Enemies from the inside

I would like to share some thoughts I have had and that have come to the surface again as I am watching Mrs America, a TV show I recommend. The TV show talks about two women movements in the US in the 70s, one composed by feminists, the other one by women opposing the change asked by feminists. I believe it would be incorrect to define them as anti-feminists, even if it’s as they define themselves, because it would be forgetting the key point that what they really are opposing is change. Change is scary, the known, the status quo, as bad as it can be, it’s easier to cope with than the unknown. Many people prefer to keep the status quo, because change, even when it involves a better future, access to fundamental rights, also requires changing ourselves, adapting. The conservative women in this TV show are afraid of losing their privilege linked to their status of married women, such as the protection of men or a wealthy life. Protection that they wouldn’t need if they were independent, but independence also means learning how to provide for yourself. Secondly, these women are fierce defenders of patriarchy because they have internalised it, it’s the only framework they have known and it’s reassuring to think that it will continue to exist. 

Even if the percentage of feminists increased since then, patriarchy continues to be the winning framework nowadays. I keep on continuing being surprised and saddened when I hear independent and smart women saying that they are not feminists, in an apologetic way. Why do they feel they have to underline the fact that they are not feminists? Why do they want to differentiate themselves from that category? When, why and how did the category feminist acquire such a negative connotation that not even smart and independent women – representing what feminists push women to be – want to be connected to it? 

While I don’t have the answer, I can think of a few reasons. I think that the oppressing group always looks for ways to divide the oppressed and to make the “rebels” look bad, so that they lose the battle for power. So the division of women into feminists and anti-feminists and the negative connotation of those asking out loud for equal rights represent two huge successes of heteropatriarchy. Secondly, as mentioned above, I think some women are so scared from change that they oppose it, even if it would lead to a better life for them.  

I also feel that mainstream American TV shows struggle to promote feminist ideas. For instance, Carrie in Sex and the City doesn’t want to get married, but she ends up (in the movie) doing it anyway. Penny from the Big Bang Theory prefers not to have children, but she gets pregnant at the end of the show. Rather than defending women’s choice, it feels more like these female characters just needed time to bow to what society wants from them. (To be fair I have to add that in this TV show a woman wins the Nobel Price for physics).

To conclude on a positive note, I will mention Borgen, that I am watching at the moment. I have just started it but the main character – a high-level female politician in Denmark, is struggling to win in a man’s world, well rather than winning she is struggling to assert herself. At work, men are much better (or at least they have more practice at doing so)than women at negotiating and at appearing stronger and smarter than they are, whereas women have the tendency to show themselves as weaker, as they lack confidence and they generally don’t believe strongly enough that they belong there. All this to say that I am enjoying this series a lot, it portrays struggles women at the top are facing, while at the same time promoting a positive example of modern society.