[ SECRET POST #4622 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4622 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Clue (1998 video game)]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Back to the 90s/Alternative 2538]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Star Wars: Rebels]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Dream Daddy]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Little Women adaptation]


__________________________________________________



07.
[She-Ra and the Princesses of Power]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #662.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[tabaqui]

I dunno. Jo also advocated for disabled and 'mixed race' students (pretty progressive for her time), continued to write, ran the school and taught, so...it's not like all she did was pop out babies and mop the floor.

[(Anonymous)]

I was going to say this. She founded one of the first mixed gender colleges and became a famous author. She achieved all her goals.

[tabaqui]

Yup. Just because her life doesn't look the same as a 'modern' women doesn't mean she failed or was 'lesser'. Nothing wrong with marriage and children being part of your dreams.

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody said she failed or was lesser, though. Who are you arguing with here?

[tabaqui]

Who are you?

[(Anonymous)]

The OP. Who definitely didn't say that Jo failed or was "lesser". In fact, I don't think anyone in the thread has said that, so I'm not sure who you're debating.

[tabaqui]

I'm 'debating' the person who basically dismissed everything Jo did that wasn't just marriage and babies. Which was couched in a pretty judgemental and 'none of that counts because it wasn't enough/she still had kids and a husband' way.

[(Anonymous)]

That was me, except I never said any of those things.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, it's almost like someone's opinions and attitudes and goals in life can change over time and with circumstance. It's almost like being a feminist doesn't mean you have to stay single and childless your whole life. Weird.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, sure. But her life still revolves around being a mother/wife.

As for her being an advocate... the disabled students at Plumfield were non-characters, though. Seriously. Billy only exists because Alcott was trying to make a point about one of her pet ideas, i.e. that studying too hard can burn out your brain. Dolly's only issue is that he's got a stutter and he still gets almost no attention until the sequel when he exists because Alcott needs a bad example. Dick's got a crooked back and is dead by the sequel. George/Stuffy gets fat-shamed.

Remember that part about Amy's daughter Bess and how everyone loves her and gives her presents? Keep in mind that Dick might have physical limitations, but again, Dolly is physically fine except for the stutter. Why then are they only capable of making willow whistles, a useless toy? How come they're both too dumb to figure out that nobody needs dozens of whistles? And how Jo thought that Nat was "Nat amiable but weak" because she "liked manly boys"?

That was all a product of her time, of course. But that's why I don't get too carried away with how progressive Jo or Alcott was.

[tabaqui]

Wow - talk about judgmental. So Jo starts and runs a school, takes in kids no one else wants, teaches boys *and* girls, writes novels, but none of it's good enough because she's *also* a wife and mother?

Sheesh.

Jo *is* a product of her time. Alcott was, as well, as well as a woman who was fighting her family, peers and society for acceptance of her ideas. She didn't get formal schooling because she had to work to help support her family, and tried to kill herself when the pressure of that became too much.

She was an abolitionist, a feminist who challenged the 'norms' of her day, and possibly bisexual or even transgender, saying "I am more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body. … because I have fallen in love with so many pretty girls and never once the least bit with any man.”

The majority of her writing was to earn money, so yes - she wrote 'popular' literature that included children and marriages. She herself had neither.

[(Anonymous)]

Where did I say it wasn't good enough? Where did I say that being a wife and mother negates all those accomplishments? You clearly believe you need to defend Alcott. Who's attacking her?

Alcott was very progressive for that time period, on many levels. But she had her limitations, which is why I said I don't get carried away with how progressive Jo or Alcott was.

[tabaqui]

"But her life still revolves around being a mother/wife."
Which sounds pretty judgemental. Then you go on to negate or downplay everything the character did that was progressive for her time.

Is the book/the character perfect? No. But your initial comment was very judgemental and dismissive.

[(Anonymous)]

It isn't, though. You seem very determined to view it in a negative light. My point was the same as in the secret - that in the trailer, Jo vehemently argues that there's more to a woman's life than love and marriage, but - as great as I think that message is - it's ironic compared to what happens in the books. I'm pointing out the discrepancy, not making a judgment about being a wife and mother.


"Then you go on to negate or downplay everything the character did that was progressive for her time."

No, I don't believe I did that. I indicated that while "Little Men" had a disabled character, he was treated as an extremely minor character, as was the boy with a stutter. Despite the fact that neither of them were mentally disabled, the roles they were given in the book treated them as if they were. George was ridiculed and shamed for being overweight over the course of two books, and it was treated as a moral failing. You might not like it, but that was true.

Alcott was extremely progressive in many ways, for her time - she was right that corsets were unhealthy, that hard courses of studying weren't useful and could be damaging to one's health, that boys and girls can and should play and learn together, that love and being a good person is more important than being rich and famous. She had far greater compassion than many about the poor and the limited role for older, single women in society. She had lots of sensible ideas about the early education of children and how it should include being physically healthy, with lots of time for play and imagination. She was ahead of her time in terms of believing that the wealthy should be philanthropic and help those in need.

All those are good things. Merely pointing out that there are shortcomings doesn't mean I'm a "hater", which is how you're reacting. It's merely noting what you just said - that the book and character aren't perfect.

[tabaqui]

I believe you did, because that's certainly the tone of your comment to me. 'Well, but, she still had a husband and kids!'

Yes - because publishers of the time wanted books/characters with marriages and romances and more 'traditional' stories. Like I said, she wrote to make money, so couldn't exactly run up a flag and thumb her nose at everything if she wanted to be successful.

I am tired of seeing this argument every time older works and/or authors are brought up. It seems like no matter the steps made to be progressive or non-traditional, there's always this argument about 'well, but, not *really*'.... It's extremely frustrating to have the things that, in particular, women authors did that were pretty advanced for their time be dismissed because it doesn't measure up to some standard.

I've said my piece, now, several times over. Another anon up there agreed with me, so please go argue with them, I'm tired of it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're reading stuff that simply isn't there. Look back at all the negativity you claim to be seeing... where is it? Not in my comments. Saying her life revolved around being a mother and wife doesn't include any judgment, negative or positive. It's just a statement of fact. You're seeing it as an insult, but that's baggage you're bringing to the table.

I get that this is a sensitive subject for you, but I'm not sure I see the need for a fight here. Nobody's attacking or dismissing Alcott. Nobody's saying Jo was a failure. Acknowledging that older works can have both progressive and not-so-progressive parts is... just reality? It's frustrating, absolutely! But also true and perfectly reasonable? We don't expect a novel published in the late 1800s to be completely up to date, right? I certainly don't. I don't think anyone in this thread expects it, either. That doesn't invalidate your right to be upset when people acknowledge that reality, of course.


Honestly, there is no argument. Not with me, anyway. I just thought you'd be happier realizing that the fight that's exhausting you is completely unnecessary because nobody's saying the negative things you seem to think they're saying.

[(Anonymous)]

Who was the mixed race student? I'm totally blanking.

[tabaqui]

I am, too. He was 'mulatto' in the book, and no other school would have him because of it, so they took him on. I'm blanking on...almost every boy in 'Little Men' *and* 'Jo's Boys' right at the moment, except for the Professor's nephews.....