The Effects of World War I
Back to By David C. Pack
Along with the above watershed movement, the contribution of World War I to cultural change must be discussed. Men had marched off to a new type of mechanized war, a conflict more terrible and costly than ever before in history.
The idyllic and chivalrous perception of wars prior to WWI, however erroneous, had encouraged such masculine qualities as courage and self-sacrifice. Traditional warfare, horrific in its own right, truly separated the men from the women. Men marched off to fight for their country, an idea, religion or their children’s future. Both men and women celebrated courage and this ultimate sacrifice. While the act of war is wrong, boys at least looked up to the brave men of their culture, and women desired to marry such protectors and heroes.
The impersonal, automated, and brutal nature of modern warfare began to change the way men reflected upon armed conflict. An unseen enemy from hundreds of yards, or even miles away could now deliver mass death and destruction. The true senselessness of warfare became more evident to growing numbers, igniting anti-war sentiment. But, as is so often the case when man attempts to solve his own problems, desirable marital qualities such as courage, fortitude and resolve were also de-emphasized, and even discouraged in men.
America had tipped the balance of the war and Germany was defeated, thus supplying a two-decade respite in hostilities. Sandwiched between the two world conflicts was a decade of euphoric frivolity called the “Roaring Twenties”—characterized by liberation from established moral guidelines.
While the culture of the American heartland continued as it had for generations, people living in the cities led lives of pleasure, becoming ever more unrestrained. Secular hedonism and anti-religious sentiment became a growing part of American culture. Among the many traditions that were being cast aside were the biblically-defined roles of men, women and family.
Contents
World War II and the Family
In 1939, world war came once again. The demands upon a nation to conduct total war now required the near complete mobilization of national resources to field a modern army and navy. Prohibited from joining the military, except for nursing and office work, women entered the production workforce by the millions.
“Rosie the Riveter” moved from tending the home to the industrial environment previously occupied only by men. Her children went off to school, and Rosie drove rivets—all in the name of national security and necessity. While this may have been necessary for the war effort, it also had the unintended effect of fuelling the pursuit of self-independence.
When the war ended, men returned home hardened by the battlefront, in many cases saturated with terrible memories of violence and atrocity, finding all forms of violence repugnant. Many women returned home from the factories, but others remained to claim their newly found economic independence. The results included changes to the thinking of both men and women—what they thought was important in life, their attitude toward patriotism and the definition of masculinity and femininity.
In spite of this shift in thought, throughout the 1950s, men with firm determination and conviction were considered best suited for positions of authority in government and industry. However, another way of thinking was slowly emerging from the fringes of academia into mainstream America. The universal violence of World War II, followed by a more localized conflict in Korea, along with the prospect of total annihilation from nuclear weapons, further removed an already jaded population from their past.
The expected chivalry and gallantry once encouraged in American men gave way to an expectation of a more pliable, less assertive male. The masculine tendency to fight it out had brought the human race to the brink of annihilation, so the reasoning went. Many reasoned that there had to be another way.
The evolving, “push button” culture envisioned by so-called luminaries also seemed to reduce the need for the strong, stalwart and somewhat stoic man. The change that many men and women came to believe necessary was made possible by the perceived reduced need for human strength and courage. What was necessary for mankind to survive, they reasoned, was a softer, more “sensitive” man, and a more assertive and vigorous woman.
Thus, male and female roles were merged and mixed up. The word “Unisex”—defying nature and promoting sameness and likeness between men and women—was one of many new terms coined to further encourage the process. Those seeking social change, with the intent to eliminate differences between the sexes, created words such as this. Many advocated “unisex” restrooms—allowing admittance for all. Unisex clothing, not distinguishing between male and female form and function, came into vogue. The differences between men and women were thus further de-emphasized. This contributed to the acceptance of homosexuality.
Media Assaults the Family Unit
Hollywood contributed greatly to this merging of the roles of men and women. Television sitcoms and films of the 1960s subtly introduced new thoughts and ideas, intending to generate feelings of injustice toward the established norms. From that time through the 70s and 80s, more and more radical thought was introduced. Today, TV “comedies” celebrate loose sexual behaviour, homosexuality, aggressive women, and silly, self-cantered, weak, effeminate husbands—if the couples are married at all!
Larger-than-life heroines introduced in the mid-1970s (shows such as Wonder Woman, Police Woman and Charlie's Angels) continued the process of changing the way the sexes viewed each other. While the characters in these programs retained some femininity, within 20 years they were cast as ridiculous, semi-masculine women such as GI Jane, Xena, Dark Angel and others.
Modern programming not only tosses out common sense and practicality, but basic physics as well. How often does one see a small-framed woman easily pulverize a large-framed man? Yet, if life were as Hollywood frequently portrays it, this would happen on a regular basis!
The media, with its tentacles in nearly every home through television, radio, music and the all-pervasive Internet, has assisted in cultural change. Here is a general description of the method used: Desired change from established tradition is achieved by first using the media to shock the public, and push the proverbial moral envelope a bit further toward the desired outcome. Controversy is drummed up by other elements of the media in a debate about traditional values. Then, the previously shocking idea is repeated in other situations until it no longer shocks, but is debated and finally accepted. The media then pounces on the next tradition to corrupt and destroy.
Consider that “homosexual marriage” was not in the minds of most people 20 years ago. There was no need to define marriage, as religion, tradition and nature helped establish its meaning.
Enter the homosexual movement, whose objective is to redefine the basic bulwarks of society. The news media shocked most of the public by televising controversial homosexual couples engaging in mock wedding ceremonies, including the kissing of the “brides.” These illegal unions were presented to engage the public in philosophical debate over their validity. Suddenly, what was once unthinkable became debatable, with news commentators, Internet “bloggers” and politicians asking, “Does anyone have the right to legally define marriage?”—“Why should we deny them the right to ‘love’ one another?”—“Are nuclear families really normal?”—“Shouldn’t all citizens have the same rights as heterosexual couples?”
Family Redefinition
In his book The Abolition of Britain, Peter Hichens wrote, “The greatest fortress of human liberty, proof against all earthly powers, is the family. In its small private space, it can defy the will of authority and the might of wealth. It is without doubt the most effective means of passing lore, culture, manners, and traditions down through the generations. Its loyalties are stronger than those of the state, more powerful even than patriotism. All serious tyrannies have sought to undermine or infiltrate it, socialist tyrannies most of all.”
Those who wish to change the roles of men and women in society must first redefine the family and indoctrinate the minds of the next generation. The family, the bedrock of civilization, must be altered into something more amorphous and general. Hence, the new definition of a family includes any group of people. To some, even a person and his pet are considered a family! Incredible!
The husband’s role as the central protector and provider has been replaced by a more sensitive, docile, submissive character. And the wife’s critical function as a source of counsel, a nurturer and supportive partner has changed; she is now expected to be forceful (or even aggressive), “all wise” and dominant. The result is the universal breakdown of the biblically defined family unit.
Some years ago, the late Herbert W. Armstrong, editor and publisher of this magazine’s predecessor, taught that a “50/50 partnership” in marriage does not work, because someone will end up in charge. No organization, business, corporation, government agency or sports team can effectively operate and reach its full potential with two or more “co-leaders.” One person must take the lead. And so it is with marriage. Yet, because we live in a time when traditions and values are being overturned, many would view the previous statement as “harsh.”
The Bible has much to say about the condition of our age. Notice: “As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people, they which lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths” (Isa. 3:12).
Our loving Creator has clearly established boundaries for the different roles of men and women: “The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD your God” (Deut. 22:5). Ignoring this command will prove deadly to civilization. Men are to be men and women are to be women, as God had created and ordained them to flourish in His intended roles for them.
The family unit—defined as a husband, wife and children—critical to the survival of a nation with a government ensuring personal liberty, is failing. In a hostile, blood-soaked world cut off from the true God, the result is national collapse.
The Final Generation?
Across the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and other westernized nations, the traditional roles and functions of men and women are fading into the past. They are quickly being replaced by the modern definitions of a society in which true masculinity and femininity are no longer taught nor understood.
How long can a nation last without a generation possessing strength, principle, values and character steering its helm? What does the future hold for Western civilization when—in an age that requires tough-mindedness and determination in the face of all the world’s problems—young males are being groomed to be “softer,” more in tune with their “feelings,” and young females are being moulded and shaped into wives and mothers who see no need for—and even disdain—the leadership role of husbands and fathers?
The world is changing. Society has taken a new path, and God’s Word sheds light onto the peril to which this path leads. It reveals that humanity’s problems and ills will increasingly get worse.
Yet, the Bible also reveals that the ultimate “new way” of thinking—actually an “old” way, established millennia ago—will be established on earth. At that time, all men, women and children will be taught the true purpose of why they were born. True masculinity and femininity—instead of the extremes that man takes from generation to generation—will be widely understood and appreciated.
Copyright © 2011 THE REAL TRUTH. All Rights Reserved.
Back to By David C. Pack