I was reading The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers and I obviously ran into a lot of silly language about women. There are constant references to "The natural weakness of women" and how they were prone to illogical bursts of emotion, etc.
This kind of thing was most prevalent in TTM. However, upon a second reading, it's clear that all of this is only surface level. The women in that book are the primary drivers of the plot. Every event of importance happens thanks to/on behalf of the female actors. It's also made very clear that the women are, on average, far more intelligent than the men. In contrast, the men are constantly described as intelligent and clever, yet often make choices of baffling idiocy. The main villain of the story is supposed to be The Cardinal, but the character of Milady is by far the most cunning and capable person in the whole book, and ends up being the greatest threat to the well being of the protagonists.
Moving on TCoMC, there seems to be a reversal. The women are intelligent and educated, but to no purpose. They play only minor parts in the events of the story. For the most part, they have very little self-agency, yet it is clear that they desire more freedom than they have to act as they wish, similar to Madame Bovary. Strangely, there is much less mysoginistic language in the story. At least, compared to TTM. The women are honored, and praised far more than they are demeaned. I was also surprised to find a lesbian couple among the minor characters.
My question is, at the time they were written, were these books praised or criticized for their handling of female characters? Or did the subject not come up at all? Did they reflect or challenge the views of their time?
A little bit of context first : after the french revolution, there was a period of strong re-enforcement of gender roles. The ideal of the woman belonging only to the domestic sphere, not cut-out for the world, was strongly reinforced ; women were seen as spiritual guide, here to elevate men's souls, and so had to stay, above all, very pure. The ideological construction of sexe differences reached an all-time high : men and women were almost understood to be radically different species. This can be seen in the arts, with, for example, the birth of the romantic ballet, where men and women roles are differenciated as never before. It is also clear in popular spectacles of the begining of the XIXth, for example, the melodrama : in it women were invariably the innocent victim who couldn't do anything to save themselves. In the romantic movement (to which Dumas belongs), writers and poets would often depict women as both weak and dangerous (as in Vigny's work).
That said, at the same time, a number of Dumas contemporaries were far more invested in pleading the cause of women than Dumas was. Balzac wrote a novel, La femme de trente ans, which specifically denounces women's subordination in marriage. Hugo (a close associate of Dumas) was an early champion of "feminism", calling the condition of women a "slavery", becoming at the end of his life president of the french association for women rights (also, he created great feminine characters, such as Marion de Lorme, a prostitute). So, by contrast, Dumas was not that progressive.
If we now look at his works (I focus mainly on his theatre here), it has been observed that women there generally fall into two camps : powerful and dangerous, or nice and weak, a bipartition that is somewhat in line with the ideology of his time - women should stay within the bounds of femininity and, if they don't, they become sorts of monsters. In particular, Dumas has a recurring character : the political woman, the queen, that is presented as a powerful character but also a self-serving monster. For example, in Henri III et sa Cour, Catherine de Medicis manipulates men to create chaos and destruction ; she doesn't even care about her own children. The character of Catherine de Médicis is also used by Dumas in one of his later novel, La Reine Margot, much in the same manner. Catherine Howard, from the eponymous play, is an also interesting example, since she illustrates both vision of the woman : she starts of as a pure and naive young woman - but once she becomes queen, she also becomes a power-hungry monster. Very simply, a woman who leaves her "womanly" role, in Dumas fiction, tends to become a monster. (Which is not the case in Hugo's work, where woman can be depicted as having a strong will and getting stuff done without becoming monsters).
Dumas most offensive play in that regard is probably Anthony, which is supposed to be a tragic love story (and was received as such). Yet the "scene of seduction" is, in fact, a rape of Adele by Antony, and that rape is framed as being a pinacle of love. Adele, being a "virtuous woman" (and not a degenerate monster with desires of her own), can not choose to sleep with Antony ; he rapes her, but she still loves him. This play was a huge sucess at the time and considered the ultimate romantic love story.
All that said, even if Dumas's women tend in general to be black and white, a careful examination of some characters would probably reveal more nuance : for example, with the eponymous Reine Margot, quite a strong woman but not a monster ; still, she's devoted to her lover (as any woman should be at the time). As well, the novel La guerre des femmes, which is a kind of feminine Three Musqueteers, stages the opposition between two well rounded feminine characters.
In general, Dumas depiction of women tends to stick to the vision of women prevalent at his time. While not being at the forefront of "feminism" like his friend Hugo, he wrote some interesting female characters, and a lot of not so interesting ones.
As an aside, it is said that Dumas's son, Alexandre Dumas fils, is the one who coined the term "feminist" in a book bashing the feminist, called L'homme-femme (The Man-woman).