Christopherson, Any Women Up for Social Climbing?

First I must admit I am somewhat biased to begin with for a few reasons. I think that Louisa May Alcott is one of the most brilliant feminist writers of all time and absolutely exceptional and groundbreaking for her era. The second part is that I am somewhat cynical and jaded when it comes to this divine love and marriage that Margaret Fuller speaks ok. It is a rude world. I don't know how many times that must be proven until people finally lose all hope, but then again unfailing faith may be encoded into humans for a reason. Not everyone can become jaded and cynical. For me however, I tend to be somewhat weary when it comes to women's issues. I don't believe that women who want to make a way for themselve have it particularly easy. This is why I took so strongly to Jean Muir. She knows what she wants and she is going to go after it. She is extremely proactive in becoming equal with men in high society. Fuller on the otherhand seems to suggest waiting around and hoping that the perfect marriage will suddenly appear and the man will inherently see the woman as his equal. Personally I am not one to wait around and wait for perfect opportunities to come my way. That would be lovely, but is also highly highly unlikely in this nasty world we live in. Women, still today, have to fight for their respect and to make their way to the top. It's a sad fact of being a woman. Yet being a strong woman and going after your goals is much better than waiting around for divine love to come your way and make everything swell. Also of course Alcott is the better writer. Her writing is still so relevant to today's world it's uncanny. Every young girl and woman should read Little Women to gain some clairity about being a woman in this world.

Bertrand, Fuller vs. Alcott

Both these women writers are writing before their time. Although, one can be labeled an overt feminist and the other can be labeled a controversial feminist writer. Fuller, would be the feminist of the two. She uses more historic and literal analogies to prover her point of of women not submitting to the ideals of the Victorian era and not being subdued by the labels of men. She also goes on to talk about femininity; in order for a women to be on an equal level with a man, she must be viewed as a man possessing no feminine qualities. Fuller derives this example for her own childhood. Fuller presents an argument as a critical essay or a critique on femininity and the rules for women in the Victorian society. Alcott, on the other hand, presents her commentary on feminism as a story. A the main character of the piece is a woman who eventually gets what she wants, despite the wrong doings she has done to others. This idea is revolutionary because although in literature, women are typically presented as conniving deceitful characters, they get their comeuppance by the end. In Alcott's piece, Miss Muir does not attain justice she gets exactly what she wants and marries Sir John, despite all the others efforts. This would have been shocking and revolutionary for the time.

In all, while comparing the two as writers, I believe that Alcott is the better literal writer. Fuller, is a better analytical writer. Although both women are equal in their efforts to end the systematic control of men over women.

a difference in format: Moran

I am not sure it would be fair to compare these two piece and ask who was more of a feminist. The main difference between the two pieces was that Fuller’s “The Great Lawsuit” was an essay, while Alcott's “Behind a Mask” was a short story. It is much easier to say that Fuller was more feminist of the two, but the style of writing that she chose is a very direct medium and able to convey these points better. In contrast, Alcott chose to put her views into a story format. She does not come out forthright and say where she stands on the issue of feminist, though through a closer reading it is easy to determine, yet it is still more ambiguous than had it been put in essay format.

That said, I do believe that Fuller holds a more feminist view that Alcott. Fuller gives the imagery that women are being held beneath men, which they were, and states that they could be equal to or even superior to men if the societal limitations places on them were lifted. In “Behind the Mask”, Jean proves herself to be more cunning and intelligent than any of the men in the story, but there are two points that seem to contradict the feminist theme. The first being though the men chase after her because they believe she has status in society, they also do so because of her beauty. She would not have been able to play the men of the story as she did without her looks and charm which reinforces the values of the time that a women's worth is her beauty. The next is that Jean is only able to marry into wealth and status. She is unable to reach those objects solely by herself and can only trick a man into giving it to her. Once again this might be the ambiguity that goes with choosing to write feminist views into a story format, or it would go back to what Harriet Jacobs said about women being only as good as you are allowed to be (though it was directed at slave women) and is thus a critic of the system in place that forces women to do this.

Who knows, not me.

Wood, Fuller/Alcott Post

Between Margaret Fuller's "The Great Lawsuit" and Louisa May Alcott's "Behind A Mask", I think Fuller makes a better feminist argument. This is mainly because she is trying to teach women that in order for men to value women equally to themselves, women must be able to separate themselves from any dependent lifestyle that they may have. Personally, I think this even goes beyond relationship dependencies - it could also include dependencies on drugs, food and/or material things as well. Any woman who could rise above pressures to be codependent proves incredible strength, and Fuller's encouragement of this behavior is something that goes a long way.

Her insistence for women to be pro-active and start making positive changes in their lives that will benefit them in the long run is advice that reminds me a lot of a mother's advice to her child. However, opposite to this maternal theme, it is very odd that she then goes on to reprimand marriage, calling it either something that could be of either "convenience" or force. Her lack of faith in the reverence of what marriage for some could be reveals yet again her dependence on independence. However, I think that this quest for independence and self-fulfillment is something that could very possibly lead to loneliness and isolation. Therefore, I think Fuller should realize that it is more important to establish a healthy balance of the two.

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.

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.

Martin-Klumpp, Fuller/Alcott

I found Alcott’s “Behind a Mask, or A Woman’s Power” much more fun and satisfying to read than Fuller’s “Lawsuit.” However, in terms of the more feminist author, or should I say the author who pushes feminism better, Fuller takes the prize. The character of Jean Muir may take on the anti-hero’s role typically attributed to men, but she is only able to achieve her goals by characterizing herself as the nineteenth century feminine ideal. For example, she is introduced to the Coventry family as a young, nineteen-year old governess with graceful manners and abilities; everything that she does is towards the goal of gaining relative independence by marrying Sir John. While it is clear that Alcott is condemning the limited social options for women and the ridiculousness of the feminine ideal, Fuller is able to lay this out more politically; she is presenting a lawsuit first and foremost. Fuller, therefore, gains more attention than some “silly novella” that first and foremost entertains and then allows for analysis. Also, it is more likely that Alcott addresses a female audience, where such ideas might not be taken seriously by men due to the literary context, whereas Fuller addresses a male audience very seriously and directly. Fuller blatantly advocates the independence of women from dependence upon men, whether it be her father or husband. She speaks of the past, such as with Elizabeth I, and of the present, the bonds of slavery in relation to women. So in relation to these specific works, Fuller has the more promising argument and ability to present change into society.