Throughout the course of Little Women, Jo March has a complex relationship with femininity and gender. She frequently laments about her being born a girl over the course of the novel. She openly enjoys boyish games and mannerisms and expresses disappointment at not being born a boy (9).
In many ways, this leads the reader to the conclusion that Jo does not truly identify as a woman. This would make her a very early example of transgender representation of media. Many of her words echo sentiments of young transgender adults today. She tells her sisters that she “can’t get over my disappointment in not being a boy” (9). At a party early in the book, she struggles to fit in with the women in attendance (30). All these instances show a disconnect between the gender assigned to Jo from birth and the gender Jo most identifies with. Jo could very well be a product of a transgender experience in a time before transgender experiences were openly discussed, or even had a proper name Alcott would have heard of.
A differing interpretation of Jo’s complex relationship with femininity is that, while she is (and identifies as) a woman, she longs for the experiences that only a man can have in this time period and culture. This is supported by the context surrounding some of Jo’s complaints of womanhood. For example, Jo complains to Laurie “If I was a boy, we’d run away together, and have a capital time, but as I’m a miserable girl, I must be proper” (202-203). Here she laments being a woman simply because it prevents her from running off and having fun with her friend. Additionally, Jo calling herself a “gentleman” and “man of the house” (11) is in the context of Jo wanted to fulfill the typically male role of the household to care for her family. In an early scene, she wishes to be a boy in order to fight with her father (9). These are all cases of Jo not aspiring to be a man due to a conflict in gender identity, but to experience things she cannot as a woman.
While some may argue that one is more or less likely than the other, it is also very likely that these two interpretations overlap. Being born as a woman and labeled as a woman would limit what a boyish girl like Jo could do. Her feelings about her own gender could very well be a complex intersection of gender dysphoria and misogyny. At any point, Jo is being told dozens of different things a woman should be- from her mother, from Aunt March, from the society around her. It’s no wonder her relationship with femininity is complex enough to lend itself to multiple interpretations.
I think it is very interesting and important to address two different ways that Jo's relationship with gender can be interpreted. To me, this presents itself as whether she has a strong presence of masculinity in her personality, which would support a transgender argument, or simply the lack of femininity, which would support the idea that she rejects some traditional gender roles of her society.
ReplyDeleteI am more inclined to argue for the idea that she simply projects as a less feminine person due to how extremely feminine her female counterparts in the novel are. I believe that if you were to place Jo in a twenty-first century society, she would not be seen as vastly more masculine than any cisgendered women. Jo is described as having boyish manners, talking with slang, and overall rejecting stereotypical mannerisms that women are expected to have (3). In contrast, her sisters are more compliant to the expectations of their society. For example, Amy is described as being very materialistic and concerned with her vanity (40), both of which are common for women to experience during this period. Therefore, when you place these two characters next to each other, it makes it appear as though Jo is on an extreme end of masculinity, when in reality she simply deviates from abnormally strict societal norms.
Yet, even with the contextual interpretation of Jo’s femininity and a modern interpretation of her character, I agree that her character is so complex that we most likely will never fully comprehend her relationship with her own gender. This makes Jo such an interesting character because she does not blindly comply with the traditional feminine roles that everyone in her life is telling her that she needs to conform to, but she is able to form her own thoughts and opinions concerning her own life. In this sense, she is able to define independence for herself, a definition that is likely much different from other women in her society.
I think that there are some interesting arguments posed in this blog post, as I had always felt that Jo was just less feminine than her profoundly feminine sisters. Though Jo does make certain comments that could lead the reader to assume confusion with her gender identity such as the quote on page nine, I think that is a large assumption to make. When all of the context is considered, Jo seems to identify as a woman but present less feminine.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to compare when her counterparts are extremely feminine and more conforming to what was expected of women back then. Jo is more likely to break the norms. I think that if Jo were to be alive nowadays, she would not be considered transgender. It would just be accepted that she is not extremely attracted to males and wishes to have more freedoms similar to a man. I often find myself frustrated that men have more privilege than women. Comments similar to Jo's can be made regarding this frustration. I do agree that she is a complex character and it is hard to determine what is going on in her head, as there are many possibilities.