<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Gender Politics of Mad Men</title>
	<atom:link href="http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/</link>
	<description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: This Is Not About Lost &#171; Survival Hungry</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27500</link>
		<dc:creator>This Is Not About Lost &#171; Survival Hungry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:59:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27500</guid>
		<description>[...] heckuva good blog, had written about Don awhile ago.  Revisiting it, I see I missed the updates here.   I don&#8217;t argue with him that part of the appeal for some people is seeing a time and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] heckuva good blog, had written about Don awhile ago.  Revisiting it, I see I missed the updates here.   I don&#8217;t argue with him that part of the appeal for some people is seeing a time and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Basket of Kisses &#124; Mad Feminist News #2</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27499</link>
		<dc:creator>Basket of Kisses &#124; Mad Feminist News #2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27499</guid>
		<description>[...] was firmly entrenched. OW quotes Will Wilkinson, who additionally has some sharp perceptions on the Gender Politics of Mad Men. Micha Ghertner disagrees with libertarian blogger Will Wilkinson&#8217;s take on Mad Men; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] was firmly entrenched. OW quotes Will Wilkinson, who additionally has some sharp perceptions on the Gender Politics of Mad Men. Micha Ghertner disagrees with libertarian blogger Will Wilkinson&#8217;s take on Mad Men; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joshgl</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27501</link>
		<dc:creator>joshgl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27501</guid>
		<description>Not actually the case.  Anyway, can you believe Nixon won?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not actually the case.  Anyway, can you believe Nixon won?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joshgl</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27498</link>
		<dc:creator>joshgl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27498</guid>
		<description>Not actually the case.  Anyway, can you believe Nixon won?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not actually the case.  Anyway, can you believe Nixon won?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27496</link>
		<dc:creator>J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:36:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27496</guid>
		<description>I think Mad Men is more like watching theatre that most other TV or movie experiences I&#039;ve had lately. There&#039;s no doubt a strong whiff of &quot;unrealism&quot; about it that feels deliberate on some level--like the goal is not to depict the 60s in a documentary fashion (despite all the careful art design), but more to grasp at a specific emotional experience through a pretty narrow slice--the self-created, &quot;new&quot; and somewhat off-the-rails culture of Madison Avenue. Even then, it seems a little beside the point to think *too* much about whether &quot;all&quot; early 60s ad execs and their families were really &quot;like this&quot;. All the characters are types--the career girl, the spoiled rich boy, the bombshell secretary, the (literally in Don&#039;s case) self-made man, the &quot;perfect&quot; wife, etc.  There&#039;s entertainment and provocation that comes from juxtaposing and sometimes deconstructing these types (the career girl sometimes wants to be a party girl and vice verse, the perfect wife is anything but, etc.)  But these aren&#039;t &quot;real people&quot; and it doesn&#039;t really feel like they&#039;re intended to be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Mad Men is more like watching theatre that most other TV or movie experiences I&#39;ve had lately. There&#39;s no doubt a strong whiff of &#8220;unrealism&#8221; about it that feels deliberate on some level&#8211;like the goal is not to depict the 60s in a documentary fashion (despite all the careful art design), but more to grasp at a specific emotional experience through a pretty narrow slice&#8211;the self-created, &#8220;new&#8221; and somewhat off-the-rails culture of Madison Avenue. Even then, it seems a little beside the point to think *too* much about whether &#8220;all&#8221; early 60s ad execs and their families were really &#8220;like this&#8221;. All the characters are types&#8211;the career girl, the spoiled rich boy, the bombshell secretary, the (literally in Don&#39;s case) self-made man, the &#8220;perfect&#8221; wife, etc.  There&#39;s entertainment and provocation that comes from juxtaposing and sometimes deconstructing these types (the career girl sometimes wants to be a party girl and vice verse, the perfect wife is anything but, etc.)  But these aren&#39;t &#8220;real people&#8221; and it doesn&#39;t really feel like they&#39;re intended to be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: IB</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27495</link>
		<dc:creator>IB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27495</guid>
		<description>I loved this post.  Peggy is very much a misfit amongst the men and women. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I feel frustrated in way, watching Peggy.  But just feel sad when I watch Don&#039;s wife.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I loved this post.  Peggy is very much a misfit amongst the men and women. </p>
<p>I feel frustrated in way, watching Peggy.  But just feel sad when I watch Don&#39;s wife.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T. AKA Ricky Raw</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27494</link>
		<dc:creator>T. AKA Ricky Raw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27494</guid>
		<description>For some people it is &quot;not caring&quot; but don&#039;t get it wrong, for many it&#039;s a case of &quot;not getting it.&quot;  I say this because I have friends of the Maxim and FHM crowd who are not only totally oblivious to the show&#039;s larger themes, but actually think the show is an ENDORSEMENT of the old guard.  Yes, people miss the point THAT badly.  I try to tell them what the show is really saying and they just dismiss me as being overly analytical.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyway, ALL viewpoints at this point in history are tired, whether conservative, liberal, men&#039;s rights, feminist, pro-white, anti-white, whatever.  We only complain they&#039;re &quot;tired&quot; when they&#039;re contrary to our own viewpoints.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For some people it is &#8220;not caring&#8221; but don&#39;t get it wrong, for many it&#39;s a case of &#8220;not getting it.&#8221;  I say this because I have friends of the Maxim and FHM crowd who are not only totally oblivious to the show&#39;s larger themes, but actually think the show is an ENDORSEMENT of the old guard.  Yes, people miss the point THAT badly.  I try to tell them what the show is really saying and they just dismiss me as being overly analytical.</p>
<p>Anyway, ALL viewpoints at this point in history are tired, whether conservative, liberal, men&#39;s rights, feminist, pro-white, anti-white, whatever.  We only complain they&#39;re &#8220;tired&#8221; when they&#39;re contrary to our own viewpoints.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Madras</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27493</link>
		<dc:creator>Madras</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27493</guid>
		<description>This is probably correct, but I think it has more to do with &quot;not caring&quot; what the real theme is rather &quot;not getting it.&quot;  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Mad Men reaks of  pseudo intellectual rigthousness (probably why so many libertarians seem to perk up when talking about it). Anyone can get that its trying to make some tired point about progress.  But its entertaining anyways.  Apparantly a big portion of the gay population finds the crazy bigot Rev. Phelps entertaining for camp value...same idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is probably correct, but I think it has more to do with &#8220;not caring&#8221; what the real theme is rather &#8220;not getting it.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Mad Men reaks of  pseudo intellectual rigthousness (probably why so many libertarians seem to perk up when talking about it). Anyone can get that its trying to make some tired point about progress.  But its entertaining anyways.  Apparantly a big portion of the gay population finds the crazy bigot Rev. Phelps entertaining for camp value&#8230;same idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Madras</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27492</link>
		<dc:creator>Madras</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27492</guid>
		<description>Wrong.  It may have been &quot;aimed&quot; at those people but it has reached mass popularity, must-see-Sunday type status.  Everyone has watched it now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wrong.  It may have been &#8220;aimed&#8221; at those people but it has reached mass popularity, must-see-Sunday type status.  Everyone has watched it now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: T. AKA Ricky Raw</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27491</link>
		<dc:creator>T. AKA Ricky Raw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27491</guid>
		<description>I think what Micha misses is that sometimes large amounts of people can like a show or a book for the totally wrong reasons and get the wrong message out of it.  I think this is what happens in Mad Men.  It&#039;s a show about the old guard losing its hold on things and slowly becoming relics of the past.  The last episode makes this painfully obvious as dissected by Alan Sepinwall:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2009/08/mad-men-my-old-kentucky-home-decline.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2009/08/mad-men-m...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However a lot of that flies right over the heads of a large segment of the male audience, who tune in just to see Don act cool, smoke, drink and womanize as they fantasize of being in his shoes.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Similarly in England there were supposedly many racists and skinheads who were fans of Til Death Do Us Part, the BBC show All in the Family was based on, who didn&#039;t get or didn&#039;t care that the show&#039;s intention was actually to mock racism, not celebrate it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think what Micha misses is that sometimes large amounts of people can like a show or a book for the totally wrong reasons and get the wrong message out of it.  I think this is what happens in Mad Men.  It&#39;s a show about the old guard losing its hold on things and slowly becoming relics of the past.  The last episode makes this painfully obvious as dissected by Alan Sepinwall:</p>
<p><a href="http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2009/08/mad-men-my-old-kentucky-home-decline.html" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2009/08/mad-men-m" rel="nofollow">http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2009/08/mad-men-m</a>&#8230;</p>
<p>However a lot of that flies right over the heads of a large segment of the male audience, who tune in just to see Don act cool, smoke, drink and womanize as they fantasize of being in his shoes.</p>
<p>Similarly in England there were supposedly many racists and skinheads who were fans of Til Death Do Us Part, the BBC show All in the Family was based on, who didn&#39;t get or didn&#39;t care that the show&#39;s intention was actually to mock racism, not celebrate it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelDrew</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27490</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelDrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:50:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27490</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The very possibility of Peggy’s success is the engine of dramatic conflict. It threatens to devalue the relative status both of the professional men with whom she directly competes and of their wives with whom she doesn’t compete so much as humiliate by rejecting the grounds of their social and self-esteem. She is not yet in a position to really much threaten anyone, but the broader movement of liberation she represents will seem to many as little more than a violent, unfair, ad hoc emendation to the rules of the game they shaped their lives around.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Don didn&#039;t seem all that threatened by Rachel, who occupied a far superior position of authority to Peggy in a business partnered with Sterling Cooper, in which interactions she insisted on, and got, treatment from the men as a business equal.  Don seemed to be more stimulated than threatened by her.  To me, thus far he seems more interested in promoting (literally) Peggy&#039;s career, whereas if he were threatened, it would seem he would thwart it as he does Campbell&#039;s.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Rather, it seems to me that it is the advancement of his wife past the role he has assigned to her that represents the greatest threat to his security, if his behavior is to be believed (and what else is there to consider?).  i realize that Wilkinson has this angle covered as well as far as being able smugly to place himself ina situation far removed by societal progress from the one depicted onscreen.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Btw, I realize the smugness in this post is self-conscious in that it has been suggested that modern-minded folks watch the show to experience their superiority to a backward time, to which Wilkinson says, &quot;As we should.&quot;  However, self-conscious smugness is no less smug, and no less pathetic, than any other down-your-nose historical-judgement smugness.  Those who point out that this show couldn&#039;t be further form the lived experience of the era it portrays should, despite the fact that it is for all its fabrication a thoughtful depiction of gender relations, be heeded.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The very possibility of Peggy’s success is the engine of dramatic conflict. It threatens to devalue the relative status both of the professional men with whom she directly competes and of their wives with whom she doesn’t compete so much as humiliate by rejecting the grounds of their social and self-esteem. She is not yet in a position to really much threaten anyone, but the broader movement of liberation she represents will seem to many as little more than a violent, unfair, ad hoc emendation to the rules of the game they shaped their lives around.</i></p>
<p>Don didn&#39;t seem all that threatened by Rachel, who occupied a far superior position of authority to Peggy in a business partnered with Sterling Cooper, in which interactions she insisted on, and got, treatment from the men as a business equal.  Don seemed to be more stimulated than threatened by her.  To me, thus far he seems more interested in promoting (literally) Peggy&#39;s career, whereas if he were threatened, it would seem he would thwart it as he does Campbell&#39;s.</p>
<p>Rather, it seems to me that it is the advancement of his wife past the role he has assigned to her that represents the greatest threat to his security, if his behavior is to be believed (and what else is there to consider?).  i realize that Wilkinson has this angle covered as well as far as being able smugly to place himself ina situation far removed by societal progress from the one depicted onscreen.</p>
<p>Btw, I realize the smugness in this post is self-conscious in that it has been suggested that modern-minded folks watch the show to experience their superiority to a backward time, to which Wilkinson says, &#8220;As we should.&#8221;  However, self-conscious smugness is no less smug, and no less pathetic, than any other down-your-nose historical-judgement smugness.  Those who point out that this show couldn&#39;t be further form the lived experience of the era it portrays should, despite the fact that it is for all its fabrication a thoughtful depiction of gender relations, be heeded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelDrew</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27489</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelDrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27489</guid>
		<description>But of course Don is underestimating and oppressing his wife, not allowing her to develop the potential that she plainly has to be much more than she is (in fact, much more than she thinks she can be, seeing as how modeling is to date the limit of her ambition -- but not of her potential).  Don cannot conceive of a role for outside the one he has so far considered, and can&#039;t conceive that she should want more.  This is the greatest oppression depicted on the show.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;In terms of the progress of women, Peggy Olson serves as the opposite pole from Betty Draper, pursuing a creative career alongside the men, despite all the obstacles they put in her way.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Standing between these poles are the women of the office, many there by their lights only to find the means to leave the working life for the nirvana of Betty Draper-hood, with Peggy Olson-dom as an unthinkable fate to be consigned to.  But in fact they each play important roles in the workplace without which the agency would grind to a  screeching halt.  Their self-conception has not caught up to the extent they have in fact self-actualized to some extent more than Mrs. Draper has.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The men are on the show largely there for comic relief and, as Will says, style, though the character of Don does represent well the almost-vacant-but-still-vaguely-yearning soul of modern nihilistic capitalism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But of course Don is underestimating and oppressing his wife, not allowing her to develop the potential that she plainly has to be much more than she is (in fact, much more than she thinks she can be, seeing as how modeling is to date the limit of her ambition &#8212; but not of her potential).  Don cannot conceive of a role for outside the one he has so far considered, and can&#39;t conceive that she should want more.  This is the greatest oppression depicted on the show.</p>
<p>In terms of the progress of women, Peggy Olson serves as the opposite pole from Betty Draper, pursuing a creative career alongside the men, despite all the obstacles they put in her way.</p>
<p>Standing between these poles are the women of the office, many there by their lights only to find the means to leave the working life for the nirvana of Betty Draper-hood, with Peggy Olson-dom as an unthinkable fate to be consigned to.  But in fact they each play important roles in the workplace without which the agency would grind to a  screeching halt.  Their self-conception has not caught up to the extent they have in fact self-actualized to some extent more than Mrs. Draper has.</p>
<p>The men are on the show largely there for comic relief and, as Will says, style, though the character of Don does represent well the almost-vacant-but-still-vaguely-yearning soul of modern nihilistic capitalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UncleJoe223</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27488</link>
		<dc:creator>UncleJoe223</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27488</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a male of &quot;middle age&quot; and I watch Mad Men because of the extraordinary acting.  I watch it least of all for it&#039;s portrayal of life in the early 1960&#039;s which I find revisionist and largely false.  It is the post-modern &quot;liberated&quot; homosexual view of a world of straight male primacy: straight white men bad-women victims.   Men are portrayed here as drunkards, oppressors, fools, and clowns, while women are either powerless or sluts, or stupid.   If they are married they are secretly miserable.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;How ridiculous.   How utterly insultingly ridiculous. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Believe it or not, many people were happy in the 40&#039;s, 50&#039;s and early 60&#039;s.  How can this be, you scream, as they had not had the great &quot;entlightenment&#039; of the revolutionary 60&#039;s?   Were&#039;nt they all repressed and/or greedy? &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Uh...no.   Many of them, us, were quite happy and enjoyed full and satisfying lives going to the club, dancing, visiting friends, and in NYC, seeing extraordinary theater, Broadway musicals, great baseball, and affordable housing. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;No one happy?  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Think again, friends.   We never had it so good again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#39;m a male of &#8220;middle age&#8221; and I watch Mad Men because of the extraordinary acting.  I watch it least of all for it&#39;s portrayal of life in the early 1960&#39;s which I find revisionist and largely false.  It is the post-modern &#8220;liberated&#8221; homosexual view of a world of straight male primacy: straight white men bad-women victims.   Men are portrayed here as drunkards, oppressors, fools, and clowns, while women are either powerless or sluts, or stupid.   If they are married they are secretly miserable.  </p>
<p>How ridiculous.   How utterly insultingly ridiculous. </p>
<p>Believe it or not, many people were happy in the 40&#39;s, 50&#39;s and early 60&#39;s.  How can this be, you scream, as they had not had the great &#8220;entlightenment&#39; of the revolutionary 60&#39;s?   Were&#39;nt they all repressed and/or greedy? </p>
<p>Uh&#8230;no.   Many of them, us, were quite happy and enjoyed full and satisfying lives going to the club, dancing, visiting friends, and in NYC, seeing extraordinary theater, Broadway musicals, great baseball, and affordable housing. </p>
<p>No one happy?  </p>
<p>Think again, friends.   We never had it so good again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micha Ghertner</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27487</link>
		<dc:creator>Micha Ghertner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27487</guid>
		<description>I suspect Mad Men&#039;s limited audience has more to do with the network it is on than any other factor. I don&#039;t think I ever watched anything on AMC prior to Mad Men, and other than the initially promising but now rapidly declining Breaking Bad, I don&#039;t watch any of their other programming. Is AMC even widely available in the cable market? It certainly doesn&#039;t have the cross-brand promotion that channels like USA, FX, and TNT have.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Had Mad Man been picked up by HBO, or one of the traditional non-cable broadcast networks, I bet its ratings would be orders of magnitude higher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect Mad Men&#39;s limited audience has more to do with the network it is on than any other factor. I don&#39;t think I ever watched anything on AMC prior to Mad Men, and other than the initially promising but now rapidly declining Breaking Bad, I don&#39;t watch any of their other programming. Is AMC even widely available in the cable market? It certainly doesn&#39;t have the cross-brand promotion that channels like USA, FX, and TNT have.</p>
<p>Had Mad Man been picked up by HBO, or one of the traditional non-cable broadcast networks, I bet its ratings would be orders of magnitude higher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micha Ghertner</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/09/01/the-gender-politics-of-mad-men/#comment-27486</link>
		<dc:creator>Micha Ghertner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:47:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=3724#comment-27486</guid>
		<description>Good point re: Cosgrove.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As for Peggy, I don&#039;t find her character improbable because I personally share her traits of audacity combined with social awkwardness, though not her work ethic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point re: Cosgrove.</p>
<p>As for Peggy, I don&#39;t find her character improbable because I personally share her traits of audacity combined with social awkwardness, though not her work ethic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

