Comments on: Mad men: cutting-edge TV, or an excuse to let racism and sexism run free?

By: Dr. Dee

Dr. Dee — Mon, 30 May 2011 21:20:52 +0000

I have watched all four seasons of this show. Though there is plenty of talk on this blog about the show’s explorations into gender issues then and now; there has yet to be any comment about the only re-occurring Black-identified female character–the Draper’s maid. The conversation here reflects America’s understanding of itself as a normatively White society. However, I do not mean that non-White men and women have not made extra-ordinary gains in education, employment, housing, and so forth. I’m identified as Black, have a Ph.D. and teach rhetoric at a university in the Northeast. What I mean is that non-Whites, and especially people identified as Black, are perceived (and often perceive themselves) in very limited ways that make Whiteness and White people the normative standard for varied experiences. The show, though based in the 1960s, has a lot to say about attitudes toward Black-identified people that still exist today. Though White-identified women are portrayed as wives, sex objects, girlfriends, and business women, Black-identified women are largely absent. The only reoccuring character is middle-aged, frumpy, somewhat overweight, domestic. She speaks very little and is mostly passive. She has no life beyond what is seen when she is on screen in the Draper household. Others are dark backdrops in party scenes, which is very telling. Overall, they have no roles other than the ones White-identified people are comfortable seeing them in, hence, perpetuating stereotypes of Black-identified women many people in America–regardless of race–still believe. Where is the Shirley Chisholm-esque character? Educated, attractive, stylish, ambitious, and politically aware Black-identified women existed in the 1960s. They exist now but many people don’t believe we do or ever have. Ask Alice Walker or Toni Morrison or any of the thousands of Black-identified women who attended college, pursued careers, and attempted to break both gender and race barriers in the workforce in the 1960s. Oh yes, Mad Men had one–kind of. She played the teacher-girlfriend-civil rights activist to one of the White-identfied male characters at Sterling and Cooper, and then was written out of the show after a couple of episodes. Why? I have my theories. She could not be sustained as a character because Black-identified women were/are not real people. They cannot be represented as multi-dimensional and complex because this is a society (now and then) that does not recognize non-stereotypical complexity in non-Whites and especially in Non-White women. Ostensibly, the stereotypes of Black-identified women are much narrower than the stereotypes that apply to White-identified men and women. She wasn’t a prostitute or a single mother or an unemployed, poverty-stricken, uneducated ghetto dweller so there was really no dialogue for her, no real opportunity to explore her character. She wasn’t a maid so she couldn’t be used as a backdrop to highlight the normalcy of a White class privilege that commodified Black bodies. What would the writers have her talking about? Where would she live? How would she live? What were the issues that concerned Black-identified, educated, middle-class single women in the 1960s? These are difficult questions to answer because very few historians have bothered accounting for these women’s lives. Only White-identified people–male and female–can be complex in ways audiences will find authentic. Indeed, had the show’s producers and writers been able to contextualize this character historically, there would have been the accusation of “inauthenticity” from viewers of all races.

By: Life-Size Brett Doll 1953

Life-Size Brett Doll 1953 — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:20:14 +0000

Why do you think most TV and movies today BLOW CHUNKS???
As always,the big-and small-screen big-wigs are attempting to turn back the racial progress clock by casting black men as side-kicks to white stars,comic relief,thugs/cops/attorneys in the criminal justice system,and the latset stereotype,black man as intellectually challenged/peverted pity or opprobrium objets.Good work,boys;now just remove your sheets and hoods,I mean,suits and ties,and wear your Tea Bagger-err,
Tea Partier garb and join your fellow bigots!!!

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:16:44 +0000

A show like this makes me wonder, When is hiding in the castle too removed for making an effective drama out of it? In Season 1, the show follows the 24/7 lives of whites, however not the sprinkling of non-whites in the service industries. We get to become acquainted with what is essentially the ruling class, and naturally the writers let us find some nuance and humanness in them, but not its victims. The AMC webpage for the Cast & Characters of “Mad Men” shows 26 white people, no minorities, and I’d say that typifies the show. That’s one lopsided ball game for depicting America, any slice of it, in the Civil Rights era. I just don’t care. If you watch Roberto Rossellini’s historical film “The Taking of Power by Louis XIV” (you can rent it), you will see great period design and lots of court intrigue, but also everyday merchants and peasants who make up the bulk of the society. The fictional world is indeed compressed, but not to the point that those socially excluded have no voice and life to demonstrate on screen.

By: Beehives and Butt-heads: Mad Men, season 3 (so far) : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Sun, 04 Apr 2010 01:09:46 +0000

[...] nearly all-white cast makes occasional reference to the Civil Rights movement, but I’m afraid some of my initial suspicions about the show appear to have been justified: the two black characters (Hollis the elevator operator and Carla, the [...]

By: Sex and the Single (or Married) “Mad” Man : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:15:34 +0000

[...] this respect, then, the portrayal of heterosexuality in Mad Men bears a strong resemblance to its portrayal of smoking, drinking, and parenting standards: it appears to be an opportunity for people in the present to judge people in the past as [...]

By: It’s not called “Mad Women” now, is it? : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:18:49 +0000

[...] dramas for television. But, since so many of you whose opinions I respect took me to task for my skeptical post on this last year, I thought I’d take another look. I’m just about halfway through season I, and I have [...]

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:43:53 +0000

Um, Laxton–I don’t watch TV for “great reflection on contemporary western culture.” When I want to do that, I read books.

By: Laxton

Laxton — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:47:36 +0000

This show is amazing, there are great subliminal messages through out the series, great reflection on contemporary western culture, Mr. Cooper is like the wise old philosipher, pay attention to things he says, the books he choses to read and the art he decides to hang on his walls. There is definitely alot more going on in this program than is right on the surface. pay attention people, wake up

By: Retro recipie attempts at “the good old days” : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:59:58 +0000

[...] artists never get historical hairstyles right, and Sisyphus explained exactly what that is. Ze wrote, “historical shows/films never use period-accurate hair if they want you to find the [...]

By: Historiann

Historiann — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:21:49 +0000

Thanks, Shaun, for your further comments, and for the endorsement of Deadwood. Your description of it conforms to the contours of current scholarship on the western U.S., which might make it useful in some classes. (Has anyone used Deadwood in class?) And, I agree with your point that books too are artifacts of the times in which they were written, as much as movies or TV shows. But, of course, books (usually) offer more depth and complexity than TV shows and movies…