ABSTRACT
Throughout recorded human history ‘the making of men has carried the explicit and
implicit message that men faced outwards to the world and confronted its problems, while women faced inward to the home and its demands’. [2] It is for this reason, for
example, that the recently published Sport, Europe, Gender: Making European Masculinities has as a strong, continuous thread woven into the fabric of its chapters,
descriptions of male moral, physical and mental fitness as a cultural mandate ‘for confrontation with enemies, temptations and circumstances’. [3]
It is worth recalling that David Gilmore, discussed briefly elsewhere in this volume, has argued in Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity first that globally androgynous cultures have been rare, and second that ‘real’ manhood has
carried with it three moral imperatives: ‘Man-the-Impregnator – Protector – Provider’. [4] These imperatives, invariably dangerous or competitive or both, ‘place
men at risk on the battlefield, in the hunt or in confrontation with their fellows’. [5] Some men, perhaps many men, may wish to escape these cultural demands but for
most, escape is not possible. It is not permitted by society. Thus men, as boys, must face up to the virtual inevitability of submission to these imperatives, steel themselves
and accept that they will be prepared by ‘various sorts of tempering and toughening’. More than this, if circumstances require it, they must accept their expendability. [6]
It would be a mistake to deny the complexity of masculinity in the face of such
cultural directives. As Gilmore remarks, throughout history there has been ‘a consortium of manly images and codes’, as he elegantly puts it, on a sliding scale or in
a polychromatic spectrum. Equally, however, it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that throughout recorded human history, cultures have required, respected and
rewarded more often than not a masculinity demonstrating aggression, competitiveness and ruthlessness when necessary and when required to ensure the survival or
success of the community. Invariably the ultimate rationale offered in justification of the pursuit of these
perceived male virtues has been the capacity to fight in war in the interest of the community. The warrior as male hero has been a central and continuous icon in human history. [7] As Gilmore has observed: ‘We can safely say this: when men are
conditioned to fight, manhood is important; where men are conditioned to flight, the opposite is true.’ [8] He adds trenchantly that virtually all societies fight at some
moment or other. Most societies cannot simply run away and most, therefore, face confrontation for a whole variety of reasons with other societies. Thus, whatever the
sliding scale of masculinity, men because they are free from pregnancy, because they have the greater explosive power, because they are expendable, have been conditioned
by cultures in childhood and manhood, directly and indirectly, for war for the simple reason that anchored in physiological functionalism, in recorded human history one
consistent male responsibility has been ‘a moral commitment to defend the society and its core values against all odds’. [9] As Gilmore states it, ‘Men nurture their society by shedding their blood, their sweat, their semen, by bringing home food for
both child and mother, and by dying if necessary in faraway places to provide a safe haven for their people’. [10] Equally, throughout recorded human history sport in
various forms, but invariably competitive, confrontational and aggressive in nature, has been a preparation, to use Gilmore’s term, for ‘real’ manhood. Playing fields (or
similar venues) have been a preparation for battlefields. [11] To what extent, however, will this remain true in the future?
