Gender Issue in 1984

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”― George Orwell, 1984

The phrase symbolized not only the state of the system within the totalitarian context of Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, but also reflected the core ideological stances of the ruling class within the social context of the time. While the book generated serious discussion about politics, promoting gender differences and male rights seriously undermined the book’s political significance. In the gender perception of the time when 1984 was written, and especially in the minds of people as hostile to feminism as Orwell, all of the behavior in the book that was deeply disrespectful to women was normal. The trend toward pursuing gender equality in the modern era, however, has made me sensitive to every disrespect toward women. When I was young, my mother taught me that girls should learn tolerance in relationships, which I now find completely illogical. When I read 1984 by George Owell for the purpose of learning how to oppose totalitarians, I constantly encountered gender inequality and discrimination. Although 1984 exists to promote equality, the book’s deep-rooted androcentrism is a constant reminder that women are men’s appendage, the mirror through which men determine their own worth.

In terms of the development of the relationship between Winston and Julia, Orwell habitually defines women’s social roles as inferior and dependent. For Orwell, the value of women was limited to sexual instinct. Due to the subservient and submissive nature of women’s social roles, becoming a woman’s ruler, lover, or husband becomes a way to establish a man’s social identity. The development of the novel revolves around Winston and Julia’s relationship. Although it appears that their relationship is equal, gender inequality and discrimination against women are hidden in every aspect of Winston’s behavior, psychology and words in the novel. During Winston and Julia’s first encounter, Winston imagines that Julia is the thought police, so he projects his hatred for the “party” onto her：

‘I hated the sight of you,’ he said. ‘I wanted to rape you and then murder you afterwards. Two weeks ago I thought seriously of smashing your head in with a cobblestone. If you really want to know, I imagined that you had something to do with the Thought Police.’

Julia falls in love with Winston despite Winston’s selfishness and violence after hearing the offensive language. It appears that Julia’s silence contributes to rape culture that violates women’s rights. And 1984, with its household name and political value, rationalizes and spreads rape culture, making it even more problematic and triggering. Instead of using a normal loving relationship between a man and a woman, Orwell chose to use the sexual relationship between Winston and Julia to against the party. Due to traditional patriarchal ideology, Orwell regarded the value of women as limited to their sexual instincts, so suppressing the sexual rights of men was the most intolerable form of political pressure. Winston’s sexual desire thus serves as a symbol of his rebellion against the Party in the novel. The relationship appears to have been initiated by Julia, with her approach and invitation for sexual activity, but in reality, it is Winston who is responsible for giving the relationship its value. According to Orwell, sex served the male dignity, which implied a relationship in which men and women are unequally positioned. Orwell thus attributed to Winston’s relationship with Julia the revolutionary significance of destroying the party while, at the same time, reclaiming the rights of men that have been deprived by it.

Through careful analysis and observation of female characters, including Mrs Parsons, Julia and all other female party members, we find out that Owell treated women in a negative and discriminated way. Owell lived in his own masculine and patriarchal fantasy and identifies females as inferior “others”. As Ivett Császár commented on Owell’s 1984, “He spoke to a male audience and his world was not one in which women could be ascribed a stance equal to that of man” (40) .The world that 1984 depicts is a completely male-centered society where male takes main responsibility and female is the subordinate position of male, like the stereotypically helpless housewife Mrs Parsons. Even as one of Orwell’s most personable and charming female characters, Julia’s beauty and charm were purely physical. Orwell intentionally contrasted Winston’s active thinking with Julia’s ignorance. Despite the fact that both Winston and Julia are rebels, they have different rebel objectives in essence: Winston is concerned about politics, wars, the nation’s future, and a variety of big-picture issues; Julia is concerned about her ability to have as much pleasure as she can. The vanity and ignorance characteristic of Julia always makes me anxious as she is going to another female stereotype herself. All the effort and rebellion she does will have no result since she can not gain complete free will under the male-dominant society. Owell’s constant and deliberate oppression and exclusion of the female characters in 1984 reinforces the rationality of male dominance and limits the potential and power of women. By today’s value, it goes against the modern notion of a female that values self-achievement and independence over the stereotypical female ideal of self-sacrifice.

By observing Owell’s portrayal of male characters in 1984, whether Orlando (the villain) or Winston (the main character), androcentrism is deeply ingrained in their values. Despite the fact of Orwell’s unawareness of the androcentrism when objecting the male behavior, constant discrimination towards female in 1984 frequently also creates confusion on Owell’s attitude towards gender issues. Daphne Patai responds to my confusion by providing evidence on Owell’s other works and concludes that, “Owell makes the connection between masculinity and domination as elements in a socially constructed gender identity”(251). For example, O’Brien, another male character who appears frequently in 1984, is also a prominent character in the series. As opposed to Winston, who is small and cowardly, O’Brien is a symbol of strength, confidence, and power. As a further explanation, the characteristic that O’Brien owns represents Winston’s blind pursuit of traditionally established male qualities such as intelligence and power, as well as his endorsement of androcentrism. As Winston does not change his mind when he discovers that O’brien is not a Brotherhood member, it is unlikely that he has any chance to win the rebellion. Throughout the game, his choices reveal his desire for recognition and affirmation from O’Brien. Despite Winston’s various chances to distrust O’Brien, he respects and even loves him, which indicates that they are operating under similar values, which is the pursuit of power and androcentrism. All other differences are transcended by this form of communication and connection arising from the same gender. Not only in 1984, but in all of Orwell’s writing, he never seems to be aware of the strong male narrative voice and indictment of male behavior.

At that time, many people placed greater importance on issues relating to class, race, and fascism than on issues related to women’s rights and status. All of these were important and urgent issues under resolution, which was intended as a warning about tendencies within liberal democracies. Basically, the book addresses an issue that many people in the 1930s, during the Great Depression and the rise of Stalinism and fascism, had contemplated. Nevertheless, it cannot be the reason for gender discrimination, and the gender issue is no less important than the other issues. Neither this paper denies Orwell’s status as an outstanding author of the 20th century nor does it intend to dismiss the political thought, literary and artistic value of his works, but rather to reveal the other side of Orwell’s writings. Whatever Orwell’s political views were, his attitude towards women was definitely hostile, negative, and harmful. As long as the value system of gender antagonism and male supremacy remains the same, the worship of so-called masculine qualities like dominance, violence and power will not cease. In order for equality to be truly achieved, sexual equality must be ensured. Orwell himself and Winston, his protagonist, were unable to resolve the conflict between equal rights and gender equality, and they viewed the two concepts as mutually exclusive. Winston’s failures reveal many unresolved contradictions and problems which prevent the accomplishment of true equality.

Overall, Orwell’s deep-rooted male-centric theory in 1984 was unable to achieve social progress, world peace, and equality, and his own stated intention in the novel was also contradictory. Given the power and influence of 1984, it is possible that such deeply ingrained notions of gender inequality may have trickled down to the masses, and it is apparent that many readers in society are now aware of this and have started to take it seriously. So why are we still reading the book? Why does the school nowadays still teach this “biased reference”? Because we still worry about Owell’s nightmare prediction coming true one day, and we read the book in hopes of finding a solution. Perhaps it’s time to look forward and let go of the fear that 1984 brings. Perhaps focusing on gender issues and promoting equality in every aspect of life will help make our world better and solve the problem Owell raised in 1984.

Annotated Bibliography

Császár, Ivett. “Orwell and Women’s Issues – a Shadow over the Champion of Decency .” Eger Journal of English Studies X (2010) 39–56.

Orwell’s attitude to women and feminism is intertwined with his emphatic virility. His homophobia and repressed homoeroticism are two sides of the same coin. Orwell set an outstanding example of masculinity through his strong will, courage, heroism, commitment, self-sacrifice and self-restraint. He projected a virile image of himself in service of the common good. Orwell was obsessed with manliness and toughness, and went out of his way to prove to himself that he had the guts. He disclosed brutal truths regardless of the side on which he stood, and the intelligentsia didn’t really understand that “to survive you often have to fight”.

In this article, I found out the relationship between Orwell and women’s issues due to his own life experiences. Orwell’s idealisation of the self-sacrificing maternal woman affirms his adherence to a society based on sexual polarisation.

Norris, Christopher, editor. Inside the Myth: Orwell, Views from the Left. Lawrence and Wishart, 1984.

There is an extensive discussion concerning Orwell’s leftist ideas in his work in this book presented by a series of insightful and critical thinking researchers. By demythologizing Orwell, all of them gain a better understanding of what makes that so readily corruptible ideology of ‘common sense’ so compelling. A number of articles, including those by Easthope, Evans, and Norris, specifically focus on theories of language as a means of linking Orwell’s style and narrative stance to that of the covert ideology to which he subscribed. Other articles are less intrigued by the issues of language, ideology, and representation as they are more concerned with the ways in which Orwell either falsified the documentary record or allowed mere prejudices to pass as objective facts in the case of many of his articles.

The way in which Orwell treats women further fuels the need for us to examine the forms of ingrained prejudice that skewed his perspective in both his novels as well as documentaries. I have carefully reviewed the following two articles, Hindrances and Help-Meets: Women in the Writings of George Orwell by Deirdre Beddoe, and Fact and Fantasy in Nineteen Eighty-Four by Antony Easthope, because my purpose in reviewing these articles is to uncover the anti-feminine issue hidden behind Orwell’s work, 1984.

Patai, Daphne. The Orwell Mystique: A Study in Male Ideology. University of Massachusetts Press, 1984.

By taking the reader through his nine books, and often making excursions into his journalism, essays, letters, and notebooks, Patai’s attempt is to make the argument that Orwell’s much praised ‘honesty’ and ‘decency’ were seriously compromised by his apparent ‘androcentricity.’ According to Patai, the term ‘androcentricism’ refers to a set of attitudes, a group of beliefs that share a belief in gender polarity as well as a belief in the superiority of males and the central position of males within society. Throughout his prose, Patai consistently displays how Orwell slanders women with a hostile tone. Hostilities and fears permeate every page of Orwell’s fiction and non-fiction, whether it is written in public or in private.

Due to the fact that I will only be focusing on the book 1984 and the unappropraite gender identity it contains, I only read the part Patai talked about 1984. According to Orwell, his explaination on Julia’s silence in Goldstein’s book could very well be the title of a feminist retelling of 1984. It emphasizes the masculinity of the voices that dominate political discourse, and asks women to supply what is missing. This resource discusses many other aspects of Orwell’s anti-feminine ideology, such as the romance between Julia and Winston and the intention to reduce the weight of women characters. Each of these pieces of evidence plays a vital role in demonstrating the need for improving gender identity In Orwell’s 1984.

Stopler, Gila. “‘A rank usurpation of power’ – the role of patriarchal religion and culture in the subordination of women.” Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, vol. 15, no. 2, Aug. 2008, pp. 365+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A191213724/AONE?u=anon~8073064b&sid=googleScholar&xid=6a18985b. Accessed 10 Nov. 2022.

Contemporary feminist theory and practice assumes that gender is a form of power, and that every known culture considers women inferior to men. This is true in conservative Christianity and orthodox Judaism, where women are devalued, considered impure, and barred from positions of power. This article discusses how the power of religion and culture perpetuates the hegemony of patriarchy and seriously undermines women’s ability to achieve equality. Furthermore, liberalism’s skewed understanding of the desired scope and content of toleration, religious liberty, and cultural and associational rights stems from its lack of an adequate theory of power.

Even though the new women represented by Julia have noticed and changed their passive situation, they are unable to resist at the root due to the powerful pressure and the habit they have developed for a long time. Such women are essentially “others” who are powerless to change the status quo dominated by men. Although Orwell constructed a utopian world in 1984, the female roles in the book were obviously despised due to his own prejudice against women as the author. Through this article, I hope to discover how religion and culture influence Orwell and influence the development of feminism.