I read the first two or three novels at about the age Anne was in the first book (12 or 13). I always loved spunky orphan heroines (Annie was a great favorite of mine from about 7 until about 13).

I didn't have the later books and wound up moving on. I was thinking about doing a re-read lately (including the later books I missed out on), but I'm afraid that I will wind up not liking it because if Anne grows up and doesn't have any more scrapes and such, my enjoyment may just wane because that's my most favorite thing about her - her imagination (which I shared as a young girl) and getting into silly amount of trouble for it and her spunk.

In any event, I don't know why "feminism" has to come into it at all. She was modern enough to go onto college after her regular schooling, even if it was to become a teacher. She studied hard and didn't get involved with the whole "boy crazy" thing that others did. She got together with Gilbert when she was ready to and on her own terms, not because she was obligated to.

She's kind of an old-fashioned Hermione, really.

And Hermione already got blasted by some for getting married and having kids and not being Minister of Magic at the age of 37.

No one will ever be happy because everybody has a different idea of what it means to be a feminist.

Anne was feminist enough for the time that she was written.

Hermione is perfectly feminist enough for our modern times.

Anne should absolutely be remembered and we should encourage our daughters to read the books and enjoy the heroine without being, as someone below said, "didactic" about reading these things.

Can't we just enjoy a good story without a feminist/Marxist critique? Sheesh.

Cheers.

And I think that even those of us who consider ourselves feminists do well to consider that our jobs can't love us back the way our families and children can. We can strive for professional respect, but, once retired, that respect alone cannot keep us company. The choice to nurture a family does not mean selling out.

Amen, sister!

"She was modern enough to go onto college after her regular schooling, even if it was to become a teacher."

What's wrong with becoming a teacher?

Nothing in my eyes.

As to other more radical feminists, it might mean everything.

In this sense - I'm acknowledging that Anne did something for her time that was pretty extraordinary - she educated herself very well.

The response from the usual radical crowd would be: who cares, she became a teacher (and, Heaven forbid, a wife and mother), which is just a stereotypical career for a woman at the time and therefore no big deal and doesn't make her "feminist" at all.

So in writing I was almost pre-emptively responding to any radicals that might pop up and try to say that her education meant nothing, even though I think, for the time that she lived, it meant everything.

See, I don't see "feminism" the way others do. Any time a female character shows that she is thinking for herself, no matter in what time period the story was written (like Anne, or Little Women, or Jane Austen), it means something to me, even if, in the end, she does nothing more radical than that.

Because that means a lot to me - seeing women "acting like men" - stating their piece, doing what THEY want because THEY want to do it, not because the HAVE to do it.

Anne didn't marry Gilbert because she HAD to or felt she HAD to. She married him because she loved him.

Same with Elizabeth Bennet. Technically, she had to at least marry well. But for that, she could have said yes to Mr. Collins and been done with it, and she didn't because she didn't want him. She married Mr. Darcy because she LOVED him, not because she HAD to.

That is what is key for me in reading female characters created in different eras. That's why I liked Anne, because she wasn't your typical girl. She spoke her piece, she studied and she wasn't interested in just being with boys. These are all things that even girls nowadays haven't learned fully. And it's important to teach them.

Anne is a good role model for this.

Even Elizabeth Bennet is.

And certainly Hermione Granger is.

I guess it depends on the message we are trying to send. I just want my daughters to know, as I did, that they can be or do anything they set their minds to and no amount of "sexist" comments or behavior should ever stop them from achieving, even if, in the end, that achievement is being a stay at home mom, or even working as a teacher (and not necessarily aspiring to be principal or head of the Teacher's Union or Superintendent or whatever). As long as I know it was THEIR choice, I don't care. As long as they are happy with their choice, I don't care.

Cheers.

Ladykrystena, I quibble with you only in that I believe that Elizabeth Bennett would have remained a spinster had she not fallen in love with Mr. Darcy. She made that quite clear in her discussions with Jane, where she suggests that she will be a wonderful aunt to all of Jane's children, and her discussions with Charlotte & Jane where she suggests that only the deepest love will tempt her into marriage. In addition, Jane Austen herself remained a spinster, and was clearly not afraid of being an unmarried woman. She would unquestionably have had opportunities for marriage given her station in life.

As for Hermione Granger, I think that she is a wonderful example of the way that our girls are growing into feminism. She doesn't believe that she is as good as Harry & Ron, she knows so completely that the question doesn't even come up. There are aspects of her character that are less accomplished than the boys, but there are also aspects that are more accomplished -- she is obviously the most brilliant student (not girl) in the entire class. She doesn't need to choose between career as Minister of Magic and motherhood. She doesn't even think about the fact that there might be a choice there -- she simply chooses for herself. Which to me, is the end goal of feminism anyway, right?