Mrs America and the Need to be Heard
The moral case for not dismissing the voices of people you disagree with.
Author’s Note: I had intended to have this come out later, but have decided to release it now instead given what’s going on in the world.
_________________________
People don't like to be ignored.
They don't like to be told that their opinions don't matter. That you should just be accepting of other people's views of things. Especially if they don't agree with the conclusions being drawn from them. In such a scenario, people are more likely to want to speak up then to stay silent. Of course, doing so means that you don't necessarily have a consensus on an issue. If the people who they're disagreeing with feel as strongly about the idea, then they're likely to try and get what they want. It will happen regardless of what the other people speaking up want. Or so the idea goes.
The problem with thinking in such ways however is that it leads to opposing forces. Groups trying to force their idea of the world on someone else. Even if it's through a peaceful process like voting or passing a law. One group will want their idea to succeed over another. This leads to anger and resentment from the losing side. If it didn't, then it would be strange why these people fought so hard against the ideas being put forward in the first place, or the opposite. It's hard to come together in solidarity on an issue if one group fundamentally disagrees with having to live a certain way.
Another way of going about it however, is to avoid creating sides in the first place. By allowing those who disagree to have their voices heard and to give them a way to change the parts of it they don't like. Through such a process, you can learn to build a consensus on an issue. To bring people together in common cause and both be happy with the outcome. That way everyone has been heard. Not everyone will necessarily get what they want, they might have to compromise and give up some of the things they want to get to a consensus. But at least people can feel like something reasonable came about in the process.
Mrs America is fundamentally about what happens when you don't allow certain people to have a say in the process. Or you try to exclude a group because you believe you have the better cause. Phyllis Schalfly, as played brilliantly by Cate Blanchett, and the people she represented felt unheard. While many of them exemplify those the Equal Rights Amendment was designed to help, they did not feel as though it represented everyone in a way that they agreed with. It made them feel left out of the process. Which is why they campaigned against it.
For many, this might seem counter intuitive. Why would anyone campaign against something that was trying to help them? What Mrs America reveals is that's not what it's about. The problem wasn't what the Equal Rights Amendment hoped to achieve. It's about how it was going to come about. Mainly without addressing the issues they cared about effectively.
Listen to those who felt unheard by checking out Mrs America as soon as you can.
Check it out on Hulu as well as Amazon.
Hey Andrew, Sorry, but I do not agree with your analysis here. Schlafly and her followers were certainly heard. She was a consummate organizer. She was using the ERA as an issue to build her public profile because she was angling for a position at the UN. You cannot honestly believe that she truly believed in her cause when she was out on campaign trail constantly. She was a liberated woman, but could not admit it within her circles. The argument was (and still is) really between those who hang onto the historical concept of coverture, meaning the legal status of a married woman, considered to be under her husband's protection and authority, and those who want true equality for women. When women obtained the right to vote in the early 20th century, it set in motion a quandary that has yet to be resolved.