Nov 1, 2017 4 min read

Over its seven seasons and 92 episodes, television viewers embraced “Mad Men” primarily because it was a smart and exceptionally well-crafted drama, with vividly drawn characters and sharp observations about American life in the 1960s and early 1970s. “Mad Men” was lauded for its period detail, and that extended beyond the skinny ties (at least in the series’ early going), or the adept use of period music like Acker Bilk’s “Stranger on the Shore” or Perry Como’s “The Blue Room.”

The characters in “Mad Men” behaved in a way that we would now consider heedless. They left their litter in public parks without a second thought. Gulped down steaks without fretting about their cholesterol levels. Puffed cigarettes here, there and everywhere without regard to the lungs of those around them or the surgeon general’s findings. Their victories were celebrated and sorrows drowned with alcohol chugged as reflexively as bottled water.

That, for better or worse, was also part of “Mad Men”‘s appeal – it offered a glimpse with anthropological precision of how we once lived, and not all that long ago.

“Mad Men” also offered a timely reminder of how women were once treated at home and in the office. To the series’ hard-living, almost exclusively male ad executives, women were, for the most part, divided between helpmeets and objects of sexual conquest. That started to change by the end of the series, reflecting the evolving attitudes of Americans as the country moved from the 1960s into the 1970s. But, nevertheless, women had a long way yet to travel before one could be the presidential nominee of one of our two major political parties, be speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives or serve as the CEOs of General Motors, Lockheed Martin and Hewlett-Packard.

And that brings us to disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. He has lately tried to excuse his predatory, and possibly criminal, treatment of women who came into his orbit by suggesting that his habits were formed in days of yore, and, in essence, it’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But that’s no excuse at all. What Weinstein is alleged to have done has nothing to do with being an office gadabout or having an overactive libido, and everything to do with crude exploitation. Weinstein comes from a long line, as we have learned over the last couple of years, and it includes Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly, Fox News founder Roger Ailes, and once-beloved comedian Bill Cosby.

Since the Weinstein revelations early last month, other slimy creatures have slithered out from under assorted rocks – political analyst Mark Halperin, filmmaker James Toback and chef John Besh are some of the luminaries who have seen their reputations stained, and perhaps irrevocably ruined, as a result of accusations that they have behaved toward women in ways that are unseemly, mean or just plain gross. Britain’s Parliament and state lawmakers in California and Illinois have similarly come under scrutiny.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, about 25 percent of women say they have experienced harassment in the workplace, and it’s estimated that three-in-four of those individuals do not report it. The industries where the risk of sexual harassment were highest were construction and transportation and utilities. The United States is not alone – a United Nations study found that 40 percent to 50 percent of women working in European Union countries experienced sexual harassment while on the job.

Michelle Lee Flores, a Los Angeles-based employment litigation attorney, told the Chicago Tribune, “If we see a silver lining in this horrible situation, it has started a dialogue. It’s a paradigm shift. I think it will encourage and empower people to speak up.”

Yes, we have come a long way since the era memorialized by “Mad Men.” But maybe not as far as we thought.