The Bridgerton fever continues to captivate our imaginations, and while it's tempting to ask what keeps us glued to our screens, let's first consider the kind of audience you might be. Are you watching to see if the series adheres faithfully to Julia Quinn's beloved novels? Perhaps you're enchanted by the romantic escapades and fluttering butterflies of the characters? Maybe, like myself, you've fallen prey to the allure of marketing and social influence? Or are you a modern woman finding comfort in a time when securing a suitor was considered a woman's ultimate achievement?

Yet, let's not delude ourselves; while the world has evolved, certain expectations persist. Women today still encounter societal pressures to marry and start families, though these pressures are now framed as choices. Unlike Lady Whistledown, who wielded her quill under the scrutinous gaze of the queen, contemporary women have the freedom to choose their paths—or at least the right to claim such freedom.

For those unfamiliar with Bridgerton, here's a brief, spoiler-free overview. Created by Chris Van Dusen and based on Julia Quinn's novels, the series is set in the Regency era (1811-1820). The queen, Queen Charlotte, demands lavish balls and grand weddings to maintain her influence and indulge in the gossip of the ‘Ton.’ Her confidante, Lady Danbury, resembles a modern-day matchmaker, (a modern day Tinder with parental control) arranging introductions for anxious mammas, hoping their daughters will shine before eligible bachelors. Careful dear reader, it's always mammas who are solely responsible for the daughter’s upbringing, demeanor and marriage, never the papas. Meanwhile, Lady Violet, a widow with seven children and a viscountess who seeks love matches for her offspring, orchestrating events but also valuing genuine affection.

In this vivid tableau, we also meet Portia Featherington, a mother struggling with three daughters in the marriage market, and the enigmatic Lady Whistledown, whose gossip adds intrigue to the storyline. The narrative is engrossing and keeps viewers engaged.

Now, to address the central question: Is Bridgerton crossing bridges? What bridges, you may ask? Let's explore how the show reflects both the Regency era and our contemporary world. The series provides a nuanced portrayal of women's roles and struggles within a patriarchal society. Season one centers on Daphne, the season's "diamond," as she navigates societal expectations while pursuing love and autonomy. While Daphne, like Disney princesses, seems to have a happy ending, achieving both a family and the title and responsibilities of a duchess, I still await for the day I could say the same for women in the contemporary world, who navigate in the patriarchal society in search of liberation and opportunities that they want.

While discussions and representations have progressed, we are still in the early stages of reform. After all, women's voting rights and eligibility to stand for elections in the West too, are relatively recent developments. Measuring progress involves not only acknowledging how far we've come but also recognizing how many lives have been impacted.

Moving on in the direction of inclusivity and representation, in Season 2, Bridgerton's diverse casting has been praised as a refreshing departure from the norm. While historical accuracy often results in an all-white cast, Bridgerton's inclusive approach breathes new life into period dramas. Casting a dark-skinned actress in a lead role challenges traditional norms and offers representation for viewers who rarely see themselves in such roles. This is particularly significant for people of South Asian descent, who see a reflection of their culture and skin tone in mainstream media.

In Bridgerton, the choice of Kate Sharma could be examined for whether it genuinely challenges stereotypes or subtly reinforces them. Kate Sharma is depicted as strong, intelligent, and fiercely independent—qualities that should transcend skin color. Yet, the question lingers: Were other actresses considered for the role based solely on talent and suitability, or was the choice influenced by a desire to meet diversity quotas?

The intent behind casting decisions is crucial. If Simone Ashley's role as Kate Sharma genuinely reflects the diversity of the Regency era and provides a platform for underrepresented actresses, it is a commendable step forward. However, if it merely serves as a token gesture, it deserves critique. Kate Sharma's portrayal must be multi-dimensional, focusing on her character’s depth rather than her skin colour, ensuring that diversity is celebrated in substance, not just in appearance.

As we revel in Bridgerton's drama, let us also consider the broader implications of casting choices. Should entertainment merely entertain, or should it also challenge and expand our understanding of representation? The choice of Kate Sharma invites us to reflect on this question and advocate for a future where diversity in media is the norm, not the exception.

Season 3 of Bridgerton marks a notable shift in the portrayal of body positivity with the character Penelope Featherington, played by Nicola Coughlan. Penelope’s character is celebrated for breaking the mold of the slender, conventionally glamorous figures typical of period dramas. She represents a more diverse and inclusive portrayal of body types, intelligence, and emotional complexity.

However, while this representation is significant, it raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of body positivity as a movement. The growing visibility of body-positive characters like Penelope Featherington does signal a shift towards more inclusive media portrayals. Yet, this shift often risks becoming a superficial gesture rather than a substantial change in societal attitudes or practices.

The body positivity movement, despite its noble intentions, often struggles to address deeper systemic issues. For instance, the movement’s focus is frequently on social media and public relations, rather than on enacting meaningful change in areas such as healthcare, workplace policies, or mental health support. This can create a dissonance between the idealized representation and the lived realities of individuals dealing with weight-related stigma and its effects.

Several studies illustrate the ongoing challenges associated with body image and mental health. For example, research published in the journal, a 2024 study from the Journal of Obesity, highlighted that while body positivity in media can improve self-esteem temporarily, it does not necessarily address the structural issues contributing to weight stigma. The research pointed out that systemic factors such as biased healthcare practices and employment discrimination continue to undermine the purported benefits of body-positive representation.

While characters like Penelope Featherington represent a positive step towards inclusivity, the body positivity movement often falls short of enacting real-world change. The movement’s focus on media representation can obscure the need for deeper, systemic reforms to truly address the stigma and mental health impacts associated with weight.

Coming back to period dramas, Jane Austen famously wrote, "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." No discussion of period drama would be complete without addressing men, marriage, and the marriage market. In the series, men revel in sexual freedom, while women are constrained to remain under the vigilant eye of a chaperone. This strict scrutiny of women's behavior stands in stark contrast to the men’s more carefree attitudes, who disregard their reputations in the marriage market, confident in their advantageous position. One striking similarity is the persistent avoidance of sex education, both in the Regency era and today. This topic remains taboo in many parts of the world. The show frequently highlights how women are left in the dark about sexual intercourse, with mothers often unable or unwilling to provide clear explanations. For women, sex is portrayed not as a source of pleasure but as a necessary act for producing an heir.

This raises an important question: Have we transferred the responsibility of addressing these issues onto entertainment and media, assuming that our children will learn from what they see? If this were an effective strategy, we might not still struggle with toxic masculinity, misogyny, and the normalization of physical and verbal abuse against women—issues that often stem from a lack of proper guidance and knowledge about sexual behavior, which is frequently left unaddressed or misinformed. These problems may be exacerbated by influences such as pornography or other sources of misguided information. Despite the wealth of available information, our understanding and interpretation remain deeply subjective. As a society, have we succeeded in bridging the gaps left by insufficient family discussions?

Moving on to the marriage market , now evidently, privilege and platform play pivotal roles. In the Regency era, ‘aristocratic’ families engaged in a social season for matchmaking, where debutantes met potential suitors at balls, parties, and dinners. Not everyone had the opportunity to partake in this marriage market; social status was essential. Viewing this through an aristocratic lens reveals the harsh realities faced by women of lower social standing. Marriages often involved dowries, social class preservation, and parental influence, resonating with some South Asian cultures today, where dowries and social class still play significant roles. Although dowries are prohibited in many countries like India, the ritual of the bride’s family providing gifts persists, with studies showing significant financial imbalances.

Finally, my dear reader, I want to make it clear that I’m not aiming to cast a shadow of pessimism. Indeed, we have made notable progress toward inclusivity in both the industry and society, and these achievements are certainly worth celebrating. However, the battle against deeply entrenched gender norms is far from over. While improved representation on screen is a significant victory, it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. So, my thoughtful reader, I ask you this: Should entertainment serve merely as a source of pleasure, or does it have the capacity to challenge and broaden our understanding of representation? Should you be among those who both applaud and recognize progress while also critiquing and debating it, or should you remain detached, keeping entertainment separate from the realities of social change? And perhaps, what actions can you take to bridge these gaps? On the other hand, Bridgerton has certainly made its contribution.