You know I am! Though the most recent one really confused me. I know you haven't seen it yet, but as a recently pregnant woman, I expect a big "huh?!?" from you.
I think this series is a real exercise in culture shock, whether it's the gender/race/social dynamics you refer to or simply the presence of smoking everywhere. It reminds us how much has changed (and how much still stays the same).
The weirdest part is the nostalgia value. Born less than ten years after this series takes place, I find just enough of it oddly familiar (the cigarettes and ashtrays everywhere, the dictaphones in Daddy's office, the father staying in the city while "the family" heads to the country, oh and the advertising offices I was dragged to with my mother!), and I feel oddly wistful at the same time as I thank my lucky stars that the world has changed so much. It's that complex reaction to the thing that makes me appreciate it so much.
My grammar is shot. You know I meant that *you* were the recently pregnant woman. Not me. Oy.
Was that a slip-up? Is there something you would like to announce? (I kid. I kid.)
I generally enjoy the show, but I enjoy it primarily as a reflection on the attitudes of today. The writers focus on a vary narrow slice of 1960s life in order to make some pretty heavy-handed points:
1) marriage is a soul-killing, exploitative institution, devoid of love, fidelity or tenderness.
2) men are obsessed with wealth, status and power, and completely lack compassion or empathy
3) the only men that matter are the top 1% that have economic and media power
4) cultural beliefs are a complete fabrication, created to serve the interests of a small group of manipulative, powerful men.
5) such fabricated attitudes are so persuasive, and so pervasive that they make it impossible for any woman to find legitimate happiness.
So when I watch it I like to reflect on what our era will seem like 50 years from now. What are the standards we'll be judged on? From the perspective of 50 years hence, what will seem important, what will seem unjust?
Sexism, therefore, is a worldview that considers women to be inferior to men.
That seems a rather narrow definition. Sexism, like racism, does not presume a given standpoint/perspective or doer/thinker. Women are perfectly capable of being sexist, be it against men or women. Men are perfectly capable of being sexist against women or men. This seems far too limiting a definition.
The reason such a perspective is so oft presumed is because of our cultural biases. But it seems to limit our linguistic capacity in a way that I find it to be both bothersome and problematic.
Sexism, therefore, is a worldview that considers women to be inferior to men.
This seems far too limiting a definition.
C. Ewing, what do you offer as an alternative definition?
Sexism, therefore, is a worldview that considers one sex inferior to the other.
Although, honestly, we might ought use gender instead of sex here, since it does seem to have more to do with notions of gender, and is far less reliant upon actual sex characteristics.
Women, after all, are not inferior because they have female parts. I mean, come on, they swoon and cry over anything and everything. They are inferior because they are weak, effeminate, and sickly. Men are inferior because they are brutish, Neanderthals who rely on force to solve all their problems. I mean, just look at Football Season, be it American Football or Football. It has little if anything to do with the penis. Although, come to think of it, that does make one hell of an obvious weakness. Thus, the invention of "the cup".
"Sexism, therefore, is a worldview that considers one sex inferior to the other."
Fair enough, although sexism that considers females inferior to males seems to have had much more detrimental effects on females then sexism that considers males inferior to females has had on males.
And, by the way, I understand real men don't mess around with wimpy sports such as American Football and soccer; they stick to Footy, where no body armour is allowed. I'm pretty sure even body armour designed to protect a man's, um, more tender parts, is not allowed.
Well, if you want to get technical, Rugby, is the only true sport. Footy would be an heir to its divine perfection, while everything else sort of falls flat. But this is all a digression. Obviously, you get the general idea.
Fair enough, although sexism that considers females inferior to males seems to have had much more detrimental effects on females then sexism that considers males inferior to females has had on males.
Thus, my previous mention of the cultural biases. This is, however, tied intimately to the patriarchy or vestiges of such within a society. Patriarchy involves sexism, granted, but sexism can exist entirely independently of patriarchy. Joining the terms so intimately is detrimental to our ability to communicate. Contextual usage clarifies so that artificially "fitting in" such a notion seems to be (almost) utterly without benefit.
Yes-thoroughly enjoying the show. Babylon has been by far my favorite episode. I will admit that after watching I found myself a bit uncomfortable with the derogatory comments toward the female characteristics out of fear that it may provoke this type of thinking in those not previously exposed to such. (e.g. "It's like after 30 a light just goes out." -Roger commenting to Don about the glow of two youthful women at a bar OR "I don't speak moron, do you? Let's throw it to the chickens" -on the men analyzing lipsticks)
Your post however, has somewhat alleviated that anxiety. Perhaps you are right in your assertion that others will regocnize that state of things prior to the civil rights and feminist movements.
It is shocking...
I just caught Mad Men for the first time as it has just aired in Canada and I hadn't heard about it before. I admit that I found it difficult to watch. I was born in the late 60's, so I never witnessed this kind of sexism. My father was always very liberal and my mother, who was a housewife and mother, did work part time in the late 60's and 70's. My Mom did mention that when she got married in the 50's, she was unable to keep her job at IBM as it was against their policy to have married women on staff.
I think that young women and men need to be aware of our past because the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way. Canadians are much more liberal than Americans so I thank my lucky stars for that.
Really REALLY hard not to take this show at face value. Do you really think Matthew Weiner's purpose was to remind us of women's lateral role in the 50's, not to exemplify the "GQ" suave of men's supposed superiority? Or am I paranoid of him?
Commenting by HaloScan
