As though she had wanted to prove Maureen Dowd’s point about
the feminist thought police [see previous post], the Atlantic’s Sophie Gilbert has
taken out after Carrie Mathison, the lead character in the television series
Homeland.
Gilbert makes the case against Carrie:
In her
relatively short and extremely stormy tenure at the CIA, Carrie has slept with
her boss (Estes) and broken up his marriage, seen one asset (Hasan) executed in
Pakistan, lied to another (Lynne) that she was under CIA protective
surveillance (after which Lynne was promptly assassinated), illegally spied on
a returning Marine (Brody), slept with said Marine and given him information
that helped him beat a polygraph, gotten another asset (al-Zahrani) killed by a
briefcase bomb during a meet, gone rogue on the streets of Beirut, slept with
Brody after she knew he was hatching terrorist plots against the U.S., gotten
pregnant by Brody after she knew he helped assassinate the vice president, and
then helped Brody escape after a bombing she failed to predict that ended up
killing almost 200 people at Langley. And that's just the first two seasons.
Surely, it is correct to note that Carrie makes mistakes.
But she does not just make mistakes. She is dedicated to her work and at times
she does her job effectively.
Gilbert, however, dismisses the notion that Carrie has
anything resembling competence:
Carrie's
incompetence matters because her only saving grace as a character is the
oft-repeated assertion that she's professionally extraordinary. …But she also
embodies the ugliest stereotypes about women in the workplace: that they're
hysterical, brittle, rude, entitled, inefficient, and governed by emotions
rather than logic. Instead of earning her promotions, Carrie either fails her
way up the CIA ladder (after practically everyone else is killed by the Langley
car bomb) or threatens people into giving her what she wants. Her current
position in Islamabad was achieved by blackmailing CIA chief Lockhart, although
from her interaction with her new antagonist, John Redmond (Michael O'Keefe),
we can deduce that most CIA agents in Pakistan think she got it thanks to
services rendered—a myth she doesn't attempt to dispel.
Carrie Mathison is a fictional character. She is not a
stereotype. She is not designed to prove or even to disprove a feminist point.
Maureen Dowd might say that we should recognize that some incompetent women who
have gotten their jobs for reasons other than their professional achievements.
We might even elect one of them our next president.
Gilbert continues to make the case against Carrie:
The
trope of smart, capable women constantly undermining their professional lives
with their personal problems is especially pernicious when you consider that,
for these characters, their professional lives are all they have (see Scandal's Olivia Pope and Katherine
Heigl's character in the upcoming State
of Affairs). Women in television are rarely allowed to be invested in
both their careers and their families, even in 2014.
In truth, such women exist. Like it or not, some women sacrifice
their personal lives to their professional success. And yes, it is easier for a
man to engage himself fully in his job if he has a wife at home. And it is true
that some women undermine their professional lives with their personal
problems.
After all, women are human beings, too.
No work of art is obliged to portray women fulfilling the feminist dream.
For her part Gilbert believes that art must serve the
culture. She means that art must to show that the feminist dream can come true.
In truth, this is propaganda, not art.
In her words:
As a
culture, we need female antiheroes who aren't stereotypes: career women who
don’t have to sacrifice their personal lives because they love what they do. We
deserve complex characters who are difficult, problematic, occasionally cruel,
and often brilliant, and whose defining quality isn't being either
sociopathically detached or obsessively emotionally involved.
Carrie—inefficient, erratic, egotistical, inconsiderate, unprofessional
Carrie—who puts on her lipstick with totally steady hands after almost being
killed, and grunts, "Well, you're pretty enough" to a pilot while
aggressively watching a baseball game, is neither a superhero nor an antihero,
but a once-intriguing character who's become a grotesque. "There's no
diagnosis for what's wrong with you," her sister tells her. Hopefully, for
the sake of the rest of the show, there’s a cure.
Gilbert is especially disturbed by the scenes in the first
episode where Carrie returns to Washington to face the infant she abandoned.
They are gruesome and painful scenes. Certainly, the moment
where Carrie nearly drowns her baby is awful to witness.
And yet, Carrie Mathison has put career ahead of motherhood.
She is not a natural-born mother. She does not have anything resembling a
maternal instinct.
Do you think that a woman can do everything in her power to
function as a man in a man’s world and then go home to become a good
mother?
Thankfully, precious few women would even contemplate
drowning their babies. And yet, we recall Andrea Yates. It’s not as
though it has never happened. And when it does happen media experts spend a
considerable time trying to make sense out of it.
In addition, more than a few women, under the aegis of
feminism, have chosen not to have children. Contemporary feminism is far more
concerned with how not to have children than it is with how to have them.
Feminists have long believed that motherhood would chain them to their homes
and prevent them from finding true happiness in the workplace.
Since Carrie is not in any way constrained by her obligation
to care for and to nurture her baby, she might have been a feminist heroine.
As for Carrie’s use of her womanhood in her work, let’s say
that it’s a very interesting question.
Dowd suggests that art should invite us to think, so why not
take up her challenge?
If a woman is completely consumed in an extremely important
job, how much will she have left to nurture a child? And, how likely is it that
she will find a man who is willing to stay at home and nurture a child?
If she is a single mother, who will care for her child while
she is away from home?
If a woman decides to exercise a profession that is mostly
done by men, will she not make use of her femininity to advance in her career?
Is it right or wrong for her to do so?
If a woman decides that she should act like one of the boys,
is it realistic to expect that no one will notice that she is a woman? Is it
reasonable to assume that her being a woman will have no effect on her job
performance?
When feminist dogma claims that a woman can do any job as
well if not better than any man, ought we to accept this opinion without
question?
What effect does her womanhood have on a work assignment in
a culture that is notably hostile toward women? Did it matter that George H. W.
Bush’s ambassador to Iraq in 1989 was April Glaspie?
The feminist life plan tries to persuade women to delay
childrearing. It does so by promising
that they will still be able to have a home, a husband and children. Ought we not to question this idea?
Ironically, it’s a fictional character, one Carrie Mathison
who seems to give the lie to the fictional heroine of feminist myth.
3 comments:
She wants a Feminist Tin Goddess. Diversity in thought ist VERBOTEN!
I just finished watching what I consider one of the best films I have every seen and I have viewed a large number of films. The film was "The Book Thief." Excellent acting, a timeless story of love, family and the challenges faced by a young girl/woman in Germany during Hitler's reign. There is a scene that has the people of the town gathered together to burn books that do not meet the ideas and desires of the aryan belief system. They are all singing and enjoying the spectacle of these books containing forbidden ideas being burnt.
It leaves me wondering if feminism is far more attuned to the ideas expressed in the fact that feminists would gladly rid this country of ideas they don't approve of and destroy anyone who might even slightly challenge their orthodoxy. When art needs to be controlled then one must begin to wonder if we are not living in times where we either stand agains't such tyranny or become willing participants in the subjugation of a once free society.
Notwithstanding that we are all individuals whose lives do not follow some script written by our betters and especially not feminists. We are fallible people and in many ways that is a good thing because we have the ability to learn from our mistakes Feminism seems to be the home for harridans, maladaptive dysfunctional personalities, and crones go to live in a self propagating misery. In order to feel good about themselves they have to make everyone as miserable as they are going through the motions incapable of actually enjoying that which they say the aspire.
Life has a lot more joy to it than otherwise, but it appears they cannot find joy except in victimhood. Is this the life most women really aspire?
I'm currently re-reading the memoirs of the Soviet rocket developer Boris Chertok. At one point, he talks about an officer he knew while serving with Soviet occupation forces in Germany just after WWII. This officer was also a poet, and Chertok believes his poetry kept him from being promoted...not because higher authorities were opposed to poetry, or because the poems said anything specifically offensive to the regime...but because of what they did NOT say, ie, they did not contain praise for Stalin, paeans to the Proletariat, etc.
Really, how different is that from the attitude of our present-day commissars who expect every book and movie to enthusiastically echo the approved memes of the day?
Post a Comment