1
Professor Aubry
ENG 3025: Survey of American Literature II
March 2nd, 2014
“Make Me a Sandwich!” :
Exploring the Cultural Context of Feminism in Freeman’s Work
Mary Wilkins Freeman can be considered a feminist writer, but only to a certain extent.
Freeman’s feminism was limited to her time period; if her characters were placed in today’s
society and judged by today’s standards, they would ironically be considered anything but
feminist. However, Freeman’s writing was feminist during its’ time considering the fact that the
cultural expectations regarding women’s roles were much more rigid; women were seen as
inferior to men, and were confined the roles of mother and wife (Kugel, 1987). Although
Freeman portrays characters who exhibit traditionally “feminine” characteristics and occupy
domestic roles, they are feminist characters in that they possess the ability to think independently
of male figures, act according to their own will, take a stand for themselves in marriage and
property issues, and ultimately defy male authority.
Without knowing the cultural context of Freeman’s work, characters such as Ma in “The
Revolt of Mother” could mistakenly pass off as subservient and dependent on men. For example,
in “The Revolt of Mother,” Ma is first described to the reader as “benevolent” and “meek”
(293). Ma is the paragon of a “gentle” lady who cooks, cleans, and even dresses her husband
(293, 305). However, Ma is a actually a character who refuses to be ruled by her husband and
other men. For instance, when the town preacher questions her seemingly “rebellious” actions to
convert the new barn into a home, she declares, “I’ve got my own mind and my own ways an’
nobody but the Lord is goin’ to dictate me” (310). Here, Ma seems to make a distinction between
God’s authority over her and male authority disguised under the facade of religious piety, whose
intent is to subdue her. Another example of Ma defying patriarchal society includes commanding
2
her husband’s hired hands to “stop” their work; interestingly enough, they immediately obey her
and agree that her husband didn’t need a new barn anyway (306)! Ultimately, Ma defies her
husband’s wishes. To her “pale and frightened” husband, she confidently asserts her view that,
“The house wa’n’t fit for us to live any longer, and I made up my mind that I wa’n’t goin’ to stay
there” (312). Ma displays her ability to think and act on her own, which was inconceivable and
discouraged for a woman during the nineteenth century. It is interesting to note that, in reaction
to Ma’s actions, her husband “weeps” and acquiesces to Ma’s demands (313). When Pa cries, he
takes on a typically “feminine” behavior, which demonstrates Ma’s complete physical and
emotional triumph over her husband.
Through the character of Ma, Freeman portrays a woman who is not a radical feminist,
but a practical one. For instance, Ma never divorces her husband, but instead she recognizes her
economic dependence on him. Ma must still rely on Pa to be the bread-winner and provide for
her and the family since, it was considered shameful for women during that period to work
outside the home. Divorce was too radical of an idea for Freeman whose time period advocated
Christian views and family harmony. Furthermore, Ma is an intelligent and perceptive character
because she recognizes the prevalent cultural perspective of the time which tells her to “reckon
men-folks in line with Providence” (296). However, although Ma recognizes this norm, she
ultimately chooses not to adhere to this expectation and disobeys her husband. Freeman writes
that her independent actions were seen as “uncanny “ and “superhuman,” by her children, but
also “insane and lawless” by the townspeople (308-9). Here, Freeman posits two different
reactions to Ma’s behavior: one of praise and one of scorn. A woman acting out of her own
accord and disobeying her husband was both admired and wrongful to some. However, despite
these opposing views, Pa acknowledges and accepts Ma’s authority and independence in the end.
3
Freeman seems to argue that confrontation and communication of a problem are extremely
important in eliminating the status quo, but if these preliminary strategies to address a problem
do not work, action is necessary.
Some would argue that Ma only stands up for herself while Pa is away from the home,
and that she had to act as a faithful wife for “forty years” before taking a stand for herself (302).
However, considering the context of this time period, Ma’s ultimate choice to take action were
radical in a time where women had been considered subservient to men for centuries, and had no
political voice or right to property. For example, in the very opening scene, Ma is confrontational
towards Pa. She does not allow Pa to leave until he answers her. Although Ma is described as
“meek,” Freeman makes it very clear that it was a “meekness that was a result of [Ma’s] own
will never of another” (294). This highlights that Ma does not let anyone, not even her husband,
rule over her. At the same time, by using the word “meek,” Freeman also seems to advocate for
women to be calm, collected, and not governed by others. While others would argue that
Freeman’s feminism is limited since Ma only regains her power within the hearth, which is
where women were traditionally limited to, Freeman still depicts a character who feels entitled to
an equal say in property issues within marriage. Ma speaks up and takes action, which was rare
for women to do during the time.
Freeman’ feminism is limited, though, because although she portrays Ma as a character
who has the ability to think and act independently, she is still tied to her husband for economic
reasons and is, therefore, not totally free to do as she pleases. In addition to this, Freeman’s
feminism is limited because Ma as a character who is unhappy with her husband, but must still
remain a faithful, loving wife to him. For example, although Ma feels “resentment towards Pa”
she “never fails in attention to her husband’s wants” (298). Ma still cooks Pa his favorite meal
4
when he returns to the home that should have been a new barn, and she patiently withstands his
growling speech, which has become her “native tongue” (294). Freeman’s feminism is limited
because women must remain faithful wives to their husbands despite the fact that they are
constantly ignored by their husband, and that their own desires are placed second to business
(and building barns for animals). Freeman seems to be advocating for women to speak their
minds, but still remain “good,” loving wives.
Freeman’s writing can be considered feminist for its’ time period because, through the
character of Louisa in “A New England Nun,” Freeman shows a woman who ultimately rejects
the cultural expectation to marry, and one who favors living the “single” life instead. Freeman
uses Louisa to represent a woman who simply desires sovereignty over herself and freedom to do
as she pleases. Freeman makes a statement that this independence that Louisa embraces will be
lost once she enters into marriage. Louisa expresses sadness in the idea of getting married as it
would mean having to leave her home, which is a symbol of comfort and utmost control over
herself and her surroundings (116). Furthermore, when looking at her possessions, Freeman
writes, Louisa “felt as one looking her last upon the faces of dear friends” (116). Similar to the
objects she possesses, Louisa feels that marriage will “rob her of [an] old environment” (116).
She is saddened that she would not be able to do the things that she enjoys because of the
cumbersome wifely duties that will be require her such as “the large house to care for, the old
mother to wait upon, and the company to entertain” (117). Freeman shows the juxtaposition
between being single and independent versus being married and losing one’s own identity,
essentially; Freeman challenges if marriage is even ideal if it would mean losing one’s sense of
self and entire property.
Freeman also uses Louisa to show that women could live joyful lives as independent
5
women, without being married. Louisa ultimately rejects marriage as well as the strong cultural
and economic pressures that claimed a woman needed to marry. Ironically, the end of Louisa’s
engagement brings on ecstasy and a newfound self-empowerment. Louisa, for instance, “[feels]
like a queen who, after fearing lest her domain be wrested away from her, sees it firmly insured
in her possession” (124). Furthermore, this mention of “domain” and “possession” are significant
because they demonstrate continue to possess her own property and retain her property rights,
which women would lose through marriage. This line also depicts Louisa’s desire to be
independent, in control of her own life, and not subject to another’s will. Freeman seems to argue
that it is better to be single, independent, and happy than married, dependent, and in a
relationship where the husband is clearly in love with someone else. Freeman takes a feminist
stance and uses the character of Louisa to show a woman who ultimately rejects the cultural
pressures that said women needed conform and just get married.
Freeman’s writing is feminist, but to an extent, because although she portrays characters
act out of their own accord, go against cultural expectations, and defy patriarchal society, they
still possess traditionally “feminine” traits and behaviors. In fact, Louisa is a character who is
depicted as irritatingly “lady-like,” especially by today’s standards. For example, Louisa does all
of the stereotypical “feminine” activities such as knitting, keeping an immaculate home, and
most of all, faithfully waiting for her fiance of many years to return (110-111). The narrator uses
words such as “dainty,” “peaceful,” and “sweet” to describe her character (114). In addition,
Louisa only uses “china,” which is symbolic of her own delicacy and femininity. Again, the
feminist themes in Freeman’s work are limited because she seems to argue that women should
still take a stand for themselves, but retain their “femininity,” or adhere to certain gender
expectations and be “lady-like.
6
However, Freeman does not advocate for women to unthinkingly adhere to social
constructs set for them during the time, such as marriage. For example, the narrator describes
how, as a young girl, Louisa “listened with calm docility to her mother’s views on the subject” of
marriage (115). She passively accepts her mother’s view, and despite the fact that love’s “wind”
becomes but a “murmur” to her, she remains passive as the wedding approaches (116). However,
Louisa ultimately changes from a character who is complacent and one who “goes with the
flow,” to a character who is vocal in her opinions and take active measures regarding her
marriage and future. Freeman, as a result, seems to be arguing for this same active, intelligent,
and self-aware attitude in women, as well.
Freeman advocates for a straightforward approach to challenging status quo inequalities.
Interestingly enough, she also draws attention to the differences between men and women, and
even encouraged women to use them to their advantage. In both stories, for example, she
describes the women as “meek” (123). However, the women are anything but meek; they are
bold, strong-minded, and willing to take a stand for themselves. Freeman refers to a lady’s
“meekness” and “diplomacy” as her “feminine weapons” (123). As shown Ma and Louisa,
Freeman advocates confronting problems through discussion, and through other characters acting
as foils, suggests that women communicate better than men. For example, all of the male
characters answer the women’s questions with phrases like, “I ain’t got a word to say” or
complete silence (121). Both Pa and Joe Dagget are stereotypical “men” in that they are stoic,
not very verbal, or emotionally expressive. While it is still a stereotype that women talk more
and have greater expressiveness, Freeman argues that women should use these “feminine
weapons,” or, differences, to their advantage (123).
Mary Wilkin Freeman’s work was quite radical and feminist for its’ time period. She
7
depicts characters such as Ma who openly defy her husband, and characters such as Louisa, who
reject marriage and retain complete sovereignty over herself. Both women show their ability to
think independently and act according to their own will. While Freeman’s characters may not be
considered feminist by today’s standards, she presents characters who did challenge the ways
that women were expected to think and behave in the nineteenth century. However, Freeman’s
idea of feminism is limited in that although her characters represent bold, assertive, and
independent-minded women, they bask in stereotypical “feminine” activities and remain “ladylike.” For example, Louisa is free to “sew linen...distil roses, and dust and polish, and fold” after
she breaks off the engagement (124). This makes one wonder if this was all women could and
wanted to do. Furthermore, Freeman’s characters do not outright reject this traditional female
role; this shows that Freeman advocated for women to think independently, but within only to a
certain extent in ways that fit the time period. Interestingly enough, Freeman argues that women
should challenge the status quo, not with fire and brimstone, but with subtlety. Both characters in
the stories are extremely patient and wait many years before defying male authorities. All in all,
Freeman does present characters whose personalities and actions were radical considering the
culture’s confining and rigid expectations that were imposed upon women. Both women directly
and eloquently confront male figures, defy cultural norms, and are not afraid to state their own
viewpoints. They reject cultural expectations of the docile, submissive woman, and defy a
society where opposing men and thinking for oneself would have been, in itself, unthinkable.