Mad Men and Feminism: an Interview w/Vageena Strideright, part 1

Vageena Strideright (her street name) is one of the last real feminists around. When I first met her some years ago, she was counter protesting a right-to-life group outside of a Planned Parenthood in Billings, Montana, wagging her finger in another woman’s face and admonishing the protestors with a “Pray for your own church you dirty Catholics!” That day, as on many others, she was wearing her favorite t-shirt: “If I had a hammer,” it read, “I would smash the patriarchy.” I never forgot that woman. How could I? As the police hauled her away that day, she was writhing on the ground and screaming, “Get your fucking hands off me, you filthy pigs!!!”

Recently, after I finished the first season of Mad Men, I was feeling odd. I hated it, and I felt like I was the only person in world who felt that way. If you believe the intelligentsia, Mad Men is the second coming of Christ (or the Wire), albeit a Jesus who thrives in a well cut suit, drinking a minimum five martinis during lunch. Dirty martinis. So, remembering a day some years back in beautiful Billings, I gave my old friend Vageena a call. While most feminists have given up the ghost, I knew that Vageena would still be looking for that hammer.

"If only I had a man to zip me up. A girl's got to play by the rules..."

Q: Have you seen Mad Men? What do you think?

V.S.: I have seen it. I’ve seen the first season. I found it to be painfully boring.

Q: Why was it boring?

VS: I thought that it relied too heavily on the idea that the audience would be endlessly fascinated by smoking and drinking. I felt like I was watching the same episode over and over. I felt that it used the decor of the sixties too heavily, dressing up a plot that was going nowhere. 

Q: Was there anything you liked about it?

VS: I thought the acting was excellent. I was mildly interested in some of the under stories, like with the closeted character, or with Peggy’s sexuality. But I felt they were painted with too heavy of a hand, that they were too obvious.

Q: What do you mean by too obvious?

VS: I could have appreciated it more if it wasn’t so overdone. The knowing looks, the awkward situations. I get it. He’s gay. It was obvious. I thought it lowered the collective I.Q. of the audience.

Q: Let’s talk about the women on the show. On the one hand, I felt like it was a fairly accurate portrayal of the phallocentric culture of the 1960s, especially in the workplace. On the other hand, I thought that the show sort of focused on that too much. Maybe that’s what you meant by “obviousness.” 

VS: It is what I meant. I agree with you. Through the feminist lens, it’s a depressing picture.

Q: It’s supposed to be historical, so if it was not depressing, wouldn’t that be a lie, like if they made a movie about black life in America in the 1800s and didn’t reference slavery?

VS: Historically accurate? Yes. Is it what I want to watch for entertainment? I guess it’s easy to pick out the characters who are the most depressing, like Betty, who’s totally pathologized and in therapy because she’s having a normal reaction to her situation.

Q: You mentioned Peggy earlier. What was it about her character that attracted you?

VS: She’s a little bit frumpy, therefore she’s allowed to have a half a brain. She’s assertive, especially with her sexuality. But it comes back to a place of pathetic-ness and desperation as she’s caught up with this douche bag who’s newly married and only fucking her on the side.

Q: What about Don Draper’s girlfriend? She seemed to be quite the opposite, a woman who is sexually, artistically, and socially liberated.

VS: She’s definitely the most interesting character on the show.

Q: But it also seemed like she was just there to highlight a different Don Draper’s character, much like the other women were just there to highlight the pathos of the male characters. Meaning, I guess, that the second-class citizenship of the women was just being reinforced in the roles the women are given.

VS: All the men have different women to illustrate different aspects of their lives. The women are forced into these roles where they’re supposed to be happy with a demeaning, uninteresting desk job, where they’re just a fluffer for their boss.

Q: Is it possible for such a portrayal to be feminist?

VS: What do you mean?

Q: I guess I mean, is that necessarily un-feminist? Can that be feminist?

VS: Can that be feminist? Having a demoralizing desk job?

Q: No, portraying that reality, if that was the reality.

VS: I guess I go back to, “is this an interesting show for me to watch?” And for me, the answer is no. I don’t think Mad Men wants to think of itself as a feminist show. I don’t even think about Mad Men.

Q: Is Mad Men a feminist show?

VS: I would say definitely not. If that was a goal of the show, then it has utterly failed to speak to a feminist audience.

Be sure to check back in two weeks for part 2 of this interview with underground, feminist activist, Vageena Strideright.