First, let's explain how we came up with the title. We don't want to give the impression that we think that the word suffragette is negative, because those women kicked ass hardcore. To us these women were true pioneers, people ahead of their time and a group that we really look up to. They wanted freedom from oppression and to be able to decide their own fate. They defied convention. Our made up term "Suffragette Syndrome" is about how the media sometimes fails to depict those kind of women. The inspiration for the name came from Parade's End. This syndrome is present in genres that rely on conventionality, although it's pretty ubiquitous. Women who want to control their life and want more than what they have been given or who fight against rigid gender roles are presented as bad and degenerate. In order to make a suffragette relatable and non-threatening is to have them say that they want those things, but to make it lip-service because deep down, they still want the oppression. We'll discuss three aspects of this syndrome: how "bad women" don't deserve happiness, women can't have characteristics or goals that are deemed unfeminine and finally, the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress.
The first example we have from anime. Mainstream anime is full of stereotypes, particularly the female characters. Kagura (check the previous post) breaks free from all stereotypes. Because she is neither a villain nor a hero, all she wants is freedom. She is a woman with a questionable moral character, therefore she does not deserve to live out her freedom. The minute she decides to break from the villain she has to pay the price for her past actions with her death, as if death would give her the freedom she so craved. We don't know what upset us more, the fact that she died or that her death was used as motivation for a male character. There are way worse females in anime than Kagome or Sango but they still won't ever compromise their morals. There's no shade in them, and that makes them boring. In addition, those two are too concerned with boys. Kagura couldn't give less of a shit about that, her objective was to be free in order to do whatever the fuck she wanted and not just to be with some dude.
Our second point about unfeminine goals and traits is illustrated by the altered and "improved" Éowyn from Lord of the Rings. Anyone who has read the books knows what she was really supposed to be like. Now, we don't like the softening of her character in the end by Tolkien either, but that was not uncommon for male authors at the time (eg, Far from the Madding Crowd). However, the movies changed her personality entirely. Because according to the writers, her character from the books would not have been relatable as such, especially to the female audience (as if women were a monolith). This sentiment was a personal insult. In the book Éowyn is cold and hard as steel. The reason she rides to Pelennor is to die as a warrior in glory, to be respected and remembered as a hero. She's ambitious and driven. None of these things mean that she would be devoid of compassion because clearly she feels for Merry and obviously she loves her uncle, her brother and her people. How could we possibly not relate to wanting more than what has been dealt to us in life? Because nowhere do women face obstacles from which they want to break free (insert sarcastic tone here). Basically Peter Jackson and co. transformed this fearless warrior into a generic Disney princess.
In our final point, angel vs. seductress we will discuss in two separate paragraphs. We will use two different shows as examples. This is the culmination of The Suffragette Syndrome. The first show is The Musketeers and the contrast is between Milady and Constance. Yeah, Constance is supposed to be the woman you're rooting for. The other characters describe her as kind, strong and independent (which is apparently the perfect mix). FALSE. She can do jack shit. She couldn't be more clingy to the guy and she has to be rescued constantly. She occasionally tries to have some attitude but always falls short, and comes off as a whiny, immature girl. Whereas Milady is described literally as the devil, manipulative and even a whore. They don't see anything redemptive in her. In reality, she's the one with independent spirit and gets herself out of any trouble or danger. Furthermore, her attitude comes to her effortlessly.
The other show we chose was, of course, Parade's End. This is where it gets ironic. The whole point of the show is that the protagonist, Christopher, leaves behind his stuffy, conventional, stiff upper-lip Englishness to enter a more modern era. His wife, Sylvia, represents the past and his new "suffragette" girlfriend, Valentine, the future. Sylvia though, couldn't be more unconventional if she tried. She also evokes real passion in Christopher, breaking him free from the shackles of his stiff shell. She contradicts and challenges him. Life with her is not simple or easy, like in a real relationship. Also, she's depicted as an indecent woman. Valentine on the other hand talks big about women's liberation, but is willing to worship the ground the guy walks on. She couldn't be more conventional. She always defers to Christopher and brings out nothing controversial or interesting in him. She evokes sexual feelings in him but not passion. Although she's supposedly this strong and independent suffragette, all she dreams about is the protagonist and their perfect life together. That is all she aspires to. Choosing a clingy schoolgirl whose world revolves around you over a woman who can stand on her own and who doesn't need you but wants you; How is that leaving your traditions behind? WTF, BBC??!! Unless it was meant to be irony. We doubt though that most male authors of the time were ever self-aware enough to create such irony. And God, what a waste of Benedict Cumberbatch.
A few good "suffragettes": Daniel Deronda manages to steer clear of the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress. Both Gwendolen and Mirah are great characters. The book does way more justice to Gwendolen though and is altogether superior. George Eliot, duh! Winslow Boy and Hysteria both have delightful suffragettes (in the true meaning of the word) who actually stand for what they believe to be right. Wanting independence and freedom from oppression does not disqualify someone from being in love or wanting to be with someone. For us, it simply means not losing your self-determination to this other person or that your whole existence won't revolve only around that one person.
The first example we have from anime. Mainstream anime is full of stereotypes, particularly the female characters. Kagura (check the previous post) breaks free from all stereotypes. Because she is neither a villain nor a hero, all she wants is freedom. She is a woman with a questionable moral character, therefore she does not deserve to live out her freedom. The minute she decides to break from the villain she has to pay the price for her past actions with her death, as if death would give her the freedom she so craved. We don't know what upset us more, the fact that she died or that her death was used as motivation for a male character. There are way worse females in anime than Kagome or Sango but they still won't ever compromise their morals. There's no shade in them, and that makes them boring. In addition, those two are too concerned with boys. Kagura couldn't give less of a shit about that, her objective was to be free in order to do whatever the fuck she wanted and not just to be with some dude.
Our second point about unfeminine goals and traits is illustrated by the altered and "improved" Éowyn from Lord of the Rings. Anyone who has read the books knows what she was really supposed to be like. Now, we don't like the softening of her character in the end by Tolkien either, but that was not uncommon for male authors at the time (eg, Far from the Madding Crowd). However, the movies changed her personality entirely. Because according to the writers, her character from the books would not have been relatable as such, especially to the female audience (as if women were a monolith). This sentiment was a personal insult. In the book Éowyn is cold and hard as steel. The reason she rides to Pelennor is to die as a warrior in glory, to be respected and remembered as a hero. She's ambitious and driven. None of these things mean that she would be devoid of compassion because clearly she feels for Merry and obviously she loves her uncle, her brother and her people. How could we possibly not relate to wanting more than what has been dealt to us in life? Because nowhere do women face obstacles from which they want to break free (insert sarcastic tone here). Basically Peter Jackson and co. transformed this fearless warrior into a generic Disney princess.
In our final point, angel vs. seductress we will discuss in two separate paragraphs. We will use two different shows as examples. This is the culmination of The Suffragette Syndrome. The first show is The Musketeers and the contrast is between Milady and Constance. Yeah, Constance is supposed to be the woman you're rooting for. The other characters describe her as kind, strong and independent (which is apparently the perfect mix). FALSE. She can do jack shit. She couldn't be more clingy to the guy and she has to be rescued constantly. She occasionally tries to have some attitude but always falls short, and comes off as a whiny, immature girl. Whereas Milady is described literally as the devil, manipulative and even a whore. They don't see anything redemptive in her. In reality, she's the one with independent spirit and gets herself out of any trouble or danger. Furthermore, her attitude comes to her effortlessly.
The other show we chose was, of course, Parade's End. This is where it gets ironic. The whole point of the show is that the protagonist, Christopher, leaves behind his stuffy, conventional, stiff upper-lip Englishness to enter a more modern era. His wife, Sylvia, represents the past and his new "suffragette" girlfriend, Valentine, the future. Sylvia though, couldn't be more unconventional if she tried. She also evokes real passion in Christopher, breaking him free from the shackles of his stiff shell. She contradicts and challenges him. Life with her is not simple or easy, like in a real relationship. Also, she's depicted as an indecent woman. Valentine on the other hand talks big about women's liberation, but is willing to worship the ground the guy walks on. She couldn't be more conventional. She always defers to Christopher and brings out nothing controversial or interesting in him. She evokes sexual feelings in him but not passion. Although she's supposedly this strong and independent suffragette, all she dreams about is the protagonist and their perfect life together. That is all she aspires to. Choosing a clingy schoolgirl whose world revolves around you over a woman who can stand on her own and who doesn't need you but wants you; How is that leaving your traditions behind? WTF, BBC??!! Unless it was meant to be irony. We doubt though that most male authors of the time were ever self-aware enough to create such irony. And God, what a waste of Benedict Cumberbatch.
A few good "suffragettes": Daniel Deronda manages to steer clear of the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress. Both Gwendolen and Mirah are great characters. The book does way more justice to Gwendolen though and is altogether superior. George Eliot, duh! Winslow Boy and Hysteria both have delightful suffragettes (in the true meaning of the word) who actually stand for what they believe to be right. Wanting independence and freedom from oppression does not disqualify someone from being in love or wanting to be with someone. For us, it simply means not losing your self-determination to this other person or that your whole existence won't revolve only around that one person.
No comments:
Post a Comment