Upon finishing Zora Neale Hurston’s "Their Eyes Were Watching God," I felt like a college admissions counselor staring at the file of a well-rounded, 4.0 GPA student— who had just been cited for cheating. Hurston’s novel was just like that student, deserving of “masterpiece” status if it were not for a single blemish on its record. Set in the 1920s, the novel tells the story of Janie Crawford, a ¼ black woman in Florida Hurston illustrates Janie’s journey through three marriages and a uniquely black culture. Weaving in authentic vernacular and poignant descriptions, Hurston manages to convey subtle yet strong messages about racial injustice and human struggles; however, she dilutes those messages with the single element of overzealous feminism.

If it were not for Hurston’s thinly veiled feminist conjecture, "Their Eyes Were Watching God" would truly deserve exaltation as a masterwork. In contrast to other works addressing the African-American struggle, the novel uses more indirect but effective approaches to reach the reader. Instead of using characters to vent direct complaints about or make direct observations of racism in a situation, Hurston allows the readers to discover it for themselves in empathy-inducing prose. Whether it be through supporting character Mrs. Turner’s self-contradicting irrational tirade or short descriptions of “white people…[preempting]” blacks while seeking refuge during a hurricane, Hurston allows the reader to experience the wrongfulness of racism firsthand. This is far more effective than choosing to make blatant complaints or angry outbursts; those tactics prevent readers from truly feeling the pain of racism for themselves and in fact disinterest the reader, who tires of hearing incessant quibbling.

With this in mind, we would think that Hurston would apply the same effective subtleness if she wanted to espouse a feminist agenda. Unfortunately, she does not, and instead spouts ineffective, polarizing allegations. In fact, the first paragraph of "Their Eyes Were Watching God" is a disconcerting piece of feminist conjecture, using a metaphor of sailing ships to posit that men never actively pursue their aspirations. Hurston claims that men only achieve dreams that “come in with the tide,” while they simply “turn…away in resignation at any other dream that isn’t handed to them on a platter. This fallacious generalization would make any sensible individual cringe, for if all males never worked toward their aspirations, society would be stagnant.

In addition to making flawed statements like this, Hurston portrays virtually all male characters in a negative light. She depicts Janie’s first husband Logan Killicks as an uncultured, angry blockhead who forces Janie to movie “manure pile[s]” and threatens to use an “ax” to “kill” her. Despite being slightly more intelligent, Janie’s second husband Jody Starks also receives a bad rap. Shown as a domineering ideologue, Hurston even compares him to a “man attempting to climb to painless heights from his dung hill.” Even Janie’s third, most conciliatory husband Vergible “Tea Cake” Woods meets a fate that shows that empathetic, kind men can not exist.

These portrayals perpetuate a false notion that men can only be domineering Neanderthals. They are based on conjecture and false premises, and do nothing to prove why anyone should accept Hurston’s feminist agenda. By directly insulting men and thus attacking half the world’s population, Hurston can not hope to create any of the same empathetic agreement that her subtle references to racism bring about. In fact, Hurston’s unfounded feminist statements hurt the credibility of her accurate depictions of racism, and turn off readers who would otherwise be receptive to her messages about racial justice.

Overall, Hurston does tell a compelling story, but it is hurt by her unrestrained, unfounded feminism. If only she had applied her strong techniques of accurate subtlety to all of her arguments, "Their Eyes Were Watching God" would be a much more refined, effective, and trustworthy work.