idual's ability to work with others as part of a group. However, Ron Thorne-Finch (1994) points out some of the potential hazards of military training:
Becoming part of a larger whole can be a very positive and rewarding experience. One can feel supported by other individuals while the group cooperates to pursue similar goals . . . But reducing one's ability to question or dissent from a perceived group consensus can be very dangerous; it can, in some contexts, facilitate male violence (p. 42).
Military training does not encourage individual initiative. It does not encourage recruits to weigh the appropriateness of violent response in individual circumstances.
David T. Courtwright (1996) observes, "Armed forces foment male violence to serve the ends of state violence, but in doing so they create a social monster, a large group of aggressive youth in a supermasculine environment" (p. 44). The military's purpose in promoting the violent tendencies of its trainees is to create aggressive, fearless soldiers. Unfortunately, this also creates a body of individuals ill-prepared for society as a whole and domestic tranquility in particular.
Thorne-Finch (1994) observes, "In the army, young recruits are moulded through physical and emotional endurance tests to obtain the skills and embrace the values of hegemonic masculinity" (p. 41). Aggressive and violent training undoubtedly affects the high level of domestic abuse among military personnel. However, other factors are at work, as well. The most commonly understood stressor is the nomadic lifestyle required of military personnel. As Robert L. Maginn
...