1984
discussion
Misogyny
date
newest »
newest »
I thought the same thing as Cynthia.He "hated the sight of her" because he may have liked the way she looked and he couldn't comprehend those feeling at all, because he didn't knew, what they meant.
"I wanted to rape you"... I mean the way the government portrays sex isn't really nice, after all.
But I reacted the same way, as I read that part. But in the end, there were even more repulsive acts in the book.
Pete wrote: "Some troublesome misogyny from the book: At one point, Julia asks Winston what his first impressions of her were. And he states: "'I hated the sight of you...I wanted to rape you and then murder yo..."I have the same reaction too.
I also don't quite understand below statements.
In Part II Chapter II, Winston said:
"Listen. The more men you've had, the more I love you. Do you understand that?"
"I hate purity, I hate goodness! I don't want any virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bones."
Sandy wrote: "Pete wrote: "Some troublesome misogyny from the book: At one point, Julia asks Winston what his first impressions of her were. And he states: "'I hated the sight of you...I wanted to rape you and t..."Hey, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the first quote too.
Purity is what the government prescribes. It forbids sex as something enjoyable and turns it to something revolting. So loving sex and having it a lot of is an act of rebellion. That's kind of the relationship between Julia and Winston too.
That's why Winston wants her to have a lot of men.
Pete wrote: "Thanks for the insights. Those make sense as I am making my way through the book."You're welcome.
Sandy wrote: "Pete wrote: "Some troublesome misogyny from the book: At one point, Julia asks Winston what his first impressions of her were. And he states: "'I hated the sight of you...I wanted to rape you and t..."I second Saskia's comment.
Let us not forget that Orwell had this book published in 1949, a time when women had to return to be good housewives after having done so much during WWII to win the war.
In Oceania, women are only good to breed and raise kids and, yes, to work at the Fiction department because they are gifted storytellers.
The parallelism between real life and dystopia is not far-fetched.
So it is quite revolutionary to have a man of that time write that women have the right to seek pleasure and do whatever they want with their body and mind.
I agree with the above answers to Pete's original question.I'm glad, because I wouldn't want to hear that anyone thinks Orwell was a misogynist; that men in 1949 were misogynists, that male writers are misogynist, or that male readers are misogynist for reading Orwell. People need to friggin stop this silly witch-hunt ...(I mean, this silly warlock-hunt...). The past is too rich and diverse to conform to today's PC group-speak. Great fiction is *always* going to have some rough-edges.
p.s. I'd add this (from my own experience): it's still sorta true --whether in 1949 or today, whether in fiction or the-real-world...that really gorgeous, beautiful, exotic-looking women are a royal pain-in-the-arse. They alter the behavior of everyone around them; they put a burden on everyone. People's speech changes; manners alter..fights break out; territorialism...possessiveness...'special privileges' must be extended...awk!
It bothered me, too, even allowing for when it was written, and the dystopian vision it was part of.Here's an interesting, positive, take on it:
https://slutocracy.wordpress.com/2013...
Feliks wrote: "I agree with the above answers to Pete's original question.I'm glad, because I wouldn't want to hear that anyone thinks Orwell was a misogynist; that men in 1949 were misogynists, that male write..."
You rant that misogyny isn't real, then go on a sexist rant. Oookay then.
Oh look, PC witch-hunt in a 1984 comment section. It can't get more ironical than that.
I also don't quite understand below statements.
In Part II Chapter II, Winston said:
"Listen. The more men you've had, the more I love you. Do you understand that?"
"I hate purity, I hate goodness! I don't want any virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bones."
Because Big Brother forced chastity on the party members because "it causes hysteria". I think it's Goldstein's book that explains that.
You rant that misogyny isn't real, then go on a sexist rant. Oookay then. He didn't say misogyny didn't exist, but that PC people are obnoxious and paranoid about it. I agree with him.
Is Feliks trying to say in his rant that gorgeous women are a pain-in-the-arse because OTHERS do not know how to deal with their beauty?? "They alter the behavior...they put a burden on everyone" etc. Why stop there? Why not blame beautiful women for climate change, terrorism, drug trafficking, and every other current problem in our world?
Don't like Trump? Blame Melania! Don't like President Assad of Syria? Blame his lovely wife.
What the hell, Norman? What Feliks said is true: Goergeous women HAVE an effect upon people around them. Did he say (or am I saying) that shit people do because of them is the women's fault? You could read Dostoevsky's The Idiot or even The Brothers karamazov to see that what Feliks said is a fact.
Bruno wrote: "What the hell, Norman? What Feliks said is true: Goergeous women HAVE an effect upon people around them. Did he say (or am I saying) that shit people do because of them is the women's fault? You co..."Here is what Felix says:
"... really gorgeous, beautiful, exotic-looking women are a royal pain-in-the-arse. They alter the behavior of everyone around them; they put a burden on everyone."
Feliks' sentence states that the WOMEN are the pain-in-the-arse (not those who don't know how to handle their beauty) then goes on to state that "they" (the women) alter the behavior...and "they" (the women) put a burden...etc
You might want to review some basic linguistics and note how to interpret the 'agent' role in an active sentence.
I've read both the Dostoevsky works you mentioned; neither supports Feliks' claims. I suppose you would read Crime and Punishment and blame Dunya for the boorish behavior of Svidrigailov and Luzhin?
I am not disputing that others MAY act differently in the presence of gorgeous women..but this is not how Feliks put it.
What difference does it make? Yes, women HAVE an effect on people around them, even considering that it's the predisposition of the altered person that will differ the effect from person to person. Does it mean or did we say that it's her fault? No. In my country we would say you "have put words in his mouth". I wouldn't blame Dunya the same way I didn't blame any woman. You're trying to find guilt were there's only the portrayal of a fact.
So now it is "women" that have an effect on people around them. One could very easily make the same argument about men as in "Men have an effect on people around them." How about "Humans have an effect on the people around them" or "Goats have an effect on the people around them"? A REALLY good one would be "Snakes (or maybe even better...skunks) have an effect on people around them." Now you would be making sense.
But I agree with it. Humans have an effect on each other. We are just talking about one specific effect from an specific kind of person (beautiful women).In the book's context, Winston's troubled mind made him feel angry with Julia, but if he was more healthy (and in a more healthy world, so to speak), he could feel not anger but pure attraction. No one's advocating that Julia (or any other woman by extention) has any guilt in that.
So even perfection has its flaws. 1984 is still a masterpiece, and it still influences stories and rhetoric today.
Like everyone else, I think Winston is frightened of her. Raping her may satisfy his lust (yuck!), but he knows that his attraction to her would extend beyond that and it would be troublesome which is why he feels killing her would be the only thing to help him fight this pull toward her.
Abbyb1 wrote: "...Raping her may satisfy his lust (yuck!)..."Rape is almost never about lust so much as about power.
...winston is just a really terrible person and he has no concern for the people around him (see: he's constantly comparing them to bugs etc.).but i think what might be even more concerning is julia's reaction to winston telling her what he wanted to do to her- she laughs. she's delighted. it's a game to her. (because she isn't a real character and only has agency as long as it serves winston and winston serves the setting)
that freaked me out.
Winston is not a "terrible person" - he is a highly observant and thoughtful 'everyman' type of character placed in a harsh and repressive social environment that makes him pessimistic, fearful, and desperate to try anything that will make him feel like an individual through rebellion against Big Brother. He wants to achieve some sense of freedom of thought or individuality by imagining scenarios involving the destruction of BB: an uprising of the proles; some future, better society that will read his diary; revelation of Minitrue's falsification of history; empowerment of older people to provide truth about the past; a violent sex act with a member of the Junior Anti-Sex League. During his first direct encounter with Julia, Winston shows kindness and confusion, not aggression. His initial thought when he actually has sex with her is that "it was a political act," but this feeling later transforms to love. He may have many very human weaknesses, but don't we all?I also dispute the claim that "he has no concern for the people around him." He helps Mrs. Parsons and notices her fear of her own children and the abject conditions she lives in that leave dust in the wrinkles around her eyes; he realizes Syme may be too intelligent for his own good and wonders about his fate; he pities Parsons as much as he dislikes his slavish devotion to the Party.
Some of the most interesting literature in the world has been written about or by women who were exquisitely beautiful in their youth and then lost it. Common in Japanese literature, seen constantly in real life in Hollywood, studied in films like Harold and Maude. Is beauty a curse? I, too, know men in their 70's who can't understand why the girls don't spread them for 'em anymore. Truly one of the great tragedies of life, to pass through a finite period of beauty, rather than transforming beauty into a new phase, a deeper phase, with age.
Norman wrote: "Winston is not a "terrible person" - he is a highly observant and thoughtful 'everyman' type of character placed in a harsh and repressive social environment that makes him pessimistic, fearful, an..."........he stole chocolate from his starving mother and sister before BB came into power. imagining a "violent sex act" is terrifying. it isn't political or about freedom; it's predatory. in his first encounter with julia, he enjoyed seeing her weak and hurt. observant he may be, but that does not make him a good person. noting that the parsons live in a horrible place does not mean he cares about them or wants to improve their condition. his observations about syme read as a kind of objective commentary, and winston does not show any real interest in syme's fate outside of how it pertains to his own. fight me.
Cecily wrote: "Abbyb1 wrote: "...Raping her may satisfy his lust (yuck!)..."Rape is almost never about lust so much as about power."
!!important
Sarah wrote: "Norman wrote: "Winston is not a "terrible person" - he is a highly observant and thoughtful 'everyman' type of character placed in a harsh and repressive social environment that makes him pessimist...""he stole chocolate from his starving mother and sister before BB came into power"
- yes he did but this was under conditions of starvation for the whole family. Many, many others may well have done the same or worse during such a situation at that time, but we do not know about these because the POV of 1984 is mostly 3rd person limited omniscient...limited to ONE character, Winston.
"imagining a "violent sex act" is terrifying. it isn't political or about freedom; it's predatory."
- again, Orwell is giving one man's account of a highly negative environment, and W is the type of character who may have wild imaginings (don't we all?) but these are within the privacy of his head and there is no real intent other than to find an avenue for his hatred of BB and the Party. Julia appears to be an avid believer in BB and the Party, and he sees her as both a threat to him (she could well be a Party spy) and the embodiment of all he hates in the world he inhabits. From Chapter 1:
"this particular girl gave him the impression of being more dangerous than most. Once when they passed in the corridor she gave him a quick sidelong glance which seemed to pierce right into him and for a moment had filled him with black terror. The idea had even crossed his mind that she might be an agent of the Thought Police. That, it was true, was very unlikely. Still, he continued to feel a peculiar uneasiness, which had fear mixed up in it as well as hostility, whenever she was anywhere near him."
First he has the impression she is "more dangerous than most" then she gives him the "sidelong glance" that "fill[s] him with black terror." It is his FEAR of her, not any sense of power, that is guiding his imaginings. He may well have similarly violent feelings about others he sees and guesses are spies or a danger to his person. He is not too keen on Parsons or the Parsons children but sees the former as a fool who poses little threat and the latter as variations of 'Hitler Youth' who will eventually turn their own parents in, and that he may have to watch out for himself...but they are still children so that mitigates his fear of them...for now. More to the point, we do not know of W's feelings vis-a-vis other characters because it does not serve Orwell's purpose as a novelist. By introducing Julia through W's feelings and thoughts about her, O creates both foreshadowing and irony; the girl W fears and imagines raping and killing (but never would have in reality) is the same girl he does have sex with (clearly no rape involved in fact W is initially unable to 'rise' to the occasion) and eventually falls in love with.
in his first encounter with julia, he enjoyed seeing her weak and hurt.
- With all due respect, you need to re-read the novel. From Part 2, Chapter 1:
"They were perhaps four metres apart when the girl stumbled and fell almost flat on her face. A sharp cry of pain was wrung out of her. She must have fallen right on the injured arm. Winston stopped short. The girl had risen to her knees. Her face had turned a milky yellow colour against which her mouth stood out redder than ever. Her eyes were fixed on his, with an appealing expression that looked more like fear than pain.
A curious emotion stirred in Winston's heart. In front of him was an enemy who was trying to kill him: in front of him, also, was a human creature, in pain and perhaps with a broken bone. Already he had instinctively started forward to help her. In the moment when he had seen her fall on the bandaged arm, it had been as though he felt the pain in his own body."
Enjoyment at seeing her weak and hurt? Hardly. Quite the opposite in fact - he feels so empathetic that he can almost feel the same pain in his own body.
"observant he may be, but that does not make him a good person. noting that the parsons live in a horrible place does not mean he cares about them or wants to improve their condition. his observations about syme read as a kind of objective commentary, and winston does not show any real interest in syme's fate outside of how it pertains to his own."
- I will grant that W's interest in Syme's possibly bad fate is more 'academic' than humanitarian. But then Syme is a curious sort who W takes an an academic interest in, not a close friend by any means.
"fight me."
- there is no fight or malice in my argument; 1984 is a fascinating read exactly because it engenders such differences of opinion. Everyone may have his or her own interpretations, but we have to be able to support ideas with logic and reason...and solid understanding of the details and the text as a whole, or perhaps even a broader knowledge and understanding of Orwell as a man and writer.
reply | flag *
I look at Winston's and Julia's remarks, both, from within the context of the book. There is an extended discussion when Winston is recalling his wife Katherine, whom he has not seen in, I forget, 10-12 years. Sorry, no copy, but I've read it several times. In recalling Katherine, Winston begins by recounting how the Party has striven to make the sexual act disgusting, to remove from it anything of love or anything erotic. This, I think, had been going on for decades. His wife would simply lie down on the bed, move her clothing aside, and tell him to do it, or a phrase to that effect. They never had children, so the Party encouraged separation.
I also recall that Winston had very tender thoughts for Julia. I thino he had expected the encounter to be a Thought Police set-up at worst, or a meaningless physical, hygienic function at best. He expected Julia to be, perhaps, like Katherine, a complete adherent to Party tenents. Perhaps she merely wanted to be impregnated for the good of the Party. I don't recall that Winston trusted his wildly swinging interpretations of her "I love you" note.
I do recall he was amazed, somewhat stunned, at the end of that first encounter. The violence he spoke to her was anger at the Party, hatred of himself. He also hated the children next door and all his co-workers, except O'Brien, upon whom he projected so many of his personal hopes.
Like today, worldwide, everything encouraged hatred and fear. I do not see, never have seen, will never see, Winston's feelings as misogyny. They were a reaction to politically imposed hatred and mistrust of others and, supremely, self-hatred.
Just me.
I also recall that Winston had very tender thoughts for Julia. I thino he had expected the encounter to be a Thought Police set-up at worst, or a meaningless physical, hygienic function at best. He expected Julia to be, perhaps, like Katherine, a complete adherent to Party tenents. Perhaps she merely wanted to be impregnated for the good of the Party. I don't recall that Winston trusted his wildly swinging interpretations of her "I love you" note.
I do recall he was amazed, somewhat stunned, at the end of that first encounter. The violence he spoke to her was anger at the Party, hatred of himself. He also hated the children next door and all his co-workers, except O'Brien, upon whom he projected so many of his personal hopes.
Like today, worldwide, everything encouraged hatred and fear. I do not see, never have seen, will never see, Winston's feelings as misogyny. They were a reaction to politically imposed hatred and mistrust of others and, supremely, self-hatred.
Just me.
Norman wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Norman wrote: "Winston is not a "terrible person" - he is a highly observant and thoughtful 'everyman' type of character placed in a harsh and repressive social environment that makes..."
I agree. Especially appreciate "solid understanding of the details and the text as a whole, or perhaps even a broader knowledge and understanding of Orwell as a man and writer." That's always true, I think, I would like to think.
I agree. Especially appreciate "solid understanding of the details and the text as a whole, or perhaps even a broader knowledge and understanding of Orwell as a man and writer." That's always true, I think, I would like to think.
Virginia wrote: "I look at Winston's and Julia's remarks, both, from within the context of the book. There is an extended discussion when Winston is recalling his wife Katherine, whom he has not seen in, I forget, ..."Katherine used to remind him that it was time for them to do "our duty to the Party" - that phrase in particular irked W, as I think it would most people in that sort of situation.
Norman wrote: "Virginia wrote: "I look at Winston's and Julia's remarks, both, from within the context of the book. There is an extended discussion when Winston is recalling his wife Katherine, whom he has not se..."
Thank you. I apologize for no longer having the book at hand.
Thank you. I apologize for no longer having the book at hand.
I do not have a copy of the book on hand at the moment either, but I do recall a specific quote where Winston states that he hates women. He repeatedly reduces them to bodies; he thinks the singing prole woman is little more than a womb. I do think that there is intent behind Winston's fantasies about raping Julia; later, he seriously considers bashing her head in with a cobblestone. The portion of the passage you quoted that concerns me is the word "appealing." Before wanting to help her, Winston enjoys being in a position of power over her where she is weak and her agency is removed. There is nothing okay about such fantasies. They are damaging because they dehumanize women and, in this case, are a manifestation of Winston's violence, as well as his hated for both women and the party. I did not intend to express a lack of rationality or consideration of the novel by using the phrase "fight me." It is a joke and an idiom. I am supporting my argument-- you simply interpret my evidence in a different way. I am trying to imagine how I might feel in Julia's shoes, and finding I cannot because her character is not realistic.
Sarah wrote: " I am trying to imagine how I might feel in Julia's shoes, and finding I cannot because her character is not realistic."
Good, truly, with not a touch of sarcasm. I hope no one recognizes Winston or Julia, or finds them realistic. That would mean nothing of Big Brother or the Party has touched the real world, that nothing of Orwell's fantasy has never come about, and we, or some of us, must be very safe indeed.
EDIT: Except that I do believe that it is one pf the greatest love stories of all time, and that Orwell was a genius not to lose that within his political commentary. I'm sorry you weren't moved when Winston and Julia said to each other, "We are the dead." Because of their love. Or by the absolute way each of them had been destroyed when they met for the last time. I adore this book, actually, but it is extraordinarily difficult to separate the characters' true selves beneath what has been imposed on them by the Party. They are both so courageous, but, again, that's just me.
Good, truly, with not a touch of sarcasm. I hope no one recognizes Winston or Julia, or finds them realistic. That would mean nothing of Big Brother or the Party has touched the real world, that nothing of Orwell's fantasy has never come about, and we, or some of us, must be very safe indeed.
EDIT: Except that I do believe that it is one pf the greatest love stories of all time, and that Orwell was a genius not to lose that within his political commentary. I'm sorry you weren't moved when Winston and Julia said to each other, "We are the dead." Because of their love. Or by the absolute way each of them had been destroyed when they met for the last time. I adore this book, actually, but it is extraordinarily difficult to separate the characters' true selves beneath what has been imposed on them by the Party. They are both so courageous, but, again, that's just me.
"Her eyes were fixed on his, with an appealing expression that looked more like fear than pain."In reading the quote above, consider the context of the novel (totalitarian dystopian society), of the particular situation (Julia is trying to find a way to pass a note to a man she has never spoken to, a note that says, "I love you."...in a world where there is a 'Junior Anti-Sex League'), and what Orwell wants to accomplish in this scene. Winston has already been characterized as weak; he may have rebellious thoughts and wild fantasies due to his hatred of the Party but he is instinctively cautious, fearful, and pessimistic. Julia has likely sensed this and has to make the first move...but it could be dangerous for her if it turns out Winston is a member of the Thought Police. (Didn't Mr. Charrington fool everyone, including Orwell's readers?) So she does her best to appeal to W's best instincts, not his worst. The fear in her eyes comes from concerns she may be taking too big a risk and chosen the wrong person, or could somehow be caught in the act.
Meanwhile, Winston has recognized her as someone he thinks wants to kill him...but also as "a human creature, in pain and perhaps with a broken bone." Note he is not seeing her as 'a helpless woman he can take advantage of' - she is a fellow human...in pain...and he has already "instinctively started forward to help her."
Let us say it is a sort of rhetoric speech, just showing the reader how powerless Winston is when he experiences unknown feelings at seeing Julia such as attractiveness. He does not know what he's feeling because he has never been brought up to recognise them as "attraction", "love", etc. He reacts at the first in the only way which is know to him: by having agressive thoughts. It's no wonder when one lives in such a oppressive society as the one of Oceania.