When I was 16 years old, I was very emphatic about reading the biggest and most complex literature I could get my hands on. My mother, who has always supported my reading endeavors, suggested I read “Little Women” by Louisa May Alcott. I spent a month reading what was supposed to be an 800-word piece of feminist literature. By the time I turned the last page, I knew two things with absolute certainty: one, I hated the story, and two, this was without a doubt no work of feminism.
To prove to you exactly what I mean by this, I will be going through each of the March sisters and sharing moments from their stories that are decidedly misogynistic.
Let’s begin with the eldest March sister, Meg. One of the first times she has a significant role in the plot is in chapter three, where she twists her ankle at a dance. Laurie, the Marches’ neighbor and a boy of similar age to the sisters, is introduced for the first time when he swoops in and plays the role of a hero by offering his carriage to provide the sisters a way to get home. While this event is used as a plot device, it is also inherently unfeminist to imply that the sisters couldn’t get Meg home by themselves.
The next time Meg has her own feature is in chapter nine, when she gets invited to visit her wealthy friend Annie. Meg shows “female vanity” towards all of Annie’s “pretty things.” Despite their mother Marmee’s advice on the importance of happiness over wealth, Meg continues to show envy towards Annie’s ability to purchase nice dresses and jewelry. The desire for these types of objects is not misogynistic in and of itself, but having that longing be the only major personality trait of a female character is unfeminist.
The rest of Meg’s story revolves around a man, Mr. Brooke, whom she ends up marrying at the beginning of part two of the novel. After their wedding, the only time Meg is mentioned is in relation to Mr. Brooke. Now, one might argue that this is to be expected on either side, as once married, you are a packaged deal. However, when their marriage is mentioned, Meg’s wifely duties are always shown as either producing children or serving Mr. Brooke. The singular chapter that gives an update on her showcases a fight between Mr. Brooke and her, in which Mr. Brooke brings his friend over without telling Meg in advance and expects her to stop her other activities and cater to his and his friend’s needs. While I acknowledge that this kind of expectation was common in this time period, it does not mean it needs to be included in this supposedly feminist novel.
The second youngest March sister, Beth, acts in some individual plot points that are neutral in terms of misogyny. However, there is a part of Beth’s character that is unfeminist. Her grandest desire, as labeled so in chapter 13, is to stay home and care for her family. Some women desire to be homemakers, and I am in no way shaming that preference, with either Beth or Meg. The part that is unfeminist is when she projects this desire onto her sister Jo right before she (spoiler alert) dies in chapter 40. As Beth is on her deathbed, she tells Jo to set aside her writing endeavors as well as her craving to travel and see the world, and instead care for her parents. By actively shutting down another woman’s wishes to do things other than be a homemaker, she is being unfeminist.
Amy, the youngest March sister, does have desires outside of homemaking. She has a passion for art, and the majority of her storyline revolves around her growing from the brat she was as a girl and into a civilized young woman. In terms of feminism, I feel fine about how Amy is portrayed in the novel. However, what I will absolutely not stand for is when people who have only seen the 2019 film adaptation by Greta Gerwig try to argue that Amy is the reason why the story is feminist, all because she has a monologue about women’s roles in society. As this is not included in the original novel, I will not tolerate this as a genuine argument. Amy is neutral at best in terms of her character’s projection of feminism.
And then there’s Jo, the second eldest March sister and arguably the main character. Jo aspires to be a writer and wants nothing to do with romance or other stereotypical female desires for most of the novel. Despite her mostly feminist character, she ruins it and, controversially, the entire novel with her final few scenes. She meets a professor named Mr. Bhaer; after seeing two of her sisters marry and be happy, she decides she cannot be happy alone. They get married at the conclusion of the novel, and the last chapter sees them inheriting land from her aunt. I’m going to hold your hand while I tell you this next part. With that land, they decide to make an only boy’s school where Mr. Bhaer teaches the pupils, and Jo acts as a glorified maid, cooking and cleaning for her husband, her two sons and the rest of the boys.
And then I threw my beautiful Puffin Classic copy of the supposed masterpiece “Little Women” at the wall.
