Mad Men - General Discussion

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

That was a great character played by a great actor.  I wish we had at least learned more about his concentration camp experience.  I'm still not sure if his "father" simply adopted him as one of the orphans/victims OR if he was really his father.

This is something I always think too.

[Old Man Neil]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

There is no way that entire scene could have been played better, by either actor, it was perfection.

You could say that about the entire episode. 

There is a nice bit of foreshadowing in Christmas Waltz. Pete chortles that Lane's British friend from Jaguar flamed out spectacularly. He threw up in the lap of the head of the dealer's association. The Other Woman introduces Herb Rennet. 

[Ralphster]

I have a hugely unpopular opinion, and that is that Harry was justified in pointing out Joan's prostitution. I was sickened by that plotline. Modern feminism has repeatedly railed against women doing that, because it is hugely demeaning and hurtful. Yet Joan has gotten so many hurrahs for this behaviour. She had the choice to say no; she wasn't starving or facing eviction or lacking in childcare. Perhaps this should elicit a discussion elsewhere of whether most people would literally whore themselves out for a large sum, but that seems a bit of a digression.

Harry brought the company into the TV age. This is huge beyond measure. Without Harry's perspicacity, Sterling Cooper and later iterations would have foundered in trying to rush to keep up with other firms who not only had a good handle on what worked & didn't work for TV, but who would have already established relationships with the networks, etc. Harry's contributions in this regard are almost always overlooked, IMO, while Joan's act of prostitution is praised. Having experienced rape myself, when I had no choice whatsoever in what happened to me, it is hugely galling to see people claiming Joan was victimized. Maybe she could be considered victimized in that her contributions, which were huge, should have been recognised along with Harry's by the partners long hence (in which case Harry is also a victim), but not in her choice to have sex for money. I cannot and will not cast Joan as a victim in this situation, nor will I cheer her on for "getting hers." I completely understand Harry's rage and humiliation, not to mention his disgust; Harry keeps getting steamrolled by the company. In the end, when he's just about to make partner, they sell to McCann and he misses out AGAIN. That's THE definition of wrong.

I also think Greg gets the shaft, too. He's a rapist, so he can go jump off a cliff for all I care, but Joan committed paternity fraud. The fact that the child was never Greg's negates, for me, his behaviour in choosing to stay overseas away from his "family." Who's to say he didn't sense in some way that the child wasn't his, either through the child itself or through Joan's mannerisms? He already felt insecure about Joan's sexuality and her relationship with Roger (and probably men in general); perhaps he never fully believed the child was his, because he never trusted Joan (for good reason). In any case, he can't be considered bad for this because the child wasn't his. I understand the other side's argument here - that, if Greg believed the child to be his, his behaviour was reprehensible - but I firmly believe that the beginning of all this was a huge lie, therefore Greg's behaviour is not the evil behaviour it is characterized as. 

Also, Joan is a terrible, terrible person for lying about her son's paternity. Having dealt with this in real life, people who do this are not good people. They are selfish and care only about their own narratives, not about the truth or what's best for other people. Only what's good for them. And in this case, Joan had decided she would cling to Dr. Loser for the time being, and so it was good for her to lie about her child's paternity so that her narrative could keep chugging along. Kevin deserves to know who his real father is, and Greg deserves to know the child isn't his. That's the only positive thing I will say about Greg, who is overall not a good person either. It's why he and Joan deserved each other, IMO. I always loathed Joan; deep down, she belongs in a trailer park, for she just has that mentality about her. She isn't sophisticated, she isn't openminded, she is drama-centered and narcissistic and lacks dignity. It says a lot about our society that the behaviour of someone like Joan is conflated with dignity.

[sistermagpie]

59 minutes ago, Ralphster said:

I have a hugely unpopular opinion, and that is that Harry was justified in pointing out Joan's prostitution. I was sickened by that plotline. Modern feminism has repeatedly railed against women doing that, because it is hugely demeaning and hurtful. Yet Joan has gotten so many hurrahs for this behaviour. She had the choice to say no; she wasn't starving or facing eviction or lacking in childcare. Perhaps this should elicit a discussion elsewhere of whether most people would literally whore themselves out for a large sum, but that seems a bit of a digression.

She absolutely had the choice to say no. But she found herself in a position here she could ask for a partnership and she did. It doesn't really matter if most people would literally whore themselves out for a large sum, imo. Joan did it because she wanted to, and frankly it didn't seem that far off from the way she'd moved through the world before that anyway. The only way I'd think feminism would come into it was to say there's no difference between a man or a woman doing that way. Joan wasn't setting a precedent it doesn't seem.

It does bother me when it gets rewritten as Joan somehow tricked or starving or having no choice to say no. (Also where the partners are said to be tricked into it--every single person knew exactly what they were doing here.) Nothing in the show suggests that. She just made a deal that fell into her lap. I doubt she regrets it. The money gave her the ability to start her own company and walk away from McCann where she was expected to sleep with the men there for nothing.

I can sympathize with Harry's resentment since he did clearly bring a lot to the company and never got made a partner. But that had nothing to do with Joan. She didn't get his partnership. They didn't offer one to him because they didn't feel they needed to and didn't want to--and later he wound up trying to leverage his own partnership offer into something and wound up overplaying his hand and got screwed again.

Otoh, though, it's relevant to remember that Harry himself laid out to Megan that he expected her to sleep with him for his help getting a job so he's not in much of a position to act like it's an insult to him. Why is it business as usual when Megan wants an acting job but unfair when Joan gets to sleep her way into a partnership that Harry hasn't been offered for his own work? That, to me, is more of a point of comparison than Harry vs. Joan getting a partnership, even if Harry did deserve it more than her on paper.

1 hour ago, Ralphster said:

I also think Greg gets the shaft, too. He's a rapist, so he can go jump off a cliff for all I care, but Joan committed paternity fraud. The fact that the child was never Greg's negates, for me, his behaviour in choosing to stay overseas away from his "family." Who's to say he didn't sense in some way that the child wasn't his, either through the child itself or through Joan's mannerisms?

I agree that Joan's lie was wrong to him, but I don't think there's any way to really rewrite Greg's behavior as being down to him somehow having a feeling the baby wasn't his. It completely fits the pattern of his behavior to simply walk away, and it's very out of character for him to not show any sign at all that he thought Kevin wasn't his. He was never able to hide his insecurity, even to the point of rape. So to me it winds up pretty neutral--Joan can't accuse Greg of wronging her or Kevin by not being there for him and it's fine that Greg doesn't feel guilty about treating Kevin like he doesn't exist.

I do think sometimes Joan gets interpreted as being feminist even when she's enthusiastically supporting the patriarchy. She only becomes anything like a feminist when working within the system stops working for her.

 

[Old Man Neil]

8 hours ago, Ralphster said:

Without Harry's perspicacity, Sterling Cooper and later iterations would have foundered in trying to rush to keep up with other firms who not only had a good handle on what worked & didn't work for TV, but who would have already established relationships with the networks, etc. Harry's contributions in this regard are almost always overlooked, IMO, while Joan's act of prostitution is praised.

Ironically, Joan showed an aptitude for TV work in A Night to Remember. If Harry had recognized and acknowledged her talent, they might have had an even better TV department, and Harry would have gained a valuable ally. He wasn't all that perspicacious. 

[Ralphster]

2 hours ago, Old Man Neil said:

Ironically, Joan showed an aptitude for TV work in A Night to Remember. If Harry had recognized and acknowledged her talent, they might have had an even better TV department, and Harry would have gained a valuable ally. He wasn't all that perspicacious. 

Not noticing Joan's aptitude for catching how well scripts & commercials fit does not negate the fact that Harry saw the huge change of television and tried his best to drag the company forward. The job Joan performed was by far secondary to this.

[Old Man Neil]

 

15 hours ago, Ralphster said:

Not noticing Joan's aptitude for catching how well scripts & commercials fit does not negate the fact that Harry saw the huge change of television and tried his best to drag the company forward. The job Joan performed was by far secondary to this.

Harry got the job as Head of Television by noticing a script and its commercial potential in The Benefactors. 

[sistermagpie]

16 hours ago, Ralphster said:

Not noticing Joan's aptitude for catching how well scripts & commercials fit does not negate the fact that Harry saw the huge change of television and tried his best to drag the company forward. The job Joan performed was by far secondary to this.

Like a lot of characters, he's got places where he's forward thinking and others where he's not. He saw TV as the future (doesn't he mention other companies already having TV departments?), but it didn't occur to him that there was no reason to hire a college grad man to do the job Joan was doing even though she was obviously doing really well at it. Of course, it should be noted that Joan herself didn't lobby for it. Iirc, she just agreed she was glad to get back to work. That was a specific way Joan was contrasted to Peggy, who openly wanted to move up as a worker while Joan was raised to think that was a bad look for any woman.

[Old Man Neil]

11 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Of course, it should be noted that Joan herself didn't lobby for it. Iirc, she just agreed she was glad to get back to work. That was a specific way Joan was contrasted to Peggy, who openly wanted to move up as a worker while Joan was raised to think that was a bad look for any woman.

I saw it a little differently. Joan seemed clearly disappointed at not being recognized. On the other hand, as soon as Peggy said Basket of Kisses she was immediately discovered and got a leg up without asking for it. Peggy had a veritable stable of mentors from the start. She didn't show ambition until later. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Old Man Neil
clarity

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, Old Man Neil said:

I saw it a little differently. Joan seemed clearly disappointed at not being recognized. On the other hand, as soon as Peggy said Basket of Kisses she was immediately discovered and got a leg up without asking for it. Peggy had a veritable stable of mentors from the start. She didn't show ambition until later. 

Oh yes, she definitely showed disappointment. If she was a man there's no doubt she would have been given the job. And you're right, it's not like Peggy walked in and said she wanted to be a copywriter. But once it happened she was open about liking it, even feeling like she was bragging about it a little, asking Pete to look at her copy, telling her date. (I just watched that scene with the guy from Brooklyn.) She never pretended she was just doing an ad for fun or because they needed her--she was all over it. Where as Joan followed the script she'd been given where she tried to hide her disappointment and pretend she was just doing it for fun.

I don't think Peggy from the start would have been so open as to challenge Harry either, but she would have probably been more ready to admit the injustice to herself and anyone else who would listen.

[txhorns79]

20 hours ago, Old Man Neil said:

Ironically, Joan showed an aptitude for TV work in A Night to Remember. If Harry had recognized and acknowledged her talent, they might have had an even better TV department, and Harry would have gained a valuable ally. He wasn't all that perspicacious. 

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the job was that Joan would read scripts and decide if material might be bad for a client who was advertising during the episode.   I agree she seemed to be good at it, but I didn't get the impression the job required much beyond basic reading comprehension and knowing the client.  And while Joan may have been disappointed at not being considered for the job, she already was the office manager.  It seems like going to that job, where she would lose her supervisory duties and be under Harry's purview, would have been a step down. 

[sistermagpie]

17 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the job was that Joan would read scripts and decide if material might be bad for a client who was advertising during the episode.   I agree she seemed to be good at it, but I didn't get the impression the job required much beyond basic reading comprehension and knowing the client.  And while Joan may have been disappointed at not being considered for the job, she already was the office manager.  It seems like going to that job, where she would lose her supervisory duties and be under Harry's purview, would have been a step down. 

Never underestimate how bad somebody can be at something that seems like just basic reading comprehension! Iirc, Joan was good at that basic job, but she also suggested to the client that there was a storyline coming up on the show that would be particularly good to advertise on etc. Again, not something that's so miraculous, but she had clearly grasped the whole concept of what Harry's department would be about.

My dad worked in spot sales and I worked at his company for a couple of summers (I always think how he would have totally worked with Harry since he belonged to this era) and I know just from things he said to me about the training program and stuff that came up there that stuff I thought was simple logic was complete gibberish to some people who worked there who weren't working specifically in that area. And I mean just this sort of thing. It's not as instinctive as Joan makes it look.

[Old Man Neil]

52 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I may be wrong, but my understanding of the job was that Joan would read scripts and decide if material might be bad for a client who was advertising during the episode.   I agree she seemed to be good at it, but I didn't get the impression the job required much beyond basic reading comprehension and knowing the client.  And while Joan may have been disappointed at not being considered for the job, she already was the office manager.  It seems like going to that job, where she would lose her supervisory duties and be under Harry's purview, would have been a step down. 

The job paid $150 per week. I wonder how that would compare to Joan's salary at the time. 

 

29 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Joan was good at that basic job, but she also suggested to the client that there was a storyline coming up on the show that would be particularly good to advertise on etc.

Yes. It was really no different from what Harry did in The Benefactor. With the exception that Joan was actually successful at making the sale. 

[Umbelina]

On 7/3/2020 at 3:30 PM, sistermagpie said:

I can sympathize with Harry's resentment since he did clearly bring a lot to the company and never got made a partner. But that had nothing to do with Joan. She didn't get his partnership. They didn't offer one to him because they didn't feel they needed to and didn't want to--and later he wound up trying to leverage his own partnership offer into something and wound up overplaying his hand and got screwed again.

Yes.  Harry was offered the partnership soon after, he tried to screw them out of more, they refused.  He waited too long and lost out on the bonus money when they sold.

Also, unlike Joan, NONE of the partners liked Harry.  He was an asshole.  They didn't want him as a partner because he was, and remained a jerk.

 

On 7/3/2020 at 3:30 PM, sistermagpie said:

I do think sometimes Joan gets interpreted as being feminist even when she's enthusiastically supporting the patriarchy. She only becomes anything like a feminist when working within the system stops working for her.

There are many ways to be a feminist.  I think Joan was, and she was ahead of her time.  There was no hiding that body though, and as she says to Peggy in that elevator after that disgusting meeting at McCann's?  She had to do it her way, she was not a "Peggy" and never would be, and indeed, couldn't be.  She could be just as professional, just as smart, but men would react to her differently.  I think she did a hell of a job earning respect from sexist assholes, and she did it for a long time.  We still judge women so differently.  Men can sleep with anyone and it's "Oh, good for them."  A woman does it?  "Gold-digger, slut, easy lay, etc."  

Joan made the sexism work for her whenever she could.  

On 7/4/2020 at 12:04 AM, Old Man Neil said:

Ironically, Joan showed an aptitude for TV work in A Night to Remember. If Harry had recognized and acknowledged her talent, they might have had an even better TV department, and Harry would have gained a valuable ally. He wasn't all that perspicacious. 

Joan was good at a lot of things.  She had been at SCDP, and it's subsequent names long enough that most of the men recognized more than her looks, indeed, knew how valuable she was.  Thrown into a new, larger company?  She basically had to try to start from "go" all over again, and try to cope with sexism and inequality in the work place, as most of us did in those days.

======

About her partnership and what she did to get there?  I don't blame her at all.  At the time she was an "office manager" and had she not decided to do that?  She would have been fired with all the others when they sold the company to McCann.  She had a child, she wasn't making much money, and she was getting older.  She did the prudent thing.  I once turned down $5000 in Vegas from some asshole, (probably $25K today)  but would I have turned down a partnership which would earn me millions, AND position and power and safety and financial security for my child?  I seriously doubt it.  One night?  Who cares?  

Where is the judgement for the asshole that insisted/blackmailed the company, OR for the execs in that company that decided to get Joan to accept it?  

Nah, once again, it's all on the woman.

The more things change?  The more they stay the same.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

23 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Joan made the sexism work for her whenever she could.  

That's what I mean, though. Just that I think there's a difference between rooting for her when she's a woman in a sexist world and fighting her way to get something out of it and acknowledging that sometimes she did that by making the system work for her and embracing it. Like we don't have to say Joan was being feminist by advising Peggy to take off her clothes and put a bag over her head to figure out what her best assets were at work.

Joan was, it seems to me, a really practical person in--it's one of the things I like about her. And it seems like given the time and place she was born into etc., the looks she had, she looked around and said okay, these are the rules of this game, so I'm going to play it better than anyone. As Peggy realizes in S1, Joan is trying to help her by giving her advice about prioritizing her looks for the men in the office etc. She's genuinely not against seeing other women succeed. It doesn't get noted a lot, but it's a nice character note with Joan that other women often like her, and not just in a superficial way. It just takes her a while to, again in a practical way, see the limits of what she was doing and even the limits of what she thought she could get. As I think she says to Peggy, sometimes when you get what you wanted you realize how small your dreams were.

I don't think it was anti-feminist at all for Joan to ever sleep with a guy to get something--she didn't have the same areas open to her that the men did. But she became a feminist when she started questioning whether it was a natural and good thing that that was the way it worked, as she'd been told all her life.

And when she does that, she doesn't become Peggy. She's still very recognizably Joan. She's just ready to say she'd rather start her own company than hang on to the handsome man--in 1960 doing it her way would have meant marrying the rich guy. The Joan of s1 could barely even imagine that choice even existing for her.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

That's what I mean, though. Just that I think there's a difference between rooting for her when she's a woman in a sexist world and fighting her way to get something out of it and acknowledging that sometimes she did that by making the system work for her and embracing it. Like we don't have to say Joan was being feminist by advising Peggy to take off her clothes and put a bag over her head to figure out what her best assets were at work.

Joan was, it seems to me, a really practical person in--it's one of the things I like about her. And it seems like given the time and place she was born into etc., the looks she had, she looked around and said okay, these are the rules of this game, so I'm going to play it better than anyone. As Peggy realizes in S1, Joan is trying to help her by giving her advice about prioritizing her looks for the men in the office etc. She's genuinely not against seeing other women succeed. It doesn't get noted a lot, but it's a nice character note with Joan that other women often like her, and not just in a superficial way. It just takes her a while to, again in a practical way, see the limits of what she was doing and even the limits of what she thought she could get. As I think she says to Peggy, sometimes when you get what you wanted you realize how small your dreams were.

I don't think it was anti-feminist at all for Joan to ever sleep with a guy to get something--she didn't have the same areas open to her that the men did. But she became a feminist when she started questioning whether it was a natural and good thing that that was the way it worked, as she'd been told all her life.

And when she does that, she doesn't become Peggy. She's still very recognizably Joan. She's just ready to say she'd rather start her own company than hang on to the handsome man--in 1960 doing it her way would have meant marrying the rich guy. The Joan of s1 could barely even imagine that choice even existing for her.

I think Joan was always a feminist.  She wouldn't call herself that at certain points, but she always, within the rules and mores of the times, coped and supported herself, even though she still had the starry eyed dreams of a happy marriage to a perfect man (for her.)  Still, Joan got herself a client and became an "account man" in spite of it all.  

As for Harry?  He would have slept with a client ANYTIME to get ahead, but no one wanted him.  Furthermore, he EXPECTED women to sleep with HIM to "get ahead.  (Megan certainly wasn't the only one he tried that with.)  So fuck him and his finger pointing and Joan.

What I mean by Joan couldn't be a Peggy?  With that figure, through no fault of her own, she would always be a bigger target for men to abuse.  She couldn't and didn't blend into the wallpaper.  Joan's advantage, which she used to good effect, was, in part, her looks.  Peggy's was her sensibilities and skill at copy writing.  Joan was a master at running things, and knowing how the sausage was made, and managing people and situations, from Don's secretary dying in the office, to getting everything read to start a new company.

When Joan told Peggy to put a bag over her head and assess herself, I didn't take it as anything more than Joan trying to be helpful for those times.  Would it be appropriate today?  Oh hell no, but laws to protect women hadn't been passed when she said it, and I think she was honestly trying to help another woman learn and advance.

Another feminist on the show was Bobbie Barrrett.   She also gave Peggy good advice, from "call him Don" to "Don't try to be a man....being a woman is powerful stuff when done correctly."

I learned the hard way that men used everything they had to get ahead, tools I, a woman, didn't and wouldn't ever have, from private clubs to filthy jokes to golf dates where I would never be welcome but business was done.  I decided eventually that I would also use what I had, something the guys did not, whether it was being the mother-like listener, or being someone pleasant to look at, or arm candy at lunch.  I could never be their buddy, but I could (along with doing outstanding work and outshining the men) use "being a woman" in the ways they used "being a man."

Should Harry have been made partner?  No.  He was an ass, and not one of the partners liked him.  Partners would prefer to have someone the can get along with.  If Harry left?  They could have hired another media person to more than adequately do what he did, without the stink of dealing with Harry.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Umbelina
added the "furthermore" to the odious Harry Crane thing.

[LydiaE]

The problem with the Harry character is that there was never a map for the character. Wasn’t he supposed to commit suicide in the first season? It seems when they nixed that storyline, the writing for him was in freefall.

Season 1/2 Harry: Friendly with most of his coworkers. Dedicated to both self-preservation and becoming an asset to the company. Seemed to feel true remorse and able to be sentimental (think Don’s Carousel presentation). Seemed happy to become a father.

Season 4 and beyond Harry: Completely morally bankrupt. Entitled. Disdain towards wife and children. Constant turmoil with coworkers. Semi-delusional and downright unaware of how he’s perceived by others.

Are we to believe that Harry’s bicoastal experiences have caused him to become a monster? The one late-season storyline he has with Hari Krishna Paul is absurd. He expresses empathy for about five minutes and it’s for Paul off all people?

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

I think Joan was always a feminist.  She wouldn't call herself that at certain points, but she always, within the rules and mores of the times, coped and supported herself, even though she still had the starry eyed dreams of a happy marriage to a perfect man (for her.)  Still, Joan got herself a client and became an "account man" in spite of it all.  

 

3 hours ago, Umbelina said:

When Joan told Peggy to put a bag over her head and assess herself, I didn't take it as anything more than Joan trying to be helpful for those times.  Would it be appropriate today?  Oh hell no, but laws to protect women hadn't been passed when she said it, and I think she was honestly trying to help another woman learn and advance.

That's pretty much why I wouldn't consider her a feminist, because her way of trying to be helpful was completely in line with those times in all the sexist ways. I do think that a lot of Joan's natural instincts are shown to learn more towards feminism, and it probably sabotaged her search for the life she said she wanted. For instance, Joan isn't not yet married at 30 because she couldn't have found a man to marry her. She's unmarried at 30 because she doesn't really want to be married just for marriage's sake. She liked being single. And I think the fact that she does want other women to advance is also a sign of something that would be feminism under different circumstances--however much Joan consciously behaves as if men are just naturally more important, she perhaps actually values women more on the whole. She has, I think, a healthy distrust of men too, for good reason.

21 minutes ago, LydiaE said:

The problem with the Harry character is that there was never a map for the character. Wasn’t he supposed to commit suicide in the first season? It seems when they nixed that storyline, the writing for him was in freefall.

Season 1/2 Harry: Friendly with most of his coworkers. Dedicated to both self-preservation and becoming an asset to the company. Seemed to feel true remorse and able to be sentimental (think Don’s Carousel presentation). Seemed happy to become a father.

Season 4 and beyond Harry: Completely morally bankrupt. Entitled. Disdain towards wife and children. Constant turmoil with coworkers. Semi-delusional and downright unaware of how he’s perceived by others.

Are we to believe that Harry’s bicoastal experiences have caused him to become a monster? The one late-season storyline he has with Hari Krishna Paul is absurd. He expresses empathy for about five minutes and it’s for Paul off all people?

I know a lot of people see Harry this way, as being all over the map, but he doesn't seem that way to me. His experiences in California do make him more entitled. His behavior changed depending on what he was allowed. Even way back in S1 Harry is saying how he enjoys looking at other women, which is okay as long as he doesn't touch. Later he just found out he could touch.

I love the ep with Paul and could totally buy that Harry had sympathy for him. Not because he was especially close to Paul but just that the situation dropped into his lap and he cringed at it and had the money to do something about it. I think Harry was the kind of guy that just always saw himself as put upon and being treated unfairly and that's how he saw the world and his behavior reflected it. If some woman wouldn't sleep with him for a job it was unfair because people sleep with other guys for jobs etc. Even at the end of the series, for me, I could clearly see the nerdy schmoe from the first season--who was also an ex-frat boy. He's still friendly with his co-workers by the end of the show, at least, the ones he was friends with to start with, which were the Pete/Ken generation.

[txhorns79]

12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I love the ep with Paul and could totally buy that Harry had sympathy for him. Not because he was especially close to Paul but just that the situation dropped into his lap and he cringed at it and had the money to do something about it.

I liked Harry's moment of humanity with Paul, but for me, I felt like as the series went on, Harry was just kind of there.  They did very little with the character after the first couple of seasons, and he was pushed far into the background.  I will admit I did feel some sympathy for him in his anger over Joan's promotion.  I can imagine how frustrating that would feel.  

  

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I liked Harry's moment of humanity with Paul, but for me, I felt like as the series went on, Harry was just kind of there.  They did very little with the character after the first couple of seasons, and he was pushed far into the background.  I will admit I did feel some sympathy for him in his anger over Joan's promotion.  I can imagine how frustrating that would feel.  

Wasn't he always in the background? It seemed like his part was always just a guy that popped in to talk to other people when his role made him the right fit for it except for a couple of exceptions, like the story with Paul.

[Umbelina]

3 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I liked Harry's moment of humanity with Paul, but for me, I felt like as the series went on, Harry was just kind of there.  They did very little with the character after the first couple of seasons, and he was pushed far into the background.  I will admit I did feel some sympathy for him in his anger over Joan's promotion.  I can imagine how frustrating that would feel.  

  

 

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Wasn't he always in the background? It seemed like his part was always just a guy that popped in to talk to other people when his role made him the right fit for it except for a couple of exceptions, like the story with Paul.

 

15 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

 

That's pretty much why I wouldn't consider her a feminist, because her way of trying to be helpful was completely in line with those times in all the sexist ways. I do think that a lot of Joan's natural instincts are shown to learn more towards feminism, and it probably sabotaged her search for the life she said she wanted. For instance, Joan isn't not yet married at 30 because she couldn't have found a man to marry her. She's unmarried at 30 because she doesn't really want to be married just for marriage's sake. She liked being single. And I think the fact that she does want other women to advance is also a sign of something that would be feminism under different circumstances--however much Joan consciously behaves as if men are just naturally more important, she perhaps actually values women more on the whole. She has, I think, a healthy distrust of men too, for good reason.

I know a lot of people see Harry this way, as being all over the map, but he doesn't seem that way to me. His experiences in California do make him more entitled. His behavior changed depending on what he was allowed. Even way back in S1 Harry is saying how he enjoys looking at other women, which is okay as long as he doesn't touch. Later he just found out he could touch.

I love the ep with Paul and could totally buy that Harry had sympathy for him. Not because he was especially close to Paul but just that the situation dropped into his lap and he cringed at it and had the money to do something about it. I think Harry was the kind of guy that just always saw himself as put upon and being treated unfairly and that's how he saw the world and his behavior reflected it. If some woman wouldn't sleep with him for a job it was unfair because people sleep with other guys for jobs etc. Even at the end of the series, for me, I could clearly see the nerdy schmoe from the first season--who was also an ex-frat boy. He's still friendly with his co-workers by the end of the show, at least, the ones he was friends with to start with, which were the Pete/Ken generation.

 

15 hours ago, LydiaE said:

The problem with the Harry character is that there was never a map for the character. Wasn’t he supposed to commit suicide in the first season? It seems when they nixed that storyline, the writing for him was in freefall.

Season 1/2 Harry: Friendly with most of his coworkers. Dedicated to both self-preservation and becoming an asset to the company. Seemed to feel true remorse and able to be sentimental (think Don’s Carousel presentation). Seemed happy to become a father.

Season 4 and beyond Harry: Completely morally bankrupt. Entitled. Disdain towards wife and children. Constant turmoil with coworkers. Semi-delusional and downright unaware of how he’s perceived by others.

Are we to believe that Harry’s bicoastal experiences have caused him to become a monster? The one late-season storyline he has with Hari Krishna Paul is absurd. He expresses empathy for about five minutes and it’s for Paul off all people?

I still say that Joan was a feminist, and there are many ways to be a feminist.  She didn't know it, but she was.  Peggy, Bobbie, Rachel, and the most stereotypical, Faye are more easily defined as feminists.  Megan thought she was, but her actions, completely dependent on a man's money after she married, kind of fuck that up for her.  

Anyway, back to all the Harry comments which I will address at once.

I think Harry definitely had a defined roll on the show, and I think it was a very good one.  @sistermagpie pointed out a lot of it in her post.  I think I will just do a list from start to finish, I'm sure I will miss some.

1.  Harry was the "average guy."  He wasn't as good looking, he was married, had a kid, was in a job that could disappear at any moment, and wasn't making much money.  He tried and failed to pal around with others, but aside from crude jokes (such as the stuff about Megan after her song/dance) he was just there, never earned much respect.
2.  His shining moment was to realize that he better figure out a new job and fast.  He did his research, realized that other companies had a dedicated Media Department, pitched it, had it approved, and starting with a one man operation built it up.  Computers came in, he noticed, wanted more power, and pushed for that as well.  Those things all helped the company, but his concern was helping HIMSELF to have a secure/respected position.  (nothing wrong with that)
3.  Hollywood and California happened.  He'd already cheated on his wife once, regretted it, but now all kinds of women were suddenly available to him.  Why?  Media.  He might get them a gig in a commercial!  In addition, he now had all kinds of powerful connections with the Hollywood elite.  He could have any babe he wanted, or most of them.  It was the sixties, sex, drugs, rock and roll, parties.  He started eating salads without dressing and getting a tan.
4. In the middle of all of this he does two very kind things.  He saves Don's ass, in spite of Don hating his guts (which Harry didn't really know.)  He thought it was unfair what they were doing to Don, and risked quite a bit to warn him.  That resulted in Don saving himself, but without that head's up from Harry?  Don was over.  He also saved Paul.  They had also been "friends" (Harry thought all the original guys were his friends.)  He saw Paul drowning, and threw him a lifeline.  So, Harry is not all bad, actually he has some very good qualities mixed in with the odious, sexist, oblivious qualities.  In short, he is a "whole" human being, not perfect, not evil, a mix of qualities, like most of us.
5.  While others are unhappy with the move to McCann's, Harry is content.  He is getting yet another promotion, will have the huge department he always wanted, more power, and now, he knows all the players on both coasts and can really shine.  He's also surrounded now with a bunch of neanderthal men.  He's found his tribe.  Still, he tries to maintain his (to him) previous work-friends.  He's rebuffed a bit, but who cares?  He's finally in a place where he fits in and is appreciated, with more money, more power, and more respect.

I don't think Harry was an add on at all, at least no more than others out of the core Peggy/Don, and sub core Roger/Joan/Pete group.  The Harry character could actually easily be considered part of the sub-core group really.

He did quite a bit on this show, moving the times along, and to me, he was a very well written character.

EDITED TO ADD:

Through Harry's character's actions we moved from the fifties in NY, to the new decade of computers, and also to California.  Don, of course, also helped with the California POV to contrast with the NYC lifestyles.  So, for story, his character was very useful in both introducing interesting new things, social commentary, and how advertising evolved as well.  

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Umbelina
damn typos!

[sistermagpie]

48 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I don't think Harry was an add on at all, at least no more than others out of the core Peggy/Don, and sub core Roger/Joan/Pete group.  The Harry character could actually easily be considered part of the sub-core group really.

It seems like in a way Harry made a real name for himself on the show. That is, it seems like he's a character that people really remember because he played his supporting role so well--I agree, he was part of the sub-core group. He pops up in a party scene in that movie about National Lampoon and he's in the credits as Harry Crane. The director said he figured this was a party Harry would actually have been able to be at so liked sticking him in there.

[Old Man Neil]

On 7/7/2020 at 12:58 PM, Umbelina said:

He did quite a bit on this show, moving the times along, and to me, he was a very well written character.

EDITED TO ADD:

Through Harry's character's actions we moved from the fifties in NY, to the new decade of computers, and also to California.  Don, of course, also helped with the California POV to contrast with the NYC lifestyles.  So, for story, his character was very useful in both introducing interesting new things, social commentary, and how advertising evolved as well.  

You make some great arguments and almost have me convinced. 

My take has always been that the secondary characters from the early seasons were shabbily written as the series went on. Ken with his eye-patch and over the top vindictiveness, Paul as a Hare Krishna, Midge as a junkie, Harry as a scurrilous lech. In season five, the joke about Zou Bisou Bisou was organic. but propositioning the bosses wife in New Business was unbelievably crass and stupid. If he cared enough to help save Don's job, you'd think he'd care enough to leave the man's wife alone. 

He's never depicted as having new ideas. His contributions in that regard are limited to saying all the other companies have one. And notice in the episode Shoot, it's Pete's bright idea to buy up all the ad space for Secor Laxatives to keep Kennedy off of television where he had a clear advantage over Nixon. If they wanted to foreshadow the idea that Harry was a media whiz, that would have been a great opportunity. 

I think they could have made the same points with his character, and others, without the cartoonish exaggerations. 

Did he really do all that much to help Paul? He didn't level with him that the script was terrible. Five hundred dollars would last about a month in California. I guess at least it got him away from the Krishnas. 

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, Old Man Neil said:

My take has always been that the secondary characters from the early seasons were shabbily written as the series went on. Ken with his eye-patch and over the top vindictiveness, Paul as a Hare Krishna, Midge as a junkie, Harry as a scurrilous lech.

I felt like the excesses were important to the show, because it was showing how as the 60s went on the greater freedom naturally was just too much for some people, everything got more exaggerated. Dabbling with drugs can (but doesn't always) lead to serious drug use, for instance. Paul, to me, was always set up to be a candidate for this sort of thing because he wasn't as good as he wanted to be at things and always felt like an outsider. It's true Harry didn't do that much to help him, but then again, he wasn't really that off the rails. He was still Paul, still basically a normal person. He wasn't even that in thrall to the cult. But he seemed like a good person to show how a lot of people who felt lost in the 60s were drawn to new things like this. It seemed like that was one of the marks of the decade, that everybody was pretty straight in 1960s but some of them were knocked off balance when things started changing. Though it was a bit much to have Harry actually hit on Megan. How did he think that would ever play with Don? That scene might have really worked better if Harry had just set her up with another guy to meet with and *that* guy made it clear she'd have to sleep with him.

In Ken's case, though, I thought it was more of a personal character thing. He was on top of things because things usually went well for him. He was talented and above the fray. But that's why he didn't respond well to adversity. When that happened it turned out he was even more susceptible to the sort of competitiveness he'd scorned in the past because he just hadn't really felt it before. (Plus he had genuine trauma.)

Also agree on Harry, though, that he was never presented as a media whiz. If there was a business visionary, it was Pete. Harry was always looking at what other people were doing and suggesting that, which was still important and made the place successful, but was the reason that nobody was ever trying to poach him like they did Don, Pete and Peggy.

[caitmcg]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Though it was a bit much to have Harry actually hit on Megan. How did he think that would ever play with Don? That scene might have really worked better if Harry had just set her up with another guy to meet with and *that* guy made it clear she'd have to sleep with him.

I assume at that point he knew they were divorcing, so I always thought he wasn’t really thinking of Don, but more, “Here’s my chance,” given he’d tried (and perhaps succeeded) in coercing women with his alleged ins in exchange for sex before. (Never mind what Don's reaction would be, however badly things ended with Megan.)

[Old Man Neil]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I felt like the excesses were important to the show, because it was showing how as the 60s went on the greater freedom naturally was just too much for some people, everything got more exaggerated.

You may be right, but I think the same points could have been made without the over the top characterizations. As an example of someone who was presented more realistically, I give you Stan Rizzo. I saw so many people like Stan in the sixties. They started out as straight arrow types but became well rounded under the influence of marijuana. His growth as a character felt more natural to me than the arcs of Ken, Paul and Harry. 

[Umbelina]

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Also agree on Harry, though, that he was never presented as a media whiz. If there was a business visionary, it was Pete. Harry was always looking at what other people were doing and suggesting that, which was still important and made the place successful, but was the reason that nobody was ever trying to poach him like they did Don, Pete and Peggy.

We did though.  He, for one example, sold that Broadway with Namath show special to clean up Dow's image.  There were others.  He may not have come up with computers, but he saw their worth, when no one else at his company did.  He kept his eye on the competition, and made them keep up.

16 hours ago, Old Man Neil said:

You make some great arguments and almost have me convinced. 

My take has always been that the secondary characters from the early seasons were shabbily written as the series went on. Ken with his eye-patch and over the top vindictiveness, Paul as a Hare Krishna, Midge as a junkie, Harry as a scurrilous lech. In season five, the joke about Zou Bisou Bisou was organic. but propositioning the bosses wife in New Business was unbelievably crass and stupid. If he cared enough to help save Don's job, you'd think he'd care enough to leave the man's wife alone. 

He's never depicted as having new ideas. His contributions in that regard are limited to saying all the other companies have one. And notice in the episode Shoot, it's Pete's bright idea to buy up all the ad space for Secor Laxatives to keep Kennedy off of television where he had a clear advantage over Nixon. If they wanted to foreshadow the idea that Harry was a media whiz, that would have been a great opportunity. 

I think they could have made the same points with his character, and others, without the cartoonish exaggerations. 

Did he really do all that much to help Paul? He didn't level with him that the script was terrible. Five hundred dollars would last about a month in California. I guess at least it got him away from the Krishnas. 

In other words, $500 in 1968 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,683.82 in 2020, a difference of $3,183.82 over 52 years. The 1968 inflation rate was 4.19%.  Also, I lived in LA in 1970, our house, 3 BR, nice area, big yard, was about $400 a month.  Cool apts with pools and townhouse style 2 story were around $300.  That money would have gone far.

I didn't really see cartoonist exaggerations in any of them though, then again, I lived through those years.  Ha.

Midge going from mild druggie, free spirit to heroin addict?  I know people JUST like her.

People taken in by the Hari Krishnas?  Knew them too.

I loved all of Ken's stories as well, and believed in them.  I was sad he didn't retire to write, and instead got even with people who were assholes to him (McCann, Pete, Roger.)  However, that too is not uncommon, revenge is a huge motivator for people.

Pete was all over the board, but I loved every minute of his journey, and bought it every step of the way.  Although I still think he should have threatened his daddy-in-law with telling his WIFE about the prostitute, rather than just telling Trudy without saving that business?  Not very Pete like, but he was floundering at that point, so...

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

We did though.  He, for one example, sold that Broadway with Namath show special to clean up Dow's image.  There were others.  He may not have come up with computers, but he saw their worth, when no one else at his company did.  He kept his eye on the competition, and made them keep up.

Right, I do think he was supposed to be a genuinely valuable member of the team. There's never any hint that he does his job anything but excellently. I just don't think his value is supposed to be like Don's where he's seen as having this special artistry or vision. Which doesn't make Harry's work any less valuable, it's just showing Harry as being up to date rather than ahead of his time. Don isn't the ideal everybody should be modeling themselves on--that would be a nightmare.

 

[Old Man Neil]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

In other words, $500 in 1968 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,683.82 in 2020, a difference of $3,183.82 over 52 years. The 1968 inflation rate was 4.19%.  Also, I lived in LA in 1970, our house, 3 BR, nice area, big yard, was about $400 a month.  Cool apts with pools and townhouse style 2 story were around $300.  That money would have gone far.

It doesn't sound like it would go that far for someone without an income. At most that would have given him two or three months of rent, but no car, and he would have had to buy groceries, and a television. And bell-bottoms. 

I loved Ken as a writer, and hated that he gave it up. It didn't seem realistic to me that he had that kind of talent and traded it for the rat race. It seemed to me like Weiner manipulated his character to make a point rather than letting the character naturally evolve. 

Midge was realistic in that heroin was the drug of choice for beatniks. It made sense for her to become an addict. But it would have been equally realistic to portray her as continuing on as a free spirited working artist, or marrying and raising a family.  It seemed that Weiner wanted to make a point about the counter culture and dragged us through the mud with her. He didn't have to make Midge an addict.

 

[sistermagpie]

32 minutes ago, Old Man Neil said:

It doesn't sound like it would go that far for someone without an income. At most that would have given him two or three months of rent, but no car, and he would have had to buy groceries, and a television. And bell-bottoms. 

But isn't that more than enough? Harry wasn't adopting Paul, he was just giving him a little money to start in California. Paul would get a job when he got there. 

32 minutes ago, Old Man Neil said:

I loved Ken as a writer, and hated that he gave it up. It didn't seem realistic to me that he had that kind of talent and traded it for the rat race. It seemed to me like Weiner manipulated his character to make a point rather than letting the character naturally evolve. 

He did, of course, manipulate his character since he was the writer, but I honestly didn't see anything unnatural about it. He wasn't trading his talent for the rat race--he could have continued writing while still working, like he'd been doing since the beginning. He'd already stopped writing when that came up. He always loved winning, that was part of his character from the beginning. He just did it so much that he could be blase about it.

32 minutes ago, Old Man Neil said:

Midge was realistic in that heroin was the drug of choice for beatniks. It made sense for her to become an addict. But it would have been equally realistic to portray her as continuing on as a free spirited working artist, or marrying and raising a family.  It seemed that Weiner wanted to make a point about the counter culture and dragged us through the mud with her. He didn't have to make Midge an addict.

 

I know a lot of people think Weiner didn't like the counter culture but the show never came across that way to me. He made fun of the excesses of it, sure, but it seems like in general he saw the changes in society as a good thing. All the main characters benefit from it.  I wouldn't even connect Midge to the counterculture that much since it's not like she's a hippie or was even a super-beatnik before that. Any of those other possibilities would have also been realistic, but I thought she became an addict because of how it worked in that episode--it was seeing her again that gave Don the idea for his quitting tobacco letter, since Don's no stranger to addiction himself. She's a character that's mostly there to reflect Don, and Don simply wouldn't care if Midge was still a free spirit working artist or married and raising a family.

[Old Man Neil]

You and Umbelina make some really good points Sister Magpie. I especially like this. 

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I thought she became an addict because of how it worked in that episode--it was seeing her again that gave Don the idea for his quitting tobacco letter, since Don's no stranger to addiction himself.

I continue to think that Harry, Ken and Paul went off the rails in the later seasons, but I don't have the energy to discuss it at any greater length. 

[Inquisitionist]

 

10 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Any of those other possibilities would have also been realistic, but I thought she became an addict because of how it worked in that episode--it was seeing her again that gave Don the idea for his quitting tobacco letter, since Don's no stranger to addiction himself. She's a character that's mostly there to reflect Don, and Don simply wouldn't care if Midge was still a free spirit working artist or married and raising a family.

Exactly what I was going to say!  😃

[Umbelina]

15 hours ago, Old Man Neil said:

17 hours ago, Umbelina said:

In other words, $500 in 1968 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $3,683.82 in 2020, a difference of $3,183.82 over 52 years. The 1968 inflation rate was 4.19%.  Also, I lived in LA in 1970, our house, 3 BR, nice area, big yard, was about $400 a month.  Cool apts with pools and townhouse style 2 story were around $300.  That money would have gone far.

It doesn't sound like it would go that far for someone without an income. At most that would have given him two or three months of rent, but no car, and he would have had to buy groceries, and a television. And bell-bottoms. 

Yeah, but the prices I gave were for pretty cool places.  

At that time, especially with a roommate, (pretty common there to see ads for a roommate) he could have gotten by long enough to find a job.  He didn't have to have a place with a pool.  😉  LA is huge, there were many cheaper areas to rent.  He did need clothes though, he probably stopped at a thrift store to pick up stuff for the trip, and in LA the thrift stores can be pretty amazing.  

I do agree that not having a car could be problematic, but again, back then?  My first car was $100 and it was huge, but solid mechanically.  Food was cheap too, especially if you like Mexican food.  We used to pick a different little mom and pop place and order the special ($2, TONS of great food.)

Honestly his shaved head (assuming he took of that weird ponytail) could have worked for him as well, or against him.  Shaved head usually meant "just out of the service."  Unfortunately it could also mean "just out of prison."  In a month or two that wouldn't matter anyway.

[Old Man Neil]

Umbelina, the thing is, you were on your way up in the world; Paul was on his way down. Sure, he could have turned his life around. Moved to LA, found a roommate, a place to live and a job, if he did all the right things, and didn't do anything foolish. But that doesn't sound like Paul to me. Paul was looking for a writing job and he probably would have wasted time trying to catch on at one of the studios. I'm not saying it wasn't nice of Harry to give him $500. But I think it might have been more of an act of friendship to level with him about his screenplay and lack of prospects for success in the business. 

[Umbelina]

12 minutes ago, Old Man Neil said:

Umbelina, the thing is, you were on your way up in the world; Paul was on his way down. Sure, he could have turned his life around. Moved to LA, found a roommate, a place to live and a job, if he did all the right things, and didn't do anything foolish. But that doesn't sound like Paul to me. Paul was looking for a writing job and he probably would have wasted time trying to catch on at one of the studios. I'm not saying it wasn't nice of Harry to give him $500. But I think it might have been more of an act of friendship to level with him about his screenplay and lack of prospects for success in the business. 

Could be.

I wouldn't have taken a person who was broken down into a shadow of himself and told him something negative though.

I honestly think getting away from that woman and the krishnas alone would give him a huge boost.  He was never super talented, but he was easy to get along with "he could really close" and after what he's lived through, even a job as a waiter would have probably seemed like heaven.  

Lots of people never make it in Hollywood, Paul probably won't.  Still he has sunshine, the beach and ocean, and enough to make a fresh start.  I doubt he would consider any semi decent job beneath him, it's gotta be better than begging on the street.  He'll fit in there, and I think he will be happy.

 

[Old Man Neil]

Just now, Umbelina said:

Lots of people never make it in Hollywood, Paul probably won't.  Still he has sunshine, the beach and ocean, and enough to make a fresh start.  I doubt he would consider any semi decent job beneath him, it's gotta be better than begging on the street.  He'll fit in there, and I think he will be happy.

Could be. I like your sunny optimism. 

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I honestly think getting away from that woman and the krishnas alone would give him a huge boost.  He was never super talented, but he was easy to get along with "he could really close" and after what he's lived through, even a job as a waiter would have probably seemed like heaven.  

Yeah, that's how I saw it. Harry didn't promise him anything in California, he just told him to get out there and try it. It's not like his only hope would be as a writer. He could work in some other aspect of TV.

The main thing is that what he gave Paul was better than he had in NY, even if it would be better in the long run to level with him about his script. In New York he had no job, no place to live and he was in a cult. In California he had no job, no place to live and five hundred dollars. He got a lot more than he was expecting to get out of the meeting with Harry--all he expected was Harry to pass the script along, which would have left him in exactly the same place he was in in California, but without the money and with the cult.

The main thing that Harry saw was that he needed to get away from Mother Lakshmi, who was just as much of a pipe dream as his career as a writer. She was just trying to keep him in the cult and wasn't in love with him at all. Harry cared about him enough to try to give him something at least and didn't want anything from him.

[Old Man Neil]

34 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

"he could really close"

What episode was that in and what was the context? I remember it being said, but that's all I remember. Did we get any examples? 

[sistermagpie]

37 minutes ago, Old Man Neil said:

What episode was that in and what was the context? I remember it being said, but that's all I remember. Did we get any examples? 

It was Lakshmi talking about how Paul was really good at getting people into the cult. He was a great recruiter.

[Old Man Neil]

Just now, sistermagpie said:

It was Lakshmi talking about how Paul was really good at getting people into the cult. He was a great recruiter.

Thank you!

[Umbelina]

17 hours ago, Old Man Neil said:

Could be. I like your sunny optimism. 

I'd like to rewrite or imagine better endings for most of them, not all.

Peggy with Stan, a best friend guy who doesn't object to her working, and accepts her?  Good ending, no idea if it will last, but it might.

Ken eventually, after exacting enough revenge, retires early with a huge parachute, and continues writing, back in the country with wife and kiddos.

Don gets his kids back, Sally will stay in school, but visit.  He hires a hell of a nanny, who is in no way attractive to him, and without sacrificing his work obsessions completely, does raise his boys.  BS on them staying with Henry or that odious brother in law.

Trudy and Pete?  PERFECT ending, I wouldn't change a thing.

Roger and Marie stay together until one of them, probably Roger, dies.  They globe trot and have fun.

Ginsberg (aw damn I really want a happy ending for him, maybe his father fights for him, new drugs to help him are discovered, but most of those might mute his genius at creating.  I just want him to have a happy life...but can't see how.)

Joan makes a fortune in producing, is respected, never marries again, raises a great son, employs a lot of women, and enjoys occasional love affairs.

Megan eventually marries a rich producer from France, she travels there and does art films, some of them eventually are respected work, but she enjoys living in France, and her husband, though he has girls on the side, is loving and well respected in the industry.  As she gets older, she's rich, well cared for, accepted in the best circles, and probably uses a lot of pills.

Harry is rich and powerful and finds a new wife, cheats all the time, which is expected by his new friends, the jerks at McCann.  They respect him because of all his tales about banging new actresses.  

Paul gets a job in the industry eventually, after working his way up in menial jobs, Harry might even help out a little there after Paul gets his foot in the door.  Maybe he eventually becomes and editor in TV work.

 

Anyone else want to play?

 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

Joan makes a fortune in producing, is respected, never marries again, raises a great son, employs a lot of women, and enjoys occasional love affairs.

One thing I've always considered canon is that Joan's producing company becomes incredibly successful in some part because Pete sends all lots of corporate connections he makes through Lir Jet to Joan, telling them she's the best person they've never heard of until she earns a reputation that gets her clients on her own. Maybe one or more of her most fun love affairs come via that too.

[Old Man Neil]

Peggy flies to Paris, looks out her hotel room window, and sees a couple of French poodles humping on the sidewalk. 

[Old Man Neil]

Allison falls in love with a good man. They get married and are very happy together, until the day her husband says, "Honey, have you seen my keys?"

[Guest]

On 7/3/2020 at 5:12 PM, Ralphster said:

I have a hugely unpopular opinion, and that is that Harry was justified in pointing out Joan's prostitution. I was sickened by that plotline. Modern feminism has repeatedly railed against women doing that, because it is hugely demeaning and hurtful. Yet Joan has gotten so many hurrahs for this behaviour. She had the choice to say no; she wasn't starving or facing eviction or lacking in childcare. Perhaps this should elicit a discussion elsewhere of whether most people would literally whore themselves out for a large sum, but that seems a bit of a digression.

Harry brought the company into the TV age. This is huge beyond measure. Without Harry's perspicacity, Sterling Cooper and later iterations would have foundered in trying to rush to keep up with other firms who not only had a good handle on what worked & didn't work for TV, but who would have already established relationships with the networks, etc. Harry's contributions in this regard are almost always overlooked, IMO, while Joan's act of prostitution is praised. Having experienced rape myself, when I had no choice whatsoever in what happened to me, it is hugely galling to see people claiming Joan was victimized. Maybe she could be considered victimized in that her contributions, which were huge, should have been recognised along with Harry's by the partners long hence (in which case Harry is also a victim), but not in her choice to have sex for money. I cannot and will not cast Joan as a victim in this situation, nor will I cheer her on for "getting hers." I completely understand Harry's rage and humiliation, not to mention his disgust; Harry keeps getting steamrolled by the company. In the end, when he's just about to make partner, they sell to McCann and he misses out AGAIN. That's THE definition of wrong.

I also think Greg gets the shaft, too. He's a rapist, so he can go jump off a cliff for all I care, but Joan committed paternity fraud. The fact that the child was never Greg's negates, for me, his behaviour in choosing to stay overseas away from his "family." Who's to say he didn't sense in some way that the child wasn't his, either through the child itself or through Joan's mannerisms? He already felt insecure about Joan's sexuality and her relationship with Roger (and probably men in general); perhaps he never fully believed the child was his, because he never trusted Joan (for good reason). In any case, he can't be considered bad for this because the child wasn't his. I understand the other side's argument here - that, if Greg believed the child to be his, his behaviour was reprehensible - but I firmly believe that the beginning of all this was a huge lie, therefore Greg's behaviour is not the evil behaviour it is characterized as. 

Also, Joan is a terrible, terrible person for lying about her son's paternity. Having dealt with this in real life, people who do this are not good people. They are selfish and care only about their own narratives, not about the truth or what's best for other people. Only what's good for them. And in this case, Joan had decided she would cling to Dr. Loser for the time being, and so it was good for her to lie about her child's paternity so that her narrative could keep chugging along. Kevin deserves to know who his real father is, and Greg deserves to know the child isn't his. That's the only positive thing I will say about Greg, who is overall not a good person either. It's why he and Joan deserved each other, IMO. I always loathed Joan; deep down, she belongs in a trailer park, for she just has that mentality about her. She isn't sophisticated, she isn't openminded, she is drama-centered and narcissistic and lacks dignity. It says a lot about our society that the behaviour of someone like Joan is conflated with dignity.

I completely agree with this whole post.

On 7/3/2020 at 6:30 PM, sistermagpie said:

She absolutely had the choice to say no. But she found herself in a position here she could ask for a partnership and she did. It doesn't really matter if most people would literally whore themselves out for a large sum, imo. Joan did it because she wanted to, and frankly it didn't seem that far off from the way she'd moved through the world before that anyway. The only way I'd think feminism would come into it was to say there's no difference between a man or a woman doing that way. Joan wasn't setting a precedent it doesn't seem.

It does bother me when it gets rewritten as Joan somehow tricked or starving or having no choice to say no. (Also where the partners are said to be tricked into it--every single person knew exactly what they were doing here.) Nothing in the show suggests that. She just made a deal that fell into her lap. I doubt she regrets it. The money gave her the ability to start her own company and walk away from McCann where she was expected to sleep with the men there for nothing.

I do think sometimes Joan gets interpreted as being feminist even when she's enthusiastically supporting the patriarchy. She only becomes anything like a feminist when working within the system stops working for her.

 

I agree with this as well and would like to add, the dramatic tears when Don fires Jaguar (who were clearly on their way out anyway) and the way she used that to feed her anger and mistreatment for Don for a season was horrible.  She made her choice, got rich, and then decided she was the fictim.

On 7/6/2020 at 5:06 PM, Umbelina said:

 

Also, unlike Joan, NONE of the partners liked Harry.  He was an asshole.  They didn't want him as a partner because he was, and remained a jerk.

All the partners, Joan included, were huge jerks. They all had good moments, including Harry, but overall they were horrible human beings.  Roger rarely showed any consideration for others except the few he liked. Joan mistreated most of the women in the office on a regular basis. Don cheated on both wives, traumatized Sally, stole a man's identity, etc. 

I felt there was a lot of wish fulfillment in the last season's writing.  Harry goes from being a jerk to expecting Megan to sleep with him and then gets the shaft by the partners for a laugh.  Joan and Peggy suddenly are such great friends and Joan is able to snap her fingers to create a new business successfully. Don is able to write one of the most iconic commercials of all time.  Roger remains Roger. Peggy finds love.  It lead to, for me,  a very happy experience watching it come together but in hindsight, not great.

[Ohiopirate02]

On 7/11/2020 at 2:31 PM, Umbelina said:

I'd like to rewrite or imagine better endings for most of them, not all.

 

Don gets his kids back, Sally will stay in school, but visit.  He hires a hell of a nanny, who is in no way attractive to him, and without sacrificing his work obsessions completely, does raise his boys.  BS on them staying with Henry or that odious brother in law.

 

 

I just cannot see Don raising his sons on a daily basis.  He just is not capable of handling all of the work that goes into taking care of kids.  There is only so much a nanny can do.  Betty is right about him and what the boys need.  As annoying as her brother was during the show, Betty made the right call.  The best that could happen is Don takes an active interest in the boys.  That he takes them on extended vacations and bonds with them before dropping them off back into a home where someone is taking care of all the minutia.  That is where Don is his best with his kids.  

[Old Man Neil]

3 hours ago, deaja said:

Joan mistreated most of the women in the office on a regular basis.

You are the second person to say this recently, but that wasn't my impression. Can you give some examples? 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Old Man Neil said:

You are the second person to say this recently, but that wasn't my impression. Can you give some examples? 

Joan treats every person she feels is beneath her like crap.  From throwing the Mohawk airplane model at Meredith, to snide remarks to all of the other secretaries especially Scarlet, to the way she treats the sales girl at the department store, etc.  I could go on because she is consistent.  She turns on the charm for the men and the wives.

[Old Man Neil]

On 6/4/2020 at 10:43 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

Early Joan was such a bitch to the rest of the female staff. 

But the Mohawk Meredith incident didn't happen until Season 5 and there were extenuating circumstances. I remember she came down pretty hard on the secretary who sent her the flowers intended for Lane's wife in The Good News but wasn't that deserved? As for Scarlet, she needed reprimanding. 

In the early seasons, I remember her counselling Peggy to be nice to the switchboard operators, and trying to give good advice to Peggy in general, even if it was a bit snarky. She and Jane exchanged words, but Jane started it. 

Of course, you are right about the department store sales person. 

4 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

She turns on the charm for the men and the wives.

You make it sound like she sucks up to the guys and their wives. I don't see anything other than charming professionalism. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Old Man Neil
Edited for accuracy

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I just cannot see Don raising his sons on a daily basis.  He just is not capable of handling all of the work that goes into taking care of kids.  There is only so much a nanny can do.  Betty is right about him and what the boys need.  As annoying as her brother was during the show, Betty made the right call.  The best that could happen is Don takes an active interest in the boys.  That he takes them on extended vacations and bonds with them before dropping them off back into a home where someone is taking care of all the minutia.  That is where Don is his best with his kids.  

I felt like that was one of the main points of Don's story. Not that he shouldn't have his kids or anything like that, but that he needed to see who he was in relationships and stop imagining that he could just become another person, in this case the reliable single parent who's not going to follow any urges to disappear like he's done every other time. Especially once he starts to feel like it's not working out the way he imagined.