THE ATTITUDE OF MEN AND WOMEN TOWARDS WAR
AND PEACE. MORAL COURAGE AND PHYSICAL COURAGE The Dominant Sex: The Sociology of Sex Differentiation | ||
15. THE ATTITUDE OF MEN AND WOMEN TOWARDS WAR AND PEACE. MORAL COURAGE AND PHYSICAL COURAGE
ACCORDING to current opinion concerning the
special characteristics of the female sex, we
should be inclined to expect that under the dominance
of women society would exhibit an exceptionally powerful
trend towards peace. History teaches, however,
that, under the dominance of women, just as under the
dominance of men, some States are pacifically inclined,
whereas others are bellicose and prone to display a
fondness for wars of conquest. The Egyptians, for
example, were a most unwarlike people. In almost
all works on Egypt we find direct references to the
pacifist disposition of the Egyptians, and this especially
applies to the Old Kingdom. Müller[1] says that
the Old Kingdom did not make any of those great
campaigns of conquest which have been the source of
most of the geographical information we possess concerning
early days. He considers that the Egyptians
must have been less spirited than the Nubian negroes,
his reason being that the Egyptians endured so many
thrashings—though he gives no proof of the latter
assertion. Bolko Stern[2] expresses himself still more
strongly. He writes: "We are entitled to maintain
(and here we touch the chief weakness in the mentality
of the ancient Egyptians) that they were unwarlike,
[1] Op. cit., p. 2.
[2] Aegyptische Kulturgeschichte, p. 28.
It might seem natural to attribute to the dominance of women this disinclination of the Egyptians for war. But there are two excellent reasons for rejecting such a view.
First of all, there have been Men's States which were averse from war. For instance, in the days of Julius Cæsar the ancient Britons were strongly inclined to peace. But we read in Hume's History of England that at this date the men were dominant among the Britons rather than the women.
In the second place, and this is a decisive point, there have been Women's States in which the lust for war and the desire for conquest were unquestionably rife. The Libyans, who were under the dominance of women, were a most warlike people; so were the Ethiopians, whose queens led them to war. The Gagers, among whom women held sway, were also continually engaged in wars of conquest. The Spartans, again,
We infer that monosexual dominance is not the decisive factor in rendering the disposition of a people warlike or peaceful. Nevertheless, it would seem that the more extreme forms of monosexual dominance, whether masculine or feminine, tend to favour the growth of a bellicose tendency. Perhaps the two most perfect instances of extreme monosexual dominance known to us are that of the Amazons as far as Women's States are concerned and that of the former realm of Prussia as far as Men's States are concerned.
No Men's State ever enforced the dominance of men with the same perfection of absolutism as the legendary Amazons are said to have enforced the dominance of women. The Amazons went so far as practically to exclude men from the national life. They devoted themselves entirely to war and training for war. Their army consisted solely of women soldiers. To them men were merely embodiments of the procreative principle, whose existence must be tolerated in order to ensure a sufficiency of female offspring. Since the boys played no part in the national life, they were left to the fathers to take care of. Of course, in the former realm of Prussia, Men's-
It is easy to understand why warlike propensities should become accentuated among peoples where monosexual dominance is carried to an extreme. Men have less sympathy for men, and women have less sympathy for women, than men have for women or women for men. The more exclusively power is vested in one sex, the more callous does the mentality of the dominant sex tend to become towards the horrors of war.
The sex of the troops under monosexual dominance is worthy of further consideration. In some instances we find that monosexuality is strictly enforced in the army, whereas in other instances there are soldiers of both sexes. Moreover, whilst under monosexual dominance soldiers are more often of the dominant sex, this rule is not universal.
Examples are familiar of the cases in which, now in Men's States and now in Women's States, the army is exclusively recruited from the dominant sex. In
We cannot decide whether this participation of both
sexes in military service is typical of the phase of
equal rights. It is not uncommon to read of the two
[3] Germania. 18.
There have also been peoples among which the
troops consisted, mainly at least, of members of the
subordinate sex. In Dahomey[5] the sovereign was a
man, and men appear to have been dominant. The
king had a bodyguard consisting of one hundred
heavily armed warrior women and a large number of
elephant huntresses. This force was commanded by
a woman general. The army was for the most part
[4] Egyptological Researches, vol. ii, p. 175.
[5] Jaeckel, op. cit., pp. 111, 115
Here is another striking point of similarity. These warrior women regarded men as cowards and weaklings. When reproaching one another for cowardice or weakness they would say: "You are a man." Herein we have a precise counterpart of the mentality of men soldiers. Every one knows that when one male warrior says to another, "You are a woman," the taunt of cowardice is implied.
Among the Spartans the institutions of Dahomey were reversed. Women were dominant, but the fighters apparently were all males. The women seem to have participated in defensive operations, but not in hand-to-hand warfare. Plutarch, indeed, tells us that the Lacedæmonian women were no less valiant than the men, for they had the same title to honour. Nor must we forget that in this question of the existence of women warriors, as in so many others, Men's-State historians have been inclined to suppress or distort uncongenial details. In earlier days many
Furthermore, in the land of Sesostris the prestige of women was great, and they were more highly honoured than men. According to Nymphodorus, Sesostris was the king who introduced the dominance of women into Egypt. He it was who, erecting columns in honour of his wife and himself, made the two columns of the same height. We are expressly told that when in danger he sought counsel of his wife and followed her advice. The epithet "womanish" could not therefore have had among the Egyptians of his day a derogatory Men's-State signification. When we recall, in addition, that the Egyptian women were spoken of as "lionesses," the credibility of the foregoing interpretation is still further reduced. The
The deeds of women conquerors show that women
can unfortunately exhibit a no less warlike disposition
than men. Some women rulers have been fierce and
bellicose, whilst others have been lovers of peace.
The legends of Semiramis describe her as a great conqueror.
Tomyris, the queen who defeated and slew
Cyrus, seems to have been a lover of peace. It is recorded
that after the victory, angered by Cyrus' onslaught,
she had the body of her defeated enemy
dipped in blood, saying. "Drink thy fill, conqueror!"
Whereas Hatshepsu preserved the peace in the realm
of Egypt for decades and bridled her husband's lust
for conquest, Elizabeth of England laid the foundations
of that country's political predominance by
strenuous fighting quite as much as by shrewd statecraft.
When Elizabeth ascended the throne, England
was a State of the second rank, but by the time of her
death it had become one of the leading countries of
Europe. Maria Theresa detested war, but Elizabeth
of Russia delighted in it. Jaeckel[6] gives a long list
of female sovereigns, and quite a number of these
were warmongers. Zenobia, wife of Odenathus of
Palmyra, was co-ruler during her husband's lifetime,
and after his death was monarch of a realm embracing
Syria and most of the provinces of Asia Minor.
[6] Op. cit., pp. 155 et seq.
But no more do we find among all these great queens a general love of peace, than among the kings
To-day the notion of courage is intimately associated
with the idea of war. Before all, courage is
the courage of the soldier: next it is courage in bodily
[7] Politische Ethik, p. 468.
[8] The Day of the Saxon, etc.
Among unwarlike peoples, neither sex seems to
attach much value to courage—or at any rate to the
qualities that warlike nations denote by that term.
For this reason historians have often accused the
Egyptians of cowardice, for to peoples of bellicose
inclinations a pacifist disposition and cowardice seem
identical. For example Bolko Stern[9] writes: "The
modern Egyptians are reputed cowardly. Their behaviour
during the Mahdist campaigns justified the
accusation. In ancient Egypt things seem to have
[9] Op. cit., p. 28.
It is unfortunately very difficult to institute any comparisons between respect for authority in Men's States on the one hand and Women's States on the other, for owing to the bellicose complexion of history details are lacking. Concerning the Chamorros, the indigens of the Ladrone Islands, among whom the dominance of women was absolute, we know from the reports of various travellers that they were of a peaceful disposition, but were very proud, and were easily affronted. Here we find a peaceful disposition in conjunction with a high spirit, with a mentality that is free from an undue respect for authority. We are told that the Cingalese had a great love of liberty, and also that they were peacefully disposed. Respect for authority is probably an outcome of the frame of mind associated with a bellicose disposition, just as contempt for authority flourishes most in connexion with the mentality of peace. In Prussia, the most bellicose State of modern times, respect for authority was already so highly developed in the days of Bismarck's power as to arouse uneasiness even in this absolutist, notwithstanding his general esteem for subordination and obedience. This is why Bismarck reproached the Germans for their "lack of civil
There does however seem to exist one difference between Men's States and Women's States which must be charged to the account of masculine or feminine influence, as the case may be. We refer to the appraisement of the fear of death. In the Women's State the fear of death is considered an estimable quality, a positive virtue; in the Men's State, on the other hand, the fear of death is considered shameful, and contempt for death is deemed a virtue. In the Men's State the phrase runs, "Life is not the greatest good"; but in the Women's State life is regarded as the greatest good. Such an utterance as "navigare necesse cst, vivere non necesse" is a typical Men's-State utterance. A woman would say: "Unless I go on living, I cannot journey by sea, so life must take the first place." But in the Men's State life is so lightly regarded that the undervaluation leads to logical contradiction.
Both in Egypt and in Sparta, the two civilised
Women's States, the fear of death was highly esteemed.
Plutarch[10] says of the Spartans that they
honoured the god of fear, but not in order that they
might overcome their feelings of fear, for they regarded
fear as in itself a power for good. "Courage,"
continues Plutarch, "seems to me to be regarded here
[10] Cf. Schulte-Vaerting, op. cit., p. 203; Plutarch, Cleomenes, 9.
In the songs of ancient Egypt, the fear of death is
openly acclaimed. "The fast runner hurries away to
a strange land. . . . He is afraid of the lions and
of the Asiatics." Amongst us the emphasis would
be laid upon the courageous desire to fight with the
lions and the Asiatics. To the general taste of our
day, it seems a grave defect that a nation should have
no songs in praise of martial courage. H. Oldenberg
gives open expression to his discontent with India on
this account. In ancient Hindustan, where matriarchy
is known to have prevailed, we find in the battle songs
neither lust of combat nor praise of martial courage.
In this connexion Oldenberg[11] remarks: "How different
are the moods from those that seem natural
to us when we sing of war and victory. There is no
challenging note, such as can awaken a virile longing
[11] Die Literatur des alten Indien.
Thus both in warlike and in unwarlike Women's States the fear of death was looked upon as a virtue, whereas in Men's States it is contempt for death that is a virtue. Unquestionably this difference is the outcome of differing valuations of life. We must not jump to the conclusion that we have evidence here of a congenital difference between men and women. Probably there is no difference in this matter between the inborn characteristics of the two sexes. There is another way in which the difference we are now considering might originate. The sexual and psychical constitution exhibits in the two sexes unequal powers of resistance to the dangers of monosexual dominance.[12] The vital energy is more readily impaired in the sex that has less powers of resistance. But the more the vital energy is impaired, the greater will be the contempt for death. For this very reason Kammerer has regarded contempt for death as a stigma of degeneration. It may further be pointed out that the statistics of the Men's State show that suicide is far more common in men than in women. And suicide is the highest and the last expression of the lack of vital energy.
Aristotle had already noted a peculiarity as regards
the attitude towards war where women were dominant.
He says that the dominance of women produced an
aptitude for the offensive only, but was ineffective as
far as the defensive was concerned. The difference is
apparent merely, as we can show from a comparison
drawn from the late war. What Aristotle, generalis-
[12] The authors propose to prove this assertion in a later work.
THE ATTITUDE OF MEN AND WOMEN TOWARDS WAR
AND PEACE. MORAL COURAGE AND PHYSICAL COURAGE The Dominant Sex: The Sociology of Sex Differentiation | ||