While reading The Bell Jar I'm sure we've all had a few laughs(or cringes) at the questionable actions of Buddy Willard. For one, attempting to seduce a girl by taking off his clothes and politely asking her to do the same, and also bringing up his mom in said attempt at seduction. Oof. Then there's making his prom date walk 5 miles to get home in freezing weather. Somehow these things don't illicit much of a reaction from Esther. If I were in her place I would have just ghosted Buddy, TB or not. What surprises me is that the one action of Buddy which prompts a strong reaction from Esther is one that deviates from his usual sleazy/cringy actions, instead being somewhat honest. When Esther asks if Buddy has had an affair, he answers her honestly; he slept with a waitress over the summer. Esther then immediately labels Buddy as a hypocrite. He, who to her and everyone around her symbolized purity and innocence, had actually been doing some shady stuff and was too scared to admit it. While I don't defend the morality or correctness of Buddy's actions, I do think Esther's reaction is misdirected. One point which came up a lot in discussion is that Esther is projecting her anger towards a societal double standard onto Buddy; it is unfair that Esther is expected to keep herself a "pure" virgin for Buddy, while he is allowed to go around sleeping with other women. We definitely see that Esther is bothered by this double standard when her roommates dismiss her concerns with something along the lines of "that's just how guys are."
While it's clear Esther is held to unfair standards compared to Buddy, who has it way easier off, one very interesting thing to consider is whether Buddy is in the right here. For one, can we blame him for simply adhering to what for his time was a societal norm? If we hold him to the standards of 2019, 95 out of 100 people would say "Wow Buddy is such a sleazy dude he's cheating on this woman he's basically dating and going to marry." It's easy for us to look back and criticize him and label him as a bad person, but finding a way to put yourself in his shoes makes the verdict a bit less decisive. Consider the action of eating meat; most people do it and I think we can agree that as a society we consider it to be perfectly normal. People eat chicken, beef, pork, fish, etc. with the exception of some religious restrictions. But imagine what would happen a couple hundred years in the future, when people have found some miracle cure that stops us from being hungry and needing to eat. This futuristic civilization would probably look back on us with disgust, asking how we could even consider eating another living, breathing, animal. If you really think about it, slaughtering other animals, butchering them, and eating them is really disgusting, yet we still do it. Because eating meat is ingrained in our culture and we are desensitized to the slaughtering of animals, we are fine with eating meat. When I see a hamburger I just think "wow this is really good," instead of imaging the horrible image of a cow being killed to make it. Could we consider then, that maybe Buddy is in the same situation we are, blind to all the messed up things around us, accepting them as right just because society deems them to be normal? If we do then maybe Buddy is in the right. What are your thoughts?
btw I'm not a hardcore proponent of veganism I just think it's a good analogy.
While it's clear Esther is held to unfair standards compared to Buddy, who has it way easier off, one very interesting thing to consider is whether Buddy is in the right here. For one, can we blame him for simply adhering to what for his time was a societal norm? If we hold him to the standards of 2019, 95 out of 100 people would say "Wow Buddy is such a sleazy dude he's cheating on this woman he's basically dating and going to marry." It's easy for us to look back and criticize him and label him as a bad person, but finding a way to put yourself in his shoes makes the verdict a bit less decisive. Consider the action of eating meat; most people do it and I think we can agree that as a society we consider it to be perfectly normal. People eat chicken, beef, pork, fish, etc. with the exception of some religious restrictions. But imagine what would happen a couple hundred years in the future, when people have found some miracle cure that stops us from being hungry and needing to eat. This futuristic civilization would probably look back on us with disgust, asking how we could even consider eating another living, breathing, animal. If you really think about it, slaughtering other animals, butchering them, and eating them is really disgusting, yet we still do it. Because eating meat is ingrained in our culture and we are desensitized to the slaughtering of animals, we are fine with eating meat. When I see a hamburger I just think "wow this is really good," instead of imaging the horrible image of a cow being killed to make it. Could we consider then, that maybe Buddy is in the same situation we are, blind to all the messed up things around us, accepting them as right just because society deems them to be normal? If we do then maybe Buddy is in the right. What are your thoughts?
btw I'm not a hardcore proponent of veganism I just think it's a good analogy.
I have to say dude... I disagree. Buddy being "blind" to the injustice of society does not make him "in the right". You can't compare human emotion between a man and a woman to the slaughtering and digesting of animal meat; there are many reasons why but some include the fact that a cow doesn't have the same brain and emotions as a human being, a cow doesn't adhere to social norms, and a cow doesn't have agency and free will like a woman or man does. We discussed in class that Esther is angry at this double standard and she took out this anger on Buddy, because he becomes a physical symbol of misogyny and societal trust in the patriarchy since he played society's game of "guys can use girls but girls have to stay pure for guys". This doesn't necessarily mean that she hates him for being him, per say. She simply is frustrated at how men are put on this pedestal, as they're allowed to hoe around when she would be looked at as dirt if she did what Buddy did.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Buddy wasn't in the right when he did what he did, I do believe that her anger wasn't at him, but at society. While she did dislike him right then later on she still talked to him so maybe their relationship isn't as broken as we think. They could still be friends, but is unfair that Buddy is just able to do that to her while she can't do that to him.
ReplyDeleteThis is sort of nitpicky, but to your point about how you would have ghosted Buddy in Esther's position, I don't think that meshes very well with your overarching point about societal norms. If Esther were to ghost Buddy, that would look really bad on her part in the context of societal norms. As a woman, she would have been expected to wait for him and if she didn't, she could suffer backlash for defying norms. When we see Esther ghost Irwin at the end of the novel, she's in a totally different place in her life where she feels she can defy social expectations. When she's with Buddy, she's just not there yet. Idk if I'm explaining this well but I feel like you get the basic idea lol
ReplyDeleteI do think that while Buddy should not have slept with the waitress I do not think Esther's reaction should have been what it was. labeling Buddy as a hypocrite I think is wrong. He never lied to her and when she asked he told her the truth. Esther is more mad at the double standard that society makes her follow I think.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe that Esther calling Buddy a hypocrite for having sex with the waitress was a bit far, I don't agree with the fact that Buddy is "blinded" because he was doing what society tells him to do. What he's blinded by is the fact that there is a double standard in his society, men can mess around and hook up with whoever they want, while women should stay virgins because they're supposed to stay "clean" for a man in order to get married. What would be interesting is if the roles were reversed. Most probably Buddy would be disgusted with Esther and leave her right there and then because she as a women should not be having sex. But if Buddy didn't react that way, and didn't care that Esther had premarital sex, then I would judge him differently. But Esther knows that Buddy wouldn't act that way, which is why she's so angry at him.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it seems like Esther is focusing her anger at Buddy since he's really the representation of everything she hates. Buddy doesn't deserve as much criticism as Esther directs to him (not saying he's not an a**hole, he totally is). He's just the embodiment of this arrogant male attitude that she finds so infuriating.
ReplyDeleteveganism is interesting. I often wonder how much pain various animals feel and if that affects the morality. I read a cool piece about animal cruelty and morality of eating animals. It's called consider the lobster by david foster wallace, in case anyone is interested.
ReplyDeleteBuddy is certainly not in the right in this situation, and Esther is right to be kinda angry with him. With that said, I agree she probably directs a little too much anger at him, as he does not seem to be a deliberate "hypocrite" as Esther thinks, but rather just dumb.
ReplyDelete