Stepford Feminism: Seen But Not Heard

Off Our Backs, Jul/Aug 2004 by Reeder, Constance

Stepford Feminism: Seen But Not Heard

The original "Stepford Wives" was bad sci-fi that portrayed sexism run amok. We forgave it because it was campy and ridiculous and at least someone was finally using terms like "consciousness raising" on the big screen.

The "Stepford" remake is meant to be funnier than the first one, and it is. But the exploration of sexism still doesn't offer much depth. The failure to fully explore the issues raised was perhaps understandable in the 1970s. It's an insult now that we have three more decades of feminist thought under our belt.

It's been almost 30 years since "Stepford" entered the lexicon-shorthand for well-coifed woman with glazed look-and men are still objectifying and trying to control women. What makes this movie more troubling than the first is that it does nothing to dispel the myth that women need men for protection.

Here's a recap of the 1975 version:

Joanna Eberhart (Katharine Ross) and family flee Manhattan for serene, surreal Stepford, Connecticut, where the husbands all make lots of money and the wives are freakishly devoted to housework.

We get a hint early on that the Stepford wives are not normal. After an auto accident, an injured woman insists she doesn't need medical attention. "It's just my head," she keeps repeating. As the plot unfolds, it becomes clear that the brain isn't a vital organ for Stepford wives. They've been turned into robots.

The eeriness of the place and the vapidity of the women give Joanna the willies. Her husband thinks she's crazy, but her best friend (Paula Prentiss in the original; Bette Midier in the remake) shares her frustration. The two women are at wit's end after a consciousness raising group turns into a commercial for spray starch.

The Paula Prentiss character has a theory: "The women in Stepford love housework, and I thought there might be something in the water," she says with a perfectly straight face. When she, too, becomes an automaton, it's only a matter of time before Joanna is targeted for the same fate.

The moral of the original Stepford story: Men prefer women who are subservient and meet an idealized version of beauty, and they always prevail in the battle of the sexes.

I foolishly assumed that a new "Stepford" would reflect the progress women have made since 1975. After all, Hollywood released the movie "9 to 5" way back in 1980. That flick featured women kidnapping their piggish boss and winning the kind of concessions most Teamsters only dream about. I figured modern-day Stepford Wives might look a little glassy-eyed, but surely they'd be heroines this time around.

No such luck.

Joanna, now played by Nicole Kidman, uses her maiden name, has a high-powered career and takes offense when a man refers to her as "The Mrs." BFD. all that proves is that a movie can be about feminists without having a feminist point of view.

[Stop reading here if you don't want the surprise ending ruined.]

The twist ending in the remake may be more disturbing than the original despite the fact that the women get their humanity back. For one thing, a woman turns out to be the most diabolical character of all. Women sinking to the level of men-there's equality for you. It's painful to watch a female insist that women are happiest when they devote themselves to keeping the house clean and the hubby satisfied. That's a sad reminder that women can start to believe they're inferior if they hear it long enough.

In the new version, the audience is led to believe that Joanna has become a robot, but it turns out she's just faking. And before it's over, all the Stepford wives get turned back into humans. That might qualify as a happy ending, except it is Joanna's husband who has all the control and gets all the credit. He's the one who decides not to go through with the technological transformation of his wife, announcing that he doesn't want to be married to "something from Radio Shack." When another man replies, "That's a shame," Joanna chimes in: "No, that's a man." And her husband gets to bask in the admiration of all the women.

Barf.

Why couldn't Joanna be the hero? Why couldn't the women unravel the evil plot before they are dehumanized -and without the help of one super man. In the new "Stepford," women may earn six figures, but their husbands still just want them to be whores and house servants. That's demeaning to women and an unfair generalization about men.

Every time I start to think women have progressed to the point where we aren't viewed so narrowly and men respect our autonomy, I get a plate full of reality thrown in my face.

Consider this recent example of life imitating art: Near the end of the original "Stepford Wives," when Joanna is about to be turned into a robot, she asks the male ringleader, "Why?" Why, she wants to know, are the men of Stepford trading in their beautiful wives for bimbos who love to cook and clean and serve their men?

His answer: "Because we can."

Flash forward to 2004. The ex-president of the United States, when asked why he had an extramarital affair, replies, "Because I could."