I felt sorry for the young lady who was asked to leave the canteen because she made a date with a soldier outside of the canteen. I wonder why the canteen had such strict rules for the hostesses? Couldn't they bend the rules just a bit?
shareIt might be hard to understand in such a 'bent' social atmosphere as we have today, but people actually thought rules/morality (which is what the rules were intended to protect) were very important back then.
Kinda like in the Garden of Eden, the serpent just wanted Eve to bend the rules just a bit....
Rules and morality are still important today, we've just realized that many 'rules' of the past were antiquated bull *beep*
shareThe question then becomes, who decides what rules and morality apply?
Ruth Benedict wrote a book called "Patterns of Culture", in which after much study she found that all behavior (rules and morality), no matter how heinous or repulsive we may find it 'today', was considered normal and right at some time in some culture.
If we follow evolution's survival of the fittest, the strong make the rules and eliminate the weak. We saw this in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China.
We also saw it in 19th century America, in US versus Native Americans. Or 20th century America, in US versus African Americans. Yet those behaviors were considered right, even heroic, in their time.
There really is no artificial, temporal rule and morality that trumps "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
But the question is, what on earth is so immoral about a girl going on a date with a guy she really likes? Regardless of what the time period is, I just don't understand the rule.
shareRules were for the protection of both the girl and the organization -- involving both moral and legal (liability) issues.
Regardless, the girls all knew the rules going in -- if they didn't agree with them, they did not have to sign up with that organization. So they entered into a contractual relationship with the organization when they signed, and if they violated that contract the organization (for its own reputation/protection as much as the girls') would terminate their relationship.
Kinda like the rules many American corporations have against drinking while on the 'clock' -- many Europeans find these rules quaint and (at least in Italy/Germany/France) allow drinking on lunch breaks (many cafeterias attached to a corporation serve alchohol at lunch!). But if in America that rule is broken, the person violating them can be terminated. This is as much for protection of the corporate 'image' as for the well-being of the individual.
I understand that there's rules in place that they agreed to. That isn't the issue though. THe issue is that the reason for these rules was never explained. Drinking on the clock is one thing, but we're talking about off the clock and what they do in their personal lives. I still don't see how this is in any way shape or form a moral issue. It's just a question of what their rules are. Not morality.
shareIn the context of that day, the 'rules' didn't need to be explained -- they were the fundamental understanding of the day. Like when fathers met the boy before his daughter began dating him, and chaperones were required for a late night party.
So long as the girl met the soldier at an official organization function, she was considered 'on the clock' with that soldier from then on. What she did with that soldier reflected on the organization. If parents of girls who volunteered for that organization were to learn their daughters were going off unchaperoned on dates with them, they would likely have pulled their daughters from volunteering any further, and then where would the canteens be?
I appreciate your comments, but I still think if that's one of the major focal point of the story, a 10 second explanation in the movie couldn't hurt as to why this is the rule. These are grown women, not kids.
shareThe thing is in 1943 they would have been no need for an explanation of the rule. The girls are there to dance with and befriend the boys but their interaction is not to be overtly romantic or else you've got a pick-up joint and you'd end up with more than a few pregnant hostesses as well as guys coming in thinking it was a place to find easy women. If a girl found a serviceman she liked enough to date she could simply quit and then date the guy but if she's to be a canteen hostess she has to keep herself above reproach.
share
I was surprised to see black soldiers in the audiences - were the armed services rules against integration ignored by the canteen?
[deleted]
given the presence of southerners (as in the movie) wouldn't this have created at least the potential for problems?
As you have astutely observed, there was an unusual degree of integration in the canteen in this movie.
According to the study "INTEGRATION OF THE ARMED FORCES
1940-1965" by Morris J. MacGregor, Jr
(http://www.history.army.mil/books/integration/IAF-FM.htm)
the official policy of the Army thru 1943 was still one of primarily segregation (though this was being vigorously opposed by many groups, and slowly being changed).
This canteen population may therefore more reflect Hollywood's image of canteen life than most WWII canteens of 1943, but could also reflect local rules and regulations for that particular canteen (local rules were mostly obeyed by Army personnel).
Note that the pressure to integrate finally succeeded, leading to President Truman signing Executive Order 9981 in July of 1948, which called on the military to provide equal treatment for black service men and women.
I imagine the rules were also to help the girls fend off overly amorous guys. It made is easier for the girls to be able to say "not allowed" instead of having to come up with a reason to tell a guy (who is saying hey, this may be my death wish) that she is not allowed to go out with him outside the canteen. If it was me, I'd probably say give me an address and I'll write to you, that's the best I can do.
shareThe lady who was admonishing the girl about the date was Selena Royle, playing herself. She was an actress, and humanitarian, who established a number of such "canteens" for soldiers and homeless people, and out-of-work actors during the depression, and war.
This scene was probably there, early in the film, to establish the "bona fides" of such a canteen, for the folks back home — so they didn't think it was a den full of loose women, and believe me, actors were not considered polite society at the time.
The movie seems to regard the soldiers as cannon fodder, who will not be coming back, once they leave the place.
The canteen may be free, but the women are just there to tease them under the circumstances. If I was in that situation, I would elect to buy a couple of bottles of booze, and find a room and a couple of girls with liberal attitudes. They couldn't make that movie back than, but it may have been more of the reality.