But if the creep had wanted Dawn, I doubt Don would have thought twice. he fired Sal for not sleeping with a client.

Not only that, but way back when they were having difficulty with the potato chips and the mouthy drunken comedian, the first sex he had with Bobbie, the comic's wife, was pretty damn coerced; he wasn't entirely unwilling, but he didn't pursue her and didn't return her overtures until after she'd spelled out a brutally clear quid pro quo: fuck me and my husband makes a nice sincere apology, don't fuck me and it all blows up in the firm's face and you lose the account, because he does nothing unless I tell him to. Your choice.

He not only respects Joan more than he did Sal or more than he would Dawn, he respects her a lot more than he respects himself.

(eta: of course, if Don ever sat down and wrote up a list of everyone he genuinely respects, he'd pretty much run through the entire rest of the planet before he got to "myself." His abusive stepmother might be the very last person on that list, but quite possibly not.)

I think part of the equation for Joan was simply realizing/believing that the partners already thought of her as a whore, or sexual asset. Simply by putting the proposal in front of her instead of rejecting it out of hand precisely marked their opinion of her. Consequently, sleeping with the guy doesn't lose her any status, but it does gain her a partnership. Since respect for her work meant exactly nothing to them, she decided to take the real power that she could grab.

She'll have a say in hiring decisions and a lot of other things in the firm now. 5% isn't a huge interest, but because of her expertise in running the firm, they will defer to her on a number of fronts. Basically if a situation like she had with Jane long ago came up again, she could just fire Jane. She won't be subject to their override.

I haven't watched the latest The Killing yet (it sounds like it's going to make me roll my eyes very hard) but I have given a fair amount of thought to what I like about and what I don't. I don't care that the case wasn't solved at the end of the first season. I do care that the plot and the characterizations seems to formulated in order to give us a series of sensational revelations rather than real people going through a murder investigation. It's disappointing, because there are occasional flashes (more than that in the early episodes, I think) of really raw and honest storytelling, and that is what got me watching the show in the first place.

So I am sometimes enjoying this season, but when I am not it does seem like they are betraying the deal that I thought I had with the show.

Yeah, one of the things that Joan is, perhaps surprisingly, is pragmatic. Her use of her sexuality early in the show came from the same basic spot. She essentially tells Peggy, use what you've got, and that's something she believes.

I could see Joan looking at her options (if she had refused, and they lost the account, they would have resented her for it, whether or not it was deserved) and making a calculated choice. Since Pete had already violated her first objection (I don't want anyone knowing I was asked.) he put her in a position of having to deal with the request one way or the other, publicly.

So yeah, if she's looking at having lost respect/the illusion of respect already, the only potential gain is to get the partnership. And Lane was acting out of self-interest there, but he also gave Joan a gift, because I seriously doubt she would have asked for the partnership on her own initiative. I dislike that it went down that way, because it was yet another example of her lacking control/the illusion of control. However, I see it as in character for Joan to look at everything before her and make the choice she thought was most sustainable for her going forward.

I have to admit - I found that situation so appalling I'm just not sure what to say about it. Although, I do think that Joan's pragmatism is what lead her to do it.

Everything Liese said, only better than I could.

Linda's column in Monkey See made some good points (like I said above). I think in my heart of hearts something didn't seem right about the ep. I could justify all of the actions with good reasons, and I could easily lob a counter like Linda has. Regardless, something about the ep didn't quite "FIT" for me. I thought the acting was pretty superb, and I was repulsed by every aspect of the Joan storyline, but I am not going to say this is my favorite ep in the series. Is this better than "The Suitcase?" "A man walked into an advertising agency?" "Shut the door, take a seat."

No.

Inadvertently, Linda brought up an issue that has been at the back of my mind for a bit with the show. As much as I love Mad Men, I think they have always had periodic issues (not as bad as some programs I could name) with consistency of characterizations. Don generally seems to be the most consistent (though some fans seem to be doubting him this season), after him I think Peggy - though I might argue that Peggy has been the most consistently portrayed all along.

The rest have these weird inconsistencies all throughout. So while I guess I kind of agree with Linda, I think eh, why get mad about it when we have had these issues here and there across time.

Not completely inconsistent, but in my view at least, painfully unsubtle.

Oh, shit -- the fur Joan is wearing at the hotel is the one Roger gave her. I love Tom and Lorenzo's fashion analyses. [link]

I love Tom and Lorenzo's fashion analyses.

I bet they win Janie Bryant more Emmys.