I never watched "Mad Men," nor "The West Wing," because neither premise appealed to me. "Mad Men" because I read that it was very misogynist, which isn't surprising, considering it was set in the 1960s. Oddly, I can watch reruns of classic shows from the 1960s, that certainly were misogynist at times, but not always. June Lockhart played a doctor on "Petticoat Junction," for instance. Even housewives like Lilly Munster had power - she loved her husband, but wasn't afraid to stand up to him, which was a good thing, because Herman was lovable, but a dope. Shows like that, produced in the 1960s don't so much as get a pass from me, but understanding that it was part of the times. However, not shows produced in the 2000s about the 1960s. Yes, show the misogyny, but counteract that with how stupid it was, and still is. Maybe "Mad Men" did that, but I'm not wasting my time watching to find out if they did.
As for "The West Wing," it seemed too idealized about America, the presidency, and Congress, and being set in the present time, hard pass. I can't explain it, but it just seemed wrong to me. Millions disagreed, and that's OK. It just wasn't, and still isn't, for me.
I remember thinking at the time that it was one of the more feminist series I'd seen in awhile. It really showed just how baked in the bigotry and misogyny was, as well as the effect it had on personal lives. At the same time, the characters weren't just one note, villian and hero. Pete was incredibly misogynistic, but didn't share Roger's hatred of asians and blacks in talking about how they were a growing market that needed to be explored. And Roger understood Peg's incredible talent when she was the one he went to when he needed genius copy on a moment's notice - and agreed to her terms to pay her all the cash he had on him. And when she asked for that newly empty office, he respected her initiative and gave it to her over what he knew would be the objections of men.
Salvatore was a window into what it took to navigate being gay in a hyper masculine workplace.
You saw differently Peg and Joan navigated the mine field that was the office, and exercised what limited power and influence they had very well, while Betty withered despite outward privilege.
I think a challenge for some modern liberal audiences is when a work depicts bigoted/flawed characters as relatable or even sympathetic. It's sort of like how MAGA doesn't get comedy because they just think it's one-sided bullying (which isn't actually funny).
The scene between Pete and Harry after MLK's assassination was truly compelling. Harry is like so many people I encountered in *1990/2000s* New York -- superficially benign but deeply prejudiced at their core. While a Pete -- who could be a jerk -- was often the professional ally for you. Life is complex.
Nostalgia for a certain time period means idealizing the parts that you like to remember, and totally ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative.
Well hell, almost all sitcoms from the '50s (most iconic being "Leave it to Beaver") are definitely more of an impact. People also take whatever things they like most about an era and wax nostalgic for it...and when there's political power behind them they seek to bend the world to their whims.
I had a former friend who was really nostalgic for the 1970s because there was more of the "free love" movement (though I argue you can still find plenty of that), but the major difference then is women had less of a say. It's the same thing behind why I loathe people who were nostalgic for the 1950s.
Also even with all the horrors we have nowadays I wouldn't want to go back to the 80s and 90s, even if I liked the music. I'm happy to have the tools and connections we have now to interact with the world.
And generally people who are nostalgic for the Good Old Days™ are nostalgic for a time when they could have extra control over others.
It's cynically promoting millionaires as "average Joes" whose opinions are based on salt o' the Earth wisdom.
It's Bush Jr's team saying that reality doesn't matter, they act and create their own reality. Cynically lying to people to convince them to go to an unnecessary war which killed a lot of people and transferred a lot of wealth to wealthy corporations and individuals.
It's the media obfuscating truth out of a sense of "objectivity".
It's the creation of the Federalist Society and it's commitment to skewing the Federal judiciary into radicals for whom ideology trumps the law and everything else.
It's Rush Limbaugh and his sponsors and billionaire friends realizing that Hate is a commodity that can make money and truth doesn't matter.
It's Reagan convincing Americans that cutting taxes for the wealthy will lead to more government revenue and more wealth for the average Joe. Denial of reality and lies.
It's Falwell and Bob Jones Jr. coming up with a new way to package bigotry against non-whites without the nasty baggage and with a dose of plausible deniability.
It's Nixon and his dirty tricks.
It's the Southern Democrats of old who filibustered every civil rights advancement.
It's fundamentalists railing against the evils of letting women vote and science.
It's white hoods and burning crosses and terrorism to enforce their will on an unwilling people.
It's the smoking ruins of Tulsa's prosperous Black neighborhood.
It's the South bullshitting about the Civil War and the "Lost Cause".
It's the Southern Baptists breaking off from the Baptist convention because they wanted to own people.
It's the people of New York imagining a slave revolt and butchering innocent people.
It's the first chain forged. The first link bent. It is the desire to see the world in hierarchies and demand that others see it to or face violence. It is a war of all against all and a commitment to do whatever it takes to cling to power until it is violently wrested away by another power and then plot and scheme and lie and do anything to claw back the power.
MAGA is as old as the United States and probably older.
Popular culture might reflect that in its stories, but it didn't invent it.
Well, you are talking to a person who found the comforting fiction of "West Wing" intolerable, and I blamed it and Alan Sorkin in part for the American political docility that permitted the re-election of Bush moron son,GW, on a virulently homophobic platform. I found "Mad Men" infuriatingly unwatchable as I LIVED though that era and it was horrific for women. HORRIFIC. (Full disclosure: I also LOATHED the movie "Diner" - despite it's extraordinary ensemble of actors - for it's completely fucked up view of women - in many shots the female characters don't even have heads! Something can be "well done" - and still REPELLENT. In fact I think a well-done thing that makes unspeakable things "attractive" or "palatable" is doubly compromised. Make of me what you will.) Mad Men didn't make Trump Trump. But the fucking awful 50s, 60s and 70s did. And I am leery of ANYTHING that makes those decades "cool". They most decidedly were not, just as the Reagan Reality Show 80s were NOT.
And I hope no one sane thinks Regency England or Turn of the Century New York "society" were ever racially diverse. Gilded Age and Bridgerton, in particular, are fantastical, empty calorie, jewel tone and pastel, modern day classist, "cake and icing" romance novel soap opera confections that ask us to imagine "what if" the respective British and American "aristocracies" had been more racially diverse? Well, if any ot that had been real, perhaps the world today would be a fucking better place run by all those non-White caramel- and moccachino-colored great-great grandchild descendants of massive unearned wealth and privilege. "What if", in-fucking-deed!
(Yeah, I am completely UP MY NOSE about this stuff. Fight me.)
Yeah, my issue is that the Duke and Duchess of Useless exist -- not that they are racially diverse. One big problem those stories have is depicting otherwise wealthy people (say the Bennets) as "poor" (sure, by the standards of the uber wealthy). They literally ignore the servants who worked in the Bennet house.
Yes! I always laughed at people who thought Draper was some hero rather than a sad tragic out of touch guy. Same with the “fuck you pay me” goodfellas fans. Did they not watch the whole movie?
I never watched "Mad Men," nor "The West Wing," because neither premise appealed to me. "Mad Men" because I read that it was very misogynist, which isn't surprising, considering it was set in the 1960s. Oddly, I can watch reruns of classic shows from the 1960s, that certainly were misogynist at times, but not always. June Lockhart played a doctor on "Petticoat Junction," for instance. Even housewives like Lilly Munster had power - she loved her husband, but wasn't afraid to stand up to him, which was a good thing, because Herman was lovable, but a dope. Shows like that, produced in the 1960s don't so much as get a pass from me, but understanding that it was part of the times. However, not shows produced in the 2000s about the 1960s. Yes, show the misogyny, but counteract that with how stupid it was, and still is. Maybe "Mad Men" did that, but I'm not wasting my time watching to find out if they did.
As for "The West Wing," it seemed too idealized about America, the presidency, and Congress, and being set in the present time, hard pass. I can't explain it, but it just seemed wrong to me. Millions disagreed, and that's OK. It just wasn't, and still isn't, for me.
I remember thinking at the time that it was one of the more feminist series I'd seen in awhile. It really showed just how baked in the bigotry and misogyny was, as well as the effect it had on personal lives. At the same time, the characters weren't just one note, villian and hero. Pete was incredibly misogynistic, but didn't share Roger's hatred of asians and blacks in talking about how they were a growing market that needed to be explored. And Roger understood Peg's incredible talent when she was the one he went to when he needed genius copy on a moment's notice - and agreed to her terms to pay her all the cash he had on him. And when she asked for that newly empty office, he respected her initiative and gave it to her over what he knew would be the objections of men.
Salvatore was a window into what it took to navigate being gay in a hyper masculine workplace.
You saw differently Peg and Joan navigated the mine field that was the office, and exercised what limited power and influence they had very well, while Betty withered despite outward privilege.
I think a challenge for some modern liberal audiences is when a work depicts bigoted/flawed characters as relatable or even sympathetic. It's sort of like how MAGA doesn't get comedy because they just think it's one-sided bullying (which isn't actually funny).
The scene between Pete and Harry after MLK's assassination was truly compelling. Harry is like so many people I encountered in *1990/2000s* New York -- superficially benign but deeply prejudiced at their core. While a Pete -- who could be a jerk -- was often the professional ally for you. Life is complex.
Nostalgia for a certain time period means idealizing the parts that you like to remember, and totally ignoring the parts that don't fit your narrative.
Well hell, almost all sitcoms from the '50s (most iconic being "Leave it to Beaver") are definitely more of an impact. People also take whatever things they like most about an era and wax nostalgic for it...and when there's political power behind them they seek to bend the world to their whims.
I had a former friend who was really nostalgic for the 1970s because there was more of the "free love" movement (though I argue you can still find plenty of that), but the major difference then is women had less of a say. It's the same thing behind why I loathe people who were nostalgic for the 1950s.
Also even with all the horrors we have nowadays I wouldn't want to go back to the 80s and 90s, even if I liked the music. I'm happy to have the tools and connections we have now to interact with the world.
And generally people who are nostalgic for the Good Old Days™ are nostalgic for a time when they could have extra control over others.
Tracing MAGA back in history is easy.
It's cynically promoting millionaires as "average Joes" whose opinions are based on salt o' the Earth wisdom.
It's Bush Jr's team saying that reality doesn't matter, they act and create their own reality. Cynically lying to people to convince them to go to an unnecessary war which killed a lot of people and transferred a lot of wealth to wealthy corporations and individuals.
It's the media obfuscating truth out of a sense of "objectivity".
It's the creation of the Federalist Society and it's commitment to skewing the Federal judiciary into radicals for whom ideology trumps the law and everything else.
It's Rush Limbaugh and his sponsors and billionaire friends realizing that Hate is a commodity that can make money and truth doesn't matter.
It's Reagan convincing Americans that cutting taxes for the wealthy will lead to more government revenue and more wealth for the average Joe. Denial of reality and lies.
It's Falwell and Bob Jones Jr. coming up with a new way to package bigotry against non-whites without the nasty baggage and with a dose of plausible deniability.
It's Nixon and his dirty tricks.
It's the Southern Democrats of old who filibustered every civil rights advancement.
It's fundamentalists railing against the evils of letting women vote and science.
It's white hoods and burning crosses and terrorism to enforce their will on an unwilling people.
It's the smoking ruins of Tulsa's prosperous Black neighborhood.
It's the South bullshitting about the Civil War and the "Lost Cause".
It's the Southern Baptists breaking off from the Baptist convention because they wanted to own people.
It's the people of New York imagining a slave revolt and butchering innocent people.
It's the first chain forged. The first link bent. It is the desire to see the world in hierarchies and demand that others see it to or face violence. It is a war of all against all and a commitment to do whatever it takes to cling to power until it is violently wrested away by another power and then plot and scheme and lie and do anything to claw back the power.
MAGA is as old as the United States and probably older.
Popular culture might reflect that in its stories, but it didn't invent it.
Well, you are talking to a person who found the comforting fiction of "West Wing" intolerable, and I blamed it and Alan Sorkin in part for the American political docility that permitted the re-election of Bush moron son,GW, on a virulently homophobic platform. I found "Mad Men" infuriatingly unwatchable as I LIVED though that era and it was horrific for women. HORRIFIC. (Full disclosure: I also LOATHED the movie "Diner" - despite it's extraordinary ensemble of actors - for it's completely fucked up view of women - in many shots the female characters don't even have heads! Something can be "well done" - and still REPELLENT. In fact I think a well-done thing that makes unspeakable things "attractive" or "palatable" is doubly compromised. Make of me what you will.) Mad Men didn't make Trump Trump. But the fucking awful 50s, 60s and 70s did. And I am leery of ANYTHING that makes those decades "cool". They most decidedly were not, just as the Reagan Reality Show 80s were NOT.
And I hope no one sane thinks Regency England or Turn of the Century New York "society" were ever racially diverse. Gilded Age and Bridgerton, in particular, are fantastical, empty calorie, jewel tone and pastel, modern day classist, "cake and icing" romance novel soap opera confections that ask us to imagine "what if" the respective British and American "aristocracies" had been more racially diverse? Well, if any ot that had been real, perhaps the world today would be a fucking better place run by all those non-White caramel- and moccachino-colored great-great grandchild descendants of massive unearned wealth and privilege. "What if", in-fucking-deed!
(Yeah, I am completely UP MY NOSE about this stuff. Fight me.)
Yeah, my issue is that the Duke and Duchess of Useless exist -- not that they are racially diverse. One big problem those stories have is depicting otherwise wealthy people (say the Bennets) as "poor" (sure, by the standards of the uber wealthy). They literally ignore the servants who worked in the Bennet house.
Now THAT is a great rant!
Yes! I always laughed at people who thought Draper was some hero rather than a sad tragic out of touch guy. Same with the “fuck you pay me” goodfellas fans. Did they not watch the whole movie?
People have a history of misinterpreting the nature of stories that have deeply flawed or evil protagonists.
The same people watched The Sopranos and came away thinking that Tony was the good guy. Did they skip the therapy scenes?