10. 12 Years a Slave - Gender Differences in the Experience of Slavery

Through its portrayal of the ordeal of Solomon Northup and adherence to his original memoir, Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave provides a detailed insight into the differences in slavery experienced by male and female slaves. These differences are innumerable, and range from their relationships with their white owners, the ways in which they resist their condition and the manner in which they express feelings (or lack thereof) of solidarity. However, there exists also a clearly identifiable set of similarities between the experiences of men and women which are equally relevant to a discourse on their condition in slavery.

When analysing gender differences within the film chronologically, the first instance of note is the portrayal of the recently enslaved Eliza and her children who we see in the holding pen in Washington. When being woken in their cell by white slave smugglers at night for their transportation to New Orleans, Solomon is jolted with a kick whereas Eliza is removed from the cell without physical violence. This shows that, in this instance at least, there is a clear distinction in the physical treatment of male and female slaves. Eliza is instead coerced into submission through language, as the slave master falsely reassures her that it is “just a little trip, that’s all” and that she “don’t want to frighten the children over a little boat ride, do you?”. Here, the smuggler appeals to her emotional and maternal instincts whereas he relies on brute strength when dealing with the male slaves.

Gender differences are also explored during the boat journey itself, as we first see a female slave in a position of relative authority telling Eliza to “cheer up, and don’t be so cast down”, essentially encouraging her to resign herself to her fate. In stark contrast to this, three male slaves (including Solomon) conspire to escape, with one defiantly stating that “I say we fight!” before the difficulties with this plan are acknowledged by the trio. One of the slaves explains how “three can’t go against the whole crew, the rest here are niggers, born and bred slaves” with “no stomach for a fight, not a damn one”. In saying this, he divides the male slaves according to their courage in a manner which reflects traditional male hierarchical systems where value is assessed on such attributes. In combination with Eliza’s encounter, this sets up the notion that male slaves were far less willing to accept their condition compared to their female counterparts, a key difference in their response to enslavement. Upon arrival in Louisiana, the slaves wash themselves naked in a courtyard with no privacy afforded to the women before being sold in a store. This represents the dehumanisation of both sexes, marking an equality in their treatment of sorts. However, this objectification is perhaps more damaging to the women for whom nudity has consistently been a condition of greater sensitivity and fragility when compared with men.

Question: Do you see this more as an example of equality or irrelevance of gender, or as an example of women being treated different as nudity is a different issue according to gender?

When put to work in the plantation, we see a great deal of camaraderie between the male slaves, as is evidenced by their teamwork in manual labour, and their singing. This contrasts strongly with the experience of female slaves, who are put to work in the house and experience division. This is because their jobs are more individualistic (note the serving girl on the front porch in contrast with the male lumber teams) or in Eliza’s case, because she has been separated from her children. However, the idea of traditional gender roles translating to slave roles is one that is countered at various points throughout the film. For example, later on Epps’ plantation, both males and females are used for manual field labour, with Patsey actually being the most successful in this role. Overall, traditional gender roles are both acknowledged and ignored when it comes to slavery, dependent on the specific situation.

In the following scene, Eliza mourns her children and creates an argument with Solomon who criticises her attitude and rejects it as a form of slavery which he refuses to succumb to himself. In turn, Eliza criticises Solomon for his friendship with Master Ford and accuses him of being “prized livestock” and settling “into his role as Platt”, his slave identity. In response, 
Solomon explains that he does so in order to survive, and that he has not forgotten his children. This exchange is interesting as on a superficial level, it seems that Eliza is the one actively resisting slavery by refusing to accept her condition, contrasting with her behaviour on the boat wherein the males are the ones conspiring to escape. However, from another perspective, we might conclude that it is actually Solomon who expresses resistance by refusing to wallow in sorrow and instead focus on survival, even if that means constructing a relationship with his white master. However, these are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that both Eliza and Solomon are simultaneously expressing different forms of resistance, demonstrating that perhaps there is more similarity between the gender’s experience than difference.

Seemingly exclusive to the female experience of slavery is their occasional capacity to alleviate their position into one that is semi-integrated into white female culture. This is evidenced by Mistress Shaw, a black woman elevated to the superficial position of ‘lady’ of the House who hosts a tea party on the front porch. This situation constitutes a successful imitation of female white upper class culture and this is 
reflected in their fashion, their use of a black female slave as a maid and Mistress Shaw’s language towards Solomon which is identical to the language we might expect from a white lady of the house. This is evidently a position of pride and relative power for Harriet Shaw (likely attained through sex with her master) and one that is unattainable for male slaves. For example, Solomon comes close to this level of integration on Ford’s plantation when using his expertise on the waterways although ultimately, his experience proves insufficient to earn him the respect of anyone but his peers.

Perhaps the most significant distinction in the experience of slavery between males and females is the relationships they hold with their white owners. On one level, this is a vast difference between the genders experience due to the nature of the relationships. However, on another level, we might argue that it is a similarity, as these slave-master relationships for both males and females revolve around standard power-struggles within each gender that exist independently of issues involving slavery and racism.

For example, many of Solomon’s relationships with his masters are based on the traditionally male subjects of contention: physical prowess and expertise in masculine fields such as music and manual construction. An obvious example of this is when Solomon and Master Tibeats clash over the construction of a shack before physically fighting, with Solomon gaining the upper hand in the exchange. Although this situation and Solomon’s resultant punishment is clearly a product of slavery, the nature of the relationship and fight is derived largely from standard issues of sensitivity in the male psyche. This extends itself naturally to the way in which males are punished in the film invariably through physical abuse and violence.

Similarly, female slave-master relationships are based on areas of feminine competition; principally, sexual attraction and the accompanying feelings of jealousy. This is best evidenced in the complex triangulated relationship between Master Epps, his slave-mistress Patsey, and his wife Mistress Epps.

During this time period, white women were oppressed due to the sexism inherent to 19^th century American society, giving them a certain shared identity with female black slaves. However, instead of this fostering sympathy for the slaves within privileged white female individuals, the film shows that instead, a toxic relationship is created wherein the white female owners are brought into direct conflict with the female slaves over the (sexual) attention of the male white owners who assume the highest rank of supremacy in this complex hierarchy. As the white Mistresses were unable to properly express rage at their husbands, they instead direct it at the female slaves who are indirectly causing them to feel jealous and marginalised. This

conflict is complex and is clearly distinct from the simpler power struggles that characterised the male’s experience of slavery in relation to their owners. As with the male slaves, the nature of the female experience and psychology extends to their punishment. A key example of this is when Patsey is dancing with the other female slaves in the house, essentially expressing femininity through dance and female solidarity. Mistress Epps, in a fit of jealousy throws a crystal container at Patsey, punishing her for expressing the attributes which have attracted her husband to Patsey and consequently caused her jealousy and heartache.

Question: To what extent is this conflict a product of slavery, and to what extent is it a product of 19^th century sexism? Can the effects of this conflict between white and black females be traced forward to events after the abolition of slavery, are there still traces of it in modern American society?

In conclusion, there are many similarities and differences in the experience of slavery according to gender, with some points even being examples of simultaneous similarity and difference. Overall, we can conclude that women seemed to react more emotionally to slavery, women are more able to elevate their own social standing from a position of slavery, punishment is administered with partial acknowledgement of gender psychology and that slave-master relationships are characterised by issues relating to this same psychology.