Why I don’t love “Mad Men”

The Golden Globe- and Emmy-award winning TV series, Mad Men a series that focused on an advertising agency located in Madison Avenue and the employees of the company, set in the 60s, has turned out to become an interesting pop culture phenomenon. Accordingly, it has attracted a myriad of fans and has piqued the interest of various scholars in different fields. One of these scholars is Lauren Goodlad, who was inspired by multiple New York Times columns on the same topic to write the essay, “Why we love Mad Men,” (Goodlad 1). In this essay, the author’s primary focus is on Donald Draper’s characterization as a mysterious advertisement man that exemplifies the misconstrued ideas of masculinity, while balancing the divergent roles of a playboy and father (Goodlad, Kaganovsky and Rushing 34). Goodlad claims that the thing that makes Mad Men so captivating is the revolving characters that inundate Don as well as the complicated and delicate situations that each and every of those characters acquires (1). While Goodlad coverage of the characteristics that have made "Mad Men," is quite captivating, the argument is not accurate in addressing the thing that Don is a symbol for. Accordingly, the paper herein will diffuse why Goodlad’s argument is flawed and show what Don and the entire Mad Men series really stands for; a cunningly misogynistic and sexist series. Before delving into an argument against Lauren Goodlad’s essay, it would be fair to acknowledge some of her arguments that make a lot of sense. In the first sections of Goodlad’s essay, she talks about her feminist dislike to men like Don Draper. She goes ahead to cover the modern world masculinity and comes