I enjoyed this novel, but at certain points, my feminist self was cringing
inside. Thus, chapter thirty-eight, “On the Shelf”, drew my attention. John was
bothered that Meg was giving so much of her time to their children, because it
made him feel neglected. After a while, he got tired of the constant fuss at
his house, so he went to Scott’s to “find comfort elsewhere” (389). There, he
spent time talking with Scott’s wife, who was described as being pleasant and
pretty. Now, I find this so interesting because my mind immediately reversed
the situation. If for any reason, Meg got tired of her home life and decided to
go spend time around another woman’s husband, she would most likely be called
“unladylike” and negligent towards her children. However, it was okay for John
to leave the house and not help relieve Meg of her motherly and household
duties. He kept silent about this situation, and did not try to talk to Meg
about it. He chose to find refuge in his friend’s house instead. I understand the
setting of the book is way different than how society is today (it was
published in the 1860s), but I still find this situation unfair.
Also, when Meg confided in her mother about this issue, it was surprising to me
that her mother took more of John’s side. She said to Meg, “Make it [Meg’s
home] so pleasant he won’t want to go away. My dear, he’s longing for his
little home; but it isn’t a home without you, and you are always in the
nursery” (391). Instead of someone telling John to step up and take
responsibility for solving this conflict, the burden was once again put on
Meg’s shoulders. She had to take care of the house, cook, care for the
children, and please John. They could’ve both worked together to create the
“little home” that they both wanted, but John wanted to sit back, not
communicate about his feelings, and let Meg do all of the problem-solving. His
response was to hide away and talk with his friend's "agreeable wife"
(389). Most people can agree in today’s society that marriage should be based
upon reciprocity. However, in this situation, John didn’t seem too willing to
take the first steps towards a resolution. There is also something quite ironic
that I realized. As a man, John is supposed to be the main decision-maker and
head of the household, according to the gender roles in the novel. However,
according to Meg’s mom, it’s up to her to make the home a pleasant place for
John. So, in a way, Meg had to step up and take the power into her own hands,
in order to make the home a better place for her family. If John really was in
charge of his home, wouldn’t it be up to him to do this?
Lastly, I observed a detail that appeared several times throughout the novel.
When a man was patient, he was not described as being just this. An extra touch
was added, and he was labeled as being “womanly patient” instead. John was
called this when he finally got his misbehaving son to fall asleep (397). This
shows that women during this time period were expected to be patient, because
of their roles as caretakers, mothers, etc. However, when men exhibited the
virtue of patience, it was more unusual and not necessarily expected of them,
hence why they had to be distinguished as being “womanly patient”. Little
Women has inspired many women ever since it was published. Without a doubt,
it shows that women are strong and have the ability to overcome life’s
adversities. However, it is interesting to compare women’s rights then to
today’s feminist movements and perspectives.
While reading Little Women, I experienced the same conflict as you describe in this post, but I am not surprised that this book actively made me question some of the descriptions/actions as it was published in the 1860s. The descriptions of a “good” women begin early on as Joe says “I'll try and be what he loves to call me, 'a little woman,' and not be rough and wild, but do my duty here instead of wanting to be somewhere else” (Alcott, 18). This first mention of the title and the image of the ideal little woman already sets the book up to discuss gender roles. Although some characters, like Jo, do many things to combat the expectations of her as a woman, there are still instances throughout the novel that display the male-driven society that did and still does exist.
ReplyDeleteI also struggled with the conflict between modern feminism and the traditional roles and values placed on women in the 1800s. Similar to how you noticed that men are described as being “womanly patient” in Little Women as opposed to just patient, I noticed something similar. After Jo rejected Laurie’s marriage proposal, Mr. Laurence comforts Laurie. He is described as laying a hand on Laurie’s shoulder “as gently as a woman” (210). This implies that gentleness is not a quality usually ascribed to men. Instead, at the time this book was written (and still, to an extent, now) men are meant to be disciplinarians and workers. Men are not meant to be gentle. I think this distinction between patience and gentleness being qualities for women is indicative of the times and further serves to ingrain on the readers (who were probably women) that women should be kind and gentle.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that feminism is definitely limited in Little Women, I have to disagree with your perception of Meg and John's conflict. John is most definitely far from blameless in their conflict, but I would argue that Meg is as well. Alcott makes a point of describing how Meg deliberately alienated John from their home and his children, offering him no way to help: "...home was merely a nursery, and the perpetual 'hushing' made him feel like a brutal intruder whenever he entered the sacred precincts of Babydom" (389). Alcott's entire description of the home thus far has always carried connotations of a nurturing and welcoming environment where all were treated equally, rather than prioritized over another, which Marmee points out. The sarcasm of "Babydom" in the narration further conveys the feeling of isolation that John experiences in their home. Meg also refrains from discussing any of her problems with John: "She would not ask him to stay at home, but felt injured because he did not know that she wanted him without being told" (390). Alcott specifically emphasizes the importance of communication in resolving a conflict, rather than pushing one's feelings and problems down and ignoring children in favor of prioritizing one's husband. Marmee even reinforces this point in her advice: "[You have] forgotten your duty to your husband in your love for your children... children should draw you nearer than ever, not separate you" (391). I can't ignore that there is an element to Marmee's advice that implies that men's feelings should be constantly consoled--especially with the mention of "duty" to her husband--but I also can't ignore how much of the focus of Marmee's advice lies in communication and cooperation within a relationship. Marmee even goes so far as to mention that John's "place is [in the nursery] as well as yours, and the children need him; let him feel that he has his part to do, and he will do it gladly and faithfully" (392), which John proves when he later puts Demi to bed and refrains from spoiling him as Meg has.
ReplyDelete