Rebecca Chavoya
English 2329
T-TH 9:30-10:50
Little Women, Big Issues
Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women is a widely accepted and very successful novel because it deals with issues that many people face, despite the test of time. The story of the March sisters captures the attention of its readers because more often than not, the reader can identify with at least one of the characters in some way. Two of the most predominant issues in the novel are the roles of women in the late 1800’s and social class. Alcott skillfully addresses these issues with real life situations, which is what makes the novel so personable to its readers.
The story of Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy march is anything from perfect. From the start it is evident that the girls’ lives are far from perfect due to the hardships of poverty. Mr. March is away at war, leaving the girls and “Marmee” to tend to the household by themselves. Throughout the novel, it is apparent that women in this time had certain expectations. They were to be proper, prim, and hold their tongue when anger tempted it to speak out. In the beginning of the March’s story, Jo’s temper plays a big role in the relationship between her and her sisters. She often has a snide comment for anything she doesn’t agree with, opposed to Beth’s always-gracious character. Jo’s quick temper raises the topic of what was expected of women in this time. Since Jo is quickly reprimanded after a tantrum or outburst, and later given a lesson on how to behave like a proper lady, it can be inferred that women were expected to “keep their cool” in stressful times. Alcott seemed to convey the idea that women “must not have, much less act on, negative emotions” (Foote 65). For instance, when Amy burns Jo’s book that she had been working on for years, Jo’s temper is seen as a negative reaction. Instead of emphasizing how Amy was in the wrong as well, the focus was put on Jo’s fit. It was portrayed as being too cruel or savage, when in fact Jo’s reaction was very normal, as most people would react in the exact same way. It seems ludicrous to expect anyone to repress their anger completely, considering sometimes it is best to express your feelings, but women in this time period were not expected to have such emotions at all. During this period of time, it was essential for parents to teach their daughters that expression of anger was not acceptable or proper. As women, it was their duty to raise a household based on love and tranquility. Expression of anger showed a lack of self-control; women “must not sulk, pout, complain, or in any other way express her anger while she denies her personal desires” (Gaard). It seems that throughout the novel, not limited to Jo’s case, expression of anger is seen as a negative reaction instead of a productive expression. After Amy almost drowns in the frozen river, Jo confesses to Marmee that her anger is a problem when she states “It seems I could do anything when I’m in a passion; I get so savage…” ( Alcott 71). After listening to Jo’s confession, her mother explains how her own temper used to get the best of her until she learned to control it. This shows the lesson of repression being passed down through the generations as a characteristic to strive for. This characteristic, however, can either be a healthy or destructive alternative.
As one of the many themes presented in Little Women, social class seems to be the one that is most repeated. Being a poor family certainly takes a toll on the March’s in almost every aspect of their life. It keeps Amy from having proper art materials, Jo from satisfying her love to read, Meg from being the same as her wealthy peers, Beth from having the music instruments she desires, and Mrs. March from supplying her daughters with the materials they want. Early on in the novel, in the first chapter in fact, the issue of money in the March family is well pronounced. The setting is close to Christmas, and the girls are all discussing the things they wished they could purchase with their individual earnings. Once reality set in and the girls realized their wishes would not be fulfilled, a joint effort to buy something for Marmee was decided. The March sisters knew that money set them apart from their society in many ways, but they were determined to make the best of what they had. Class in the late 1800’s was not merely about money. It was about where individuals stood in society and often determined their futures, regardless of the hopes and dreams of the individual. In today’s time, women and men are not confined to certain expectations and rules. One is encouraged to be original and push past their personal boundaries. This greatly contrasts the expectations of people in the setting of Little Women, who often had their futures decided for them by their family class. Alcott portrays a contrast between poverty and wealth with the image of the March and the Laurence residences. The March house is small and rickety, while the Laurence house is grand and elaborate. Laurie’s college career is not what he had hoped for, but being the gentleman he is, it was what was expected for him. The same goes for Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth. Their dreams are somewhat out of the ordinary for their time and do not fall under the restrictions they are faced with as ladies. Social class determines the futures of both the wealthy and poor. Alcott uses the imagery of the households to show that even though the two families are not of the same class, both have expectations set out for them by the society they live in.
Given the economic troubles that they Marches face, it is no doubt that they handle it with pride and grace. Even though they are poor, their home is filled with more love than even the richest mansions; “Clearly the poorer house, the Marches have the more attractive home.” (Foote 70). Since the Marches were once rich, the eldest daughter Meg has had a taste of the good life and often wants more. When Meg attends the party at the Moffats, Mrs. March is worried that she will envy her friends and come back disappointed, but “she trusts that Meg will understand how to respond correctly to
the differences between herself and her friends.” (Foote 71). It is obvious to the family that they are different, but the home is undoubtedly filled with more love and compassion than anyone could hope for. It seems that even though the Marches face adversity and hardships, they are quite contented with being poor and handle it with grace.
Louisa May Alcott’s novel Little Women has struck the hearts of all who read it because of its real-life issues and situations. By portraying a family that undergoes many trials and tribulations, and showing how they deal with these situations, Alcott teaches life lessons that her readers can learn from even in today’s time. Social class may not have as profound of an affect on individuals today as it did in the 1800’s, but there is no doubt that it still exists. Certain expectations and the roles of women also still exist, but in dramatically different ways.
From the points made in this essay, questions arise. Given the March’s social rank in the 1800’s, they seemed to learn to be content with being poor. If the Marches were to live in America in 2011, would it be easier or harder for them to accept being poor? Consider economic changes since then. Would the Marches be able to live the happy life they did in the novel if they were a poor family in today’s time? Women’s roles in society have also changed since then. Is it still necessary for women to suppress anger in order to have a happy household? How have the roles of women changed since the late 1800’s? Elaborate and provide examples for the points you make.
Works Cited
- Gaard, Greta. “’Self-Denial Was All The Fashion’: Repressing Anger in Little Women” Papers on Language and Literature: A Journal for Scholars and Critics of Language and Literature. Vol. 27. December 1, 1991. MLA Database. UT Arlington Central Library, TX. January 28, 2011. < http://libproxy.uta.edu>
- Foote, Stephanie. “Resentful Little Women: Gender and Class feeling in Louisa May Alcott”. College Literature. 2005 Winter. 63-85. MLA Database. UT Arlington Central Library, TX. January 28, 2011. <http://libproxy.uta.edu>>
To the first two questions- these answers tie together well. I believe that the Marches these days would have an easier time, social status wise, but just as hard of a time with the money aspect. Whether you’re poor or rich, people don’t really care too much either way – it’s about what you’re doing while you’re poor or rich. In America, you’re supposed to indulge in your freedoms and expand your horizons and not focus on what you don’t have (although, I’d admit, we are a materialistic society, sadly). There are many programs to assist the underprivileged, and although sometimes those systems don’t work the proper way every time, they are still more than what they had back in the 1800s.
I also believe women gained their rights to feel the way they want to feel – and a happy household can still be met. People have the right to bear emotions, but it’s just the way you go about it. I don’t believe Jo’s horrible temper would have gotten her very far, but she can still express how she feels, instead of biting her tongue and walking away. A happy household to me is one full of love, support, and the one place you can truly be yourself – and not have to act “prim and proper” (although, outside the house is a different story – you must be on your best behavior – it’s always been expected) – but at home, you can be yourself.
The roles of women have changed so much; I’m not even sure where to begin! For one, we are NOT expected to be housemaids – instead we are given the choice. Women can get their own jobs out of the house, as for we are equivalents to men. Then, the housekeeping falls to either spouse, or sometimes the unemployed spouse, male or female. Just depends on who’s where and who’s doing what – the man isn’t necessarily the sole bread-winner of the house, or even the one bringing home all the money anymore. Also, we can be whoever we want to be in society – we aren’t expected to dress up to go outside, or wear certain outfits to do certain things – we can be who we want to be and wear what we want to wear.
I might be in the minority, but I never got the impression that the Marches were incredibly poor; just poorer than what they were used to. While they are unable to buy the nicer things that their richer friends have, they are still able to assist another poorer family, the Hummels, with what seems like relative ease. That being said, I think that while it is easier these days to be poor, the March girls likely would have had just as much of a difficult time accepting their level of poverty. Girls these days might have traded silk dresses and new bonnets for Abercrombie & Fitch and Victoria’s Secret, but that doesn’t make it any cheaper to be considered popular. However, one of the main messages in the novel is teaching the girls that happiness comes from family and those you love, not material goods. For the most part, the girls take this message to heart. I believe they would in 2011 as well.
As for the second part of the questions, I think that it would depend on a woman’s level of anger. Thankfully, women are allowed to be completely human these days, with all of the unfavorable emotions that are included. We don’t have to hide our anger from our family and friends. As long as the anger was at a reasonable, normal level, I believe that it wouldn’t harm a household – and could even improve it, as the family wouldn’t have to repress their feelings. Personally, I would be uncomfortable in a household where I felt like I couldn’t be myself. A mother like Marmee would have driven me crazy. Now, if the anger was a constant force or out of control, there would be problems in the household. This would apply to anyone in the house, not just the women.
Lastly, women aren’t expected to be housewives anymore, and for the most part are considered equals in the workforce. In the 1800’s it would have been impossible for me to go to college, much less major in a biology field. I couldn’t be more grateful to the women who fought for our rights to do as we pleased.
Roxerangel and Cstacylara,
Thank you for being the first two to comment! I agree with the points that both of you made. If the Marches lived in today’s time, I believe it would have been easier in some aspects because of government programs, but like you said Roxerangel, it’s the way you go about it. There are people today that completely take advantage of these programs instead of using them to better themselves and their families. However, I also feel that the girl’s would have found it harder to live in today’s time. Pretty much EVERYTHING costs money now, so I feel that the girls may have had a harder time entertaining themselves on a daily basis. I also agree with your answers about women. I believe that it is better for women to be vocal of their troubles than keep them supressed like they were supposed to in the 1800′s. It isn’t healthy to bottle up your emotions, and I think the key to having a happy household is laying everything out on the table for your family to see. That way family members can help each other grow from their problems and mistakes.
I believe that if the Marches were to live in America in 2011 it would have been much harder for them to accept being poor. This holds true given all the oppurtunities people with money have these days and all those things out there that you need money in order to participate in or acheive in life. It would have been much harder for them in 2011.
I think that the Marches would be able to live as happy as they did in the novel as they could today. They are a sturdy family with good values. They seem very close and like they would be there for eachother. They are a pretty well balanced group I would say.
It is not necessary for women to repress anger these days. Women have alot more power now than they did back then. There is a lot of powerful women out there who are taking over some of mens roles in society. Womens roles have changed a lot. There is doctors and lawyers that are women now. They even run for government positions now a days. Which I think is great. Who says men are the ones who should do all these things and only men? Nobody.
I think if the Marches were to live in present day America they wouldn’t have such a hard time accepting and being content with their finances. Nowadays, there is a wider scale with those who are poor and those who are wealthy. There’s much more in between now. Our society has lower middle, middle class, and an upper middle class. I think in the 1800′s class was much more separated and stressed. Of course, even to this day people want to be rich and successful, that will never change.
I think the March family would be able to live a decently comfortable lifestyle in today’s society. I doubt they’d be able to afford luxuries but they would get by and have a comfortable life.
I don’t know too many women who suppress their anger. Women’s expression of anger is more accepted now than in the past. I don’t think it’s necessary for women to suppress their angry to keep a happy household. It’s all in the way anger is expressed. Name calling, physical anger, and hurtful words are never a good idea. But, expressing one’s feelings in a mature, calm fashion is an okay way of communicating. Households and any relationship for that matter benefits off expression of feelings.
If the Marches were to live in the era today, I feel that they would have opportunities to fullfill there dreams. Although it would be harder to accept the fact that they are poor and would have to build themselves back up. Now and days there is a range of poverty and it is not just whether you are poor or rich. The Marches could have the opportunity to go out and get jobs and go to school. In the 1800s that was not really a choice whether you wanted to be rich or poor. This all came from who your family was and not what you wanted to be.
Since the economy has gone through great dept, the Marches could be as happy as they were in the 1800s. They may not have the extravagent luxuries they want to have but they would be able to live a comfortable life that they always wanted.
I do not believe that women should supress the anger in today’s time. In america today women have more power over what they had back then. Women are able to vote, have jobs, and go to school. I feel the Marches would be happy living in this era and have more power to make their dreams of living the american life possible.
Given today’s time, I believe it is hard for anyone to live poor. Life has so man things to offer and no one wants to miss out on anything in life so that makes being less fortunate very difficult. I think the Marches would definitely find it difficult to be poor in our society today. I think in today’s time it is important for women to suppress their anger everywhere, not just at home. Women can be so passionate about life situations, we have to do better at trying to get our point accross without always using anger as a tool. I think society will always see women as “humble creatures” who should be meek and quite natured without a lot of shown emotions, it is up to us to change that perception, but still make a stand on the things we believe are right. The roles of women today have drastically changed in this century. We have educations, vote, hold political offices, or choose not to have families.
Tuckercollins,
First off, I love the last part of your comment. The idea of a man believing that women can be just as good as them is refreshing! With that said, I agree with your comment on women’s roles. I also agree with what you said about needing money to participate in life. Think about if the girls were teenagers in todays time. I think they would be extremely bored if they had no money to go out and do anything. Creating games based off of their imagination would only entertain them for so long before they wanted to go out and see a movie or something of that sort, which costs money. I believe they would have been a happy family, yes, but as far as being able to entertain themselves, I think they would have a hard time without having money to do so.
Allyschiller,
I like the fact that you pointed out the different levels of wealth today. It is very true that in the 1800′s it was more divided.
I feel though that more strain would be placed on the Marches to have more money today. I wouldn’t say they would be able to live a “comfortable” life because I think everyday would be a struggle of some sort. Given the gracious nature of the family, I feel they would be happy with each other, but as far as finances go I think it would be a lot harder for them to be content with being lower class. I think money would be a struggle every day for them.
Mrf9292,
I agree with the fact that the girls would have more opportunities to fulfull their dreams. Without money, some of those dreams would be hard to reach, with prices of EVERYTHING going up lately. But given the drive of the girls, I’m sure they would strive for them anyways.
The girl’s may not be content with being in the lower class of society, but the idea that they always had potential to be something greater would be comforting to them.
Lacorie,
I feel that it would be difficult for them as well. Like I’ve said in earlier comments, pretty much everything costs something now. Teenagers are no longer content with playing outside with things they find lying around, like the March girls did. The imagination is no longer sufficient when it comes to having fun. Teenagers normally want to see a movie, go to the mall, out to eat, etc. in order to have fun. So yes, I agree that it would be difficult for them to live in poverty in today’s time.
On the comment about women’s anger: I agree and think you made good points. But your comment made me think of another question: Do you think it is more acceptable for men to express their anger today than women? Not just at home, but at work as well?
^(Anyone can answer this question!)
As far as the Marches being able to accept their poverty in 2011, I do believe that they would be ok with it just as they were in the 1800s. The reason I believe this is because poverty is poverty over all periods of time and money greatly expands everything one can do with money no matter what decade it is in. Meg would still long for the finer things, Amy would still want to get out of poverty and marry well, Beth would still be loving (but more than likely would not die) and Jo would still have her ambitions for greatness and her passion that ran high for everything she did. The time frame wouldn’t alter who they were because poverty brings humility and many times personalities throughout history are the same, just more repressed and hidden for what is “socially acceptable” in that era. With that being said, I do think they would be happy because of more opportunity to move up in the world just as Amy, Jo and Meg wanted. Each one could go to public school, even college if they choosed and the government could help them with grant money beause they were poor. Jo wouldn’t have to wish to take Laurie’s place in college because she could go off with her best friend if they choosed so. I do also think they learned to be happy because of their faith in God. Though Protestant beliefs aren’t as practiced in 2011, faith in God brings happiness to those who believe in ’11 and I think this would still be a big factor in their lives.
As far as suppressing anger in 2011 as women, we are taught what battles to fight and those to let go when we become wives but we are not silenced like in the 1800s and very many women are widely respected all over the world. For example, Oprah can say whatever she likes, Michelle Obama speaks to young women all the time and our celebrities speak against violence, oppression, etc of women. Our rights have changed so much from that time and I think it would be the perfect time for Jo to be around seeing as she was only odd because her strength and thoughts were ahead of her time. She would translate to an average strong-willed woman in this year and her family would be more of a cultural norm in 2011 versus 1800s on account of their embrace of the “Little Women’s” individuality and strength. With that being said, alot of the roles are still the same in the fact that making a good wife is still admired, being a home-loving body still makes a good mother and we still cherish love to make a house a home. All these things plus women’s right to voice her anger instead of hide it make 2011 a place that I believe the March sisters and family would fit in just fine.
Rebecca,
I enjoyed reading your blog, you have chosen good topics to discuss. I feel the March women would have a harder time accepting being poor today because life is just not considered as simple as it used to be in the 1800′s. Being poor back then seemed to be sort of straightforward, you sometimes didn’t have the opportunities to attend school, or you had to keep a job and were expected to contribute to the whole family, also I think socially there would be more obvious dismissal of the poor nowadays. And that was just how it was back then, people seemed to accept it. For example, Amy is allowed to attend school and she is unable to keep up financially with the other students, like when she put herself in debt with some of the other girls because of trying to stay in fashion with the “limes”. Also, the girls needed to help provide for the family by working either as a governess or a companion to an elder, etc.., and if school seemed a bit out of question for the poor in those times then you worked if you could. Today, there are laws in place that require children to go to school, despite your financial standings. As far as socially it being harder to accept being poor goes, I think people are far more cruel today then in the 1800s. Grant it we don’t really know what it was like back in those days but it seems that even the poor were included when there were parties to attend and weddings to consider. Today, there seems to be a defined line between poor society and rich society, a line that seem to not be crossed too often.
I think the March family could still live a happy life being poor today if they kept up with their strong family morals and values, and their loving bonds. I come from a family with a great deal of love and support and we were never financially strong enough to do all the things we wanted but we made it work. So, yes i believe the March family could have a happy situation today, but it would be a bit of a struggle.
Women do not need to suppress their anger today in order to have a happy life and marriage. Although many women probably do suppress a lot of anger and emotions in order to keep some peace around the house, I don’t believe it is necessary, I mean isn’t that why couples go to counseling and have couples skill-building adventures? Ha Ha. I think times have changed since the 1800′s and women are expected to communicate more openly with their partners, to let it all out when they need to. Isn’t that part of why women have fought so hard to be liberated?
I feel that deep down at our roots, womens’ roles haven’t changed all that much, I mean women still are expected to be mothers, nurturers, lovers, providers of a happy home, and emotional supporters for their partners, are we not? We can do all of those things and much more today, but it really boils down to a few simple things that won’t ever change. Now, I disagree with expectations of having a meal ready at the drop of a hat no matter if company is coming over at dinner or for lunch, like the example that Meg offered up to her new husband. I can’t really get behind that idea, I am a women these days and would a heads up if company were coming, not to mention that I personally would rather be with a person who would never expect me to be the one to take care of everything all the time. Share the responsibility now and then, you know?
Your blog had some great questions asked that really made me think about just how different we are from then until now. I agree with you that there is quite a bit of relevancy and we all can relate to some of the characters or themes in this book.
If the Marches lived in our time it wouldn’t be easier or harder for them to accept being poor, they would feel the same. I think this is one of the reasons Little Women has stood the test of time because the feelings that the March family has are the same that any family today would have. Wanting to have better things or wanting the things you can’t have didn’t only happen in the 1800s it happens today as well.
Their family was a happy family, everyone supports each other and loves one another and if they lived our time I don’t think that aspect would change. However, because attitudes in our society have changed it is no longer the case that children will listen to their parents and sit quietly while the parent tries to reprimand them for having a bad attitude. In this case women’s role has changed since the 1800s since women are freer to express themselves. If the Marches lived in our time Amy’s tantrums would not be easily controlled because she would have bratty friends like herself who would behave like she does and give her some sort of support so that she could stand up to her sisters and even Marmee to some extent. So in that respect the Marches would not be a happy family if they lived in our time.
It is still necessary for women to suppress their anger to have a happy household. But I don’t think it’s to the extent of ignoring wrong doings. Women can show their discontent but not to the extent of being extremely angry, I think women have learned to compromise and handle things differently now than they did in the 180ss…though maybe I’m wrong.
Women can work now without being judged, they can provide for themselves and the family almost equally as any man. They can work in anything they desire being writers, politicians, doctors…however, they are still looked at as the caretaker and if they have a career they have to choose between being a mom and continue working. I think people don’t admire women that have a career and give their children everything if they are not the ones taking care of them 24/7. Too often we see people say that they’ve had a bad childhood because their parents (usually mother) wasn’t around when they were growing up and they had to be brought up by a babysitter. It is still unfair to see women in this way and not hold the man responsible for child rearing.
Adc8223,
You make a good point that Jo would fit in nicely in 2011. Her dreams and attitude seemed so ahead of her time. 2011 would be the perfect year for her to speak out and reach for her dreams!
Pastry44,
Thank you for your kind words! I’m glad you enjoyed my blog.
I really agree with the fact that you said being poor in the 1800′s was simpler than it is today. This was kind of the point I was trying to make in the essay. It seems that the Marches could get along fine without having money, and having no intentions to be rich one day. These days, if you are poor, you need to get out of poverty as soon as you possibly can. There is just so much that requires money these days, a family of 6 would have a hard time on a daily basis. I do believe they would stick together though, and stay a happy, homely family.
As far as women’s roles go, I agree that women are finally at the point that we fought so hard for all those years ago. Even though I’m not married, I do believe that in order to have a successful relationship and household, that women as well as men should be vocal about their troubles in order to resolve them.
And I would like some warning before company came over as well!
Fattorres,
You make a good point about Amy. I know from experience that where there is a snobby little girl, there are snobby little friends. I also agree that Marmee would not be able to control the girls with ease like she does in the book. There are so many types of parenting skills these days. Yes, some mothers have naturally obedient children, but I find it hard to believe that if the March girls lived in today’s time that they would be the angels they are in the book towards Marmee. Good points!
To response to the first questions I didn’t actually agree the March’s were really poor. Compared to the Hummel’s I would have to say they had a pretty good lifestyle. I do understand about not having gifts for holidays and all of the females working, but in todays society it is costumed for everyone to work for a living today. If had live today and understand they were poor I don’t think the Marchs could be so happy and accept it. First, there are too many programs and opportunities and government assistance for someone to stay poor if they were driven to be better. Now and days everything cost and very few times does the story fairy tale rich boy fall for the poor girl to be honest.
In response to the second question I do agree in society not just females but males as well shouldn’t suppress any emotion let alone anger. Especially in today’s society females are more vocal in their feelings, are treated as equal and if you tend to think about it it’s the men who suppress more of their emotions.
I think being poor is also a state of mind in a sense that being without certain life luxaries is difficult. However, the March sisters accepted their life and dealt with it to a degree that they still sacrificed what little they had and gave to others in need. They not only gave to others, but also scraficed getting something for each of themselves and getting a gift for their mother. In this it shows that yes they didn’t like the fact that they didn’t have all the things they wanted, but had all that they needed. These needs were met mentally and emotionally because of their contentment with their family and love for one another. Poverty is difficult in any era and at any time through out history and to the present day. What gets those through who live in poorer conditions is love and support from family. When love is given and basic necessities are taken care of such as food, clothing, and shelter nothing else seems as relevant. The March sisters express this greatly in the book and that is why Little Women has surpassed over two decades of readers who identify with the story.
I really enjoyed what you had to say about the novel. Overall I thought it was very good. One thing I keep reading is that everybody feels so strongly about how bad it was to repress anger throughout the novel. I don’t believe they were repressing anger nor do I think Marmee was teaching them to swallow their feelings at all. I feel that she was simply trying to convey to her young daughters that controlling our feelings is what is important. As adults we learn that flying off the handle every time something doesn’t go our way is in no way productive to achieving whatever outcome we may be seeking. No body is talking about repression of feelings. To be honest sometimes we need to just move on. If everybody said what we felt or did what that little voice inside our heads tells us to do when we get angry could you imagine the world? Why wouldn’t Jo get the brunt of the punishment for what she did to Amy? Jo is the older sister. Amy could have been seriously injured. Jo on the other hand lost some manuscripts. Rewrite them! I would agree that they had rough times but they tried to make the best of it. No matter who you are and what your pay grade is someone is always going to want more. So to say it was easier either now or then is hard to say. We have programs now but that doesn’t matter much. I know a lot of happy people who have next to nothing. Like sonimac said before me, I believe that how you do in the face of adversity makes you; not the shoes or pretty dress you have. I felt it was a very truthful book overall. The desires and aspirations of the women were very true of the time and fortunately a lot of them have come to pass. Interesting to talk about.
I think that if the marches were to be living in 2011 life wouldn’t be to much different from what is seen in the novel, in fact i think it might be better. In 2011 women make more and have more opportunities. During that time i think women had only been given “fit jobs” along with “fit pay.” During that time women made less and has less chances for a Job. Jo could have easily done harder work and brought more to the family, but because she is s girl, she was not allow to work next tot he men as an equal. Even when she tries to sell her hair the man does not want to until the wife takes pity on her simply because she is a woman and he wants boys hair. As far as their general life , its not uncommon for the father to be away from home now days so i think they would still have the closeness they have. They have a lot of trouble coping with this during the book and the absence of their father, but it only brings them closer. However in todays society its not to far from typical to not have a dad, or one that works too much , or one that travels often and it absent in the child’s life.
I think to have a happy household there is a balance. Everyone knows that a relationship is give and take. It can’t be jolly and peaceful all the time. I would like to see women take a chance and stand up for themselves. To often the children reflect what they see the father do and often wives and mother bite their tongues to make everyone happy, because in todays society a mother has to do it all, even if it results in their children running wild.
Women’s roles have changed but sadly at a snails pace. I was at my nephews class the other day and i realized how we condition girls to be submissive. The boys are given costumes to be drs, professors etc, yet the girls are given baby dolls, wedding dresses. It is my personal belief that women are the most disadvantaged from birth. To often our society is judging and telling us what is and what isn’t proper. Girls are raised to dream of their wedding days , to have a child, to be married , however some changed has occurred and it does not have to be in any specific order , but even then if not done proper its chastised. its the focus of many girls now days to go to school, have a bf,marry and have a family so most people say, but to say its natural for girls to be so is a terrible thing. I know many women who aim to match men- to not dream or live to please mom and have a husband -a baby and stay home and i think more women should strive to reach their goals. Women’s roles may have changed but i believe their is still a lot more change needed so that they they may be given the rights/respect/equality we guys are given.
I believe if the Marches were to live in America in 2011 and be poor as they are in the novel, I do not believe that they would have a happy enjoyable life as they do in this novel. In modern day America with anything you do it involves money and to be “happy” you must have some spare money to use. So therefore I think it would make things a lot harder for them to accept being poor.
As for women suppressing anger in the household today I do not believe they need to, to keep a happy household. I believe that in order to have a healthy household you need to have views from both the male and female stand points.
The roles of women have greatly changed in the household to today from back in the 1800’s because now a days the women are becoming the more dominant workforce and are providing for their families. Now the male and female roles are split and not so lopsided towards the women doing the house work.
If the Marches were to live in America today, I think it would be harder for them to accept being poor. The economy has changed drastically as well as wants and desires. Tecnology has changed so much that many people feel that they need more. I don’t necessarily mean you need money to be happy, but more people have stronger deisres to have the best of the best to be “happy”.
Women’s role in society has changed much too since the late 1800s. Women have equal rights as men do now and have higher hopes and expectations. Women are now just as dominant as men at home and in the workplace.Women work outside the home now and not expected to just be a housewife. Life now is so different and so much in the fast lane that families do not sit and eat at the table together much less clean house everyday and cook together. Women have no need to sew their own clothes now but can take them to be altered and repaired.
Women have no need to suppress their anger and rage anymore. We would probably get along more if we did supress our rage and anger but that doesn’t happen often. It is normal to relive your anger. For me it is harder not to supress my anger. I end up holding everything in and then blowing my top like a volcano. I believe you need to let off some steem to keep the household happy. If everyone says how they feel and talk about it then things would run smoother.
I believe that if the Marches were living in todays society, it would be easier in some ways for them to accept being poor. For example, being in public school is free until twelfth grade and is also required by law, which means that all the girls would have been able to get an education. How well they did in those years can also put them through college buy getting academic scholarships. Also, if they lived far below the poverty line, they would be eligible for welfare or other kinds of economic support provided by the government and it is also easier for women to get minimum wage jobs in today’s society.
I believe that women having to ‘bite their tongues’ in anger is still a pattern seen today. I come from a traditional Pakistani family, and I know that in our houses, anger in women is still considered to be negative. Growing up, we females of the house had to suppress our anger if any incidents occurred.
I don’t know if I could answer for the entire March family as a whole, but there would be some of the sisters that would have a harder time being poor in todays age than others. Jo, for instance, I think would be unaffected. The things she enjoys don’t require money, such as writing, and I doubt that the change in the social climate would affect her much in anyway. Though Meg on the other hand would have a much more difficult time with her families financial situation in modern times. With the massive move towards globalization in American culture, she would only be more aware of all the pretty dresses and jewelry that other girls have which she could never afford, which I imagine would bury any complacency she once had for being poor.
As far as the question of happiness goes, in my view happiness comes from within and is not subject to the circumstances of ones life (though obviously exceptions are to be made in extreme cases such as the death of a loved one or other traumatic events. So considering the Marchs are abundantly satisfied in their own time period, I believe they would be happy no matter which era they are placed in.
I wouldn’t say that a women needs to suppress her anger to maintain a pleasant home life, as suppressing ones feelings does not put them on the road to better mental health. I would say that a woman (and any family member for that matter) needs to express her anger, though in a tactful, calculated, and non-hurtful way.
I would have to say that womens basic gender role has changed very little in the time since the novel was written. Despite there being more opportunities open to women in the way of employment, educations, and legal rights, what is expected from women is still very much the same. The idea of the perfect American family as portrayed by modern media is still a husband who goes to work and a wife who stays at home and cleans house while raising their children. Also, girls like Jo, who prefer more boyish activities and fashion styles, are not considered to represent femininity and womanhood while little girls who wear pink dresses and play with dolls are seen as the epitome of all things ladylike. So while the socio-economic and political roles of women have changed, basic gender rolls have remained intact, though there is some small amount of ongoing change in that area.
Firstly, it must be stated that the Marchs are not by any stretch of the imagination poor. They have less money than they used to and thus the girls, with their wealthy tastes, percieve themselves as poor. So in this context, I would say they could have easily accepted being middle class in this time period. I don’t think that they could have been as happy though. the March girls, Meg especially, have expensive tastes and with todays modern marvels it can be easily assumed that they would want everything they thought neat or interesting. This would cause much more turmoil in the family. Although, Marmee is pretty influential and could peruade the girls to how theyend up in the novel.
As to the second question set, I can say that it is a good idea for everyone to be slow to anger and slow to act, not just women. If everyone was less emotionally involved in everything they do the world would be a lot calmer because emotion can turn rational thought processes to mush in seconds. Now I’m not argueing that emotion is a bad thing to put into somones ideas or motives, but more often than not the emotion chosen for submition to those ideas is either anger or fear leading an otherwise clear headed individual to d othings and say things they would not normally do, such as Jo shaking Amy. She did indeed have the right to be angry, I know I would be, but you still ned to keep yourself in check. As far as women roles, they haved changed to where women are seen as an equal by most and at they very least the minority that doesn’t is gagged into silence. This can bee see nin that women can do almost anything they want. Their only limitations being their own personal ones.
I think that they would accept being poor more if they were in this time because of so many different options you have. Also because people in this time don’t look down on you just because you don’t have lots of money. Sometimes it is necessary for women to suppress their anger and temper because it can drive a wedge in ones relationship. Women roles have some what change since then. One example i can give is that women can chose where they want to work instead of having limited options. One thing i don’t think changed very much is presenting yourself like a lady. In the book it was important to not act nasty and look nasty. Which is the same now. No one wants a girl that carries herself horribly.
I do not think it is a question as if the march sisters could accept being poor better in 2011 than in the 1800s but that now days in 2011 the social status has changed for women that with the drive they had the would not have to accept their status but do something about it. and to the second part women now days express themselves more and that is a good thing and leads to happier home than just keeping quiet