Hal and Sam's commentaries in # 120 explaining how we uneasily explain why historical miniatures wargaming is rewarding, interesting, useful and so forth prompted my thinking on this some times troubling topic.
Some months ago while in line at La Boulangerie I eavesdropped on the conversation of two women ahead of me. As I expectantly surveyed healthy foods before me, I mostly ignored them. However, when conversation turned to a rejuvenated hobby of one of the husbands, I listened intently. One confided her husband had complained of inactivity because she was doing more business traveling. Would it be all right he inquired, to resume his youthful interest in model railroading? She agreed. Then with greater animation, a little laughter, minimal exasperation and barely discernable condescension she explained her surprise when the little table layout became much larger than expected. Hey! We understand that, don't we? Then an alarm sounded in my mind and the model railroad magazine under my arm began to smoothly drift out of sight. Moments later I got my healthy sandwich with unhealthy cookie and went in the opposite direction to secretly read about some really big layouts. I think this is a small example of male interests being gently and a little condescendingly accepted by loving wives who think their husbands have not grown up and maybe never will. His hobby will be gently tolerated rather than contentedly accepted.
Within the experience and world-view, of the wife above, there may be dynamics at work she may never have time, interest or cognition to reflect upon, believe or discover. She will secretly wonder why her husband is interested at all in playing with boyish toys without ever deeply knowing why? On the surface in the case above, the husband needed a rewarding activity for lonely times. Good enough. But what may lie deeper? I've asked myself what lies deeper - really deep. Indeed why is anyone interested in any thing?
My first and second lines of defense are: It's history; trying to repeat or reverse it. It's trying to understand what happened. It can also be to learn the lessons of the past to prevent mistakes in the future. It's imagineering, understanding and vicariously participating in the great tidal waves of change that often wash over regions in the aftermath of great military campaigns. It's an interest in striking uniforms, gear and how things worked. Others will say it's the appeal of collecting, structure, organization, building things, scale modeling, command principles, tactics or men on horseback. Important too is same gender camaraderie, relaxation, staying out of mischief, research and the thrill of competition. It's also fun. Nowhere in my reasoning is there an interest to cause real misery, death and destruction.
But why do these reasons interest particularly males? Is it a gender difference? Is it accidental, societal or is all this somehow mysteriously linked to a purposeful downloading into what makes us male? Do we have a mission? Maybe. Here is my theory.
There does appear to be a gender difference. Ask yourself how many males compared to females build and play with model railroad empires, build and fly radio controlled airplanes, operate construction companies, build cabinets or corporations, volunteer to be in the real military, build and repair vehicles and so on. It's mostly males. My simple explanation is: the need and desire to build things is a needed and purposefully downloaded mostly male characteristic to construct and protect societies. Somebody has to do it. we're IT. To bring this back to wargaming, it may be one way to preserve military interests and skills until no longer needed in our societies.
Trying diplomacy to talk a bad guy or country out of doing bad stuff is great and preferable. But times come when another means is needed to stop that bad guy or country. Chamberlain did not talk Hitler out of making war when the former declared "Peace in our time" when returning from peace talks with the Chancellor. The world had to stop him with military force. What would have happened had most of the planet not united against him? What would have happened in the late 1930s if isolationist, communist and American Nazi influence prevented the USA from entering WWII? There was a HUGE debate about entering the war. The debate ended December 7, 1941 when the Japanese fired first.
Today there are many people who are anti-military and/or anti-guns. Imagine if they had the power to dissolve our military. Afterwards our only national option would be to be nice-nice to everyone. I think we would have a few more death and destruction problems from bad guys. Don't you?
There are purposeful and necessary gender differences in many life areas. I don't believe all are created by societal experience or exposure. Males appear to be more interested than females in building all kinds of things and in military topics too. So when we play with toy soldiers, operate a model railroad empire or put on wooly clothes as re-enactors, we are playing. But sociologists believe play is what trains us to accomplish the work adults must do whether building or defending our civilizations. This appears to be a gender role given mostly to males to maintain these interests until no longer needed. Now how can I explain this to the ladies at La Boulangerie? I probably will have to roll triple sixes to succeed.
Back to MWAN # 122 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2003 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com