Bad Boys and "Mad Men": What Do Women Want?

This piece was originally published on CarnalNation.

Why do smart, strong, feminist women get hot for rogues and Lotharios, sexy but selfish bad boys who use women and throw them away?

The fourth season of "Mad Men" has just concluded: the brilliant, beautiful, painful, inspiring, fascinating TV series on AMC about a New York ad agency in the early 1960s, and the screwed-up, rapidly- changing- but- not- rapidly- enough world of gender and race and sex during that place and time.

And it's reminding me of a rant I've been wanting to rant for a little while now:

Why are so many women hot for Don Draper?

The lying, philandering, self-absorbed, work-obsessed, emotionally warped, goes- through- mistresses- like- cigarettes, sexist prick of a lead character, Don Draper?

Via Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, we have this charming article in the New York Observer, speculating on why Don Draper is inspiring so much lust in so many women. The gist of the article is that feminism has been too successful -- and women aren't happy with it. We've gotten our equal partners, men who share housework and child-care, men who express their emotions and support us in our careers, men who treat women with respect and value home and family more than work... and it's letting us down. What we really want is Don Draper. And we're hypocrites for expecting men to be more feminist... while fantasizing about sexist bad boys who treat women like dirt.

Speaking as someone with a mild Don Draper fetish (although Joan Holloway is the "Mad Men" character I really crave): This is just silly and wrong. It's silly and wrong for so many reasons, I can't even begin to outline them all. (Although I'm certainly going to try.)

For one thing: Don Draper isn't a standard Bad Boy. He's not a conventional Lothario, chasing tail indiscriminately, purely for his own sexual and ego satisfaction, with no interest in women as people, and no recognition of their equal humanity. For starters, he has more than a kernel of genuine respect for women -- certainly way more than any other male character on the show. He's the one who recognized Peggy Olson's talents as a copywriter, and who helped her repeatedly in her pioneering climb up the Sterling Cooper ladder. (Help that often came in complicated and ambiguous ways, to be sure -- but help nonetheless.) Not to mention his singular, impassioned, entirely necessary support of Peggy during her time of terrible need. That was an act of pure human compassion and friendship... one that transcended gender.

And look at his taste in women. Every woman Don cheats on his wife with is intelligent, independent, unconventional, and in some way defiant of traditional gender roles. Proto-feminists, one might even call them. (In fact, I'm wondering now if part of the Don Draper fantasy has to do with wanting to be one of the strong, edgy, fascinating women he gets the hots for.) What's more, he has a genuine emotional connection with these women, a connection he's largely lacking with his wife, Betty... and a connection that seems to be a major part of why he pursues these affairs. And this taste in women is, I think, a huge part of the attraction. It's not about him being a sexist throwback to a time when Men Were Men. It's about him being a complicated man who's drawn to strong, interesting women.

Especially given the context of his time. I think this is something that gets overlooked in this "women really want sexist manly-men" analysis of "Mad Men." It's not like "sexist" versus "feminist" are all- or- nothing categories, with everyone falling into one or the other. It's a spectrum. So yes, in the context of 2011, Don Draper falls squarely into the "sexist philanderer who uses women and discards them" end of that spectrum. But in the context of the early 1960s, in the context of the other men all around him in the Manhattan ad agency world? He's Gloria Freaking Steinem. Which makes you start to wonder: if he was this forward- thinking about women and gender in 1961, what would he be like today? Which makes him interesting... and attractive.

(It's worth noting that, while Don Draper has throngs of admiring female fans, Pete Campbell -- who's way more unambiguously sexist and overtly misogynist than Don has ever been -- does not. Hey, actor Vincent Kartheiser is a hottie, too... but as far as I know, women aren't wetting their panties en masse over Pete. They're running for the exits whenever he comes on screen. He's a complex character, one who inspires pity and compassion as well as revulsion... but he's not inspiring hordes of modern women to join the Pete Campbell, Please Fuck Me Now Fan Club, the way Don Draper is.)

And, as Amanda Marcotte pointed out (in a Tweet, which I now of course can't find): Maybe just a little, bitty, teensy weensy part of the Don Draper appeal might have to do with the fact that actor Jon Hamm is so eminently fuckable. Maybe the attraction is just marginally related to the fact that Jon Hamm is ten pounds of gorgeous in a five pound bag, one of the tastiest snack treats to come out of the media world in a good long time, and women would want to fuck him if he played Phil Donahue. It's possible that the tiniest sliver of the Don Draper fantasy is really about wanting to spread Jon Hamm on a biscuit and eat him up for breakfast. Maybe just a skosh. [end sarcasm] As Marcotte pointed out: Do we really think women all over the country would be drooling over Don Draper if he was played by Ron Howard?

But while all this is important, I think it's missing the most important crux of the matter:

What we fantasize about, and what we want in our real lives, are not necessarily the same thing.

It's a huge mistake to assume that what people fantasize about is the thing they most sincerely want. People can be very happy and satisfied in their lives, and still fantasize about a life that's different. People can be happy in fairly settled, stable lives, and still fantasize about danger and adventure. People can be happy in unstructured lives with a lot of travel and unpredictability, and still fantasize about a life of calm, peaceful contemplation. People who've happily chosen job satisfaction over money can fantasize about winning the lottery. Happy urban dwellers can fantasize about bucolic tranquility. Happy parents can fantasize about quiet and cleanliness.

And that's especially true for sexual fantasies. People fantasize about all kinds of sexual things that they don't really want to do. People fantasize about -- to pick the most obvious example -- force or coercion or rape, without actually wanting to be forced or coerced or raped. (Or wanting to force or coerce or rape someone else.) Some people even want to consensually act out these rape fantasies... but that's not the same thing as wanting to be raped in reality. And many people who have rape fantasies don't even want to act them out consensually. They want to keep them strictly as fantasies.

So to ask women, "How can you be hot for Don Draper and still say you want men to treat you with respect?" is like asking women, "How can you have rape fantasies and still say you want rape crisis centers?"

I do think fantasies can offer a clue about our desires. If there's a fantasy I'm having very consistently, it's often a clue to what's missing in my life. I have more fantasies about submission when my life is feeling overly managed and scheduled. I have more fantasies about being sexually powerful and dominant when my life is feeling out of control. I have more fantasies about men when I'm mostly having sex with women, and vice versa. It's even true of my non-sexual fantasies. I have fantasies of peaceful retreat when my life is becoming too harried; I have fantastical, grandiose, Mary Sue-esque fanfic fantasies when I'm feeling like life is too ordinary, too much of what a friend described as "the quotidian march to the grave." Fantasies can be a clue about what we don't have in our lives: a portrait drawn in negative space, a signpost to the road not taken.

But the road not taken isn't necessarily the road that ought to be taken. Or even the road that we most sincerely and secretly want to take. Every choice means giving up a different choice, and we can be happy and at peace with our choices, while still recognizing that other choices have their pleasures to offer... and while still enjoying fantasies about where those choices might have taken us.

And, of course, one of the most crucial things about fantasies is that they always turn out exactly the way we want them. This is something that most sane adults understand, and that Observer writer Irina Aleksander seems to have overlooked. When we fantasize about bucolic retreat, it's never suffocating or tedious; when we fantasize about adventure and danger, it's never uncomfortable or terrifying. And when women fantasize about bad boy rogues who treat women like dirt, the bad boys almost never treat us badly. They're fascinated with us. They find us hauntingly compelling: so hauntingly compelling that, even though they usually use women and toss them aside, they somehow can't tear themselves away from us. (Boy, is it embarrassing to admit that.) I think that's something people forget about bad-boy fantasies. Much of the time, they're not about bad boys. They're about bad boys going good because of us. They're not about wanting to be mistreated. They're about wanting to be special.

And it's entirely possible to enjoy idealized fantasies of being special, so special that we inspire the dangerous, callous, villainous bad boy to change his ways (while retaining his dangerous edge, of course)... and still, in our real lives, recognize these bad boys as the self-absorbed jackasses they are. It's possible to recognize that the reality of bad boys is nowhere near as much fun as the fantasy.

I once took a silly test in a celebrity gossip magazine, testing which male hero in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" you'd want to be involved with: Riley, Xander, or Spike. (Angel, for some reason, was not on the list.) At the time, I had a huge clit-on for the dangerous, unpredictable, amoral, bad-boy Spike; he occupied an embarrassingly large portion of my fantasy life, and I whacked off to him more often than I care to admit. And yet, when tested on what kind of man I might actually want to be in a relationship with, my answers pointed, with startling consistency, to the funny, good-hearted, down- to- earth Xander.

Which was absolutely correct. Not about Xander -- I'm definitely a Willow or Giles girl -- but about preferring funny, good-hearted, and down- to- earth over dangerous, unpredictable, and amoral.

Sometimes, obviously, fantasies really are a sign of what we want. The years-long persistence of my lesbian fantasies was a big freaking clue to the fact that I'm a dyke. Ditto the years-long persistence of my kinky fantasies. And that's worth paying attention to. Sometimes, fantasies do tell us what we truly want and are not getting.

But sometimes, they really don't.

And it's ridiculous to call women hypocrites for daydreaming about one thing, while wanting something entirely different, something better, something far more richly and seriously satisfying, when we're back on earth.

Comments

[Nemo]

Now that you mention it... I think Phil Donahue could be a good role for Hamm. I definitely see a resemblance there.

[kisarita]

I don't agree that most women want a man who treats them badly. What happens is that the manipulative exploitive men know how to turn on the charm in the beginning and don't let their true colors show until later.

[kisarita]

I think though, that chauvinist men and feminist women are often attracted to eachother for the same reason- the other represents a challence.

[Chas Warren]

When I was still a boy, I fantasized about things that I wouldn't have wanted in real life. Of course, I thought I wanted them, but when I finally experienced that ménage à trois (for example), it was more awkward than enjoyable.

Today, at 49, if I fantasize about it, I want to do it.

[Maria]

kisarita, I think the point was that sometimes women fantasize about men that they do, in fact, not want in reality. That the, rather common, bad boy fantasy doesn't at all have to indicate a true wish in real life.

[DA]

I feel like you're kind of reaching in your characterization of Draper, even though I agree with your overarching point. The character is an asshole plain and simple. The way Marcotte can talk about how awesome he is and then lay into the Daily Show for supposed sexism based on hearsay by ex-employees is really a head-scratcher.

I like Mad Men, and I liked Sopranos when it was on; but I've never understood how anyone can see Tony or Don as anything other than total bastards, and sexist, racist, homophobic bastards at that. People act like they're admirable guys, and with Draper it's just getting ridiculous as real people try to emulate or even dress like him.

[Valhar2000]

DA: Mis-aimed fandom. It's a depressingly common phenomenon.

[DSimon]

Once again TVTropes has the answer: it's the continuing spread of the Draco in Leather Pants phenomenon.

[Greta Christina]

DA: I really, really don't agree with you. I don't think Don Draper is a great guy, I don't think he's awesome or admirable... but I don't think he's an asshole, pure and simple, either. I don't think he's anything, pure and simple. He's complicated and ambiguous, morally as well as emotionally. Every time I decide he's a total douchebag, he does something seriously decent; every time I decide he's a basically decent guy, he does something vile. It's one of the things I like best about the show. (And he's not the only character on the show like this: I love how non- black- and- white most of the characters are, and how I wind up having empathy for even the worst among them. [cough] Pete Campbell [cough] Betty Draper [cough].)

Just a couple of examples of things Don has done that were generous and kind and compassionate (SPOILER warning to anyone who hasn't watched the show but plans to):

His kindness and help to Peggy when she was in the mental hospital. (Not to mention his promotion of her career: arguably it was self-interested, but nobody else was doing it. The ability to recognize that your prejudices are getting in the way of your self-interest is one of the main ways prejudices get overcome.)

Declining to out Sal when he first found out he was gay: and not just declining to out him, but letting it slide. treating it as a non-issue, and treating Sal on a purely professional level.

Covering Pete Campbell's share of the company bail-out.

And, while it doesn't exactly count as kindness and generosity and compassion, I find his attraction to smart, independent, unconventional women who defy gender roles to be not only fascinating, but at least somewhat admirable.

Is he a perfect paragon? Of course not. His behavior to Peggy has sometimes been affectionate and supportive, and has sometimes been downright cruel. His initial kindness about Sal's gayness was countered later by his bigotry and cruelty, and his willingness to throw him off the ship when he became inconvenient. And while he does have a consistent attraction for smart, independent, unconventional women, he's also clearly afraid of them. Witness this season's closer, when he unceremoniously dropped an intelligent woman with a career of her own who's his intellectual equal and emotional intimate, in favor of a pretty sweet young thing who's good with kids and who he barely knows.

The guy is not a paragon. I never said he was (and as far as I know, neither has Marcotte). But I think he's undeniably complicated and ambiguous, with warring impulses and aspirations. And again, it's one of the things I like best about the show: the characters are so human, with competing virtues and vices, just like we all have.

[David Cass]

We can analyze your post to an agonizingly slow death, or. . . we can mostly agree that - once again - you've transcended all expectations of brilliance in your post of yesterday. Truly, Greta, that is one of the best analyses of our culture, as relates to male and female relationships, that I have seen. Ever. Way to go.

[Rieux]

Just to attack you from the diametrically opposite side from other commenters (I think you're exactly right about Don), it seems to me that you're too hard on Pete Campbell. Pete has plenty of ugliness (including, yes, misogyny) to him, but he's grown a lot recently, especially in this past season. He's been repeatedly shown as more sympathetic (albeit for reasons that include self-interest) to the civil rights movement than anyone else at SCDP, unless you think Lane's Playboy Bunny girlfriend is supposed to say a lot about his political leanings. Most memorably, Pete's determined protection of Don's big secret, even under the withering assault of Roger "hypocritical lying bastard" Sterling, was positively heroic.

Pete has been doing valuable work that has been a huge part of keeping the new firm alive, and he hasn't (ahem) screwed anyone for a long time. Give him a chance.

[Jan]

Its always nice to read someone say we can fantasise about things we don't really want. Some people just never get that!