Fuller and Alcott, Rihner

It is difficult to pinpoint which is the greater feminist out of Alcott and Fuller because they appear to have opposing mindsets on the matter. In “The Great Lawsuit,” Fuller seems to suggest a peaceful move into equality where both sexes become acceptant of one another in order to obtain a greater position for the human race. She justly uses the masculine concept of man as the brain and woman as the heart to express the necessity of equality. Neither one can exist on its own. Alcott, on the other hand, in “Behind a Mask,” presents a more femme-fatale-esque character that uses her intellectual and seductive powers to reach her goals.

So, either all women should strive for equality through reason for the purpose of obtaining man’s true goals and potentials, or they should pull out their black dresses and deceive their way to the top. I think that Fuller would argue against the practices of Jean Muir, because for women to obtain power through seduction and trickery is not a move towards equality. It is a move towards war. Alcott, alternatively, might negatively criticize Fuller’s ideals for being “impossible.” Since both women approach feminism with different beliefs, I do not believe that either could be considered more of a feminist.

As to the matter of which is the better writer, I find Alcott’s work to be more pleasing than Fuller’s style, which may very well be because I enjoy a good story more than anything else. In any case, they are both fine writers. They just take different stands on feminism.