Masculinity in the novel ‘The things they Carried’
‘The things they Carried’ is arguably one of the extensive challengers of masculinity as traditional stereotypes. An analysis of the biographies of the soldiers indicates that most, if not every one of them, were unwillingly recruited. The soldiers as if challenged by unspoken law are expected to prove their man-hold by leaving behind their families, loved ones, or their children and are commanded to fight, kill or get killed, for reasons not so clear to them. What is worse, the soldiers walk through villages with mutilated bodies and swamps. In the hardships, the soldiers are instructed not to shed a tear when they kill someone or even at the death of their friends in the squad. An in-depth analysis of ‘The Things They Carried’ reveals that masculinity cannot be equated to a complete lack of emotions of the male gender.
While others may counter-argue that masculinity stands for showing strength even under the most challenging times, it should not be interpreted to mean that showing emotions of fear or sympathy is less masculine. On the contrary, Tim O’Brien, in the story, describes the war as an account of how the monster of war that encompassed his men requested a dauntless front. On the off chance that they uncovered the shortcoming in themselves, they presented it to one another, and such presentation served to remind them that they were not as strong as they ought to be. The soldiers were therefore forced to turn to different strategies for adapting, some of which leads to permanent changes in their perception of what is good or bad. The rough conduct and language of the officers show that the constrained manliness forced on them as warriors and men escalate their trauma.
The rough language of the fighters horrifies Tim O’Brien from the start. In essence, the unconcerned treatment of a dead child, the soldiers, find in a ditch and their utterances when one of their companions died. The soldiers would not bring themselves to use the word killed or dead but would poetically say that their colleague had been zapped while zipping or had been greased. Tim O’Brien sees in the end and before long starts to embrace the attitude of the “hard vocabulary to contain the terrible softness (19). This undesirable method for managing catastrophe is brought to a vigorous test in the chapter “The Man I Killed”, when the reader’s attention is captured by Tim O’Brien who is left gazing at the shocking body of the young fighter he had executed. O’Brien presents this dead character to the reader by gruffly describing an unforgiving representation of the unavoidable, physical subtleties of the body. He finds, out of nowhere, that he cannot reduce the impact of this death or ignore it as it is common neither can he force himself to make any impromptu euphemism nor can he make any form of joke word that would diminish the truth of what he did. “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone,” As Tim O’Brien continues to describe, “his one eye was closed, his other was a star-formed gap” (118). The reader, through the parallel expressions, focuses on the horrifying rawness of the dead individual, similarly as Tim O’Brien seemed to be. In addition to the fact that the reader understands his manner of thinking, it is clear that this obsession helps him to remember sharply of the humanity of this foe, which he and his warriors had recently been so effectively objectifying and shaking off. He is consequently unaware of how to manage his feelings or his contemplations and is left distinctly to fixation, his thoughts going around and around. Typically, the counsel he is offered is to “stop staring” (122).
The warriors rapidly understand that in the event that they can’t control themselves and their feelings or destiny, they should somewhat control others. They develop this realization when they come against extreme emotions. At the point when Curt Lemon is killed, Rat Kiley fiercely kills a young buffalo. Kiley takes his gun and fires up the creature as a method for managing his substantial misery. Every one of them remained there watching, feeling all of the sorts of things; however, there was certifiably not a lot of pity for the young buffalo (75). The scene indicates the kind of response that individuals, particularly men, have been appeared to go to when they cannot communicate their “gentler” feelings stably. They turn to violence and control instead, similarly as the entire unit torched a village following the shooting of Ted Lavender. This is not an indicator of natural male characteristics but is instead an indicator of the constrained and harming stereotypes of masculinity or manliness that most men feel as if they are undoubtedly obliged to follow.
Throughout the novel, men are not expected to express feelings of sympathy or concern for the humanity of their enemy. Masculinity in the story is arguably challenged and exposed for what it is. The author extensively portrays the male gender as an emotional lot subjected to unfairly irrational standards only met with diminishing their humanity. Although it would be rational for anyone to argue that the standards expected to come with masculinity are justifiable, it is incontestable that every individual male or female is entitled to emotional support. It would be therefore unfair to expect men to suppress their sincere emotions or result in alternative methods of coping with their feelings in fear of being branded more feminine or lesser masculine. ‘The things they carried’ is, therefore, a call to the reevaluation of gender-based inequalities and the very way in which a male child is raised.
