WHY Tough Women Have Traumatic Pasts...and It's a Problem

In the previous post I described some various ways in which tough women inevitably have traumatic pasts, but so what?  I mean, sure, that’s strange and all, but there are lots of tropes out there in the pop culture world.  True...but not all of them indicate a key issue that still plagues the world of entertainment and beyond.  Inequality.

While strong men may have tragic backstories they don’t have to and, honestly, usually don’t in the end.  Women pretty much have to.  There are precious few female characters that kick ass and take names without first having been through some of the worst experiences imaginable - loss of family, assault, sexual abuse, kidnapping, rape, attempted murder.  Men are frequently portrayed as capable of surviving in harsh, even post-apocalyptic, environments without really having gone through much beforehand while surviving for women seems to have to be old-hat with the worst having happened to them long before the world fell. 

Not all portrayals of this inequality are the same, but all ultimately lessen the strength, the toughness, of the female character.

What a Strong Woman!

On the surface there’s nothing wrong with strong women.  They’re great!  It’s important, crucial even, to show that women can match their male counterparts in inner and outer strength.  That women can overcome adversities, even terrible ones, and they can be all the tougher for it.  In certain cases overcoming adversities where others might fail shows that they can be even stronger than the men around them.  …That a woman is strong is not the problem; it’s that many are shown primarily as weak first.

When I discussed The Walking Dead’s Carol Peletier and The Silence of the Lamb’s Clarice Starling I pointed out how, first and foremost, these two were introduced as the weak and the abused.  Carol is small-framed, middle-aged, mother with an abusive husband who loses pretty much everything (including her daughter) within the first few weeks of the show's timeline.  Clarice is consistently shown as short, even tiny, compared to her male FBI cadet peers and there’s more than one incident of a man at least attempting to push Clarice around…and then there’s the earlier death of her father and being unable to save those slaughtered lambs.  It’s only over time that their strength is revealed - as they take on greater and greater threats and are able to repeatedly come out on top.

There’s an implication with both women that without the traumas in their life they would not be so strong.  Clarice idolizes her father who was killed in the line of duty and seems to have an underlying goal of making him proud, even becoming like him.  Those lambs she couldn’t save haunt her so now she aims to save others no matter the danger.  Carol only begins to really be someone after her abusive husband is eaten by Walkers.  Only then does she speak and stand up for herself and others.  Carol’s development as strong woman takes on another layer when, after losing her daughter as well, she’s even tougher…becoming (violently) proactive in defending herself and those she cares about.  Women first.  Strong second.

In the end it takes away a bit from the toughness these ladies have.  They are greatly admired (and should be!), but I’ve never heard anyone credit them with just being strong.  It’s always about them being strong women and not just strong.   …It ends up reminiscent of a politer version of “pretty tough…for a girl”.

She’s Not Hard, She’s Just Troubled

Some women onscreen spend most of their time being brusque, callous, and totally unwilling to take anyone’s shit.  They are what’s popularly referred to as the HBIC - Head Bitch in Charge.  Initially no one’s completely sure why they are this way; it seems to just be a matter of personality, but that can’t be right.  Women can’t be so naturally harsh, can they?   Then their past is revealed.  A past filled with pain and humiliation and (almost always) sexual abuse.  Now these women makes sense, their true selves have been discovered…deep down they are just scarred, scared, little girls.

This is essentially what happens to both Ani Bezzerides of True Detective and Claire Underwood of House of Cards.  The women start off as tough characters.  With knife always at the ready Ani is running raids, casually bedding partners, and giving glares and snarky replies to anyone who suggests she tone herself down.  Claire is tough for both her and her husband, doing whatever she deems necessary to advance their careers, even threatening pregnant women, all while keeping a calm demeanor.  They are aggressive, determined, and unmoved by what others think.  Both practically dominate the male-based worlds of law enforcement and politics they are in.  While not always the kindest people they are admirable in their fearlessness and command of others.  …Then their pasts are revealed.  Pasts filled with sexual abuse and feelings of helplessness.

Even more than with the other two (Carol and Clarice) this manner of dealing with traumatic pasts lessens the strength of these women.  Now that the ice queen’s veneer is cracked she can be a woman again.  Just a woman who’s been abused and is afraid of becoming a victim again.  That’s why she’s so aggressive and unwilling to play along, that’s the real reason she’s so tough.  She’s not the cold, calculating, woman in charge, but the girl scared of her next potential attacker.  Their traumatic pasts soften these women, change them into someone (something) more manageable and palatable to audiences - especially the misogynist ones.  

There’s also the sense that the traumatic past was added as an afterthought to explain the women’s aggressive behaviors in these cases.  Whatever toughness they have - which is a great deal - can now easily be dismissed as a reaction to their previous assault.  The women’s actions and reactions run the risk of being taken less seriously once the majority of their behaviors can be linked to a serious past trauma…even the women themselves can, potentially, be taken less seriously.  Again, they aren’t hard individuals that shouldn’t be messed with, but instead troubled women still dealing with what happened to her in her youth.  It becomes hugely unfair to the characters and the audience - Ani and Claire were already multidimensional female characters, why couldn’t they just stay the hardcore badasses they were for the majority of their storylines?

It’s not to say that no female characters should have traumatic pasts, but not all female characters need them either.  When the trauma is used as a cover explanation of or sole reason for the character’s behavior it becomes a problem.  Not everyone who is independent, strong, or even aggressive is that way as a result of an earlier devastation.  Some women, like some men, just kick ass and have always kicked ass.  (Though some men may, in fact, have traumatic pasts and more such men should be represented in pop culture to help fight this sort of gender inequality.)  A traumatic past - whether of a female or male character - should only be part of a characterization and never used as the sole explanation for their personality.

Tough Women Have Traumatic Pasts

It takes a special kind of woman to be as tough as the men and in pop culture it takes one with a traumatic past.  Something that’s hardened her enough to hang with the guys, do a “man’s” job, and perform those tasks most often considered masculine in nature.  The trauma itself is not always the same - domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape, the death of a parent at a very early age - but the results are.  Someone tough and determined enough to live and succeed in a male-dominated world, but never without some terribly painful past that underlines she’s still the “softer” sex. 

Carol Peletier

There is little known about Carol’s past before the Walker-apocalypse, but the moment you see her in The Walking Dead you know she’s a victimized woman.  Her husband, Ed, is a brute who shows little kindness to his wife or daughter (Sophia) even as strangers are pulling together for survival.  He doesn’t hesitate in hitting Carol, roughly dismissing Sophia, or even lashing out aggressively towards others…add to that Carol later mentioning his tendency to “look” at their preteen daughter and it causes a shudder to think what he was like behind closed doors.  It’s clear the Peletier house was neither a happy nor safe one.  As the first two seasons progress the traumas compound for Carol with first Ed dying (though that one might’ve been a relief) and then Sophia going missing only to be found as a Walker locked up in a barn days later.  It’d be enough for anyone to fall apart, but Carol is a woman forged in fire.

Six seasons in Carol is one of the most dangerous characters on the show.  She’s the one who does the things others would (at the very least) hesitate over.  She’s Rambo in a pastel shirt and matching cardigan doing whatever it takes to ensure her and her loved ones’ survival.  Over the years she’s killed innocent people and single-handedly taken down entire communities.  Would this new, badass, “Scarol” be around if she hadn’t lived with a man like Ed for (I’m guessing) more than a decade beforehand?  Possibly…But even the actress, Melissa McBride, confessed that one of the reasons Carol is so good at surviving in the zombie apocalypse is because she had a lot of practice beforehand.  Living in Ed’s household she learned how to protect herself and her daughter by keeping a low profile and having to constantly assess, then diffuse, dangerous situations.

Clarice Starling

Agent Starling didn’t have an abusive childhood, but she did have a rough one.  A worshiper of her sheriff father her world falls apart after he’s shot on the job.  She watches him cling to life for weeks before finally succumbing to his injuries, then she’s shipped off to her uncle’s farm in Montana.  There Clarice is further traumatized by witnessing the slaughter of Spring lambs causing her to attempt to free them, running off with one only to be caught and ultimately sent to an orphanage.  These things shape her both in her need to save and her tough exterior.  

The Silence of the Lambs film goes to fair lengths to show just how physically small Clarice is compared to her male FBI cadet counterparts, but also her ability to take their hits without being moved.  Without much strain she keeps pace with and, according to her teacher/boss Jack Crawford, surpasses many at the academy.  It’s made very clear that she’s one tough lady before she’s ever sent out to interview Dr Lecter and she’s the only one mentally strong enough to have any kind of affect when she does interview him.  Clarice is so determined to become an FBI agent and save others there’s the suggestion that she’ll do whatever she needs to; share personal stories with Lecter, stand up against all the male superiors around her, and take on (and take down) a serial killer alone.

Ani Bezzerides

Like Clarice, Ani loses a parent early in her life with her mother’s suicide.  Her father stays in the picture as a hippie who raises his two daughters in a small commune - one that Ani says had four other group members she was part of; two of whom went on to commit suicide and two of whom ended up in prison.  While that alone may qualify as trauma things get worse for Ani when, at about age ten, she’s lured into the wilderness by a pedophile drifter.  While she blocked out most details of the assault Ani knows that she was missing for approximately four days and she willingly went with the man initially.  

The result is a young woman ready, willing, and able to make any man who touches her bleed out in under a minute.  Ani isn’t the skittish, jumpy, female victim though; she’s the gravelly-voiced, e-cig smoking, combative, detective running raids and sleeping with her coworkers like so many of her male pop culture counterparts.  She’s trained herself to take down men physically and verbally (even when they try to compliment her) and comes off as almost eager to push back against anyone that suggests she soften her personality.  Ani’s been a victim in the past, she’ll be damned if she becomes one again. 

Claire Underwood

Claire is probably the clearest example of early trauma equals tough woman.  The truth is there’s little known about her past outside the fact that, in college, she was raped.  A trauma that is clear and undeniable - just like her generally cold demeanor throughout House of Cards - and one of the only things that seems to jar her.  Seeing the man again years later is able to throw her off her usual calm presentation enough those around her take note.  Discussing it with her husband, confessing to the feelings of helplessness it caused, leaves Claire truly shaken for the first time on the show.  She basically says that the event is one of the key contributors to her hardened shell as, after the incident, she swore to herself never to let anyone make her feel that powerless again.

While the connection between trauma and toughness is always made clear, how the women and their traumas are handled differs slightly.  Carol and Clarice are first shown as women, then as strong; Ani and Claire are first tough, then women.  Carol’s introduced as an abused wife, loving mother, and generally caring person…it’s only over time that she grows into the badass “Scarol” that fans now love and admire.  Clarice is shown as smaller and thus implicitly weaker than nearly every male around her so that the fact she is there, unwilling to be pushed aside, and able to achieve what others aren’t - a report with Hannibal, stopping the killer, saving the girl - shows her strength.

On the opposite end Ani comes on the scene as a hardened detective raiding a house.  She is combative towards most and when a male detective, Ray Velcoro, suggests she soften (“haven’t you ever heard you get more flies with honey?") she gives a snarky rebuff (“what the fuck do I want with flies?”).  It isn’t until she goes undercover towards the end of the season that her gender is displayed - now she’s dolled up in makeup and a sexy dress, now she’s put-upon (made to do drugs, touched and drooled over by men twice her size).  Even after she fights back her feminine side is exposed as she reveals her traumatic past to her new lover, Ray Velcoro.  Like Ani, Claire is first and foremost strong.  Cool, calm, and collected, very little ever rattles Claire as, like her husband, she manipulates her way up the political ladder with no real remorse for those she leaves crushed in her path.  Even more than Ani Claire has the potential to come off as a real bitch to the audience…then she goes to an awards ceremony and comes across her rapist once more.  The icy exterior melts and Claire is distinctly female complete with angry husband swearing vengeance who she must soothe into a clearer mindset.

These aren’t the only strong women with traumatic pasts, just a small sample in the wide world of pop culture (books, TV, film, comics, and beyond).  The concept is so prevalent it’s a trope; something that occurs so frequently across the spectrum of entertainment media that it is expected.  It's hard to find a female character without a hauntingly painful past, as if one can’t exist without the other.  If there’s a strong woman, a woman who kicks ass and doesn’t care what those around her think, you can bet good money she’s got a traumatic past.

Secret Psychopath: House of Cards' Claire Underwood

In the previous post I discussed how a psychopath like the Joker can fly under the radar by playing crazy.  I also mentioned that that isn’t the only way a psychopath can go unnoticed by the rest of society; they can also play subdued.  This is how most function without notice, by appearing and behaving like the average, everyday, person.  They have jobs, families, friends, and show the appropriate emotions at the appropriate times.  Admittedly there are still moments they slip into their more cold, calculating, and ruthless nature, but those times are often dismissed as a single event (even when it’s a repeated one) or a quirk.  …This seems to be what House of Cards’ main female protagonist - or will that be antagonist now? - Claire Underwood is able to do.

Claire's potential psychopathy is almost immediately dismissed in nearly every other discussion about her, which speaks to how well her psychopathy might be hidden.  Of course it’s easy to hide when your husband - Frank Underwood - is a man who kills by hand without compunction and drawls out charming asides that sound right out of Machiavelli’s The Prince.  Just because she’s not the most psychopathic doesn’t mean she’s not a psychopath.  All one need do is go down Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist to see that, at the very least, Claire has a surprisingly high number of the traits.

Glibness/Superficial Charm:

There is no doubt that Claire can be very charming when she wishes to be.  She is able to befriend those her husband can’t or shouldn’t for whatever reason and almost instantly become their best friend and closest confidante.  By season three it’s said Claire is more popular with voters than Frank.  The thing is, it’s all surface.  Claire’s kindness, her gentle demeanor towards others, her one-on-one talks of apparent openness and honestly, are generally only done to aid in her and/or Frank’s benefit.  She uses the secrets she’s told against the confessor and others and accumulates favors for herself and/or Frank through those friendships.  Once a person no longer proves valuable Claire loses all interest in turning on the charm for them.  (Please note that even if what she’s doing appears to benefit Frank more her mindset is consistently: what benefits Frank will ultimately benefit me.)

Grandiose Sense of Worth:

Others have suggested that Claire is actually a narcissist, which alone indicates that she has this trait.  While not someone constantly boasting her greatness or needing reassurance that she’s fabulous, like an actual narcissist would, Claire certainly believes it herself.  With no experience at all she insists Frank make her an ambassador - even when it means circumventing the standard Senate hearing - and is certain she’ll be great at the job.  When she’s not Claire proceeds to blame others and outside circumstances for her failings throughout her time holding the position.  When Frank later declares he never should have made her ambassador she counters: “I never should have made you president.”  …True, she had a major part in his success, but so did he.

Need for Stimulation/Prone to Boredom:

When discussing Frank’s marriage proposal Claire quotes him as stating: “Claire, if all you want is happiness, say no. I'm not gonna give you a couple of kids and count the days until retirement. I promise you freedom from that. I promise you'll never be bored.”  …For some that might not be the best way to go, but for Claire it was perfect.  She never wanted the simple life, or even happiness if it meant that she wouldn't be living a stimulating life.  Given the wording Frank’s proposal suggests that a boring life, or even just a simple one, was something Claire always worried she’d end up with; she needs excitement and stimulation.

Pathological Lying:

Claire lies directly, by suggestion, or by omission whenever she thinks it’ll benefit her.  She lied to the (previous) First Lady by suggesting that there was something untoward between her husband and a secretary to throw their marriage into turmoil, paving the way for Frank to take the presidency right from under them.  She lied to the public about her relationship with another man, Adam, to cover a potentially scandalous affair — Frank knew and didn’t seem to care much, but both understandably doubted the American public’s capacity for acceptance.  When the press discovered she’d had an abortion she claimed it was related to being raped and, from there, built an entire political movement concerning sexual abuse in the military.  (She’d been raped, yes, but the abortion occurred as the result of different circumstances.)  By the end of season three Claire even states that both she and Frank have been lying to themselves and each other…while not specific it’s easy to presume she’s referring to what each expected to get out of the other and their relationship on whole.

Conning/Manipulative:

This one rather folds into the superficial charm previously discussed given charm is what is most often used by a psychopath in order to con and manipulate.  Claire has no trouble using others to get what she wants and then dropping them when they are no longer useful.  From coworkers to lovers Claire has manipulated many into doing her dirty work or taking the fall from grace for her before discarding them for the next person or organization that’ll be of use to her.  Speaking of organizations I have a theory that her fierce dedication during the time she ran a non-profit aimed at building wells in African villages was all something of a long con…not only does it look good for her to have a life and career independent of her husband, but the better she does running such an organization the more she can promote her philanthropic success in future campaigns (for herself).  

Lack of Remorse or Guilt:

One of the keys to spotting a psychopath is their lack of remorse for what they do.  Frank is very clear in his lack of remorse, even if you suspect he has it he usually gives a snide aside to the camera to assure you he does not.  Claire is not as obvious, in fact there are times when she does seem remorseful - like when gay activist, Corrigan, killed himself in Russia - but that doesn’t necessarily mean she is.  What is read as remorse could also be a sense of defeat, frustration, or disappointment.  The problem is Claire gets no talk-time with the audience so, unlike her husband, we honestly don’t know what she’s feeling.

What is known is that she’s capable of doing pretty terrible things without any problems.  She’s not pushing people in front of trains, but she is pushing them to their emotional and mental limits…often times beyond.  She destroys the lives of her former lover, the (previous) First Lady and President, and even a fellow rape survivor to get ahead without thinking twice or looking back.  When a former employee at her non-profit dares to challenge her she cooly declares: “I’m willing to let your child wither and die inside you if that’s what’s required.  Am I really the sort of enemy you want to make?”  The answer is no, she is not, and more than that anyone who doubts the validity of her threat(s) probably hasn’t been paying close enough attention to Mrs. Underwood.

Shallow Affect:

Claire is known for her chilly demeanor so she certainly shares the flat affect that psychopaths are known for when they aren’t turning on the charm.  Most find her even colder than Frank much of the time and even when speaking about traumatic aspects of her past (such as her rape in college) Claire’s not one to get all that emotionally expressive.  Perhaps she would be more so if she got to break the fourth wall like Frank does, but it seems equally possible that she wouldn’t.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy:

Previously discussed traits such as her ability to manipulate and lack of remorse rather speak to her callousness and lack of empathy.  If she were truly empathetic she wouldn’t be able to do those things.  She’d feel too terrible as she shared the emotions of those she used, bullied, and ruined the lives of.  Even when she might share an experience, theoretically know how the other person might feel, she’s still not empathetic enough to not use them to her advantage…like when Claire pushed a fellow rape victim into telling her story so she could make her own political progress.

Parasitic Lifestyle:

This one’s a little tricky since Claire and Frank found one another while still young and, at least for much of the time, seemed to have a more symbiotic relationship.  They fed off one another, but it was balanced so that neither was really parasitic with the other.  Now that Claire’s discovered she’s no longer getting what she wants and/or needs from Frank and is leaving him we may see how she functions without a relationship like theirs.

Poor Behavioral Controls:

Frank is seen exploding in a rage more than a few times, but there are only two or three times total that Claire’s control over her behavior slips.  The first is at the Senate hearing for her confirmation as ambassador when she is not allowed to speak and snaps at one of the senators.  The second is her verbal slapping of Russian president, Petrov, for his upholding anti-gay laws in his country during a press conference.  The third is more of an almost when, while giving blood, she rambles and comes just shy of revealing things about her marriage she probably shouldn’t.  None of these are extreme and most are understandable - it’s easy to see anyone in her position doing the same things.  For the most part Claire doesn’t really have this trait as she tends to express herself in more subtle ways - like shutting the door for even more privacy - and even when behaving somewhat impulsively there’s a measure of control to it, as we’ll discuss later.

Sexual Promiscuity:

I’m not a fan of this one in general for it’s vagueness as to what might constitute promiscuity.  It can be seen as subjective and naturally brings up the classic what is promiscuous for a woman may not be considered promiscuous for a man issue.  That being said it’s on the list so let’s tackle it.  For a definition we’ll go with the Webster’s dictionary definition of not just “many” sexual partners, but picking those partners indiscriminately.  It’s hard to say what she was like prior to meeting Frank, but even while with him the trait at least partially fits just as it fits Frank.  One can argue she’s discriminating with her lover, Adam, given they appear to have enough of a history together she knows she can trust him.  No one can really say that concerning the threesome with her husband and their bodyguard, Meechum, though - she knows less about Meechum than Frank and Frank really doesn’t know much.  (It might also be of note that with both Adam and Meechum Claire seems capable of keeping emotionally detached so that, when no longer helpful, she can drop them without a thought, which does not necessarily qualify her as promiscuous, but may increase the likelihood that she is.)

Early Behavior Problems:

Given we don’t know much of Claire’s pre-Frank past it’s hard to say.  She could’ve had troubles, but it’s also possible that she didn’t.  It’s impossible to tell with the limited information we have.

Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals:

Are any of us certain what Claire's long-term goals are?  We presume that she wants to be president herself one day, but I’m not sure that’s so unrealistic…after all Frank did it.  That being said, after all that’s occurred in Frank’s presidency thus far, it’s hard to imagine that the American public would vote either of them into office.

Impulsivity:

At first glance Claire doesn’t seem impulsive at all, but she does have her moments.  One of the clearest examples is in the first season when she disappears to Adam’s apartment and stays for a period of time.  While still a semi-calculated move (hence preventing it from qualifying for poor behavioral control) it’s not one she prepared for or told anyone about.  Claire just did it.  As mentioned previously Claire also impulsively went off-script at a press conference to condemn Russian president, Petrov.

Irresponsibility:

Claire is responsible when she wants to be, when it benefits her, but otherwise she isn’t.  When a vast majority of her staff at the non-profit needs to be let go Claire pawns the responsibility off on an employee…who she then fires.  Once the focus of her responsibilities are for Frank’s benefit more than hers she sorta starts slacking.  She’s less inclined to go through with promised campaign stops and, eventually, she stops altogether and without warning to anyone.  She even stops taking her husband’s calls. 

Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions:

There are probably multiple reasons why LGBT-rights activist Corrigan commits suicide, but the nonstop insistence by Claire that he read the statement prepared for him didn’t help things.  It wasn’t all Claire’s fault, but it wasn’t entirely Petrov’s either although she certainly seemed to think it was.  Same holds for the Senate hearing on her potential ambassadorship: some did attack her (even after saying they wouldn’t), but she wasn’t in any way prepared or experienced enough for the position either.  What would be interesting to see is if Claire’s sense of responsibility will change now that she’s separating from Frank - will she still acknowledge the things she did during their time together or pass the blame off on Frank with claims of “I only did it for him”?  ...Honestly, unless it suits her better to throw him under the bus, I doubt it.

Many Short-Term Marital Relationships:

Claire notes that she had many proposals, but as far as we’re aware Claire’s only ever been married to Frank so it would seem this aspect of a psychopath is not something she has.  Whether that changes or not over time is impossible to say just yet.

Juvenile Delinquency:

Again, we don’t know enough about Claire as a young woman or child to speak with any authority on even the possibility of her having this trait or not.

Revocation of Conditional Release:

We’re not aware of her ever having been released from anywhere on any condition so this one’s probably a no.

Criminal Versatility:

While there’s no mention of Claire having a criminal record (expunged or otherwise) and none of the things she’s done have quite reached the level of being illegal she might still qualify.  Many things she’s done have been amoral - lying, intimidation, using others, betraying those around her - and, under slightly different circumstances, could be viewed as criminal acts.  She also likely knew about the murders of Peter Russo and Zoe Barnes, which would at least make her an accessory after the fact.

Because Claire is far more closed off and subtle than Frank it’s difficult to determine if she would qualify as a psychopath - she may be or she may fall just short of the official diagnosis.  But House of Cards writer, Beau Willimon, was once quoted as saying: “In many ways, I see Claire and Frank as the same animal: two people who are liberated in so far as they don’t bind themselves to any ideology or ethical standards. As people who do not feel they have to play by the rules, they really are completely self-serving – and they think that’s OK.”  …That statement heavily suggests that both Underwoods have the same potentially pathological psychology and, given many have (rightly) declared Frank a psychopath, then Claire would be one too.