Why House of Cards doesn’t just hate men- it hates everyone equally

Though HoC gives plenty of power to women, it is inherently scorning the public for allowing egregious errors in the system of checks and balances The show subtly mocks the populace that plays no role in the real politics in America and beyond.

There is an inherently patriarchal system prevalent in the cultural entertainment and literature industries that is reinforced by economic structures, the political environment, psychological problems, and social oppression on to women. Normalized throughout the media industry is the dehumanizing tendency to marginalize and oppress women. Some works are capable of expressing their discontent at what is tolerated and thus perpetuated by the public. House of Cards is one such work.

Created and stylized by Beau Willimon, it is the atypical attempt of a man to create a feminist dichotomy — part hero part villain. Instead of the archetypical feminine, we see Claire Underwood, the wife of the show’s central figure, played with cold, hard brilliance by Robin Wright. The show has channeled the notoriety it has gained into an opportunity to tell rich, honest stories about women’s lives without catering to a conservative audience.

Claire Underwood is immediately portrayed as a woman as ambitious as her husband. Their rise to power has seemingly been a mutual one and when her husband begins restricting her real political power, she leaves him. She is willing and ready to lie, destroy lives, end careers, and for those reasons is a self-serving and shockingly powerful woman. The reasoning and morals may be atypical, but the strength from which her actions come from is unprecedented in today’s mainstream media’s portrayal of the capable woman.

If anything these women are less reliant on the men around them than the men are on them. Claire Underwood’s husband needs her far more than she needs him and she often lets him get these shorter end of the stick rather than appease him. Too often women are depicted as being capable of destructive and damnable offenses because of characteristics that seem to only be tied with the less agreeable aspects of femininity, but in this series the egregious traits of the women are also seen in the men. Frank Underwood has a moral code of “ruthless pragmatism” that Claire doesn’t only condone, but along with other women in the show, has adopted — or perhaps he learned it from her.

Dialogue within the series often became gender focused within such a political environment. Examples are plentiful. During a Democratic party debate, a female candidate opposing Frank’s candidacy tried to strike up a debate about gender equality. Claire worked to free feminists from Russian prison and spoke out against the Russian prime minister for stripping gay people of their human rights, an issue inherently tied with gender equality.

An interviewer asked Claire about abortion rumors and instead of floundering, Claire was capable of creating a new narrative that she could own well. She spun it and made it about the man that had raped her instead of her own sexuality and body’s exploitation. In order to maintain her convictions while avoiding rubbing people the wrong way, she muddled facts in order to gain political position. She named the man who raped her, but lied about the time and reason for terminating it. Her real reason was political ambition, the fire that lights all of the characters in the series. The political programming that many undergo as a means of subjugation is flipped on its head and the women seen in House of Cards are instead the ones that shape key aspects of society such as education, politics, and the work force. When taking a fully feminist critique, though, the work must be unpacked in order to fully assess its essence. The perceived misogyny of the story itself is quite blatant: there is a power hungry man with only a few people that truly support him and only a few people that can incapacitate him, all of which are women. He doesn’t use sex as a manipulative, rather they do for him. When Claire Underwood begins to feel that what she represents to her husband is more important than who she is, she shirks the Why House of Cards doesn’t just hate men- it hates everyone equally
There is an inherently political system prevalent in the cultural entertainment and literature industries that is reinforced by economic structures, the political environment, psychological problems, and social oppression on to women. Normalized throughout the media industry is the dehumanizing tendency to marginalize and oppress women. Some works are capable of expressing their discontent at what is tolerated and thus perpetuated by the public. House of Cards is one such work. Created and stylized by Beau Willimon, it is the atypical attempt of a man to create a feminist dichotomy — part hero part villain. Instead of the archetypical feminine, we see Claire Underwood, the wife of the show’s central figure, played with cold, hard brilliance by Robin Wright. The show has channeled the notoriety it has gained into an opportunity to tell rich, honest stories about women’s lives without catering to a conservative audience.

Claire Underwood is immediately portrayed as a woman as ambitious as her husband. Their rise to power has seemingly been a mutual one and when her husband begins restricting her real political power, she leaves him. She is willing and ready to lie, destroy lives, end careers, and for those reasons is a self-serving and shockingly powerful woman. The reasoning and morals may be atypical, but the strength from which her actions come from is unprecedented in today’s mainstream media’s portrayal of the capable woman.

If anything these women are less reliant on the men around them than the men are on them. Claire Underwood’s husband needs her far more than she needs him and she often lets him get these shorter end of the stick rather than appease him. Too often women are depicted as being capable of destructive and damnable offenses because of characteristics that seem to only be tied with the less agreeable aspects of femininity, but in this series the egregious traits of the women are also seen in the men. Frank Underwood has a moral code of “ruthless pragmatism” that Claire doesn’t only condone, but along with other women in the show, has adopted — or perhaps he learned it from her.

Dialogue within the series often became gender focused within such a political environment. Examples are plentiful. During a Democratic party debate, a female candidate opposing Frank’s candidacy tried to strike up a debate about gender equality. Claire worked to free feminists from Russian prison and spoke out against the Russian prime minister for stripping gay people of their human rights, an issue inherently tied with gender equality.

An interviewer asked Claire about abortion rumors and instead of floundering, Claire was capable of creating a new narrative that she could own well. She spun it and made it about the man that had raped her instead of her own sexuality and body’s exploitation. In order to maintain her convictions while avoiding rubbing people the wrong way, she muddled facts in order to gain political position. She named the man who raped her, but lied about the time and reason for terminating it. Her real reason was political ambition, the fire that lights all of the characters in the series. The political programming that many undergo as a means of subjugation is flipped on its head and the women seen in House of Cards are instead the ones that shape key aspects of society such as education, politics, and the work force. When taking a fully feminist critique, though, the work must be unpacked in order to fully assess its essence. The perceived misogyny of the story itself is quite blatant: there is a power hungry man with only a few people that truly support him and only a few people that can incapacitate him, all of which are women. He doesn’t use sex as a manipulative, rather they do for him. When Claire Underwood begins to feel that what she represents to her husband is more important than who she is, she shirks the passive role society would have her hold and instead removes herself from the situation modern film makers would love to have her stay in. The lens through which the female characters are seen is not one of voyeurism but one of audience identification. Instead of being sexually objectified, the audience sees how the characters control themselves. When a young reporter wears a push-up bra and dresses to gain the attention of Frank Underwood, the audience clearly sees that she is in control of her actions and that Frank respects her all the more for that.

Because this is a Netflix original show catering to younger generations with more open and alternative views on sexuality and gender, the feminist critique can assess that women triumph. A voyeuristic lens often sexually objectifies women whereas the lens that House of Cards takes by portraying women as men lacks sexual objectification.

The patriarchal view the series has taken is no longer visually nor psychologically pleasing to audiences as conservative viewership dwindles. Stereotypical representations in film and television have been replaced and the tropes have been abolished. The series congratulates the viewer for being suspicious of these as well by reward and accommodating the viewers’ demands for equality both in their reality and in the politics of their entertainment. and examine their social roles, experiences, interests, and especially their politics.

Representations of women in this series are far from archetypical. Though the women in House of Cards are capable of loathsome deeds, they are not driven by societal constructs such as men’s approval, marriage, or building a family but instead by their inner ambitions. The show itself expresses a contempt for the American public, which have historically been capable of allowing social injustice to go too far. Instead of tolerating and thus perpetuating inequality, House of Cards is a dark visionary on the reality of the state of affairs.passive role society would have her hold and instead removes herself from the situation modern film makers would love to have her stay in. The lens through which the female characters are seen is not one of voyeurism but one of audience identification. Instead of being sexually objectified, the audience sees how the characters control themselves. When a young reporter wears a push-up bra and dresses to gain the attention of Frank Underwood, the audience clearly sees that she is in control of her actions and that Frank respects her all the more for that.

Because this is a Netflix original show catering to younger generations with more open and alternative views on sexuality and gender, the feminist critique can assess that women triumph. A voyeuristic lens often sexually objectifies women whereas the lens that House of Cards takes by portraying women as men lacks sexual objectification.

The patriarchal view the series has taken is no longer visually nor psychologically pleasing to audiences as conservative viewership dwindles. Stereotypical representations in film and television have been replaced and the tropes have been abolished. The series congratulates the viewer for being suspicious of these as well by reward and accommodating the viewers’ demands for equality both in their reality and in the politics of their entertainment. and examine their social roles, experiences, interests, and especially their politics.

Representations of women in this series are far from archetypical. Though the women in House of Cards are capable of loathsome deeds, they are not driven by societal constructs such as men’s approval, marriage, or building a family but instead by their inner ambitions. The show itself expresses a contempt for the American public, which have historically been capable of allowing social injustice to go too far. Instead of tolerating and thus perpetuating inequality, House of Cards is a dark visionary on the reality of the state of affairs.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.