Absolutely — the key is to thread that memory through the essay without letting it take over. So instead of turning it into dialogue-heavy scene writing, I’d use it as a brief grounding anecdote: one small human moment that exposes the gap between the public mythology and the private reality.
Here’s a revised version in that mode:
______________________________________________________________________
Stolen Valour and the Fraud of the “Hard Times Make Hard Men” Trope
The saying “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times” is one of those formulas that sounds profound mainly because it is short, tidy, and smug. It offers the appearance of historical wisdom while avoiding the disorder of real history. More than that, it often functions as a form of stolen valour: a moral fable built not by the men who actually endured war, deprivation, and ruin, but by later generations who inherit their suffering as mythology and then use it to lecture others about strength.
What the saying deliberately conceals is that hard times do not reliably produce strength. Very often they produce trauma, brutality, criminality, bitterness, and despair. A society under severe pressure does not become noble by default. Men who are starved, shelled, gassed, or sent into jungle and trench warfare do not emerge as some purified masculine ideal. Some survive. Some adapt. Some break. Some become dangerous to themselves and others. Some never really come home at all.
As a child, I heard this truth not from intellectuals or from memorial speeches, but from old veterans themselves. In the early 1960s, I met men who had come back from the First World War mostly in one piece physically, but with no reverence left for the system that had used them. Far from becoming pillars of patriotic gratitude, many had turned against the establishment entirely. Some became communists. Some drifted into a half-criminal world of sly grog, brothels, SP bookmaking, or other grey economies. They did not speak like men ennobled by sacrifice. They spoke like men who had seen the machinery up close and despised the people who operated it from a safe distance.
I remember one of them swearing freely in front of me while I listened, wide-eyed, as a seven-year-old. My mother gently scolded him for using foul language in front of a child. But the exchange itself said more than any polished commemoration ever could. There was something almost absurd in the contrast: adults worried about bad language in front of a boy, while the man being corrected had been sent, as a teenager, into an industrial slaughterhouse by respectable men with clean collars and patriotic slogans. That was the real obscenity — not the words, but the system.
Those veterans did not teach me that hard times make hard men. Quite the opposite. They warned me never to be gullible enough to let anyone make a sacrificial fool of me in the name of flags, duty, or noble slogans. Their lesson was not hardness but suspicion — suspicion of the rhetoric that glamorises suffering and calls it character. They did not want the next generation turned into “hard men.” They wanted peace. They had seen what “hardness” usually meant in practice: frightened boys brutalised by experience, then praised afterwards by people who had never shared the risk.
This is where the stolen valour enters. The men who actually endured the horrors of war often came back disillusioned, damaged, anti-establishment, or quietly contemptuous of the causes they had supposedly served. But once they are dead — once they can no longer speak awkwardly, drink too much, rage against authority, vote for radicals, or embarrass the official story — the establishment reclaims them. Suddenly they “fought for our freedom.” Suddenly they become symbols of national virtue. Their bitterness is erased, their politics forgotten, their social alienation cleaned up, and their broken lives rewritten into moral pageantry.
That is stolen valour in its most respectable form. It is not the crude individual pretence of a man wearing medals he never earned. It is something larger and more dishonest: institutions, politicians, commentators, and comfortable descendants appropriating the suffering of the dead in order to authorise their own story about national character. The real men are gone; in their place stands a polished myth.
The same fraud persists in the “hard times make hard men” trope. The people repeating it are often not the men who endured the hard times. More often they are beneficiaries, spectators, or descendants who use the suffering of others as a kind of borrowed moral capital. It allows them to sound severe, wise, and realistic without ever having been shelled, starved, or sent to kill strangers in a muddy field. They inherit the legend and pose in front of it.
The saying also relies on a childish understanding of strength. It imagines adversity as a forge that naturally produces discipline, courage, and competence. But hardship is not a moral gymnasium. It is often just damage. War does not necessarily create stronger men; it often creates maimed bodies, shattered nerves, alcoholism, estrangement, domestic misery, and suicide. Economic collapse does not necessarily produce virtue; it can produce panic, predation, degradation, and cruelty. If some people emerge from terrible conditions with admirable qualities, that is not because suffering is inherently ennobling. It is because some human beings are capable of salvaging meaning from disaster. That is a testament to them, not to hardship.
Likewise, the idea that “soft times” create weak men is just the inverted form of the same nonsense. Periods of peace and stability can produce educated, self-controlled, capable people who develop discipline without being terrorised into it. A man raised in security may study, build, train, work, and take responsibility precisely because he has not been reduced to bare survival. Peace does not automatically make people soft. Sometimes it allows them to become fully human.
The trope survives because it offers a flattering simplicity. It turns history into a masculine morality play. It reassures the comfortable that suffering had purpose, that decline can be blamed on weakness, and that brutality was somehow productive. It saves people from having to confront a more difficult truth: societies do not rise because men were hardened by misery, nor do they fall because life became too comfortable. They rise and fall through institutions, incentives, corruption, trust, leadership, economics, culture, and luck. The slogan replaces all that with a cheap sermon.
Worse still, it invites a sentimental attitude toward suffering itself. It encourages people to speak as though hardship were desirable because of the character it supposedly forms. But hard times can mean sending boys to war, watching men come back ruined, seeing them despised in life and sanctified in death, and then hearing later generations speak reverently of the virtues of adversity. There is something almost obscene in that sequence. It asks the broken to pay the price for a lesson the unbroken are eager to teach.
Perhaps that is why the old veterans were so sceptical. They had no patience for the romance. They knew that the men who talk most about toughness are often the least tested, and that the social order which praises sacrifice is often the very order that demanded it of others while remaining safe itself. They knew that “hard men” are frequently just damaged men, or cynical men, or dead men rewritten into symbols. And they knew, too, that once the last troublesome veteran is buried, the official voices return to reclaim him.
So when people repeat that tidy little slogan about hard times and hard men, what they are often repeating is not wisdom but theft: the theft of experience from the men who actually suffered, and the theft of meaning from lives too messy to fit into patriotic cliché. The real testimony of many veterans was not that suffering made them stronger. It was that the people who speak most nobly about sacrifice are often the ones most determined to spend other people’s lives.
