Proponents for Little Women in the Course
In the society, it is essential to inform the learners what are the necessities of a balanced lifestyle. Young students should understand the importance of having gender equality even in professional fields. Some authors composed texts that show women as minor human beings in the society and they end up not having any of the prestigious jobs around. Women are portrayed to be inferior beings who are expected to be submissive to men always. Those who support the patriarchal society where males should dominate everything do not support the presence of Little Women by Louisa May Alcott in courses on American literature. On the other hand, feminists use such books to show that women can also do different things on their own and it is not mandatory for them to rely on men for everything. This paper will analyze why the text above should be an integral part of American literature course.
The Little Women inevitably historical novel, as the bulk of the storyline, is built around the March family home. The Victorian patriarchal framework sires family life and relegates the March ladies Meg, Jo, Beth, Amy, and Marmee to the local circle (Alcott, 20). Her quick yet unrealistic father, Amos Bronson Alcott, showed his little girls to practice unbending discretion and fancied that they submit to him. His difficulty dropped the family into an obligation, compelling Louisa, her sisters, and their mom to look for work outside the home to bolster the family as he had neglected to do. The feministic nature of the March and Alcott families did not modify the patriarchy of nineteenth-century American culture. Nonetheless, the ladies, including the March sisters and Louisa May Alcott, battled out of financial need and the essential ability to prevail in a general public that tried to limit women to the home (Alcott, 33).
Sarcastically, Louisa turned into the one fundamentally in charge of accommodating the Alcott family and in the end safeguarded them from the obligation. For quite a long time, the Alcott’s got charity from loved ones. This obligation mortified Louisa and made her “savagely resolved to act naturally supporting.” The same searing, eager nature that Bronson endeavored to quell stimulated in Louisa a “substantial awareness of other’s expectations for the requirements of her mom and sisters” Still, society restricted her to “female” work like instructing, local work, sewing, and nursing. Regardless of conveying the weight of accommodating her family from a youthful age, Louisa did not scorn her dad, or if she did, she never communicated her outrage in her diaries or letters (Alcott, 84). In spite of the fact that the work was a troublesome need for Louisa, she appears to have moved toward it with aspiration and a feeling of pride.
Alcott’s difficult family life combined with her involvement in the moving scene, a commonly male circle which covered on occasion with the customarily female residential circle. It drove her to a specific brand of women’s liberation that did not look for the topple of male specialist or parts yet rather looked for adjusting and fairness between the genders. The partition of circles has somehow filled women’s activist writing and grant in the course of the most recent century out of the dread. Unless the ladies focus on the different culture of, by, and for ladies, it is possible that girls will be left out. By differentiation, the Alcott’s strain of “residential” women’s liberation, as her fiction reflects, did not look for cancellation of the circles, but rather ‘saw an improved family as the way to a transformed society.’
Moreover, each of the March young ladies has some artistic ability. However, the required obligations keep them from building up these attitudes. Meg, as Jo calls attention to, is “‘the best performing artist we have'” yet she has cravings to build up the “local” expressions and ‘enjoy herself at home.’ Jo, apparently, appreciates composing; Beth is musically disposed of, and Amy’s ability lies in drawing and painting. Surprisingly, none of the young ladies find a specialty in either the customarily male circle of procuring a pay or the female household circle (Alcott, 73). A remarkable opposite, each of them would rather seek after the gifts and dreams that recognize them, not as women, but rather at people. For example, in part, “Châteaux in the Air,” Meg longs for a “‘perfect house…with a lot of hirelings, so I never require work a bit. Indeed, even Beth concedes that she would be glad at home now that she has “‘my little piano'” (118). Of the four young ladies, just Jo expects to profit, not for sustenance, but rather for notoriety. She pledges, “‘I should compose books, and get rich and well known'” (118). Take note of that none of them had always wanted seek to obliterate the refurbishes of patriarchal society or wholly split far from home.
In conclusion, Little Women is a good representation of novels that try to establish uniformity in the society. As most of the feminists do, they point out the evils that men in the society do and end up victimizing the males. Alcott comes up with a middle ground where women are taught how to rely on themselves, and the other hand men are brought out as characters who embrace change and stop being so self-centered. Initially, the efforts to unify the society appears futile, but after such texts are included in the courses that are taken by students in American Literature, patriarchal societies will have no room.
