An utterly random assortment of leading ladies who I believe to be revolutionary in their era of womanhood and from whom (for better or for worse) I seemingly derive much of my own personality.
Fleabag (fleabag)
By no means would I encourage any stable young women to try and mirror the behavior of this controversial character. But as someone not unfamiliar with a generous dose of Lexapro, I find her irreverent, turbulent personality to be the most tasteful depiction of human nature I have seen in television. Fleabag (her namesake in the show) is a character ruled by inner turmoil masked by humor and the breaking of the fourth wall. Though I don’t think I’d ever want to emulate some of her choices, I can respect as well as relate to the way in which she masks her emotions behind a veil of self-deprecating comedy. She by no means lives a life of conventionality and tends to say all the wrong things at the worst possible times, but this by far makes her the easiest to resonate with. What I truly enjoyed about her character is that she is an utter mess. Right from the beginning, the viewer is thrust into her life at peak chaos. Her best friend and mother have both just recently died, her guinea pig cafe is (unsurprisingly) not a big hit, she’s cheating on her boyfriend, and she has a strained relationship with the majority of her remaining family members. Yet within all this chaos, somehow the show puts the comedy in dramedy television. I think I come back to this character for comfort as she reminds me that you don’t have to be the picture of perfection to be worthy of love and there is value in a person even if they are not flawless.
Carrie bradshaw (sex and the city)
Perhaps a bit of a controversial choice amongst the leading ladies of this transcendent TV show, but as of late I have chosen to embrace my inner Carrie rather than shun her. I think we’ve all taken the classic BuzzFeed test to determine which Sex and the City woman we are and been disappointed when it came up as Carrie, instead of the wild, free, love enthusiast Samantha or proper and poised Charlotte. Although I would love to embody either of them, for better or for worse, Carrie is my girl. Is Carrie flawed? Most definitely, but is she the most relatable? 100%. Let’s be honest, no one wants to admit their inner Carrie because she is by far the most ill-equipped, chaotic, and spontaneous character amongst the four protagonists, but she is also a very real depiction of the chaos of womanhood. Given I am choosing to embrace my inner Carrie, I don’t want to drag her completely through the mud, as she does have some redeemable characteristics. She is by far the quirkiest of all the women — in both style and character she encompasses individuality and the pursuit of self. Though much of the show focuses on Carrie’s love life, she never loses sight of her own passion for writing and highlights it in her column. Carrie is by no means a perfect or put-together example for young women, but she is an honest one and takes the stigma away from having to be either the family, white-picket-fence-driven Charlotte, or the completely relationship-avoidant and careless Samantha. She is, in my opinion, a perfect mix of independence and heart.
Jo march (little women)
Though just a tad outside of my era of womanhood, Jo’s persistence to prove women’s place outside the homestead and advocacy for female writers is one that’s transcendent through time. I think, for myself, what I take away from Jo is her lust for life and seeking a lifestyle outside the conventional. Now I am aware my time is much different in its expectations of women to that of the time of Little Women, but despite all the development throughout the past decades that separate us, there is still this assumption that women’s lives will follow a Norman Rockwell progression: married, kids, etc. Even with the ever-increasing rates of women in the workforce, society still seems to have this ideal that eventually we will forgo our careers in return for marriage and babies, or if we don’t take the stay at home mother route, we will have to serve within the duality that is the working mother who is both the caregiver and breadwinner. And if we forgo the married/baby-making roles, we are looked upon as incomplete in some way, as if a woman’s whole life is measured on the basis of creating a family. Jo’s character rebuttals this by rejecting the expectation that a woman’s purpose lies solely in loving.
eloise bridgerton (bridgerton)
Another lead set ahead of her time, Eloise Bridgerton possesses the typical rebellious middle child angst, accompanied by the female longing for freedom comparable to that of the men of her era. Again, what she and I lack in commonality of time period, we make up for in a deep-rooted need for autonomy over our own futures. Though I’m not being thrust into society expected to marry for station and financial protection, as I expressed above, I still feel the slight pressure from extended family and acquaintances to utilize my younger years as a period to pursue a relationship. Rarely do they come out and straight up ask about my current romantic status, but it comes in more covert ways, such as, “seeing anyone special?” or “anyone catch your eye up at school?” or of course the much less discrete, “any boyfriend yet?” We may exist in very different times with very different opportunities presented to us as young women, but Eloise exemplifies a persistence in seeking an equal playing field between men and women that I both respect and hope to emulate myself.
To wrap things UP…
I find I resonate with these women the most because of their complete obscurity. They may not be cult favorites or perfect presentations on poised femininity, but for me, they represent my own inner monologue. They bring a certain je ne sais quoi that I find refreshing in television and encourage irreverent behavior in aspiring young women. Despite their complete lack of comparability to one another, they all share the commonality in seeking deeper purpose outside of the expected and serve to be an example that there is beauty in not just imperfection, but complete imprudence.