“Don’s relationship — and [the] women in his life’s relationship[s] — between power and sex is very closely linked. And I think it’s part of the human experience. I think it’s an animal thing. Powerful men in particular seem to want to be controlled sexually. … I think what you’re seeing is that they do have a vibrant sex life, and she is controlling that part of it, and he likes it. And it’s the way they fight. And it’s kind of her saying to him, ‘You want to be this way? Then you can’t have this,’ and on some level wanting him to realize that he won’t get it. And what I love about it, and what I think is fresh, is that this woman is not judged afterward. It’s very rare for a woman to express that kind of sexual confidence and control and not be the prostitute, and be somebody’s wife and be in a relationship afterward. I’m both sexualizing their relationship and explaining her status in the relationship.”

I’ve always found the criticism that “Mad Men” is somehow wrong on race because its characters of color are often “silent” or minor characters (that argument best exemplified by this post on Racialicious by the blogger LaToya Peterson) to be kind of like the condemnation of Betty Draper’s parenting. Those arguments are valid. They’re just not accurate to this particular story — which I’ve always seen as being its own condemnation. The fact that there are few black people — just like the fact that in “The Social Network” there are few women — is the story. The show is depicting an upper-middle class suburban white family experience in the 1960s. There was not a lot of interaction with wealthy white folks and black folks who weren’t in the service industry. Some moms did hit their kids. We have to be aware of the nuance here: I don’t see “Mad Men” so much as white-washing the ’60s but an intentional exclusion, not an exclusion by ignorance.