I have been watching the first season of
Boardwalk Empire with my trial membership to Amazon Prime (yes, the trial membership is totally selling me on the Prime thing). The show is excellent. The writing, acting, costumes, set design, everything. There are also some really thought-provoking scenes, one of which I haven't stopped thinking about.
A little background (without any spoilers I hope): Margaret Schroeder is a young woman, recently widowed, with two young children, living in Atlantic City in the early 1920's. She has had a difficult life - she is an Irish immigrant, poor, and her late husband was very abusive - but she is determined, intelligent and brave. She is somewhat politically-minded, vocal about her support for suffrage for women and involved with "The Temperance League," a group of conservative women who push for prohibition of alcohol and enforcement of the law. Despite her strong character, Schroeder hides behind a soft-spoken, demure cloak for the first half of the Season; these traits are slowly revealed over the first 7-8 episodes.
In Episode 6, titled "
Family Limitation," Margaret Schroeder has finally found a job as a mistreated "shop girl," but it is clearly not the type of job that will sustain her family without her husband's income. She is working hard, but quite desperate and unable to provide for her children. [It is worth noting that these were the days where "shop girl" was the best job a woman could hope for, unless she wanted to work in a brothel or could find a job in the show business industry.]
Schroeder receives an "offer" from a wealthy and powerful man, an offer that would provide for her family in exchange for her "companionship." Schroeder is attracted to the man, and seems like she wants to accept the offer, but she knows that he will never marry her due to cultural norms. She is obviously concerned about her reputation in the community (and possibly has her own moral/religious misgivings, but it is hard to tell at this point) and what kind of future lies ahead. Before making a decision, she seeks the advice of an older woman she respects, Mrs. McGarry, the head of the Temperance League.
The scene that captivated me is this meeting, where Schroeder tells McGarry that she has received an "offer" from a man and doesn't know what to do. McGarry, a strong and straightforward woman with perfectly coiffed gray hair and sharp features, cuts right to the chase, asking is this offer "financial, domestic, sexual?" Schroeder replies that is is all of the above. McGarry then tells Schroeder a story about her late husband, a wealthy businessman who built a mansion for himself and his wife and passed away shortly thereafter. McGarry says that, upon her husband's passing, she sold the mansion, bought a small place and devoted her life to women's suffrage and prohibition efforts.
As a viewer, I reacted to this story with the same sentiment that Schroeder seems to feel: confusion. Is McGarry suggesting that Schroeder devote her life to political causes? Perhaps McGarry thinks that there will be more opportunities for women to provide for themselves if they receive the right to vote? I am waiting for the part where McGarry draws some analogy to her story and lectures Schroeder not to "whore herself out," but that is not what happens. Schroeder pauses for a second after McGarry finishes her story and then says, "But I do not have a mansion to sell."
McGarry responds, "Exactly.
So you must do as you see fit." McGarry then hands Schroeder a copy of
Margaret Sanger's "Family Limitation" pamphlet [Sanger authored the first publicly available information on birth control in the U.S. - learn about her
here], and sends her on her way.
This scene was so powerful for so many reasons, not the least of which is the way it highlights the difficulties women faced in the early 20th century. I feel like it goes beyond that, however, and presents a lesson relevant to us today. There are those of us who have mansions to sell, and those of us who have nothing, yet society holds everyone to the same standard. Those with nothing are expected to accomplish everything; if they do not provide for their families through legitimate, honest means, we call them crooks. If they rely on government resources to supplement their meager income, to provide food for their children, we call them lazy. If they drop out of school to start working, we call them losers. If they ask us for help, we tell them to "go find a job," as if the jobs available to us are equally available to them.
Those of us who have come from a privileged background, financially, socially, or otherwise, need to look at the lives of those who come from underprivileged backgrounds the same way that Mrs. McGarry does: realistically. This is not about helping others or contributing to charitable causes, even though those of you who know me know that I strongly advocate those things; this is about learning to see the world differently, understanding that those with privileged backgrounds cannot possibly comprehend the desperation of, say, a teenage girl, sleeping on the floor of her grandmother's boyfriend's apartment, skipping classes to make a few dollars braiding hair, eating only every other day or so, who finds herself pregnant by her grandmother's boyfriend's adult cousin. How can those with mansions to sell have any concept of what is best for this young girl? They cannot, yet they do it every day. Judging her. Screaming at her if she even looks at the Planned Parenthood building. Refusing to give her bus fare and telling her to go find a job. Looking at her like she is a whore. Voting to deprive her of her access to prenatal care, food stamps, shelter.
I think the better attitude is that of Mrs. McGarry: You must do as you see fit.
Learn to fly however you can without hurting others, little bird. Survive, even if you don't have a reason to. Hold on to hope. Look away from the judgmental eyes of those who have never known life in your shoes. Hold your head up high. Learn to fly.
