Reviews tagging 'Islamophobia'

Dobre żony by Louisa May Alcott

1 review

_tee_'s review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional lighthearted sad medium-paced
  • Plot- or character-driven? Character
  • Strong character development? It's complicated
  • Loveable characters? No
  • Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
  • Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

2.25

i suppose my views on this book are heavily influenced by my feminist views, which caused me to dislike the book much more than little women. a lot of my opinions on this book were formed by the book’s stance on marriage and the role of women, forcing even the most ambitious characters to get married and have a family rather than pursuing their dreams, such as
jo deciding that writing for the newspaper is immoral as her stories are exciting and then giving up her writing dreams altogether to raise a lot of random boys,
and also amy giving up both her dreams of being an artist and a socialite to
  go and marry laurie (who is only rebounding off of her older sister. yikes.) 

something that made me love little women was the range of women it portrayed, from jo the ambitious writer to meg who wants to marry and have a family. i loved this detail as it showed how diverse women are, and did not portray the entire gender as just one being with the same actions and opinions, as some people believe. it also provided a little to learn from everybody (for me, the main three were jo’s ambition, amy’s confidence and beth’s selflessness). this seems totally lost in this book, as, by the end, they all seem to have become a hive mind
(except for beth… who is dead)
who believe that marriage and children are a woman’s only purpose in life. this is not helped by the fact that the book seems to preach that a woman’s true desire is to serve her husband, and that the source of any unhappiness she may face is that she is not married
(take jo stopping grieving as heavily once the professor appears).
combine this with the fact that all their ambitions have been taken away from them, and all you get is a generally outdated and somewhat boring book that just parrots ugly messages we all heard time and time before. 

although the original felt preachy at times, the morals were understandable, such as helping the poor and not being selfish, but this books lacks this fact, and just spouts sexist rhetoric about marriage and families. take the chapter where
meg’s husband doesn’t come home at nights to hang around at his friend’s house and works all day, leaving meg to struggle with the children and housework. this, of course, is blamed on the fact that meg wasnt finding time in the day (whilst she was caring for babies) to look after her husband and give him attention, rather john being blamed for not caring for his children.
what is this supposed to mean? that a woman should learn to be in three places at once? it certainly isnt not to have children as one of the key messages of this book is that babies will solve all your problems, women. 

i was genuinely surprised by this messaging as a section at the beginning of my book explains the author, louisa may alcott’s stance on marriage (which is that she enjoys freedom to much to find a husband) and her wildly feminist views for the time. i suppose she may have just been writing for the general 1800s audience? 

tldr: i am glad that little women and good wives are usually sold as separate books from where i’m from, as some lucky souls may be able to steer clear from the obscenely sexist rhetoric portrayed in this book and just read the original. 


(just thought i should mention that  there’s weirdly some stereotypes about jewish people in one scene? a jewish character is described as a having a large nose quite a few times) 

Expand filter menu Content Warnings