If the 1976 western The Last Hard Men has it right, we Occidentals metamorphosed into jellyfish sometime around the early twentieth century. Although this title is more movie marketing than historical statement, there may be something to it. After all, Robert Baden-Powell, a lieutenant general in the British Army, was motivated by the belief that western boys were becoming too soft when he originated the Boy Scouts in 1907.
Regardless of the origin and rapidity of our transition from he-men to she-men, one thing is for certain: We have become a very soft people.
When pondering this, I think about how it is now common to see men cry publicly. Just recently George Bush Sr. broke down while rendering a speech, something unthinkable a generation ago. Why, presidential aspirant Edmund Muskie saw his campaign scuttled by a few inopportune tears in 1972. Before you score me for not embracing the metrosexual model, remember the impression this gives the rest of the world. Feminization may be fashionable, but it doesn’t engender respect among the more patriarchal peoples.
Then I think about our unwillingness to discipline our children, something to which our jungle-like schools bear witness. Should someone use punitive measures harsher than the euphemistically named “time-out” – something that may actually work – he is often excoriated for damaging the little darlings’ “self-esteem.”
A spanking? Perish the thought. We’re told this could scar a child irreparably (although we seldom ponder the ravages of pickling a young brain with Ritalin), and the idea is so foreign to many parents they cannot even conceive of placing a hand on their cherubim’s sanctified little posteriors.
In contrast, the people of the Third World – and especially the Moslem fanatics who have designs on the West – are hard as stone. We fret over the fact that Saddam Hussein endured some taunts during his execution, while next door in Saudi Arabia they may still chop off the hand of a thief.
We cater to the religious wants of incarcerated terrorists, providing everything from the Koran and prayer rugs to desired foods, and the soft set still laments the terrible privation these poor victims must endure. In contrast, the terrorist’s brethren often disallow the practice of other religions in the Abode of Islam.
We let illegal aliens run roughshod over our nation, sometimes bestowing government benefits upon them, then still feel guilty about not exalting them sufficiently. In the Third World, however, foreigners are often treated like second-class citizens.
Article comments
1 - SHARk
What a crock of shit.
2 - SonnyD
SHARK: I'm surprised at your reaction. Could you explain your position?
3 - Baronius
Solid article, Selwyn. I hope you're not quite as spartan as this article suggests, but we've definitely got to move in that direction. Of course, you can't go too far wrong with an essay that quotes Chesterton.
4 - SHARk
My problem:
1) it could be argued that an overabundance of testosterone is what has gotten us into most of the major messes we're saddled with.
2) this entire essay is a thinly veiled political attack against the dreaded, soft, intellectual, contemplative egghead "liberals"
3) It's also a FOX newish type of "here's a huge problem that you should worry about!" -- a problem that is either overblown -- or doesn't really exist.
example: "With enemies on both sides of the gate, it's only a matter of time before we see a 9/11 that is not a 9/11, but 9/11 squared."
4) "...we can proceed with a velvet glove, but within must lay an iron fist. We have no other choice - unless, that is, we fancy death a viable option."
DEATH IS INEVITABLE -- AND IT AIN'T AN OPTION. So go practice your empty "truism" poetics on some motard without a brain.
5) re: "... the problem lies not with the weak but with the malicious - those who are the enemy within. But for their meddlesome hands, we wouldn't be at this precipice. A minority tyrannizes only at the deference of the majority. For instance, if enough of us rejected the media that disseminated footage of Abu Ghraib far and wide while refusing to show Muslim beheadings, we'd not have reporters who were more internationalist than nationalist."
(a) the muslim beheadings got TONS of media airplay; they were a tad bit too violent to show on the nightly news, but I understand that in yer universe, a kid who gets a good spanking in order to show him hitting others is bad is probably not going to be traumatized by see a head sliced off a body in technicolor.
b) America's NATIONAL REACTION to Abu Ghraib showed us as a MORAL people -- regardless of the circumstances. YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?!
what bullshit.
I could go on -- but I'm tired.
===TO BE CONTINUED ===
5 - Franco
Selwyn Duke,
Outstanding!
6 - Franco
SHARK,
1) it could be argued that an overabundance of testosterone is what has gotten us into most of the major messes we're saddled with.
2) this entire essay is a thinly veiled political attack against the dreaded, soft, intellectual, contemplative egghead "liberals"
Funny how your first instincts where to think that the article pretaind to, how did you put it.....soft, intellectual, contemplative egghead "liberals"
Have ya ever seen a picture of Ted Kennedy with his shift off holding a bottle of Chivas. Well that picture sums up this opinion article quite well. And there is nothing thinly veiled about it.
Now for your entertainment.
Soft People
7 - JR
Selwyn Duke: There is an immutable truth of human nature: When soft people clash with hard people, the soft are vanquished.
...
A united people would confront threats as a monolithic front. We are expending ourselves fighting a cold civil war. The end result is that lawyers get richer, we get weaker, and the hard people, waiting and watching in the darkness, laugh louder.
If it's a civil war, shouldn't the "hard people" be winning it?
8 - Mohjho
Selwyn Duke, you are seriously delusional. Not one word makes any sense at all. You are living in a fantasy world where if only we conformed to your idiotic sense of grandure then all would be perfect.
You should write a book.