Louisa May Alcott's best-known classic, Little Women, was published in 1869 and read and loved by a wide audience, consisting primarily of children and young adults over the years. , and yet, after more than 150 years, it still retains its place among the most popular children's books around the world. Although Alcott wrote Little Women at the time as a "conduct manual for 19th-century American girls" (Gheorghiu, 2015, p. 39), it now has a global audience, which is significant given that as a children's book it leaves a remarkable impact. on its young readers. Looking at the novel from a gender perspective, my aim in this article is to discuss issues of constructed femininities and masculinities in its society, how young men, but particularly young girls, are trained and expected to become accomplished ladies and gentlemen. Through the characters of the novel, I will analyze how these traditional gender roles are deconstructed by certain characters in the novel, mainly Jo and Laurie, while comparing Jo to her three sisters who fit into the description of female achievement, and how Alcott's deconstruction and challenge reaches a limit in the context of marriage. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Little Women revolves around four young girls, the March sisters named Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy, living in New England during the Civil War period. . As their father is away fighting in the war, their household consists only of the four sisters and their mother, making it an entirely female space. Although each sister is naturally different from the other, as mentioned above, there is a distinct contradiction and disparity between the appearance and characteristics of Jo and her sisters. Looking at the phrases Alcott uses to describe the sisters, he highlights this difference: the eldest sister Margaret, or Meg, is "very pretty", "plump and fair" and has "big eyes, full of soft eyes and brown. hair, a soft mouth, and white hands” (Alcott, 1947, p. 6) while Elizabeth, or Beth, is described as “a rosy, straight-haired, bright-eyed, shy-mannered girl of thirteen, a shy girl. voice and peaceful expression", and the youngest Amy is "a real snow maiden, with blue eyes, yellow hair curling over her shoulders, pale and thin, always behaving like a young lady careful of her manners" ( p.7). These descriptions apparently define these three sisters as pretty, shy, peaceful, pale, and well-mannered; making them fit within the boundaries of female achievement. However, when the reader looks at how Jo, the second eldest and main heroine of the story, is described, he comes across a completely contrary image: Jo is "very tall, thin, dark", "never seems to know what to do ". to do with her long limbs", "has a determined mouth, a comical nose and piercing gray eyes", "her long, thick hair... her only beauty... is generally wrapped in a net, so as not to bother her", she "Long shoulders, big hands and feet, a rebellious look to her clothes, and the uncomfortable appearance of a girl who was quickly becoming a woman and didn't like it." Jo's image is almost completely opposite to that of her sisters; she is neither beautiful nor small, nor does she know how to take care of her appearance as a well-mannered young woman, but above all, she is very uncomfortable with the change in her body and the fact that 'she transformsas a woman. . Considering that she prefers to be called Jo, instead of using her full name Joséphine, her discomfort with having a female body is reflected on the change of her name to a male name. Yet it's not just the name that makes her masculine, as throughout the novel she is portrayed as a tomboy, who uses slang, whistles, and overall behaves in an unfeminine manner . When criticized by her sisters for using slang words because "it's too childish", her response is: "That's why I do it". Jo's preference to act in a masculine, childlike manner is not an unconscious act or desire, as she is well aware of the fact that she desires to be a boy and does not like the traditional roles young girls are assigned to. submitted: “It's bad enough to be a girl, at least when I like games, work and the good manners of boys! I can't get over my disappointment at not being a boy; and it's worse than ever now, because I'm dying to go and fight with Dad, and I can only stay at home and knit, like a spindly old woman! Although this quote suggests gender inequality in Jo's character, by most critics, readers, and by Alcott herself, Jo is considered and identified as a tomboy. To elaborate on Jo's tomboyishness and masculine behavior, I would like to refer to Judith Halberstam, according to whom tomboyhood results from the restriction of female freedom. They explain in their book Female Masculinity that: The tomboy tends to be associated with a “natural” desire for the greater freedoms and mobility enjoyed by boys. Very often this is interpreted as a sign of independence and self-motivation, and the tomboy may even be encouraged to the extent that she remains comfortably tied to a stable sense of girlhood. The tomboy, however, is punished when it appears to be a sign of extreme masculine identification (taking a boy's name or refusing any type of girl's clothing) and when it threatens to extend beyond gender. childhood and until adolescence. Halberstam's statement above about being a tomboy parallels Jo's lines as she wishes to be a boy because she "likes boys' games, work, and ways" as they offer fewer restrictions and more freedom in general, instead of being stuck in restrictive domestic tasks and manners. which are forced and attributed to girls and women. Another freedom granted to men is to go to university, which Jo wholeheartedly aspires to but is unable to achieve, which she expresses thus: "How I wish I had gone to university ! when she learns that Laurie, their neighbor, is going to university soon. She also "takes a boy's name", as Halberstam suggests, and acts as head of the household since their father is absent; “I’m the man of the family now that Dad’s away,” she says, showing “signs of extreme masculine identification.” Yet she is not able to resist through clothing, for one thing a young girl is strictly forbidden to do in 19th-century America is cross-dressing or masculine clothing; basically, she's not allowed to wear anything that doesn't involve a dress, which is another restriction in Jo's way; a restriction on her bodily movements and one on her male identification. Therefore, the best she can do to feel tomboyish or masculine is to take a boy's name and position herself as the "man of the family." This is also verbalized by Beth, one of Jo's sisters, when she says: “Poor Jo, there's nothing we can do if you wish to be a boy; SOyou have to try to just make your name a boy, a brother playing for us girls. The question that remains is whether tomboyish Jo is punished for her extremeness or not. I will return to this towards the end of this article. While Jo is enveloped in her deconstructive femininity, there is another character who challenges established gender roles: Laurie Laurence. The March's wealthy neighbor, Laurie, whose real name is Theodore Lawrence, has the feminine-sounding nickname Laurie. When Jo calls the name "Laurie Laurence" strange, Laurie explains why she is called that: "My first name is Theodore, but I don't like it, because the guys used to call me Dora, so I I made Laurie say it instead. . ""I hate my name too - so sentimental! I wish everyone would say Jo, instead of Joséphine. (Alcott, p. 34) It is remarkable that Laurie's old nickname also has a feminine sound, perhaps even more so than Laurie. The transition from Dora to Laurie demonstrates that even after adopting a new nickname, he remains within the limits of his effeminacy. The problem with Laurie is that he is considered effeminate, by the other characters in the book and by readers, for being "pretty" and "very polite for a boy" and wanting to be a musician rather than a profession. serious ". Alcott, by assigning opposite-sex names to Jo and Laurie and defining them as atypical of what society expects of their gender, challenges traditional gender structures and stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. In fact, in an episode of the famous TV series Friends, where two characters decide to read each other's favorite books, one of the characters is unable to tell the gender of Jo and Laurie because of names which do not specify it. correlated with their sex. The dialogue from the series is as follows: Joey: These little women. Wow! Chandler: You like it, huh? Joey: Oh yeah! Amy has just burned Jo's manuscript. I don't see how he could ever forgive her. Ross: Um, Jo is a girl, that's short for Josephine. Joey: But Jo has a crush on Laurie. (Ross nods) Oh. You mean it's like a girl thing? Because that's the only thing missing from The Shining. Chandler: No, actually Laurie is a boy. Joey: No wonder Rachel had to read this so many times. As this example shows, by using names and nouns as agency, Alcott is playing with the concepts of femininity and masculinity, to the point that Jo and Laurie are seen as the opposite sex due, primarily, to their names, but also of their characteristics and the specific way in which they reject the roles assigned to them. This raises the question of masculine and feminine identities. Alcott obviously questions the notion of gender through these two characters, but what gender identity do Jo and Laurie really belong to? According to Judith Butler, “there is no gender identity behind gender expressions; this identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are supposed to be its results” (Gender Trouble, 2010, p. 34). That is, despite Alcott's specific gender attributions to Jo and Laurie, their identities arise from how they act, which therefore gives Jo a masculine identity, while giving Laurie a feminine identity at the same time. Gender is only a “performance”, “as an effect of a subtle and politically imposed performativity, it is an “act”” (2010, p. 200). Gender acts exactly as a performance in Little Women through the staging of Jo's plays. Possessing a genius as a writer, Jo constantly writes stories and plays, which she and her sisters then perform. Jo's choice of roles to playis undoubtedly still masculine, while her sisters Meg and Amy, defined as elegant, polished and pretty by everyone, play the role of the damsel in distress. “No gentleman was admitted into the room; so Jo played male roles as she pleased and took immense satisfaction in a pair of red leather boots given to her by a friend who knew a lady who knew an actor.” In a way, Jo's only opportunity to dress masculinely, one of her unfulfilled desires, is to play male roles in these plays, which she takes on with great enthusiasm. Her role performativity here is at the same time her gender performance; although it is only an "act", so is gender according to Butler. Just as Alcott plays with stereotypical gender roles and deconstructs tradition, when class comes into play; there seems to be a clear distinction between predominantly female spaces (the March household of five women) and predominantly male spaces (the Laurence household which is all male – Laurie, her grandfather and her guardian John Brooke). The descriptions of the two houses clearly highlight this difference: The garden separated the Marches house from that of Mr. Laurence. Both were in a suburb of the city, still rural, with groves and lawns, large gardens and quiet streets. A low hedge separated the two areas. On one side was an old brown house, looking rather bare and dilapidated, deprived of the vines which in summer covered its walls and the flowers which then surrounded it. On the other side was a majestic stone mansion, clearly witnessing all manner of comfort and luxury, from the large coach house and well-kept gardens to the verandah and the glimpses of beautiful things that could be seen between the rich curtains. It may seem that the stark difference between two houses is the result of social class and not gender, but gender and class are closely linked in Little Women. Stephanie Foote mentions in her article “Resentful Little Women: Gender and Class Feeling in Louisa May Alcott” that “plainly, gender and class are inseparable when we examine the types of negative feelings the novel is about. This lesson may seem too obvious – gender and class, after all, have become part of an established mantra of subject positions – but it bears repeating” (2005, p. 66). Gender and social class are indeed inseparable in the novel, as the evident poverty suffered by the March family is the result of the lack of male authority in the household, since the sisters complain about being rich when their father was at the house. If this poverty pushes Meg and Jo to work to provide for the needs of their family, and therefore to acquire a certain feminine independence, it nonetheless remains linked to gender because it results, placing the matriarchal March family in an inferior position to that of the patriarchal home of the March family. Laurences. Additionally, while Jo's writing of stories and plays (although she may get the chance to have them published in exchange for a small amount of money) can be interpreted as female independence, Alcott is apparently not entirely capable of defying traditional norms, as some of the stories Jo has published (highly requested thrillers) are considered "unfeminine" and "unfit" for a woman, by Alcott herself: “Jo thought she was thriving well; but, unconsciously, she began to desecrate some of the most feminine attributes of a woman's character. For a writer like Alcott who can challenge gender roles in nonconformist ways, her assertion that some writing does not.