MovieChat Forums > Iron Jawed Angels (2004) Discussion > Anti-Marriage, Anti-Kids?

Anti-Marriage, Anti-Kids?

posted 15 years ago by Luanna255
19 replies | jump to latest

First off, I love this movie. Love it, it is amazingly inspiring, I could watch it over and over again (and do, when I have the time). But I do have one issue with it, and that is that it seems to be rather anti-marriage and anti-kids.
First off, when she first meets Inez, Alice is explaining her idea of the New Suffragette, and what is the first adjective out of her mouth? Empowered, perhaps, you might think? Educated (which Alice never mentions at all; Inez has to supply that one)? Strong? Young? Oh, no; the first word out of Alice's mouth is that the New Suffragette is SINGLE.
Why? Why is this important? Is it impossible to accomplish anything if you're married? Yes, some husbands were restricting tyrants in those days, but not all, contrary to what this movie would have you believe, were that way. Couldn't there be some New Suffragettes with nice, supportive husbands?
The most ironic part is that Alice concludes this speech by telling Inez "she's you". Well, at that point, that's technically true. But not for long. Inez Milholland married Eugen Jan Boissevain in July of 1913. This movie ends with the 19th amendment being passed, in 1920.

[–] silver_shadewings 15 years ago

I dont think its anti-marriage or anti-kids, its more the responsibilities that's associated with them. Remember how that senator's wife said the same thing, that once you're married you're worried about embrassing your husband. Children need attention from their parents, and at that time since most men are already out working, if a mother gets into the sufferage movement she'll be leaving the kids along too. Alice touched upon that too.

[–] no_no_girl72 15 years ago

It is more about the woman's ability to be single.
If she wanted, she could support herself, live and be free from marital responsibilities.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

I don't know... I just rather got that impression. In addition to Alice making this big fuss about how the New Suffragette has to be single, the only married suffragette we see (the fictional Emily Leighton) has a repressive and controlling husband, while the husbands who were not controlling or repressive, such as Inez's, are not in the movie.
When Lucy talks to Alice about having kids and getting married, Alice quickly shoots her down. Alice says she cannot be in a relationship because "her whole heart is in this fight". This reminded me of nothing so much as the essays of Francis Bacon, where he suggested that the men who accomplished most were those who did not get married. Over 400 years later, Bacon is still called a sexist for this idea. Yet with women, the idea that getting married inhibits freedom and prevents women from accomplishing their goals is still accepted and not criticized. Why is reverse sexism any better?
Lucy mentions that Elizabeth Stanton managed to have many children while campaigning for votes for women, and that she and Susan B. Anthony took care of them together, and Alice's response is "I'm not taking care of anybody's babies!" At first I thought this was merely put in to accurately reflect the character's thoughts, not portray an ideal of the movie, until I was watching the commentary of the DVD and either the screenwriter or the director (I forget which) commented on this line with "You go, girl!"
How is this 'You go, girl'? Obviously it is every woman's choice whether to have kids, but it bothers me to no end that modern feminists have come to regard having children as a burden rather than a privilege. Having children is what gives women the ultimate power; "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world". By shaping the ideals of children and teaching them their values, women are the ones who truly mold the future. This is a woman's greatest privilege in life. Obviously, if she does not want it, it should not be forced upon her any more than any other privilege should; but it is, nevertheless, a privilege which women should be grateful for.
Many people have commented on the scene where Ben Weissman's little boy asks Alice to tie his shoe. The general conclusion is that this child is a mini-chauvinist who thinks that Alice should "serve" him because she is a woman. This is not the impression I got at all. The kid came across as a bit of a spoiled brat who was ordering around a complete stranger, sure, but mostly what I saw in that scene was a woman so far removed from the most basic womanly instincts that she was awkward and could not interact easily with a child, and seemed uncomfort with even such a simple thing as tying a little boy's shoe.

[–] sofia_metamorfoseando 15 years ago

I don't know about other people but I wouldn't accuse Bacon of being a sexist for that particular statement, he is not specifically pointing at spouses -or women- as being the cause of married men's alleged tendency to 'underaccomplishedness'... which by the way is an opinion I don't agree with, but I wouldn't mind if it turned out to be true.

"By shaping the ideals of children and teaching them their values, women are the ones who truly mold the future. This is a woman's greatest privilege in life."

As much as it sounds inspiring and empowering for women, this is an entirely sexist point of view. You're discriminating against both, women and men, by equating womanhood with parenthood, and totally dismissing the fact that fathers can be as influential in a little person's upbringing as a mother. And by the way I wouldn't care for a world in which women will be 'the ones that truly mold the future', I don't dream of female world domination, I don't think 'female morality' is superior than 'male morality', I don't even think such division exists, our higher values and ideals are genderless

If it bothers you to no end that some feminists regard children as a burden... that is YOUR problem. You don't want them to be forced into the 'greatest privilege' that is maternity, nonetheless you want them to be thankful for having a womb and the potential of becoming a mother... this doesn't make any sense!... Who do we need to thank for our uterus? and How should we show our appreciation?. I think we should be respectful and even thankful to that women that openly decide they're not fit to become mothers, this is a much less harmful choice than bringing children to this world and then deciding they're a burden, and believe me, I've had the unfortunate experience of witnessing this lack of 'basic womanly instincts' in women, and it's disheartening... even for a woman not very prone to motherly behaviour such as myself.

It is a parent's greatest privilege in life to shape the ideals of children and instilling the best values into them.

Now, with that I completely agree.

[–] Luanna255 15 years ago

As much as it sounds inspiring and empowering for women, this is an entirely sexist point of view. You're discriminating against both, women and men, by equating womanhood with parenthood, and totally dismissing the fact that fathers can be as influential in a little person's upbringing as a mother. And by the way I wouldn't care for a world in which women will be 'the ones that truly mold the future', I don't dream of female world domination, I don't think 'female morality' is superior than 'male morality', I don't even think such division exists, our higher values and ideals are genderless

I never said that female morality is higher than male morality. I certainly don't dream of female world domination. All I was saying was that raising children is a powerful thing, rather than a useless burden. This would obviously apply equally in the case of men who raise children, but I was discussing raising children specifically as it relates to women/feminism, as I think the feminist view that raising children is a burden is harmful and incorrect, and so I said "women". I certainly wasn't fantasizing about some sort of anti-male society. I believe that the genders should be equal.

If it bothers you to no end that some feminists regard children as a burden... that is YOUR problem. You don't want them to be forced into the 'greatest privilege' that is maternity, nonetheless you want them to be thankful for having a womb and the potential of becoming a mother... this doesn't make any sense!... Who do we need to thank for our uterus? and How should we show our appreciation?.

I don't see how it doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone should be forced into marriage or kids. In the past, girls and women have been forced into marriage (both directly and by society) and, of course, I think this is wrong. I happen to think that marriage and children are good things. That doesn't mean I want anyone forced into them. As for being thankful, I wasn't suggesting we say a special womb-prayer every day (although - why not?) merely that it would be nice to see women with a more positive outlook on motherhood. The choice of whether or not to have a child has no "right" or "wrong" answer, but simply rejecting the idea of children because being a mother isn't "feminist" seems narrowminded to me.

I think we should be respectful and even thankful to that women that openly decide they're not fit to become mothers, this is a much less harmful choice than bringing children to this world and then deciding they're a burden, and believe me, I've had the unfortunate experience of witnessing this lack of 'basic womanly instincts' in women, and it's disheartening... even for a woman not very prone to motherly behaviour such as myself.

I would say that if a woman decides not to have kids because she is in some way unfit, I would agee with you. However, if, as Alice basically did, she says that she won't have kids because she has better things to do with her life, I would still respect her decision (of course) but think that she is perhaps dismissing motherhood too quickly.

[–] snotrax 15 years ago

You, sir, are a frightened man. As an ardent feminist, mother of two sons, you think that somehow, in a movie, where motherhood is not portrayed as the ideal, that women will stop having children.
The mind boggles. But, as has often been said, only space and man's ignorance are infinite. You've held up your end.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Petals121 10 years ago

I know that this is an old thread but I just have to answer this:

This reminded me of nothing so much as the essays of Francis Bacon, where he suggested that the men who accomplished most were those who did not get married. Over 400 years later, Bacon is still called a sexist for this idea. Yet with women, the idea that getting married inhibits freedom and prevents women from accomplishing their goals is still accepted and not criticized. Why is reverse sexism any better?

It's not the same. A man could be married AND do the things he wanted to do. Get an education, go to work, focus on other things than children and housework. Women didn't have that luxury. Their role was simple, children and the household. So Bacon's idea that a man couldn't do things because he got married is ridiculous. A woman on the other hand, that rings true.

[–] navigational82 15 years ago

It's been a while since I've seen this movie but I don't think the whole suffragist movement was anti-marriage and anti-kids on purpose. You have to remember where women were at the time, and what their role was. It wasn't until 30 years after we got the vote that women were entering the workforce in droves. We've been considered baby machines (for lack of a better term) since the dawn of time, or the dawn of Christianity, depends on how you look at it.

Stepping out of the idea that a woman was a second-class citizen was in and of itself, part of stepping out of ALL of the societal roles placed on women. What better way to go left than to deny *every* part of what identifies one in their gender?

[–] tweeterton 15 years ago

Because SINGLE for a woman was a revolutionary concept in those times.

It's not anti-anything. They were trying to achieve the impossible, it wasn't a part-time job! They worked 7 days a week from dawn to dusk to make change, a child WOULD interfer with this period in their lives. Men have always been able to rely on women to relieve the burdens of the home so that they coould go out and achieve their dreams while still having it all. These women DID NOT have this kind of support. Why do you think many of them were educated and wealthy? Because the "everyday" women did not have time for this kind of endeveaour or have the priviledge of being single and independent.

As for the feminist references, it is clear that anyone who thinks feminists are anti-children, family or even men don't know what they're talking about and could use some educating.

Feminists were and are the biggest champions of mother's rights, children's rights/health AND family health. They are also very active in MEN's health too because feminists want men to be active in their children's lives and to have healthy & productive relationships with women.

[–] pioneergrrrl 15 years ago

Because as progressive as they were for their era, these women were still living in a time without the modern birth control devices and laws which we have today did not exist. And obtaining the birth control devices which did exist were much more restrictive because of laws which are no longer on the books.

In addition, there were still laws on the books which did not recognize that domestic violence/marital rape could and did exist, the wife was legally considered property within a marriage. A husband could do what he wanted to the wife without fear of legal reprise (explaining the Senator's initial actions when discovering his wife's suffrage activities).

And maternity leave laws were also non-existent. If you got pregnant, you were booted out of a job which you did have/the school you were in---with ZERO benefits whatsoever after you gave birth.

So while these women were trying to obtain their rights, they were also concious of the world which they lived in and the many restrictions which it was placing on them specifically because of gender and social role expecations.

Even if they personally wanted a husband and kids, being single and childless was the only practical choice in that era if they wanted to successfully pursue higher education and build a successful career from the obtained education.

That world and the choices which they had to make now sound 'odd' to us today because the feminist movement required America's conciousness to get raised about the existence of sexism and is successful in changing laws and policies.

[–] v_anzaldua 8 years ago

And we must also remember that states had "head and master" laws that made it legal for a husband to control any money or property, even if they belonged to his wife. That thinking is driven home in the scene where Emily Leighton's husband informs her that any bills coming in would be sent directly to his office, in order to prevent her from using money to donate to the suffragist cause that he adamantly opposed. These laws stayed on the books as recently as the 1970s. It took that long for them to be abolished.

[–] englisher101 14 years ago

Feminists were and are the biggest champions of mother's rights, children's rights/health AND family health. They are also very active in MEN's health too because feminists want men to be active in their children's lives and to have healthy & productive relationships with women.

Healthy and productive relationships with women would mean going with our biological tendencies to spread the seed everywhere. Sticking to one woman just goes against our own design. To do that requires a really lovable woman for whom a man can make such sacrifices, yet feminists usually aren't at the top of the list. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd be on the bottom of the list for most men.

Men actually used to like chivalry and romance. Feminists killed it. I'm fairly certain that the rise of the player came about largely in part due to feminists. When women are no longer creatures we're supposed to protect and treasure, then we might as well just put women on equal grounds sexually and not bother with all the extra formalities and might as well try to sleep with as many women as possible. After all, if they're strong and independent, they shouldn't have any problem with a one night stand with no emotional strings attached. When our male instincts to protect women and children are considered inappropriate, then there's not much special you can do with a woman that you can't do with a guy except sex (unless you're gay, of course, in which case there would be nothing special about a woman).

While equal rights is a very noble goal, the way in which feminists approach it often isolates them from men. Then they complain about how many men just view women as sex objects. What'd they expect?

These masculine instincts to protect women and provide for the family considered so inappropriate and sexist these days are basically the same biological instincts that drove us to stay with one woman and fall in love deeply rather than just sleep with every woman we can. While men have found other ways to fall in love with a woman, this somewhat sexist but important biological instinct to protect what we thought was the weaker, more sensitive gender was the original, fundamental basis for our love and the reason we stayed around instead of seeking new opportunities.

[–] Jefbecco-1 9 years ago

You're speaking for yourself.My wife is a feminist. I met her twenty-seven years ago in college. We've been married for twenty-four years.We have two kids. She's smart and outspoken and capable. She's also one hell of a great mother,wife and friend. I don't sleep around.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2389) 4 years ago

you're missing the point of the movie.

The women in that movie lived in a time when they're actually legally objects during the era when this movie is set.

*It's not whether you yourself sleep around*

In addition to not being able to vote, they also cannot serve on juries, use birth control, the husband was legally allowed to beat them, rape them. They don't have the right to their own credit.

The Senator from OH in the movie can take 'his kids' if he does not like what 'his wife' does and she has no legal right to them---because she has no vote, is not a person under law

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

The issues of whether marriage and being a mother is consider a suffragette is a matter of opinion, I don't believe that marriage or being a parent is a suffering prison. It is only if you make it as one, if you chose to be a wife and a mother then so be it but if you will remain in it but later on regret it and start treating it as a prison then that isn't a life worth living. The character Emily Leighton, she loves being a mother and she loves her husband but she doesn't want to be treated like what she told him 'Chatter' which of course she makes that clear to him.

I made my choice not to be a mother and wife, I know I would never make an excellent mother or wife no matter what anyone may say about me. With what Lucy and Alice went through and endured with all those other women wasn't just for our rights to votes but it was also to show that we have rights to decide on what to do with our lives.

Watch the Bostonian, that is another great example of women's rights and the choices we make.

[–] pioneergrrrl 14 years ago

And I doubt that feminism killed chivalry. Consensual sexual relations are just as important inside a marriage as outside. Somebody does not have the right to sex on demand just because they are married.

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

"Somebody does not have the right to sex on demand just because they are married" I totally agree with that concept.

[–] pioneergrrrl (2389) 4 years ago

most people do agree w consensual relations. Being consensual is what does not make marriage a prison. You are equals who make mutual choices. Equals respect, support and encourage each other regardless of the choices.