![]() Photograph: PRįast-forward 26 years and Christina Hendricks is now one of the most recognised, acclaimed and lusted-after women in the world. The characters of Dawn (Teyonah Parris) and Shirley (Sola Bamis), two black secretaries with more minor roles on the show, offered an opportunity to explore the richer territory of the racial divisions within feminism during the 1960s.Christina Hendricks in God's Pocket, Philip Seymour Hoffman's final film. Second-wave feminism, a movement which Peggy and Joan never explicitly claimed but which rose to prominence during the era of Mad Men, was widely criticized for its exclusion of non-white women. Though Joan and Peggy proved that this struggle could be expressed in wildly different ways-and finally put their differences behind them in a satisfying win for female solidarity-the juxtaposition of their characters was also limited in an important way: They are both white women. The feminist struggle on Mad Men was often an implicit one, explored less in terms of outspoken ideology than in terms of the daily struggle to move forward in the workplace while possessing lady parts. But if they were, beneath the narrative, hoping to send a subtextual message to viewers about how women today should be valued and appreciated, this would be one way to do it. It’s an unfair measuring stick with which to play God. Of course, Mad Men‘s writers are presumably more sophisticated than doling out fate based on characters’ adherence to modern-day feminist values. Is it a coincidence that Betty, of the shortest stick, holds the most regressive ideas about women? That Joan, who’s relied, at least in part, on the advice she gave Peggy on the latter’s first day-go home, put a bag over your head and be honest with yourself about what needs improvement (to paraphrase)-gets only a portion of “it all”? And that Peggy, who has always relied on her intellect above her appearance, gets the most robust version of a happy ending? On a show on which even the apples and bananas in the Drapers’ kitchen are deliberately small-because these were the pre-GMO days-it would seem that nothing is a coincidence. Peggy, however, seems to get as close to “it all” as any woman on the show, finding both love, in the form of Stan Rizzo (which some would argue was a rom-com cop-out), and a promising career at McCann Erickson. She gets the fulfilling career but at the price of losing a would-be fiancé, and she’s stuck in a role-motherhood-which she struggles to fully embrace. Joan draws longer, but not as long as she would have hoped. ![]() And Joan has succeeded despite a physical appearance that drew constant unwanted attention, whereas Peggy had to compensate for her plainness in an environment that values beauty.īetty, of course, draws the shortest by far-terminal lung cancer-and just as she was finding her calling. Joan raises her son without a partner, and Peggy gave her baby up for adoption. Joan chose work over romance whereas Peggy found romance at work. But a look at how they got there is an exercise in opposites: Joan strikes out on her own while Peggy works her way up in the corporate machine. In Sunday night’s season finale, Peggy and Joan both ended up as successful women forging ahead in their industry. Peggy and Joan are well-rounded characters, but they are also case studies in 1960s-era feminism, though they might not have defined their struggles in those terms. Its name reinforces what these women-women like Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss) and Joan Harris (Christina Hendricks)-were up against: a sexist, exclusive boys’ club that forced them to work harder for less pay and a near-daily dose of sexual harassment. Despite its name, Mad Men was as much about Madison Avenue’s women as it was about its men.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |