Last week, I watched “Hidden Figures” with my family (and absolutely loved it) and then tried and failed to watch “Suffragette.” Why? Both seem to be about women fighting for dignity and respect, right? Well, yes and no, because they are really two very different stories with wildly dissimilar messages.

“Hidden Figures” tells the story of three black women working for NASA in 1961, struggling with the racial prejudices of those around them while seeking to perform exemplary work in math, coding and engineering. Eventually, through hard work, skill, perseverance and uprightness, they earn respect and recognition. The conflicts are intense but still subdued, wars of words and status rather than of fisticuffs and destruction. The women use their work to strengthen NASA and the teams around them, thus building relationships and respect even though their efforts go unrewarded for a long time. 

“Suffragette,” on the other hand, begins with the crash of broken windows, hurled rocks and shrill cries of “votes for women!” A mob of women, evading police, engages in wanton destruction in frustration that 50 years of argument have not won them the vote. The movie continues in this vein, with a woman on the edge of the conflict being drawn into the thick of it. Between trips to jail, she attends rallies, loses her ties to her husband and son, joins in with bombing and wire-cutting efforts and becomes ever more radical. 

Both movies seem to be meant as inspiring stories. Only one succeeds. 

In “Hidden Figures,” the women cherished their families and built up those around them, even those who hated them, so that they could win everything in the end; in “Suffragette,” the heroine cuts off her ties to society and family and fights to make her voice heard, destroying things and people around her in exchange for a vote. 

One story tells of women who were “hidden” but achieved dreams without violence or hatred (there was only one scene with truly raised voices); the other tells of women who did everything they could to stand out from the crowd, making themselves visible not only with raised voices but through explosions — in other words, acts of terrorism. 

Education, productivity, family and character embody the one; destruction, isolation, terrorism and rebellion characterize the other.  

Ultimately, my beef with “Suffragette” is that heroism is not found in violent and destructive protests for oneself, especially when women try to take on men’s warfare tactics with all the brutality and none of the virtue. Heroism is instead the use of love, compassion and reason to stand up for others who have no voice. Jail time for property destruction is a far cry from jail for caring for others. 

Part of it is that people rarely engage in violence and hatred on behalf of others; usually we are pushed in that direction from a motivation to advocate for ourselves. If we are truly working on behalf of the oppressed, any harmful actions we take may actually result in punishment not against us but against those we attempt to defend — especially if those people are really powerless and voiceless. 

Such was the case with William Wilberforce, who lived from 1759-1833. His story is told through the movie “Amazing Grace,” which runs from just before he began trying to abolish slavery to the end of his long battle. 

Wilberforce became a member of the British Parliament at the age of 21, and one of his close friends, William Pitt, eventually became the youngest Prime Minister at the age of 24. But the year after being elected MP of Yorkshire, Wilberforce became an Anglican Christian (which upended  \his lifestyle), and two years later he was introduced to a group of anti-slave-trade activists. 

It was in this environment that a rising political star jeopardized his own career, reputation and health fighting for the enslaved. Say what you want about hypocrisy within Christianity, but Wilberforce’s conversion (unpopular even then) was a propelling factor in his all-consuming effort to reestablish a strong moral standard and to abolish slavery. He appeared to have everything to lose and nothing to gain. 

But Wilberforce nevertheless lobbied not for more wealth and prestige for himself but for the rights, protections and freedom of the most vulnerable. Slaves had no voice, no sway. Can you imagine what would happen to a slave speaking up in self-defense? Powerful people may be ridiculed for speaking unpopular opinions, or voted out of office, or sometimes issued death threats (which is why they often need bodyguards). But the truly downtrodden can only wish for these ramifications and protections. No — for slaves to gain any sort of traction required the tireless advocacy of selfless people in power. 

And finally, the reason the movie is entitled “Amazing Grace” is because it portrays Wilberforce’s friendship with John Newton, a former slave trader who became Christian and repented of his wicked work. Newton was the author of the well-known hymn “Amazing Grace.” 

I saw none of these themes and principles in “Suffragette.” In fact, highly acclaimed as it is, it has also been criticized for comparing the suffragettes to slaves. The truth is that they had power and voice that slaves couldn’t even dream of, and, when thwarted, threw tantrums until they were heard. 

What then is the takeaway from movies about fighting for rights, such as portrayed in “Hidden Figures,” “Suffragette” and “Amazing Grace”? I would suggest that the way those efforts manifest themselves says more about the causes than we would like. Looking over history, some of the fights that carried the hearts of men via truth and justice and love have held out; others, won when people became what they despised, tend instead to peel apart the fabric of civilization. 

The remaining question is how to ensure that we emulate Wilberforce and the “Hidden Figures” rather than the suffragettes.