Skip to main content

Female characters please?

 After reading Brave New World and seeing the openness of Huxley's futuristic society towards female equality and empowerment, I was optimistic for similar trends in 1984. Boy, have I been disappointed. 

Our only real female character is Julia, who serves as a distraction, an object of desire, and a companion for Winston that won't make him look stupid or less important. She is essentially a fantasy for Winston - a beautiful woman who he can sleep with and then plot to take down the Party with. She comes across as naïve because rebellion looks different to her than it does to Winston, and we never see her as an individual outside of the male gaze. I know that it was common for female characters during this time to exist only within the context of the men, but Orwell is writing a book that takes place in the future. If he can be so creative with his envisioning of a dystopian world, surely he can find the imaginative capacity to see women as more than toys for men.

Do you think Orwell should have given more power/autonomy to female characters, or do you think that the current experiences of female characters align with the gender roles in Oceania?

Comments

  1. Rani Ramrattan25 February 2021 at 07:39

    I think Orwell should have but although this is set in the future much of the mindset of society remains in the past in 1984

    ReplyDelete
  2. L. Moffitt25 February 2021 at 07:40

    AGREE. This misogyny of this novel is troublesome. None of the female characters is sympathetic or dimensional in the least. To some degree, that could be Orwell (like Huxley) commenting on how women often have it worse in totalitarian regimes, but I agree that a lot of it is probably Orwell's own sexism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Katelyn25 February 2021 at 07:41

    I've been personally really disappointed with Julia's characterization as she doesn't even pretend to evolve the plot (at least not this far into the book). She truly is there just to have sex with Winston and make him look good in his form of rebellion compared to her's. She could easily have taken over the O'Brien character, but instead we are left with our only significant female character of the book being very much the "Eve" to Winston's "Adam" in some ways.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Prithika Ravi25 February 2021 at 07:42

    I think that, yes, to some extent, what he does aligns with the gender roles in Oceania, but he's the one who made those gender roles. It would have been really interesting to see him undermine the traditional aspects of a dystopian novel, especially as a lot of this was inspired by BNW, and incorporate some unexpected aspect of equalizing them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alice Gao25 February 2021 at 07:52

    It definitely is extremely sad, because Orwell has taken care to twist the idea of motherhood and sexuality in the world of 1984, but for some reason doesn't seem comfortable giving the women any power. None of the high rank Party members are male. Julia works in a freaking porn shop, and all of Winston's coworkers are male. I think given Orwell's own biases (as Ms. Moffitt said) there was no way he would give women quality representation in a book such as this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous25 February 2021 at 07:56

    I think what's really interesting about this is the way that the gender roles in Oceania seem to be somewhat inclusive - both women and men can reach the upper echelon of the inner party, and all "comrades" in the Party are equal. And yet, Orwell inexplicably wrote his only significant female character in a way that aligns much better with the gender roles in Orwell's 1948 than Winston's 1984.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. L. Moffitt25 February 2021 at 08:09

      Good point, and it's interesting that this has played out in real life as well. Totalitarian regimes in our world have claimed that the sexes are equal, but women inevitably end up in subservient roles.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Will the Party lose steam?

In terms of optimistic book passages, I can't say this one is at the top of my list. Basically what we learned from chapters III-V of Part Three is that the Party will rule the world for all of eternity, and there is no situation in which they will not succeed. Winston protests when O'Brien tells him this, arguing that the Party will self-destruct at some point, or at least some spiritual force in the universe will prevent the eternal rule of the Party. However, O'Brien just mocks Winston. O'Brien makes a very convincing case for the Party, but there is one potential loophole that could topple the Party - decreasing devotion to the cause.  In revolutions, the most passionate generation is the one that actually revolts (obviously). In 1984 , that is the group that is currently running the Party. However, as authoritarian regimes pass down through the generations, this revolutionary fervor dies down, and those in power either loosen their grip enough to destabilize themse...
11 comments
Read more

The Curse of the Cubs

I wrote my final project about a person who embodies the Cubs' 108-year World Series drought. My story starts with the Cubs winning the 1908 World Series, and skips around to a few significant moments in the main character's life before ending with the 2016 World Series. Here's a few important things to know about the Cubs and baseball before you start reading: The World Series is a best-of-seven series, so you have to win 4 games to win To get to the World Series, teams have to win a different best-of-seven series, called either the National League Championship Series (NLCS) or the American League Championship Series (ALCS). The Cubs play in the National League, so they have to win the NLCS to advance The Cubs won the World Series in 1907 and 1908 and appeared in a few more after that, but didn't appear in a World Series from 1945-2016 The infamous Bartman Incident occurred when a Cubs fan (Steve Bartman) deflected a foul ball out of reach of Cubs outfielder Mois...
14 comments
Read more

Isolating the variable: setting in The Plague

Today in class, we talked a lot about how Camus establishes the setting for The Plague . To be honest, a lot of the first section of this book blended together for me - the middle-class French men with unmemorable names, the rats (and then humans) gruesomely dying in the streets, the conversations among medical professionals - many of the finer details are difficult for me to recall. However, the description of Oran stuck with me. The narrator describes one of the blandest and ugliest towns I have ever imagined, with not very nice humans living in it.  At first, I thought it was strange that Camus had selected such a boring setting for his book. Then I realized how intentional it was, and how important. Camus is using the story of the plague as a medium through which to analyze fascism and the Nazis. That is his primary focus, and in order to fully focus on the plague he needs to eliminate all distractions (e.g. a noteworthy setting). He is isolating the variable by placing it in a...
9 comments
Read more