By Christine Rosen
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
The new Hulu series, “Mrs. America,” is purportedly about
conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and her successful campaign to defeat
the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the
1970s. In fact, the series uses Schlafly as a stalking horse for its creators’
larger effort: to remind Americans that the leaders of second-wave feminism
deserve more thanks and gratitude than they’ve been given, especially when it
comes to thwarting the agendas of people like Phyllis Schlafly.
That’s right. Despite hagiographic books, movies,
Presidential Medals of Freedom, and even high-end children’s toys devoted to
the effort, the glories of feminism have not been appropriately appreciated.
(And if you think feminists are immune to protecting even the smallest details
of their images, read the fascinating correction made to this
2011 New York Times article).
There’s nothing wrong with this conceit as a vehicle for
drama—and “Mrs. America,” which features a stellar cast of actors including
Cate Blanchett, Rose Byrne, Margo Martindale, Tracey Ullmann, and Uzo Aduba, is
good television drama. But the show’s creators made a strenuous effort to pitch
themselves as respectful of their subject, when in fact they use Schlafly’s
activism as a way to convict her for what they see as her internalized
misogyny, racism, and narcissism, and to praise feminism by contrast.
Listen and Subscribe to the Commentary Podcast
Their historical chicanery is intentional. As the creator
and showrunner Dahvi Waller told the New
York Times’ “In Her Words” gender newsletter, “We started this process in
2016, on the precipice of what we thought was going to be our first female
president . . . The thinking was, we’ll have our first female president so
wouldn’t it be fun to do a series centered on the biggest anti-feminist from
the ’70s?”
But with their dreams of a Hillary Clinton administration
shattered by Donald Trump’s victory, the show’s tone took a turn towards more
pessimistic tropes. As Waller mused to the Times,
“What does a true female antihero look like?” Evidently it looks a lot like
Schlafly, on whom the show’s creators project a great many contemporary
political disappointments and past social ills. “Things don’t turn out so well
for women on this show,” Waller said. “Our tagline in the writers’ room was,
‘Mrs. America, women can’t win!’”
As for Schlafly’s supporters? The many housewives and
anonymous, traditional conservative women who rallied to her cause and defeated
the E.R.A.? While Waller claims that those women’s stories “should be told and
I think it’s worth understanding for today,” she views them largely as pitiable
creatures. “There’s always someone left behind. There’s no denying the homemakers
that comprised her army are sympathetic, because they’ve lost status in a short
amount of time.” So much for the victors writing history.
This version of history is happy to take liberties with
facts. The first episode, set in 1971, opens on Schlafly, known in real life
for her ramrod posture and penchant for modest, ruffled high-necked blouses,
sashaying down a runway modeling an American flag-themed bikini at a political
fundraiser (Schlafly’s biographer told a reporter that he can’t recall ever seeing
a picture of Schlafly in a bathing suit among her personal papers).
The series also adds an overlay of menace to its
portrayal of Schlafly’s marriage (which by all accounts was a very happy one),
including a scene in which her husband is depicted pressuring her to have sex.
In fact, Schlafly’s husband Fred was well known for doting on Phyllis and was
consistently supportive of her ambitions. As Schlafly’s daughter Anne told the Los Angeles Times, “My father loved the
success that Phyllis achieved and Fred Schlafly liked to quip, ‘I regret that I
have but one wife to give to my country.’”
Thanks to Blanchett’s skills as an actor, we thankfully
get flashes of Schlafly’s spiky intelligence and discipline, her indefatigable
organizational skills, as well as a few rare moments of emotional
vulnerability. Blanchett has perfected so many of Schlafly’s mannerisms—her
head tilts and smile—it’s almost uncanny (I met Schlafly in the 1990s and
Blanchett captures brilliantly the weirdly intense, unwavering gaze she would
fix on you during a conversation).
But the real stars of this series are clearly meant to be
the feminists—especially Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, and
Betty Friedan. It is the children of the feminists (not the children of
Schlafly and her supporters) who are depicted in affectionate scenes with their
mothers. By contrast, Schlafly is portrayed as largely detached from her
offspring except when she is attempting to mold them to her will (such as when
she throws her daughter into the pool to teach her to overcome fear). In
Schlafly’s world, children are depicted as crying annoyances who need to be
handed off to the help; nowhere do we see the little moments of joy that are
the mundane but remarkable experiences of motherhood, which Schlafly and her
supporters believed they were fighting to preserve. Instead, these women are
portrayed, as the Steinem character reminds us, as “housewives brainwashed by
the patriarchy.”
As well, the feminist protagonists are given ample space
and time to reveal their complicated and empathetic human sides, while Schlafly
and her supporters are not. If the show’s creators had spent as much time
fleshing out the relationships among Schlafly’s inner circle as they did
showing us Betty Friedan on fictional blind dates or Gloria Steinem hooking up
with her boyfriend, we might have learned something new. Even in a scene
recreating a debate between Friedan and Schlafly, during which Friedan angrily
announces that she’d like to burn Schlafly at the stake as a witch, we are
meant to sympathize with Friedan (who is shown racing off to the bathroom,
overwhelmed, to use her inhaler).
Only the feminists get complicated, authentic portrayals
of friendship (such as Gloria Steinem placing a late-night call to Betty
Friedan thanking her for “The Feminine Mystique” because it “changed my life”),
deliberately downplaying the real tensions among the leaders of the feminist
movement. Meanwhile, Schlafly is portrayed as icy, Stepford-like, and
instrumental in her connections with other women, navigating a world of pastel
dresses and appropriate chit chat like a seasoned politician rather than an
empathetic friend.
The show’s message is clear: because Schlafly doesn’t
wear her heart on her sleeve like her feminist peers, she must not have one.
And yet, even if your politics are far less traditionally
conservative than Schlafly’s, it’s clear she had a preternatural skill for
organization and inspiration. She might not have bonded with other women in
ways contemporary progressive women approve of, but she motivated them to
protest.
As well, for any contemporary young feminist who thinks
tweeting “MeToo” counts as activism, the show’s portrayal of STOP E.R.A. women
juggling multiple children and domestic responsibilities while also carving out
time to attend organizational meetings, stuff envelopes, and lobby legislators
should make them ashamed to use that same word to describe themselves.
We’ve been told for decades that we should admire
feminists (and even though my politics don’t always align with them, there are
many whom I do admire). Why can’t we also be allowed to admire the political
acumen and grassroots organizational genius of someone like Schlafly without
being flogged with reminders that feminist leaders were better? Perhaps the
tone of the series will shift in Schlafly’s favor (there are still a few
episodes left to air). But I doubt it. By constantly comparing Schlafly to her
feminist antagonists and finding her wanting (while idealizing those same
feminists in the process) the creators of “Mrs. America” are ultimately guilty
of the sin they so frequently accuse Schlafly of committing: dividing women.
No comments:
Post a Comment