Well done, Sister Suffragette!

The unflattering depiction of suffrage begins almost as soon as the first scene in Mary Poppins. Mrs. Banks, clearly fresh from some sort of political activism, enters the house chanting, marching, and wearing a sash emblazoned with the words "votes for women." Instead of listening as her servants attempt to inform her that her children are missing and their nanny has quit, Mrs. Banks continues singing a song entitled "Sister Suffragette," the words to which are as follows:

We're clearly soldiers in petticoats
And dauntless crusaders for woman's votes
Though we adore men individually
We agree that as a group they're rather stupid!
Cast off the shackles of yesterday!
Shoulder to shoulder into the fray!
Our daughters' daughters will adore us
And they'll sign in grateful chorus
'Well done, Sister Suffragette!'
From Kensington to Billingsgate
One hears the restless cries!
From ev'ry corner of the land:
'Womankind, arise!'
Political equality and equal rights with men!
Take heart! For Missus Pankhurst has been clapped in irons again!
No more the meek and mild subservients we!
We're fighting for our rights, militantly!
Never you fear!
So, cast off the shackles of yesterday!
Shoulder to shoulder into the fray!
Our daughters' daughters will adore us
And they'll sign in grateful chorus
'Well done! Well done!
Well done Sister Suffragette!'

The mocking tone of this song is clear. "Missus Pankhurst," of course, refers to Emmaline Pankhurst, leader of the British Suffrage movement. Calling her "Missus" adds a further mocking note, since "Mrs." is a title for women that is based on whether she is married or not. The movie casts the struggle for suffrage as the activity of bored and ineffectual housewives. Mrs. Banks can be heard telling one of her servants to "put these things away, you know how the cause infuriates Mr. Banks." As soon as Mr. Banks is home, Mrs. Banks falls into the exaggerated role of simpering housewife. She hangs on his every word and defers to his word with little question. Mr.Banks can be heard to castigate his wife at length for her apparent inability to select a suitable nanny for the children. She also seems to have little knowledge of or control over her children. Mary Poppins, by contrast, is portrayed as "practically perfect in every way." She controls Mrs. Banks' children with little effort, she appears very in control of herself, and she shows no tendency toward political agitation. This contrast is meant to be unflattering to Mrs. Banks, who is painted as negligent toward her womanly duties in favor of agitating for women's rights.

Furthermore, Mr. Banks' conviction that he is the master of his household is portrayed as ridiculous in the light of his wife's preoccupations and his children's shiftlessness. The story seems to say that his assurance of absolute control over what is perceived as his dominion is called into question, in some part because of the "frivolous" activities of his wife. In Iron Jawed Angels, however, the men are not portrayed as two dimensional, bumbling caricatures of male power. Instead, they are represented as a range of realistic, multifaceted characters who are neither perfect nor monolithic embodiments of patriarchal power.

In stark contrast, the women in Iron Jawed Angels are painted as well rounded characters. They are neither cartoonish depiction of militant suffragists nor bored, simpering housewives. Whether wives or political activists, the women in this movie stand up for what they believe, are multifaceted characters with complex and nuanced views and emotions. This depiction of the suffragist movement is realistic. In Mary Poppins, women are portrayed as shedding their ideals at the whim of their husbands while in Iron Jawed Angels, the true struggle and vivacity of these heroic women is clearly demonstrated. In one, stereotypes are preserved. In the other, they are definitively dispelled.

Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. Women's Lives: Multicultural

Perspectives. 5th. 2009. 3-6. Print

Abstract for Discussion Leading Assignment

Rachel Collins
WST3015
Jeannina Perez
1/26/10

Johnson, Allan G. “Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them,
or an Us.” Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. Ed. Gwyn Kirk, Margo Ozakawa- Rey. McGraw-Hill, 1997. 68-76.

Johnson’s article attempts to fully quantify and define patriarchy, and describe the ways in which we both create and are influenced by it as a system. He begins by addressing the common male objection to the idea of a patriarchal system, which he identifies as stemming from the perception that when people speak of patriarchy, they are accusing each individual male in society of actively and directly upholding and participating in discriminatory behavior, and also from the fact that confronting the reality of patriarchy would force men to address the prospect of abdicating the privilege that this type of society affords them. Johnson then explains the importance of regarding patriarchy as being simultaneously the product of both individual action and the workings of a system that is larger and more powerful than simply the sum of the actions of all involved individuals.
Johnson identifies patriarchy as being partially the result of individuals being socialized throughout their development to participate in it, and also partially the result of our social systems being continually shaped by what he refers to as “paths of least resistance” (70), which refers to choices we both consciously and unconsciously make during every moment of every day. We may not consciously choose certain actions, but by doing what is most comfortable to us within the confines of our society, we unconsciously uphold existing social systems. It is when people step off the path of least resistance, Johnson states, that they have the opportunity to shape others’ actions and alter the way the system itself functions. The system shapes individual behavior through paths of least resistance, but individuals also shape the system by choosing to act independently of these paths. When, for instance, a man steps off the path of least resistance by verbally objecting to a sexist joke, he helps to reshape others’ perceptions of what is socially acceptable and expected. That is, he reconfigures the paths of least resistance themselves, so that it may become more difficult for others to follow the old paths due to the increased perceived risk of social resistance.
Johnson compares a social system such as patriarchy to a game like monopoly. The players themselves may not be greedy, may not think as capitalists, and may not receive enjoyment from the economic ruination of others, but in the game they act in these ways because the accepted restraints of the game show them that these behaviors lead to victory. He goes on to add that social systems are much more complex, ambiguous, and subject to change than the rules of a board game, but the basic principles are illustrated.
Johnson defines the elements of patriarchy as being “male-dominated, male-identified, male-centered, and control –obsessed” (73). Anything associated with womanhood and femininity is relegated to the marginal position of “other.” Patriarchy promotes feminine beauty and masculine toughness, feminine vulnerability and male protectiveness. According the Johnson, patriarchy is about the perceived naturalness of male competition, dominance, and aggression, of female caring, cooperation and subordination, of the valuing of maleness and the devaluing of femaleness. Most importantly, Johnson states, patriarchy is “about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence” (73). Johnson concludes the article by stating that patriarchy, like all social systems, “exists only through people’s lives” (76). To a certain extent, we experience it as being external to us. However, this does not mean that is totally separate from us. We cannot choose to be outside of the system; we can only choose whether to challenge or strengthen it.

Letter of Introduction

My name is Rachel Collins. I'm a sophomore at UCF - creative writing major, women's studies minor. I've been asked to create this blog as a part of my Introduction to Women's Studies course. If you had asked me if I was a feminist five years ago, I probably would have said that I was. However, I don't think i really knew the extent of what I was saying. I knew that feminism meant the conviction that women and men are of equal value, and should be treated as such by society, but only more recently have I begun to apply a feminist viewpoint to every aspect of my life. I'm interested in taking this course because feminism profoundly informs my view of the world, and I'd like it to be a part of my academic career as well.

Feminism is the basic conviction that women and men (and all people, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, class, ability, and other factors) are of equal value, and should be treated as such by society. Every other "radical" idea that feminists hold are extrapolations of that core conviction. I'm pained every time I hear one of my friends say "I'm not a feminist, but...." The ubiquitous reluctance to proudly and openly self-identify as a feminist is an unfortunate byproduct of negative stereotypes, misunderstandings, and fear. Women's studies is the study of women's progress through history. Women's studies programs are essential to combat the erasure of women's history and experience in traditional classes. Women's studies does not necessarily imply feminism, however women's history, just like all culture, is best viewed through the lens of feminism.

I think that those who reject the feminist label fail to recognize the true effects of inequality in our society, and a binary view of gender. The idea of gender affects virtually everything we do, say, and think. Gender is a social construct - a hodgepodge of cultural ideas about how males and females should look and behave. The most relevant difference between the genders, today, is the unequal treatment that they receive from society. Gender is a continuum, not an either/or question.

As of right now, my activism is primarily through VOX UCF, of which I am Director of Communications, and NOW UCF of which I a member. My primary responsibility within VOX is to coordinate tabling activities but I also help to plan events, promote events, and advocate and table for the organization, among other things. For those who may not know, VOX is Voices for Planned Parenthood, UCF Chapter. We are affiliated with Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando. VOX is a student education and advocacy program that promotes the ideas and goals of the Planned Parenthood Organization, such as comprehensive sex education, information about sexual and reproductive health, reproductive freedom, prevention of STI's and unwanted pregnancy, and getting tested. I feel that activism is an essential part of being an engaged member of society, and I feel that the activism I am involved with is important. The ideas that we promote and the education we distribute help people to make informed choices about sex and their health. I'm extremely proud of the work that VOX accomplishes.

I have read, understand, and agree to the terms of the course syllabus and blogger protocols.