I’ve been too philosophical lately. In life, I am sort of philosophical, but I also have, as you have sometimes seen, anger issues. Serious, foulmouthed anger issues. So let’s get some anger on the table. Today, I am angry about people lacking fundamental reading/viewing comprehension skills and also, even vague forms of empathy for anything that doesn’t have a penis. In brief, Gawker’s recap of Mad Men blows shit-laden dudebro chunks. Exhibits of first-class Not Getting It below:
She’s not shocked by the pictures of Don as a boy but named Dick, the deed to a house in California, or his purloined dog tags, she is shocked that he was married before. The one thing that Betty really cares about is the one thing that effects her. So like Betty.
Um, SHE HAS CHILDREN WITH THIS PERSON. She probably also noticed that divorce came through so very long before she and Don were married themselves. Yeah, it would have behooved him to tell her that he was married before, even if she lacked all the information, but no, Don has to be in goddamned charge. But suddenly Betty’s the unreasonable one? Come the fuck on.
Knowing Betty she is going to let the information about Don stew inside for a bit before acting out childishly and without thinking and doing something disastrous. Let’s hope it involves setting her ugly fainting couch of desire aflame.
I don’t like the fainting couch either but how in cowsuitcrazy Christ’s green earth is SHE the one being childish about this? She should be able to disclose that HE HAS A SECRET EXISTENCE any time she damn pleases. They’re married, and in the fifties, that marriage has a lot of financial/economic consequences for her. If it’s a sham, or founded on false pretenses, that’s not just a “childish concern.” It’s a goddamn material one. Jesus.
The most air time was spent on Don and his relationship with Miss Farrell (the AMC blog says her first name is Suzanne, but I don’t know that we’ve ever heard it on the show, so we’re just going to keep calling her Missy around these parts, OK?).
Haha, see, sex objects don’t need names!
Right now [Don] is lost in [Suzanne’s] delusion, but he will wake up to realize that she is crazy, and it may be way too late to save himself.
Umm, the fuck? Why is she crazy for forming an attachment to a dude who is, after all, fucking her, and told her she likes everything better than everyone else or some other crap line that I’m sure seemed touching in context? I don’t get a crazy vibe at all. Even if I did, I’d say it’s pretty obvious that
That Don wants to drive Missy’s no-good, epileptic brother Danny to his new job in Massachusetts show’s just how whipped he is by this women.
When your copy editor wants to given you a whippin’ I’ll hand her the damn switch.
His tale sets Peggy thinking and she sets this perfect trap in Don’s office.
Uh, WHAT? Or…. she did her job and he got drunk and spanked his monkey into a stupor?
Oh, and speaking of differences of opinion, Peggy must have really liked that brown dress with all the bows up the front. We strongly disagree. When is Joan coming back with some fashion advice?
THIS DUDE SHOULD READ THIS POST. (By a, uh, friend of the Harpies.) This dude doesn’t get it. He’s watching and thinking - Joan is hot, I’d like to tap me that ass.
In conclusion, Jesus, how does one get through college with such poor comprehension skills? What a fuckwad. I don’t understand how Nick Denton is hiring these shitheads. Really. I don’t. I don’t know that I ever thought Gawker was enlightened but Jesus it didn’t used to be a sort of proxy CollegeHumor site.
Excuse me while I calm down with a delicious Cherry Coke Zero.
THANK.YOU.
Also I am sick of everyone saying Suzanne is crazy. Um why…because she demands Don treat her as an equal and actually care about her feelings out of the sack? Yeah what a fucking nutjob.
further: It’s one thing for people in the mad men universe to think such (above mentioned) behavior is odd or a warning sign or whatever, but when people 2009 think the same thing its like, have we made no progress whatsoever? It’s like the inability to call Pete’s rape an actual rape. Somewhat shocking coming from people in 2009.
I think there’s something weird about Suzanne, but I wouldn’t call it crazy. And jeezus god, can Betty not get a fucking break? Yes she’s childish and impatient. Yes, she’s been unfaithful. Yes, she buys ugly furniture. And this compares HOW to being a unrepentant serial philanderer and sexually agressive guy who is also an absent father, an undependable if occasionally brilliant employee, a brother-briber, a drunk driver, and oh yeah did we mention dead-guy impersonator? BETTY is the bad guy?
Well she’s cold PhDork. Case rested.
The blogs not dominated by women are so clueless about the female characters on this show. It’s appalling.
I agree that there’s something weird with Suzanne, but hell, there’s something VERY WEIRD with Don. They’re perfect for one another in that respect.
Betty irritates the shit out of me, but mostly because she’s just like every mean-girl cheerleader prom queen I ever ran afoul of in high school.
However, I do agree with Gawker about that brown dress with the ruffles. It was unfortunate.
Becks, to me the issue is not that we should like Betty. But turn her into the morally culpable party here? nuh uh. That girl was ruined from birth.
True–she can’t help that she’s always been Daddy’s Little Princess. Or that she married a man who treats her with the same condescension. And I don’t know that she was deliberately ignoring the pictures and the dogtags–I think she just didn’t understand what they represented. And why should she?
Yeah, your first thought on finding two sets of dogtags is probably not “my husband stole another man’s identity,” especially when you find a deed and divorce decree, too.
I’m waiting (and hoping and doing the atheist’s version of praying) for Betty to get some ideas from The Women’s Room and The Group and the other stuff she’s reading and trade the Ossining Civic Society and Ladies Auxiliary for a consciousness-raising group. If only so Sally can get out of there reasonably intact.
I’m despairing a little that it will even get to her PhDork, though I join your prayer.
We should have a Mad Men thread every week I think. We can call it “Mad Men Feminist Circle Jerk.”
I’m totally up for that. I’m sure thatguy would approve of the title. If he could comment anymore…which he can’t.
I think their take on the western union ad pitch scene is interestingly weird:
“She has stolen Paul’s non idea and used it to please the boss. This isn’t the first time this happened either. Earlier, when presenting an Aquanet commercial to Don, Paul’s idea gets shot down. Peggy tweaks it a bit, and Don is thrilled. She does the same thing here a second time. The prolonged scowl that Paul shoots Peggy’s way is enough to let us know how he feels.”
Virtually all the other recaps and comments I’ve read about this scene have said that Peggy is being generous by drawing Paul into the process of being a creative genius, and that his look at the end is expressing that he finally realizes how great she is at her job.
Pedimd, it’s a classic case of someone who has already concluded all the women on the show are just Mean to the Mad Men, and has twisted a scene to fit that thesis such that it is beyond all comprehension.
How do you steal an idea that isn’t? Shut up, Gawker.
(I third the weekly MM circle jerk. Can we name it in honor of Paul Kinsey?)
I’ll defend them a little on the “Suzanne Farell is crazy” thing, though. I think lots of people watched the scene on the train from a post-Fatal-Attraction viewpoint and immediately jumped to “stalking.” Lately it seems that Don’s decisions are having more bad consequences than he’s used to — look what happened when he picked up those hitchikers. I think the writers are too smart to just make Ms. Farrell a crazy person, but it wouldn’t be completely out of line with the idea that bad decisions are finally starting to catch up with him.
But Don is clearly a crazy person himself. Those disappearances of his? Running off to Mexico with the supremely creepy Eurotrash family? How about STEALING SOMEONE’S IDENTITY? He’s incredibly fucked up, which is why all this “ooh, Suzanne seems a little nutso” stuff is so ridiculous, because our alleged hero is about 1000% more crazy than she is.
Also, every time I see that her name is Suzanne Farrell, I expect Monsieur Balanchine to show up and make her do grand jetes across the screen.
Well, pedimd, it’s in the immediate leap to “stalking” that I see the problem. I didn’t see anything particularly threatening in her following him on the train. It was poor judgment, yes, but she seemed to realize that in a non-passive aggressive way.
Also, I call bullshit because if Don had done that to her guys would have found it more evidence of his dashing romanticism in an age when men could be men, etc etc.
Also PhD perhaps Kinsey is a good namesake for the thread. But for the record my heart lies forever with Harry Crane.
Also, PSoul, the dude from Rockefeller’s office is just as weird in the way he deals with Betty, and vice versa. I mean, there’s lots of creepy stalker-y behavior to go around on that show.
Also I feel compelled to link to this monstrously more intelligent recap at The Awl to for throw into contrast the crap reasoning at Gawker Fool Kingdom.
Let’s not forget, too, Becks, that time Don shoved his hand into a woman’s vagina. Hell, compared to that, maybe Gawker’s right, Suzanne following him onto a train is positively batshit!
I think it’s BECAUSE Don is so crazy that people are speculating about Suzanne. I mean, really, anytime Don gets involved in anything, something more sinister is ultimately revealed. So I think people are watching Don and Suzanne and feeling dread, but aren’t exactly sure where to direct that feeling — who is going to wind up doing something shocking? Don? Suzanne? Suzanne’s brother? Will Betty find out and finally take some action? What about Sally? It’s her teacher after all. Where’s that gun Betty had? I think it’s a testament to the show that even the most innocent actions have become totally fraught with dire meanings.
Of course here it might be a bit difficult to call them “innocent,” pedimd.
Point taken. I’ll amend my statement to “there’s a lot of creepy, stalker-y, rape-y shit on Mad Men.”
Oh, I hear you on Harry Crane love (have I mentioned that the Dude has remarked several times that he IDs with Harry, the A/V dork with the nerd glasses? …yeah), but if we’re going to have a circle jerk, then Kinsey, the affected, under-qualified office wanker (in so many senses of the word), seems more appropriate as a namesake.
I think both Don and Suzanne are in deep deep waters, and this one is going to go out with a bang, not a whimper. It’s too close to home, too emotionally intimate. If she’s reading “crazy,” maybe it’s because people sense that Very Bad Things are a-brewin’.
That, or it’s the misogyny.
I agree with Gawker, the sentiment if not the expression, except for Peggy stealing Paul’s idea and Betty not caring that Don stole someone’s identity. At this point, we don’t know what Betty understands about the dogtags and photos. Suzanne drunk-dialing Don and talking about philandering in front of the kids were red flags, though she came off a lot more sympathetic and reasonable this episode than in the past.
I want to be sympathetic toward Betty–and to a degree I am–but I just can’t stand her. Next to Pete, she’s the one I have the most visceral negative response to. And yet I can’t help but be charmed by Don and Roger (Roger!). Is it internalized misogyny? Is it just January Jones’ terrible one-note acting? I am troubled.
@Spark: I don’t think disliking Betty is internalized misogyny. Like I told PSoul, I can totally understand all the socio-cultural reasons behind WHY she’s a spoiled, petulant woman-child. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to spend any time in her company.
I don’t like Roger at all (although John Slattery’s silver foxiness does charge my batteries). And Don’s such a good anti-hero that I can’t help but root for him, maybe b/c I know where he came from and I like a striver, even an amoral, cheating, self-destructive one.
This is all so odd to me because Betty’s been my favorite character for the past couple of episodes. I mean, yeah, she’s an atrocious parent, but she’s also pretty smart and has impressively sophisticated tastes. (Although, I must say, Peggy’s two pwnages this ep were great.) At this point, I don’t like any of the men on the show, except that British dude, because he’s endearing (poor guy, sent all over the world and just trying to please…)
As for Suzanne, honestly, I just think she’s not very well-developed yet. But I never got “crazy” from her.
(P.S. if there’s going to be a weekly Mad Men post, can it be on Tuesdays? Some of us don’t have TV and must rely on extra-legal internet means of watching…sadface.)
I tried to like this show but can’t. Partly because I would have been nearly 13 at the time when it’s supposedly set and I’d rather not relive those gender roles I grew up with. But, I’ve finally given up on this show now that they’ve named that character Suzanne Farrell. Suzanne Farrell was/is one of the greatest ballerinas of all time, Balanchine’s muse, and my favorite dancer ever. (I actually own a pair of her autographed ballet shoes.) She is an elegant, refined person and a truly great artist. Her career started taking of at about the time this series takes place. Hers was, and is, a recognized name that was stupidly, yet I think intentionally, assigned to this character. What gives them the cloddish arrogance to name that character Suzanne Farrell? Well, I can guess. I doubt they would hang a famous male artist’s name on some sketchy male character with abandon. But I wouldn’t doubt it’s because Farrell is a near homonym to feral.
oh dear gawker writers are exactly the fans who ought to be creeping that friend of the harpies’ out. body of christ.
Let’s not forget, too, Becks, that time Don shoved his hand into a woman’s vagina. Hell, compared to that, maybe Gawker’s right, Suzanne following him onto a train is positively batshit!
I thought that was sexy? At least that’s what I read on the internet lol amirite
Also, i’ll fight you for harry crane. I’m taking my earrings out over here.
I think lots of writer-ly type men identify with Kinsey especially first series Kinsey. He was a bitter jealous and sometimes brash writer who overall was nice and had dreams, but could never get laid. I mean, hell, even Crane hooked up with Hilde by the end of the first season. I’m kinda sad Hilde isn’t around as much anymore, but when she was it was mostly in her relationship with Pete. I think Kinsey’s scowl “wow” at the end of that meeting was him realizing that she actually is good, and he doesn’t stand a chance. And it happened immediately after a realization that Don can occasionally identify with the struggles of his underlings instead of just yelling at him.
In an ideal world, Kinsey and Sal should start a small beatnik theater company. It would be awesome, and occasionally Cosgrove would write for them. And Pete would just wallow in the back.
Random question, that brown lunch bag Kinsey stole from, did it say “Sal” on it? Cause damn, that’s cold. Course he was being a drunken idiot at the time.
To be fair I have seen plenty of women on Jez, (including a Harpy editor) reference Ms. Farrell to the Glen Close Fatal Attraction.
However, I’m not sure if the writers know how they want to develop the Ms. Farrell character. On one hand she is this free thinking progressive woman, on the other she is not above sleeping with a married man to find her happiness. Those two ideas do make for an interesting character, but for some reason it’s not playing out where you enjoy the character even though she is a walking contradiction.
@DirtyLaundry: Yep, that was me, in response to someone asking if she seemed like a “bunny-boiler”, I said “Yes, there’s a real element of I will not be ignored, Dan going on there.” Or words to that effect.
I definitely think there’s something off about Suzanne, and I sense some really wack behavior about to surface, both from her and Don. After all, when he has affairs, Don’s always sought out women whose personal problems and character failings mirror his own–and it never ends well.
@DirtyLaundy – that doesn’t seem like a contradiction to me. If you don’t respect marriage as an institution, why would you care that the guy you were sleeping with was married? After all, his responsibility to his wife is far greater than yours.
I’m not saying that this is necessarily moral behavior, just that it’s not a contradiction in terms to be progressive and free-thinking and sleep with married people. I’m pretty sure a lot of men in the 60s (as well as Percy Shelley) used their “progressiveness” and “freedom of thought” as an excuse to sleep on their wives.