How Men’s Rights Has Made Me Anti-War

One completely unexpected effect that being in the men’s rights movement has had on me is that it has made me very anti-war. Granted, I have always been staunchly anti-draft.  However, I used to be more open to the idea of using force to overthrow brutal dictators.  After all, you have to talk to bullies in the only language that they understand.  While I still think that there is some validity to that argument, I have come to see how that can cause more problems than it solves.

The main point here, however, is less about the present day, and more about history in general.  I have come to see the way that men, especially young men, and even boys, have been used as cannon fodder throughout history, often against their will.  Worse yet, they were often drafted to fight against what their natural interests would be. For example, the Ottoman Turks often drafted young Christian boys to fight for the Ottoman Empire.  Obviously, their natural interest would be to see their lands freed from Ottoman rule.  While they were usually sent to fight in parts of the empire away from their own homelands, they were still forced to fight for the entity that was occupying their homelands.  Another example of this phenomenon is rebel groups moving through a village often draft many young men into their ranks, whether they agree with the rebels’ cause or not.

Must Read:

The “Hawk Tuah” Girl [Men’s Rights Advocate View] – 1
Phrases That Exist Only In A Gynocentric Society
THE MYTH OF ‘WAR-FREE’ FEMALE RULERS

The main flaw with war is that it seems to be predicated on the notion that the winning side was the more virtuous one.  However, we can all see examples throughout history of where that was not the case.  It is at this point that I would also wish to dispel the notion that many on the political left have that the losing side was the losing side because they were a more peaceful people, and the winning side was the winning side because they were more aggressive.  It is worth noting that so many of the world’s nations/ethnic groups, etc. have been both the conquerors and the conquered at some point in their histories.  Therefore, in the majority of wars, there were no “good guys” or “bad guys”; there were just simply two different groups of people (often two different nations) that simply wanted as much territory as possible.

Another problem with war is just how wasteful it is.  Beyond the obvious cost in terms of the lives lost on the battlefield and civilian casualties, there is also the cost of national treasure.  War requires that much money be spent on military equipment, salaries of the soldiers, supply lines of food and medical supplies, etc.  Was there seriously no better way for different countries (or other entities) to resolve their disputes than to send the strongest, healthiest young men they had to kill each other in Roman-style gladiator games that took place in a field rather than an arena?!

It is at this point that I wish to address what has been the biggest failure of the Christian faith: its failure to prevent war.  I deeply value my Christian faith and Christianity has probably made more positive contributions to humanity than anything else in all of world history.  Nonetheless, it is shocking that church leaders so failed to prevent war between fellow Christians.  I have often wondered why no pope took it upon himself to stop war between at least fellow Catholics if not Christians in general.  He should have written a charter and gotten all Catholic kings to sign it which would have banned war between fellow Catholics.  This charter should have created a tribunal where all disputes such as territory between rival kingdoms or disagreements as to who the rightful heir to the throne is could be brought and resolved fairly and peacefully.  Obviously, I am not naïve as to not realize that such a tribunal would have been prone to corruption.  However, it certainly would have been a far better system.  The thought of fellow Christians killing each other in battle when the two groups of men were otherwise quite similar to each other—it was just that they came from different countries and spoke different languages (In some cases, even that was not true)—is indeed heartbreaking.

It is at this point that I wish to give two particularly noteworthy examples of pointless wars that should have been prevented.  The first one is the War of the Roses.  The House of York and the House of Lancaster both made claims to the throne of England, since there was no obvious heir.  It was a brutal civil war in which thousands died, often peasant farmers who were pulled off of their fields, while knowing little about the issue they were fighting over.  There had to have been a better way to determine which family had a stronger claim to the throne of England.

Another example is the War of the Spanish Succession.  A little background, in the early 18th century King Charles II of Spain (or Carlos II in Spanish) was so heavily inbred (even more so than royal standards in general) that he could not have children.  Foreseeing an opening on the Spanish throne, French king Louis XIV suggested that his grandson could become the king of Spain, as Louis was married to Charles’s sister.  However, he was also in line to become the king of France.  If he were allowed to become the king of Spain, then someday he would be in a position to merge the two large, powerful Catholic countries (both of which had large empires in the Americas at the time) of France and Spain together.  Needless to say, many of the other European countries such as Austria, Britain, and Portugal did not want to see that happen.

This resulted in a war.  The war ended with the Treaty of Utrecht.  Under the terms, Louis’s grandson was permitted to become the king of Spain, but the king of France and the king of Spain could never be the same person.  I remember studying this in my European history class in high school thinking, it took an entire war with how many thousands dead on both sides to simply reach that conclusion!     

This brings me to the issue of the draft.  It is shocking that so many people support what is tantamount to a form of slavery.  After all, the two-word definition of slavery is “unvoluntary servitude”.  Again, I am not naïve.  I realize that throughout most of world history, if a society didn’t have a draft, it could have been overrun by another one which did have a draft.  After which, the invading side could have moved in and imposed their will on the people they conquered by forcing them to convert to their religion, adopt names from their language, and force them to speak their language.  Worse yet, they could have turned them into slaves.  On top of all of that, they then could have drafted the conquered people into their army.  If there is one thing I can agree on with the pro-conscription crowd, it is indeed better to be drafted into your own army rather than a foreign one!  And by the way, all of the above is assuming that the invading army didn’t simply massacre the entire conquered nation!           

Often when I speak out against conscription, people point to defeating the Na*is in World War II.  However, they are only looking at the issue on the surface.  The Na*is came to power following the disaster that was World War I.  Indeed, while I gave two examples above of wars that were particularly stupid and destructive, World War I was probably the stupidest and most destructive war in all of world history.  The worst part is the fact that as destructive as that war was, the real destruction would come later, as it was out of the ashes of this war that the Na*is came to power in Germany and the communists came to power in Russia.  Obviously, from these two disasters came World War II, the Hol*c*ust, the Cold War, Soviet oppression of central Europe, and so many other horrible things.  If only World War I had been prevented.

This is where anti-conscription comes into play.  If there hadn’t been a draft for World War I, either the war would have never happened, or it would have been over much quicker with far less destruction, and probably would not have led to either Na*i Germany or communist Russia.  Indeed, while I realize that there would have been no way to have enforced this, if there had never been any draft—coupled with not shaming men into fighting—ever, throughout the whole of world history, there would have been far fewer wars.  It is centuries past the time that the world should have moved beyond using young men as disposable cannon fodder against their will.  Instead, countries need to realize that these men represent their futures.  These men should instead be building things.

Sadly, in many countries, a running peacetime draft became the norm for generations, a coming-of-age rite of passage.  It is also long past time society moved away from this as well.  Instead, there has been some talk of creating a culture of voluntary national service, in which the majority of young people, both male and female, upon coming of age would do a form of voluntary national service, of which military service would be an option.  What I like about this idea is that it would be voluntary, not sexist, and would not have to involve military service.  I myself served in the Peace Corps after graduating from college.  For the record, I am not trying to imply that Peace Corps service is the same thing as military service.  Instead, the point is that we all have different talents and different ways in which to better serve our countries. 

One final note about defense and anti-war/anti-conscription: the European Union (yes, I realize that it was not called that back then) nearly ended up with a united military back in the 1950s.  Sadly, the plan failed when the French parliament rejected it.  Perhaps the time has come for this plan to be reconsidered.  A single military—with zero draft of course!—to defend the whole of the 27 countries of the European Union would be a great way to ensure peace in Europe, especially if it would already include the candidate countries along with NATO members Norway, Iceland, and hopefully even Britain.  Likewise, it would be quite cost-effective as well.  As a proud citizen of the European Union myself, I would dearly love to see that happen.