Mad Men Finale: Take Note, Ladies!

This season of Mad Men has been filled with moments of heart-wrenching emotion.

Tonight’s finale, though, it was the engagement. Left in the lurch by Betty’s precipitous firing of the nanny Carla, Don enlists his secretary (and sometime-bedmate) Megan to accompany him and his children to California. During that trip, Don and Megan spend a couple more nights together. Don believes he is in love, and he asks her to marry him. When they return to Sterling Cooper Draper Price, they announce their impending nuptials to the office staff.

What’s sad about Don falling in love? Nothing... if it seemed based on actual love. There’s also the issue of his girlfriend, the smart and compassionate Faye Miller, who is waiting for him back in New York. There is the disappointment plain in Peggy’s face, when she says of Megan, “She’s very... beautiful”--the implication being that beauty is pretty much the extent of Megan’s contribution. Don counters by telling Peggy how much she (Megan) reminds him of Peggy. “She’s got that same spark,” he says. The difference is, of course, that Megan is merely beautiful, though it was Peggy who had just landed a new account in the wake of the Lucky Strike departure. (I find it amusing that I keep typing Don’t instead of Don’s. Yes, Don Draper is clearly a don’t!)

Megan is also young and in awe of Don. He watches her interact with his children, and it becomes apparent he is softening toward her, a definite contrast to Faye’s awkward interactions with them earlier in the season. She shows interest in whatever Don is working on around the office. She unfailingly supports his work, even when others are against him. Unfortunately, that’s about the extent of her character development.

Happily, Joan (recipient of the title-only promotion to “Director of Agency Relations”) and Peggy manage to bond over their mutual disappointments, which is a welcome change from the divisiveness of their dispute over the handling of the sexual harassment a few episodes ago.

Why is Don marrying his secretary so discouraging? Primarily, because no matter how much his character appears to have evolved, nothing really changed. Although Don has the pick of any number of women, he chooses the one who most closely resembles a schoolgirl with a crush, a benevolent babysitter. She is less assertive and more traditionally seductive. She uncritically supports Don. She’s already stepping into the mommy role with his kids. She is certainly not shown to be his intellectual equal, nor is she on equal footing with him at work, being his secretary and all. And that is precisely how he wants it. Because regardless of what Don might say (or think) he wants, regardless of who he sleeps with or dates or promotes at work, only a beautiful and pliable girl who's good with kiddies gets a ring.

All you ladies who think Don is the cat’s, take note. Or more precisely, take dictation, if you want to marry him.



Bitch magazine offers a thoughtful analysis of the finale in the context of the whole season here: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/tube-tied-notes-on-mad-mens-fourth-season. While I don't agree with their entire assessment, I do concur on many points, particularly their disappointment in how Betty is written.

Put This Wedding on Ice

Recently, I took my daughter to see a Disney ice show. Aside from not being able to get Harvey Fierstein's voice out of my head (that was an allusion to Death to Smoochy, yes), I have some very mixed feelings about the whole thing. One, despite my feminist bent, I am not completely anti-Disney. I plan to visit the 'World with my kid. As an amusement park nerd, I love the rides. I love many of the Disney villains. I sing the songs, I watch the movies, and I buy the merch. Although I am critical of many portrayals of women in Disney's animated films, I also appreciate that they have improved. And finally, I attended the ice show.

Were I merely playing reviewer, then I would compliment the performances and the production values, and how the actors interacted with the audience members. I would mention the costumes, which were beautiful. From that perspective, we got our money's worth. My daughter got to see Disney characters she loved, hear songs she knows by heart, and see scenes from movies acted out virtually right in front of her. All cool. Even the kid in me was excited about that.

But then there was the show's finale, which consisted of all the princesses in the show--Jasmine, Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Belle, Mulan, and Ariel as well as Minnie Mouse--coming out in full bridal regalia and waltzing around with the prince/Mouse of her choice. Although it wasn't ever called a wedding, clearly, given the profusion of ivory dresses and the pap about "dreams coming true," it was a mass wedding.

At this point in the show, the kid in me took a backseat to the feminist-mom-writer in me. Holy shit! A wedding as "all your dreams come true"? Being a bride as the pinnacle of one's woman-ness? Even for Disney, it seemed excessive.

Earlier in the show, I had even remarked that seeing so many little girls in proto-wedding gowns made me uncomfortable. Because, well, there are child brides in this world, even in parts of this country. It strikes me as profoundly disturbing to see little girls in bridal attire, even if they are "princess" wedding gowns. The fact that my daughter was one of the only kids NOT wearing a princess outfit made me pretty proud, and she didn't seem to care that we had left her dress-up clothes at home.

But here's the rub with all the weddingness. Clearly, the feminist-mom-writer in me was--and still is--pissed at the blatant sexism. But another part of me, the part brought up on Disney movies and who believes in the magic of weddings and the transformative power of love and all that other bullshit, found it so romantic. Yes, a tiny part of me still swoons at wedding dresses and cascading floral arrangements and candlelight. While I know that being married isn't about moonlight and roses, that doesn't mean moonlight and roses become any less appealing.

Over ten years ago, I had a church wedding wearing my mother's dress. If, for whatever reason, I were to have another wedding, I would not do it the same way. But that doesn't mean my buttons don't get pushed by the schmaltzy sentiment, by the sight of all these princesses in their sparkly ivory gowns, by the songs about love and devotion. Someday, my prince will come. A dream is a wish your heart makes once upon a dream. It's a whole new world, Beauty and the Beast.

It may be a whole new world but it's the same old crap: the same stereotypes, the same lack of ambitions beyond changing one's marital status, and for me, the same old conflict. I hate that what I know and what I feel end up fighting so doggedly with one another. I don't want to be hard and cold, denying the power of emotions and the importance of love. However, we have to stop indoctrinating kids (i.e. little girls) by privileging the white-dress-as-happy-ending concept of love.





For what it's worth, my daughter's favorite parts of the show, she reported the following day, were Gaston (the villain from Beauty & the Beast) and Maleficent (the villain from Sleeping Beauty). She admires villainy, and has not yet been infected by the virus that is wedding-as-pinnacle. I hope to keep it that way!

Man Bites Dog: Or, VB learns a hard lesson about principles in porn

Violet Blue tweeted on Saturday: "Bad night. Discovered that companies that were friends, who I've done promo for, are selling porn 'starring' me. It's NOT me. It's not okay."

But V, I thought you were a friend to the porn industry and its stars. So why does that tweet smack of a condescending "not that there's anything wrong with that" attitude toward pornstariness? (Or is that residual anger from the case of the porn star who "stole"and besmirched your good name?) And I thought that certain hip and cool porn companies were your friends, your buddies, your pals. I thought that those "good" porn producers--your so-called friends--were sexual freedom fighters, breaking down the oppressive hegemonic depictions of sexuality and...

Oh, wait, some porn producers--even some of the cool ones-- might just want to make money? They betrayed a "friend" to help their cause? Porn might NOT be an awesomely liberatory force, as some pro-porn feminists might suggest? Porn companies might, in fact, place greed ahead of good?

Isn't that basically what I've been saying all along?

Even the "coolest" and most outspoken pro-porn feminist on the Web can get bitten in the ass by the business of porn.

Who's the Douche, Really?

Everyone cool on the interwebs has in the past couple days commented on the ridiculous Summer's Eve ad that lists cleaning one's genitals with their products as the first step in feeling confident enough to ask for a raise.

What no one has mentioned, however, is that this ad ran in the October issue of Woman's Day as the left-hand page in a two-page ad. The right-hand page features the memorable tagline "No one has ever told you to 'Grow a Pair.'"

(No, Summer's Eve, you're right. No one has told me that. And even though I’m down one ovary, I still feel I have “a pair.”) The implication that women don't need cajones (because we already have something better?) is a new-old riff on the idea of the moral superiority of women.

More "woman power" key words are used throughout the rest of the text: “Courage. You were born with it.” But then the text devolves into helping women stay courageous “with a little extra care down there.” Ugh. Given that most doctors now recommend AGAINST douching and using scented feminine products because they can irritate the tissue and throw off the natural balance, using these crap products is the opposite of “caring” for your goodies.

What is fascinating about this pair of ads is not so much that douchey companies are still preying on women's fear of "down there" to sell more crotch deodorant. That has been happening for ages. I still distinctly remember the embarrassed agony of being subjected to commercials featuring mother-and-daughter heart-to-heart chats about feeling "not so fresh" while watching soap operas with my mom and grandma.

The interesting thing to me about these ads is less the insidious appeal to fear but the laughable attempt to deceive readers visually. These facing pages are intended to look like a career-related article (the now-infamous list) on the left and the opposite page, a layout that clearly telegraphs that it is an advertisement featuring a supposedly empowered woman. The "empowered woman" ad has become a staple of women's magazines in recent years. Appropriating the language of feminism to help prey on women's fears has become an effective marketing ploy.

What makes this, on the right-hand page, at least, an "empowered woman ad"?

• Language filled with bravado, a "strong enough for a man" tone. Check.
• A well-dressed (usually in evening garb or a party dress) young and conventionally attractive woman who stares, smilingly and not at all coy, straight at the camera. Check.
• An appeal that on one hand appears to reaffirm readers as intelligent and independent, capable women, while on the other hand appealing to the same fears and insecurities that the culture uses to cripple women's self-esteem. Checkity, check check on that.
  

Because if women weren't afraid that their vaginas smell bad, they might want to use them more freely. They might talk about them. They might stop being ashamed of their sexuality. They might explore them. They might let other people explore them. Women with vaginas that are okay as is, that are pleasant even, might become unmanageable. (And why does Blogger's spell-check keep flagging vaginas as misspelled? Vagina can't be plural?)

Do advertisers really believe that this visual article/ad gimmick works? Are readers fooled into seeing the list as an article and the "empowered woman" ad as unrelated? And does pseudo-feminist rhetoric help sell douches, sprays, and wipes?

Let's stick it to Summer's Eve. Stop worrying about how you smell "down there." If "down there" remains a bit of a mystery to you, spend a little time getting to know yourself: your anatomy, your texture, and yes, even your smell. As long as you are clean and in good health, your natural smell is fine. Knowing what's normal for you can help you determine when you might have a problem, as yeast infections, BV, and some STIs can cause distinctive changes in smell. If you're always masking your smell, how can you tell if it changes?

And maybe start calling "down there" something less ominously euphemistic. Tackling terminology is beyond the purview of this post, but seriously, even my daughter uses more sensible terminology, "privates," and she's only five.

When will advertisers stop treating us like we're smelly and stupid?

Remembering the Struggle for Suffrage

Right now, lots of media outlets are helping to commemorate this, the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote. You can find good accounts of the process of gaining suffrage elsewhere.

What I want to remind readers is that it was, indeed, a fight for women to earn the right to vote. Women, often at great peril fought. Sometimes, the fight was physical, as many women were jailed for their protests and force-fed while imprisoned. And the suffragists made mistakes, too, like jettisoning the needs of people of color to sway Southern politicians.

In American history, we are taught about as children and commemorate as adults battles waged for independence from England, against slavery (among other reasons), and in favor of civil rights. We often fail to remember how recent, difficult, and yes, violent the struggle for women’s suffrage was.

I’ve only touched on parts of the story because unfortunately, I don’t know nearly enough about this battle. The little I know, I learned very recently. The documentary One Woman, One Vote provides an overview of this struggle. Watching this film, I was profoundly moved at points. It was the first time I had seen American history that was truly my history, a history of women in America, rather than how various women (like Martha Washington, Betsy Ross, and Harriet Tubman) had played supporting roles in the grander history of men. I am not a tearful person generally, but I was moved to tears. Although I’ve not seen it, I have also heard recommended Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony.

However you learn about the fight for full citizenship for women in the United States, do learn about it. It’s a fascinating chapter in our not-so-distant history.

Mad Men's Bad Ads

Although Mad Men has many merits, the blatant sexism of the show makes me wince. Because the show is not simply a wistful ode to the "good old days," I continue to watch despite that discomfort.

For example... Do I enjoy watching everyone refer to his secretary as his "girl"? Does it thrill me when Joan is raped by her soon-to-be husband? Do I long to return to a time of the most blatant sexual double-standards that force Peggy to agonize over whether to sleep with her boyfriend? No. No. No.

However, as Greta Christina points out in her piece on Carnal Nation*, Don Draper tends to connect with women who are very different from his now-ex Betty, who adheres tenaciously to her gender role. Around the office, Peggy gets promoted from secretary to copywriter. Joan is, well, Joan: smart, cool, and always in control. The characters are faceted and the writing nuanced. In addition to evincing good writing, the complexity prevents the show from being merely parody, elegy, or a sanitized-for-our-protection version of the 60s.

To cash in on Mad Men chic, some companies have created commercials specifically to dovetail with the show.

In this unfortunate Suave ad, a Don Draper wannabe discusses his visit to the ladies' beauty salon. The banter between wannabe and the copywriter quickly devolves into an innuendo-laden discussion of the attractive hairdressers he encountered at the salon:

"Sisters?"

"Twins."

And then, "I believe in throwing myself into my research. My research is quite extensive." Wink wink, nudge nudge.

In 40-seconds, they manage to work in a couple of gag-worthy appeals to stereotypical male fantasies:





Yes, I realize the commercial is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, referring to Mad Men while also parodying it. However, the characteristics making the show palatable--sexism balanced by strong female characters, and controlled, nuanced writing--are tough to establish in a 60-second ad. They are absent from this one.

This Suave commercial becomes what the show self-consciously is not: parody that blatantly objectifies women while devoid of strong (or any) female characters. I wonder if the ad men (yep, I'm going to assume) who came up with this concept have ever watched the show. Do they think so little of their audience that they surmise fast-paced banter between Brylcreemed execs will fool us into associating their product with the subtle maturity of Mad Men?

Don Draper would never have let that Suave commercial hit the air.

* Greta Christina makes a thoughtful argument about why even feminists swoon over good old Don Draper. For the record, I am not one of those women. If I had to pick one of the guys, it would probably be Harry Crane. But more likely, I'd be attracted to the construction crew working outside the building or the janitors or someone else not clad in a gray flannel suit.

VB Accuses Gail Dines of Profiteering, or Pot Calls Kettle...

Internet barker for all things pro-porn Violet Blue just attacked the "profiteering" of anti-porn activist and academic Gail Dines for her work. Reading Blue's piece, my only thought was, Are you kidding?

In the same piece, to her credit, Blue also questions the recent anti-porn hysteria regarding female porn addicts and the many faith-based, often quite costly, programs that have sprung up in the wake of said "epidemic." These programs, while supplanting secular therapies, also purport to cure women of dreadful afflictions such as masturbation and sexual arousal. I am NOT arguing with Blue on the questionable nature of these groups' claims or the sleaziness of profiting from fearmongering.

But Gail Dines is, as previously pointed out, a sociologist, not a Web celebrity. She is an academic who studies pornography. Yes, she has adopted an anti-porn stance because she claims pornography has various deleterious effects on our culture.

And does Dines profit from that anti-porn work? Sure. Why shouldn't she? As a respected academic, she is also a paid speaker and author. Many other academics do the same thing. And although Dines's work is more widely disseminated than many other academics', I doubt she's making as much money as Blue intimates. Most academics would kill to publish titles that would make the kind of bank Blue speculates Dines is making with her latest book, Pornland. If Dines gets rich from academic work, props to her, as she will be joining a very elite club.

But regarding Blue, who herself profiteers by further contributing to, defending, and aggrandizing the zillion-dollar porn industry, I cannot believe she has the nerve to condemn. As I have said in previous posts, being pro-porn is popular and cool--and profitable, because pro-porn voices (like Blue) can always benefit from the scraps being tossed from the porn table.

Being an anti-porn academic is one profession. Being a Webutante is another. And yes, BOTH should profit from their work in their respective areas. But don't criticize the opposition just for making money when you still represent the more mainstream, popular, cool, and far, far more economically enviable position in the debate.