80-85% of [male] soldiers refuse to take another human life, even at the cost of their own. So much for 'innate male violence'. (PDF)

omniamutantir · 2011-04-26T12:39:17+00:00

"If society prepares a soldier to overcome his resistance to killing and places him in an environment in which he will kill, then that society has an obligation to deal with the psychological repercussions."

Favourite quote from the paper.

Fatalistic · 2011-04-26T09:16:00+00:00

Why do you think today's militaries needs to literally drill soldiers over and over and over and over again to make them unthinking, conformist followers of commands? Exactly. This is why.

Feminist theory about utter bullshit like violence being an innate male trait is not based on reality. How many times does it need to be said?

osirisx11 · 2011-04-26T12:47:07+00:00

It is all about framing. Ask again and rephrase it "would you kill a rapist/pedophile/terrorist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reframing

illithoid · 2011-04-26T15:02:36+00:00

Regarding the title of this post.

This paper says nothing specifically about males, it refers to soldiers and people in general, saying that humanity is averse to killing other humans.

To me what this paper says is that humans are not "natural born killers".

To play the devil's advocate, if studies were done comparing men and women, and the results of said studies found that 80-85% of men refuse to take another human life, compared to 90-95% of women, then one could still make an argument for 'innate male violence'. Though I know of and would not expect to find any such studies.

Regarding the paper.

What I find truly interesting about this paper, is how the US military was able to increase the firing rate of soldiers from 20% to 55% in the Korean war, and then to 90% in Vietnam. As well as the implications this has on the occurrences of PTSD in those returning from combat.

fondueguy · 2011-04-26T15:27:31+00:00

Wow, this is extremely profound and shows how badly men are used for the benefit of society.

Men's lives have been thrown away for the benefit of society but I didn't know men were trully being trained to kill against huge reservations.

This just gives me an additional reason to believe that the ones who are committing the most violence are the ones who expect others to fight in their stead while they stay home and reap rewards. This largely includes women and the rich. Its sad but men being treated as cannon fodder is women's violence when its used for women's protection (defensive wars or dire shortages) or when its used for gaining greater wealth which women will use themselves (greedy wars).

specialkake · 2011-04-26T14:07:54+00:00

There was a study where they studied women, but when replicated three weeks later, the results were completely different.

Subversive · 2011-04-26T15:06:03+00:00

Unfortunately, S.L.A. Marshall's research is debatable. When I took a military history class in college, Marshall was brought up and the professor explained how Marshall never really asked the soldiers if they fired their weapons in combat, and how Marshall pretty much just came up with the conclusion on his own. Simple fact is that in a "kill or be killed" environment, most people choose to kill, regardless of gender.

ikyn · 2011-04-26T21:17:53+00:00

That's why you send Marines in, and not soldiers (Army).

Title	80-85% of [male] soldiers refuse to take another human life, even at the cost of their own. So much for 'innate male violence'. (PDF)
Author	Subversive
Upvotes	84
Comments	35
Date	April 26, 2011 8:50 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/gxn80/8085_of_male_soldiers_refuse_to_take_another/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/80-85-of-male-soldiers-refuse-to-take-another.1040534 https://theredarchive.com/post/1040534

Comments