Tag Archives: kyriarchy

Downton Abbey: Belated Initial Impressions

Within the last few weeks–I don’t remember exactly when–I’ve started watching Downton Abbey on Netflix…more out of curiosity than anything else; now, I have some thoughts.

As fans–and people who’ve started watching this series before I have–know, Downton Abbey is set in England between 1912 and 1925; it begins with the aftermath of the sinking of the Titanic, and the backstory is that Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham, married an American heiress, Cora Levinson (played by American actress Elizabeth McGovern, who I first learned about upon seeing the cover art on a video version of the 1988 film She’s Having a Baby),to obtain money to keep up Downton Abbey, but eventually fell in love with her. However, the Abbey is entailed because Lord and Lady Grantham only have daughters (three of them: Mary, Edith, and Sybil), and, since the heir presumptive supposedly died in the Titanic disaster, the estate will go to a cousin, Matthew, a solicitor from Manchester in the event that neither Mary, Edith, nor Sybil have a son.

On the outside, the Granthams seem kind: for instance, Lord Grantham has his old Boer War batman, Bates, come to Downton Abbey to be his personal valet; he’s about to let Bates go, as Bates has a leg injury from the Boer War–even though the injury doesn’t fully interfere with his duties–but, at the end of the first episode of the first season, he changes his mind and keeps Bates on. In the third episode of the first season, Lady Sybil finds out Gwen is learning how to be a secretary via a correspondence course, and encourages her to the point where she shows Gwen a posting for a business looking for a secretary, and tells her to apply.

Then there’s Violet, the Dowager Countess of Grantham, portrayed oh-so-convincingly by Dame Maggie Smith, who’s the voice of those folks at the top who are afraid of change–though she’s in the process of appealing to Cora to make sure the eldest Crawley daughter, Mary, gets the Levinson fortune, if not inherit Downton Abbey. Overall, though, it seems to me the Dowager Countess, who was born into the British aristocracy, yearns for what she considers the ‘good old days.’ For instance, upon learning that Gwen wants to leave service–and Downton Abbey–and become a secretary, the Dowager Countess states that, if she was in Gwen’s position, she would rather have stayed at Downton Abbey as a maid than ‘work from dawn ’til dusk in a cramped and gloomy office’–in short, she believes she knows what’s best for Downton Abbey’s servants better than they do, and that places like Downton Abbey are the best places in the world to live and–for those not born into nobility and/or generational wealth–work.

Now, on to Matthew Crawley, the new heir presumptive of Downton Abbey.

Matthew is a lawyer from Manchester; his father, who was a doctor, is now dead, and his mother, Isobel, was a nurse. At first, Matthew is reluctant to accept what comes with the position of heir presumptive of Downton Abbey, going so far as to insist on doing things himself, such as dressing, eating, and drinking, instead of letting his appointed butler, Moseley, do those things for him–it took a conversation with Robert for him to start letting Moseley do what he was assigned to do. Apparently, Matthew is cut from a different cloth from the aristocratic Crawleys–likely because, unlike the aristocratic branch of the family, he actually had to work.

As far as Matthew’s mother, Isobel, goes, as someone who trained as a nurse, almost immediately upon moving with Matthew to Downton, she started volunteering in the Downton Cottage Hospital, and even offered advice to the doctor there about how to treat a patient with a particularly difficult ailment, advice which she felt qualified to give because of her nursing experience. The doctor was reluctant to take the advice at first–and even Violet intervened to stop the treatment advised by Isobel–but eventually, the patient does get Isobel’s advised treatment, which works. Isobel’s attitudes are in stark contrast to those of the members of the aristocratic branch of the Crawley family, and her actions have started bringing her into conflict with Violet, Cora, and possibly Robert as well.

But at least Isobel and Matthew aren’t portrayed as bad people, even given the political bias of the show’s creator, Julian Fellowes (more on that later in this post).

Three episodes in, and I get the impression that the Crawleys want to seem kind to everyone in their lives, starting with and including their servants, but it’s apparent they’re reluctant to except change, and want to do everything they can to hold on to their familial/collective position and the power that comes with it. The Crawleys greatly benefit from kyriarchy, and, though they do things to help their servants improve their lives, they don’t want to do anything that would cost them their positions–individual or collective–in early 20th-century society. In other words, the Crawleys are more or less like any other aristocrats and rich families of the era they lived in.

I’ve only watched three episodes, but, so far, I’m getting a nice window into the lives of early-twentieth century wealthy, aristocratic families in England and their members, and everyone in the orbit of those families–as well as societal attitudes at the time and in that geographical area. I’m fairly certain I’ll have more commentary on Downton Abbey as I watch. And I’m well aware that the series was written by Julian Fellowes–more properly known as His Lordship Julian Alexander Kitchener-Fellowes, Baron Fellowes of West Stafford–and that he a) was born into landed gentry and b) is a Conservative peer, so his political views would colour the tone of whatever he writes and helps to create, and that includes Downton Abbey, ergo I have a sense of what to expect as I watch this series. But, as I mentioned, I started watching Downton Abbey out of curiosity, and I’m riding that train to its final destination–no doubt offering commentary here and likely elsewhere as I go.

Kevin O’Leary

So, Kevin O’Leary has decided to compete for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, and thus come at least one step closer to being voted Prime Minister of Canada. And the prospect of this scares the bejesus of me.

In a previous post, I mentioned O’Leary was quoted as saying it’s “fantastic” that a handful of the super-rich have the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the planet, as “it gives them (the poor) motivation to look up to the one percent.” The reality is, we aren’t looking up to the one percent; we’re grousing about their lack of any feeling of social responsibility, and unwillingness to share. Apparently, O’Leary has never heard of the concept of giving back to the community. Also, has it occurred to O’Leary that a lot of people who didn’t inherit their wealth came by it by–oh, how should I put this?–less-than-legitimate means? Oh, and just because it isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it isn’t immoral. But I’m guessing–in the minds of O’Leary and his ilk–the ends justify the means.

I’ll take this moment to predict that if O’Leary ever becomes Prime Minister of Canada, he’ll make it easier for the rich to get richer, and much more difficult for the poor to get ahead financially and in terms of opportunities open to them, and he won’t care if the rich give to the community. He’ll also make it easier for the rich to stay out of prison if they commit any crimes, while making it harder for the poor, and other marginalized folk, to get justice of any kind. In short, if Kevin O’Leary ever becomes Prime Minister of Canada, the rich will be further rewarded for being rich, while the poor will be further punished for being poor.

I understand Kevin O’Leary is only part of the problem, and is yet another result of a system that perpetuates kyriarchy. He is also part of a larger trend towards keeping kyriarchy in place, for the benefit of a few. Also, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s just being obtuse about the whole situation; unfortunately, that obtuseness has the potential to cost millions of people–and cost them dearly.

Natsukashii Revisited: Trump and Beyond

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. Within twenty-four hours, people marched on Washington, D.C., and in cities all over the world, to announce to President Trump, and the world, that we stand for human rights, diversity, inclusion, and progress.

We must, however, realize that these issues go beyond Donald Trump.

Within the race to fill the leadership role of the Conservative Party of Canada are individuals like Kellie Leitch, who wants newcomers to Canada tested for ‘Canadian values’–which she has been quoted as claiming are conservative values, though not everyone in Canada is conservative. And Shark Tank judge Kevin O’Leary is now running; he has been quoted as saying he wants to, among other things, make unions illegal, saying, “Unions themselves are borne of evil.” He has also been quoted as saying it’s “fantastic” that a small percentage of people are wealthier than the poorest people, saying, “It gives them (the poor) motivation to look up to the one percent.” Very promising potential future leaders of Canada, indeed.

Trump, Leitch, and O’Leary are part of a recent trend towards leaders and political candidates wanting to turn the clock back to a time that never really existed, a time where everybody supposedly ‘knew their place.’ The presence of these folks, and others like them, is a reflection of the desire of a portion of the general population to live in a world without political correctness or left-leaning social justice, and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States is a manifestation of the current attitude that ‘political correctness’ has gone too far and things need to go back to the way they supposedly were. In short, the people who willingly buy what the likes of President Trump, Leitch, and O’Leary are selling cling to, and benefit from, the status quo, even if it doesn’t work for everyone.

President Trump is also a manifestation, and a symbol, of a larger culture of entitlement, a culture which fosters, among other things, vitriol against left-leaning social-justice advocacy and activism and a desire to uphold the status quo simply because a small portion of the human population benefits from it. This culture of entitlement encourages kyriarchy–white supremacy, xenophobia, classism, patriarchy, jingoism, heteronormativity, cissexism, ableism, etc.–and bigotry.

I’m fully aware this problem goes beyond North America. All over the world, there are people who are afraid of change and will fight tooth and nail against it, because they think the status quo is better, or they think some period in the past was a better time, and the world needs to return to that time, even if it never existed in reality. President Trump, Leitch, and O’Leary cater to these people, and play on their fears to get votes and whatever else they want, and the election of Trump as the 45th President of the United States is very encouraging to them. However, if this trend of electing people with a serious case of natsukashii into positions of leadership continues, the world and all of its inhabitants will suffer.