Collins dictionary defines masculinity as, “maleness: the properties characteristic of the male sex.”
A plethora of questions flowed through my head, not leading to answers but only more questions pertaining to the simple word we seem to use to describe arguably a half of our society. Perhaps because of such we have over used and altered it to an extent of losing its virgin meaning.
Do we as a society develop stereotypes that we call masculine qualities? Is Collins definition of the word “properties” meant, in this society, to signify inner qualities or is it restricted only to outer features? In Roman times the gladiators demonstrated masculinity in a very outward way, fighting and risking their lives just to prove themselves as being masculine and in the process more appealing to the female sex. The gladiators had a need to appear stronger than nature in order to “win” their prize. Masculinity, during this time was focused more on physical attributes of strength and endurance.
As time went on, masculinity became a term meant to describe inner as well as outer qualities. What does it mean for a man who only posses one of these qualities? Is he half a man? What about women who demonstrate one or possibly both of these qualities, is she then seen as more of a male figure. These concepts have a great relevance to our modern society as gender roles and equality begin to be questioned and policies are developed by governments.
A man in society can look unmasculine in the eyes of the public if he does not possess the stereotypical characteristics. Is he then “not masculine”? What happens if he demonstrates many of the inner properties of the male sex? Inner masculine traits may include courage, bravery, confidence, the need to define all odds with his inner strength, and his hunger and drive to prove himself. However, such inner traits differ between numerous cultures and backgrounds, there is no single check list for inner qualities, and its perception vastly differs.
Does masculinity rise from a bottled insecurity within the male sex or perhaps can it be found within the female?
In both past times and present day, power is a concept that has provided an interpretation of whether someone is masculine or not. The more power one controls, whether it be over themselves, a group, within a job or in control of a nation has come to determine the scale of masculinity in a person. The term masculinity and the notion of power seem to be infinitely linked. In George Orwell’s 1984 the concepts of masculinity and even femininity have been abolished. The only sense of masculinity found within 1984 is that associated with power. The only one who displays this 21st century concept of masculinity is Big Brother. Even his name symbolizes a greater meaning of power and authority that is associated with the term. Externally, Winston displays none of the physical features associated with masculinity; however his courage to begin the journey against Big Brother proves that he continues to attempt to find the lost traits. Even although he was defeated and in the end re-educated he still, like the gladiators, was willing to fight to the death. If this masculine trait is only demonstrated internally, can Winston be considered to be masculine, a trait disallowed in the 1984 society?
Well done, Megan! This is an excellent analysis of the issue of gender both in our culture and in Orwell's novel. I am particularly impressed by your criticisms of the dictionary-definition of masculinity - it really raises more questions than it answers. Your engagement with 1984 is great, as well. I urge you to continue thinking about the text in this light. For instance, to what extend does Julia exhibit the same loss of gender-role as does Winston?
ReplyDelete