the MANLIEST PAIN OF ALL

[pocochina]

So, we are all up to speed on thingswithwings’ phenomenal Man Pain vid and post? Well worth a watch/read but be warned of spoilers for pretty much everything ever.

It’s one of those wonderfully thought-provoking dark humor/righteous anger pieces, and it crystallized a whole set of my reactions to Man Pain itself, and other peoples’ reactions to

Comments

[blackfrancine]

And I think in a lot of ways his Manliest Pain is the most insidious, because it’s a straight drama, but the damage modern advertising does to all of us is huge. Its fundamental purpose is to create dissatisfaction, to deceive the individual mind and distort the market at large. Don’s job is to go around wreaking misery, and we’re meant maybe not to admire him (though outside of our happy little bubble? People really do) but to root for him all the same.

Gah. Have I told you lately that I love you and want to live with you in a plural marriage? Maybe we can live in Utah and raise chickens and goats or something. Farm fresh eggs--all the time!

Seriously, I was just ranting to a friend about the advertising industry and how it's sole driving force is to erode self esteem and introduce dissatisfaction. And I didn't even think about Don Draper--but that's a perfect way of summing him up.

He wants to take everything from them emotionally, even what he did to them. It’s not renouncing the control itself, merely swapping one

[pocochina]

Gah. Have I told you lately that I love you and want to live with you in a plural marriage? Maybe we can live in Utah and raise chickens and goats or something. Farm fresh eggs--all the time!

OF COURSE IT'S YES!

Yeah. The Manliest Pain of Draper is really harshest in a lot of ways in that WE are the fridgees. Like, at least the other two are not-real people in SF worlds/not-real versions of our world. It is so hard on Don Draper to be fucking with OUR HEADS right now.

It's not about some sort of masturbatory celebration of HOW IMPORTANT I AM because I either FAILED to save someone or did something so HORRIBLE that other people suffered. Because you're right--that's just enjoying the power in a different way. But Wes and Logan really are just good old-fashioned scarred--angry and bitter, with a little bit of well-deserved self pity thrown in. Because they're owning their OWN pain, I don't mind it all. In fact, I like it. Yeah. Man Pain discussions, I feel like, end up in over- or at least unhelpful-use of the term (a tough line to

[penny_lane_42]

"he is a mentally ill survivor of child abuse and I don't wanna hear it."

Great point.

[pocochina]

which, you know, is actually fine about fictional characters? It's the attempt to cover it as I HATE MAN PAIN, or sideline the legitimate issues for the sake of the I HATE MAN PAIN, that pings me the wrong way, if that makes sense.

[penny_lane_42]

I'd been waiting for this post since you mentioned it, and I am very glad to see it!

I can only think of three characters that I have a visceral negative reaction to - Bill Adama, Don Draper, and Angel - and they share a very specific type of Man Pain. It's not just the moping that annoys me, or even that other people have to suffer for their Man Pain. It’s characters who cause legitimate pain to others for the sake of their own Man Pain, which is still portrayed sympathetically.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

I agree with this statement, needless to say.

What I do think is a narrative failure is the prioritization of and over-reliance on this particular type of Man Pain. Yes. Just because a guy is in pain doesn't make it Man Pain. Mostly I am not annoyed by the characters (though in general I don't tend to relate to them--Wes and Lee and Jack Harkness do nothing for me, as we've established, though I understand their appeal and respect their construction

[pocochina]

THERE YOU ARE! ha, you totally spurred me to get it done so I am glad you liked. (Well, more to cut down on the rambling by a couple of pages and organize! But get it done.)

Just because a guy is in pain doesn't make it Man Pain. Mostly I am not annoyed by the characters (though in general I don't tend to relate to them--Wes and Lee and Jack Harkness do nothing for me, as we've established, though I understand their appeal and respect their construction), I just don't care about them (the only character who had a major role in the vid that I really, really love is Mulder. Oh, and Dean. I forgot about him). Though I don't...I really wasn't trying to be like THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD LIKE THESE GUYS. (If people wanted to be convinced they know where to find me, lol.) Just that their (arguable) Man Pain doesn't bother me, is in fact often effective and sympathetic for me, and really isn't this particular type of Man Pain. I can be angry with their respective narratives for what happened to Fred and Dee, but it doesn't make the characters

[penny_lane_42]

Oh, I didn't think you were trying to convert anybody. I was just trying to differentiate between the guys who may not work for me but don't bother me and the guys who drive me CRAZY, if that makes sense. Like saying that I can appreciate their construction even if they aren't really my thing, you know?

I can be angry with their respective narratives for what happened to Fred and Dee, but it doesn't make the characters have less meaning for me to know there was fridging somewhere along their arc.

No, I get that. That's a case of being mad at the writers and not the character, which is an important distinction for me. Like, for instance, I lovelovelove Martha Jones, but I often hate the writing for her.

because once a story starts axing women every other episode I AM LOOKING AT YOU BSG, the entire remaining cast is going to have Man Pain.Good point

[ever_neutral]

I can be angry with their respective narratives for what happened to Fred and Dee, but it doesn't make the characters have less meaning for me to know there was fridging somewhere along their arc.

This. Again.

[penny_lane_42]

Gaius Baltar. Baltar’s guilt isn’t supposed to make him sympathetic because HAHAHA, HE DOESN’T FEEL ANY, and when he does, it is in a distant fourth to HE, HIMSELF, AND HIM. And the narrative makes this painfully clear. We sympathize with Baltar in spite of his awfulness, not because of it. By portraying his reaction as selfishness, the story acknowledges that there is a world outside of Baltar’s self.

Agreed. This is why I love him as a character: the show never excuses him. It knows exactly how awful he is and indeed his entire characterization is built around that. And yet, at the end of the show, when he said the thing about farming and started crying, I had the most EXCELLENT EMOTIONAL REACTION. I cannot even tell you. That moment was perfect and felt earned and real. I am a Baltar fan. I will use this icon

[pocochina]

OH BALTAR. I LOVE HIM SO. He was so constantly deflated and undercut and dangerously selfish without being villainous that when there was a genuine emotional moment, you could legitimately feel for him. I was pretty much full of rage and bile by that point in the finale, but yeah, that should have been an effective moment.

Especially when I think of all the people who love him madly and constantly hate on Betty. Yeah, Betty's awful, but she's definitely not as awful as Don and has much more of a reason to be awful. I like her, even when I hate her.

UGH, YES. and that's a part of what Don's Manliest Pain is about, BOO HOO, IT IS SO HARD ON ME TO HAVE SINGLE-HANDEDLY FUCKED UP MY FAMILY AND EVERYONE IN IT. stfu

Whereas Betty's issues are (a) usually understandable, at least and (b) treated as selfishness by the narrative, sometimes I think too much so.

HI. You are my favorite person in the world right now, okay?

[penny_lane_42]

I can totally understand your reaction to the finale--to be honest, his moments with Six were pretty much the only moments that worked for me.

Whereas Betty's issues are (a) usually understandable, at least and (b) treated as selfishness by the narrative, sometimes I think too much so.

Yes. She's messed up, but we're all supposed to know it.

I actually am not at all caught up on Mad Men and I think the primary reason is just that I couldn't deal with Don anymore. Also, it's difficult to live in that world.

[angearia]

If we removed Betty's treatment of her children from the equation, I'd have no problems with Betty. As it stands...

Well, she's physically and psychologically terrorizing children. So I just... can't.

I'm not sure I'd say Don is worse than Betty -- if we say he's using advertising to attack people's self-esteem, I guess he's affecting more people. But I personally believe that formative experiences of abuse like what Betty's dishing out are WAY more malicious, longlasting, and detrimental than the influence of advertising.

I dunno. It's like that meme going around tumblr about people who felt personally victimized by Joss Whedon. I mean, I have felt gutted like a fish by Joss (and angry at him for months because of it) -- but I just can't equate what a storyteller does (and Don's a storyteller) with the child abuse Betty dishes out.

And I say this while in danger of overidentifying with Sally since during the 60's my grandma named Bettie was essentially Betty Draper -- abusive and crazy. And her victimization of her

[local_max]

Excellent as always and I particularly enjoy your comments about Gaius -- whose man pain is indeed played for laughs, and it's much more honest that way, I think. For whatever reason I like Don and Angel and will continue to do so, but I don't find them remotely admirable and I think them's the breaks. I think that the fact that Don continues to be seen as sympathetic but Betty doesn't is a pretty big problem -- but since I have never stopped being sympathetic to Betty, I think that I'm okay at applying standards of ridiculous characterphilia more or less consistently

[pocochina]

ha, I hope this didn't come across as WHY YOU SHOULD HATE THEM. Just WHY I DO.

And yeah, I remain sympathetic to Betty, however awful she gets.

I think you already know I agree with you about Jenny. I would think far less of him if he did not grieve when she died, which was an event with multiple narrative purposes (including Jenny herself being a proactive threat to Angel). I mean, the scene in Passion surely plays into all this, because it is showing us explicitly that Angelus loves to play this game and he is the villain. An example of women being disposable? At least arguably true. But I agree, the inclusion of Giles was a little jarring for me.

Complex feelings about SaGN and the inclusion of Lee as well. Because, you know, if Dee was fridged for anyone it was to push Felix over the edge; if anyone had Man Pain rather than grief about it, it was Bill. I agree with the general anger at her having been disposable, but, idk, there was a hair of "where is the whitest dude in the room, it must be all about him" and unquestioned

[local_max]

Yeah, I don't really see Lee in SaGN, either. I mean, I've only watched it once (as with the rest of season four, mostly), but I don't recall anything disproportionate in narrative focus on him. As you say, if anyone is influenced by it for plot purposes, it's Felix.

Interestingly, the Deep Space Nine example I brought up was another case of "unquestioned prioritization of marriage over other relationships in viewer reaction". I guess I'll go into vague spoiler mode for a second, but only vague. So, main (female) character died because the actress playing her left the show; she died a more or less accidental death which vaguely furthered one of the main arcs and affected the most central character as a result. Her husband -- who was not, in any real way, affected by the plotting surrounding her death, grieved for her -- but ultimately his grief was comparatively sedate, and the way it was expressed was, in the episode proper (and in the clips we were presented) exactly the way it had been established, repeatedly, is the

[pocochina]

Yeah. It's a tough distinction to make because the Man Pain talk is so close to the Women In Refrigerators talk. It sounds like it would be perfectly fair to ask why the character was killed rather than getting some other exit. And it's fine just to be fed up with female characters biting it and never like it, honestly. But the Man Pain talk does necessarily centralize the man's reaction, which means actually evaluating it past "he had one."

[ever_neutral]

This poooooost.

What Man Pain isn’t, or at least when it isn’t bothersome to me, is men who are unhappy.

Word. I think I once saw someone complaining about what a "poor little rich boy" Logan Echolls (and others of his type) is, and I think the implication there is that the character's privilege (being white, upper-class, etc.) negates the very real physical and emotional abuse he was suffering. Which makes me HAVE A RAGE BLACKOUT. Like, what. Yes, I think you should care about the character. Not because he's male or white, BUT BECAUSE HE'S AN ABUSE VICTIM. Sheesh.

When they clearly relish having done the bad things, and keep right the hell on doing them, but for some reason or another we’re supposed to support them. When we’re supposed to take the abuse of some power or other as laudable masculine prowess, and therefore hold them above the other characters.

Yesssss. And:

Moreover, it just feeds into the characters’ and audience’s agreement that some people - hypermasculine men, to be specific - not only think they are more

[pocochina]

I think I once saw someone complaining about what a "poor little rich boy" Logan Echolls (and others of his type) is, and I think the implication there is that the character's privilege (being white, upper-class, etc.) negates the very real physical and emotional abuse he was suffering.

Yeah. I mean, there are a lot of legit gripes you can have with the portrayal of abuse in popular culture. But to advertise having skated right past it like that....that's a hell of a thing for people to be so desensitized to. And couching it in social justice rhetoric is appalling. Not having been abused is also privilege at play in that kind of discussion. (Which sounds very SO'S YOUR FACE, I know, but really, though.)

And that ideal of masculinity is what leads the latter characters to act out various sorts of gender performance? But that gender performance is never portrayed by the show as being correct.I never know if it's the fatalist DON'T GET ABOVE YOURSELF attitude, or if it's positive support for diverse gender performance. (Well, I do

[ever_neutral]

But to advertise having skated right past it like that....that's a hell of a thing for people to be so desensitized to. And couching it in social justice rhetoric is appalling. Not having been abused is also privilege at play in that kind of discussion.

THANK YOU. fuck.

Well, I do actually think Bill's gripe with Lee is really about gender performance - basically the only thing Lee has failed at by the miniseries is sufficiently swinging his dick around, but doing that just gets him slapped back into place for the sake of daddy's supremacy, so - and I think the narrative excuses that.

Yep. Pretty much. It is actually astonishing how often Papadama behaves in an abusive fashion with his kids (I include Kara there) and the narrative... invites us to sympathize with him. Because Lee and Kara are never able to not forgive him (because they believe they deserve the cut-downs), therefore we should, too. And now I feel complicit in the cycle of abuse.

This aggravation really takes away from the shows for me, so I'm glad it's not an issue

[pocochina]

It is actually astonishing how often Papadama behaves in an abusive fashion with his kids (I include Kara there) and the narrative... invites us to sympathize with him. Because Lee and Kara are never able to not forgive him (because they believe they deserve the cut-downs), therefore we should, too.

yeah. And I always get why they excuse him - they have to at least go through the motions of being in the family to keep it all together; Lee especially needs a bit to go on to keep up some semblance of self-deception - but it's a fine line between showing them go along with it and encouraging viewers to do so. And that's fine when it's KILLER SPACE ROBOT ZOMBIES, but when it's something so real and common, I do think there's a greater responsibility to be careful.

And now I feel complicit in the cycle of abuse.mmmm. I think his interpersonal awfulness was a potentially interesting avenue the show at least kept open for longer than most narratives would, maybe even up until ADitL (certainly the Point of No Return as far as this