And as historical dramas, they offer an extra bit of comfort to make them easily bingeable in a year when we crave certainty: we know how the world will change after these women’s stories end, because it’s the world we’re living in.
It’s especially telling that the year’s most thorough explorations of women’s power come in the form of period pieces, ranging from the 1950s through the 1980s. By slipping back several decades, the shows unfold in a time when the very idea of women wielding power in the US or UK struck many as unusual if not unwelcome, and where the framework of being “primo” still dominates.
The image of a woman alone in room full of men repeats again and again in both “La corona” e “The Queen’s Gambit,” a stark visualization of the novelty and isolation that often frames the experience of being the first, and a reminder that “primo” usually also means “only.”
Situating these experiences in the past makes the sexism, when it appears, instantly recognizable for the viewer. Take a scene from the first episode of “Sig.ra. America,” when conservative activist Schlafly meets with Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater. Goldwater knows Schlafly — she was a committed activist who supported his 1964 presidential bid — and greets her warmly. She is, in many ways, already an insider: known for her writing on foreign policy and her electoral energy. But when the meeting begins, one of the men in the room calls on Schlafly to take notes while the men talk.
You don’t have to be particularly evolved on gender politics to get the snub, nor to cringe in the next episode when one of Steinem’s male colleagues carries on about her nice legs.
The writers on these shows also seem to understand that morally uncomplicated stories are usually less interesting, so the historically grounded sexism is often sparingly or strategically used in the narrative. Nel “The Queen’s Gambit,” per esempio, there are only a few moments where rank sexism ever appears: when Harmon is paired with the only other woman in her first tournament and when a woman writer for Life magazine focuses more on Harmon’s gender than her chess strategies. Otherwise she glides through the male-dominated world of chess with ease, gathering friends, admirers, lovers and few if any detractors.
Harmon is a fictional creation
, drawn from the
1983 novel by Walter Tevis
— but so is the chess world she navigates
. In the 1960s women could not compete with men at the World Championships
. When they finally could in the late 1980s
, they did not receive a warm welcome
. “They were too nice to her
,” chess champion Judit Polgar ha detto al New York Times
, noting that when she was coming up in the chess world men were far more disparaging
Mentre “The Queen’s Gambit” erases misogyny, “Sig.ra. America” e “La corona” are fascinated by it. Rather than challenge chauvinism, their main characters weaponize it. The most intriguing characters in both are the conservative women who rise to power while openly hostile to feminism — and often, to other women, even those closest to them (while close to their sons, both Schlafly and Thatcher clash with their own daughters.)
In real life, Thatcher declared
, “I owe nothing to women’s lib.
” She included no women in her original cabinet
, a deliberate choice her character in
“La corona” explains to the Queen
: “Not just because there aren’t any suitable candidates
. But I have found women in general tend not to be suited to high office anyways
,” adding that they are
The fictional Thatcher is hardest on herself when she betrays any emotion that she feels is too feminine, berating herself for crying (over her missing son, as we learn) during an audience with the Queen and seeming to miss or ignore the monarch’s assurance that Thatcher was far from the first prime minister to have shed tears during their meetings.
Allo stesso tempo, Thatcher eagerly embraces traditionally feminine roles at home — she dotes on her son and cooks for him and her cabinet ministers alike — while approaching politics firmly as a world where she must act like a man to succeed. Schlafly, tuttavia, makes those traditionally feminine roles core to her political identity: she is the iron housewife battling against the ERA, arguing that equality will destroy the differences between men and women and must be prevented and sealing her point with gestures like bringing fresh baked goods for the legislators she and her allies intend to lobby.
“Sig.ra. America” makes clear the ways Schlafly defends misogyny while still being cramped by it: it’s only when not taken seriously as a foreign policy mind that she turns to fighting the ERA to amplify her political voice. E, ovviamente, the show makes a meal of her hypocrisies, particularly her ambition for a political career that takes her out of her home and into the halls of power, all while promoting a politics rooted in traditional gender roles.
Even these more complex tales are eased by their historical setting. In the 1990s, conservative women forged a language and identity that more neatly squared their traditionalism and their political ambitions, so much so that many right-wing women today identify as feminist, or at least embrace the idea of women’s equality.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the tensions and hypocrisies of anti-feminist activism are clearer, giving us two historical anti-heroes with an intriguing complexity that their feminist counterparts, at least in the case of “Sig.ra. America,” mancanza.
All of this means that these stories, though fascinating and layered, nonetheless feel like comfort food, something familiar and interesting but not too challenging. Which is not to dismiss their value — we could all use some comfort food these days. More than that, these shows offer an on-ramp to critical thinking and more intense conversations about ambition, genius, intersectionality, motherhood and power.
But they also allow viewers an easier option, to marinate in the magnificent costumes and music, to escape their own reality by judging the horrid characters and applauding the sympathetic ones. That flexibility explains, Forse, why three shows have been so immensely popular: they speak to us, but not too loudly.