Good Girls Revolt - General Discussion

[Clanstarling]

31 minutes ago, madam magpie said:

Not every woman alive, but certainly the kinds of women portrayed on this show. If your criticism is that TV shows about the Sixties rely too much on the events of the Sixties...ok. But it's not like the Kennedy assassination or Vietnam War is a particularly original plot point. Those show up in everything set during that time, yet that ubiquity doesn't turn those events into tropes. They're cultural touchstones...like most of what's going on in this show. I'd rather not dismiss women's cultural touchstones as cliches, even if the dates don't always line up. I'm juuuuuust old enough to remember, or at least have family members who were young women at this time and raised me in the culture, but I don't care. It's a TV show.

Agreed. Well said.

[Joimiaroxeu]

I didn't understand the reference to the "first direct flight to London". Was that just for TWA or flights from JFK in general? It seems to me NYC to London couldn't be more direct so where would flights have gone first instead of London? Paris? (Note, I assuming they're making a distinction between "non-stop" and "direct"; the former is self-explanatory while the latter may involve at least one interim stop before reaching its final destination.) It's surprising to me that you couldn't take a commercial flight right from NYC to London until the late 60s.

"The man's a bonobo." Yikes. That's an insult on multiple levels.

Oh dear, Jane might be on the road to going Valley of the Dolls with the diet pills.

That was an amazingly hot makeup sex scene between Finn and his wife at the London hotel. Wow.

It's not believable to me that Cindy was having such an intimate conversation with her male co-worker. And then to have him do what he did to her and she just walks out like he'd just given her one of his extra donuts or something? Come on.

Still loving the women's clothes.

[lazylou]

I binge watched the series, too.  I am about the same age as the "girls" in the story and I was a journalism major in college to boot.  Patti may have been a little too hip at the office place, but I bought it....she was pretty enough to get away with it.  I am from the mountain west and gave up journalism because I felt I would be consigned to rewriting the wedding copy people submitted and attending endlessly boring ladies' events.  I thought Cindy was a little unbelievable, actually, and am surprised she received  glowing reactions from viewers.  I guess Patti actually seemed more realistic to me, except for that ridiculous flight to San Francisco and her Superwoman reporting there. The anachronisms noted immediately above demonstrate sloppy research, it is true.  I was shocked the reporters actually took the mail...wow!  amazing ignorance for such well educated, tuned in souls.  Still, I enjoyed the series and would   love to see a Season 2.

[madam magpie]

I really enjoyed this show...am looking forward to (a possible) season two. Plus, given recent events it's so timely. I hope Amazon keeps it going.

I agree that Jane is the most compelling character, and Patty is my least favorite character. But one of the central conflicts of feminism has long been that to be "good" or "real" feminists who don't betray the movement, women have to adhere to a type: they can't be homemakers or like to wear make-up or wear high heels or whatever. That idea is inherently anti-feminist, and the characters of Jane and Patty represent different types of feminists. Jane happens to be the type I prefer personally. I find Patty to be mostly an elitist type, though I really liked her definition of feminism to Finn in this episode. But that's my own bias showing.

I liked the portrayal of Eleanor Holmes Norton, mainly because of how forthright she was and because of the acknowledgment of how calculated the events of a successful movement have to be. I think that's something really lacking these days. Optics are hugely important if you want to win. (I want to win.)

Jane's dad and Sam are, so far, the men I like best. I don't think the others are unrealistic, though.

Edited November 19, 2016 by madam magpie

[Joimiaroxeu]

I think it's interesting that Jane apparently only has one coat--at least that she wears to work--and it's more like something that would be worn in the spring. Not sure her office environment is avant garde enough to appreciate the concept of "winter white." Are we supposed to believe that she can only afford one coat?

Poor Cindy. Sneaking booze and looking for excuses to drink is a bad sign. So sad for her to realize on NYE how awful her marriage is.

Jane looked like a live Barbie doll in that New Year's Eve outfit. But yikes, getting broken up with on NYE? I guess that means 1970 can only get better for her. Wonder if it occurred to her that her marriage ultimatum is probably what led to the breakup.

"Can you help me something? I have a virginity I need to get rid of. Thanks!"

Edited November 21, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[oceanblue]

They likely all had educational deferments for college, and maybe after that were too old?

[Joimiaroxeu]

This thing again where women are talking in the ladies room without checking underneath the stalls to see if they were alone (or at least whether they recognized the shoes) is a big misstep on this show. It's officework 101 not to  discuss secrets in the restroom unless you know you're safe. Bad plot contrivance.

That few seconds of video where they show people entering the magazine's building seems to be repeated in multiple episodes. I recognized one of people because I'd previously made note of their coat. I guess the producers figured no one would notice or was it done tongue-in-cheek?

Whoa, get it, Cindy. Can't believe I'm glad she's cheating on her husband.

Finn is so precious. His explanation of jazz to Patti practically made my eyes roll out of head. I guess he figures the way into a smart girl's panties is through some intellectual-sounding b.s. It's fascinating to watch the slow and methodical way he's working her. Boy is he going to feel like an idiot when the lawsuit hits.

[stanleyk]

On 10/31/2016 at 0:48 AM, lordonia said:

the focus devolved to just being messy romantic relationships all around. I really disliked Patti and Finn together.

Overall, I enjoyed the series and I'd like to see a second season, but the focus on the romantic entanglements really bothered me and frankly seemed to undercut the feminism of the show itself. It would be one thing if the show seemed aware of and commenting on they way many of the women defined themselves through their relationships to men, but more often than not it seemed like they just wanted to raise the stakes in a lazy way or include a sex scene.

And speaking of, I am far from complaining about a decent sex scene, but it seemed super-weird to have a relatively extended sex scene in the final episode between Sam and...Naomi, is it? They're secondary characters, so much that I'm not even sure of her name. I get that they both needed someone for different reasons, and I guess it's supposed to read as some sort of loss for Jane, but I don't really know what the point of that was. It seemed like a scene that took up too much time in a final episode. There were a lot of threads left hanging (Jane's diet pill use, whether Jane's refusal to get with Sam is due to her family's anti-Semitism, Cindy's alcoholism, Gregory's hopeful firing, to name a few), but I'm not sure if it's all lazy writing or the hope of a second season.

And I haaaated Patti and Finn. When I saw which way they were going, I hoped against hope they wouldn't actually go through with it. I didn't like the amount of time spent on Finn and his marriage and his boo-hoo problems anyway, but then to add that he decided to cheat on his wife with an employee half his age. In other words, this:

On 10/30/2016 at 8:45 AM, absnow54 said:

The actors had decent chemistry, but it was very "she's my manic pixie dream girl who will keep me feeling young and relevant" and ugh.

And Patti. Goddamn! Eleanor just told you you shouldn't be sleeping with men at work! It's one thing to question this when you have an actual formal relationship with one of these men. So to then jump into bed with not just another man at work, but into a secret affair with the editor-at-large...it would be bad enough, but she's supposed to be one of the leaders! It made her look weak and silly and, again, too ready to define herself through men.

I also didn't get the decision to tell the publisher in person. What did they think was going to happen? Did they not understand that they were suing her too? Did they honestly think she would be supportive because she's a woman? Not only was that unlikely given her position, but I thought she made it quite clear during her visit in an earlier episode that she was decidedly not supportive of women advancing at the magazine. So what did they hope to gain by being "polite"? It made them seem hopelessly naive, and I can't believe Eleanor would have sanctioned it.

But I did like the show and the setting. I admit some of the "it's the 60s!" cultural cues were a bit ham-fisted - it seemed like they didn't pass up the chance to use every iconic song of the era to the extent that I had to wonder what their music budget was. But the tone felt right, especially the transition from the 60s to the 70s, and the fact that the counter-culture was in fact counter to a mainstream culture. Hippies have become so much the iconic image of the 60s that for those of us who didn't live it, it's easy to forget there were loads of people who sailed right on through the 60s with girdles and beehives and evening gloves.

I could talk about this show for a while, but I'll stop. For all my criticisms, I did really enjoy it and will check out another season if they make one.

[Joimiaroxeu]

I hope it's not supposed to be cute that Cindy's developing a drinking problem. Sneaking drinks on the job is a bad sign, and hiding it around the house is as well. She needs to drop the boozing and her abusive husband.

"Yeah, it's nice that way too." Jane, girl, he's right in front of your eyes. Stop looking.

I started wondering why they were spending so much time on Finn and Gregory's male bonding and then it hit me: is Gregory a real person or is he a figment of Finn's imagination?

"I want you to have everything you could possibly want." Except for maybe a salary equal to or greater than his. Don't be swayed by expensive jewelry, Patti.

[Joimiaroxeu]

In the early 70s did people actually use the word "lit" to mean drunk or high?

Poor Cindy didn't know how to relate to a man except as a submissive wife/helpmate/committed partner and she ended up getting played by Ned because of it. Hope for her sake she's not going to end up pregnant.

Aaaannnndddd there's that same clip of people entering the magazine's building.

It's not believable to me that Cindy's husband would suddenly just see the light and decide they should talk things over. I think there's probably domestic abuse in her future.

Quote

a very unwelcome obstacle

Heh, that's a quite a polite way of putting it. I'll never be able to look at Michael Graziadei the same way again. (Though I imagine "the obstacle" was was a prosthetic.) That scene made me think of this bit from Seinfeld:

https://youtu.be/WzU6_3GqbFo

Edited November 26, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[Joimiaroxeu]

Another possible anachronism: I'm not sure the word "terrorist" was used in the US in the 70s the way it is now. Back then they probably would've called them violent radicals, militants, or revolutionaries.

"The Steve McQueen of northern Africa." FFS. Ned does most of his thinking with his dick and it's clear why.

Jane is full of it. She was definitely trying to steal the women's liberation story from Patti and she's probably the person least suitable to write it. But Eleanor explained quite well why women who looked like Jane ended up being the face of the movement even if they were privileged bandwagoners.

Did I understand correctly? Cindy has had multiple abortions? (Back then they were probably called D&Cs.) That's so sad. Weren't birth control pills available by the early 70s?

[ChelleGame]

2 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Did I understand correctly? Cindy has had multiple abortions? (Back then they were probably called D&Cs.) That's so sad. Weren't birth control pills available by the early 70s?

That came as a shock to me too but the way she casually dropped it was very effective. Said more than an entire storyline because of who she is and that it was multiple.

Has this show been picked up for second season?

[stanleyk]

On 11/26/2016 at 11:03 AM, Joimiaroxeu said:

she ended up getting played by Ned

To be fair, I'm not sure Ned "played" her. He never misled her about what was going on. He thought he was having a fun, no-strings office fling with a married woman, and the next thing he knows she's moved in and is expecting him home for dinner. It's not his fault she thought it was more than he did. Maybe he could have handled it better, but I don't think he was manipulative or unkind in either how it started or how it ended.

[stanleyk]

3 hours ago, ChelleGame said:

5 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Did I understand correctly? Cindy has had multiple abortions? (Back then they were probably called D&Cs.) That's so sad. Weren't birth control pills available by the early 70s?

That came as a shock to me too but the way she casually dropped it was very effective. Said more than an entire storyline because of who she is and that it was multiple.

That's how I understood it, and I thought it was quietly effective in showing how many women (and how many women one maybe wouldn't suspect) struggled with accidental pregnancies in the era before legal abortion, and how shared experiences can create strong bonds.

It was, though, a little hard to square with the events earlier in the series. I thought that in the conversation about Jane's virginity in an earlier episode, Cindy had said she was a technical virgin when she got married but had done lots of other stuff. So that would mean that any pregnancies and subsequent abortions would have been with her husband, right, and they've been married less than a year? None of that really tracks with her reaction to the pregnancy scare at the start of the series. Maybe I misunderstood the earlier conversation. 

[ChelleGame]

12 minutes ago, stanleyk said:

None of that really tracks with her reaction to the pregnancy scare at the start of the series. Maybe I misunderstood the earlier conversation. 

That tripped me up too and then I wondered if she'd been untruthful in the first conversation.

I enjoyed series but wish there were a few more layers of complexity with each of the characters. For the most part they were all exactly who you expected them to be. I think a second season could help with that.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

 It's not his fault she thought it was more than he did.

I think Ned saw she was deeply vulnerable and zeroed in on her like the office predator he probably is. What woman lets him do what he did to her (the first contact he made with her genitalia) and then practically skips off like he'd just given her a bite of his danish or something equally innocuous? He worked her like a pro and got away with it largely because she's married and because he could count on her to be too embarrassed to make a fuss.

That said, Cindy's clearly the product of the times and her upbringing. She was raised to submit to men and to devalue herself. It really surprised to me hear her subtle admission that she'd had several pregnancies terminated. At least she understood that bringing children into her situation wasn't going to be good idea.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

For the most part they were all exactly who you expected them to be.

Yep, that's the take I got after the first episode. If the producers  planned on continuing to a second season, it seems this was intended to be the one where they'd superficially trot out all the late 60s and early 70s tropes. And sometimes the show is so ham-fisted about it that I wonder if the producers were actually mocking the era.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[Joimiaroxeu]

"Gloria Steinem's not bad." Seriously? At one point she went undercover as a Playboy bunny and Hef only hired women he'd be willing to screw. And Gregory's lowkey dissing the photo of the Black woman was an interesting touch. Note that the show didn't mention her name, even though one would assume she was at least as recognizable as Steinem or Betty Friedan.

Dear Show: sorry but the guy playing Finn is no Jon Hamm. Nice-looking enough but still...Don Draper was a Mercedes and Finn is maybe a low-end Cadillac. Meanwhile, making Jane the spokesperson at the press conference wasn't subtle at all.

I just realized how much Cindy looks like Marlo Thomas in her role on That Girl, but without the glasses.

Ugh, grief sex. The bane of every bad daytime soap opera storyline. Agree with comments upthread and am not sure what the point was.

I started the series off thinking Jane was the dilettante but now I think it's Patti. She talks a good game but she's the one who always tries to keep one foot on both sides of a given line. Keeping her options open, I guess. It wouldn't surprise me if she eventually gave it all up to marry Finn and go become Betty Draper out in the 'burbs.

Well, at least they left several interesting cliffhangers if they do get a second season. I'd come back for season two.

[MonkeyTrouble]

I did a spit-take when someone in the newsroom said about Altamont something along the lines of: "It's as if the sweetness and innocence of the hippie movement just died." Some of this dialogue seems to have been written by a high school intern using Wikipedia as a source.  

[absnow54]

Looks like it's canceled.

[eeyore]

I thought the sex in the show was important - it repeatedly showed women having sex because they wanted to and they enjoyed it. There were no blow job scenes (that I can recall) but more than one scene involving female oral sex. This is fairly unusual in tv. 

[madam magpie]

5 hours ago, eeyore said:

I thought the sex in the show was important - it repeatedly showed women having sex because they wanted to and they enjoyed it. There were no blow job scenes (that I can recall) but more than one scene involving female oral sex. This is fairly unusual in tv. 

Agreed. I think it also speaks to the office culture. The woman who wrote the book this show was based on said there was a fair amount of sex in the office, if I remember right. It's one way of showing how office culture has changed over the years. Then again, I did used to work for a company that had a pink leather couch in the reception area. We called it "the sex couch" and no one ever wanted to sit on it because of all the (rumored, but true) action it got after hours. This was 2005...so maybe office culture hadn't changed THAT much?

[formerlyfreedom]

Refer to the site rule - be civil, even when disagreeing.

[stanleyk]

On 12/2/2016 at 2:33 PM, eeyore said:

I thought the sex in the show was important - it repeatedly showed women having sex because they wanted to and they enjoyed it. There were no blow job scenes (that I can recall) but more than one scene involving female oral sex. This is fairly unusual in tv. 

I agree the sex was important, and I also liked that the sex was a lot more adventerous and... equality-minded, I guess? then we generally see. And I thought it effectively communicated through sex scenes the changing culture and the growing awareness of the women: Cindy's boring, missionary, half-clothed sex with her awful dull husband versus whats-his-face the photo editor going down on her immediately. 

But on a couple occasions the sex seemed pointless to the story: Finn having sex with his wife in London and the scene I mentioned up-thread. I just didn't get why we had an extended sex scene in the finale between two really not-central characters that didn't do much to advance the plot (or if it did, it didn't advance what I thought of as the important plot - I don't think the show engaged heavily enough or meaningful enough with the personal repurcussions of Vietnam to have it be a major issue in the finale).

I guess my point is that we had plenty of sex scenes that underscored both wider cultural changes and the awakening of the central women characters, so these stood out to me as advancing neither of those things.

[eeyore]

I think in context of the show, the Finn/Wife sex scene was an important plot point - these two married people who seemed so disconnected earlier could still have hot sex together. They were the only married couple who had good sex together on the show. AND they're older than the other characters - it showed hot sex wasn't just a thing random young people hooking up could have - it was something older folks were doing too. 

The other sex scene you reference (what's his face and the what's her face with the husband in the war - I'm bad with names) was longer than perhaps was necessary but I do think it was making another important point - they were having sex together because of Vietnam. He was upset because of his friend's suicide (a result of Vietnam) and she was lonely because her husband is away (a result of Vietnam). War affects more than just the soldiers fighting, it affects the friends and family members too. I had a feeling in future episodes, the repercussions of this sex would be huge and really drive the plots of these characters.

I'm not being very eloquent today - I need more coffee - but the way this show handled sex is something I was impressed with. I'm going to miss this show.

[Sweets McGee]

On 12/7/2016 at 8:48 AM, eeyore said:

The other sex scene you reference (what's his face and the what's her face with the husband in the war - I'm bad with names) was longer than perhaps was necessary but I do think it was making another important point - they were having sex together because of Vietnam. He was upset because of his friend's suicide (a result of Vietnam) and she was lonely because her husband is away (a result of Vietnam). War affects more than just the soldiers fighting, it affects the friends and family members too. I had a feeling in future episodes, the repercussions of this sex would be huge and really drive the plots of these characters.

That was was just - ew. It was very clunky acting and just unnecessary to look at two characters that I don't care about having awkward icky sex. Not as bad as the art gallery flash, but a close second.

I heard Amazon canceled it but they're shopping the show elsewhere. I would watch a season 2 if it can find a home.

[Red Fields]

I was 12 years old in 1970, and in 6th grade. I remember wearing white fish net stockings with a garter belt, with white gogo boots.

[pasdetrois]

I'm binging this series over several nights. It brings back memories because I entered a newsroom about a decade after these women, and I filed an EEOC complaint. Quote from my news director: "No you can't make as much as your (male) colleague. He has a family to support."

It's fun to see the clothes and hairdos. I think however that pantyhose were the norm by the late 60s - I remember my cousins in the rural south wearing them. I guess the writers can't resist the sexiness of garters.

A mildly sour note for me is the male lead - the managing editor. I think the actor is awful.

[Red Fields]

Too bad they cancelled it. I enjoyed it despite all the flaws mentioned above. It's hard not to spot anachronisms, though. Somebody, Finn maybe, used the term ''unpack'' about going over some situation or event, and I thought no way was anyone using that in 1970. Patti's hair should have been straight, for sure.

 

I was 12 during that year so it was fun going down memory lane.

[Red Fields]

Too bad. I hope someone else picks it up.

[zxy556575]

If it is picked up elsewhere, I hope it would become less focused on everyone's messy romantic/sex lives.

[jrlr]

I read an article in Variety or the Reporter that revealed that the show was canceled by the two GUYS who head Amazon programming because it wasn't interesting enough (to them).  They couldn't remember the characters names so in meetings they referred to the characters by the actors' names.  And they wanted to know if it could be turned into a comedy.

Hey Amazon programming GUYS - unfortunately, you just proved that the world of the working place hasn't changed nearly enough in 50 years. You're still pulling rank and pulling shit on talented, creative women, just like the men in the show (and I'm old enough to remember men like the ones in the show).  

[Sakura12]

While I think the writing could've been a little tighter. I enjoyed the show and it was uplifting as woman to watch women that fought against the hierarchy and made a difference. It shows how far we've come and how far we still have to go. 

It's disheartening to hear that the men found this show not interesting. I was born in the 80's so seeing this story was interesting to me and me want to find out more about other women did during that time. 

[RachelKM]

I didn't see Ned as a predator.  Although I was shocked by the initial contact, it wasn't presented as predatory and Cindy seemed turned on.  They were flirting a lot leading up to it and she was discussing her vulva with him seconds prior (not that I would consider that justification for someone pulling down my underwear and kissing my pubic area, but Cindy didn't seem as shocked so much as a little stunned).  

I think he thought she wanted to have an straight up affair.  They never discussed it.  But she never indicated any intention of leaving her husband. He seemed surprised that Cindy thought he would expect her not to bring her husband to Patti's party or would need to apologize to him about it.  Really, they'd only been having their affair for a relatively brief time, I think less than a week.  They were together the first time during episode 6 (twice) which took place over a day or so and I'm pretty sure that at the start of Episode 7 Doug said to Patti that the end of episode 6 was the prior Saturday night and Cindy actually picks up the glass she apparently left near the copier at the start of their work day.  So maybe two days has passed.  All of Episode 7 is one day that is Patti's birthday.  

I don't think it was unreasonable that Ned 1) didn't realize how unhappy she was in her marriage and thought she just wanted to have fun and 2) no matter what state her marriage, it was WAAAAYYY early for her to be asking for a key to let herself in to make dinner that they didn't really discuss. 

OMG the editor is gross.  He strikes me a predatory.  Poor Jane.

[lovinbob]

I really would love to see this show continue. If only so I can see how the other "girls" react to Patti's complete hypocrisy and disloyalty. And really, stupidity more than anything else. If ever there was a time to follow your head, not your heart (or your vaj), it would be when you're about to embark on a complaint/lawsuit against your employer, the one whom you're about to schtup.

So many things are confusing to me. I found the run-up to Patti and Finn's hookup unconvincing. What was the point of Finn's wife? Just that he had this absolutely stunning, sexy, apparently intelligent wife and he still wasn't satisfied? He was hungry for a hippie/pixie career girl? --> The story would have been more plausible to me if Finn were single or already divorced.

I also found it a bit unrealistic that Cindy was so ready and able to go down to DC to chat it up with the publisher. (And that she flew, but that's another story.) I would have been scared out of my mind.

[lovinbob]

So apparently one of the "girls" did actually fly down to DC in real life. So I stand corrected on that score!

[Inquisitionist]

Quote

it seemed super-weird to have a relatively extended sex scene in the final episode between Sam and...Naomi, is it? They're secondary characters, so much that I'm not even sure of her name. I get that they both needed someone for different reasons, and I guess it's supposed to read as some sort of loss for Jane, but I don't really know what the point of that was. It seemed like a scene that took up too much time in a final episode.

It played like soft-core porn.  Yuk.  

A friend of mine raved about this recently, and I'd never even heard of it.  I ended up binge-watching, and appreciated many of the characters and scenes, but gosh, it could have been so much better. 

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

I really loved this series and hope it gets another season because there is definitely more to the story. You have all made excellent points, but I adored the music and the clothes and cultural references. It really took me back because I was 15 when the story took place. 

I was a year or so from being conceived at the time the series started. But I love the 1970s' general aesthetic so much that I also love the show regardless of its soapy aspects or any history finagling for the sake of narrative or whatever. And, regardless of an about-to-burst closet, it makes me feel compelled to go full-on '70s with my wardrobe, as opposed to the whatever percentage I have going on now. I just love looking at everything in every episode!

Quote

In the early 70s did people actually use the word "lit" to mean drunk or high?

Yes. I distinctly remember my parents using (and being) that term, along with "blasted" and "obliviated". Lots of drunken bashes happened at my house when I was a little kid, man.

Edited July 24, 2017 by TattleTeeny

[formerlyfreedom]

Interesting news...

Quote

Almost a year after it was canceled by Amazon after one season, feminist period drama Good Girls Revolt might be coming back. I hear Sony Pictures TV Studios, whose TriStar Television division produced the series, is preparing a pitch for a new season that would go out shortly.

I guess we'll see what happens...

[GinnyMars]

Yesss!!! I was so hoping for this after the pigs were ousted at Amazon!
I hope they can get everyone back!

[Red Fields]

That would be nice!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Jane Seymour, Matt Jones, AnnaLynne McCord & Chris Diamantopoulos discuss Let's Get Physical:

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Swoosie Kurtz, Erinn Hayes, & Chris Diamantopoulos discuss their new show The Dangerous Book for Boys

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Genevieve Angelson discusses The Cake and Flack

Edited March 31, 2019 by ElectricBoogaloo

[lucindabelle]

On 10/31/2016 at 2:15 PM, Blueeyedgirl said:

I am enjoying this show quite a bit, but having a problem with some it. 

Some of it just does not ring true:  it's hard to believe that it in 1970, only Cindy's husband is anti-Viet Nam-war - or rather, only Cindy's husband (name?) is willing to be vocally anti-war. This is post-RFK assassination, post-MLK, post-'68 convention, etc.  The rest of the party guests looked shocked when he was speaking, with Jane and someone else saying, "But don't you want to prevent Stalinism?"  This sounded like maybe an argument that would have been made in 1964, not by 1970.

Also, none of these 20something men in 1970 are vets?  Clearly all of the men had education deferments, but NONE of them are vets? Did all of them medical deferments???  They all did something to try to get out of the service - so how could they be shocked by the husband's anti-war stance?

I also didn't understand why Jane went looking for vets for her reporter Sam - HE HAD TO KNOW SOMEONE.  Everyone of that age knew someone who was drafted, or enlisted, and went to war.   HS classmates had to have been drafted (or enlisted) or a college classmate or two enlisted as an officers.

Also, his "I don't support the war but I do support the troops" didn't ring true either -- I thought that as a result of so many Viet Nam vets feeling unsupported we now are explicit about that, but I am not sure that was an argument in 1970. 

That is very true and shows that they didn’t consult with people who lived through the era. Mad Men got it right having don be a Korean War bet who was against Vietnam. MOST vets were against the war. My late father, a WWII vet, ended friendships over it he felt so strongly against it. 
 

im binge watching this now and while I was only a toddler in the period some things do feel wrong.

systemic racism? Not a 1969 term. 
 

also I find the whole researcher reporter thing bizarre.

im a journalist and never heard of this and I’m surprised it would  never have been mentioned. Deep throat is just a few years away, journalists do their own research and always have- to my knowledge.

 

and grads from the seven sisters are highly unlikely to take jobs in an office where women are explicitly prevented from doing the higher level things. Even in 1969 there were women copywriters and journalists. Not as many sure. But they existed. 
 

ETA: didn’t know was based on a book so I’ll look it up.

 

maybe it was different in newspapers. Newspapers today still have fact checkers, and while NYT has researchers there is not to my knowledge anything like a reporter researcher team.

Reporters  generate their own leads and have their own sources. 

Edited September 8, 2020 by lucindabelle