Yet another US History post

It is odd that most of my philosophical discussions this semester are coming from a history class--I guess that is what I get for having already taken such foundational courses as Constitutional Law, Theology, Principles of Biblical Reasoning, and Philosophy and being left with Geometry, Rhetoric, Freedom's Foundations, and US History. I'll just say that I can't wait to start my major courses...

In the meantime, here is a conversation from US History, stemming originally from a discussion on the difference in American sentiment between World War II and our own day. The first section was written by one of my classmates (reprinted by his permission), and my response is two-fold.

"I think we're realizing that zeitgeist has a lot to do with the public response to government action (it may well be the biggest factor). The general feeling of the 40s was "we just conquered depression and we're damned proud of that," while today's seems to be a more whiny version of "this is hard and I don't like it."

We are what our parents were to our grandparents - rebellious wimps in need of a spanking and some chores. I don't want to rant (since that's so callow), but it seems that our generation of men needs a dose of warrior instinct (in the Fight Club and 300 vein) to combat lethargy and weak wills, while our generation of women needs a dose of motherly responsibility (in the Clara Barton and WWII Women vein) to combat neglect and this idea of an absolute right to total independence."


"Perhaps this is reopening a can of worms that was sufficiently aired last semester (though it doesn't have to be such a reopening), but I wish to point out that the "empowerment" of women and the effeminization of men go hand in hand. Unfortunately, as women are willing to take charge (or demand the reins [in the case of the suffragette movement), men are often all too willing to cede it, especially if they don't see any good reason to hold it themselves (this would be the case when they don't see the Scriptural command for them to be the head of their households and in church leadership, etc.). It could be debated which comes first, though that's not my object: they are definitely complementary. The more important issue is which needs to be changed first, as men simply asserting their authority/responsibility over unwilling women isn't going to get far (I believe I remember the slogan "forced submission isn't truly submission," and I agree to a point).
The other option is women dropping their power where it is the man's responsibility and leaving it to the men to step up. I'd question the practical wisdom of this initially, but it actually makes sense if one considers the point that if women aren't to have responsibility in a given area (and I'm not talking specifics right now), then it is not incumbent on them to hold up that area of responsibility. If something falls through because the men didn't stand up in their area of responsibility, it is their fault and responsibility--not the women's. Perhaps the women could show a bit more trust in God's providence in our respective spheres of responsibility--and perhaps a bit more trust that some, at least, of the men WILL step up. Just a thought.
In any case, I suppose I have quite enough to worry about as a man needing to take on my own responsibility.

Anyway, I was pondering what has caused the shift, and one cause at least is ironic. The public schools are rife with the idea of self-reliance and self-esteem and "believe in yourself." For that matter, some of the churches are (Joel Osteen, anyone?). But my suspicion is that these people are looking at themselves and suddenly find that they ARE weak. For all the individualistic propaganda, they find that the individual IS weak.
To an extent, the Great Generation and the generations before were also independent and self-reliant (like the pioneer stock they were), but they were not individualistic, and their independence was in a large way centered around others, if that makes sense. In other words, they had an "I can do this" attitude, because they were fighting for a principle higher than themselves and received strength to achieve their goals.
All that the contemporary individualist has to fight for is himself--and is it worth it?"