Forums

Two themes struck me in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Snows of Kilimanjaro”: Hemingway’s representation of masculinity, and the main character’s propensity to blame others and circumstance for his failure in becoming a successful writer. I began wondering whether the attitude of blaming others’ for one’s failures is a universal human tendency, or whether it reflected an American attitude. My Google search brought up an article entitled “Personal Responsibility 101: Why Is It So Hard to Own Up to Our Mistakes?” on the blog “The Art of Manliness”. My shock at the existence and popularity of such a blog (which from its foundation in Oklahoma in 2008 has become the internet’s “largest independent men’s interest magazine” - AoM) caused me to abandon my original question, and called my attention to American attitudes towards manliness. In a society where the more gender-fluid, modern, “metro-sexual” male seems to be the fashionable norm, and where gender stereotypes are thought of as out-dated and destructive, the popularity of this blog, and the articles, books, and merchandise associated with it, raise the question: how much have American attitudes towards masculinity really changed in the last 80 years?

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2013/02/18/owning-up-to-mistakes/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/category/a-mans-life/
http://www.artofmanliness.com/category/manly-skills/

I was intrigued by this post since I myself am a regular reader of The Art of Manliness (which, interesting to note, is a collaboration between Brett and his wife Kate McCay).

The original post asked,
"In a society where the more gender-fluid, modern, “metro-sexual” male seems to be the fashionable norm, and where gender stereotypes are thought of as out-dated and destructive, the popularity of this blog, and the articles, books, and merchandise associated with it, raise the question: how much have American attitudes towards masculinity really changed in the last 80 years?"

I would begin by suggesting that American attitudes towards masculinity have been a topic of interest for American literary figured for much longer than 80 years. Furthermore, questions about the meaning, shape, and form which manliness takes have a long precedent in world literature. Yet I agree that it seems to be a topic which is of special interest for American authors. The enduring popularity of early American author James Fenimore Cooper (and his well-beloved Natty Bumpo) and the continued study of Washington Irving's short story Rip Van Winkle are just two examples which we have discussed in my current English course.

But to return to the original question, we hear a great deal in the media about gender stereotypes being "out-dated and destructive," yet I agree with the original poster that the existence of such a large online community suggests many people aren't convinced. I count myself among that number. At their worst, gender stereotypes involve pigeon-holing individuals and compelling them to act according to inflexible, rigid social patterns; at their best they reflect the lived reality of many men and women that there do seem to be differences between the sexes. Are they true 100% of the time? No. But to attempt to deny general differences seems to flout centuries of lived experience.

Helpful here may be a passage from the introduction to the blog authors Brett and Kate McCay's book Manvotionals: Timeless Wisdom and Advice on Living the 7 Manly Virtues:

"Both genders are capable of and should strive for virtuous, human excellence. When a woman lives the virtues, that is womanliness; when a man lives the virtues, that is manliness.

"Women and men strive for the same virtues, but often attain them and express them in different ways. The virtues will be lived and manifested differently in the lives of sisters, mothers, and wives than in brothers, husbands, and fathers. Two different musical instruments, playing the exact same notes, will produce two different sounds. The difference in the sounds is one of those ineffable things that is hard to describe with words, but easy to discern. Neither instrument is better than the other; in the hands of the diligent and dedicated, each instrument plays music that fills the spirit and adds beauty to the world."

I think the musical analogy is an eloquent one for discussing things like masculinity and femininity. In our contemporary culture the discussion of masculinity often raises eyebrows and can raise alarms as an assault on femininity or women's rights. I don't think the two are at odds; they are, as the analogy suggests, complementary.

An interesting topic, thank you MP!
Here in the Ukraine, with numerous guns to their head, the male-dominated Rada has now finally passed the LGBT workplace rights bill (the leader just kept forcing votes until he got a majority—very male!) But everybody, including even the President, immediately said ‘Don’t worry, no gay marriages, never in our country, with a 1,000 years of Christian tradition!’ So the guns go away from our head (for now), and maybe we will even be allowed into Europe without visas, but has anything changed? It’s really just 1,000 years of male domination they’re defending, the same attitude that has fueled our civil war, crippling corruption, social brutality, and domestic violence for years and years.
So for me, for all those like me, ‘manliness’ can’t end soon enough. The same musical argument those authors use to justify their stereotyping can apply to everybody, to every individual, no two people are alike, so the ‘virtues’ of one will never be shown in just the same way as another. And even if some broad fuzzy generalities may finally be true, what little good they may do is, in my view, totally outweighed by all the bad they certainly have done and continue to do, at least in the minds and lives of ‘fuzzy’ thinking people. Certainly in my country, and in the violent world I constantly read about and see in America, manly anything seems like a luxury we are still far from able to afford.

As a Japanese man, keenly aware of what Japanese men were responsible for last century, I sympathize greatly with your thoughts, Anna and Melissa and Shealyn. And you may well be right, Anna, in seeing any kind of ‘manliness’ as a kind of luxury that we cannot yet afford, in the East or the West.
But as a scientist, I am also keenly aware of how hard and even dangerous it can be to work with equations containing too many variables and too few constants. To continue your fine analogy, variables are rather like precious luxuries that we must work hard to afford, and must be temperate in enjoying. Further, as our capacity to—I want to say metabolize them, if that makes sense—as our capacity to metabolize these variables increases, we can work well with more of them, and the equation remains ‘robust’, we scientists say.
Also, complex equations (like social equations, which, thank God, I don’t have to work with) have a kind of life of their own; they grow and evolve, like lifeforms, ever more complex and subtle, as their variables increase, both in number and complexity. And when our capacity to metabolize this increase keeps up with the increase, the equation remains robust, that is, strong or ‘virtuous’.
Now let us think, for a moment, about two of the more important equations in human history, that once, and for a long time, were very robust: the family, and the community. These equations evolved for thousands of years, before the social ‘revolutions’ of the late 20th century suddenly introduced variables, like L, G, B and T, and drove these variables, with great rapidity and even violence (from the conservative perspective), into them, splintering the few constants upon which the robustness of the equations depended, and creating a kind of kaleidoscopic equation, full of variability, mutability and color, magnificent to behold, but for some quite impossible to work with.
The question one might ask then is, has our moral metabolism evolved fast enough to keep pace with those ‘variable’ revolutions? Or have they driven so much variability into those traditional—and I think most would agree critical—equations, that they are losing, or have (in many contexts, as in deprived circumstances, where strength of character and action are at a premium) simply lost their virtue?
When a man, for example, was expected, simply because he was a man—expected by his fellow men and by God—to provide for his family, fairly or not, whether he liked it or not, the buck, as the Americans say, stopped there. In this is much strength, even if there be none in the man.
Where does the buck stop now?

I'm really glad that we're discussing Hemingway and his prominence in modern American themes and values, as he is one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century, but this very idea also raises some concerns for me. We've all touched upon many ideas surrounding masculinity, and more specifically, Hemingway's portrayal of masculinity in his literary works, but I find that he approaches masculinity in a "code of conduct" like way. To be more clear, I find that his writing is directed specifically towards men by way of providing a basis of how men should really act/carry themselves. This is an alarming thought, considering that all modern day writers strive to achieve a "Hemingwayesque" style (theres even a definition of the word "Hemingwayesque" on dictionary.com....thats how serious it is). Some people will argue that a "Heminwayesque" style is one that is minimalistic in terms of language, but at the same time, really packs a punch in terms of thematics. I however, argue that that a "Hemingwayesque" style is one that emphasizes an idea of false-masculinity and escapism. I see this prominently with Harry's character in "The Snows of Kilimanjaro", as he is trying to escape the constraints of femininity and modernity. Hemingway emphasizes the notion that achieving authenticity (and therefore, being a true man) is not at all related to the idea of escapism (leaving the reality behind). I stumbled across an interesting article from Ball State University entitled "Escapism in America: The Search for Utopia in Gated Communities" which highlights America's desire for perfection among small, isolated populations. Our history dates back with the formation or agrarian societies, who worked tirelessly in hopes of achieving extraordinary annual crop in order to feed everyone. We then moved into the formation of religious cults that undoubtedly strived for perfection in exchange for eternal salvation. Fast forward to the 21st century and we have our military comprised of people who devote their lives in order to achieve ultimate safety for our nations. Despite these instances of small communities striving for perfection (and numerous others that I haven't touched upon), serious social, political and economic issues still exist in the Americas and all over the world. Populations of people are living in poverty unable to afford food, there have been serious instances of religious devotes using their religion to cause harm, and the most popular issue lies in refugees forced to survive in war torn areas against their will. This is the imperfection in America (and in many other nations) that nobody seems to address, ultimately reinforcing the idea of escapism in the form of gated communities. The last quote of the abstract in this article is one that resonates with me, and I find that it sums up what I am trying to get across quite perfectly; "If municipalities address the reasons driving people to live behind walls, the will no longer be needed"

https://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/handle/185500

I find it interesting that several American writers have brought American “masculinity” to the forefront in several of their works, not just Hemingway. One that comes to mind is Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Black Cat”. The male protagonist seems to share character traits that were seen as quintessentially female; docile and empathetic. He even likens himself in spirit to that of his wife, who has similar traits. He finds comfort in animals and in taking care of them, giving him a disposition of a gentle creature – a disposition he was mocked for as a child. As he grows older his disposition changes to that of a terrible abuser, and eventually, a murderer. It could be said that these female traits of his were not acceptable to him anymore and he could have been drawn into a depressive state wondering why he was so different. He quelled his natural impulses, and by doing so he opened the door to moral “perverseness” in order to fill some feeling of emptiness. By trying to fulfill a manlier image he created a monster. Therefore this conventional image of a “man” by American standards has been misconstrued. There is nothing wrong with a man being docile, empathetic, emotional, passive, gentle, etc. As long as one is adhering to their natural instincts then that is what a “man” should be, and by trying to change into someone constructed by society’s standards is an error that could lead to losing one’s natural identity.

I honestly enjoyed reading "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" by Ernest Hemingway so much. I'm in my early twenties and have my share of pain, loss, fear, doubt, and regret, as does everyone else. As cheesy and as hard as it may be to admit, the story was sort of therapeutic. It really made me reflect about my own life and my decisions and choices. I think everyone has been Harry at one point -- at the pits of despair, muddled with what could have been and was is reality. We all had dreams when we were younger and someone told us it was impossible, or they became harder to achieve, we got lazy, we succumbed to society's notion of pursuing the realistic and letting go of what is extraordinary. Whatever it is, whatever the dreams were, at some point we left them behind. Similarly for me, I feel like I have abandoned my dreams and accepted being average and seeking what is average. But when I was reading "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" I realized I didn't want to be Harry anymore. I will not allow my present or my future to be shaped and formed by limitations, by society. I will not blame others and I will not blame circumstances. I know that there have been hardships in my life and that they will persist in the future, but I choose to be Helen. I choose to be the voice of unwavering and unrelenting spirit, of motivation, of support, of strength.