The thing that makes me so angry is how mindlessly women from our generation have accepted ideas and thought processes such as these. If asked why a career is better/more noble/more fulfilling/more empowering than a marriage and kids, I think the majority would be unable to provide a decent answer.

 

Mother managing three kids, a husband, a house (cooking, cleaning, shopping - and by the way these are not demeaning things, these are things everyone does or will have to do at one time or another), pays bills, and possible the yard... Now thats empowerment...

 

Thank you for stepping up and describing how "empowering" it is for women to do what they were created to do; be a mother and a wife. At this time I am not either, however I am anxiously awaiting the time that God has that all planned for me. All my career dreams are nothing to my heart in comparison to the dream of being a stay at home mom.
-Bethany

 

I wrote my senior paper on feminism, at a not so conservative sort of Baptist school and got slammed by the professor and the entire class. I took a stance much like yours and it was ever so unpopular. However, the ultimate compliment came from my instructor who, while hating the paper, recognized it as good work and gave me an A+. Funny though, at the end of each semester all of the seniors papers are published and bound in a book in the school library...but mine was conspicuously absent. Accident? I think not!

 

Forgive me if I come at this from a slightly different angle...the character Paige in no way slights the noble pursuits of homemaking and motherhood. This "empowered" character simply weighs in her heart which is the stronger desire: this newfound infatuation or the goal which she has worked towards so fervently? The message I received from the movie was to not let your life be dictated by society-imposed timelines. Why is it that so many people are convinced that it is either marriage OR a career? Paige was faced with two choices: drop out of school and get married, or first finish what she started and then pursue a relationship with no regrets.

 

Anonymous wrote: Forgive me if I come at this from a slightly different angle...the character Paige in no way slights the noble pursuits of homemaking and motherhood. This "empowered" character simply weighs in her heart which is the stronger desire: this newfound infatuation or the goal which she has worked towards so fervently?

Rickie writes: I agree, and I don’t think I suggested otherwise. My issue is not with the choice that Paige makes; rather, it is with the screenwriter’s comments on the special feature section of the DVD. Fugate’s comment, by implication, insinuate that the better choice for Paige was to choose her degree over marriage. Katherine Fugate stated,

What was important to me, I think, from the very beginning, from the very first treatment I wrote to the last screenplay was that there wasn’t a big royal wedding at the end, and it didn’t have a fairy tale ending where Paige walked away from her dream and her school and her degree to be a queen. And by her not doing that, I think it’s a very empowering movie for women and for young girls.

Her script achieved an empowering message but not because Paige chose one life over another but because she had the freedom to choose. Fugate implies that the right choice was Paige’s education over being Queen. Why? Is this so? No! If she had chosen to be Queen it was her choice. If she chose to return to school it was her choice. Paige is empowered in either decision.

Anonymous wrote: The message I received from the movie was to not let your life be dictated by society-imposed timelines.

Rickie writes: I don’t recall their ever being an issue of “society-imposed deadlines.” Unless, you refer to those placed on Edvard by his family. Yet they apply to Edvard not Paige. Paige is autonomous. She is faced with to paths and the freedom to choose. Edvard on the other hand is somewhat tied to princely responsibilities and through his actions I submit He acts responsibly. Nobility is respected, even in the ending of the movie.

Anonymous wrote: Why is it that so many people are convinced that it is either marriage OR a career? Paige was faced with two choices: drop out of school and get married, or first finish what she started and then pursue a relationship with no regrets.

Rickie writes: Again, I think you are solidifying my stance. Consider what I wrote toward the end,

True empowerment for women does not come from making one decision verses another. Empowerment comes from having the ability to make the decision. Paige is not a strong woman because she left Denmark and Edvard. She is strong because she chooses for herself the life she wants to live. Paige would be just as empowered if she stayed in Denmark (because she made the choice). All across America, young girls are being told to do the opposite of their inner calling. If you want to be empowered, you must choose a brief case over a diaper bag, a desk over a crib and a title over a term of endearment…Can a woman do both? Certainly.

At the danger of being repetative, let me just reiterate my overall point, which is, whether Paige chooses to stay or return to school demonstrates her empowerment. She would not have been less empowered if she had stayed in Denmark, gotten married and continued going to school. Of course, we can come up with all kinds of hypothetical situations for Paige. What I see as the main issue concerning empowerment, as the movie portrays it, is that Paige is never forced to make a decision one way or another. That is, there are no socital restrictions (such as timelines)bearing down on her. All that is ever suggested is the potential of matrimony (It is important I think to keep in mind that it was Paige’s decision to fly to Denmark, and as such she is responsible for placing herself in the marital predicament). This, I think, is out of necessity for the movies plot, as Edvard is soon to be the future King of Demark, and as King he requires a Queen (a subplot of the overall story). In the end Paige chooses, impeded only by her own will and heart, and that is true empowerment.

Thanks for commenting… :)

 

^corrections

Rickie writes:I don't recall [there]...

 

Thanks for responding... :) ...now here's the ricochet line of thought...

Rickie writes: Fugate implies that the right choice was Paige’s education over being Queen. Why? Is this so? No! If she had chosen to be Queen it was her choice. If she chose to return to school it was her choice. Paige is empowered in either decision.

What I gather from Fugate's commentary is the desire to create an antidote to the fairy tale complex that most girls develop at a very young age. We're constantly inundated by the media with a plethora of variations on a single theme: discontented female trapped in routine, along comes the prince/knight/ogre who promptly rescues her from a life of boredom/sleep/solitude, the music swells as they passionately kiss and...the credits roll. And we eat it up like candy. Terminology such as "the One" and "soulmate" only serve to further promote the mindset that women are simply existing until "that special someone" finally comes along and completes them. The choice to return home is promoted because Paige is simply playing a part in Fugate's message to the female viewers who would see the attention/affection of a bonafide prince as something akin to winning the lottery. How many girls would think twice about their goals and pursuits in the light of the opportunity to actually become a queen (the childhood fantasy of young girls around the world, thanks to well-meaning authors like Hans Christen Anderson and the Grimm Brothers)? I completely agree with you: Paige's empowerment does come from her making her own decision. The decision to leave no doubt brought gasps of disbelief from every audience, and no doubt that was the effect Fugate wanted.
And she lived happily ever after...

 

Hello Anonymous,

Anonymous: What I gather from Fugate's commentary is the desire to create an antidote to the fairy tale complex that most girls develop at a very young age. We're constantly inundated by the media with a plethora of variations on a single theme: discontented female trapped in routine, along comes the prince/knight/ogre who promptly rescues her from a life of boredom/sleep/solitude, the music swells as they passionately kiss and...the credits roll.

Rickie writes: A thoughtful response, anonymous. Still, I perceive the implication of her comments being that the ending was a better choice because of the circumstances (i.e., education vs. marriage). If however, her intent was to belittle marriage by diminishing the value of it, I stand by my comments. Moreover, Fugate achieved empowerment for the character and all yoing girls by equipping Paige with the unbridled ability to choose for herself, which, I might add, came without any external restrictions (such as your before mentioned social-imposed-timeline). In fact, Fugate's underlying message is that Paige has to complete her education before she can marry. Isn't this a socially imposed timeline? Isn't Fugate buying into and advancing this modernist view(i.e., if her intent was to elevate education over marriage)? I believe the above is easily derived from her comments.

If however, as you have suggested, she was simply trying to combat the "plethora of variations [of] a single theme:[portraying] females as discontented... [and]trapped in routine[s], [while waiting for]the prince/knight/ogre who promptly rescues [them] from... [their lives] of boredom/sleep/solitude," then I can find more common ground with her message then I currently allow. Let me just add though, this was indeed not the character of Paige. Paige was content where she was (i.e., in her life). She was not any of the examples you have suggested above. Therefore, she in no way embodied the typical scenario you have offered. Also, it is very important to note that Paige, in the story, chose to follow "the one." However, maybe you are right. But if Fugate was advocating one choice over the status of another, she has committed a disservice to all women that would make up their own minds between marriage and education. Additionally, Fugate, through her remarks, has implied that one cannot do both at the same time and that one choice over another necessarily cancels out the other (i.e., it must be one or the other but not both). This is simply not so.

You may have the last word on this post ;)

Thanks for the dialogue.