Woman in the Nineteenth Century

Fuller continues to develop her exploration of gender roles, intellectual freedom, and societal hypocrisy. Her critique of the superficial forms of power that women have been historically granted reflects the broader theme of Gender Equality and Human Potential, a central focus throughout the text. Fuller argues that women have often been given influence through coquetry, manipulation, and domestic roles, but she argues this influence is far from true empowerment. The sarcastic tone she uses in lines like “It needs but to become a coquette, a shrew, or a good cook” exposes the hollowness of these forms of power (55), emphasizing that women deserve far more than the ability to influence men in limited, socially prescribed ways.

The critique of this false power is particularly relevant in the thematic context of Moral and Spiritual Progress Through Individual Growth. She advocates for women to move beyond superficial roles and embrace their full intellectual and spiritual potential, which is essential for individual and collective progress. This idea remains relevant to modern feminist discussions, especially in the context of women's autonomy and self-realization. Today, there is still pressure on women to conform to certain roles—whether as the perfect mother, wife, or career woman—and Fuller’s call for women to break free from these constraints resonates with ongoing debates about how women should be allowed to define success and fulfillment on their own terms. Her vision for women’s moral and spiritual growth aligns with contemporary feminist ideals of self-determination and the rejection of limiting gender norms.

However, Fuller’s work also reflects certain limitations, in alignment with other First Wave Feminism texts, that make it less relevant to modern feminism in several areas. For instance, while her advocacy for women’s empowerment was groundbreaking for her time, her approach often frames women’s potential in relation to their spiritual or moral influence on men. This is evident in her discussion of historical figures like Elizabeth I or Mary Stuart, where she acknowledges their strengths but also critiques them through the lens of male expectations. In this way, Fuller still ties her vision of equality to traditional gender roles, even as she pushes for broader intellectual freedom for women. This focus on women as moral guides for men, while significant in Fuller’s time, may feel limited in the context of modern feminism, which often emphasizes the autonomy of women without reference to their roles in men’s lives. The modern feminist movement largely seeks to detach women’s worth and power from any relationship with men, a notion Fuller was only beginning to grasp in her 19th-century framework.

Fuller’s exploration of The Hypocrisy of Freedom in America is also notable in these sections. She argues that although women have been allowed certain superficial powers, they remain constrained by societal expectations that ultimately limit their growth. This tension between professed equality and actual oppression reflects a broader hypocrisy within American society, one that Fuller was keenly aware of. Her observations about how men grant women small amounts of power but refuse them true freedom parallels the way American society has historically claimed to uphold liberty and equality while maintaining systems of oppression, such as enslavement and gender inequality.

Despite highlighting this hypocrisy, one of the most controversial aspects of Fuller’s text is her comparison of the plight of women to that of enslaved people. While Fuller’s intentions are clear—she aims to highlight the oppression of women by drawing parallels to the more visible and recognized injustice of enslavement—the analogy has drawn criticism due to its insensitivity. Fuller suggests that in a state of acknowledged enslavement, men and women are equals, both reduced to the status of “work-tools” and property. She uses this comparison to emphasize the dehumanizing nature of both systems of oppression. Fuller’s comparison of women’s oppression to enslavement, while rhetorically powerful in her time, is outdated and insensitive compared to modern discourse. Notably, it fails to account for the vastly different experiences and degrees of injustice between enslaved individuals and women, particularly white women, in 19th-century America. The analogy simplifies the complex and brutal reality of enslavement and trivializes the experiences of enslaved people by equating them with gender inequality. In today’s intersectional feminist framework, which seeks to address the ways race, gender, and other identities intersect, such comparisons would likely be criticized for failing to account for the specificities of racialized oppression.

However, Fuller’s insights into societal hypocrisy remain relevant today, as many feminist discussions continue to focus on the gap between theoretical equality and lived experience. For example, while women have made significant legal and social gains, they still face structural barriers, such as unequal pay, underrepresentation in leadership roles, and societal expectations regarding beauty and behavior. Fuller’s critique of how arbitrary and unjust hierarchies distribute power resonates with contemporary debates about intersectionality and the ways race, class, and gender intersect to create differing experiences of oppression.