John Cassavetes’ “A Woman Under the Influence” (1974) tells the story of Mabel (Gena Rowlands), a housewife whose eccentric, unpredictable behaviour unsettles her family and community. Her husband Nick (Peter Falk) struggles to cope—not with violence or cruelty, but with confusion and frustration at how to “manage” her.
The film captures how society reacts when a woman steps outside the narrow lines of emotional acceptability. Mabel’s feelings are never seen as fully valid—they’re “too much,” disruptive, something to be endured or controlled. Watching her, we’re forced to ask: What happens when emotions are treated as defects instead of truths?
The Long Shadow of “Hysteria”
To understand why Mabel’s story resonates, we need to remember the history of how women’s emotions have been framed. For centuries, medicine and culture treated women’s feelings as pathological. The word hysteria comes from the Greek hystera, meaning uterus. Ancient physicians claimed that a “wandering womb” caused women’s erratic moods, fainting, or sexual desire.
By the 19th century, “female hysteria” became a catch-all diagnosis for almost any behavior that strayed from feminine ideals: anxiety, anger, sadness, even ambition. Women were institutionalized, medicated, or dismissed simply for expressing emotions that men in the same situation might have been praised for.
This history lingers. Mabel may not be diagnosed as “hysterical” in the film, but her every emotional fluctuation is treated as suspect—something to be managed rather than understood.
The Modern Double Standards
We like to believe we’ve outgrown such outdated notions, but our language still betrays us.
When women get angry, they’re “irrational.”
When they cry, they’re “too sensitive.”
When they speak with passion, they’re “dramatic.”
Men, meanwhile, face the reverse script:
Tears are “weak.”
Fear is “unmanly.”
Tenderness is “soft” or emasculating.
In A Woman Under the Influence, Nick embodies this bind. His frustrations and outbursts are treated as understandable, even natural, while Mabel’s eccentricities mark her as unstable. The same intensity of feeling is gendered differently depending on who expresses it.
The Price We Pay
These emotional double standards come at a high cost.
- For women, credibility is eroded. A woman who shows too much passion risks being dismissed as unstable, even when she’s speaking truths that need to be heard.
- For men, the suppression of vulnerability breeds loneliness, aggression, and unaddressed mental health struggles. The command to “man up” closes off avenues for healing.
- For society, empathy is stunted. We lose the ability to connect authentically when emotions are forced into gendered boxes.
Mabel’s unraveling is tragic not because she is “mad,” but because the people around her cannot make space for her emotions outside the narrow categories available to women.
Feminism as Emotional Liberation
This is where feminism becomes vital. Feminism is not only about equal pay, political rights, or representation—it’s also about the freedom to be fully human.
- Women deserve to express anger without being called crazy.
- Men deserve to cry without being shamed.
- Children deserve to grow up in a world where emotions are not assigned a gender at all.
Seen this way, feminism is emotional liberation. It dismantles the scripts that tell us what we are allowed to feel and how we must perform those feelings.
Recent research shows that the double standards in A Woman Under the Influence are still with us. Women are far more likely to be labelled “emotional” at work, judged harshly when expressing anger, and even have their pain dismissed as exaggeration. Men, meanwhile, are penalised for showing vulnerability — their tears or tenderness often read as “weak” unless in masculine contexts. These biases don’t reflect real differences in emotional experience, but in how society perceives and polices emotion.
Reflection
“A Woman Under the Influence” lingers in the mind because it refuses easy answers. Mabel is not a caricature of madness; she is a woman navigating a world that has no language for her emotions except pathology.
Her story asks us to reflect on our own: how often do we dismiss women as “too emotional,” or shame men for showing vulnerability? How often do we fail to recognize that emotions have no gender?
Feminism reminds us that to feel deeply is not a flaw—it’s what makes us human. And when we free emotions from gender, we don’t just liberate individuals—we make space for a more compassionate society.
Think about a time you or someone you know was told they were “too emotional.” Was gender part of the judgment? How might things change if emotions were seen as human, not gendered?
Further Reading & Resources
“Gander-based bias is alive” – NewsTalk
“A Woman Under the Influence” – IMDB
Leave a Reply