During the third season of Mad Men Feministing writers will offer some of our thoughts on feminist moments, scenes, and themes in the new episodes in order to start a discussion about these topics in our community. *WARNING: Lots of spoilers follow.

No Joan!

I feel so conflicted. Season three of Mad Men has been a genre roller coaster ride (we’ve even had a musical episode and a screwball comedy, not to mention the many horror subgenre references including depiction of Betty giving birth and Don’s sorta abduction this week). Even though “Seven Twenty Three” started with flash forwards it still felt to me like a classic episode, a reminder of why I fell for this show in the first place. So much happened and the show engaged with so many fascinating topics, but can I really love an episode with no Joan? And I didn’t see her in the preview for next week either. -Jos

No Joan freaks me out. It’s like peanut butter with no jelly. Or something. Though I can’t imagine the show would do without her for too long. (Also, random weird Joan fact that I certainly did not find out while reading InStyle Weddings - Christina Hendricks is marrying the Super Troopers Snozzberries kid. Seriously. -Jessica

Don’s one on one interactions with other men: Roger Sterling, Conrad Hilton, Pete Campbell, Carlton, Bert Cooper.

A strong reminder that Matthew Weiner wrote for The Sopranos, a show focused on fragile masculinity. This week gave us a number of comparisons of performance of power between Don and other men. Don and Roger used to be like a buddy comedy, but I think Don also saw Roger as a father figure. In an episode so filled with daddy issues it felt positively Freudian, Don had to kill his father - metaphorically, of course. I was reminded that both Roger Sterling and Archie Whitman went about affairs in very public ways that Don disapproves of (a major source of his own self-loathing - he hates his birth so much he’s been running from it for years). Don finished the slow work begun at the end of last season of pushing Roger Sterling out, at least in relationship to creative. Don’s interactions with Connie Holton and Mr. Cooper both contained telegraphed visual cues that they are more powerful than him - both men took Don’s chair. Connie feels a connection with Don, but he presents a hypocritical “family values” image that will probably become an issue. Remember, this man who told Don his office needs a Bible and family pictures was a notorious womanizer who cut his heirs out of his estate. Cooper finally played the card he’s had since season one: “After all, when it comes down to it, who’s really signing this contract anyway?” Cooper’s pretty eccentric, but he showed us in this scene why he is so successful. Meanwhile Pete and Carlton provided the contrast, men to whom Don can easily feel superior. I mean, Carlton stares at the sun (yes, I get looking at the eclipse was symbolically rich, including representing characters approaches to change. But it was also a source of much funny). -Jos

Betty gets involved in local politics in her living room.

I’m glad to see Betty doing something else than sulking and riding horses (though her shooting was pretty cool that one episode) but I kind of hate that her fellow Junior Leaguers were pretty blatant about wanting Betty to use her looks to get shit done. -Jessica

Betty’s fellow members of the Junior League, upon discussing the consequences of a water tank and endeavoring to talk to the governor’s office, say “Real estate- that’s scary.” Uh oh, ladies— property ownership. Run away. -Ariel

Also, Betty says to Don “all you do at work all day is evaluate objects. I would like the benefit of your eye,” in reference to interior decorating choices it felt like the writers’ comment on the constant objectification of women in the workplace. -Ariel

Continue reading “Mad Men Mondays: You grow bullshit”

As a lot of you already know, I’m getting married (this Saturday, eek). And I’m not going to lie, while there was definitely a lot of feminist-minded thought behind my planning process, there was also a lot of…well, other stuff. I succumbed to buying wedding magazines despite their gross consumerism, bought a pair of nearly-unwearable - though fabulous looking - shoes, and decided to have flower girls even though I didn’t want a wedding party simply because I think my cousins’ kids are adorable. It doesn’t surprise me that I bought into some wedding culture stuff - after all, some of it is fun - but it was wedding blogs that did me in. Truly.

I’ve always been a bit of a dork over design, and wedding blogs were just the thing to bring my love of things aesthetically pleasing together with my control freak planning side. Whether it’s “wedding porn” (yes, people call it that) shots of brides and table settings or DIY madness, I wanted it all. My Google Reader nearly collapsed under the weight of my bridal RSSness.

And though there’s no doubt that some of the blogs I’ve been frequenting buy into the wedding industrial complex in a way that makes me massively uncomfortable (Martha Stewart Weddings, I’m looking at you!), I also found some sites along the way that we’re amazingly helpful not just from a planning point-of-view, but from a feminist one as well. Like A Practical Wedding, Offbeat Bride, and IndieBride (no blog, but the forum is great) - these sites helped me keep my sanity with their sage advice and senses of humor.

When the wedding is over and my planning all finished, there’s no doubt that I’ll have to leave some of these blogs behind - after all, how many wedding cake shots can one look at? But there are a few that I’ll keep reading, because the women who run them are funny and smart and remind me why I love the internet. Also, because I like pretty pictures.

Another guilty pleasure - wedding flowers! The picture above is a sample centerpiece from my dope florist, Sarah of Saipua - who incidentally has a really great and hilarious blog herself. Pretty, no?

Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland this weekend. He’s spent the past several decades abroad after fleeing the U.S. during his trial for raping a 13-year-old girl.

Sometimes other bloggers say it first and say it better than I can. May I direct you to these fine writers for some commentary:

Kate Harding: Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child

Amanda Hess: Common Roman Polanski Defenses, Refuted

Kieran Healy: “I look forward to more detailed explanations of who the Real Victim is here, and more fine-grained elaboration of the criteria — other than “marvelous dinner guest” — for being issued a Get Out of Child Rape Free card.”

Scott Lemieux: “The fact that the victim forgives Polanski doesn’t give him a license to skip out on his punishment.”

Amanda Marcotte: “I tend to have a negative view of doggedly pursuing a criminal decades after the crime, but there are exceptions. In this case, I think that that the pressing need to send the message that fame and fortune doesn’t give you a free pass to rape is worth the resources and effort put on bringing him in.”

Sady Doyle on rape culture and liking the artistic output of someone who happens to be a rapist.

What have you all been reading about the Polanski arrest?

I’ve become obsessed with Al Jazeera English for a lot of world news that simply does not get reported in North America. On their YouTube channel, I came across an interesting piece from their show “Witness”, that I wanted to share with people.

Called “Sari Stories”, it’s about a community project in rural India, where a group of women are given video cameras and go about filming day to day life.

They concentrate on the issue of child marriage, since it seems that is something all the women in the program have in common.