In Baldwin’s “The Man Child”, Jamie presents himself as a very complex and, particularly following the ending, confusing character. He’s a bit of a brooding, mysterious type, but we learn a lot from his interaction with Eric and his fight with Eric’s father. There are many reasons and years of trouble behind Jamie murdering Eric, but I believe that the one main issue tying this whole mess together is gender roles and patriarchy.
The event that started everything leading up to Eric’s death is Jamie’s wife. Jamie tries to shrug his wife leaving him off and act like he doesn’t care, but following her leaving, he very much deteriorates. He stops caring for his land, which has to be sold off, and winds up relying on Eric’s family for caretaking, becoming dependent on them as if he was their child (hence the title). There’s no way he wasn’t affected by being abandoned. In defending the idea that Jamie never actually cared for his wife, he references many of the stereotypical “wife” things that she failed to do. Naturally much of this is probably Jamie’s anger and hurt lashing out, but the examples he used for why he doesn’t care about her imply to me that he’s probably not the most feminist guy out there. The family says his wife felt trapped, and a lot of that entrapment could’ve come from feeling like she was being forced into a mold that if she didn’t fit, she’d be criticized. Perhaps in running away, Jamie’s wife was just searching for a freedom that can only be found outside the bounds of gender roles and expectations.
Gender roles become especially apparent in Eric’s father’s relentless nagging on Jamie about not having a wife or a family, as well as his expectations for Eric to fulfill the familial male role that Jamie lacks. Both Jamie and Eric’s father are, in different ways, manifestations of society’s idealized role for men. They’re both drunkards who pursued a laborious and hands-on career. Jamie is the epitome of the show no emotion, hard, stubborn personality that men are taught to embody from the moment they leave the womb. But Eric’s father shows a different side of society’s expectations. He’s the breadwinner to his family, with a thriving career and a young son that he’s raising to fill his shoes. Even though Jamie has a very masculine personality, he doesn’t meet the tangible requirements of being a true man. Eric’s father is just trying to get Jamie to fill the rest of his role as a man, and Jamie just can’t take the endless nagging.
The final means through which gender roles drive Jamie to murder is perhaps the most important: his independence. One of the biggest parts of independence is having the responsibility to cultivate a reliable income. After Jamie’s wife left, he lost all means of being able to do this. He has no property, no income, and has to be taken care of by his best friend. There’s nothing “manly” about this situation, and I’m sure Jamie feels weak knowing he has nothing concrete to be proud of. Then when he sees this eight-year-old kid who has everything laid out for him, who’s going to inherit everything that Jamie’s lack of makes him less of a man, he snaps. Eric’s father relentlessly parading the contrast between Eric’s future and Jamie certainly drove him to it.
It’s incredibly messed up to kill a kid, let alone your best friend’s kid, but society is also at fault for being a driving force. Masculinity is toxic and even deadly in this case, and it makes me wonder how this story would have ended in a world less focused on gender roles. What do you guys think?
Nice post; I think you dissect gender/patriarchy's role in this story very well. I would have liked to hear more about the whole "wife run off" situation, because I think it could explain how much of Eric's murder could be attributed sheerly to Jamie's resentment and how much we have to attribute to Jamie's personal psychological state. Either way, I think the relationship between Eric's father and Eric's mother could explicate the issues between Jamie and his ex-wife.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Jamie's actions at the end of the story are largely due to the patriarchal influences in this story. Eric's parents' relationship seems to be the quintessential model for what gender roles should look like in homes at the time. Eric completed the picture and was slated to continue these customs. As you said, Jamie does not fit into the mold of a typical "manly man" and therefore does not fit into society. It makes sense that this would frustrate him and cause him to want to take it out on a child of whom he may be jealous because fitting into the mold comes so easily to Eric.
ReplyDeleteI really like this post and the observations you make on the gender dynamics behind this story. I agree that Jamie's downward spiral probably began with his wife leaving, and in the end he felt that he just didn't measure up to society's ideal of a "man." One thing I think is especially important when reading this story this way is the role Eric's father plays. Instead of comforting Jamie and being understanding of his situation, he constantly makes Jamie feel like he's leeching off Eric's family, and he roasts him for not being as well off as he, Eric's father, is. Eric's father perpetuates these masculine expectations that society has, and I think that, along with Jamie's wife leaving, this is one of the biggest contributing factors to Jamie's ultimate murder of Eric.
ReplyDeleteI thought this post was really interesting. In addition to the gender dynamics you mentioned above, I also feel like Eric's father's treatment towards Jamie also contributed in sending him over the edge. While some people saw Eric's jokes as 'playful', I thought they were pretty harsh/malicious (especially towards the end) and seemed like thinly veiled attempts to boost his own confidence and ego. At that point in time, they didn't really seem like friends to me. Eric's father seemed to use his power over Jamie to his own advantage, constantly reminding Jamie of his failures.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gender roles played a large part in Jamie's actions. He is constantly reminded of what his life should look like, especially since he spends so much time with Eric's family. Eric's father has a wife, a son, and owns plenty of land, while Jamie has none of those things, making him feel like a failure. It doesn't help that Eric's father constantly asks him about these topics either. In the end, I think Jamie had had enough, which is why he decided to kill Eric.
ReplyDeleteI like this post, and I especially like how you look into Jamie's marriage as him pushing his wife away. His behavior and reactions surrounding that relationship are a good example of, maybe, Jamie trying to make his situation still fit in the gendered guidelines ascribed to him. In his expectations of his wife and his blaming her and complaining about her non-conformity, we see him perhaps trying to justify his situation as "it's not my fault and it's for the best" but he struggles to find the happy manly place between owning up to his mistakes and deflecting responsibility.
ReplyDeleteWow, you did an amazing job with this post! The moment I read the title, I shouted "Yes!" in my head haha. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the root of Jamie's issues comes from toxic masculinity. Throughout the dinner, Eric's father nags Jamie on and on for his failures as a man. These failures include Jamie's wife leaving him, not having a child, and having no land. Eric's father believes he is more of a man than Jamie, because he has a son, a wife, property, and a baby on the way. These men view women as property and a vessel for offspring rather than equals. The story revolves around a toxic patriarchal mindset that ultimately drives Jamie to ruthlessly murder Eric.
ReplyDeleteGreat Points! You really made me look at "The Man Child" in a new light. Before reading your blog I thought the story didn't make sense and Jamie was just a deranged friend who snapped. I never considered that gender roles and his wide leaving would effect Jamie in such a long term. After his wife leaves and he loses his land he becomes nothing in his mind. It really kinda explained why he killed a child.
ReplyDelete