My feeling and approach to feminism is more or less the same as my feelings on and approach to other big topics of advocacy and responsibility such as environmentalism and politics. I know that the only way our earth can be saved is by abolishing capitalism and the responsibility lies almost completely on corporate monoliths like Coca-Cola and Amazon. I am aware that social reform never happens through peaceful protest and discussion and only through radical outrage is a real conversation ever started. I know that political parties are all bought out by major corporations and my vote may never stop this from happening. I am well aware that I cannot make a difference being who I am, where I am, and with the resources and options I have.
But I cannot live in that world all of the time. I believe that people need to recognise and apologise for things said in the past which may have been racist/homophobic/problematic, and then space needs to be given for them to change. I cannot always live in a world where our efforts to be better and make better choices do not matter. Even if they cant make any huge meaningful contribution to the greater change, I believe our choices need to be empowering. Purchasing free-range eggs is a good thing to do even if factory farms will continue to exist. Recycling is an empowering and meaningful choice even if companies still pollute the ocean. Volunteering your time or donating your money to a local initiative is meaningful and makes a difference for the lives that it touches, even if systemic homelessness and racism is not effected by it.
Maybe it is a cowardly or even just lazy part of my character that I feel like it is ok for an individual to invest their time, energy, and emotion in to these initiatives instead of the more strategic activism I think modern day feminism demands of us. It is ok if an individual feels better about their little efforts that may be useless against the raging forces of capitalism. Kindness is and will always be a powerful resistance to oppression, and Little Women is a shining example of this.
In Greta Gerwig's most recent film, "Little Women", the Marsh family gives their Christmas dinner to a poorer family in need. Should it be their responsibility to feed the poor? No, absolutely not. Widows should be able to be employed and feed their families, but they don't exist in a world where that is possible at the moment, and the March family is not concerned with the hierarchy of responsibilities. The March sisters are raised with the idea that women may be disadvantaged in this world, but we are all in this together and we can be empowered in our choice to raise each other up and to be kind.
It seems like a little thing, but it isn't to me. Little Women is a film which is clearly very feminist but in a way I don't see in media so often any more because there is currently a bigger, louder, more important fight for feminism to be in. This doesn't mean that the feminism of Little Women isn't important and relevant to this day, and I left Little Women feeling more empowered and excited about what I can do to be a better feminist and person than I have in many years digesting other feminist media.
Femininity has a place in feminism and it shouldn't be seen as a dismissive or "weak" trait, nor should it be seen as some kind of betrayal to the progress of feminism which it absolutely is viewed as. Women exchanging recipes, mending clothes, raising children together, and fawning over each other's beauty is every bit as empowering and meaningful as a woman being ambitious, athletic, skilled in combat, or otherwise masculine. A woman in a frilly dress with a child on her hip can be just as feminist as any other, but this woman is never represented in feminism and in a lot of ways I see feminism purposefully leaving her out. Feminists want to be seen as strong, independent, and powerful- not feminine, married, and traditional. Feminism appears to be taking a stance that as a movement it is trying to get away from traditional femininity because it has historically been tied to oppressive ideas around gender roles and "the weaker sex".
"Little Women" made me conscious of this bias as it exists in my subconscious as well. After seeing "Little Women", I have become more conscious of when I am reacting negatively to a "traditional" women as if she were oppressing me when it is really the social attitudes which continue to dictate how women should and shouldn't behave.
It is no secret that I hold resentments towards my sister. After watching Little Women, it has become clearer to me how many of these resentments stem from a perverse defence mechanism in me that is competitive and worried about being compared to her, as if her enjoying pretty things and having children is a threat to my own identity and choices as a woman. This point of view and these feelings are incredibly harmful not just for me but for all women, and now I've started to see it everywhere. Generations of women have been raised to subconsciously believe that there isn't enough room for us all to be how we like, we must either move forward with the ideals of feminism or in choosing otherwise, actively oppose it. It sounds silly, but for most of my adult life I have resented my sister's image and decisions because they didn't seem "feminist" to me, they weren't empowering to her or me or the fate of all women, and they lined up with what men expected of her. I am just now realising that in most cases, this just isn't true. There may be some opinions or choices that truly are harmful to women as a whole, but even then it seems insane that every women should be held with the responsibility to represent empowerment and agency- that we should all be striving to be successful, strong willed, and "feminist" because otherwise we are proving societal attitudes right, proving that we are the "weaker sex".
In "Little Women", all 4 of the March sister's have completely different ambitions and lives. Going in, I distinctly remember labelling Jo as the "feminist" because she was focused on her career and didn't care about boys or looking pretty. The other 3 sisters (Meg, Amy, and Beth) have more feminine personalities than Jo, enjoy beauty, and dream of their future weddings. I remember reading the novel when I was younger and being kind of turned off by these girls, thinking "aw come on. Don't be like that. You don't have to be like that! Look at Jo!" and it didn't even occur to me that my feelings were just as demanding and harmful as those of the past which dictated how women should dress and behave. Instead of saying "a woman should be dismissive, beautiful, and focused on her family" I was thinking "a woman should be independent, smart, and defy traditional norms". I used to think this way about marriage too. I used to believe that a woman getting married is somehow damaging to feminism because we are supposed to be independent now- not that we have the choice to be independent, but that we are somehow offending the people in the past who fought for these freedoms by choosing otherwise.
In the end, all of the sisters end up getting married. However, the way the story is structured and the way Gerwig ties together cenes of the sister's achievements and happiness, shows that these endings where even Jo gets married aren't "giving up" or specifically appeasing a traditional audience, but rather that this is simply the route the sisters took to their own happiness. The sisters may focus on their careers and passions, current relationships, enjoy pursuing beauty and pageants, and have soft and dismissive personalities or tomboyish personalities, and all are valid and wonderful. No one sister has a more empowering story. What makes their stories empowering is that they made the choices that were right for them and they grow up to be supportive and happy for each other. In the end there is no competition or resentment between sisters for choosing different lives and nobody perceives each other's lifestyles as a threat to theirs. Jo's "progressive" lifestyle doesn't belittle Meg's more "traditional" choices, and Amy never sneers at Jo for becoming a writer instead of a wife. They are all just genuinely, seemingly impossibly loving and caring of each other. Their supportive relationships are not just limited to their sisterhood, but represent how all women would support each other in an ideal world.
Women shouldn't stop attending pageants and dressing up as princesses just because its what women of the past did while they were expected to do so. Women are still oppressed and even amongst each other we are under pressure to conform to what women should and should be, so hell, just do what you love! The simple act of doing what you love and supporting your peers in doing so even if it goes against what others expect of you is empowering, meaningful, and feminist, and this goes for both genders.
In addition to supporting a "we are all in this together" type of feminism over the prevailing thesis of
most feminist art, which is "strong independent woman don't need no man", "Little Women" places a lot of importance on the idea that Beth and Marmee are just as incredible for their compassion and kindness as Jo is for her strong will and intelligence. The role of a woman in feminist media does not always have to be intelligent and/or badass. Historically, the role of a woman in the community has been that of the carer. Women took care of others, raised children, and worked together to keep their communities fed and warm while men ensured the safety and protection of the community. While times have changed and women are allowed to and encouraged to have different roles, this does not mean that these old values are somehow counter-intuitive to society moving forward and feminist enlightenment. I believe that the image of women working together to feed people is still very moving and powerful, every bit as an image of a women in a lab coat may be. I love that kindness and charity are not treated as something that women do in this world because they have no other choice. I love that Marmee is shown as a hero for her kindness just as their father is a hero for his valour in battle. Marmee's decision to care for the poor is every bit as radical and political as her husband's is to fight in the war for the abolition of slavery.
Louisa May Alcott makes the important distinction between simply loving one's sisters for a sister's sake, and growing up to let go of resentments and support each other. Amy and Jo never grew similar. From birth they were always destined to be polar opposites of one another and their rivalries and fights in childhood are shown as meaningful to their development, not petty or childish. Alcott validates their relationship as something that is challenging to make amends with in the end. Though the conclusion becomes "life is too short to be angry with one's sisters" the sentiment is shown to be more along the lines of "my resentment to my sister has only ever impeded our happiness. I am choosing to be happy for her because our anger has only ever kept us from rising each other up". On a personal level, this character arc of Jo's is incredibly meaningful to me. Amy, too, appears to reach this conclusion because we see her embrace Jo in forgiving her instead of endlessly defending herself.
I think Alcott takes great care in showing that the love and compassion shown in this film isn't easy and is in fact an active choice against the angry natures of the status quo. When Jo confines in Marmee about her shame upon realizing that she has grown mean-spirited and resentful of her sister, Marmee tells her that she was once the same way. Of course Jo is shocked to hear this, and I think it is one of the most important scenes of dialogue in the film because we see that "coming of age" for some women, including Marmee and Jo, is learning how to truly love one another even when it seems natural to be defensive and individualistic. Marmee tells Jo that she is not patient by nature and is angry nearly every day. Though she was born in to a life which inspired anger in her towards her sisters, just like Jo and I were, she grows up to be patient and compassionate.
When I first read the novel around a decade ago, I remember identifying most with Jo. I still do in many respects, but I have since started to feel more connected with Meg and Marmee. There are some things I have discovered recently like making bread which has given me an unexpected sense of belonging to my gender, which is something I have always struggled with. I can't help but feel this strange pull of connection between the act of making bread and hundreds of generations of women who have done the same thing in the same way, and whatever that feeling is feels empowering to me just like I have felt in my career. My recent joys in traditional domestic joys should not mean that I have to relenquish my feminist badge and my outspoken love for "Little Women" has confused a number of my friends and family. I think this all speaks volumes for the power of this old story Alcott wrote and Gerwig has adapted to perfection; a story which engages women in the idea that perhaps the most empowering part of womanhood is that there are infinite ways to live and none of them are spitting in the face of feminism so long as we are supporting each other.
It should be clear by now that I loved "Little Women". As a film it is well acted, incredibly written, and warmhearted in every bit of it's execution. I laughed, I cried, and I felt relief in letting go of some socially ingrained bitterness in me. The film is genuinely emotional and uplifting but never manipulative. While I watched it I thought kindly on several women in my life, and not just my friends who typically are the stereotypical feminist as journalists, scientists, athletic, career women, and not concerned with marriage or children. For the first time since I was deeply invested in Buddhism, I found myself thinking about my sister with genuine kindness and I am seriously considering seeking therapy or some other lasting change in the way I think about her. I hesitate to use the word "enlightenment" because it is such a lofty term, but I felt a real change and release in me after watching that film, and my perspective on feminism will be forever changed by it.
"Little Women"'s kindhearted feminism validates the paths of all women and urges us to love and support each other regardless of what we may initially feel. Looking back, I can't think of a stronger act of rebellion than this- to be kind, loving, and supportive of one another even in a world which wants us to be fiercely independent, competitive, and "progressive".
Under capitalism, just the simple act of kindness and being happy where you are, not forever pursuing a better job and less dependence on others, is a threat. I believe feminism has somehow been tied in to this whole harmful mess, almost without us noticing, and "Little Women" is a promising first step against it.
In Greta Gerwig's most recent film, "Little Women", the Marsh family gives their Christmas dinner to a poorer family in need. Should it be their responsibility to feed the poor? No, absolutely not. Widows should be able to be employed and feed their families, but they don't exist in a world where that is possible at the moment, and the March family is not concerned with the hierarchy of responsibilities. The March sisters are raised with the idea that women may be disadvantaged in this world, but we are all in this together and we can be empowered in our choice to raise each other up and to be kind.
It seems like a little thing, but it isn't to me. Little Women is a film which is clearly very feminist but in a way I don't see in media so often any more because there is currently a bigger, louder, more important fight for feminism to be in. This doesn't mean that the feminism of Little Women isn't important and relevant to this day, and I left Little Women feeling more empowered and excited about what I can do to be a better feminist and person than I have in many years digesting other feminist media.
Femininity has a place in feminism and it shouldn't be seen as a dismissive or "weak" trait, nor should it be seen as some kind of betrayal to the progress of feminism which it absolutely is viewed as. Women exchanging recipes, mending clothes, raising children together, and fawning over each other's beauty is every bit as empowering and meaningful as a woman being ambitious, athletic, skilled in combat, or otherwise masculine. A woman in a frilly dress with a child on her hip can be just as feminist as any other, but this woman is never represented in feminism and in a lot of ways I see feminism purposefully leaving her out. Feminists want to be seen as strong, independent, and powerful- not feminine, married, and traditional. Feminism appears to be taking a stance that as a movement it is trying to get away from traditional femininity because it has historically been tied to oppressive ideas around gender roles and "the weaker sex".
"Little Women" made me conscious of this bias as it exists in my subconscious as well. After seeing "Little Women", I have become more conscious of when I am reacting negatively to a "traditional" women as if she were oppressing me when it is really the social attitudes which continue to dictate how women should and shouldn't behave.
It is no secret that I hold resentments towards my sister. After watching Little Women, it has become clearer to me how many of these resentments stem from a perverse defence mechanism in me that is competitive and worried about being compared to her, as if her enjoying pretty things and having children is a threat to my own identity and choices as a woman. This point of view and these feelings are incredibly harmful not just for me but for all women, and now I've started to see it everywhere. Generations of women have been raised to subconsciously believe that there isn't enough room for us all to be how we like, we must either move forward with the ideals of feminism or in choosing otherwise, actively oppose it. It sounds silly, but for most of my adult life I have resented my sister's image and decisions because they didn't seem "feminist" to me, they weren't empowering to her or me or the fate of all women, and they lined up with what men expected of her. I am just now realising that in most cases, this just isn't true. There may be some opinions or choices that truly are harmful to women as a whole, but even then it seems insane that every women should be held with the responsibility to represent empowerment and agency- that we should all be striving to be successful, strong willed, and "feminist" because otherwise we are proving societal attitudes right, proving that we are the "weaker sex".
In the end, all of the sisters end up getting married. However, the way the story is structured and the way Gerwig ties together cenes of the sister's achievements and happiness, shows that these endings where even Jo gets married aren't "giving up" or specifically appeasing a traditional audience, but rather that this is simply the route the sisters took to their own happiness. The sisters may focus on their careers and passions, current relationships, enjoy pursuing beauty and pageants, and have soft and dismissive personalities or tomboyish personalities, and all are valid and wonderful. No one sister has a more empowering story. What makes their stories empowering is that they made the choices that were right for them and they grow up to be supportive and happy for each other. In the end there is no competition or resentment between sisters for choosing different lives and nobody perceives each other's lifestyles as a threat to theirs. Jo's "progressive" lifestyle doesn't belittle Meg's more "traditional" choices, and Amy never sneers at Jo for becoming a writer instead of a wife. They are all just genuinely, seemingly impossibly loving and caring of each other. Their supportive relationships are not just limited to their sisterhood, but represent how all women would support each other in an ideal world.
Women shouldn't stop attending pageants and dressing up as princesses just because its what women of the past did while they were expected to do so. Women are still oppressed and even amongst each other we are under pressure to conform to what women should and should be, so hell, just do what you love! The simple act of doing what you love and supporting your peers in doing so even if it goes against what others expect of you is empowering, meaningful, and feminist, and this goes for both genders.
In addition to supporting a "we are all in this together" type of feminism over the prevailing thesis of most feminist art, which is "strong independent woman don't need no man", "Little Women" places a lot of importance on the idea that Beth and Marmee are just as incredible for their compassion and kindness as Jo is for her strong will and intelligence. The role of a woman in feminist media does not always have to be intelligent and/or badass. Historically, the role of a woman in the community has been that of the carer. Women took care of others, raised children, and worked together to keep their communities fed and warm while men ensured the safety and protection of the community. While times have changed and women are allowed to and encouraged to have different roles, this does not mean that these old values are somehow counter-intuitive to society moving forward and feminist enlightenment. I believe that the image of women working together to feed people is still very moving and powerful, every bit as an image of a women in a lab coat may be. I love that kindness and charity are not treated as something that women do in this world because they have no other choice. I love that Marmee is shown as a hero for her kindness just as their father is a hero for his valour in battle. Marmee's decision to care for the poor is every bit as radical and political as her husband's is to fight in the war for the abolition of slavery.
Louisa May Alcott makes the important distinction between simply loving one's sisters for a sister's sake, and growing up to let go of resentments and support each other. Amy and Jo never grew similar. From birth they were always destined to be polar opposites of one another and their rivalries and fights in childhood are shown as meaningful to their development, not petty or childish. Alcott validates their relationship as something that is challenging to make amends with in the end. Though the conclusion becomes "life is too short to be angry with one's sisters" the sentiment is shown to be more along the lines of "my resentment to my sister has only ever impeded our happiness. I am choosing to be happy for her because our anger has only ever kept us from rising each other up". On a personal level, this character arc of Jo's is incredibly meaningful to me. Amy, too, appears to reach this conclusion because we see her embrace Jo in forgiving her instead of endlessly defending herself.
When I first read the novel around a decade ago, I remember identifying most with Jo. I still do in many respects, but I have since started to feel more connected with Meg and Marmee. There are some things I have discovered recently like making bread which has given me an unexpected sense of belonging to my gender, which is something I have always struggled with. I can't help but feel this strange pull of connection between the act of making bread and hundreds of generations of women who have done the same thing in the same way, and whatever that feeling is feels empowering to me just like I have felt in my career. My recent joys in traditional domestic joys should not mean that I have to relenquish my feminist badge and my outspoken love for "Little Women" has confused a number of my friends and family. I think this all speaks volumes for the power of this old story Alcott wrote and Gerwig has adapted to perfection; a story which engages women in the idea that perhaps the most empowering part of womanhood is that there are infinite ways to live and none of them are spitting in the face of feminism so long as we are supporting each other.
It should be clear by now that I loved "Little Women". As a film it is well acted, incredibly written, and warmhearted in every bit of it's execution. I laughed, I cried, and I felt relief in letting go of some socially ingrained bitterness in me. The film is genuinely emotional and uplifting but never manipulative. While I watched it I thought kindly on several women in my life, and not just my friends who typically are the stereotypical feminist as journalists, scientists, athletic, career women, and not concerned with marriage or children. For the first time since I was deeply invested in Buddhism, I found myself thinking about my sister with genuine kindness and I am seriously considering seeking therapy or some other lasting change in the way I think about her. I hesitate to use the word "enlightenment" because it is such a lofty term, but I felt a real change and release in me after watching that film, and my perspective on feminism will be forever changed by it.
Under capitalism, just the simple act of kindness and being happy where you are, not forever pursuing a better job and less dependence on others, is a threat. I believe feminism has somehow been tied in to this whole harmful mess, almost without us noticing, and "Little Women" is a promising first step against it.
Comments
Post a Comment