FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Mad Men’s Alpha Male Blues

by STEWART J. LAWRENCE

For the past five years, the weekly dramatic series “Mad Men” has been the toast of American television.  In its first four years on the air, the show won an unprecedented four straight Emmys for Outstanding Drama.  Its top stars, including Jon Hamm as Don Draper and Christina Hendricks as Joan Davis, have become pop icons.  Both appear in TV ads to flack for major companies — Hamm for American Airlines, Hendricks for Johnny Walker Scotch.  In recent months, the “Mad Men” craze has led paparazzi to chase Hamm through the street, hoping to snap a shot of the bulge in his pants.  The tabloids openly speculate about the size of his penis and whether Hamm goes out in public without underwear (i.e. “dresses commando”).   Hendricks — a dazzling redhead with an hourglass figure and a 40-plus size bosom – is no slouch, either.  She’s recently been credited by fashion experts with bringing back the “voluptuous look.”  In fact, a study conducted in Britain in 2010 found that breast implant surgeries in the UK had increased by over 10% since she joined the cast.

And yet, the media elite, especially feminists, remain deeply ambivalent about “Mad Men.”  Is it any wonder, though?   While hailed as historically accurate and brilliantly written, there’s no denying that the charismatic alpha males that rule the roost at Sterling, Cooper, Draper and Pryce – the fictional Manhattan advertising agency at the center of it all — are, by contemporary standards, sexist pigs.   On a daily basis, they screw, bully and lie their way through their professional and personal lives, all the while hopped up on high-priced booze and their own unbridled egos. Most of the women around them – when they’re not being summarily fired, verbally humiliated, or cheated on – labor in obscurity in the firm’s secretarial pool or quietly tend to the children at home, resentful but alone.

But not all do.  And that’s precisely where the show’s dramatic tension and extraordinary crossover appeal – an embarrassing 57% of “Mad Men” viewers are women, it turns out — seems to lie.   Hendricks as Davis, for example, is one of the few women to break through Sterling Cooper’s glass ceiling, having joined the firm’s circle of senior partner in Season 5.   But how she came to accomplish that feat is telling.   Roger, a senior partner who was infatuated with her, bedded her down and later helped her escape her marriage to come back to the firm to manage the secretary pool.  Later, when a coveted client – a crude and pudgy man twice her age – took a shine to her, the male hierarchy hatched a plot:  if Joan agreed to sleep with him, helping to close the deal, they’d offer her a seat at the table.   Joan, insatiably ambitious and calculating, agreed, but only after receiving a sage piece of under-the-table advice from another male partner:  demand a senior partnership and a percentage of the gross.  Desperate for the new account, the group acceded.

Watching “Mad Men” can be a truly toxic – but mesmerizing – experience.  The scene in which Joan sleeps with the client repeatedly cross-cuts between the client’s clumsy “seduction” of her and Don’s polished sales presentation to the firm the same day.  (In a characteristic “Mad Men” touch, Joan politely corrects the client’s elocution as he’s fondling her).   In fact, both Joan and Don are “selling,” and the deliberate cross-cutting, and the sight of the dazzling and graceful Joan giving herself over to a man so far beneath her station in every way but economic, is grueling to watch.  There’s a reason feminists are so appalled by this show:  it seems to relish just a little too much the crass deception and depravity that it so artfully reveals.  But so, in fact, do the show’s characters, including Joan, who expresses a sense of accomplishment and camaraderie for having “played with the big boys” and “taken one for the team.”

Not all the scenes in “Mad Men” are quite so venal.   Some of the best and most poignant ones are those in which both genders drop their masks and express genuine warmth and vulnerability.  Sometimes the language is coarse — as when Roger confesses to Joan: “You are the finest piece of ass I ever had.  There are a lot of things in my life that I would like to forget, but you’re not one of them” – but they can also be painfully tender.   Peggy, the perky working class girl who gets promoted to ad copy chief, succumbs to an impulsive office “quickie” with her boss, and gets pregnant, but doesn’t tell him.  A year later, he’s still infatuated and she finally confesses the truth – that she’d given birth, and given the child up for adoption.  He’s stunned, especially when she gently tells him the reason:  “Pete, I wanted other things.  One minute you’re there, the next, you’re not.  You keep hoping that this person you know will come back.  But then you realize.  No, he’s just gone.”   At moments like these, Mad Men is simply the best show on television.

But now, as Season 6 unfolds a powerful wind of change is blowing through the series, leaving its future in doubt.   Its flagging Nielsen ratings – and failure to win a 5th straight Emmy – seem to have followed a thematic change in the show.  Suddenly, almost inexplicably, the entire white male edifice appears to be crumbling from within.   Don’s glitzy fairy-tale marriage to his fashionable former secretary is foundering.  After bedding down his neighbor’s wife – who abruptly ends the affair after he starts to bully her – he’s on the verge of a nervous collapse.  Pete’s wife finally wants out of their “open” marriage.  Joan is beginning to rebuff Roger’s advances and insists on being treated completely professionally, while flirting with a younger man at the firm.  The women are all rising up, while the men are all falling.  Even the firm’s office culture has changed: after an unexpected merger, the two management teams need to co-operate and compromise to get things done; there’s more transparency, fewer shady dealings, and less vicious back-stabbing.  “Mad Men” appears to be rapidly morphing from vicious and often brutal patriarchal lair into something more “modern,” feminized, open, and presumably more enlightened.

But is this what Mad Men” viewers really want?   The show thrives, it seems, because it harkens back nostalgically to a pre-feminist era in which women who agreed to stay in their place could reasonably expect to be provided for.   It also taps into post-feminist angst about the unanticipated difficulties some women have experienced as they’ve moved into the workplace and have struggled to find satisfaction in their marriages.   It could be that many female viewers still long for an era in which patriarchy, as cruel as it could be, also bound the two genders tightly together, and gave men a vested interest, however paternalistic, in supporting and promoting the women they favored and adored.   Consider a recent (April 2013) poll (largely ignored in the States) conducted in the UK:  75% of British women said they felt pressured by their peers to be “independent” and an even greater number said they wouldn’t mind “being taken care of” by a male partner.   These are the ambivalent sentiments that provide such fertile ground for a show like “Mad Men”.

There may be other, less prosaic, reasons for the show’s success.  These are some of the most impeccably groomed and most stylishly dressed actors anywhere on television.  Some scenes are so well lit and staged that they resemble less a TV show than a fashion shoot.   Walk into any Banana Republic outlet and you’ll likely run into a display case of cheap knock-offs of clothing worn by Draper & Co.  There’s even a name for this new/old style – “Mad Men chic.”

For all of these reasons, “Mad Men” could well lose its core audience if it succumbs to political correctness and tries to tame its men’s – and women’s – outlandishly wicked ways.  “Good” politics is good, but for retro lovers, especially, it may be too dramatically uninteresting to survive as good television.

Stewart J. Lawrence can be reached at stewartlawrence81147@gmail.com

Stewart J. Lawrence can be reached at stewartlawrence81147@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 28, 2017
Andrew Moss
Why ICE Raids Imperil Us All
March 27, 2017
Robert Hunziker
A Record-Setting Climate Going Bonkers
Frank Stricker
Why $15 an Hour Should be the Absolute Minimum Minimum Wage
Melvin Goodman
The Disappearance of Bipartisanship on the Intelligence Committees
Patrick Cockburn
ISIS’s Losses in Syria and Iraq Will Make It Difficult to Recruit
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer Bernie Morphs Into Public Option Dean
Gregory Barrett
Can Democracy Save Us?
Dave Lindorff
Budget Goes Military
John Heid
Disappeared on the Border: “Chase and Scatter” — to Death
Mark Weisbrot
The Troubling Financial Activities of an Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate
Robert Fisk
As ISIS’s Caliphate Shrinks, Syrian Anger Grows
Michael J. Sainato
Democratic Party Continues Shunning Popular Sanders Surrogates
Paul Bentley
Nazi Heritage: the Strange Saga of Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian Grandfather
Christopher Ketcham
Buddhism in the Storm
Thomas Barker
Platitudes in the Wake of London’s Terror Attack
Mike Hastie
Insane Truths: a Vietnam Vet on “Apocalypse Now, Redux”
Binoy Kampmark
Cyclone Watch in Australia
Weekend Edition
March 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump is Obama’s Legacy: Will this Break up the Democratic Party?
Eric Draitser
Donald Trump and the Triumph of White Identity Politics
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nothing Was Delivered
Andrew Levine
Ryan’s Choice
Joshua Frank
Global Coal in Freefall, Tar Sands Development Drying Up (Bad News for Keystone XL)
Anthony DiMaggio
Ditching the “Deep State”: The Rise of a New Conspiracy Theory in American Politics
Rob Urie
Boris and Natasha Visit Fantasy Island
John Wight
London and the Dreary Ritual of Terrorist Attacks
Paul Buhle
The CIA and the Intellectuals…Again
David Rosen
Why Did Trump Target Transgender Youth?
Vijay Prashad
Inventing Enemies
Ben Debney
Outrage From the Imperial Playbook
M. Shadee Malaklou
An Open Letter to Duke University’s Class of 2007, About Your Open Letter to Stephen Miller
Michael J. Sainato
Bernie Sanders’ Economic Advisor Shreds Trumponomics
Lawrence Davidson
Moral Failure at the UN
Pete Dolack
World Bank Declares Itself Above the Law
Nicola Perugini - Neve Gordon
Israel’s Human Rights Spies
Patrick Cockburn
From Paris to London: Another City, Another Attack
Ralph Nader
Reason and Justice Address Realities
Ramzy Baroud
‘Decolonizing the Mind’: Using Hollywood Celebrities to Validate Islam
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto in India: The Sacred and the Profane
Louisa Willcox
Grizzlies Under the Endangered Species Act: How Have They Fared?
Norman Pollack
Militarization of American Fascism: Trump the Usurper
Pepe Escobar
North Korea: The Real Serious Options on the Table
Brian Cloughley
“These Things Are Done”: Eavesdropping on Trump
Sheldon Richman
You Can’t Blame Trump’s Military Budget on NATO
Carol Wolman
Trump vs the People: a Psychiatrist’s Analysis
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Marines to Kill Desert Tortoises
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail