Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Atheist-based business offers fundies adoption service for dogs left behind by The Rapture Previous entry: Boycotts And Sex: Two Things This Person May Not Get

Mad Men blogging: Dick in a box

Back in Austin, Pandagonians, and so regular blogging will commence.  Which means I’m finally able to get around to “Mad Men” blogging, since I finally saw it last night.  This edition’s title was suggested by Marc.  As usual, spoilers.

Early on in the show, Don and Suzanne are laying in bed, talking about that little childish thing you wonder and never completely resolve as an adult: everyone roughly agrees on what is blue (or red or yellow), but are we actually seeing the same thing when we look at “blue”?  In the strictest sense, we know that not everyone sees colors the same—-the existence of colorblindness proves that—-but for those of us not missing the sensors for certain colors, the question remains.  When you see blue, does it look different than when I see blue? 

On the surface, the conversation highlights the differences between Suzanne and Don’s worldviews, and explains why Don is going to start seeing Suzanne as a daughter figure he must protect (as Betty continues to wonder about Henry, a father figure). It’s not just that Suzanne engages with childish questions so earnestly (seeing a value in them I find legitimate), but also that Don is so cynical, believing (probably correctly) that the question is more a disturbance to most people than anything else, because everyone wants to see blue the same way. 

But the questions also sets up the theme of this show, which is perception.  The various story lines are all about looking at how one person’s view of another person may not match what others see.  Or I’d say what’s there, but I think the show ends abruptly on an important question about what reality even is, as we get a shot of everyone looking at Don, and Betty’s view is so different than everyone else’s.  But is it more accurate?  At this point, I contest that Dick Whitman is really who Don Draper is, any more than we are “really” our childish selves, and not the people we become.  Don just shoves his childish self in a box, while the rest of us file it away in our minds.  But it’s understandable that Betty’s not going to see it that way.  And so we’re asked to believe that the multiple views of Don Draper have varying degrees of accuracy, and two people who see very different views of Don can both be right.  Roger’s speech points to this, when he calls Don a father, a husband, a partner, etc.  Many different ways of seeing blue.


The entire episode was laced throughout with conflicting views.  Peggy says that Don hates her, and Paul says that Don loves her.  Paul asks Achilles the janitor if he’s Greek, and Achilles says he’s American—-and we realize that both are true in a sense, at least if Achilles is Greek-American.  Suzanne sees her brother differently than he sees himself, and Don gets another view entirely.  Paul initially believes that Peggy is rising because she’s a woman (!), but then he comes around to seeing that Peggy is simply better than he is at the job. The phone rings and the person on the other side hangs up, providing both Betty and Don a blank slate on which to project what their anxieties and secrets.  Each comes to believe that the hang-up was their secret lover, and was the little story Betty told Sally about a wrong number actually the truth?  Price obviously loves New York City and the American way of doing business, but all his wife sees when it comes to the city is filth and disorder. Betty looks at the divorce decree of Don’s and no doubt imagines a prior love affair and marriage; but from Don’s perspective, the divorce decree represents an old friendship and an act of love for his real wife Betty.  Bert intends to skip out on the party because the memories it stirs up depress him, but Price points out that other people will think he’s sick.  Bert agrees to go, because Bert is a firm believer that perception creates reality.  Which is why focusing on “truth” in this episode is to miss the point.  Betty sits up half the night with the “truth” in a box in front of her, eagerly waiting for a reckoning that doesn’t come.  Instead, the “lie” continues to form her reality, which forces the viewer to ask which one is the lie and which one is the truth.  What’s more real—-their fun weekend in Rome, their miserable marriage now, the fact that their marriage is arguably not real?  All of it, even if it conflicts. 

All of this is why the last shot of the episode isn’t a shot of the person that everyone in the room is staring at, but a shot of one of the people doing the staring.  Perception is forming reality—-what Betty believes isn’t the “truth”, even if it feels like it, because those documents block out the love Don honestly had for her—-and Bert would be pleased. 

But even in an episode that ponders the question of “what is blue?” and concludes that it depends on the viewer, there is a caveat about how far this can be taken.  Don and Suzanne’s brother argue precisely this issue.  Don’s stance is that one should fake it until they make it, which he can believe, since he did that.  He perceived himself as Don Draper, and became that.  Suzanne’s brother points out that he can fake it until he wakes up from a fit covered in piss.  That’s the sort of blunt reality impervious to illusion and projection, and a reminder that philosophical inquiries about the nature of reality and perception should be tempered by a respect for certain blunt realities.  It’s all well and good to talk about subjectivity and relativity, but let’s not go past the point where we’re pretending that creationism is a legitimate viewpoint, people who think vaccines cause autism deserve to have that view respected, or that racism doesn’t truly constrain people’s choices.  Don must concede that some things are beyond the control of perception, and gives Suzanne’s brother money to let him go into night.  And then he lies to her about it, controlling her reality.
************************

By the way, I just to gloat a little thatBenjamin Schwartz’s dream-killing misreading of “Mad Men” and right wing wankers like Lisa Schiffren gloating about Schwartz’s piece.  Schwartz hangs his entire “the 50s weren’t so bad!” argument on one very minor flaw the writers on “Mad Men” put on the show—-they have Betty talking about her sorority, but Betty went to Bryn Mawr, which has no sororities—-and uses that to strongly imply that the recklessness, the racism, and the sexism are exaggerated, missing the entire point of the show.  At this point, both Schiffren and Schwartz argue that no way could Betty have gone to Bryn Mawr (as if her family connections weren’t the major factor in where she went), because they believe Betty is a bimbo.  But their accusation is evidence-free—-Betty is a beautiful blonde and shallow, sure, but she’s also been, as I noted before, routinely characterized as having more of an attachment to an intellectual life than Don.  Don’s always scribbling notes about work at home, but Betty is always reading.  Schiffren actually says, “We’ve only twice seen her with a book,” which is patently false, as we saw her 3 times in this one episode alone reading.  Showing people reading on TV isn’t done—-we almost never see the other characters doing it—-because it’s static.  But we see Betty reading all the time, and she’s often reading famous novels of the period.  That Schiffren can’t get that detail right is way more telling than the Bryn Mawr sorority detail.  (Sororities are far from an indicator that someone is a lightweight, particularly when it comes to the 50s.)  It’s not out of the question that a Bryn Mawr graduate would go into modeling, for fuck’s sake.  We’ve been told repeatedly that Betty is insecure about her looks, because she was a fat child, and always seeking validation.  Being well-educated doesn’t preclude that.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:36 AM • (44) Comments

Price obviously loves New York City and the American way of doing business, but all his wife sees when it comes to the city is filth and disorder.

Price also sees it as an escape from the stifling class system in England—he specifically says that no one has asked him where he went to school since he arrived.  I think there’s been a hint that Price’s wife is a step or two above him, socially, so I can see why he would be thrilled to live in a city/country where no one cares if he went to Eton.  Part of the abuse he suffers from his bosses is that they’re above him, socially, and they all know it.  His wife would be less thrilled since she wouldn’t be receiving the social deference she’s used to getting in England.  She gets treated like every other woman in America, which is pretty crappy.  (Not that England was a utopia—far from it—but for her at least there was some deference and the small amount of power that went with it that she could count on.)

I thought it was interesting that they touched on disabled issues again in this episode.  Suzanne’s brother has epilepsy and it makes him basically unemployable because he gets fired as soon as he has a seizure in public.

Comment #1: Mnemosyne  on  10/24  at  11:59 AM

Yeah, I think Kinsey’s perception shattered by reality moment was even more heavy. He has a great idea and loses it and is distraught by that once in a lifetime experience. One which Peggy and Don basically sympathize with because they have that happen all the time and to put the exclamation mark Peggy has the same face change with brilliance response he had the night before during the meeting.

And let’s also admit that Kinsey’s quixotic “I’m going to fight you” behaviors to people who have already proven themselves ahead of him is based on his insecurity in college and how others see him as being the same WASP frat type as the rest of the department, but having a bit of a chip on his shoulder that he was a scholarship boy.

I suspect his hipster obsession with counterculture is that warring desire to fit in with the stark knowledge that on some inherent level he doesn’t, but that in the counterculture, he can be mr. privilege disseminator of knowledge.

And yeah, I suspect the right wing mischaracterizing of Betty is entirely because we’re trained to treat all housewives, especially blonde attractive ones as morons. It aids the patriarchy. That and it’s probably frightening to right-wingers that the woman they keep at home isn’t stupider than them and that instead they’ve trapped someone smarter than them in a hideous meaningless existence as house-slave. Hell, it’s the big reason they’re so angry/frightened of feminists. They could infect their wives and suddenly they’ll have someone aware of their house slave role and rebelling.

I suspect for Betty the temptation to use the box as her escape ticket out of her miserable unfulfilling life is engaging in hand-to-hand blows with her training to “always be proper” (which is the same battle going on with her waffling on Henry). Given her history, I suspect she’ll let out that she knows during their next big fight, but that she won’t have yet learned enough or explored herself enough to know exactly what to do about it.

Comment #2: Cerberus  on  10/24  at  12:05 PM

But we see Betty reading all the time, and she’s often reading famous novels of the period.  That Schiffren can’t get that detail right is way more telling than the Bryn Mawr sorority detail.  (Sororities are far from an indicator that someone is a lightweight, particularly when it comes to the 50s.) It’s not out of the question that a Bryn Mawr graduate would go into modeling, for fuck’s sake.

True.  Then again, just because someone attended an Ivy/Ivy-level school does not necessarily mean they are more intellectually inclined/intellectual than those who attended a non-Ivy/Ivy-level school….or didn’t attend college for one reason or another.  Especially before the mid-1960s when Ivy/Ivy-level undergrad admissions were much more about one’s family connections and wealth(i.e. Bush family) than about one’s academic merits.  This was something my uncle continued to notice during his first few years as a member of Yale College class of 1970 as there was a big social and mentality gap between those admitted under the old “superlegacy” system and those admitted on a comparatively more meritocratic basis. 

As for fraternities/sororities comment, several Profs and friends’ parents who attended colleges with frats/sororities would disagree.  Only differences from the ‘50’s and today’s frats/sorority as far as they were concerned is that more people know about their negatives through hearing about such experiences from the older generation who attended college during that period and can see and call out the BS much more than in the glorified past.  As far as the Greek system itself, while there have been some measures to curb their excesses, not much has changed from the 1950’s as far as they were concerned.

Comment #3: exholt  on  10/24  at  12:44 PM

On Price, I’m not entirely convinced it’s entirely his love of America that makes him like where he is now.

I mean, the pendulum in the background is that the bosses last revealed that they wanted him to go to India and as far as he knows that’s still in the works so for him it’s not America or England, but America or India.

That and I suspect given how much his bosses abuse him when they talk with him that he’s enjoying the distance from the bosses in the same way as Americans before the Revolution. He’s getting a taste of not having a boss breathing down his neck every day, but only every couple of days and he’s liking that most of all.

Comment #4: Cerberus  on  10/24  at  12:48 PM

exholt, I certainly wasn’t saying otherwise.  But this is a TV show—-thus it won’t do to be too literal.  The contrast between Betty and Don’s intelligence is one of the most interesting insights of the show.  Betty is smart because she has all the advantages in life, and anyone who disputes that wealth and education can make you smarter is fooling themselves for ideological reasons.  That’s *why* it’s important to have public education for all and public museums, to spread those advantages around.  We don’t do it enough, of course, and the wealthy are still able to buy their children IQ points through more intense education and a pampered lifestyle that makes getting smarter easier to do, as well as better nutrition and health care.  Ask anyone from a working class background who went to college how much more of a struggle it can be when you weren’t raised by people who really understand higher education, and weren’t given the social capital to make it easy to move in those circles.  Most honest autodidacts will also admit that they encounter big gaps with traditionally educated people.

The show contrasts Betty—-who is smart as an outgrowth of her advantages, and reads because she comes from a background that gives one a taste for it—-with Don, who is a bright person with no resources.  Don has a lot more native intelligence than most people around him, obviously, but he’s shown as a person with no taste for reading books, and he was not as easy while traveling in Rome as Betty.  The reality is complicated, and the show captures that.  Betty is a person of average intelligence who is smart by virtue of education, and Don is a person of high intelligence who has big gaps due to lack of education.  I think we’re supposed to assume he’s got no more than an 8th grade education.

The knee jerk populist desire is to say that Don is smarter than Betty, period.  It feels more liberal to value someone’s native intelligence over their educated intelligence, but it’s a way of thinking that turns quickly to the right wing, because then if people of color or working class people’s kids get worse grades or SAT scores, then the assumption is they lack intelligence.  What they lack is educational advantages.  This is particularly brutal when we’re talking about most people of average intelligence and motivation, where introducing education makes a giant leap.  Increased access to education for working class people is resulting in IQ scores soaring up on average, with the traditional gaps between classes closing.  Just as you’d expect.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  01:54 PM

I’ll add that this is why I think conservative viewers of the show are uneasy with the Betty characterization.  She’s smart as a result of being so well-educated (and motivated by a genuine desire to be a member of her own social class in good standing), but she’s not a creative thinker.  And a lot of conservative writers who are themselves well-educated but not empathetic, creative people are made uneasy by being sent up in such a way.  They are smart people who read a lot, and they think that should be enough for them to be rounded up to “bright”.  But the character of Betty sends them up—-she’s a smart person who loves to read and conducts herself with intelligence and sophistication, but she’s unimaginative.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  02:04 PM

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned the symbolism of Suzanne Farrell’s name? She was Balanchine’s muse at NYC Ballet in the 60’s and 70’s. She was the epitome of the neoclassical dancer…she was a blank slate for the audience to project their own feelings and narrative.

Comment #7: deaddancersdontplie  on  10/24  at  04:01 PM

  Betty is smart because she has all the advantages in life, and anyone who disputes that wealth and education can make you smarter is fooling themselves for ideological reasons.

Provided the individual from said wealthy background is willing to even take a half-hearted advantage of such resources.  Heard too many stories and witnessed too many examples of people from such backgrounds in school and from older relatives’ children who fell flat on their faces in college and life and are only surviving/doing ok currently because of continued parental support…sometimes well into their middle age.  Betty took far more advantage of her resources and background than most with her background if comments from veteran Profs at Ivy/Ivy-level schools, especially a certain crimson institution on the Charles is any indication. 

The knee jerk populist desire is to say that Don is smarter than Betty, period.  It feels more liberal to value someone’s native intelligence over their educated intelligence, but it’s a way of thinking that turns quickly to the right wing, because then if people of color or working class people’s kids get worse grades or SAT scores,

It is interesting how many people even on this blog believe in the correlative effects of SAT scores and even high school grades as indicators of intelligence or predictors of college level performance.  IME, there are too many exceptions to this notion as plenty of well-off kids with outstanding SATs/high school grades..even from fancy private schools end up crashing and burning or struggling to even graduate in college while many working/lower-middle class kids with C and lower high school GPAs and low SATs end up graduating with honors-level GPAs(3.3/4.0 and above)...including yours truly. 

While higher intelligence of either type does facilitate one’s academic and social experiences in college, they alone are not enough if said individual feels overentitled to expect that s(he) should be able to graduate with an honors-level GPA without having to put in much/any time and effort on his/her part. 

As for creativity and being imaginative/unimaginative….how much of this is indicative of the individual concerned…and how much of it is due to institutions which do much to discourage/impair such traits…like many educational institutions?

Comment #8: exholt  on  10/24  at  04:17 PM

. . . if people of color or working class people’s kids get worse grades or SAT scores, then the assumption is they lack intelligence.  What they lack is educational advantages.  This is particularly brutal when we’re talking about most people of average intelligence and motivation, where introducing education makes a giant leap.

A stark example of this is Michael Oher, whose case was highlighted by the book “The Blind Side”.  This has been made into a movie being released next month.  Oher was a huge young man without any family structure in poor black neighborhoods of Memphis.  Memphis public school system testing showed an IQ of 80.  Two years of tutoring and attending a private school produced test results of 100-110.  The kid graduated from h.s., played football and graduated on time at U. of Mississippi last spring and is now playing professional football.

Comment #9: MiddleageLiberal  on  10/24  at  05:13 PM

Just a note on Don’s education - from what Roger said last week, he was going to night school when Roger discovered him working at the fur company.

Comment #10: Mimi  on  10/24  at  05:15 PM

It is interesting how many people even on this blog believe in the correlative effects of SAT scores and even high school grades as indicators of intelligence or predictors of college level performance.

Okay, fine, but so what?  If we shy away from admitting that there’s value in having higher SAT scores in order to score easy ideological points, we lose the bigger battle, which is expanding these benefits.  If we say education confers no benefits—-if we deny that the benefits of wealth are not really benefits—-we’ve done conservatives work for them.  We’ve conceded that it’s all a meritocracy, and that doing things like creating public education and public health initiatives and state schools are useless.  Liberals actually win when we employ outcome measurements to demonstrate that things like education make people smarter, which is why education is so necessary.  Denying the link between education and intelligence means giving up any argument for state-subsidized education.

It’s really not something to hump too hard, exholt.  When we’re able to show that providing deworming and better nutrition in a developing nation means that IQ scores and grades rise with the schoolchildren, we are shooting ourselves in the foot then to deny that kind of result is meaningful.

Comment #11: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  06:02 PM

We can avoid being ideological to the point of self-destruction while also criticizing the racism and sexism of the tests, by the way.  But one thing we need to seriously consider is whether or not the gaps in education and expectation of reward create different outcomes.  And that’s across groups—-obviously, there are people who excel and are bright no matter what—-but the first step to correcting disparities is to admit they exist. 

The thing to avoid is essentialism.  It’s good news that different inputs result in different outputs, because then we can say, okay what we need to do to make sure that people who aren’t getting as much education and health care get that, and then we will move towards being a more equal society.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  06:07 PM

Uh-oh, someone said “Ivy League.” Cue Exholt’s rant in 3…2…already happened.

Comment #13: Well, what?  on  10/24  at  06:48 PM

It’s all kind of moot.  The conservative claim was that Betty is a bimbo and not enough of a reader to fit in at Bryn Mawr.  That was a claim easily disproven by the fact that Betty’s character is shown reading all the time.  It’s silly to suggest that no one incurious or against reading ever goes to Bryn Mawr, but irrelevant for the purpose of this specific discussion.  Betty is actually held out as a graduate of the school with all the expected intellectual advantages, for the purpose of examining the very real benefits of privilege.

Comment #14: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  06:58 PM

Paul initially believes that Peggy is rising because she’s a woman (!), but then he comes around to seeing that Peggy is simply better than he is at the job.

I’m not so sure Paul comes around to seeing that Peggy is better at the job than Paul is. Maybe this is how the writers of this episode are playing with the viewers’ perceptions. Paul’s “oh my god” at Peggy’s brainstorming in Don’s office can be perceived as awe at Peggy’s ability to think on her toes, but it can also be perceived as Paul being gobsmacked that Peggy’s stolen his idea (not that he actually had one, but his ego and sense of entitlement could make him see things that way). What’s interesting and telling (and infuriating) is that in analysis and commentary about this episode on other more sexist locales on the web, there are a lot of people who perceive Peggy in that scene as being “sneaky” and “devious” and taking something that’s not hers. Paul could very well be thinking the same way those other bloggers and commenters are.
So Paul’s “oh my god” could have meant “wow that Peggy sure knows how to conceptualize,” or it could mean, “that little bitch is stepping on my toes and taking my ideas again.”

Comment #15: snobographer  on  10/24  at  07:45 PM

Marc wisely pointed out that it’s actually a parallel to the “it’s toasted” speech from the first season. The pitch is a disaster, someone says something off the cuff, and that inspires Don to pull it out at the last second.  Peggy did just that.  She’s Don II, and I really think Paul’s reaction was him seeing it.

Marc also pointed out that the show is blowing up the Sterling Cooper ranks, basically setting it up so that Don can start his own agency.  And hire: Paul, Peggy, Joan, Sal, and one of the two account guys (my money’s on Pete).

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  07:58 PM

Then again, just because someone attended an Ivy/Ivy-level school does not necessarily mean they are more intellectually inclined/intellectual

This is set in the early ‘60s, when the “improve yourself intellectually” mindset of 19th-20th Century was just about to suffer a slow and lingering death because of distrust of authority from civil rights, Vietnam, feminism, etc.  I suppose to those younger than I, it must seem like the Eocene period.

Ask anyone from a working class background who went to college how much more of a struggle it can be when you weren’t raised by people who really understand higher education, and weren’t given the social capital to make it easy to move in those circles.  Most honest autodidacts will also admit that they encounter big gaps with traditionally educated people.

My father got into college on an athletic scholarship, and then later worked to put himself through school, and his family, who themselves had come to prosperity because my grandfather worked in the defense plants during the War and started his own trucking company afterwards, couldn’t see the sense in his becoming a teacher.  They thought he should’ve become a truck driver, when the money was, comparatively speaking.

Heard too many stories and witnessed too many examples of people from such backgrounds in school and from older relatives’ children who fell flat on their faces in college and life and are only surviving/doing ok currently because of continued parental support…sometimes well into their middle age.  Betty took far more advantage of her resources and background than most with her background if comments from veteran Profs at Ivy/Ivy-level schools, especially a certain crimson institution on the Charles is any indication.

She might’ve been what was called back then a highbrow, there was a joke about a drunk who in talking to his arresting officer ‘name drops’ Camus, Stravinsky, and Faulkner in the conversation, and the punch line is where the officer tells someone to round up ‘those guys’ as well.

noun or adjective, highbrow is synonymous with intellectual; as an adjective, it also means elite, and generally carries a connotation of high culture. The word draws its metonymy from the pseudoscience of phrenology, and was originally simply a physical descriptor.[1] “Highbrow” can be applied to music, implying most of the classical music tradition and much of post-bebop jazz; to literature, i.e. literary fiction; to films in the arthouse line; and to comedy that requires significant understanding of analogies or references to appreciate. As the former buzzword has lost some currency and sounds slightly passé, its use now gives an impression of mild irony.

Link


someone said “Ivy League.”

(cont)

Comment #17: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/24  at  07:59 PM

Yes, exhold’s telling tales out of school.

I suppose the biggest difference between then and now is the gradual acceptance of kids moving back home.  My mother’s best friend remembered when back in the 40’s and 50’s, one only moved back with parents if one was severely disabled by accident.  It is perhaps no coincidence that this started to happen about the mid-to late 70s.

It also depends on the temperament that an individual develops and the environment they are surrounded by as well.

I have a cousin who’s a bit younger than Betty would be today, and she developed a love of reading as an only child whose parents had enough resources that she didn’t have to pick cotton to get money for the family exchequer in rural northeast TX,
thus giving her time to get into the habit.

Mother Avenger, OTOH, got into reading because her father was a reader, and she went to Catholic school during high school.  It wasn’t uncommon in those days for Protestant girls to go to Catholic school if they lived in a small town or were really smart, they just didn’t participate in the theological end of things with the rest of us “cradle Catholics”.  Where did Betty go before Bryn Mawr?

IME, there are too many exceptions to this notion as plenty of well-off kids with outstanding SATs/high school grades..even from fancy private schools end up crashing and burning or struggling to even graduate in college while many working/lower-middle class kids with C and lower high school GPAs and low SATs end up graduating with honors-level GPAs(3.3/4.0 and above)...including yours truly.

I’ve had this conversation for many years with people as my PSATs were stratospheric, and I took the SAT twice to improve my score. In my case some of it was, as a teacher wrote in an evaluation of me, “willing to take a gentleman’s C.”  Which was not only true, but part and parcel of my majoring in Biology, because Professor Avenger wanted me to, rather than go into theater or something creative but uncertain.  I still managed to get on the Honor Roll for one semester, but I’d have done much better if I had majored in English or what was considered the “slack” major in Arts and Sciences, Art History, if I was so inclined. 

OTOH, my verbal score was in the 82nd percentile for incoming Stanford freshmen, but because I was educated in the Central Valley and wasn’t the BMOC, I was turned down by Stanford.

To me, that somewhat negated the original purpose of the University, which was to provide an alternative to UC Berkeley and the University of Spoiled Children down south, and be a “Harvard of the West”.  Am “Ivy League” school so that those living on the Pacific Slope wouldn’t have to go back East where they have snow on the ground in winter, etc.

I was lucky enough to be offered a scholarship by the “Harvard of the Midwest”, which was one of the institutions that sent me mail. So I benefited by the SAT assumption, even as I continue to doubt it to this day.

Comment #18: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/24  at  08:09 PM

They don’t say where Betty would have gone before college, but I imagine she went to an expensive private school.  Her family is portrayed as very rich WASPs.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/24  at  09:54 PM

This is set in the early ‘60s, when the “improve yourself intellectually” mindset of 19th-20th Century was just about to suffer a slow and lingering death because of distrust of authority from civil rights, Vietnam, feminism, etc.  I suppose to those younger than I, it must seem like the Eocene period.

I wonder how much of this was mere lip service by both higher ed institutions and their patrons, students, and their parents? Interesting to hear there was a “golden age” when intellectualism was highly prized in US society when the US has long had an anti-intellectual tradition which goes back to the beginning of our society.  Even Alexis de Tocqueville has made references to this in his famous book on early 19th century US society. 

We can avoid being ideological to the point of self-destruction while also criticizing the racism and sexism of the tests, by the way.  But one thing we need to seriously consider is whether or not the gaps in education and expectation of reward create different outcomes.  And that’s across groups—-obviously, there are people who excel and are bright no matter what—-but the first step to correcting disparities is to admit they exist.

Oh believe me, I know they exist. 

This part kind of hits home for me on multiple levels not only in my own life, but in the fact I am frustrated and concerned for a few friends at my age or older who want to start/finish undergrad, but who are intimidated because they’ve received messages throughout their lives that they are not “smart enough” for college because of systemic factors such as racism, poor school preparation, and severe financial struggles.  How does one overturn decades worth of such negative programming?

Comment #20: exholt  on  10/24  at  09:57 PM

Marc wisely pointed out that it’s actually a parallel to the “it’s toasted” speech from the first season. The pitch is a disaster, someone says something off the cuff, and that inspires Don to pull it out at the last second.  Peggy did just that.  She’s Don II, and I really think Paul’s reaction was him seeing it.

Marc also pointed out that the show is blowing up the Sterling Cooper ranks, basically setting it up so that Don can start his own agency.  And hire: Paul, Peggy, Joan, Sal, and one of the two account guys (my money’s on Pete).

I’m thinking Grey is going to end up being that “second suitor” the Brits are looking for. Especially since Duck has his eye on SC’s staff. And when that merge happens, we’ll find Sal already there and someone’s going to advocate for rescuing Joan from her job at Bonwit Teller. Don just tied himself up in that three year contract with SC, so I don’t think he’s going to be able to move out on his own and siphon off the staff without getting into a lot of legal trouble, especially since Cooper knows about his identity.

Comment #21: snobographer  on  10/24  at  10:11 PM

I’m not so sure Paul comes around to seeing that Peggy is better at the job than Paul is. Maybe this is how the writers of this episode are playing with the viewers’ perceptions. Paul’s “oh my god” at Peggy’s brainstorming in Don’s office can be perceived as awe at Peggy’s ability to think on her toes, but it can also be perceived as Paul being gobsmacked that Peggy’s stolen his idea (not that he actually had one, but his ego and sense of entitlement could make him see things that way). What’s interesting and telling (and infuriating) is that in analysis and commentary about this episode on other more sexist locales on the web, there are a lot of people who perceive Peggy in that scene as being “sneaky” and “devious” and taking something that’s not hers. Paul could very well be thinking the same way those other bloggers and commenters are.
So Paul’s “oh my god” could have meant “wow that Peggy sure knows how to conceptualize,” or it could mean, “that little bitch is stepping on my toes and taking my ideas again.”
Comment #15: snobographer on 10/24 at 06:45 PM

Paul seems surprised when he admits he forgot and instead of getting yelled at, Don says, “I hate when that happens.”  Then Peggy follows the boss with a “me too.” 

Then they do some brainstorming and a new idea comes out.  I am not sure if his surprise is that working in a group will actually work, whether he’s surprised that Peggy can think quickly enough to use his idea, or what.

They don’t say where Betty would have gone before college, but I imagine she went to an expensive private school.  Her family is portrayed as very rich WASPs.
Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte on 10/24 at 08:54 PM

If they were that rich, they would typically have left money for her kids to go to a private school, too.  And her mother worked as a draftsman or something like that; he was in the service.  That doesn’t sound very WASPy to me.  I missed most of season two, though, so I don’t know if Betty’s parents’ house looks like Lois’s parents’ house on Family Guy, or what.

And I don’t buy that she’s unimaginative.  Like exholt said, how much is being unimaginative, and how much is having every imaginative expression get squashed by negative expectations?  Her mother was certainly a mean piece of work, and her father thought little of her.  Not everyone’s born a firebrand.

Comment #22: oldfeminist  on  10/24  at  11:01 PM

I wonder how much of this was mere lip service by both higher ed institutions and their patrons, students, and their parents? Interesting to hear there was a “golden age” when intellectualism was highly prized in US society when the US has long had an anti-intellectual tradition which goes back to the beginning of our society.  Even Alexis de Tocqueville has made references to this in his famous book on early 19th century US society.

They all laughed when I sat down at the piano.

I wrote about the subject here, a little excerpt:

I remember Mother Avenger’s best friend telling me how as a child the mothers in her neighborhood in Ohio would have the windows open on a Saturday morning so that their kids could listen to the Metropolitian Opera broadcast in an effort to implant the seed of culture into their offspring, even if it was with stories set to music involving adultery, tragedies of love, death, damnation if not outright annihilation of the universe.

It wasn’t just that they wanted their children to do better materially, they wanted them to strive to some extend in the intellectual and artistic spheres as well so that they’d be reading Faulkner, know why Stravinsky was an important composer, or understand what Einstein meant by his famous equation.

As for de Tocqueville, he didn’t see the opening of the West which opened up the need for intellectual institutions from sheer necessity, as in the following:

The California Academy of Natural Sciences was founded in 1853, only three years after California joined the United States, becoming the first society of its kind in the Western US. Its stated aim was to undertake “a thorough systematic survey of every portion of the State and the collection of a cabinet of her rare and rich productions”. It was renamed to be the more inclusive California Academy of Sciences in 1868.

The Academy had a forward-thinking approach to the involvement of women in science, passing a resolution that the members “highly approve of the aid of females in every department of natural science, and invite their cooperation” in its first year of existence. This led to several female botanists, entomologists and others finding work at the Academy during the 19th century, when opportunities for women in the sciences were limited, and often restricted to menial cataloguing and calculation work.

The Academy’s first official museum opened in 1874 at the corner of California and Dupont Streets (now Grant Avenue) in what is now Chinatown, and drew up to 80,000 visitors a year. To better accommodate its popularity, the Academy moved in 1891 to a new and larger building on Market Street, funded by the legacy of James Lick, a 19th century San Francisco real estate mogul, entrepreneur and philanthropist. However, only fifteen years later the Market Street facility fell victim to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which also wiped out large swathes of the Academy’s library and specimen collections. In the aftermath of the quake, Academy curators and staffers were only able to retrieve a single cart of materials, including Academy minute books, membership records, and 2,000 type specimens.[5] Fortunately, an expedition to the Galápagos Islands (the first of several sponsored by the Academy) was already underway, and it returned seven months later, instantly providing replacement collections.

 

Link

You also have to remember that there is also the American tradition of self-improvement, from Abe Lincoln who read law and never perhaps attended what we call high school, to the ad I linked to above.’

You’ve detected what H. L. Mencken called the “Anglo-Saxon tradition of anti-intellectualism”, which is to be contrasted with the immigrant recognition of the ladder of education whereby their children could perhaps do better than their parents ,  my generation was that of grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the great immigrant waves of over 100 years ago.

Just 40 years ago, Leonard Bernstein had classical music shows for the kids to watch, the 50s had live TV shows written by the like of Gore Vidal and Rod Serling, who had wit enough to base the title of one episode of his Twilight Zone on a pun based on a novel by Evelyn Waugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths-Head_Revisited

Comment #23: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/24  at  11:12 PM

As a Vassar girl, I’m mostly pissed that Schwartz calls Bryn Mawr “by far the brainiest” of the Seven Sisters.

Betty has been portrayed consistently as well-educated and intellectually curious.  From the first season onward, the show has suggested that she used to be more of a sophisticate (hello, European model), which was why Don fell for her in the first place.  She’s not imaginative or rebellious, but neither is she stupid.  I wouldn’t be at all surprised if The Group were a major influence on the show’s writers, because Betty is very much like the well-heeled Vassar girls in that novel: privileged upper-middle-class woman given the best and most challenging educations money could buy, but never given any adult purpose to which to apply these advantages.  Like Betty, the characters in The Group aren’t feminist rebels; they aren’t angry, just lost and confused.

Schwartz’s concept of Betty as a “clichéd shallow sorority sister” misses the entire point of the character: that there’s an intelligent, valuable person suffocating under that glossy exterior.  Yes, she’s shallow, but shallow isn’t the same as stupid.

Comment #24: Shaenon  on  10/24  at  11:43 PM

I find it surprising, but enlightening that so many people see Paul’s reaction to Peggy’s insight as possibly having different meanings or shades thereof.  To me, it’s crystal clear that his reaction can have only one meaning, in this episode of interpretive perceptions.

It’s been a week, but if I recall correctly, in the scene where Paul challenges Peggy, he specifically says that her spontaneity is only a factor of her working with feminine products (like Aquanet). He does not believe she has anything else in her (or his ego loudly needs to believe it): “That won’t help you with Western Union!”

The audience knows Peggy hasn’t come up with an idea, because we see her Dictaphone ramblings—in fact, I thought that the writers were setting us up to see Kinsey listen to her recordings after she had left them out on her secretary’s desk.  But he’s too proud or honest for that, and doesn’t even think of it on his course to finding his personal One That Got Away.

Paul might not remember what his Big Idea was—but he certainly remembers his challenge to Peggy, since they slink into Draper’s office after commiserating that they both have nothing.

Then Peggy is spontaneous. About Western Union.

While Don is witness to the spontaneity, only Paul has all the facts. There was no time, no room for Peggy to be anything but genuinely, brilliantly spontaneous. She even carefully has him repeat the Chinese proverb that he had only shared a minute before, and then turns his own words into the winning idea.

Paul’s arrogance has nowhere to left stand—and he knows it. If Paul had seen the idea in his own quote, he wouldn’t have been apologizing to Don. Even at the extreme of ego-driven paranoia, if one were to assume Peggy somehow was lying and secretly had the idea already, relating it to his proverb would still be lightning-fast frisson, and magnanimous team-playing.

“Oh. My. God.” is the sound of Paul Kinsey’s ego taking a knock-out punch.

How Paul will handle it is unknown, but here he is precisely conscious of his own mistake. There’s no room for it to mean anything else. In this regard, this subplot reflects the harsh life of Suzanne’s brother, a situation where stark reality steps in, and no pretty story can explain it away.

Comment #25: Yamara  on  10/25  at  10:36 AM

oldfeminist, you must have missed the episode where they go home to visit Betty’s father.  The sheer amount of WASPy money around would remove your doubts.  Or missed the many episodes where Betty talks about her family owning a summer home.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/25  at  11:21 AM

Or the extensive fights with her brother over the inheritance. You know, it’s possible that even rich people don’t want to support their adult children with jobs.  You have to remember that “rich” was something much different in the mid-century, due to high taxes on the rich.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/25  at  11:23 AM

why is the color question “childish”? amanda uses the word three times in the post and yet there are people who spend their entire careers trying to answer those questions. maybe it’s because i was a philosophy major and i’m married to a cognitive psychologist, but the question doesn’t seem childish to me.

(sorry to nit-pick. as always i love reading amanda’s take on the show)

Comment #28: upyernoz  on  10/25  at  12:15 PM

While perception was at the heart of the episode, what was portrayed throughout was the betrayal of long-held perceptions, and how the characters react to the fact that what seems to be ... isn’t. This season has been all about how the characters handle change, and there’s nothing more jarring than having one’s core perceptions of the world around them shown to be false. We see it all here: horror, cynicism, grudging acceptance, empathy, glibness, calculation, surprise, disappointment.

Glad to see they’re keeping up the running gag of Don’s late-night “escape” drives. This one didn’t end so badly (at least for a guy like Don, who’s unconflicted about lying and has empathy for the perpetual runaway and regrets about how he handled his own brother), but it wasn’t so great, either.

I’m thinking Grey is going to end up being that “second suitor” the Brits are looking for.

For a number of reasons, both related to the show’s diegesis and to keeping the cast together, and this makes a lot more sense than Don starting up his own agency. They’re probably going to give Duck a larger role, which is interesting given that he’s being portrayed as a proto-70s man

I mean, the pendulum in the background is that the bosses last revealed that they wanted him to go to India and as far as he knows that’s still in the works so for him it’s not America or England, but America or India.

Oh yeah, his wife is in for a big surprise of her own if it’s her perception that they’ll go back to England—they’ll be going where the firm says they’re going. I loved the sequence where Ford (the hatchet man) and St John (the charmer) let him know that the agency is about to be flipped. It’s all a great commentary on the short-sighted MBA approach to business that was beginning to take hold at the time—the only difference these days is that they’d outsource thing to McKinsey instead of bringing in a direct employee like Pryce.

So Paul’s “oh my god” could have meant “wow that Peggy sure knows how to conceptualize,” or it could mean, “that little bitch is stepping on my toes and taking my ideas again.”

It was the former—not exactly said in a positive way, but definitely the former. That whole plotline was beautifully done, a nice meditation on both the creative process and the odd, competitive comradeship it develops. “I hate when that happens,” indeed (*burp*).
[cont’d]

Comment #29: Gracchus.  on  10/25  at  01:12 PM

anyone who disputes that wealth and education can make you smarter is fooling themselves for ideological reasons.  That’s *why* it’s important to have public education for all and public museums, to spread those advantages around.  We don’t do it enough, of course, and the wealthy are still able to buy their children IQ points through more intense education and a pampered lifestyle that makes getting smarter easier to do, as well as better nutrition and health care.  Ask anyone from a working class background who went to college how much more of a struggle it can be when you weren’t raised by people who really understand higher education, and weren’t given the social capital to make it easy to move in those circles.  Most honest autodidacts will also admit that they encounter big gaps with traditionally educated people.

Really well said—I can’t tell you the number of successful, accomplished and extremely smart and creative folks of a certain age I’ve met who were openly jealous and insecure (in the nicest possible way) because I had a baccalaureate degree and they didn’t have the opportunity to earn one. One of the true pleasure I have is seeing these people return to college in their late 50s and 60s—often as teachers.

And in the end, it’s not really at odds with exholt says: a college education, especially from a name-brand school, has always been a class marker—albeit one that’s shifted and become more inclusive over the years. I’m certain that part of the “package” that Dick Whitman borrowed from Don Draper was access (and entitlement) to a college degree (even a night school one), which was in those days something a relatively small and affluent (and white and male and WASP) portion of the public had. It was rare for Kentucky hillbillies of Don’s generation to wind up with a B.A. 10 years later someone like Paul would be allowed into Princeton as a “scholarship boy,” but for people of Don’s cohort that magic ticket was unavailable to the cast majority of Americans outside of the affluent class.

If they were that rich, they would typically have left money for her kids to go to a private school, too.  And her mother worked as a draftsman or something like that; he was in the service.  That doesn’t sound very WASPy to me.

WASPy does not necessarily equal wealthy. And as Amanda notes, there are historical considerations here. Gene was in the service because, during the first half of the 20th century, nearly every American male of all social classes did some time in the service. If Betty’s mother worked as a draftsman, it was probably during WWII, when women joined in that “everyone pitches in” ethos.

Gene helping out with private K-12 school tuition for his kids? Doubtful, because prep school was for the very wealthy—the Campbells and for Roger Sterling. I can see him leaving college funds in trust for the two kids, but the kind of help you’re thinking about is a more recent phenomenon.

I wouldn’t say that the Hofstadts were extremely wealthy in financial terms—not like, say, Pete’s family before his wastrel father blew the fortune, but approaching the Sterlings. They’re wealthy enough in mid-century America to have a large home, servants, a country house (not a cabin). Wealthy enough to send their daughter to a private college. Weatlhy enough to run in upper-class circles and marry eitherh horizontally or up. All that was a relative rarity in those times, and it’s one of the aspirational “meta-products” (if you will) that Don sells.

Comment #30: Gracchus.  on  10/25  at  01:12 PM

Because a child said it, upyer, and most people decide to stop asking those questions.  I wasn’t meaning that it was good to stop asking, by any means.

Comment #31: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/25  at  03:08 PM

You also have to remember that there is also the American tradition of self-improvement, from Abe Lincoln who read law and never perhaps attended what we call high school, to the ad I linked to above.’

You’ve detected what H. L. Mencken called the “Anglo-Saxon tradition of anti-intellectualism”, which is to be contrasted with the immigrant recognition of the ladder of education whereby their children could perhaps do better than their parents , my generation was that of grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the great immigrant waves of over 100 years ago.

Anti-intellectualism and desires for self-improvement can co-exist quite well as seen in US history.  Lincoln’s study of law underscores this because he was studying a “trade” albeit an intellectual one. 

Though the study and practice of law can be intellectual and I have no doubt Lincoln studied it as such, I can assure you as someone who worked with lawyers in and out of law firms that there are plenty of anti-intellectual lawyers and lawyers for whom being described as “intellectual” would prompt ROTFLOL from colleagues and staff.  Moreover, the Yale College grad uncle who eventually became a lawyer himself also never tired of reminding me that there are many “anti-intellectual philistines” who are practicing lawyers. 

This also extends into other areas where the American ideals about self-improvement were mostly centered on “practical” areas such as learning a trade or something practical like business.  Learning literature, history, and the arts were considered important more as “nice finishing touches” for the scions of wealthy families, not something that was nearly as prioritized.  From looking at many college yearbooks of the 1950’s including my own undergrad….they seemed more like finishing schools for rich kids than institutions for budding scholars.  The contrast between yearbooks of the ‘50s and the 90’s and latter cannot be more different. 

This is probably one reason why so many people I’ve known who attended college during the ‘50s and before kept remarking about how they are surprised at the seemingly higher percentage of undergrads in the 1980’s and 1990s who were more serious about their academic studies and more engaged with the larger world than was the case in their time.  Some said most of the undergrads of their era “weren’t serious” and were “just dicking around” during their 4 years until they graduated with a “Gentleman’s C”. 

From those accounts, it seems Betty was actually above average in her undergrad as she wasn’t only academically serious, but also enjoyed her studies in an era when most didn’t seem to care.  In addition to formative factors such as her schooling, how much of this was the 50’s/early ‘60s social atmosphere of rigid conformity where any displays of creativity or imagination would be seen as non-conformity which must be immediately quashed by the PTB?

Comment #32: exholt  on  10/25  at  04:15 PM

Paul’s “oh my god” at Peggy’s brainstorming in Don’s office can be perceived as awe at Peggy’s ability to think on her toes, but it can also be perceived as Paul being gobsmacked that Peggy’s stolen his idea (not that he actually had one, but his ego and sense of entitlement could make him see things that way).

I’m surprised at the “certainty” with which many commenters say that Paul’s reaction was the former. My immediate interpretation on watching the scene was the latter, and I’m still leaning that way. I’ve read many compelling arguments for both sides, but the fact is they are all based on assumptions and interpretations of Paul’s behavior, while the actual evidence for the real motivation of Paul’s reaction is sorely lacking. Personally I’ll wait and see how Paul behaves towards Peggy in future episodes to decide one way or the other, recognizing that given the prevalence with which character interactions this season have been set-up and dropped we may only get an answer several episodes down the line, if at all.

Comment #33: Geocrackr  on  10/25  at  05:07 PM

Does everybody see blue in the same way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Comment #34: ramona  on  10/25  at  06:37 PM

This is probably one reason why so many people I’ve known who attended college during the ‘50s and before kept remarking about how they are surprised at the seemingly higher percentage of undergrads in the 1980’s and 1990s who were more serious about their academic studies and more engaged with the larger world than was the case in their time.  Some said most of the undergrads of their era “weren’t serious” and were “just dicking around” during their 4 years until they graduated with a “Gentleman’s C”.

Yes, there was some complacency, but Sputnik made being smart fashionable again, as it was a blow at our technical competency.

Kennedy was seen as an intellectual himself, inviting Pablo Casals and other artists and intellectuals to the WH which previous Presidents hadn’t done before.

Learning literature, history, and the arts were considered important more as “nice finishing touches” for the scions of wealthy families, not something that was nearly as prioritized.  From looking at many college yearbooks of the 1950’s including my own undergrad….they seemed more like finishing schools for rich kids than institutions for budding scholars.

Yes, but as I said earlier, I’m talking about the middle class that came from the poverty of their immigrant ancestors, not the ruling upper-class which didn’t view intellectual activity as a means to get to the top or felt the necessity to cultivate self-improvement. I’m talking about the grandchildren of people who perhaps never learned English above the bare necessities of survival, like the Korean War veterans who were among my father’s first students when he began teaching in 1956, using the GI Bill, which itself was unprecidented in opening up educational opportunity to the masses.

When the “Space Race” came to the finish line in 1969, and the threat of being outdone by the USSR started to fade, so did the need for intellect as well.

From those accounts, it seems Betty was actually above average in her undergrad as she wasn’t only academically serious, but also enjoyed her studies in an era when most didn’t seem to care.  In addition to formative factors such as her schooling, how much of this was the 50’s/early ‘60s social atmosphere of rigid conformity where any displays of creativity or imagination would be seen as non-conformity which must be immediately quashed by the PTB?

I don’t know that she’s demonstrated any displays of creativity or imagination per se, but being smart after Sputnik wasn’t frowned upon by anyone, even if it didn’t contribute directly with the space race. The Russians used to do the cultural exchange thing with their artists coming over here to tour, and we did the same with ours.

Highbrows weren’t associated with the top, they were a phenomenon of others wanting to get to the top, thus your confusion in this matter.

Comment #35: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/25  at  09:58 PM

Strange to see the “Do we all see colours the same?” question addressed from a philosophical approach.  It’s a biological question, even if you’re not colourblind, and the answer is pretty likely “no.”  For instance, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11495112 .  Of course, as someone with anomalous tricolour vision, I’m not comfortable claiming either to he colourblind or to not be colourblind (rather than trying to explain, which is usually long and fruitless), but no, we don’t all see colours the same.

Comment #36: Brian  on  10/26  at  10:56 AM

The German physicist Edwin Schrodinger  was a deuteroanomalous trichromat, in his case, his perception of red was enhanced, and it is of interest that he was a major contributor to color theory.  His ‘difference’ is said to occur in about 2% of the population.

The answer, of course, is that we see physiological changes in the visual system that are linked to changes in the perceived wavelengths we call colors, and has been a concern of such major thinkers as Newton, Goethe, and the inventor of the Polaroid camera, Edwin Land, along with the folks who invented Kodacolor film.

Here’s the biology, FWIW:

Rhodopsin is the light-sensitive visual pigment of the eye. It is composed of an opsin apoprotein and a Vitamin A-derived chromophore, usually 11-cis-retinal. The chromophore is covalently attached to a Lys residue in the seventh transmembrane domain of the opsin apoprotein by way of a Schiff’s base linkage (Bownds, 1967; Wang et al., 1980). The spectral sensitivity of rhodopsin is thought to result from specific interactions between the amino acid side chains of the transmembrane alpha -helices and the chromophore (Sakmar et al., 1989, 1991; Zhukovsky and Oprian, 1989; Nathans, 1990a,b; Neitz et al., 1991; Chan et al., 1992; Merbs and Nathans, 1992a,b). Light absorption induces the isomerization of the 11-12 double bond of the retinal chromophore from the cis to the trans configuration. This leads to the formation of the active form metarhodopsin that directly couples to and activates the heterotrimeric G-protein transducin in vertebrates, or a Gq in invertebrates, that ultimately generates a neural signal (for review, see Yarfitz and Hurley, 1994; Zuker, 1996).

Link


I deal with the problem of color perception when I photograph sunsets, I remarked to a friend of mine a while back that cameras should come with the color and tint knobs that color tvs used to have, so that you can adjust the picture to what your eyes see vs. what the screen on the camera tells you is there. Not to mention taking pictures of hillsides where the shadows tend to come out the wrong color…...........

Photostream Dark Avenger

Comment #37: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/26  at  11:54 AM

It seems to me that the same people who think Betty is dull and not smart are largely the same people who think that women in general should aspire to her life - stay at home mom with several children, relying upon her husband for support.  Their inability to see her education and intellect as a cause of her utter and complete dissatisfaction with her life parallels their inability to understand why a woman now would prefer to work out of the home.  In their world, a woman who is unhappy and dissatisfied with a pie-in-the-sky American Dream domestic life is either not bright enough to understand how good she has it or is broken.

Comment #38: Pansy P  on  10/26  at  12:40 PM

I deal with the problem of color perception when I photograph sunsets, I remarked to a friend of mine a while back that cameras should come with the color and tint knobs that color tvs used to have, so that you can adjust the picture to what your eyes see vs. what the screen on the camera tells you is there.

I am always frustrated that photos rarely come out as what I “see”.

And I find this whole conversation fascinating, because it’s finally given me insight into a fight I am no longer willing to fight. Just talking about blues . . . I am apparently more sensitive to identifying the point at which blue tends toward blue-green, and blue tends toward blue-violet . . . and my husband HATES it when I call something he sees as blue, violet.

Comment #39: hp  on  10/26  at  01:26 PM

Don can never go start up his own agency, at least not as long as Bert Cooper lives and desires to protect Sterling Cooper.

Comment #40: Felix Culpa  on  10/26  at  01:43 PM

Pansy P #38 - or just plain old sexists of varying stripes. What people see when they look at Betty reveals more about them than it does about her. Like for instance when people harshly criticize Betty for flirting with men and seeking attention but regard Don and Roger as charming cads for flirting, seeking attention, and even screwing around, obviously that person has a shitload of unpacking to do.

Comment #41: snobographer  on  10/26  at  01:50 PM

Yes, but as I said earlier, I’m talking about the middle class that came from the poverty of their immigrant ancestors, not the ruling upper-class which didn’t view intellectual activity as a means to get to the top or felt the necessity to cultivate self-improvement. I’m talking about the grandchildren of people who perhaps never learned English above the bare necessities of survival, like the Korean War veterans who were among my father’s first students when he began teaching in 1956, using the GI Bill, which itself was unprecidented in opening up educational opportunity to the masses.

Unless the Profs and friends’ parents who were recounting their 50’s era or before college experiences are off, with extreme few exceptions the vast majority of the student body at schools like Bryn Mayr were not the middle class you speak of….but the scions of the wealthy and/or the well-connected. 

Unless one was extremely bright, lucky, and not likely to be discriminated against*.....the odds of a middle-class kid attending schools like Bryn Mayr or Yale is extremely remote.  A reason why my uncle noticed a big gap in the culture and attitudes of Yale upperclassmen when he first arrived on campus in 1966. 

* One factor in why City College in NYC was once considered the “poor man’s Harvard” up until the late-1960s was because so many exceedingly bright working and middle-class students were shut out of institutions such as Yale due to the great economic and discriminatory barriers.  Once the Ivies/Ivy-level institutions eventually opened up during the mid-late 1960’s coupled with City College’s poorly implemented “open admissions policy”, the vast majority of such students ended up voting with their feet.

Comment #42: exholt  on  10/26  at  02:20 PM

with extreme few exceptions the vast majority of the student body at schools like Bryn Mayr were not the middle class you speak of….but the scions of the wealthy and/or the well-connected.

Yes, but the point is that this was a middle-class phenomena that set the tone for the country as a whole.  What you’re describing is a reaction to that, and even then, the dullest scions of the wealthy and well-connected would be expected to get a reference to Stravinsky, Faulkner, Albert Schweitzer, Camus, etc., or have a subscription to the New Yorker even if they didn’t read any of the fiction in it.

Comment #43: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  10/26  at  04:20 PM

exholt at #42:  Yale adopted need-blind admissions in 1966.  The move toward meritocracy began about that time.  The infamous (to old blue Yale alums) admissions director Inslee Clark pressed further with relative diversification of the undergraduate population.  His first admitted group, class of ‘70, was 58% public school, the highest in Yale’s history to that point.  For a longer treatise of Yale’s transformation of that time see, http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/99_12/admissions.html

Comment #44: MiddleageLiberal  on  10/26  at  05:12 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.