Mad (Wo)Men

Mad Men, a popular tv show on AMC set in the mid 20th century about the big wig advertising men of that era, just aired the premiere of its 5th season on Sunday Night. Deciding to give into the Mad Men crave, I watched the first episode of the show today. In the first 15 minutes of the show, you see 5 different women's characters. The first one is a woman smoking at the bar, the second a booty call, the third a young girl who seems like a hopeless dreamer with the dream of getting ahead who cannot stick up for herself, the fourth a pissy red head who insists that women are good for nothing but sex, and the fifth is finally a seemingly educated woman- however, she is foreign and is immediately shut down when she begins talking.

But don't worry it's okay because they are just making fun of people who make fun of women.....

But is it really okay? Are we not taught in English class that a double negative makes what you said before you repeated yourself true? Example: "Mother, I did not not do my chores". In this case I am partly clearing your name, but what I still really mean is that I did not do my chores, I am just unwilling to admit it. SO, to say that you are making fun of people who are making fun of women really just means that you are in fact making fun of women. In the words of a vlogger on feminist frequency "It’s really the normalization of sexism through the use of irony" (video shown below). I certainly agree with what she has to offer on the topic of lampooning others who make fun of women; check it out to hear her ideas on the topic.

Do you agree? Can we apply the theory of a double negative to something like sexism in a tv show?

At The Bottom

Feminist sayings with Ryan Gosling pictures have
been flooding the internet. This is one of many. 

A popular New York Times article floating around is about the possibly longest serving flight attendant in the U.S.- an 83 year old man who has been working as a flight attendant for 63 years now. The tone of the article can easily be described as light, heartwarming, or even inspiring. When I saw only the title of the article, I assumed the subject of the article would me a woman because of occupational crowding- men or women being  grouped in a certain job because it is the right "fit" for their gender. I do not think it was presumptive of me to jump to the conclusion that the flight attendant would be a male for a reason stated in the article. The qualifications for a flight attendant used to be: "single (widows and divorcees with no children considered), 20 years of age (girls 19 1/2 may apply for future consideration). 5’2” but no more than 5’9,” weight 105 to 135 in proportion to height and have at least 20/40 vision without glasses". I suppose it goes without saying that they must we women. Oh and also they were required to retire by 32. These requirements to be a flight attendant are quite appalling. The gall of the executives of this company to put this add out there in 1966, not that long ago, is remarkable. In the next paragraph, the article mentions his personal life: "He married a fellow flight attendant... He continued to fly. She promptly quit". This should give an idea of just how regulated these things were; these rules of being single and such were played by the book.

Despite this article acknowledging the unfair treatment of women in the work force, it does not mention women's role in the field until the very bottom of the first page and spilling on a tiny bit onto the second. It makes me wonder: how far have we really come? In an article about the unfair treatment of women, why are women only a small portion of the article, and why do they come at the point when most people would stop reading?

Women DO Count

One of the cover stories on the Sunday New York Times is about Obama's campaign and his latest tactic to regain candidacy in the 2012 race. As my title suggests, the key to his winning the election is getting the women vote. A new health care law is out mandating universal insurance and requiring coverage of both treatments for illnesses, and more controversially, certain women's health care coverages. These coverages include: contraception, mammograms, and abortion. Republicans and leading republican presidential candidates are not in favor of these health care laws and plan to repeal it if they get in power. 


One of my main problems with this issue is the disconnect between the Republican party's pro-life stance and how they treat people. A friend of mine recently shared this photo with me on Facebook, about all of the help the Republicans deny different groups. As the sign poignantly remarks upon- we will take care of you to make sure that you will be born, but once you are born, we have no intentions of protecting you from going broke from expensive medical treatments which you cannot pay for, or breast cancer prevention (mammogram testing), etc. Being sick is not a choice, which is why I believe that whether or not the Catholic Church's morals allows Catholics to receive previously mentioned women's health care, they should provide it as an option for all employees and people who have their health care. It simply does not make sense to be pro-life and not let people then have a good life where they do not have to worry about whether they can receive medical attention or not because it may cost them their house for something like a few chemotherapy treatments. 


Back to where I began, women in the election. Most women would and maybe even should be appalled by the Republican party's lack of support for their well-being. Here is a statistic on how much women effect who is in power, a "survey asked in the summer which party should control Congress, 46 percent of women favored Democrats and 42 percent preferred Republican control. But in a survey released Monday ... that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats "(Source). It has been 90 years since women gained suffrage, and their vote is finally starting to matter. But I wonder in terms of the Republicans, how can they expect to win the race when they are upsetting women, who according to the NYtimes article "were 53 percent of the national vote in 2008 " ?