Little Women Pretending

First, I will state that this prose was much more enjoyable to read in comparison to “Wide Wide World,” and I felt that the characters were more dynamic in general, the dialogue flowed a great deal smoother and the plot in general seemed more relevant and plausible. It was within the tucked pages at the beginning of the book that I began to think more about how gender identification was explored more thoroughly in this book as opposed to “Wide Wide World.” Although I usually don’t pay particularly close attention to gender and gender roles (yet in this class I have in some cases) I was struck with Jo and her gender identification. Within the first pages of the novel the narrator captures Jo observing her own heels, “in a gentlemanly manner” and later on, “I hate to think I’ve got to grow up, and be Miss March, and wear long gowns, and look as prim as a China aster! It’s bad enough to be a girl, anyway, when I like boys’ games and work and manners! I can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy; and it’s worse than ever now…” I was a bit surprised with how direct she felt and how much she rejected her gender to the point where even her mannerisms are not of that of a woman, but that of a boy. Again, while Ellen (Wide Wide World) felt frustrated being a girl in the 19th century social life, Jo pushes that concept a bit more by not being able to embrace or identify with becoming a woman. Another element that I felt was particularly interesting was the choice of being called “JO” instead Josephine which only emphasizes how she doesn’t relate to her maturity into womanhood. Again, Jo is the one female character –as opposed to her sisters- who detests dressing up, fussing over her looks, and behaving like a little woman, and at times one feels some tension between Jo’s inability to fully understand her sisters and vise versa. Although I have read the first part of the book I flipped to the back and read the “Afterwards” section written by Nina Auerbach. Immediately Aurbach addresses the gender roles and gender issues. One observation that was most compelling was when Nina said that the book as become a myth almost for the American household and as brought the issue of feminism and gender roles to light. Although I was raised in a French family and have read Little Women for the first time, I must admit that the book was well known and is indeed a book that is passed down from one generation to the next. What’s compelling even more is the comment, “More than a century has passed without breaking this chain of generations. Women’s situations has changed rapidly over the decades, but Marmee’s is one family we all have lived in.” (page 461) This book served as a documentation of women and men and their dynamics in their relationships with each other, and more importantly with their own identities and served as a revolutionary piece for women (some men I assume…) and their place in society and how they relate themselves and their mannerisms through gender. I’ll think about this though and more specifically, the quote above as I continue reading “Little Women,” and I’d like to expand this notion a bit further after reading the whole novel.

Education: Then and Now

“ ‘I forgot that all English people rather turn up their noses at governesses, and don’t treat them as we do,’ said Meg, looking after the retreating figure with an annoyed expression” (Alcott 131).

I found the above passage to be interesting in that the profession of “governess” was interpreted differently by American and English cultures. In the chapter, Miss Kate is surprised to learn that Meg, who is about her age, serves as a governess to the less fortunate. Miss Kate, as the explanatory notes add, was surprised to hear this not only because Meg less than proficient in the arts (drawing), but also because Meg therefore wasn’t a member of her social class. While the reader does not know specifically what Laurie told his English friends regarding his American neighbors, one can assume that Miss Kate thought the March’s were of the same social status as Laurie.

Regardless of Miss Kate’s shock over the March’s “poverty,” I was more drawn to her apparent condescension toward Meg’s competency as a governess. To Meg, governesses most likely were all alike in their desire to better the lives and educations of less fortunate children –perhaps the way we might characterize mentors today. Miss Kate, by contrast, was perhaps accustomed to governesses that were handpicked by her parents and were well versed in all basic subjects of study and knew how to train children to become cultural elitists. Most likely, Meg’s goal as a governess wasn’t to educate her pupils on forms of higher knowledge, but instead was to make sure that they had a good enough education to succeed or at least get by in society.

In a sense, such disparity over the term “governess” is permissible in that the United States and England were very different countries in the 1800’s. America, as a nation, was barely one hundred years old by 1861 and arguably was still trying to shed Great Britain’s patriarchal influence. I almost wonder if such social and cultural hierarchies are in the process of being rebuilt today, after the fact that the United States has arguably replaced Great Britain as the most powerful country in the world. While there are discrepancies on national basis, I suppose that I am interested more in how a modern day American family, reminiscent of the March’s, might experience shifts in cultural opinion. One example that quickly comes to mind is education, as families across ethnic, religious, and economic spectrums decide where is the best place to send their children to school. One of the deciding factors that I noticed when I was applying to high schools and colleges was each school’s prideful sense of its own history. Each admissions officer seemed to ask “Why go to a dingy public school/university where you will be a number, when you could be a part of a unique collective of young minds and yet treated as an individual?” Then followed by “Did you know that the school’s first classes, back in 1887, were interspersed with farm activities because all of the students came from agricultural backgrounds? That core value of man’s relationship with nature is what makes our school different from the rest.” While I believed a more personal, intellectually stylized form of teaching would benefit me the most, I disliked the sense of tradition and entitlement that private schools and liberal arts colleges gave themselves. Schools should, in my opinion, ultimately help cultivate intellectually curious and culturally sensitive minds; they have no place branding themselves according to the likely irrelevant mottos and ancient traditions of deceased founders and benefactors. Thus, in regard to the novel, while I acknowledge the merits and faults of both Meg and Miss Kate’s views on the “governess,” I would contend that the focus should be on the student and not the teacher.

sins, protectorates, and omissions

The first half of Little Women is really dedicated to an introduction to the characters and their individual struggles, as well as the collective struggles of the family. Beth is especially interesting here as the absolute model of innocent goodness. She is the ideal, the perfect pilgrim and the pious little housekeeping daughter. The girls must all undergo their separate struggles to overcome their various sins, vanity, wrath, selfishness, but Beth's sin is simply shyness. While the others have to overpower parts of their nature that make them less desirable young ladies, Beth's main sin is not sharing her goodness with enough people. The family as a unit must also overcome their fall from wealth, not poverty exactly, but awkward enough, and the absence of their father, who is off fighting in the Civil War. The oldest girls work, a governess and a companion, both non-objectionable positions for young girls, and the mother works as a volunteer for the Soldier's Aid Society, sewing and soup kitchening and such.
I have read this book twice before, but neither time did I notice how absolutely sheltered the girls are. Marmee forbids bad influences like Ned Moffat and doing bad things like frequenting billiard halls or drinking wine when you aren't sick or wearing fancy low cut dresses. They really are a testament to her influence in bringing them up and her power as a mother. I found Amy's pickled lime debacle to be particularly interesting. It seems that though what she did was agreed by all parties to be wrong, it was more important to protect her innocent childlike spirit from the intrusion of corporal punishment than it was for her to be educated. I'm not entirely sure if this speaks more to the importance of children's innocence or the lack of importance in women's education.
Another thing that I found at least notable is the near entire absence of slavery or slavery talk. No mention of abolitionists, no mentions of why on earth they are fighting this war. The girls are always knitting blue army socks and their mother is forever “cutting blue flannel jackets,” but only passing mentions are made of the rebels (two in the whole book) and none of their neighbors are called upon to discuss the war or share their political opinions. The book proselytizes about other causes, like helping the poor, not drinking, and being good Christians, but slavery, perhaps the biggest issue of the time, is totally ignored. Not mentioning this pivotal 19th century issue makes the book more readable for audiences today, but I am curious as to what the omission meant to contemporary audiences.

Gender in LITTLE WOMEN

Little Women was of the novels I was constantly reading as a young teenager. I believe the last time I read it I was about twelve. At that age, one isn’t really concerned with gender theory. Reading the novel at a much older age is quite a different experience. Alcott’s challenges against gender stereotyping are much more apparent, especially with Jo’s character. I always knew that Jo was a tomboyish character, but Alcott’s challenge against that time’s “ideal women” is more apparent and better understood during this reading. The line that particularly struck me was Jo declaring, “I’m the man of the family now papa is away…” (14). The fact that Jo used the word “man” instead of simply stating that she was now in charge surprised me. Jo was not just acting manly, but actually wanted to be considered a man. I do not mean that she wanted to physically be a man, but rather she wanted to prove her equality in fields considered to be only dominated by men. These include Jo’s longing to join her father at war and Jo’s dream of earning a living rather than simply marrying. What makes Jo even more interesting is how opposite she is from her sisters. Meg, Beth and Amy are fairly stereotypical representations of women in the 19th century. Even the faults they identify themselves with are stereotypical feminine in some ways. Vanity, selfishness, and envy for pretty material items are traits that I have begun to associate with women throughout literature. Jo’s fault, a temper, is not usually scene with women in this era. When I think of the ideal women in the 19th century or early, the terms of docile, fragile, and sweet come to mind. Jo does not particularly fit any of these qualities. Beth more appropriately fits this description. This lack of social grace in fact makes Jo very charming and more relatable. Jo is one of the characters that are written most favorably towards, thus promoting women challenging the roles assigned to them.
Jo is not the only character who defies conventional gendered stereotypes. Laurie has traits and dreams that do not follow the “normal” male pattern. His dream to pursue music was seen as a feminine pursuit in the 19th century, a reason his grandfather looks down upon it. Like Jo, Laurie also changes his name to something that more appropriately fits his personality. Theodore has a more masculine quality to it than Laurie. Laurie’s defiance of gender stereotypes is not as obvious as Jo’s, but is just as significant. If read with a gender studies lens, the book can be taken as a story against the dangers of gender stereotypes and an example of the good can come from defying them. I was just though that this book was merely just a good story, but reading it again I find something completely new. This is by far the most enjoyable thing we have read so far. The novel has an endearing charm to it that lasts read after read. I’m curious to see the new thing I will discover when finishing the novel.

Kids grow up too fast. I think Ellen needs to join them.

Wide, Wide World by Susan Warner has proved to be an onerous book to read through. The sentimentality of her plight and flowery language are becoming unbearable. I continually want to shake Ellen and slap some rational into her. But then I remember she’s only ten. And I then feel pretty bad.

Although Ellen annoys me, I do have to keep reminding myself how very young she is. Her parents left her for France when they could have probably very easily taken her with them. She was forced into a really terrible situation. I try to imagine myself as ten years old, being torn away from my parents, and I find myself feeling increasingly sympathetic to Ellen’s situation. And yet when I read forwards in Warner’s book, she continually annoys me.

This made me wonder as to why I expect Ellen to act so grown up, even though she’s only ten. I decided that ten year olds today have become a lot more mature than they used to be. I have become used to the fact that ten year olds take on more responsibility than they used to. Kids in today’s generation grow up so much faster than they ought to. Children need time to just be kids, yet they don’t seem to have that time anymore.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, “‘The 12- to 14-year-olds of yesterday are the 10- to 12-'s of today,’ says Bruce Friend, a vice president of the kids' cable channel Nickelodeon. The Nickelodeon-Yankelovicht Youth Monitor found that by the time they are 12, children describe themselves as ‘flirtatious, sexy, trendy, athletic, cool.’ Among the products targeted at this age group is the Sweet Georgia Brown line from AM Cosmetics. It includes body paints and scented body oils with names like Vanilla Vibe and Follow Me Boy. Soon, thanks to the Cincinnati design firm Libby Peszyk Kattiman, your little darling will be able to slip into some tween-sized bikini panties.”

Reading this article made me realize how hyper-fast kids grow up and how much they are exposed to. There is less and less oversight in our society that protects children from mature themes. Because I am used to the current generation of ten year olds, I automatically expect Ellen to (for lack of a better phrase) suck it up. This is a very unfair expectation.

However, the article further states, “What change in our social ecology has led to the emergence of tweens? In my conversations with educators and child psychologists who work primarily with middle-class kids nationwide, two major and fairly predictable themes emerged: absentee parents…”

Ellen was ripped away from her parents and forced to live with a rather unforgiving aunt. According to this study, she should have grown up exponentially faster instead of crying all the time. As when mentioned in class, I find Ellen’s character’s parallel, Jane Eyre, to be so much stronger. Placed in the same position, Jane rebelled and created her own path rather than be thrown about life while weeping.

To be clear, I do feel badly for Ellen. But at the same time, she was placed in a situation that should have made her mature faster, rather than revert to a child-like state. I only hope that she eventually stops crying at some point…

maybe it really IS feminist?

I just read an article for another class called “The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in 19^th Century America,” by Carroll Smith Rosenberg. It really helped me understand why The Wide, Wide, World is considered feminist by some people.

The article says that strict Victorian rules about sexuality created a basically gender-segregated society. While this was repressive because it restricted women’s sphere to the home, Church, and children, it could also be empowering. We talked about this a little in class, but the article helped illustrate it pretty vividly. Smith Rosenberg argues that women formed supportive, loving, inter-generational communities. These were made up of groups of old friends as well as extended family networks. They passed down knowledge to younger women and were there for each other during important life events like births and deaths. Girls and women became extremely close: girls formed close relationships with each other during childhood and adolescence, particularly at boarding school; they had foster mothers who’d grown up with their own mothers. Friendships with women were often intimate and intense. They lasted whole lifetimes, even when the women were separated geographically. They’d go visit each other for long stretches, sometimes months in rural communities. They’d sleep in the same bed and boot the husband out. Some of these friendships evolved into love affairs. We don’t know if they were consummated, but it doesn’t really matter—they were still in love, and they were very open about it. In their letters, they say things like “imagine yourself kissed a thousand times, my beloved.” One woman wrote to her best friend’s new husband saying that she’d loved this friend the way a husband loves a wife, and she knows the friend felt the same. The really interesting thing is, these women wouldn't have been thought of as lesbians, and husbands (from what we can tell) were not threatened by or jealous of romantic friendships. Before Freud, there wasn’t really the idea that being gay or a lesbian was an identity, a way of being that was different from being heterosexual. Choosing to have gay sex was an act that you committed, separate from your identity as a whole. Now we see being gay as a part of who you are, and you can be gay without having had gay sex. Back then, however, they didn’t think of it this way. Also, women were not seen as having sexual urges, just maternal ones. So a husband could potentially read, “imagine yourself kissed a thousand times, my beloved” in a letter from his wife to a female friend, and not feel romantically threatened. A lot of the aspects of female friendships in the 19^th century are the same today—women get very close to each other and form support and advice networks. But we probably wouldn’t classify a romantic relationship between two woman as anything but sexual, or potentially so.

I’m writing about all of this because the article demonstrated how empowering these close friendships were, and how rooted in domesticity. In this light, I can see how The Wide, Wide, World might be called feminist. Ellen’s close relationship with her mom, which totally excludes the father, is a source of happiness and comfort for both of them. Her friendship with Alice and the friendship that I think might be forming with Nancy are—or have the potential to be—very empowering to her. She’s learning to take care of herself, what values she wants to emulate, what kind of woman she wants to become. She gets emotional support from Alice at a very difficult time in her life. There are some important male characters, but the main characters seem to be predominantly female. It’s a book that excludes the male in a lot of ways, and creates its own, feminine space. This book definitely illustrates how intense and necessary friendships between women were in the 19^th century. The supportive community of women in it can be called feminist.

Self-Awareness in Wide Wide World

I must admit that I am starting to enjoy “Wide Wide World “ a bit more. Not for the action, and thrill, but more for the character development and dynamics between one another. As I continued reading Wide Wide World, I was more and more impressed with Ellen’s overall self-awareness and sensibility, especially for someone that young. Again, one can argue that one isn’t mature through age, but rather, through experience, but her development and analysis she has of other characters is regardless impressive. One chapter that really moved by was when Ellen was still sick her bed, and Nancy comes by to check up on her. It is clear that Ellen doesn’t fancy this girl, nor can she relate to her. Instead, Ellen would rather spend the afternoon with older, gentler people (i.e. Alice and Mr. Humphrey). Nancy without any much thought barges into Ellen’s door and imposes her presence on the poorly sick girl. Ellen tries to remain calm and not flustered with the annoying girl. It is however when Nancy begins to sneak around into Ellen’s chest full of neatly folded clothes, and Ellen becomes more anxious when Nancy discovers her drawing desk. Ellen, who is too sick to actually move up, gathers all her strength to stop Nancy from snooping around. When she opens the closet door to find that Nancy had gotten into the pens and different colored inks and the bible (all sacred objects for Ellen, since they were a parting gift from her darling mother) I found myself being a bit moved by how hurt and angry Ellen was by Nancy carelessness.
Again, Ellen is fairly remarkable for her age because of her keen sense of boundaries. Throughout several scenes, Ellen keeps her composure in several uncomfortable situations (mostly, with Ms. Fortune) and really respects other peoples’ boundaries. Ellen is very sensitive on whether or not she’s invading other people’s personal space. Yet, she also expects others to do the same. Nancy is fairly oblivious to personal boundaries and isn’t sensitive to the wishes of others. This seems to be the biggest issue that Ellen has with Nancy, and Ellen firmly shows her distaste with what Nancy has done. Sensitivity is perhaps the one thing that Ellen has charms the reader, above all else. She tries not to impose herself and respect the others around her, and has the maturity to expect the same for other, which rarely is the case.
As the chapters continue, I found myself being a bit frustrated with the lack of sincere emotions between Ms. Fortune and Ellen. Along with Ms. Fortune, I felt annoyed with house Alice was becoming when she manifested that she wished to be Ellen’s older sister. Mostly because of how preachy the speech was and emphasized once again on Ellen’s need to be open and believe in her God or else she would never find happiness. I felt that this speech was a bit too repetitive from the other words from the kind stranger she met at the party earlier on, or even the speech her mother gave her about opening herself up to God before she left her child to go to Europe. I find that I have more tolerance for Ellen than all of the other characters in Wide Wide World.