In class, we discussed the divisive altercation between Himmelstoss and some of the soldiers, and I had a thought I wasn’t able to share. Beyond the soldiers’ loss of humanity through training and other hardships, I saw their actions as a translation of masculinity. Within the context of the war, these young men are persuaded to enlist for many reasons, but the predominant one is the idea of “being a man” and the push for “masculine men.” I imagined that Himmelstoss’ treatment of the soldiers left many of them feeling emasculated, and their retaliation became almost a reclamation of the masculinity they had been promised for enlisting. This is, of course, just a half-formed thought, but I found it interesting to connect back to our discourse on masculinity.
5 thoughts on “Class Discussion Thoughts (9/2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I did not even think of this, but I completely agree! I think this overall idea of masculinity persuades actions of the characters, even if they do not realize it. To be a solider in war means you are a man that stepped up, so Himmelstoss not treating them as such can seem like a type of demasculation.
I did not consider this! I think that masculinity was something that Himmelstoss took away from Paul and the others. He made them too tasks that were historically feminine too, cleaning (with toothbrushes), and folding beds (multiple times until perfection).
I think that their retaliation was a beacon of their masculinity, in their though of it. Maybe to show that they were men, because they didn’t go to war to silly tasks, they did so to fight. At the same time, Paul did say that Himmelstoss did help them prepare for life in the trenches, I find that to be a good counter to what masculinity means there.
This is an interesting proposition! The way I saw the attack on Himmelstoss was that of pure revenge for the abuse they suffered at his hands, and not much to do with masculinity or femininity. I think it raises a moral question of whether or not it’s right to “get back at someone” for what they’ve done to you, and “how far is too far?”
Paul expresses that he wouldn’t be able to survive the terrors of war without the toughening he went through via Himmelstoss’s abuse. He even seems to think that the mistreatment made them more like men than boys, and therefore more masculine.
I agree with this statement. Masculinity and femininity seem to be less of a concern compared to adulthood and childhood. He appears to treat boys becoming men as a given, and I understood “man” or ‘manhood” as synonyms for adult or adulthood rather than masculinity. “He” and “man” were traditionally used as general words for “human”, and I understood the book in that context. Paul doesn’t seem to care about masculine traits in the abstract, only in their possible practical uses in keeping himself and those he cares about alive.
I hadn’t thought much about the concept of masculinity tied with this, but it makes so much sense, thank you for pointing this out. Right before the altercation occurred, Paul explained how Kropp imagined becoming Himmelstoss’s superior in the post service during peacetime/when the war ends. They had such a difficulty previously imagining what they could even do outside the war, now that it has become such a central part of their lives, but because of the impact Himmelstoss had on them, this is one of the things that they were still able to imagine concretely. Thank you again for pointing out the tie of masculinity again, I’ll definitely remember that and try to make more connections with that idea through our further reading!