Well can anyone blame Mona for not wanting to take Roger to the cleaners? She's devoted more than half her life to Roger, and overlooked alot of crap, so why should she end up in the poorhouse? In New York there has to be grounds for divorce (no-fault isn't in existence yet and still isn't in NY as someone on the forum informed me). Roger's adultery and desertion isn't going to win him any prizes in divorce court. Especially if he's shacked up in a hotel with Jane.

You said it, jamm---I hope Mona mops the floor with Roger and he ends up walking the streets of NYC (or living in the bowels of the subway---or sleeping on a bench in Central Park!) along with poor Freddie Rumsen who he treated like dirt! Go Mona!

It looks like Mona wants more than alimony - she wants half of his inheritance family money too. Without that Roger is nothing. Just a man born with a silver spoon.

Without a prenup, if there is any co-mingling makes it all community money. If Mona has a sharp lawyer she may have a case.

I guess Roger wont be getting that summer house after all.

There were no pre-nups in those days. Mona and Roger were together 25 years. And he thinks she's entitled to nothing? Hah, he's got another think coming.

She is entitled to the house, car, 1/2 his retirement or pension money, whatever other housing, property, and investments they own. AND she could take 1/2 his share in SC too. AND she will get alimony to boot!

Well, we all know this is not the first time Roger has strayed, and I would assume Mona know this only too well herself. If she was a smart woman, and she appears to be reasonably intelligent, she could find a good lawyer who would use Roger's philandering past against him. Mona would be cast as the long suffering wife who nursed him through 2 heart attacks, and he would be the despicable cad whose private life would be an open book. Would Roger, or any business man of that time, want the sordid details of his private life to be an open book?

The office already knows the details of his private life. They know that Roger is fooling around with Jane, hence the remark about the gift from Tiffany that she gave Harry.

Mona's gonna win this one. I'm just curious if she (or Roger) will name Don as a "witness." That could get really messy because of Don's past.

What a way to shake up things.

Roger is so stupid he is ready to stick his himself in the same sticky wicket with Jane, again.

LaurieB - no prenup was implied. I know they were not common back then. Roger is screwed. I don't feel a bit sorry for him.

Yes, Roger is a cad and Mona certainly deserves half of house, investments, etc. In real life, I would think that Roger doesn't have long to live because he continues to drink a lot and smoke like a chimney after 2 heart attacks. At least he keeps his cheating within the business itself, he seems to like secretaries that work for him. Don, on the other hand, is a sex addict. He gets involved with female clients to the point where he's got a "reputation". That could definitely hurt Stirling Cooper's business. I'm surprised Roger hasn't said anything to Don about being more discreet about whom he cheats with. Or has he and I just missed it? Don is a messed up guy. Not just the sex with every woman he encounters, but stealing another guy's identity for no really good reason? How much trouble do you think he can get into if the government (army) ever finds out he did that? Seems to me he could go to jail.

tanfl:
Everybody keeps saying Don is a sex addict. He's not. You can count on one hand the number of girlfriends he's had or that we know about. He may be a philanderer but he's a serial philanderer. Doesn't start an affair until after the previous one is over. Granted, he may have a "reputation" but that could be overstated because that woman at Random House has a big yap. (It could also be the reason their affair ended. How would she like it if he told all the guys she was a choice lay?) He didn't even make a pass at Bobbie. She came on to him, not vice versa. Granted, he didn't refuse the offer...

Think about Joan, Peggy and Jane. Or any secretary at SC, for that matter. Never gave any of them a second look as far as sex goes. Nor has he made a pass (that we know of) at anyone in the neighborhood. Not even at the neighborhood divorcee who has "boyfriends." Not the kind of behavior I would associate with a "sex addict."

On the other hand, there's Roger who can, will and does go to bed with any woman who's attractive to him. That, to me, is a sex addict. Roger's the one who's always on the prowl, who enjoys the chase.

==========
As far as the government/Army is concerned, depending on who's doing the investigation, once the information is known, the entire investigation could be dropped and the file closed. Pvt. Whitman may have been in the wrong to assume Lt. Draper's identity but left the service almost as soon as he returned to the U.S. and has never used it in any way to bring discredit to the Army. Nor has he attempted to use Lt. Draper's engineering credentials to gain work as an engineer.

Pvt. Whitman may be guilty of desertion but I suspect a decent lawyer could argue that the switch occurred after the explosion and therefore he might not be in his right mind. By the time he was, it was easier not to change things around. (There are many stories about men who were reported as dead and they had a terrible time becoming alive again.)

Assuming for the moment that Mona does get half of everything. It's only half. She can't sell his interest in SC to anyone except SC, I'll bet. His inheritance probably has so many strings associated with it, she probably couldn't sell that.

So what does she have? Alimony, half the income from his partnership in SC, half his investments and half of his inheritance family money. Max. Roger won't be sleeping on park benches anytime soon. Because if he is, so will she.

If Roger dies suddenly, you can bet her alimony will immediately stop. The partnership probably, as part of the contract, has a clause for a mandatory buyout of the deceased partner's share (if not already in place, then before the divorce decree), paid by insurance. His family inheritance and remaining investments will probably be passed on to Margaret, not Mona.

@ tangfl:

I think you're mixing up Roger and Don. Roger is indiscreet about his sexual liaisons, while Don is a bit more selective. Roger has tried to sleep with nearly every woman he's encountered, whereas Don has been known to turn it down on several occasions. Yes, he has developed a reputation, but Don's women are of a particular type. They have full lives outside of Don, and while they may talk amongst themselves about his prowess, they're probably not likely to let that information out to the general public. The only people at Sterling Cooper who know about Don's affairs are Peggy, Joan, and Bert Cooper -- and they found out by accident. And of all the people in that office, those three are the ones most likely to keep their mouths shut. Roger, on the other hand, is completely reckless about his trysts, and doesn't care who knows about them. He conducts them in full view of all kinds of people.

Don does stand to lose a great deal if too much of his life is revealed. His army infractions alone could result in serious consequences. Not only did he impersonate an officer, but technically, he also deserted during a time of war, which means he could face execution if that's discovered -- even though it's several years after the fact.

Ritt and Grinandbearit: I see your points. Roger could very well be a sex addict. He just keeps it in the office. When I heard about his reputation from Bobbie because a woman at Random House was talking about him, I assumed that this was not the only time that has happened. Also I do believe his affair with Midge overlapped with his affair with Rachel. And all this time he is still sleeping with Betty. Yes, I agree that Bobbie came on to him; Don was trying to be good and stay faithful to Betty, but failed again. I still think this kind of behavior is some sort of sex addiction. And I believe that sleeping with clients shows very poor judgement on Don's part. If one of these female clients falls in love with him and he doesn't want to leave Betty (and you know he didn't want Betty to find out about any of these women which is the usual behavior of a man who cheats but has no intention of ever leaving his wife and family; in fact, he may really love his wife) and the female client is one of Stirling Cooper's biggest accounts, the client could take her business elsewhere which would cost SC a lot of money. Don could be fired over something like that.

I tend to agree more with grinandbearit about what could happen to Don if the army finds out about his identity switch. I think he could get into a lot of trouble. I hope Don and Betty do get back together someday, but they both need a lot of therapy before that can happen. In fact, in my opinion, Don needs more therapy than Betty by far. He has to change or she can't stay married to him.

Actually, he'd ended his affair with Midge long before he started with Rachel. From what we've seen, Don's affair with Midge ended with the "Hobo Code" (episode 7). His affair with Rachel didn't start until "Long Weekend" (episode 10). I believe the Hobo Code took place in June or July, whereas Long Weekend was early September. And by the time he started sleeping with Rachel, it seemed like he'd stopped sleeping with Betty altogether. Remember that was about the time she started having fantasies about the air conditioner salesman and intimate moments with her washing machine -- a clear indication that she wasn't getting it from Don.

grinandbearit, thanks for clearing that up for me about Midge and Rachel. I believe Betty's fantasies are more about her lack of an emotional attachment to Don rather than a physical attachment. I think they still had sex because of her conversation with the psychiatrist where she said "sometimes it seems like it's for me, but sometimes it seems like it's for someone else." By the way, has Don ever called the psychiatrist since that visit and found out that Betty had said "I would be happy if my husband were faithful to me." That was before Jimmy told Betty about Bobbie and Don's affair. I don't remember Don calling the doc since then. Anybody know?

From a practical standpoint, Mona does need to insure that Margaret's inheritance via her father, Roger, is protected in the event that Roger does go ahead and marry Jane, and possibly father another child. It's not out of the realm for that possibility to happen.

If Roger does end up marrying Jane, and she produces a male heir, don't you think Roger would be over the moon to have a son who will carry on the family name? I do, and more than likely to give everything to that son because he'll assume Margaret will be "taken care of" in marriage.

I can understand Mona not wanting that baby, Jane, to get everything from Roger. What if they marry and Roger cardiacs on her, she'll inherit it all if Mona doesn't protect her own interests.

Someone elsewhere on the forum commented that Jane was absolutely a golddigger (and they listed the reason for this opinion), and I believe them. Jane has been very calculating. She may play "hard to get" with the marriage proposal to make herself seem even more desirable, thereby upping Roger's desire and impatience to marry her before he "loses" her. So, he'll speed through the divorce as fast as he can to snag her. I think Roger has met his match - I can see Jane marrying him, and then cleaning him out by the time he reaches his early 50's, and divorcing him. And maybe only having a child so as to keep milking him for $$.

There is another AMC trailer where Bert Cooper is saying, "Where is the 30% you put in this partnership?... (paraphrasing)" to an unidentified shadowy figure. Much speculation has been made as to whom he is speaking. There is a solid case that it is Mona. She certainly appears up to the task of standing and protecting the inheritance of her daughter and her personal lifestyle. I applaud her.

It frustrates me that the philandering and sexual exploits of the show's characters are primarily discussed from the perspective of being amusing or entertaining. I remain among those who see the damage such behavior above adding my vote to those that feel it simply makes for really good tv.

Sally's expression as she (again) tries to make sense of her world refects both her confusion and sadness and breaks my heart. Glen's face as he yells his hatred for Betty and is denied the emotional attachment he thought he had. Bobby's acting out to get attention he is denied. All of these are the chattel of the careless behavior of their parents. The encouragement for Sarah Beth to fulfill her extramarital fantasies with Arthur was too cavilier for my taste. Too often, people fail to consider the cost of their behavior, and I propose we take time to discuss the damage done by this indescriminate behavior, as well. The damage done to human beings, children, and (now entire) companies is primary because we deal with the aftermath longer than anyone deals with the moment.

It has taken its toll on the children neglected and lost while watching their parents shift traditional roles and make attempts to express themselves emotionally. With this storyline it'll hit Roger in his pocket and I think, for the first time, he'll be paying attention to the consequences of his actions. Does it all come down to money in the end? Mona is the first victim to say the hell with crying...pay me.

greytone, I agree with you about all the infidelity and separations going on in this show. I think the writers have gone overboard. I've said in other posts that I grew up in the 50's, upper middle class, dad an executive, mom a housewife. I do not remember one single neighbor or executive friend of my parents being separated or divorced. I don't know if the men cheated (I'd like to think my dad did not), but they were not getting separated and divorced back in those days the way the writers are portraying it in MM. I'd like to see some of these couples, especially Don and Betty, work things out and stay together. I realize they both have to change. Otherwise, I think MM is a pretty accurate portrayal of life in the late 50's and early 60's.

Well, a lot of it is for dramatic effect -- to tell a story. But Matthew Weiner is always quick to point out, no matter how badly these people behave, "THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES." I've personally heard him say that about four times. So I don't think he intends for these people to get away with anything. It's more a matter of when they'll be forced to face their actions, not if.

I agree grinandbearit. Weiner has said millions of times that this people misbehave badly either by lying, cheating, stealing, or greediness, but there will always be a consequence. He has also said lots of times that MadMen is about a man falling in love again. I take this as Don falling in love again with Betty. We got glimpses of it in The Wheel in season 1, and we saw another glimpse in the season 2 opener For Those Who Think Young, when Betty descends from the stairs on Valentines Day. We also saw it in The Inheritance, him wanting to get back together with her, to protect her and take care of her, but all this time Don has never said the right answer which Betty wants to hear. "I love you!" I dont know if Don can say it. Notice he never said it to Midge, Bobbie Barrett, or Rachel, eventhough people claim that Rachel is the love of his life. If he truly loved Rachel wouldnt it be easy for him to say "Lets Runaway I love you, want to be with you." No...he never said I love you. On the other hand, Roger has told Mona I love you, and I am sure he means it, but once he cheats on her, you feel bad for her, and now that she is getting revenge, I am going to root for her. Roger doesnt know what kind of shit he got into. I was thinking about this last night...maybe Jane is supposed to be an Anne Boleyn type character. Granted Anne Boleyn was both a victim of her time and of her also adulterous, greedy husband, I think Jane could make Roger take everything away from Mona, and give it all to her, only for to get killed or something to that extent. I dont know, but I like the direction they are going with this. Jane could be the one who brings SC down!! Wouldnt it be terrible if she does marry Roger, and makes him fire Joan! I would be so pissed!

My prediction: Roger will not marry Jane. She's Jewish. Anti-Semitism will trump his "love" for her.

And I agree with the above poster who said that separation and divorce were not as common as depicted on MM. We went over this many times on last year's blog, but it's worth repeating. When I was growing up in Connecticut in the 50's - 60's, there was NOT ONE kid whose parents were divorced. It was just not done.

Roger will go crawling back to Mona, I think.

I suspect Mona will have a more difficult time "sticking it" to Roger than some of you suggest.

Until 1966 adultery was the only ground for divorce in New York State. If Mona initiates the proceeding, Jane will be named "Co-respondent," and proof will have to be presented to the court, usually in photographs of the guilty parties together in compromising situations.

It is unlikely that Roger will decide to file for divorce himself. In 1962 he will have to arrange for a "hired" lady to provide the adulterous photographs. He will not want to drag Jane into it. If Mona insists on filing, Roger and Jane will be spread all over the tabloids (not called that then). Roger's reputation will be ruined, and he will be ridiculed by his "friends" in NY society.

I suggest that Mona (or Roger) wait four years until the New York Divorce Law of 1966 is passed, and charges of incompatibility and mental or physical cruelty are added to adultery as grounds for divorce.

As to property, real and otherwise, in 1962 it automatically remains in the hands of the legal "owner" unless negotiated between the parties. In 1962 It is unlikely that Mona legally owns half of Roger's interest in Sterling Cooper. In 1980 an "equitable distribution" law was passed in New York. This law made the division of marital property more equitable regardless of who owns what.

In 1962 it will be a good idea for Roger and Mona to sign a legally binding Separation Agreement which (after negotiations) will provide Mona with a residence, generous alimony, and whatever division of assets they agree to. Margaret is 18, I think, so there will be no child support for her. We don't know if Roger has any other children, but they will receive child support if they are under the age of 18.

Mona needs a good lawyer. I suggest that she contact a young man named Raul Felder, only 25 years old and just admitted to the NY Bar in 1962. It will be good experience for him. He's a real fighter and will go on to become one of the best divorce and family law lawyers in the business.

By 1966 Jane will probably be long gone, and Roger will have come to his senses, survived (we hope) his mid-life crisis, and be happily reconciled with Mona.

As a matter of clarification...
I don't wish for MM to change what they are or how they tell the story or what actions they display for entertainment purposes. I realize we see more details as the audience with this style of storytelling and not all our characters know what we know about infidelity or romance around them.

My post was just to state that I am not gleeful over all the divorces and immoral behavior in the show. Yes, it is tittilating to watch their secretive behavior for a few minutes, then my mind slips to wonder about the person affected by their actions. As a balance, I would like to make sure we discuss the societal changes caused by this behavior.

Divorced children left behind to learn to care for themselves (ie, Glen) opened opportunities for latchkey programs, child care facilities and an expanded group of men and women caring for our children. The drama of Betty being left on her own as the first wave of the Helen Bishops appeared has positives and negatives, too. There are many other examples, too....all beyond the moment where their world permanently changed.

I'm just saying,...don't forget to view the whole picture...the action and its impact.

@ Polignac:

What I heard Matt say was that "Mad Men" was ultimately the story of a grown man who learns to fall in love for the first time. I never heard the "falling in love again" part. Who knows. although I've also heard Matt say that Don loves Betty AND Don loves Rachel, but he loves them differently.

I do think "the first time" is a little more open-ended, and seems to be keeping with the ambiguity that surrounds so much of this show. "The first time" could be Betty, it could be Rachel, it could be someone we haven't met yet.

For the record, though, he told Rachel he wanted to be with her when he asked her to run away with him. I believe the exact quote was "I just...don't want to be without you...and...I don't want to be here." I find that interesting when you contrast that with what he told Betty: "I think I should be here for you...You need me." Not "I need you." Not "I don't want to be without you." But "What do you want me to say? You need me." Come on, Don. Say it...

I don't see Roger and Jane working out at all. Although I do see Mona being more entrenched in Roger's life (perhaps as a partner at Sterling Cooper), and making his life hell. I can't wait for that. LOL.

greytone: you have put in words what i have been thinking. also, i think another poster (MsDMAC?) has also voiced similar concern as you discuss here re: discomfort with infidelity. i have read threads that address woman as victim, woman as reason for man/husband's cheating ("he's not getting it at home"), woman viewed as not the reason/male issues precipitate cheating.

i don't imagine any amount of rationalizing can fully grasp the emotional/psychological aspects of infidelity. the pain and searching for answers. the human cost and emotional fallout. this is why i so appreciate your response, greytone. i love your description "Sally's expression as she (again) tries to make sense of her world refects both her confusion and sadness and breaks my heart. Glen's face as he yells his hatred for Betty and is denied the emotional attachment he thought he had. Bobby's acting out to get attention he is denied." I have felt so sad for Sally & Bobby; Bobby always seems fearful & Sally, yes, you can see her trying to make sense as she asks questions and quietly observes the landscape. i can feel her confusion: why does Mommy act differently with Glenn?

and, yes, so important as you mention, divorced children left to learn to care for themselves for long periods of time--leading to term "latchkey" kids and the need for after school programs and other childcare facilities. Great commentary.

In any case, i continue to find the quality of posts so interesting and insightful. i appreciate so much looking at things through others' eyes.

Hi fellow Maddicts! I hope, like many of you, that Mona takes Roger for everything she can!!

It's amazing to me that Roger was so loving toward Mona when he thought he was dying. She takes care of him, helps him recover, protects him at work (the scene with Bert Cooper), and this is the thanks she gets!
I don't know how she found out Roger "loves" Jane, did he have the crust to tell her himself?

I know Don has cheated on Betty, but, he never told her he loved any of his flings. Of course, Don hasn't even admitted his affair with Bobbie to Betty.

good legal analysis, remembering...as i've said before in other topics, ny state's divorce laws were (and to a certain extent, still are) some of the worst in the nation, especially back then when there had to be a "guilty" party caught in adultery. it's bad enough they still have to prove grounds like mental cruelty, etc.

and except for permanent alimony, which would be a virtual certainty as to entitlement but not as to amount (it could be a lot lower that she'd expect), mona would not have a chance of "taking roger for everything he's got" because unless she has her own money and assets, no doubt he owns and earns everything and would probably get to keep most of it, adultery or no.

i'm a lawyer in a no-fault divorce state and i don't believe in any party being "taken for everything". if they want a divorce, they should be able to get it easily. the other way only makes lawyers richer.

What about that woman who refused to leave her half of the house in NY, and she was married to an older, very wealthy man (she was like 40s-50s to his 70s-80s?). I think she was a 2nd or 3rd wife. Anyway, she went on YouTube, and was really trash-talking her husband because she wanted everything, I think. It even ended up as an article in People magazine. That was just this year - can't remember how it turned out.