Tahir,Fuller vs. Alcott

Out of the two writers, Margaret Fuller is by far the one whose work strikes me as showing discernable signs of feminism, at least on the surface. Unlike Louisa May Alcott, one can determine immediately that she is a clear proponent for feminism since Fuller boldly asserts that women need to be acknowledged as equals to men. By being an advocate for abolition as well, Fuller does this in a manner befitting her times; most feminists realized that slavery was an institution just as debasing as women’s status in society and were outspoken about both issues. Whether Alcott was a feminist or not cannot be ascertained from “Behind by a Mask” if one reads it just as a simple story; however, Alcott uses subtler literary devices in revealing her true feelings, and this is a clever tactic on her part in that it highlights how she is a true woman of her times. What is interesting about these two writers is the manner in which they portray women and how they are seen. Fuller, though she shows from the start that she is a incontestable advocate for feminism, only sees women through the eyes of a man. She has several quotes from men who talk about how women serve a prominent role in their lives, and how they are invaluable in the experience they offer. Though Fuller says that men and women are equal, her vision is blurred since she speaks only of them through what men have to say, and what men believe to be true. She references women only in terms of their relationships towards men: wife, mother, sister. I can understand why she would do this, since it is men whom she has to convince, but I find it interesting how she does not quote what other women have to say about the matter; she doesn’t really represent the woman as an individual, as a being separate from a man. The women she does mention are individuals who have been famous throughout history, women who are of noble birth or who possess saintly attributes. This is in marked contrast to Alcott’s “anti-heroine,” Jean Muir, who is no Queen Elizabeth or Virgin Mary. Her background is one of mean and ignoble promise. An alcoholic actress whose husband divorced her, in essence abandoning her to rely on herself, Jean is your common, regular woman. She displays all the qualities that men fear in women: cunning, deceitful, rapacious, and fully aware of the alluring power she holds over men, the power that compels them to abandon their good sense and succumb to her desire. Jean Muir has tapped into her “woman’s power” to secure a stability that will be guaranteed for the rest of her life. She does this with the only talents she possesses, no matter how unscrupulous and immoral. There is a necessity for her to act in this manner if she is to survive. As opposed to Fuller, who only talks about how good women are, Alcott shows just how far they can be from being pure and virtuous. But Jean’s story and what she represents serves to promote feminism in the same way that Fuller’s essay does, if only it goes about it a different manner. Alcott does not let men’s impressions cloud her vision; she sees women realistically as they are. Even their faults can be used advantageously in elevating their status; they must fight the system from within. I guess one could say that Fuller’s essay appeals more so to men whereas Alcott’s appeals more so to women. On the subject of whom is a better writer, it is hard to say. Fuller uses more complex language than Alcott and what she says can be almost poetic at times, yet Alcott is redeemed by the complexities that one must delve deeper into her text to discover.