Here’s a Twitter exchange I had regarding soldiers representing a falling away from the ideal of knights.
It was in response to this:
How warriors softened into soldiers and masculinity vanished:
In the West, the chivalric military orders of medieval Christendom embodied the warrior ideal.
The highest of was the Order of the Temple, also called the ‘Knight Templar.’
It was one of the holiest of all vocations.
Their initiatory vows were similar to priests’: poverty, chastity, piety, and obedience.
King Philip IV of France coerced Pope Clement into issuing bulls to disband the order in 1312.
This was a watershed moment: politics trumping religion.
The Samurai were the Japanese equivalent of knights.
They had a strict rule of dress, behaviour, honour, and diet
As with the knights, their defeat led to cultural and spiritual defeat.
Warriors have vanished from the modern world.
But the warrior spirit still shines from the literature of the past.
And only a society that harnesses masculinity can survive.
Sir Gawain’s pentangle represents the five fives.
1. Five senses.
2. Five fingers.
3. Five wounds of Christ.
4. Five joys of the Virgin Mary
5. Five chivalric attributes
Each has a lesson for modern men.
1. The Five Senses
Gawain is described "faultless in his five senses."
He perceives the world as it is and reacts accordingly.
A man must see clearly. Gawain doesn’t allow his mind to be clouded by lust.
2. The Five Fingers.
He will not be failed by his five fingers.
The knight is "the hand of God."
Action requires strength and fortitude.
3. The five wounds of Christ during the Crucifixion.
A good knight is willing to die for the truth.
He does not seek shelter.
And he can’t be bought.
4. The five joys
These are the Annunciation, Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption.
Christ is the source of the knight's strength.
Mary is on the inner side of the shield - close to the heart - as an admonishment to respect women.
5. The five chivalric attributes.
Generosity
Brotherly love
Pure mind
Good manners
Compassion
Chivalry is not for women but for the perfection of men.
Each of the five points is linked and locked with the next.
This forms the endless knot.
These five points of masculinity stand or fall together.
Most of the Twitter exchange follows:
@AuBrey94641180
Tell that to the men that assaulted Monte Casino, or the British infanteers that often broke their bayonets off in the enemy’s skulls in the waterlogged ditches of Helmand.
There is nothing soft about modern soldiering. An infanteer today *is* a paladin in the Western tradition.
@KnowlandKnows
You think killing people automatically means masculinity?
The US soldiers fighting to impose globo-homo on the Taliban were masculine?
Merely fighting in a lot of these globalist wars shows these guys are willing to die not for the truth but a lie.
@AuBrey94641180
Soldiering - the art of fighting hardened, committed foes - *is* manly. It takes guts, courage, physical strength, brotherly love, leadership and total commitment of a kind that no civilian can understand.
@KnowlandKnows
You are too offended to think clearly about this.
Are *some* soldiers masculine? Yes.
Does being a soldier *make* someone masculine? No.
1. The military is one of the most cucked institutions.
2. Being a soldier can mean merely enforcing globo-homo.
@AuBrey94641180
I agree with those points.
The points you made above directly contradict your initial replies in this discussion.
@KnowlandKnows
Explain the contradiction. I can't see one.
What I see is you getting confused then understanding.
I am not taking back anything I have said.
@AuBrey94641180
“Merely fighting in a lot of these globalist wars shows these guys are willing to die not for the truth but a lie.”
It is the cause that you believe violates your masculinity principle, yes? So fighting in these wars is a priori not masculine.
Being prepared to die for a political lie is not masculine. And by your lights the 9/11 Wars fit this criteria. Therefore the men that fought in them are not masculine. This is what your remark here implies.
But this contradicts the much softer points you made a few replies ago.
@KnowlandKnows
There is no contradiction.
*Some* soldiers being willing to die for a lie is consistent with being a soldier not *necessarily* implying masculinity.
It's actually saying exactly the same thing.
@AuBrey94641180
Ok. So you only meant that *some* infantry soldiers were fighting explicitly (intendedly) for globohomo and murdering innocent people to impose feminism?
@KnowlandKnows
Well, it didn't say *all* soldiers and *all* wars, did it? You were too triggered to read.
@AuBrey94641180
Combat is *the* ultimate test of most (but not all) of the masculine virtues: courage; valour; loyalty; strength; honour etc.
@KnowlandKnows
Some soldiers give each other oral sex on tour. That's not masculine.
Achilles lost his temper and was effeminate in many ways. That wasn't masculine either.
By contrast, Jesus represents perfect masculinity, but he was a carpenter.
@AuBrey94641180
Indeed. I agree - those specific aspects of Achilles and modern soldiers aren’t masculine. The Spartans had sex with each other, too.
But these men still achieved - via combat - the highest ideals of masculinity as conceived from Antiquity to now.
@KnowlandKnows
No, Jesus represents the apex of masculinity.
Achilles, the most famed soldier of antiquity, came nowhere near.
And the ultimate form of conflict is in your own soul.
You can conquer the world like Alexander the Great and still be effeminate in many ways.
@AuBrey94641180
But war focuses certain masculine virtues in a way that nothing else does. I think the Bible agrees:
“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” — John 15:13
That, I think, captures the loyalty, service, selfless commitment and nobility common to all soldiers in all times. And that overrides any “globohomo” analyses, IMO.
@KnowlandKnows
I don't get it.
Are you now trying to say all soldiers *are* necessarily masculine?
@AuBrey94641180
Combat and the risk of laying down one’s life for one’s friends. That my criterion.
@KnowlandKnows
And these are necessary or sufficient?
@AuBrey94641180
Necessary to achieve one *very* high and specific form of masculinity (on the battlefield).
Neither sufficient nor necessary to achieve masculinity in the round.
But certainly an indicator of one’s likely noble character and masculine virtue.
@KnowlandKnows
But not *sufficient* to achieve that 'specific form of masculinity (on the battlefield'?
Otherwise, you DO think merely being a soldier means masculinity in some way.
@AuBrey94641180
The other components would be acting with valour and courage and loyalty. I should have included that in my original criteria.
Those things, taken together, are necessary and sufficient.
@KnowlandKnows
It's obvious why the thread upset you.
You *do* think being a soldier who's faced combat *necessarily* means masculinity - a masculinity shared, interestingly, by female soldiers in combat.
But Jesus - perfectly masculine - wasn't a soldier at all.
@AuBrey94641180
Female soldiers have never been in combat. That isn’t a thing. Every example they use to justify the insertion of women into the infantry is a lie - it simply never happened. And women never will fight in combat - at least not for long.
@KnowlandKnows
They have never been conscripted. But they have met your criteria.
@AuBrey94641180
Which examples are these? I’m talking specifically about shield-against-shield, toe-to-toe, bayonet-to-chest fighting.
Where has this taken place with women against men?
@KnowlandKnows
Easy: Vikings and American Indians, to mention only two among the many, many examples.
Women have met ALL your criteria.
Jesus met none.
I am turning this exchange into a Substack article.
It's too interesting.
You can carry on the discussion in the comments there if you want so it's more permanent.
Twitter is ephemeral.
@AuBrey94641180
I’d be interested to see other female examples.
I’m talking about achieving a specific (and somewhat fleeting) *type* of masculine virtue via combat.
I am not saying that masculinity *is* combat and vice versa. Masculinity is defined by much else besides.
Hence, I think the point about Jesus is misplaced. I’m talking about something recognised by Christ, Aquinas, the Greek Greats etc: virtue via combat and valour.
@knowlandknows
So now you are changing your criteria? This is getting weird.
It has to be hand-to-hand combat?
No projectile weapons?
Meanwhile, Jesus represents perfect masculinity and was just a carpenter.
@AuBrey94641180
With respect, it’s getting weird because you don’t seem to understand that infantry soldiers *close with* and kill the enemy. An attack ends with soldiers in hand-to-hand fighting. That is the nature of combat. This is essential to the whole discussion.
@KnowlandKnows
Always? No. Don't be absurd. I have friends in the military and have read loads of military history.
Are you now defining "combat" as "only combat ending in hand-to-hand combat"? Even then, women have done this.
@AuBrey94641180
Again, where are these hard examples?
@KnowlandKnows
Dude, as I've said before, your ignorance isn't my problem.
Read some Viking history.
Even the Boer war.
@AuBrey94641180
You seem to be taking this extremely personally.
I’ll say again: I genuinely bear no animosity towards you; I just think that on this occasion you are wrong.
It is a rational dispute. Neither of us are thick or ignorant.
@KnowlandKnows
What gives you the impression I am taking this personally? The thread, intended to provoke, did its job well with you.
And now I find it interesting that your criteria keep shifting, the meanings of your terms keep changing, and women have met them all.
@AuBrey94641180
That sounds like a fun game for you, indeed.
I’m surprised that you don’t produce content that you regard to be right and true, rather than merely provocative. Deriding the honour of the modern war-dead is an interesting way to provoke.
@KnowlandKnows
Nothing provokes like the truth.
@AuBrey94641180
Nothing provokes like gratuitously simplistic remarks from people that ought to know better.
Let’s go back to the man at Monte Casino. What *is* your opinion of him? A man assaulting a German machine-gun post uphill.
I think this unlocks everything in this dispute.
What do you *think* of him? How do you regard his service? How do you view his name on a memorial in his hometown, for example?
I think an honest answer from you here will reveal the heart of this entire difference between us.
@KnowlandKnows
Let's say a soldier showed courage in the face of death, fought with valour and died nobly. Is there something essentially masculine about that? No: women have done all those things.
You won't let go of this idea that fighting somehow means masculinity. It doesn’t.
We've figured out you really *do* think close-quarter combat is both necessary and sufficient for what you consider a certain type of masculinity.
But you're the one being simplistic here because, since women can also share this, it can't be *essentially* masculine.
@AuBrey94641180
1. Yes. And I’ll add that the entire Western tradition, including Christ, agrees with this idea of a connection between battlefield honour and manhood (specifically, a certain type of masculine ideal). In fact, you speak to this in your original thread.
2. Your rebuttal goes:
“You say that dogs are canines. But this tiny number of cats meet the definition you gave me of dogs. But cats are not canines. So how can dogs be canines?”
It is essentially sophistic and relies on your opponent being able to define his terms in perfectly exclusionary ways.
This is what Plato gets into in ‘The Meno’ when he tries to define “virtue”. The interlocutor has it easy.
I know that battlefield honour is connected intrinsically - *but not entirely or even mostly* - to the Western ideal of masculinity.
I know that men and battlefield valour are connected powerfully and enduringly in a way that women and BV are not.
Likewise: wide hips are a feminine virtue; and the existence of some men with wide hips does not unseat that.
@KnowlandKnows
No. Your problem is that you're trying to define manhood in terms of war.
The essence of manhood is the potential for fatherhood.
You're just talking about courage. ANY woman can show that.
But well done for admitting you really do think soldier = masculinity somehow.
@AuBrey94641180
“I know that battlefield honour is connected intrinsically - *but not entirely or even mostly* - to the Western ideal of masculinity.”
I can only repeat that .I’ve said half a dozen times that I do not think masculinity is the same thing as war.
@KnowlandKnows
You are confused.
Aquinas defined the principal act of perfect courage as martyrdom: Christ, the perfect martyr, was the paradigm of a courageous person.
He didn't talk about combat being necessary and sufficient for masculinity.
@AuBrey94641180
To make this simple: what is the connection, in your view, between masculinity and warfare?
I will repeat one more time: my view is that they are *NOT* the same thing but that through warfare a man *might* achieve a high feat of masculinity.
@KnowlandKnows
Might? So not sufficient.
No woman has the potential for fatherhood. All men do.
Neither Aristotle nor Aquinas saw courage as exclusively masculine.
Aquinas said Jesus showed courage best.
He laid down his life for his friends but wasn't a soldier. So not necessary.
@AuBrey94641180
But I have not said that war is necessary for courage.
I’ve said that certain battlefield actions are necessary and sufficient for a very specific and high type of honour - one to which Christ himself enjoined men (under certain conditions).
@KnowlandKnows
But you just said they *might* be. I don't understand.
@AuBrey94641180
No, I said that one who partakes in combat might attain the kind of virtue I’m on about (obviously if he acts with valour).
Then I said separately that certain battlefield actions (valour) were necessary to attaining that honour.
@KnowlandKnows
You said necessary and sufficient.
But Jesus attained the greatest courage without being a soldier at all.
And African women have rescued their children from 20ft crocodiles with their bare hands.
Carry on the discussion here if you’re interested. It seemed too interesting to cast to the winds on Twitter.
Hey, here's my opinion (sorry for my broken English I'm from Brazil)
1. Courage is not exlusively masculine but in most cases men have more courage than women regarding risk taking.
2. Women can show courage in the battlefield but it would be only a small share of the female population doing it.
3. For some cultures martyrdom seems to be close to the highest feat of courage (Samurai Seppuku, Islamic Martyrs, etc..) but at the same time they recognize other types of selfless effort like religious enlightenment or absolute devotion to a skill as corageous feats. So I'd say martyrdom is at the top along other behaviours.
4. Being drafted as a soldier and following orders requires courage, but to be a knight one must embody more values. Taking a vow of chastity can be one of those values, not the ultimate I's say.
1. I read an article by M.R.Johnson where he identifies that men act more according to reason and woman to emotions. Hence, Peter may have denied Christ (despite his love for Him) because it was pragmatic to do so. Yet the woman who followed Jesus did not deny Him and showed more courage as they were more aware of the emotional stakes.
I wonder if you can trace the stereotype of the military 'grunt' that has pornographic/etc images on his wall in the barracks and goes gun blazing Full Metal Jacket Style, as the shift from Knight to Soldier occurred. Perhaps the stereotype started with a dapper looking redcoat in the 1800s who visited the brothel too much or something, lol.
This has stimulated an interesting discussion so far. I’ve laid out below some points regarding St Thomas Aquinas’ views on fortitude that I think help to illuminate the discussion.
Aquinas draws an important distinction between “acquired fortitude” and “infused fortitude”. The acquired type is one that we earn for our ourselves (on the battlefield, for example). It demands perseverance, and the sticking of one’s courage to the sticking place. We are “deserving” of the virtue because we built it by ourselves in the circumstances handed to us. By contrast, the infused form is given to us by God. Importantly, we are not “deserving” of this fortitude per se. We are born with it.
Aquinas, as Will points out, places special emphasis in the notion of Christian martyrdom. This is the highest form of fortitude due to its moral and physical components. It demands faith, endurance and physical suffering for God. It requires an excess of acquired fortitude. But, importantly, Aquinas regards the battlefield as an arena of unique importance in which acquired fortitude is fostered and *earned* (I place special emphasis on this word because I think it gets to the essence of courage and valour). He writes:
“Fortitude strengthens a man's mind against the greatest danger, which is that of death. Now fortitude is a virtue; and it is essential to virtue to tend to good; wherefore it is in order to pursue some good that man does not fly from the danger of death. But the dangers of death arising out of sickness, storms at sea, attacks from robbers, and the like, do not seem to come on a man through his pursuing some good. On the other hand, the dangers of death which occur in battle come to man directly on account of some good, because, to wit, he is defending the common good by a just fight.” (ST. II-II.123, a. 5)
The key point here is that the soldier has reached a height of acquired fortitude by virtue of his *pursuing* battle with his foe. This is what sets him apart in Aquinas’ eyes from other types of hero: he seeks his battle; his battle does not seek him. It is not forced upon him.
This point of a soldier actively, intendedly departing on a heroic mission finds expression in the Bible (repeatedly) also:
‘And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”’ — Isaiah 6:8
It is this deliberative element to the soldier that sets him apart from, say, the woman that (very courageously) fights a crocodile to retrieve her child. Her fight was forced upon her. And likewise, people will act courageously when faced with a moral dilemma at work or in the community. But the true martyr by Aquinas’ lights seeks after a fight that was not necessarily his to begin with. Similar deliberative courage can be achieved via other means (speaking out against tyranny when others are persecuted, for example); but the battlefield is the most pressing example because it involves intended, preemptive action - from a starting position of total safety and comfort - and obvious danger and terror. This seems to speak to the heart of why a soldier - in all times, in all cultures and in all places - is regarded as a noble and tragic-heroic figure.
This form of martyrdom reaches an apex when it is aligned to a specifically Christian cause. Thus the case of the Templar Knights is exceptional, as Will observes. But Aquinas here points to something more general in the soldier’s nobility: the defence of the “common good”. The nobility and depth of his fortitude resides in the fact that the fight is on behalf of the community - or “the country” as we conceive it in modern times.
But a key question that was raised in the debate was the relationship between the cause of the war and the nobility of the soldier that fights it. I’ll give one brief example that I think illustrates why, even in this age of liberal military intervention, the moral core of the modern soldier remains intact, and why he deserves our respect, particularly from those that have not served and endured his privations (or acquired his fortitude) with him.
Vietnam was fought to prevent the growth of the West’s ideological enemies. It was a dirty, bloody, tragic war. But many US soldiers that fought believed they were fighting for good. Take a young man called Karl Marlantes, who wrote some of the most outstanding memoirs of the period following his time as a platoon commander in the Marine Corps. He was the Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and forfeited his place in order to fight. His reasoning was that his privilege should not disbar him from serving alongside the poorest of his nation. I regard that selflessness, despite the moral difficulties of the conflict, as a shining modern example of Aquinas’ criterion above. He *pursued* danger for a cause he believed to be noble. He might have been *intellectually* mistaken regarding the moral worth of the cause. But his heart was noble. He left (abnormal) comfort and privilege for the jungle and death and hardship. And he lives to this day with the pain of knowing that some tactical decisions he made in the moment led directly to the deaths of some of his men. This here is the essential dignity and nobility of the modern soldier. And I believe that we should be very careful about we speak of these great men.
And likewise, many American and British young men watched 3,000 people murdered on the streets of Manhattan and felt a similar urge to defend their civilisation. We can look back and see folly in these conflicts. But is unreasonable and, I think, sanctimonious to claim that these men fought and died because they wanted to impose the worst and most recent excesses of woke dogma on foreign peoples.
The modern soldier does not choose the time or the place or the cause - and this is true of most soldiers, including those of the Middle Ages and Antiquity. He chooses only service in the name of his civilisation and his people. He can only hope to fight for what truly is the common good.
But, on the battlefield, he ultimately lays down his life for his friends, which Christ acknowledged to be the greatest love a man can bear. This is the common thread of nobility that unites the men of Thermopylae with the men of the Wars of the Roses, the Somme, D Day, and Helmand.
The soldier - in all times and for all causes - departs the comforts of home for the hardships of battle, and in so doing fulfils Aquinas’ criterion for the highest of acquired fortitudes. The nobility of the cause might increase the moral purity of the fortitude; but the fortitude is incorrigibly high in any event.
I was going to discuss the masculinity element further, and explain why I believe battlefield combat to be the realm of the man (as opposed to the woman); but this will turn into ‘War and Peace’ if I do!
I’d be interested to hear counterarguments to, or thoughts on, the above. Thanks.
Everything you say about soldiers here applies also to, for example, Nazi or Soviet soldiers.
And it is in principle achievable (and has been achieved) by women, too. At most, then, being a soldier proves only courage, not masculinity (since courage isn't exclusively masculine).
Ultimately, knights and soldiers differ in kind, not degree.
As I say, the point about women and combat demands totally separate treatment. If I have time I’ll treat it in depth later; but I think that, *even if it were true*, it does much less work to undermine the quintessentially male properties of war than we might imagine - much as a man getting pregnant (if such a thing were to happen) would not diminish the quintessential femininity of pregnancy.
But, yes: Nazi soldiers still met, in a sense, Aquinas’ definition of acquired fortitude. Due to the moral wrongness of their cause, our soldiers met it to a higher standard. Aquinas does not seem to think that only imagining yourself to be fighting for a common good overrules the acquisition of fortitude.
The key point is that there is something about the battlefield - and the *choice* to enter it - that Aquinas recognises as imbuing a unique level of acquired fortitude. He does not say that this needs to be in the mould of a Templar Knight. The cause and cultural aspects no doubt purify the moral worth of the warrior (as I acknowledge above). Hence, it does seem to be *degree* and not kind that is going on here. Otherwise, there are no Zulu warriors, no Spartan warriors, no Roman warriors. There are only Templar warriors. The men of the Wars of the Roses fought, they believed, with God at their backs. But they do not satisfy your requirements either. Perhaps this is what you mean - I’m not sure. But then the term “warrior” becomes merely a synonym for Templar Knight. But that is not what the word “warrior” means. It is a broadly applicable term for men of all castes and creeds that fight honourably for their homeland.
Hence, I think it is useful to recognise this fundamental distinction between the morality of a cause and the acquired fortitude of a soldier/warrior. (Incidentally, I think “paladin” - a word now barely in use - is the best term for a noble fighter.) And this is recognised throughout warfare, too, in the respect afforded to one’s enemy as a warrior. I think there are unhelpful games of language going on here that muddy the waters.
A false distinction has been drawn - one which uses the moral aspects of a particular type of fighter to warp the meaning of a term out of recognition.
The following seems reasonable to me:
“Of all paladins in warfare, the Templar Knights exhibited the highest order of chivalry. As such, they have eclipsed other paladins from all ages.”
That’s fine. Somebody has to be top. But there’s a conjuring trick going on when it is claimed that the *hardness* of men in war changes in kind from one set of fighters to the next. War is war. Men have faced tougher battlefields than the Templar Knights did.
It seems to me that it is more useful to simply state, in plain English, that the Templars were highly chivalrous and codified some moral component that was since lost. But this odd, unproven distinction between hard/soft, soldier/warrior distorts to the point of meaninglessness our most rudimentary concepts of warfare and honour.
The problem here is there is nothing quintessentially male about war at all. And there isn't even anything unique in kind about courage shown in battle. In fact, a female martyr shows greater courage than a male soldier.
A man getting pregnant is impossible by definition. A female warrior is not.
But there is something quintessentially male about war - it is practiced in every culture, in every time and in every place *by men* - and specifically not by women.
In theory, a woman can enjoin in war. This, like the male pregnancy, does not overrule the essence of the property.
Refuting this requires arguing that there are no male or female properties that pertain to behaviours/actions. When you accuse a man of being effeminate, to what can this possibly refer if there are not female behaviours? And the fact that small numbers of men show that same behaviour does not undermine their quintessential femininity.
Ok. But I am disputing the fact that, *even if that was true*, it would not rescind the fact of war being the domain of the male, and a male behaviour/property. So restating that women have fought in wars (which I don’t accept - but this present discussion, for brevity, gets us to the heart of the matter faster) does not rebut the point.
Effeminate means a man displaying characteristics that are associated with a woman. So take behaviour x that we both agree is feminine. Many men will also do x. This does not rescind the quintessential femininity of x.
I think the fundamental problem for your argument is that is rests upon conjuring tricks, or at least false distinctions, of language and properties. I don’t mean to say that you are trying to deceive anyone; I just mean that there is an insoluble incoherence in there.
There is no problem with my argument. The problem is your understanding of what a man is.
You want to say war means a special kind of courage that means manhood. But not even Aristotle, despite being a pagan, thinks courage is exclusively male.
And Aquinas considers "death in battle" to also apply to civic heroes. The acquired/infused fortitude distinction is irrelevant because he also thinks infused fortitude can find expression in military deeds.
But the thought-experiment demonstrates that *even if* a man became pregnant, pregnancy would remain feminine in kind. Pregnancy would remain *so overwhelmingly* female that it could only be categorised as being of the feminine and not of masculine. Likewise, if a woman (magically) grew a penis, this would not negate the quintessential maleness of penises. Minor exceptions do not negate the generality of a property or category. The virgin birth did not negate the fact that men must impregnate women, for example.
Again, I come back to our most basic concepts. Poll people in the street as to whether war is masculine or feminine. There is no doubt which answer would be returned.
What’s your view on my point about the language of the word “warrior”? Was there such a thing as a Spartan warrior?
But this is the essence of a thought-experiment - you challenge a notion using the extreme example. A 4-sided triangle is logically impossible. A person with a penis that is not a man is not logically impossible (somebody born with both male/female properties, albeit extremely rare). Hermaphrodites do not de-categorise male and female physical properties. Yet they are examples of non-males/females possessing those properties. The same applies with male/female behaviours. The particular exception does not negate the generality of the property.
As an illustrator I sometimes wonder if my pursuit is a masculine one. However, it is certainly true that many men in more "masculine" professions are degenerate. My take away is that the pursuit of masculinity begins and ends in the soul.
It is the maintenance of intelligence that is most important. We think it is a 'given' so we neglect it. Intelligence is immediate, but the authority of time is always growing.....
Courage is definitely not exclusively masculine. Yes martyrdom represents ultimate courage. Facing death in righteousness and peacefully can be more courageous than fighting. Woman absolutely do show aggressive courage, though it's not as commonplace in adult women. Pre-pubescent girls can be incredibly aggressive and by far out-fight the boys. But an aggressive girl stands out because there is less low-level physical aggression from girls overall.
Aquinas says martyrdom involves greater courage than aggression in battle does because it tests endurance more. Arguably, childbirth involves courage, too.
You're right girls tend to avoid physical aggression as they reach puberty and beyond. This is because they're mainly worried about their sexual reputation, and you can't prove chastity in a fight.
Society heavily conditions boys to cultivate courage because it needs them to fight: biologically, they're more expendable than women are. But because the protector role isn't exclusively masculine and courage isn't either, we can't say courage in battle is essentially masculine.
Christianity teaches that both sexes are in a spiritual battle against the Devil, and this is ultimately a greater test of virtue, including fortitude or courage, than any physical battle.
Sadly I can't agree about childbirth, much as I wish I could. Any kind of character can let a baby out. But bearing a child that you do not want or cannot raise instead of aborting- that's courageous.
We have writings of Paul from 48 AD, and creeds from earlier (Gary Habermas has linked it to within the year of Jesus's crucifixion). The New Testament and the Holy tradition were not fiction written after 70AD as claimed.
"The essence of manhood is the potential for fatherhood", "No woman has the potential for fatherhood. All men do.". If that is the case, then why a need for rites of passage into manhood? Wouldn't manhood be acquired when a boy enters puberty and is fertile? By this logic, the potential for motherhood or giving birth would be the essence of femininity. "Achilles lost his temper and was effeminate in many ways". What could be essentially effeminate about Achilles? He could never give birth, so he could never be feminine in that sense. If courage is not a masculine virtue because women can also be courageous, then none of the traits displayed by Achilles could be considered feminine, because he, as a man, displayed them. It seems that by that definition, a virtue or trait is only feminine or masculine if only attained, displayed or potentially achieved by virtue of their biological sex. But I would then circle back to the discussion about rites of passage into manhood. It seems that through history, manhood is something that is earned, not born into. How do we reconcile both these ideas?
The rite of passage is part of the process of actualising the potential. Masculinity is partly socially constructed because society encourages the virtues that men need as fathers.
These include fortitude (or courage), but that isn't exclusively masculine since women also show it. Really, there are no *male* virtues. Men and women *inflect* the *same* virtues differently.
And effeminacy isn't womanhood: it's the inordinate attachment to pleasure and letting emotions override reason (e.g., Achilles losing his temper, a kind of weakness).
So why aren't there female rites of passage? Ultimately, it's probably because women are more valuable as they since they're the limiting factor in reproduction.
Some questions for discussion:
1. Is courage exclusively masculine?
2. Can women show courage in battle?
3. Do you agree with Aquinas that martyrdom represents ultimate courage?
4. Does not having to take a vow of chastity by itself mean soldiers are softer than knights?
Hey, here's my opinion (sorry for my broken English I'm from Brazil)
1. Courage is not exlusively masculine but in most cases men have more courage than women regarding risk taking.
2. Women can show courage in the battlefield but it would be only a small share of the female population doing it.
3. For some cultures martyrdom seems to be close to the highest feat of courage (Samurai Seppuku, Islamic Martyrs, etc..) but at the same time they recognize other types of selfless effort like religious enlightenment or absolute devotion to a skill as corageous feats. So I'd say martyrdom is at the top along other behaviours.
4. Being drafted as a soldier and following orders requires courage, but to be a knight one must embody more values. Taking a vow of chastity can be one of those values, not the ultimate I's say.
1. I read an article by M.R.Johnson where he identifies that men act more according to reason and woman to emotions. Hence, Peter may have denied Christ (despite his love for Him) because it was pragmatic to do so. Yet the woman who followed Jesus did not deny Him and showed more courage as they were more aware of the emotional stakes.
I wonder if you can trace the stereotype of the military 'grunt' that has pornographic/etc images on his wall in the barracks and goes gun blazing Full Metal Jacket Style, as the shift from Knight to Soldier occurred. Perhaps the stereotype started with a dapper looking redcoat in the 1800s who visited the brothel too much or something, lol.
This has stimulated an interesting discussion so far. I’ve laid out below some points regarding St Thomas Aquinas’ views on fortitude that I think help to illuminate the discussion.
Aquinas draws an important distinction between “acquired fortitude” and “infused fortitude”. The acquired type is one that we earn for our ourselves (on the battlefield, for example). It demands perseverance, and the sticking of one’s courage to the sticking place. We are “deserving” of the virtue because we built it by ourselves in the circumstances handed to us. By contrast, the infused form is given to us by God. Importantly, we are not “deserving” of this fortitude per se. We are born with it.
Aquinas, as Will points out, places special emphasis in the notion of Christian martyrdom. This is the highest form of fortitude due to its moral and physical components. It demands faith, endurance and physical suffering for God. It requires an excess of acquired fortitude. But, importantly, Aquinas regards the battlefield as an arena of unique importance in which acquired fortitude is fostered and *earned* (I place special emphasis on this word because I think it gets to the essence of courage and valour). He writes:
“Fortitude strengthens a man's mind against the greatest danger, which is that of death. Now fortitude is a virtue; and it is essential to virtue to tend to good; wherefore it is in order to pursue some good that man does not fly from the danger of death. But the dangers of death arising out of sickness, storms at sea, attacks from robbers, and the like, do not seem to come on a man through his pursuing some good. On the other hand, the dangers of death which occur in battle come to man directly on account of some good, because, to wit, he is defending the common good by a just fight.” (ST. II-II.123, a. 5)
The key point here is that the soldier has reached a height of acquired fortitude by virtue of his *pursuing* battle with his foe. This is what sets him apart in Aquinas’ eyes from other types of hero: he seeks his battle; his battle does not seek him. It is not forced upon him.
This point of a soldier actively, intendedly departing on a heroic mission finds expression in the Bible (repeatedly) also:
‘And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”’ — Isaiah 6:8
It is this deliberative element to the soldier that sets him apart from, say, the woman that (very courageously) fights a crocodile to retrieve her child. Her fight was forced upon her. And likewise, people will act courageously when faced with a moral dilemma at work or in the community. But the true martyr by Aquinas’ lights seeks after a fight that was not necessarily his to begin with. Similar deliberative courage can be achieved via other means (speaking out against tyranny when others are persecuted, for example); but the battlefield is the most pressing example because it involves intended, preemptive action - from a starting position of total safety and comfort - and obvious danger and terror. This seems to speak to the heart of why a soldier - in all times, in all cultures and in all places - is regarded as a noble and tragic-heroic figure.
This form of martyrdom reaches an apex when it is aligned to a specifically Christian cause. Thus the case of the Templar Knights is exceptional, as Will observes. But Aquinas here points to something more general in the soldier’s nobility: the defence of the “common good”. The nobility and depth of his fortitude resides in the fact that the fight is on behalf of the community - or “the country” as we conceive it in modern times.
But a key question that was raised in the debate was the relationship between the cause of the war and the nobility of the soldier that fights it. I’ll give one brief example that I think illustrates why, even in this age of liberal military intervention, the moral core of the modern soldier remains intact, and why he deserves our respect, particularly from those that have not served and endured his privations (or acquired his fortitude) with him.
Vietnam was fought to prevent the growth of the West’s ideological enemies. It was a dirty, bloody, tragic war. But many US soldiers that fought believed they were fighting for good. Take a young man called Karl Marlantes, who wrote some of the most outstanding memoirs of the period following his time as a platoon commander in the Marine Corps. He was the Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and forfeited his place in order to fight. His reasoning was that his privilege should not disbar him from serving alongside the poorest of his nation. I regard that selflessness, despite the moral difficulties of the conflict, as a shining modern example of Aquinas’ criterion above. He *pursued* danger for a cause he believed to be noble. He might have been *intellectually* mistaken regarding the moral worth of the cause. But his heart was noble. He left (abnormal) comfort and privilege for the jungle and death and hardship. And he lives to this day with the pain of knowing that some tactical decisions he made in the moment led directly to the deaths of some of his men. This here is the essential dignity and nobility of the modern soldier. And I believe that we should be very careful about we speak of these great men.
And likewise, many American and British young men watched 3,000 people murdered on the streets of Manhattan and felt a similar urge to defend their civilisation. We can look back and see folly in these conflicts. But is unreasonable and, I think, sanctimonious to claim that these men fought and died because they wanted to impose the worst and most recent excesses of woke dogma on foreign peoples.
The modern soldier does not choose the time or the place or the cause - and this is true of most soldiers, including those of the Middle Ages and Antiquity. He chooses only service in the name of his civilisation and his people. He can only hope to fight for what truly is the common good.
But, on the battlefield, he ultimately lays down his life for his friends, which Christ acknowledged to be the greatest love a man can bear. This is the common thread of nobility that unites the men of Thermopylae with the men of the Wars of the Roses, the Somme, D Day, and Helmand.
The soldier - in all times and for all causes - departs the comforts of home for the hardships of battle, and in so doing fulfils Aquinas’ criterion for the highest of acquired fortitudes. The nobility of the cause might increase the moral purity of the fortitude; but the fortitude is incorrigibly high in any event.
I was going to discuss the masculinity element further, and explain why I believe battlefield combat to be the realm of the man (as opposed to the woman); but this will turn into ‘War and Peace’ if I do!
I’d be interested to hear counterarguments to, or thoughts on, the above. Thanks.
Everything you say about soldiers here applies also to, for example, Nazi or Soviet soldiers.
And it is in principle achievable (and has been achieved) by women, too. At most, then, being a soldier proves only courage, not masculinity (since courage isn't exclusively masculine).
Ultimately, knights and soldiers differ in kind, not degree.
As I say, the point about women and combat demands totally separate treatment. If I have time I’ll treat it in depth later; but I think that, *even if it were true*, it does much less work to undermine the quintessentially male properties of war than we might imagine - much as a man getting pregnant (if such a thing were to happen) would not diminish the quintessential femininity of pregnancy.
But, yes: Nazi soldiers still met, in a sense, Aquinas’ definition of acquired fortitude. Due to the moral wrongness of their cause, our soldiers met it to a higher standard. Aquinas does not seem to think that only imagining yourself to be fighting for a common good overrules the acquisition of fortitude.
The key point is that there is something about the battlefield - and the *choice* to enter it - that Aquinas recognises as imbuing a unique level of acquired fortitude. He does not say that this needs to be in the mould of a Templar Knight. The cause and cultural aspects no doubt purify the moral worth of the warrior (as I acknowledge above). Hence, it does seem to be *degree* and not kind that is going on here. Otherwise, there are no Zulu warriors, no Spartan warriors, no Roman warriors. There are only Templar warriors. The men of the Wars of the Roses fought, they believed, with God at their backs. But they do not satisfy your requirements either. Perhaps this is what you mean - I’m not sure. But then the term “warrior” becomes merely a synonym for Templar Knight. But that is not what the word “warrior” means. It is a broadly applicable term for men of all castes and creeds that fight honourably for their homeland.
Hence, I think it is useful to recognise this fundamental distinction between the morality of a cause and the acquired fortitude of a soldier/warrior. (Incidentally, I think “paladin” - a word now barely in use - is the best term for a noble fighter.) And this is recognised throughout warfare, too, in the respect afforded to one’s enemy as a warrior. I think there are unhelpful games of language going on here that muddy the waters.
A false distinction has been drawn - one which uses the moral aspects of a particular type of fighter to warp the meaning of a term out of recognition.
The following seems reasonable to me:
“Of all paladins in warfare, the Templar Knights exhibited the highest order of chivalry. As such, they have eclipsed other paladins from all ages.”
That’s fine. Somebody has to be top. But there’s a conjuring trick going on when it is claimed that the *hardness* of men in war changes in kind from one set of fighters to the next. War is war. Men have faced tougher battlefields than the Templar Knights did.
It seems to me that it is more useful to simply state, in plain English, that the Templars were highly chivalrous and codified some moral component that was since lost. But this odd, unproven distinction between hard/soft, soldier/warrior distorts to the point of meaninglessness our most rudimentary concepts of warfare and honour.
The problem here is there is nothing quintessentially male about war at all. And there isn't even anything unique in kind about courage shown in battle. In fact, a female martyr shows greater courage than a male soldier.
A man getting pregnant is impossible by definition. A female warrior is not.
But there is something quintessentially male about war - it is practiced in every culture, in every time and in every place *by men* - and specifically not by women.
In theory, a woman can enjoin in war. This, like the male pregnancy, does not overrule the essence of the property.
Refuting this requires arguing that there are no male or female properties that pertain to behaviours/actions. When you accuse a man of being effeminate, to what can this possibly refer if there are not female behaviours? And the fact that small numbers of men show that same behaviour does not undermine their quintessential femininity.
Women have fought in wars. And effeminate doesn't mean feminine.
Ok. But I am disputing the fact that, *even if that was true*, it would not rescind the fact of war being the domain of the male, and a male behaviour/property. So restating that women have fought in wars (which I don’t accept - but this present discussion, for brevity, gets us to the heart of the matter faster) does not rebut the point.
Effeminate means a man displaying characteristics that are associated with a woman. So take behaviour x that we both agree is feminine. Many men will also do x. This does not rescind the quintessential femininity of x.
The same applies with war.
I think the fundamental problem for your argument is that is rests upon conjuring tricks, or at least false distinctions, of language and properties. I don’t mean to say that you are trying to deceive anyone; I just mean that there is an insoluble incoherence in there.
There is no problem with my argument. The problem is your understanding of what a man is.
You want to say war means a special kind of courage that means manhood. But not even Aristotle, despite being a pagan, thinks courage is exclusively male.
And Aquinas considers "death in battle" to also apply to civic heroes. The acquired/infused fortitude distinction is irrelevant because he also thinks infused fortitude can find expression in military deeds.
But the thought-experiment demonstrates that *even if* a man became pregnant, pregnancy would remain feminine in kind. Pregnancy would remain *so overwhelmingly* female that it could only be categorised as being of the feminine and not of masculine. Likewise, if a woman (magically) grew a penis, this would not negate the quintessential maleness of penises. Minor exceptions do not negate the generality of a property or category. The virgin birth did not negate the fact that men must impregnate women, for example.
Again, I come back to our most basic concepts. Poll people in the street as to whether war is masculine or feminine. There is no doubt which answer would be returned.
What’s your view on my point about the language of the word “warrior”? Was there such a thing as a Spartan warrior?
This is nonsensical. It's like saying "even if a triangle had 4 sides".
But this is the essence of a thought-experiment - you challenge a notion using the extreme example. A 4-sided triangle is logically impossible. A person with a penis that is not a man is not logically impossible (somebody born with both male/female properties, albeit extremely rare). Hermaphrodites do not de-categorise male and female physical properties. Yet they are examples of non-males/females possessing those properties. The same applies with male/female behaviours. The particular exception does not negate the generality of the property.
As an illustrator I sometimes wonder if my pursuit is a masculine one. However, it is certainly true that many men in more "masculine" professions are degenerate. My take away is that the pursuit of masculinity begins and ends in the soul.
It is the maintenance of intelligence that is most important. We think it is a 'given' so we neglect it. Intelligence is immediate, but the authority of time is always growing.....
Courage is definitely not exclusively masculine. Yes martyrdom represents ultimate courage. Facing death in righteousness and peacefully can be more courageous than fighting. Woman absolutely do show aggressive courage, though it's not as commonplace in adult women. Pre-pubescent girls can be incredibly aggressive and by far out-fight the boys. But an aggressive girl stands out because there is less low-level physical aggression from girls overall.
Aquinas says martyrdom involves greater courage than aggression in battle does because it tests endurance more. Arguably, childbirth involves courage, too.
You're right girls tend to avoid physical aggression as they reach puberty and beyond. This is because they're mainly worried about their sexual reputation, and you can't prove chastity in a fight.
Society heavily conditions boys to cultivate courage because it needs them to fight: biologically, they're more expendable than women are. But because the protector role isn't exclusively masculine and courage isn't either, we can't say courage in battle is essentially masculine.
Christianity teaches that both sexes are in a spiritual battle against the Devil, and this is ultimately a greater test of virtue, including fortitude or courage, than any physical battle.
Sadly I can't agree about childbirth, much as I wish I could. Any kind of character can let a baby out. But bearing a child that you do not want or cannot raise instead of aborting- that's courageous.
The point is childbirth means risking death. Historically, the risk was much greater than it is now, but the risk is still there even now.
I’d be interested for you to watch this and contemplate it’s veracity, Sir Knowland.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hDx2kiLcyqU&t=2732s
I think it’s right down your street.
We have writings of Paul from 48 AD, and creeds from earlier (Gary Habermas has linked it to within the year of Jesus's crucifixion). The New Testament and the Holy tradition were not fiction written after 70AD as claimed.
"The essence of manhood is the potential for fatherhood", "No woman has the potential for fatherhood. All men do.". If that is the case, then why a need for rites of passage into manhood? Wouldn't manhood be acquired when a boy enters puberty and is fertile? By this logic, the potential for motherhood or giving birth would be the essence of femininity. "Achilles lost his temper and was effeminate in many ways". What could be essentially effeminate about Achilles? He could never give birth, so he could never be feminine in that sense. If courage is not a masculine virtue because women can also be courageous, then none of the traits displayed by Achilles could be considered feminine, because he, as a man, displayed them. It seems that by that definition, a virtue or trait is only feminine or masculine if only attained, displayed or potentially achieved by virtue of their biological sex. But I would then circle back to the discussion about rites of passage into manhood. It seems that through history, manhood is something that is earned, not born into. How do we reconcile both these ideas?
The rite of passage is part of the process of actualising the potential. Masculinity is partly socially constructed because society encourages the virtues that men need as fathers.
These include fortitude (or courage), but that isn't exclusively masculine since women also show it. Really, there are no *male* virtues. Men and women *inflect* the *same* virtues differently.
And effeminacy isn't womanhood: it's the inordinate attachment to pleasure and letting emotions override reason (e.g., Achilles losing his temper, a kind of weakness).
So why aren't there female rites of passage? Ultimately, it's probably because women are more valuable as they since they're the limiting factor in reproduction.