Over at BadAssNerd I’m getting called out for the Mad Men alignment chart:
Betty isn’t evil. At all. Frankly, I think it’s sexist that she keeps getting pigeonholed as the bad guy on the show when she’s no more bad than many of the men. Her crime – she’s not that much fun. Which is why the truly evil Roger Sterling gets to be Neutral Evil on the chart. He’s fun. We like watching him. But unlike Betty, Roger deliberately hurts people, and he does it for his own pleasure. He’s mean and he’s untrustworthy and he’s vain and he’s selfish. Truly Chaotic Evil.
Firstly, “the men” on Mad Men are varying levels of bad. Lane is honestly pretty decent, all things considered (yes, I know, disintegrating marriage – but he tries to make it work for longer than he frankly should, continues to support his estranged wife as is proper, and immediately tries to find another dedicated relationship). Sal is a big sweetheart. Don usually tries to be a good person and succeeds maybe half the time if he’s lucky. Ken is self-interested, but not amorally so. Bert Cooper is old-school for both good and bad. Harry is developing his asshole streak at present. The only real bastards on the show are Pete and Roger, and oh look they’re in the bottom row with Betty.
Secondly, I take issue with the idea that Betty isn’t evil because she’s “no worse than many of the men.” Betty is a meanspirited person. She clearly takes pleasure in hurting people she doesn’t like. She’s incredibly hateful – even borderline abusive – towards Sally. She’s capricious, inconstant and unreliable. She’s wildly paranoid and a massive control freak as regards her own personal preferences.
Now, because Mad Men is a good show, it develops why Betty is these things. I mean, Betty is pretty clearly fucked up. The show’s implied that she’s the product of an abusive, loveless upbringing. She’s so terrified of her own problems she’s only willing to talk about them with a child psychologist and then only in the context of small talk.
All of this is certainly true, but just because there are valid, understandable reasons that Betty has become a horrible person doesn’t change the fact that she’s a horrible person. It honestly strikes me as patronizing to say that because she’s a woman and therefore without an equivalent degree of personal agency to the men of the show, she can’t make her own moral and ethical decisions: she does so over the course of the series and unflaggingly makes the wrong/bad/selfish ones constantly. That’s evil, for the purpose of the Alignment Game.
Related Articles
31 users responded in this post
So in contrast to Roger, Betty *doesn’t* deliberately hurt people? So, she’s only unintentionally spited Sally, Glenn, Don, Sarah Beth (her friend at the stables?), CARLA.
Clearly you have issues with girls named Betty.
Borderline abusive to Sally? I think it’s pretty clear, even before she hit her, that she’s definitively abusive.
Heartily agree. Over at avclub.com, they compared her to Livia Soprano, and I think that’s apt. Season 1 Betty, sure, maybe she’s at best CN, and maybe a lot of this really is Don’s fault, but last year was when she started really going off the rails, alignment-wise.
My only criticism of the chart was that Glen and comedian Jimmy Barrett (and probably Duck Phillips too) all strike me as better choices for “Chaotic Neutral” than schlubby Harry Crane.
Honestly? That BAN quote makes it sound like someone out there thinks Chaotic Evil = Neutral Evil + Way More Evilness.
Not only do you get slapped with the “sexist” brush, they don’t even bother to give you credit for it. Nice.
I am sorry, but isn’t it sexist to describe the behavior of one gender differently than behavior of the other?
Reverse the genders of Don and Betty. Give them the same behaviors. A woman with a murky, shameful past that is trying to be better and often failing. A man from an affluent family that enjoys punishing everyone for their weaknesses and abuses his children.
I doubt that anyone would have the slightest doubt that the male version of Betts would be considered evil?
The only reason people call Betty Draper “misunderstood” is that she is pretty, blonde woman with understandable motives.
Yeah, maybe they didn’t watch the fourth season, or even the third…
What struck me about the BadAssNerd post was the way MGK, who only created the chart, was reduced to “someone”, not even meriting a link. That’s just f.–ng rude
Sounds like maybe those Mad Men fans don’t actually overlap with D&D fans at all.
What the BAN and a lot of the Betty defenders forget is something that’s actually pretty simple.
You can be a victim AND a bad person in this life. (It’s been a pretty common thing in Spiderman comics for the last fifty years)
I’ll be honest; Devin Faraci vs Christopher Bird was the longtime battle I’ve always wanted…nay DESERVED to see.
Said it before, will say it again: alignment is a silly concept. Imposing it on rounded characters is briefly amusing for D&D nerds, but as a serious criticism it can never work.
Well, I overlap with D&D and Mad Men, and I thought the chart was great. 🙂
Alignment charts are for laffs, yes, but they do offer a nice little glimpse of insight sometimes. Good ones give you that “That’s so true!” feeling, except sometimes with an added ” . . . neutral!”
You’ve roused my curiosity, Agog. What would be objectionable about labeling Robin Hood chaotic good?
Because I feel the distinction of alignment too narrow, Q. Chaotic Good would be perfect for a 2-D, ‘Errol Flynn’ type Robin, which is fine. But a more rounded character can not be defined by a single paragraph from the Player’s Guide. Could not our Robin be Neutral Good, or even Lawful (to the rule of King Richard), as often as Chaotic? Students of ethics would argue that he’s definitely evil from the Sheriff’s viewpoint! I feel alignment was a part of RPG development, which has since been rendered obsolete. Fully realised, with poor or average players/DMs, you bascially only had 9 different characters.
Agog: I’ve found this exercise insightful because it (1) reveals how other fans view these characters and (2) offers a reference point of discussion. By giving, say, Betty or Don a a single, defined nature, it actually feels easier to look at them beyond that definition, because all the arguments have an instant context. Works for me.
I can’t believe nobody has linked to the Sadie Doyle article yet. Here it is:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/10/18/no-ones-ever-on-your-side-betty-draper-francis-still-needs-your-love/
It’s good.
Doug M.
@Doug: Good link, thanks. I found the essay very interesting and nuanced, although some of the comments sadly not as much.
Actually, I take issue with the characterisation of Pete as a bastard, and or lawful. He’s not especially lawful, and since season 1, he’s left almost all of his bastardliness behind. I rather think he’s in the middle with Don.
Also, Harry crane isn’t especially chaotic – he’s more just vaguely unexplored and not particularly likeable.
Yeah, that Doyle article is quite good, thanks for posting.
“but as a serious criticism it can never work.”
And serious criticism is exactly what this is being sold as. Riiiigghht.
Tell that to all those inspired to debate, Ed. You know how seriously nerds attend to such things.
Nah, Betty still not actually more of a monster than Don, who continues to be a scummy, emotionally manipulative asshole basically always, and didn’t come up with a single good idea in S4 that Peggy didn’t come up with for him.
Also Jegus the number of people who say “Ugh Betty wanting to talk to a CHILD psychologist like she’s some kind of CHILD” as if they’ve completely forgotten that she sought out formal, professional adult psychiatric help and the scummy douche reported everything she was saying back to her scummy douche husband.
Tagging Betty as evil may not be sexist; tagging Betty as evil but not Don because he’s charming and endearing and sympathetic and professionally successful absolutely is.
as if they’ve completely forgotten that she sought out formal, professional adult psychiatric help and the scummy douche reported everything she was saying back to her scummy douche husband.
Or worse, the people who acknowledge this by way of trying to pretend that this too is somehow Betty’s fault.
Who does Roger deliberately hurt? He’s certainly untrustworthy and vain and selfish. But mean? I would agree that he perhaps doesn’t care if he hurts somebody in the process of getting what he wants; but I don’t see him setting out only to hurt someone. Don is more vengeful and mean than Roger.
Is Don True Neutral, or Neutral Evil?
[i]The show’s implied that she’s the product of an abusive, loveless upbringing.[/i]
Isn’t this pretty much the origin of the Red Skull as well?
The issue here isn’t if she’s evil or not, but whether she is likeable or not. There are a lot of right bastards on the show, and every single character has a moment of two where they are clearly in the wrong. However, most of the characters end up being likeable around 50% of the time. Betty, however, gets raked over the coals for being unlikeable just because her brand of bastard is found to be unrelateable by a lot of the viewers. She’s definitely evil. I still root for her to be happy. Same as I do Pete and Roger. I think most people are just confusing the two.