
War is the most terrible thing that any person could ever experience. In The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien, the audience is told about the experiences of a platoon of soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War. In the face of such a horrible conflict, one must ask what motivated so many young men to risk their lives as they did. By gaining a deeper understanding of the concept of masculinity that permeates American culture, it is possible to not only better understand why so many young men chose to fight in the war, but also why so many chose to fight against the war.

Masculinity is a massively influential concept that has permeated every culture throughout history, though it is undoubtedly influenced by the perceptions and ideas of society. Some of the aspects of masculinity are avoiding expressing emotions, a desire for status and achievement, aggression, and self-reliance. Often, young men feel obligated to exhibit these masculine traits for fear of losing the respect of their peers. Since masculinity is perceived as something that must be earned, instead of some inborn trait, straying from the social norms of masculinity lead to men feeling outcast from their peers. Males that stray from the perceived norm of traditional masculinity, often face ridicule and derision from society. Masculinity also has a large impact on how sexual orientation is perceived, with males who fail to meet the standards of masculinity often facing homophobia, regardless of their actual sexual orientation. This need to constantly prove ones masculinity leads to males to pursue physical tasks, or aggressive solutions. This hostile approach to problem solving lends itself to attempting to resolve all problems with violence or through some other method of achieving dominance, often as was the case in Vietnam, leading to armed conflict. When such conflict arises, and a threat is perceived, traditional masculinity dictates that it is the duty of men to fight, or else risk their very manhood. 

Warfare has always been a bloody dangerous affair, yet throughout the ages, men have never failed to answer the call to battle. Machismo is the only real motivator to completely disregard one’s own safety that many young men have, and yet it has often proven to be all that is required. War is without a doubt the most prominent source of danger for young men, however it has been found that “the social practices that undermine men's health are often signifiers of masculinity and instruments that men use in the negotiation of social power and status”(Courtenay). Through war, young men gain honor and prestige in the eyes of their fellows by fighting and dying in the name of their country. This aggressive patriotism leads to the loss of many young lives in the pursuit of honor, which will unfortunately continue so long as society continues to perceive the “manly” answer to its problems to be violence. Furthermore, the same masculine beliefs that lead to men dying in the fields of war, lead to them dying in greater numbers at home as men, “on average, die nearly 7 years younger than women”(Courtenay). From a very young age, boys are taught the necessity of self-reliance if they want to be real men, this coupled with the belief that seeking assistance is a sign of weakness, leads many males to avoid medical aid unless absolutely necessary. This needless risk taking is seen as a necessary masculine trait, as it allows men to show their absolute fearlessness regardless of the danger that they face. The soldiers in Vietnam who strayed from their S.O.P in the name of comfort demonstrated this same foolish and unnecessary risk taking of their civilian counterparts. Ultimately, so long as society tells men that they must be completely self-reliant, men will continue to die in droves as victims to their own machismo.

Given the masculine nature of war, and societies tendency to criticize any man who stands against Masculinity’s standard, men who chose to stand against the war had a much more interesting relationship with their manhood.  During the violent Vietnam period, many activists were united by the idea that, “national values and institutions had been distorted by a Cold War emphasis on maintaining order by force”(Debenetti). This idea of utilizing violence to enforce ones will was without a doubt brought into being by the belief of dominance establishing righteousness. The men who supported the antiwar movement stood in absolute opposition to this masculine belief of might making right, and in doing so often had to come to grips with their relationship to their own manhood. However, by opposing the status quo, they would ultimately grow stronger. Such was the case with Lieutenant Cross who, “sat at the bottom of his foxhole and wept”(O’Brien), before arising with new purpose and belief in his duties. Facing his own emotions, and with them the challenge to his self-perceived masculinity, Cross was able to overcome his doubts to work for the future. The individuals of the antiwar movement faced a similar challenge, having to overcome fierce opposition from the government and criticism from their fellow citizens in order to work towards peace. Throughout history, violence has been the masculine solution for nearly all problems that one may face, but with the advancement of technology the world learned that, “The issue of nuclear arms provided leverage for liberal peace seekers”(Debenetti). Masculinity preaches the virtues of strength and bravery in the face of any challenge, but at some point people have to realize that there are some battles that are not worth fighting. With the advent of the atom bomb, people were faced with the prospect of such destruction, that they no longer cared about the social ramifications of calling for peace. Just as the soldiers in Vietnam felt that they had no real purpose in the war, the American people began to realize that there was no real purpose to the war at all. With this revelation, the American people began to realize the true need for peace. 

Honor and strength are two of the key tenants of traditional masculinity; these seemingly simple concepts are two of the core ideas that led to young men throwing their lives away in Vietnam. Masculinity demands that men demonstrate nothing short of unflinching bravery and determination no matter what threat they may face, regardless of their true feelings. In the war, “Men killed and died, because they were embarrassed not to” (O’Brien). Instead of fighting for something that they believe in, these men fought only to maintain their manhood. For the entirety of their lives, young men are told that their masculinity, the very cornerstone from which they build their self-image, is a fragile thing that they must constantly prove themselves worthy of or else risk losing it. To the men in Vietnam, the threat of losing their manhood outweighed the threat of losing their lives. The next time that masculinity is exemplified in this story when the platoon enters Than Khe when, “They burned everything” (O’Brien). The “manly” solution to many problems is often perceived to be the violent one due to the idea that physical dominance demonstrates superiority, and also gives men the excuse to express one of the few emotions that masculinity permits them, anger. While masculinity tends to urge for a man to have a certain level of separation between themselves and their emotions, anger appears to be the exception as it is often a key motivator in the violent physical acts of dominance that masculinity demands. Masculinity enforces the idea that might makes right, and as such has made itself a major component in modern warfare, and so long as the American culture continues it’s current view on war, so it shall remain.

Overall, The Things They Carried is a tale of young men in a horrible situation trying to do what they must to survive. By looking at the impact of masculinity on the soldiers that fought in this terrible conflict, it is possible to gain a better understanding of why these young men where so willing to risk their lives for their nation. Through this understanding, modern society can gain a deeper understanding of the toll that gender constructs take on young men and women, and work to repair the damage done.
