Williams, Fuller and Alcott

I tend to have an inherent distrust of feminist writers of the modern era: I don't like being told how I have to act or how I should view myself by anyone, man or woman. With this preconception, I found Louisa May Alcott's "Behind A Mask" very entertaining to read, but distasteful as a portrait of feminine power. As an impoverished, divorced actress, Jean Muir faces certain obstacles in society which are obviously unjust. However, the story seems to suggest that deceit and callousness are the only ways women will be able to achieve equality. In other words, Alcott advocates that women must not prove merely the same as men, but rather show that they are capable of domination and mastery. This kind of "beating men at their own game" seems childish and unworthy of anyone's respect, male or female. Additionally, Jean Muir must use her feminine sexuality to achieve subjugation of her targets, which seems to me to be a kind of sexism in itself. The femme fatale at the left, for example, may be powerful, but she had to objectify herself to obtain that power.

Though Margaret Fuller's work was less amusing, I thought it immensely more enlightened. I especially liked her idea of differences are found from individual to individual, not between man and woman. She seemed to be writing more from a humanist viewpoint, rather than a strictly feminist one, through her recognition of how men and women balance each other out and make the possibility of a higher "divinity" more real. She specifically addressed the need for more self-dependence among women, which was a very important point to make in her specific culture, without forgetting that as humans, man or woman, we need to work together. Perhaps this is naive or idealistic, but I would rather work for unity and be disappointed than deceive everyone around me to gain selfish satisfaction, even if that makes a better story.