Palace of Cards

Madam Mao Tells a Cautionary Tale about What Happens to Women Who Seek Power

The story could have been taken straight from the U.S. 2016 presidential election headlines. A powerful former first lady seeks to follow in her husband’s political footsteps, but instead of assuming the nation’s highest office, she is destroyed by chants of “Lock her up!” 

While Hillary Clinton’s lofty political aspirations merely ended in retirement after a stunning Electoral College defeat, Jiang Qing faced an actual life behind bars after the death of her husband, Chairman Mao Zedong, the Chinese leader who devastated his country during the historical period known as the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). 

On September 20, 2018, the story of Mao Zedong’s powerful wife will come to life in the American premiere of Madam Mao on the Boise Contemporary Theater stage. The play explores the final weeks of Jiang Qing’s life in a Beijing prison, 15 years after Mao Zedong’s death, using dance, live music, and improvisation as Janet Lo (“Jiang Qing”) interacts with Samantha Wan (“Sergeant/Trickster”) and Amanda Zhou (“Red Guard”), moving from present to past in a stream of stories about this powerful woman’s rise and fall. 

When I spoke with Lo, the play’s lead actor and co-creator, by telephone in July 2018, it was sometimes hard to tell whether she was speaking as herself or as her character. Her role in creating Jiang Qing has immersed her in the story to such a degree that she sometimes speaks as Madam Mao, switching from third to first person without a thought.

I asked Lo what drew her to this infamous woman. Noting that such complex characters are still a rarity for Asian actors, Lo replied, “When I started reading about Jiang Qing, I was immediately intrigued that she led such a complicated life. She was, at one time, the most powerful and feared woman in the world. The question was how did she become so hated? 

No one is born evil, but towards the end, she was accused of monstrous things. Was she evil or has she been vilified by historical perspective? And if it’s the latter, why?”

Jiang Qing’s transformation from young actress to cultural force is a fascinating tale. More popularly known as “Madam Mao,” she used the state-run theater and her control over the artistic community to prepare China to accept a woman leader. “There is no such thing as art for art’s sake,” Mao famously said, and Jiang Qing, who met fellow Communist Party member Mao Zedong when she was a drama instructor nearly half his age, used the spectacle of theater to create programming that glorified the Cultural Revolution. Her eight “Model Plays” deified Mao and the People’s Liberation Army, incorporating Western theatrical elements such as ballet, orchestral compositions, and opera. The plays relied on simple binary narratives that may also seem relevant to viewers today, with workers portrayed as the “good guys,” pitted in a heroic struggle against evil capitalists.  

Jiang Qing, aka Madam Mao, in 1976.
By Unknown - Dutch National Archives,
The Hague,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/
w/index.php?curid=37133170

But instead of assuming political power after her husband died, Madam Mao was almost immediately blamed for the devastating losses China incurred as a result of her husband’s authoritarian regime. Charged as the leader of the infamous “Gang of Four,” she expressed no remorse for her actions during the Cultural Revolution, famously stating at her trial: “I was Chairman Mao's dog. I bit whomever he asked me to bite."

When Lo approached renowned Canadian actor and director Paul Thompson about creating a live stage play depicting Jiang Qing’s final days in her prison cell before her 1991 death by suicide, Thompson was already familiar with the story. Someone had pitched it to him in the late 1970s, and though it had all the elements of a gripping drama, Thompson felt that the subject matter would be too unfamiliar to theater goers because despite President Nixon’s historic 1972 visit, China at the time was still viewed in the West as an insignificant, backwater country.

Forty years later, the geopolitical realities are very different. With China emerging as a world power, Thompson decided that Lo was right: Jiang Qing’s story needed to be told. Madam Mao premiered in Toronto at the 2014 SummerWorks festival to rave reviews. The production won NOW Magazine’s “Best in Fest” award, citing its outstanding ensemble cast, director (Severn Thompson), and production design. After seeing a 2016 reprisal of the production, author Margaret Atwood of Handmaid’s Tale fame summed up her experience: 

“Excellent performance, three versatile and expressive actors, fascinating story.” 

I asked Lo why this story matters to audiences now, more than 40 years after Mao Zedong’s death. She gave me two reasons: first, the theme of idealism in politics. “I think that Jiang Qing was very idealistic when this all started,” she said. “She was living for the glory of the dream—the dream of a happier life for Chinese workers. The play explores how this idealism gets corroded in politics, and I think that’s a very relevant message.”

The second reason Lo gave me was that Madam Mao explores the role art plays in shaping society’s views. And in fact, this play was created in a way that may seem unusual to some American audiences. Lo’s mentor Paul Thompson was one of the pioneering forces behind a theatrical form known as collective creation, a collaboration among actors, playwrights, and directors using historical documents and facts with improvisation techniques to produce a play. The economic advantages of such collaboration are clear: A high quality production can be staged with just a few actors and minimal sets, and the production can easily travel from one community to another.

This creation method also has advantages for artists. I asked Lo what she enjoyed most about the collective creation process. “There is an energy and immediacy when a play is created this way,” she said. “And we as actors can take ownership of the work. Also, similar to how musicians jam, we as actors jam to create dialogue and story.”

According to Lo, one of the most important messages of the play is that the best ideological intentions can sometimes end in horrific abuses of power. 

But there’s also a cautionary message about women and politics. “In the whole history of China, there has ever only been one female ruler,” Lo observed. “Even though in this country, we have yet to have had a female President, the United States is merely 242 years old, whereas China, in 5000 years, had only one empress from 624-705 C.E.”

In the play, Lo’s character Jiang Qing is asked, “Did you think you would be the next ruler of China?” Madam Mao’s reply, sadly, rang as true for women in the United States in 2016 as it did in China in the 1970s: "Do you think they would have let me?" 

Let’s hope that with a record number of women running in the 2018 midterm elections, a few things change for the better, without the pain, corruption, and destruction of our own Cultural Revolution.

Madam Mao will play for six performances at the Boise Contemporary Theater from Thursday, September 20-Saturday, September 22. For more information or to purchase tickets, visit http://azureriver.wixsite.com/madam-mao 

Blessed Are the Women

My Mother's Day flowers

The Sermon I Wish I Could Give On Mother’s Day

Mother’s Day is not my favorite holiday. While I appreciate the intent behind establishing a day to honor the women who gave us life, for me, as a mother, daughter, sister, and friend, the day itself is an ambiguous one, fraught with empathy for women who want to be mothers but are not, women who have lost mothers, women who are mothers grieving lost children, or women who are raising children in less than ideal circumstances (pretty much every mother at some point in her life). 

On Mother’s Day this year, I went to church with my ten-year old daughter and listened to rambling “talks” from two teenage boys, followed by a returned missionary report and the obligatory gift of a small bag of chocolate-covered cherries. I enjoyed the cherries. But I left wanting a different kind of sermon, one more focused on the day itself. Frankly, in the context of current cultural anti-feminist attacks, Mother’s Day platitudes feel like mere lip service.

Here’s the sermon I, as a woman and a mother, would have given on Mother’s Day:

Mary, the mother of Jesus, gave birth to her firstborn son under less than ideal circumstances. She was an unwed pregnant teenager, but fortunately, her fiancé Joseph decided to marry her anyway, even though they both knew he was not her baby daddy. These days, you don’t find too many stand-up guys like Joseph, unfortunately, as far too many single mothers can tell you. Mary gave birth in a barn, because there was no national healthcare system in those days, Some things haven’t changed.

When Jesus was 12 years old, his parents lost him while they were on a family trip. This was before text messaging. They found him in a synagogue teaching his elders about the scriptures. When his mom scolded him, Jesus gave her the best tween excuse of all time: “Mom, I’m doing God’s work here. Chill out.” If my 12-year-old son tried something like this, I would probably ground him from his iPod for at least a day. Also, I would be secretly impressed.

In Jesus’s brief ministry, here are some things he did not talk about (but which certain Republican legislators are trying to abrogate under the false pretense of “Christian Values”):

• Gay marriage
• Reproductive rights
• Keeping people from using the bathroom they want to use.

And here are some things he did talk about (which seem largely absent from the vocabulary of many contemporary conservative Christians):

• Loving one another
• Embracing the stranger
• Forgiving people and not judging them.

One of the last things Jesus taught by example was how to respect and honor our mothers. While he was dying on the cross, Jesus made arrangements to ensure that his mother was cared for. 

What do we do to care for the women in our lives? This election season, I’ve become increasingly alarmed by the rhetoric of institutionalized sexism that has joined equally ugly racism and xenophobia in our national conversation. Policies that benefit women—maternity leave, childcare, healthcare, reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, etc.—are under attack. 

This Mother’s Day, I’m thinking about all of the women who deserve so much more than we have right now. 

Blessed Are the Women

Blessed are the mothers, 
for they gave us life.

Blessed are the mothers who stayed at home during our childhood,
For they played pretend games and served us healthy snacks.
They showed us they cared by sacrificing themselves for us.

Blessed are the mothers who worked during our childhood,
For they attended our school conferences and helped us with late night homework.
They showed us they cared by sacrificing themselves for us.

Blessed are the mothers who are married,
And blessed are the mothers who are not married.
Both have their secret sorrows and joys.

Blessed are the mothers who abandoned us:
We cannot always know the price they paid for our life.
And blessed are the mothers who are estranged from us
As we pray for reconciliation.

Blessed are the mothers who hurt us.
We do not know the pain that they endured,
And we forgive them, to assuage our own grief.

Blessed are the mothers of children who are sick:
Theirs is a special calling, to care too dearly, 
to trade one future for another.

Blessed are the mothers who have lost children too young.
Any mother who outlives a child has lost her child too young.
May we pray for grace and peace for these sweet mothers.

Blessed are the mothers of furry or slimy or scaly creatures.
Their calling is to care for all life,
And they nurture living things as acolytes of Mother Earth.

Blessed are the women who choose not to be mothers.
There is nothing selfish in their right 
To self-determination.

Blessed are the women who are not mothers but want to be.
Theirs is an exquisite grief, a primal longing,
Let us assure them that they belong and matter in our world.

Blessed are the sisters, daughters, wives, girlfriends.
Blessed are all the women, for they shall care for the earth.

A Letter to Bernie Sanders Supporters from an Angry White Woman who Supports Hillary Clinton

The Ada County Democratic Caucus in Boise, Idaho

Dear Well-Meaning Bernie Sanders Supporter:

I am not writing this letter to change your mind. I am writing this letter to help you understand why you won’t change mine.

In 1992, I voted in my first presidential election. Much to my Democratic parents’ chagrin, I’d grown up loving Ronald Reagan, but in college, I was disillusioned with Operation Desert Storm and unimpressed with George H.W. Bush’s lackluster economic policies. Like many people my age, I found myself intrigued by the sax-playing, wise-cracking young governor from Arkansas, with his “outsider” ethos and rags-to-riches American Dream narrative.

But what impressed me most about Bill Clinton was his wife.

From the start, it was clear that they were partners who considered each other equals. Hillary Clinton was smart, capable, and she didn’t stay home and bake cookies all day. She was the kind of woman I wanted to be when I grew up. I remember asking a friend, “Why can’t we have her for president?”

And my friend said, “Be patient. We probably will someday.”

In 2008, Clinton had proved her worth, working long hours as a senator, with a voting record nearly as progressive as Bernie Sanders.

Then another charming young man with a compelling rags to riches story came along, promising hope and change. Hillary Clinton got a consolation prize: Secretary of State. Watching President Obama finally reach his stride in the last days of his presidency, I wonder how things might have been different if their positions were reversed—if she had won the presidency in 2008, made him her Vice President, and he had learned the leadership skills he seems to be finally acquiring.

(Note: Obama’s presidency has been mostly a disappointment to me).

Instead, now we’re watching Hillary Clinton, the most qualified, intelligent, articulate, compassionate, pragmatic presidential candidate, get taken down again, this time by loud white men.

Ouch.

In 2008, I was willing to concede that hope and change were compelling. But now, in 2016, I can come to only one conclusion about why Hillary Clinton is still struggling to connect with many American voters: It’s because she is a woman.

It’s sure not because of her impressive resume:

• She has the most foreign policy experience of any candidate. 
• She is respected by leaders around the globe and is the most admired woman in the world. 
• She is progressive but pragmatic.
• She knows how to listen and to compromise. 
• She basically invented universal healthcare in the United States.
• She works harder than anyone else in the room.

I don’t think it’s because of her policy proposals either. I like Hillary’s specific, detailed plans to address a number of issues that concern me:

• Campaign Finance Reform: Hillary would work to overturn Citizens United. Enough said.
• Climate Change: Hillary wants to make the United States a leader in the energy revolution, creating millions of new jobs while also working to preserve our planet.
• College Costs: As a college instructor, I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders’s free college, for many reasons. I support Hillary’s plan to control college costs and manage student loan debt so that any student who wants a college education can work for one.
• Criminal Justice Reform: This is probably the single most important issue to me, and Hillary’s very first speech addressed the hard facts of race and justice inequality. I wish she were better on mental health issues, but I think she’ll come around to that piece of the mass incarceration problem as well.
• Economy: Hillary has a smart plan for growth that includes addressing our nation’s critical infrastructure needs. I also support her tax relief for families plan, as well as her plans to address income inequality and corporate tax loopholes. Her husband presided over a period of economic prosperity, and I think that her centrist economic policies will be similar to his. As for the charge that she is in bed with the banks because she was paid speaker’s fees? Would we level the same charge at a man—i.e., negotiating a favorable contract and getting paid to do a job?

While Senator Sanders has some attractive ideas, there is absolutely no evidence that he has any interest in compromise or consensus building, nor has he given any realistic estimate of how he would pay for his massive social programs (“Tax the rich” really isn’t a comprehensive economic policy).  And he is from Vermont, a state about as lacking in diversity as my own state of Idaho.

If Hillary Clinton were a man, she would be the most popular candidate in the race. But it’s been shown time and time again that the qualities we admire in men—strength, decisiveness, intelligence—are the qualities we detest in women.

Even other women don’t like her. Women my mother’s age generally give two reasons for their dislike of Hillary: 1) She’s a liar; and 2) She stood by her man when he had an affair.

The first criticism is demonstrably untrue. Though all politicians have truth-bending skills, Hillary Clinton has been the most honestperson in this race, even compared to Sanders (72% of Clinton’s 125 evaluated statements have been evaluated as half true or better; 70% of Sanders’s 52 evaluated statements were half true or better; 77% of Donald Trump’s statements were mostly false or worse). When I pointed this fact out to a woman who told me Hillary was a liar, the woman replied, “Well, I just feel like she is a liar, even if she isn’t. You can’t trust her.”

Why? Because she is a woman.

The second criticism—really??? Really??? I’m not going to touch that one.

At least my son understands!

Younger women’s reasons for supporting Bernie Sanders are even more confusing to me. They seem to think that we’re in some kind of post-feminism utopia where a political candidate’s gender doesn’t matter. These same young women will wear, without a hint of irony, a t-shirt that reads “A Woman’s Place is in the House…and the Senate.”

(Meanwhile, women are 19% of House of Representatives, 12% of governors, 20% of Senators, 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs—and 0% of U.S. Presidents.)

Then there are women of a certain age—my age—who have grown up with Hillary Clinton, and who have experienced, on much smaller but equally painful scales, the rampant institutionalized misogyny that is currently threatening to deprive this country of its most qualified presidential candidate.

I am one of those angry white women. It makes me uncomfortable to write this, because I was raised to believe that anger was not an acceptable emotion for women. I was taught to believe that nice girls finish first.  

But I know I'm not alone. You don’t hear too much about angry women like me, mostly because, as you might expect in a country rife with institutionalized misogyny, all the focus is on the angry white men who support that pseudo-candidate with the fake hair and small hands.

When you do hear about us, it’s because someone like former Secretary of State Madeline Albright points out the obvious: this country needs a woman president. Then Hillary Clinton has to apologize for being the most qualified, experienced, and smart person in the race—because of her gender.

(Meanwhile, Trump doesn’t have to apologize for anything, but that’s another story).

I’m an angry white woman, because, like Hillary, I’ve been the most qualified person for a job—and lost it to a man. I’ve found out I’m being paid 25% less for doing the same job as a man. I’ve joyfully announced a pregnancy at work, only to be told by my boss, “I guess we can’t count on you for anything.” 

Like Hillary, I’m a smart, capable woman, and like Hillary, I’ve paid dearly, both personally and professionally, for having qualities that are considered “leadership traits” in men. When a woman has those same qualities, people use another, less polite word. One that is also applied to female dogs.

“But wait!” several of my white male friends have told me. “I’m a feminist. I don’t support institutionalized misogyny. Bernie Sanders’s policies are better for women. And anyway, I don’t really see this misogyny you’re talking about.”

Of course you don’t. You are not a woman. And while most Bernie Sanders’s supporters are polite and reasonable, there is a small but vocal minority of white men, sometimes called the BernieBros, who rival Trump supporters in their vicious attacks on people who disagree with them. Like all women expressing support for Hillary on Twitter, I’ve personally experienced the BernieBros’ brand of “Feel the Bern.” 

You know what’s better for women that Bernie Sanders’s progressive policies? A woman president.

Hillary Clinton has survived years of vicious gossip and Washington vitriol, all the while working hard to serve Americans. Has she made mistakes? Of course she has. But she has been accountable about them, unlike many men I can think of, her husband included.

Hillary Clinton is a wife, a mother, and a grandmother. She is still the person I want to be when I grow up—but more importantly, I want my children to see that a woman not only can grow up to be president, she can be an awesome president.

Hillary Clinton speaks to my head—and to my heart. I’m hoping this time, she’ll get her well deserved chance to make history.

Signed,

An Angry White Woman