Why Do Men Need War? It's Male Bonding?

The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 9-9-2006 | Roger Highfield

[blam]

Why do men need war? It's male bonding

Reports by Roger Highfield and Nic Fleming

(Filed: 09/09/2006)

Men need threats, rivalry and war for them to work together the most effectively, according to a study of the "male warrior effect".

The issue of why men start wars has been investigated in a series of experiments by Prof Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent. They reveal that conflict is part of male bonding.

"We all know that males are more aggressive than females but with that aggression comes a lot of co-operation," Prof van Vugt said yesterday. While male co-operation lies at the heart of democracy and leadership, and men work better in hierarchical groups than women, it is a double-edged sword.

"Men might need wars to show off their altruism, to be celebrated as warriors and heroes," the professor added.

Women in general are better at co-operating. "Women leaders are more dovish than hawkish," Prof van Vugt said.

In a forthcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, Prof van Vugt and colleagues in Kent and at the University of Tilburg describe laboratory tests which show that rivalry drives males to make sacrifices for their group more than women.

The experiments involved about 300 students. Equal numbers of men and women were divided into groups of six who could only interact by computer.

They were each given £3 that they could invest for the group, when it would be doubled and divided equally among the group, or keep for themselves. Those who did not co-operate reaped the most benefit. They would end up with £3 plus any money divided among the group.

But when the group was told it was competing with other universities, "it was the men who started to be very altruistic and invest in the group fund. The women were less sensitive".

This "male warrior effect" is consistent with findings from other disciplines.

"Men are more likely to support their country going to war," Prof van Vugt said. "Men are more likely to lead groups in more autocratic, militaristic ways.

"Men have evolved a psychology that makes them particularly interested, and able to engage, in warfare."

Similar behaviours can be seen in a "pristine primordial form" in chimpanzees, he added.

"They go out on raids into neighbouring communities and kill off members of rival groups." Aside from warfare, the males do not usually co-operate, the professor said.

[Spktyr]

Already posted: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697991/posts

[jrooney]

OH, a study done by a metrosexual professor. I trust his judgment. *Sarcasm off

[Brett66]

Women leaders are more dovish than hawkish

Idiots.

[Tax Government]

Why? Because human civilization is based on systematic murder.

[Fzob]

The simple fact is we like to blow stuff up.

[Gay State Conservative]

Can there be any doubt that this study was funded by Soros?

[Welsh Rabbit]

Reports by Roger Highfield and Nic Fleming

Let me guess, "long time companions"?

[teenyelliott]

Women leaders are more dovish than hawkish

That might be true three weeks out of the month. : )

[roses of sharon]

OMG, thank god for a man's instincts to protect his family and land!

Who needs a study for that?

[ZULU]

Wars happen because of human nature.

There is always somebody who wants what somebody else has.

[El Gato]

"Women leaders are more dovish than hawkish,"

Which of course explains Prime Ministers Golda Mier, Indira Ghandi, and my favorite, Margaret Thatcher.

It also explains She Who Must Not Be Mentioned (The one with the cankles). While she's not hawkish on American interests, she is hawkish on her own.

[El Gato]

There is always somebody who wants what somebody else has.

Or who just wants everyone to be just like themselves, one way or another. Such our current Jihadies.

[Fiddlstix]

Interesting post.
I must admit that I've never heard or read about chimpanzees "going to war" as it were.
But then again I really don't read a lot about chimpanzees and their behavior.

[mdittmar]

Why Do Men Need War?

We don't need it,but this is a very esoteric question.

How about this Roger Highfield and Nic Fleming,so we and our families won't be killed.

It ain't brain surgery.

[Man50D]

Why Do Men Need War? It's Male Bonding?

Yeah, we feel closer to each other when we're trying to kill each other.

[Dog Gone]

What kind of a girl named "Roger" wrote this article?

[A CA Guy]

Why Do Men Need War? So the one who wins can dictate the term of a lasting peace.

[Toby06]

Why would abyone even propose this question unles they were limp-wristed?

[ladyinred]

ROTFL! I am not a man, and were I in charge shock and awe would be the main feature tonight all over the middle east!

[sandra_789]

I can't wait to see this genius on Opera Winfrey.

[operation clinton cleanup]

So.... this is the answer to peace on Earth?

[Invisible Gorilla]

Men need war to make it easier to score with foreign chicks.

[CondorFlight]

"Men might need wars to show off their altruism, to be celebrated as warriors and heroes," the professor added.

Right. That's why we had to employ the draft all those years, to force men to come into the military (they weren't coming on their own. . .)

[OldEagle]

"Men might need wars to show off their altruism, to be celebrated as warriors and heroes," the professor added.

Professor is full of it.

[Spktyr]

Troops of chimpanzees have been observed to attack and exterminate rival troops. They do, indeed, conduct war.

[LibWhacker]

We need it to get rid of the girlie-men.

[Fiddlstix]

Thank you for the info. I was unaware of that. FR is a great place to learn many things.

[stuartcr]

So they can get stuff that other people have, and they want.

[Fiddlstix]

I am not a man, and were I in charge shock and awe would be the main feature tonight all over the middle east!

Let me know when you decide to run for President.
You've got my vote. lol

[dr_who_2]

The Telegraph used to be a good paper. What a shame it's been taken over by pinkos and idiots. It's kind of like Doctor Who. It was great, but then a bunch of homos took over production of the show and it went down hill from there. Don't get me started about the new series. Yech.

[akorahil]

...Women in general are better at co-operating. ...

Because the term 'catfight' came from nowhere...

[P-40]

The simple fact is we like to blow stuff up.

And drink beer.

[Triggerhippie]

The simple fact is we like to blow stuff up.

I know I do. Or did...

[EricT.]

...Women in general are better at co-operating. ...

Obviously never worked in an office full of women.

[RobinOfKingston]

Women in general are better at co-operating. "Women leaders are more dovish than hawkish," Prof van Vugt said.

Maybe someday this dipsquizzle van Vugt can point to some "dovish" women leaders in places like, maybe, Venezuela, N Korea, Iran, Cuber, etc. 'Til then his hypotheses doesn't deserve consideration.

[DoughtyOne]

What eludes these nitwits, is that men don't need war. They simply stand up and conduct it when real men are required to do so.

When terrorists attacked, real men stood up and said, "You will not be allowed to do that without paying a very heavy price."

If is the effeminate male and the ball-busting female that can't grasp this topic. And in their ignorance they often make postulations that have no bearing on reality.

[DoughtyOne]

No kidding. I've never seen such devisive spiteful behavior outside an office full of women. I'm sure they're not all like that, but I have seen some doozies.

[DakotaRed]

We men don't NEED war.

Those of us that have been in one saw the necessity of performing a duty that we hoped to never have to perform again. But, if once again one is thrust on us, as the War on Terror has been, the majority of us stand either to return or to support those that now feel the same sense of duty that we once saw.

It isn't a matter of NEED, it's a matter of desiring the country and all to remain FREE.

[Herakles]

"The issue of why men start wars has been investigated in a series of experiments by Prof Mark van Vugt of the University of Kent. They reveal that conflict is part of male bonding. "

Yea, that's right. if there isn't a football game on, and there is nothing to do but screw around, we'll start a war just to "bond". At least we aren't writing nonsense like this, and smelling our butts to make sure they still stink like girly men do.

[ZULU]

Theyt want our freedom so they can take it away.

[RobbyS]

And women tend to be submissive. That has about as much science behind it as this. Does this mean that a government led by women would tend not to defend the country?

[stuartcr]

I may be wrong, but I don't think most wars were a result of terrorist acts.

[sergeantdave]

Given the choice of setting up an ambush in a bug-infested jungle or eating barbecue ribs and drinking beer in my backyard, I tend toward the latter. However, don't tell the professor that or I might have to kill him.

[aruanan]

"We all know that males are more aggressive than females...."

Yeah, right.

[JasonC]

The real possibility of physical killing for pure material gain is the basis of political life.

Men organize to deal with those who engage in the previous, to deter and defeat those who attempt it.

Modern sheltered neurotics who psychologically cannot handle physical reality attempt by fantasy to deny the existence or normality of the previous.

It is the latter phenomenon that calls for careful psychological study and clinical diagnosis.

[longtermmemmory]

Interesting, articles comming out saying Men need war, Men are good at war, and clintonistas (with jimy carter) prancing around saying war is baaaaaaaad.


Couple this with the Democrat outright panic attac over "path to 911" (to the point of spoofing pathto911.com to the democrat.org website),

We have the start of a trend of democrats' plan for november and 2008.

Seems they have to basically attack the father figure of the strong republican party image in order to promote the feminist and feminized democrat party.

[unixfox]

Does this mean that a government led by women would tend not to defend the country?

Not only would they not defend it, they would most likely hand it over to the first dictator that threatened them.

[bert]

Hate to do this to a GGG thread but war is the natural state of human affairs. War is genetically inbred.

War is an evolutionary mechanism insuring survival of the fittest. War culls the unfit and replaces them with their betters. This is Darwinin natural selection at its most noticeable level.

There is strong condemnation of Russian troops raping German women. The tendency is the natural outcome of war and purely Darwinian application of "to the victor goe the spoils. The spoils include in addition to treasure....the gene pool.

Peace is therefore for wimps and those destined to lose their genes to someone fitter.

[GoLightly]

Return with your shield or on it... and do you think you could pick up a gallon of milk on your way home?