Complying and Conforming: why must women play nice?

Backlash against outspoken women suggests that hope for gender equality continues to be extinguished by outdated stereotypes that expect women to comply and conform. Tia Fitzpatrick examines stories of women who stand up against limitations to discover why we expect female compliance.

1:00pm 1 May 2022

Written by Tia Fitzpatrick

Put up and shut up. A phrase that just last month, 2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame was slammed for her ‘bold’ choice not to extend eye contact and a gracious smile to cameras on a visit to The Lodge. Her actions seemed particularly alarming to a mass of conservative white men: The Australian’s Peter van Onselen, called her “ungracious” and “rude”, while Senator James McGrath dubbed her “childish.” But following the government’s inertia to implement any changes in response to her call for action on sexual assault laws, and systematic failure of legislation that should keep women safe, why does Tame owe the PM a smile? It seems the expectation that women conform to obedient female stereotypes, rather than speak up honestly is alive and well.

But has it always been this way? Charlotte Brontë’s 1847 Gothic novel, Jane Eyre, and Hidden Figures (2016), directed by Theodore Melfi, promote the importance of female agency by following the journeys of women who fight against barriers that work to limit them. The criticism and demonisation trail-blazing women face in both these stories and our contemporary world prompt us to ask: why do we expect women to be compliant?

Perhaps we are threatened by outspoken women. Both Jane and Mary Jackson are expected to put up with archaic gender roles and judged for their refusal to conform. Prompted by Jane’s refusal to stay at Thornfield Hall due to the possibility of his marriage to Ms. Ingram, Mr. Rochester’s description of Jane as a “wild frantic bird” exposes his narrow perspective that women who speak their mind are reckless and uncivilised – further projected through the connotations of a “frantic bird”, that mark Jane as an uncontrollable, wild animal. His warning that she is “rendering [her] own plumage in... desperation” projects his notion that women must submit to male order, or else, God forbid, they appear independent. While our disapproval of Rochester is underpinned by the assumption that punishing anyone for simply speaking up is wrong, his belief that loud – or dare say – honest women must be reined in doesn’t fall far from the judgement we see in our modern world. Jane’s potent response, “I am no bird, and no net ensnares me”, highlights the obvious: women are indeed human, and deserve basic rights. Unfortunately, it seems no matter how human women are, limitations are here to stay if we continue to ignore, or worse, actively silence their voices.

Much like Jane, Mary’s agency is limited by those who are threatened by her independence, and question her unconventional career choices. During the church lunch, Mary’s husband scrutinises her choice to pursue engineering, rather than meet the domestic expectations of a mother. Melfi utilises their marital argument to highlight the insidious idea of gender-exclusive workplaces because we are culturally conditioned to accept the stereotype that women belong in the home, while introducing the film’s advocacy for equality. Audiences see these themes reinforced later, when Mary goes to court to allow her, as a woman, to take engineering classes. Melfi’s use of long shots to frame Mary as ‘trapped’ by the wooden barriers of the courtroom symbolise the barriers all women face in speaking up and invites audiences to acknowledge that overcoming expectation is not an easy battle. During Mary’s powerful monologue, Melfi accompanies a slow zooming close-up shot of her face with inspirational non-diegetic music featuring powerful female vocalisation to scaffold this scene as a stirring message to audiences. The fact is, Mary must go to court, and fight for a right every man already has due to the existing assumption that women shouldn’t participate. Melfi’s message is clear: expectations placed on women force them, unarmed, into a battle for rights they should already have.

“Expectations placed on women force them, unarmed, into a battle for freedom and rights they should already have.”

Unfortunately, it seems women are still scrutinised for acting candidly. During the finals match of the 2019 Australian Open, former world no.1 Serena Williams was criticised by the media for ‘losing her cool’ after being fined for coaching. While male players regularly dodge the consequences of courtside-coaching in professional tennis, the response to Williams’ actions by Herald Sun cartoonist, Mark Knight, sent a different message for women. She was mocked in his cartoon that was not only racist, but portrayed her as a hormonal toddler. So, what does Knight’s illustration reveal? Women are still expected to be quiet and passive. The reprimand and ridicule Williams faced for bravely expressing herself only emphasises the normalised belief that boisterous women are immature and overbearing. Rather than being threatened by outspoken women, expecting them to submit to passive female compliance, we must allow, and encourage women to smash through female barriers and ace their agency.

Perhaps an even bigger issue promoting expectations for female compliance is demanding their silence. Jane’s response to St John’s questionable mindset on marriage, and Paul Stafford’s rejection of Katherine’s choice to give herself credit in the space reports reinforce the expectation that women should internalise and comply. In St John’s final plea for Jane to marry him, he tells her she is “formed for labour, not love”, reducing her to a mere object and exposing his possessive perspective that he can dictate Jane’s future. Her meditated response that “as his wife – at his side always... forced to keep the fire of [her] nature continually low” creates a sense of permanency through “always” and “continually”, prompting us to acknowledge that constraints for women will be constantly limiting until they can make choices independently. Brontë retains this message through the symbolism of “fire”, which connotes Jane’s determination for liberation, and emphasises that submission to men would kill her, consuming “vital after vital” - shaping a perspective that is bigger than just marriage, but on the immorality of female compliance as a whole. Through Brontë’s invited reading, an explicit message is sent: women should be a participant in their choices, rather than a recipient to the consequences of those made for them.

Similarly, Katherine’s attempts to obtain authorship credit for her calculations are met with contempt from Paul Stafford. Melfi’s use of a darkly lit shot depicting Katherine adding her name as an author of the space report exposes that women’s work is forced to remain in the shadows due to the assumption that they don’t belong in higher-level careers. When the scene cuts to a tracking shot of Katherine handing Paul the amended report, he rejects her notion, telling her “computers don’t author reports”, lowering Katherine’s work to that of a mere machine. Through his brash response, Melfi prompts us to disapprove the normalised belief that men can deny female contributions purely because they aren’t comfortable with women crossing into ‘men’s space.’ It seems ambition isn’t the problem here. After all, Katherine did a majority, if not all, of the calculations. But sadly, outdated gender stereotypes speak louder than her contributions. Frankly, Katherine is at the hands of her white male colleagues, regardless of how much credit she deserves. So, has our contemporary world tuned their ears and made space for women to step past gender norms?

Well, if women’s experiences in the world of politics speak truth, a world without gender stereotypes is still vastly off-pitch from reality. During her 2020 US election campaign, democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren was scrutinised by the media and electorate, facing a constant uphill battle of double standards and misogynistic resentment that ultimately resulted in Warren suspending her campaign. Obama-administration officials called her a “narcissist”, New York Times columnists labelled her “strident”, and “condescending.” Despite Warren’s inclusive reforms that aimed to root out government corruption and had her as a front-runner, the fact is, no matter how intelligently or confidently women speak up, they will continue to be criticised until these limitations change. It appears the assumption that women don’t belong, and can’t belong continues in our modern world, while sexism, internalised misogyny, and fear of confident

The reality is gender stereotypes and outdated conventions have forced women into compliance from cradle to grave for far too long. These texts expose the unjust struggles and criticism ambitious women face when we expect submission, while amplifying the stark truth: women alone can’t solve this problem because they aren’t the problem. It’s time we smash the glass ceiling, remove the barriers of expectation, and advocate for women to advance with confidence, rather than compliance.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse