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.

I don't watch Mad Men, but that's still an interesting analysis. I need to see one on something I watch to see if I buy it.

Often when I read fashion analyses on Supernatural, and I think they're mainly full of shit. But that costuming is so second nature that at least one of the stars seems to appear in public in the same clothes.

But that costuming is so second nature that at least one of the stars seems to appear in public in the same clothes.

Yeah, I think Sam's wardrobe is mostly based on Jared's at this point.

The Killing: seriously? Linden was going to marry her psychiatrist, quit her job, and drag her son to another state, and that was the healthy getting-her-life-together choice? Papa Larsen forgiving himself or whatever that was also super annoying. Sorry for trying to kill you a couple weeks ago, I fixed your porch light! Now I gotta go get a dog for my son the bird stomper.