The Mistress Manipulator

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.