis on the risks involved to justify the wins. (Read Jane Austen's "Persuasion" as a sociological study on the matter and you'll see how the British upper- and middle classes would have imploded under the pressure of second sons around 1800, if there hadn't been the Navy and the Army as means of making a fortune and becoming eligible for marriage. Even more true for the lower classes, but there's no much writing on this.)

As a sidenote, we may observe that the US has undergone some efforts and investments in the past decades to decouple its war force from this logic by the means of technology.