There’s a longstanding trope about women
and power, that women rule from the shadows. The idea is that while women may
not have positions of official power,
they can still wield real power, by
using reverse-psychology, sexuality, and various other manipulation techniques
to get powerful men to do their bidding. In fact, as I think about it, it's almost implicit in the valance of the words "master" and "mistress": the master is the one in charge, but the mistress is the one who pulls his strings.
This is a storytelling trope for a
reason, of course. It goes without saying that in many places and periods
throughout history, law dictated that only way women could wield
power was through men. Even now, ask
almost any woman in management and she’ll tell you they’ve gained the skill of
convincing the men around them to adopt the women’s ideas by imagining that
they were the men’s own. And from a storytelling standpoint, it's just compelling. There's dramatic triumph in watching an underdog defeat oppression and exercise power,
using only the means they can muster to exploit the weaknesses of those who
purport to be their superiors.
So it’s a worthy trope. But we shouldn’t ignore its problematic
elements. Because it’s so often the
story of women, it perpetuates a vision of women’s power as descending not from
straightforward competence, but from underhandedness. And it bleeds into life: actual women associated with actual male
leaders have to work that much harder to avert vague assumption that they are false,
behind-the-scenes manipulators. (To be
clear, I don't think life is easier for single women in politics, or women whose significant
others aren’t male leaders, but I think each gets tarred with a different brush.
Likewise, there’s no shortage of manipulative men on TV—see, e.g., House of
Cards—but their manipulation isn’t couched as triumph in the same way.) The trope also perpetuates the larger idea that
women’s friendly overtures can’t be trusted, because they may be masking deeper
motives. It’s part of the whole “women,
amirite? Who can guess what they’re thinking?” malarkey.
So how do some recent shows fare with their depictions of female power-wielding? Mixed.
Queen
of the South (USA, Summer 2016, returning soon for season 2. Organized Crime
Drama.)
Watched: first two episodes
Premise: The tumultuous rise of a drug queenpin from
the very bottom to the very top.
Promise: This show is not one of those “lead from behind”
shows, at all. This is a show about
women who want power and take it, often at gunpoint. I love the tenacity and determination of the
lead, but I don’t see her ultimate fate—the top of the heap of a deplorable
business—as a particular success. So
while I’m cheering for her in the human sense of wanting someone’s
circumstances to improve, the whole endeavor feels futile and self-destructive. (In fact, I think this is part of the problem
with “money and power” shows more generally—I don’t conceptualize success in
quite the same way the characters do, and it hard for me to identify with them. Maybe that’s a point for a whole different
post.) In any case, the stakes were high
and the performances were appealing, but I still couldn’t bring myself to root
for them.
Verdict: Didn’t work for me.
Victoria
(PBS/Masterpiece, Winter 2017.
Historical drama.)
Watched: season
Premise: Chronicles a slightly fictionalized rule of
Queen Victoria of England
Promise: Here, we have a woman whose reign is official
but whose power is constantly questioned, so she often has to rely on male
allies to achieve her goals despite her rank.
When her reign begins she is young, naiive, and in over her head, and we
watch her as she gains experience and confidence. Victoria herself is largely guileless, but
those around her aren’t, so the show doesn’t wholly escape the trope. And
while it upends tropes (as Victoria’s reign did) by giving us a prince consort
who feels as marginalized as a queen consort would, it doesn’t portray him as
maneuvering from the shadows the way a similarly situated TV queen consort might. In any case, I enjoyed the show a great deal;
it provides an enjoyable portrayal of a transitional-yet-familiar period. Performances and production are strong, and
the show has just enough lightheartedness to keep from being a sodden history.
Verdict: enjoyable.
Feud:
Bette & Joan (FX, new.
Drama.)
Watched: First two episodes
Premise: Joan Crawford and Bette Davis work with and
against each other to reinvigorate their late-stage careers.
Promise: This show is about ageism, sexism, and the
competitive tension between two stars whose real enemy is time. Each of these women has mastered the art of
leading from behind, making the system work to their advantage by playing on
the egos and insecurities of the men around them, and the show highlights one
of the pitfalls of such an approach, namely that it comes with an expiration
date. It reveals, but alas does not
condemn, a further pitfall of such an approach:
that it cedes ultimate power to men, by making them the arbiters of
sexual appeal. The performances are
wonderful, and the story is juicy, but I’m so terribly tired of seeing TV shows
about women who resent each other’s success and manipulate each other’s
jealousy that I don’t even care about its historical accuracy and deep
nuance. What I mean to say is that this
show is, fundamentally, a very male take on female issues. The woman carp about each other’s
attractiveness to men. All they want is
the men’s attention, to be sexually desired. “Winning,” for each is about male
approval. And while that may be
realistic, I just don’t want to spend time my TV time there.
Verdict: I want to support the cast, but not the
topic. Couldn’t we have a different one?
Just imagine what these two brilliant actresses could have done with a story
about, say, the women’s suffrage movement.
The
White Princess (Starz, new.
Historical fiction/period drama.)
Watched: First three episodes
Premise: Fictionalized portrayal of the betrothal and reign
of Elizabeth of York, queen consort of Henry VII (Tudor).
Promise: This fully embodies
the rule-from-the-shadows trope, as the York women plot from inside to
undermine the Tudors. Historically, we
know they are doomed to fail, which makes their pride poignant and pathetic,
but that is not the point of the show, which is a drama of power, manipulation,
jealousy, resentment, and occasionally something resembling love. It not only portrays women as manipulators,
but also toys with the English-mystic idea of “women’s magic” (my term,
although I’m sure there are much more formal and studied terms)—the witchcraft
of certain English women to poison dreams and force luck. Those things are mostly turnoffs for me, but
thus far I’ve stuck with the show because of the lead character’s stubborn insistence
on being herself rather than any of the people that others want her to be. This is perhaps clearest in the show’s
portrayal of her rape by her future husband, which (for once!) isn’t
sensationalized or excused, but instead portrayed as a rape—a moment in which
she outwardly yields, but inwardly retains her pride and selfhood. But as the show’s focus shifts to a broader
geopolitics and her marriage takes shape, I’m not sure the show will hold my
interest.
Verdict: Jury’s still out.
On the Docket: still lots of shows, but I’m still mulling
the topic.
