Oh my favorite moment was when Peggy is at her desk and all the men walk by and look at her for just a little bit too long. Ladies, you know that look. It's short enough for you to not say anything, but long enough to make you uncomfortable.
This message was wrongly placed reply, so I'll just use this space to ask a question: does anybody know when medical information could no longer be shared without a husband without permission? I hope before HIPAA.
I've never seen this show. (Am I the only one here?) I've never seen this show because, well, okay partially because I am terrible at keeping track of what's on when, but also because of the bad reputation that preceded it in regards to the treatment of women.
Now, as I haven't seen the show, I can't say whether the creator is right, but I can say that I think his logic is flawed. By that logic, Rock of Love is feminist. And... well, arguing that point would make my head hurt way too much. In other words, it may be feminist, but merely depicting bad treatment of women isn't why. I'm also concerned that, regardless of intention, feminist is not the way it comes across. I know at least a few misogynistic idiots who love this show, and somehow I don't think they're taking "I should treat women better" away from it.
@Eriu: There are so many differences between Mad Men and Rock of Love. Mad Men is historical fiction that takes place in the 1960's. To not show how women were actually treated in society in the 1960's would be sugar coating.
It is not just that the show portrays sexism. It is how the show portrays sexism, how the characters react, how the camera zooms in and out to get your focus in certain areas, and how the show also incorporates women who are pushing against a ceiling that was a heck of a lot lower than it is today.
You see not only the sexism, but the result of the sexism. You don't just see a man treat his wife like shit, you also see what happens to the wife and how she starts to lose herself and the impact that has on her children.
You also see a secretary become the first female copy writer in the office. You see a female artist who refuses to be what society wants her to be. You see a woman who is an executive in her family businesses.
If a man watches a woman get raped on the floor by her fiance and doesn't recognize it is wrong, that has nothing to do with the television show. That has to do with the man. Some people will just never see what they don't want to see.
@Lymed: I'm well aware there are differences between Mad Men and Rock of Love. That was my entire point. As I already said, the show may very well be feminist, but the creator's reason as to why it is feminist is vague and incomplete. Merely depicting sexism doesn't make it feminist, and many anti-feminist media depicts sexism.
I'm not sure where I implied that the show should not depict women realistically, so I don't really understand why you felt the need to inform me that that would be sugar coating...
"It is not just that the show portrays sexism. It is how the show portrays sexism, how the characters react, how the camera zooms in and out to get your focus in certain areas,..."
So, yes, that was also my point. I don't (and admittedly can't, since I've never seen the show) disagree with the creator's claim that Mad Men is feminist. I disagree with his reasoning. In other words "painfully accurate portrayal of the treatment of women" does not necessarily equal feminist.
As for the part of my comment about how misogynistic men receive it, I said I was concerned. I never said that their interpretation was anyone else's fault. There's been plenty of talk here about how Bruno is received among homophobes, regardless of Sascha Baron Cohen's potential intent of illuminating ignorance, and this is much the same.
@Eriu: I'd definitely give the show a shot if I were you. What's important about Mad Men is that it shows the humanity of these really complex female characters, and how the social conditions of the 1960s (and by extrapolation some of the social conditions that still exist) limit, hurt, and work to destroy them. In a way, it does the same thing for men, and to a lesser degree minorities. And I'll have to agree with everything Lymed says, but especially that if someone watches these conditions exposed so blatantly as they are in Mad Men, and they think that the behavior being portrayed is acceptable--then the problem is firmly in the court of the watcher, not in the show. There's very little ambiguity in the way the show is directed and the script is written about what the intended message is.
@Lymed: To add: I think there is an argument to made that even though it accurately depicts the ills of the era and the advertising industry, it simultaneously seems to glorify the era and the advertising industry, in both of which sexism is a key component.
Again, I'm not the one to argue this position, nor do I really care to. Just trying to add nuance to the conversation here, as usual. It's always useful to entertain the other facets of reality, instead of everyone agreeing that a show that is at the very least questionable is 100% feminist.
@The Queen of No: Well, thanks, but I didn't compare this show to Rock of Love. I pointed out the flaws in the creator's explanation by noting that by his definition, Rock of Love and everything else anti-feminist that depicts women being treated badly would also be considered "feminist." Hence, he may be right, but he needs a more logically sound reason.
And I echo everything I said in response to Lymed.
@BlackFrancine: I never said it's the show's problem if it's misconstrued. Just that I'm concerned that it generally is misconstrued by non-feminist viewers.
@Eriu: Thank you for explaining. Although, I still don't think that logic would apply to Rock of Love because there is a difference between showing sexism in historical fiction and showing it in reality tv.
@Eriu: Sure, Mad Men could be misconstrued. And Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal could be believed to be advocating eating Irish babies. What I'm saying, is that if someone is misconstruing it, they are doing it willfully. And the possibility that a few people could see complex women portrayed realistically in abusive and oppressive situations, and think that's a great idea, is not a good enough reason to deem the show unfeminist and certainly not misogynist (which you didn't suggest, but certainly, Rock of Love is).
I think you're absolutely right, by the way, about glorifying the era at the same time as exposing it for its ugliness. I've found myself thinking that it would be great to live then... and then I think, "if I were a white man." But, I think the fact that it makes you think that--that it would be a great time to live, but only if you fit into a tiny narrow little box--is the whole point. And it definitely makes that point obvious. I'd still recommend it to you.
@Eriu: While it's great to add nuance to the conversation (and certainly any art form, whatever its intent, is open to interpretation), but it's hard to respect your viewpoint when you haven't even seen the show. It's just too close to people who demand movies or books be banned without seeing or reading them. I know you don't want the show shut down or anything – but you, too, are basing your observations on everything but the show itself.
@Eriu: I don't think the creators reasoning is lacking in logic, actually. Accurately portraying the sexism of the era, without glorifying it, or hitting us over the head with "this is bad", but clearly showing it, does, to me, make it a feminist show. As do the nuanced female characters.
It's difficult to have a conversation when you haven't seen it, as every point I make will have to refer to details of the show you won't be familiar with.
Anyone who watches this show and uses it to excuse misogyny is, I feel safe in saying, a failure at story interpretation. It doesn't glorify advertising, or anything about this lifestyle, either. If anything, it shows a lot of miserable, flawed, repressed, and damaged people on the brink of a massive upheaval in the culture which will effect both their personal lives and their work lives.
That's really what the show is exploring. It doesn't treat women badly, it shows ways in which women were (and are) treated badly, and draws parallels that era with this one. It's intelligent, well written, and has tackled a huge range of subjects that are particularly relevant to women.
You can't really say any of that about Rock of Love, for instance. You can't compare a "reality" show to a fictional, serialized narrative.
I would much rather the show didn't have to say "We are feminist, treating women badly is wrong" and let me, the viewer, get that. People who don't wouldn't even if you did hit them over head with it.
@tiredfairy: And to give another example from a narrative show...watching Mad Men and not seeing the misogyny as negative would be like watching The Office and not getting that Michael Scott is an insensitive ass. You aren't supposed to want to be him, especially when he goes off on one of his sexist/racist/bizarro tirades.
@Eriu: I think it's also important to note that whilst it painfully displays these acts of sexism and downright misogyny the important thing is that it clearly shows that it bothers these women (and even some of the men, if they notice at all). That it so horribly shows the damaging effects it has on the women and their growing frustration with the world they are in. Unlike a lot of other shows that depict this era it shows that women are dissatisfied and WHY a feminist movement happened. It's trying to show that Betty Friedan writing "Feminine Mystique" when she did was not out of the blue nor did the feminist movement suddenly happen over night like a lot fo other fiction might lead you to believe.
But you're right some people watch this show and see them smoking like chimney's, talking in a very hurtful way without a care to PC-ism, and drinking like fish but fail to see what (IMO at least) is very blatant and heavy-handed (in a good way) message that these times were shitty too because they are so enamored of that way of life. It's like people who walk away from some heavy handed horror films just talking about the gore instead of seeing the messages a lot of them send out. (Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and even Jaws to name a few) Some people just can't get past those things unfortunately.
@Eriu: i'm sadly late to this conversation but I would argue that actually Mad Men's strength lies in the fact that it is one of the few truly adult dramas on American television. It is very rare in this country to get a drama that doesn't a)insist on making its characters likeable for the audience b)insist on redeeming its characters and c)insist on making things nicer for a modern audience.
I get your argument but actually i don't think that it glorifies the era at all although undoubtedly there are those who take that from it (and it would be foolish to pretend they didn't) but to not watch a show on those grounds is, in my opinion, to diminish that show and to suggest that Americans aren't capable of watching complicated, grown-up television with morally grey characters but instead require to be spoonfed television that is uncomplicated and clearly defined.
Mad Men isn't a straight-forward piece of programming and it has flaws but I would still check it out regardless of the fact that there are some misogynist idiots out there.
@BlackFrancine: I'm getting really sick of defending things I didn't say, but again, I didn't say the show was not feminist, and certainly not because non-feminists misconstrue it. I merely said that I think a lot of people do. That's it.
@HeatherNumber1: Well I'm so sorry that my viewpoint is so unrespectable. It's hard to respect your viewpoint when you have completely misunderstood mine and then compared it to banning books. The problem with your analogy is that not only do I not want the show banned, I don't even have an opinion on it. I didn't say it was feminist or not feminist. I was trying to offer my view point, which I admitted is based on the opinion of, say, my grandfather who worked in the advertising industry at that time and how he perceives the show. But good to know that's worthless. Thanks!
@tiredfairy: It's difficult to have a conversation when we don't disagree. You said the creator's logic isn't flawed, and then went on to defend it using things he didn't say. For the last time, I didn't say he's wrong. Just that his reason is, or at least falls short for me.
@Sunshineyness and @emilyanne: Thanks for raising good points and not completely misunderstanding mine or being insulting. This is the conversation I would have liked to have had from the beginning. Alas, as usual, it's impossible to have a centrist, undecided or multifaceted point without being pigeonholed into an extreme.
@Eriu: Seriously? It's not like we're debating life on other planets here. An episode is 42 minutes long. Asking that people actually check out a show they're willing to argue over isn't some sort of extreme request.
@HeatherNumber1: I don't know how many times I can say that I'm not arguing anything about the show before it gets through to you. My comments were on the creator's comments, not the show itself, which I neither made assumptions about nor passed judgment on. So yes, seriously.
@Eriu: Oh right. That paraphrased sentence in the linked article. You say the creator's reasoning for the show being feminist is vague and incomplete – if you bothered to watch the show, maybe even check out the DVD extras (or hey – read some of the comments and descriptions on this very site!), you might get a fuller picture.
The irony is that Mad Men really is on of the truly adult, feminist series on TV right now. While I sometimes admire those who question Jezebel bandwagon-ery, this is not one of those times.
@HeatherNumber1: If I watched the show I might get a fuller picture, and his explanation would still be vague and incomplete, which is why my comment made no claim about the actual feminism of the show. And I must have missed the memo that only dissent which you find admirable is allowed to be voiced without nasty personal attacks in response.
One of the most striking moments for me as a tv fan and a woman was a tiny one, when the camera takes Peggy's perspective and you see her see all the men looking her over with complete impunity. Even now, decades later, the feeling is familiar.
Thank you, Mad Men, for helping teach me why my asskicking lawyer grandma was so damn PISSED all the time.
I adore the scene in season one where they're testing the lipstick while the execs watch and critique through the glass. That felt so dirty and horrible to me. The metaphorical glass ceiling/wall, and the idea of women's imperfections outlined in red pencil by their leering bosses...it was perfect.
I finished season 1 and knew we had ourselves a great show, but wanted mostly to call and thank my mom for everything she had to live through so I might climb that ladder. I was so so happy to see the female characters reveal such layers in season 2 (mostly in the beginning) and I can't wait to see what's ahead for 3.
One of my favorite little moments is at the end of an episode (maybe the one where Joan is raped?), when Joan is getting undressed, and she just sits there for a moment rubbing the imprints her bra straps have left on her shoulders. She just looks so weary. It's such a perfect manifestation of all the weight she has to bear every day-- the pressure to be the young, hot bombshell; to be the perfect fiancee; to be the savvy, all-knowing office manager; to keep men wanting her, but not too much. And all without letting it show how hard it was. It was the tiniest scene, but it hit me so hard.
@mbot says Spock yeah!: That is an excellent ending – it actually features most if not all the main female leads undressing, and really shows what mad Men is really about – the women.
@The Queen of No: oh hai, me too! I joke that Don Draper makes me a bad feminist because I just want him to debase me and fuck my brains out. yeahhh...
Freddy Rumsen's zipper symphony never actually struck me as sexual harassment. It always seemed to me like the immature playfulness of the office lush rather than something worse. Also, it makes me laugh every time.
@MeganGlass 就是一个古代的三明治: Same here. I also saw it as a comical way to contrast him with Ken and to break the tension that had built up in the scene so far.
@andonthatnote, JOC: That too. Freddy's character was a device that could be pulled out to move things along and used to draw out the personalities of other characters. alas, poor Freddy, we hardly knew ye.
I really need to start watching this show; the buzz about it has been pretty intense for a while, but the clips here and what the creator had to say have me really intrigued.
I found one of the HuffPo writer's lines about the show to be sadly telling about just how patriarchal and male-centered our society still is, though: "What makes the show tick is our sense that it's realistically portraying something important about the treatment of women at a certain point in the past while portraying something equally important about men today. We are trapped."
So the struggles the men in the show face are still relevant, but those of the women are relegated to "a certain point in the past?" Seriously?
@cmd: My mom always kinda freaks out at that scene, like "She could have SUFFOCATED!!!1" It's so weird to think that Don and Betty's kids would be around my parents' age today.
I love the scene after Peggy becomes a copy writer and they're waiting for Don to show up for a meeting and someone says something like "Peggy, are there any more sandwiches?" like of course, she's a former secretary so she's still the keeper of all the food and she just says "I don't know."
Last Christmas I was watching MM on my laptop at the airport waiting for a very delayed flight. An woman in her sixties started talking to me about the show ("My, what a figure!" she said about Joan) and said she feels its pretty accurate in the depiction about how women were treated. She was pretty rad.
07/15/09
it's actually a sterling silver pencil on a chain that was my grandmother's - she wore it when she worked as a lab technician in the late 1940's :)
07/15/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
@heatherwritesstuff:
August 16!
07/14/09
07/14/09
Now, as I haven't seen the show, I can't say whether the creator is right, but I can say that I think his logic is flawed. By that logic, Rock of Love is feminist. And... well, arguing that point would make my head hurt way too much. In other words, it may be feminist, but merely depicting bad treatment of women isn't why. I'm also concerned that, regardless of intention, feminist is not the way it comes across. I know at least a few misogynistic idiots who love this show, and somehow I don't think they're taking "I should treat women better" away from it.
07/14/09
It is not just that the show portrays sexism. It is how the show portrays sexism, how the characters react, how the camera zooms in and out to get your focus in certain areas, and how the show also incorporates women who are pushing against a ceiling that was a heck of a lot lower than it is today.
You see not only the sexism, but the result of the sexism. You don't just see a man treat his wife like shit, you also see what happens to the wife and how she starts to lose herself and the impact that has on her children.
You also see a secretary become the first female copy writer in the office. You see a female artist who refuses to be what society wants her to be. You see a woman who is an executive in her family businesses.
If a man watches a woman get raped on the floor by her fiance and doesn't recognize it is wrong, that has nothing to do with the television show. That has to do with the man. Some people will just never see what they don't want to see.
07/14/09
Anyways, I echo everything that Lymed said.
07/14/09
I'm not sure where I implied that the show should not depict women realistically, so I don't really understand why you felt the need to inform me that that would be sugar coating...
"It is not just that the show portrays sexism. It is how the show portrays sexism, how the characters react, how the camera zooms in and out to get your focus in certain areas,..."
So, yes, that was also my point. I don't (and admittedly can't, since I've never seen the show) disagree with the creator's claim that Mad Men is feminist. I disagree with his reasoning. In other words "painfully accurate portrayal of the treatment of women" does not necessarily equal feminist.
As for the part of my comment about how misogynistic men receive it, I said I was concerned. I never said that their interpretation was anyone else's fault. There's been plenty of talk here about how Bruno is received among homophobes, regardless of Sascha Baron Cohen's potential intent of illuminating ignorance, and this is much the same.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Again, I'm not the one to argue this position, nor do I really care to. Just trying to add nuance to the conversation here, as usual. It's always useful to entertain the other facets of reality, instead of everyone agreeing that a show that is at the very least questionable is 100% feminist.
07/14/09
And I echo everything I said in response to Lymed.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
I'm too poor/cheap for iTunes, but I've never heard of Surfthechannel! I will have to give it a try.
07/14/09
I think you're absolutely right, by the way, about glorifying the era at the same time as exposing it for its ugliness. I've found myself thinking that it would be great to live then... and then I think, "if I were a white man." But, I think the fact that it makes you think that--that it would be a great time to live, but only if you fit into a tiny narrow little box--is the whole point. And it definitely makes that point obvious. I'd still recommend it to you.
07/15/09
07/15/09
It's difficult to have a conversation when you haven't seen it, as every point I make will have to refer to details of the show you won't be familiar with.
Anyone who watches this show and uses it to excuse misogyny is, I feel safe in saying, a failure at story interpretation. It doesn't glorify advertising, or anything about this lifestyle, either. If anything, it shows a lot of miserable, flawed, repressed, and damaged people on the brink of a massive upheaval in the culture which will effect both their personal lives and their work lives.
That's really what the show is exploring. It doesn't treat women badly, it shows ways in which women were (and are) treated badly, and draws parallels that era with this one. It's intelligent, well written, and has tackled a huge range of subjects that are particularly relevant to women.
You can't really say any of that about Rock of Love, for instance. You can't compare a "reality" show to a fictional, serialized narrative.
I would much rather the show didn't have to say "We are feminist, treating women badly is wrong" and let me, the viewer, get that. People who don't wouldn't even if you did hit them over head with it.
07/15/09
07/15/09
But you're right some people watch this show and see them smoking like chimney's, talking in a very hurtful way without a care to PC-ism, and drinking like fish but fail to see what (IMO at least) is very blatant and heavy-handed (in a good way) message that these times were shitty too because they are so enamored of that way of life. It's like people who walk away from some heavy handed horror films just talking about the gore instead of seeing the messages a lot of them send out. (Night of the Living Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and even Jaws to name a few) Some people just can't get past those things unfortunately.
07/15/09
I get your argument but actually i don't think that it glorifies the era at all although undoubtedly there are those who take that from it (and it would be foolish to pretend they didn't) but to not watch a show on those grounds is, in my opinion, to diminish that show and to suggest that Americans aren't capable of watching complicated, grown-up television with morally grey characters but instead require to be spoonfed television that is uncomplicated and clearly defined.
Mad Men isn't a straight-forward piece of programming and it has flaws but I would still check it out regardless of the fact that there are some misogynist idiots out there.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
The irony is that Mad Men really is on of the truly adult, feminist series on TV right now. While I sometimes admire those who question Jezebel bandwagon-ery, this is not one of those times.
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/14/09
Thank you, Mad Men, for helping teach me why my asskicking lawyer grandma was so damn PISSED all the time.
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
I am almost addicted to the feeling I get when women get sexually harassed on this show. The shock and the gasp. Funny and awful.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/14/09
I found one of the HuffPo writer's lines about the show to be sadly telling about just how patriarchal and male-centered our society still is, though: "What makes the show tick is our sense that it's realistically portraying something important about the treatment of women at a certain point in the past while portraying something equally important about men today. We are trapped."
So the struggles the men in the show face are still relevant, but those of the women are relegated to "a certain point in the past?" Seriously?
07/14/09
I've never been a smoker, never wanted to be a smoker, until I started watching this show.
07/14/09
07/14/09
Last Christmas I was watching MM on my laptop at the airport waiting for a very delayed flight. An woman in her sixties started talking to me about the show ("My, what a figure!" she said about Joan) and said she feels its pretty accurate in the depiction about how women were treated. She was pretty rad.
07/14/09
07/14/09