Hit enter after type your search item

Misogyny in Brave New World

/
/
/
14 Views

Misogyny in Brave New World

I think the method Huxley represents and treats the female population shows the inequalities in gender and misogyny in the early 20th century society which the book was written in. I have actually read and analysed articles on this matter and have actually found them to all generally concur with my hypothesis. Something I have actually discovered fascinating is that I have actually discovered no short articles composed prior to the 1990’s on the gender concern in Brave New World. This might demonstrate how only recently it is emerging to us in our society of a gender bias.

Another essential thing to note is that not all the important essays I read were composed by women; David Leon Higdon composed an engaging post which shows that the misogyny and inequality in Brave New World is not something that takes a female feminist activist to mention. I have actually likewise checked out two other articles written by female authors, one being a confidential UK trainee, and the other June Deery. For the a lot of part, I completely concurred with the points they made about the gender bias in Huxley’s work. Lenina, a vaccination employee and enthusiast of John the Savage, is seemingly rejected a role of a rebel by Huxley in Brave New World.

For example, near the start of the book, Lenina’s behaviour is rather unorthodox. She uses green, rather of the grey or maroon uniform which she is expected to wear as an alpha or beta (which specific one, we are not told). Rather of complying with the society’s conventions of freely having casual sex with anyone, she specifically dates one specific man for weeks on end. David Leon Higdon makes a considerable point on this subject: “Rather than confronting, developing, and allowing her rebellion, Huxley’s text retaliates on her and virtually humiliates her back into the confines of the systems.

It callously breaches her characterisation in the early chapters.” After reading his short article, I realised how true this declaration was. Lenina was built up with the potential to have a strong rebellious role in the book; however come Chapter Four, she becomes just a narrative feeder to help explain essential truths about the paradise to the reader. One example of this is when Lenina asks Henry, “Why do the smoke stacks have those things like terraces around them?” to which Henry– obviously a male character– responds with the explanation.

Higdon writes, “I think he was so blinded by his misogyny that he produced a character at odds with his text who withstood fitting comfortably into the myth of the text”. This is a really strong and noteworthy opinion by Higdon, and one I definitely concur with. Lenina had a lot potential to be a lead rebellious character in the story. Nevertheless, oblivious to how unfairly he was treating this female charcter, Huxley had rejected her a role which he had actually conserved for just male characters– a role presumably he believed only a male character would be strong enough to manage.

It seems to be that women are not offered any positions of power at all within the text, rebellion or not. Primarily, all individuals of authority in the book are male. There is one woman, Miss Keate, who as a primary holds a level of power over students– but unusually in a society without any marriage Huxley has actually taken away her first name, part of her identity. As June Deery puts it, “Perhaps Huxley has actually forgotten this in his desire to recreate the stereotype of the spinsterish headmistress, the woman who accomplishes position just by surrendering her ‘real femininity’.” Again, another reflection of a stereotype, a gender predisposition of Huxley’s time.

She likewise notes, “When it is a concern of possessing understanding or having an education, when again it is the guys who appear to be in a remarkable position.” This is an important point; we never ever read of ladies studying, going to school, getting an education. Nevertheless we do check out of men finding out and looking into; in reality, the book opens to a group of young boys being given a trip and learning more about the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. This is such an essential principle for Huxley to overlook. How could he potentially have attempted to develop an utopia and ignored offering the females in his world an education?

I know that all kids (despite gender) in 1920’s USA were needed to go to school by law; I discover it hard to think Huxley had actually simply ‘forgotten’ to include women being informed as well as males in Brave New World. In Brave New World, Huxley had actually tried to develop a paradise, the ‘best world’. Yet his imaginary universe is significantly destabilised by the way he deals with the women in his work. “In some instances, Huxley both acknowledges the predisposition in the system and clearly condemns it, but in other instances it is a function of his own viewpoint and he ignores the inequalities his illustration presents. June Deery’s remark here is highly pertinent, and I can not concur more. For example, it is the men who ask women out on dates, and the guys who drive around females in helicopters. The subtle inequality continues as we read of males chewing sex hormonal agent chewing gum and talking about different females as sexual partners, however there is no record of females chewing this gum or speaking about men in the exact same way. This is odd, as Huxley had attempted to create a paradise centuries into the future, where females are presumed to be equivalent to men. Yet this is not so.

The double-standards in his composing are similar to the requirements set for women in the time the book was composed and these disparities threaten to weaken his work. An anonymous student presents an essential concern on this problem: “When composing a dystopia, how far gotten rid of should the subject matter be from one’s perceived truth?” This is a reasonable point, as there is just so much that could be imagined for a completely brand-new world. But why is it that Huxley anticipated a lot for a future world, however ignored (most likely unknowingly) the misogyny and inequality in it?

I can just presume the answer to this is because of the standards of the society of the book’s time. The idea that guys were of higher significance was so drilled into people’s minds that Huxley had written this book without understanding how biased he was. This can also explain why I have not found any vital essays from an earlier time period on gender inequality in Brave New World. Considering how the three short articles I have studied align well with my hypothesis, I can securely conclude that I have made a plausible declaration; that Brave New World reflects the gender bias of its time.

The critics are both male and female, revealing that irrespective of gender there is still a clear gender predisposition– it does not take a passionate feminist to mention the misogyny in Huxley’s work. However, I need to explain that the only articles I could discover were written around the same time period, all written in and after 1992. This may be because gender inequality has only becoming apparent to our society just recently; prior to there was still a lot misogyny in society that individuals were accustomed to it.

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar