Once I finally got to watch episode 2 last night on iTunes, Janie Bryant completely replaced Tim Gunn as my fantasy shopping buddy. She’s even from Cleveland, Tennessee, which is just 30 miles from my hometown. It could happen.

The houndstooth suit on Dr. Faye Miller took my breath away. Typically, I avoid using overwrought expressions like “j’adore!” but when I saw that suit, I clapped my hands in glee and exclaimed it aloud.

While I have a long-standing obsession with anything houndstooth. (Really, I do. I love the fabric.) The outfit was utterly perfect for the setting. Dr. Miller, who likely would have a doctorate in psychology since only undergraduate advertising programs existed at the time, would have been one of the very first women in her academic and professional fields.

This type of market data is very common to American consumers now, but in 1964 this was an idea out of left field. To be a woman championing such a radical concept as correlating relationships with our fathers to the brands we purchase was as extreme as the field got.

In the early 60s, black was not the foundation color of every woman’s wardrobe. Wearing something black-and-white-checked was on the cutting-edge. While it’s in a cut similar to something Doris Day would wear in a Rock Hudson rom-com, it is not a solid color. The check makes it edgy and bold without being threatening. Something that matches her professional field.

However, the accessories tone it down. Dr. Miller isn’t dressed as severely as Peggy, who is still finding her balance between woman and career-girl. Peggy is essentially wearing the female version of the suit. There’s absolutely nothing feminine about her outfit except for the little hair flip.

Dr. Miller’s blouse and chunky pearls feminize the outfit to the point that she’ll be taken seriously, yet doesn’t emasculate any of her colleagues. Her make-up is soft, and her hair style emulates what Joan sports, the epitome of 1960s sexy.

Seriously, I want this outfit. While it’s on the tad over-the-top side of stuffy DC, I would happily wear this exactly as it is. I’d likely replace the double strand of pearls with something a little chunkier, but otherwise it is perfect.

At first, I wanted to throw a Mad Men party. Then I discovered that my cable lineup doesn’t include AMC. Sitting around in 60s era clothes watching yesterday’s episode on iTunes doesn’t sound like much fun.

I thought about writing daily posts this week highlighting vintage stuff I own from the 60s. That’s not really exciting. While I have extremely cool Mad Men-era decor and accessories, who wants to see pictures of stuff owned by other people? Plus, this blog is primarily about politics. Do you really care if I have a fantastic red carry-on from the 60s that is just big enough to hold my 15-inch MacBook? That’s a bit down the GOOP pathway (although a Betty Draper parody of GOOP would be entertaining).

I could feature a recipe-a-day from the 60s since I also have a collection of vintage cookbooks, but that’s the subject of another much-neglected blog.

Unless one of my readers has a better idea, I decided to do a martini countdown. Some of you probably think the title of my blog comes from a popular mixed drink, so it is fitting.

Today’s martini comes from Mad Men’s martini guide. A few months ago, I threw a 50′s-style wedding shower for a friend, and I got drink ideas from the site. The vodka gimlet ended up being a huge hit and is now my happy hour drink of choice.

Vodka Gimlet

Ingredients
* 1½ oz vodka
* ¾ oz lime juice
* 3-4 lime slices

Instructions
Pour Stoli and lime juice into mixing glass, shake and strain into martini glass. Add 3 to 4 slices of lime.

Since it’s 5 p.m. on the East Coast, enjoy!

Imagine my glee when AMC released upcoming promotional shots for season 4, which begins July 25. I adore the dresses on Joan and Betty. Both could easily be worn to a cocktail party now.

While the 60s are enjoying a resurgence, this has always been one of my favorite style periods, especially the late 50s/early 60s. I love the silhouettes. Even my apartment is furnished with vintage items from the 1940s to early 60s.

Check out this video from costume designer, Janie Bryant. Many of the clothes she highlights could be worn today. In fact, I have dresses similar to the blue Joan dress and the lavender dress Bryant designed for Betty, and I’ve always wanted a toggle coat like Peggy’s. These aren’t vintage pieces. I have a couple of Calvin Klein outfits that are similar cuts to the Joan dress. The styles that start emerging around this period are very timeless.

Bryant has a book coming out this fall on style, which I’m psyched about. (ahem, birthday present…)

Until then, I’ll have to make a few stops by Banana Republic.

Finding her 18 rules for wives was discovering a kindred spirit. Taryn is much more affluent and moves in different social circles (I could be the middle class version), but her rules essentially sum up my lifestyle. She posts ideas and guidelines that I’ve never been brave enough to publish on my blog.

Shocked, I posted it on Facebook. Some of her rules, I disagree with, and I would add some.*  While I think her blog is a bit pretentious and the use of WIFE is taxing,** I mostly agree with her. Surprisingly, a number of my friends also replied that they loved it.

It was extremely validating to discover that I’m not alone in desiring the traditional life. Even in the midst of career-obsessed cities like New York and DC, there are other women out there like me.

What has prompted this? Pop culture? A rebellion of conservative morals? A yearning for simplicity in a world that has dramatically changed in our lifetime?

I think the answer is a combination of all three.

Being a housewife is hardly a new trend. Even in the height of the radical women’s movement, there were still young women who chose traditional roles and opted for the home and hearth. My mother is a prime example.

Until there’s an emergence of a counter-cultural movement that combines pop culture with politics, the media takes no notice. Between the show Desperate Housewives, the reality show spin-offs Real Housewives and the sudden appearance notice of conservative women on the political scene, the media has discovered that not all women want careers or march through the streets burning bras.

Much of this is driven by pop culture. Kitsch is very much in right now. Having collected vintage furniture and memorabilia since I was about 10, I’ve noticed the price of items from 1940s-1960s skyrocket. There are also new lines of retro-inspired decore and gadgets for the home. Thanks to Mad Men, the 1950s/60s style has returned to clothing, and martinis have been popular since Sex and the City launched the return of the Cosmopolitan in the late nineties.

A return to nostalgia was inevitable.

Keep in mind that the Millenial generation is just approaching 30 (gulp). We’re starting to buy homes and start families. We are also the generation raised by the most liberal group in history. Many grew up with working mothers and permissive guidelines. Is it surprising that adults who grew up in daycare would want a different family environment for their own offspring? At some point, the generation raised in the hyper-sexual media landscape will say “enough is enough.” We’re a generation without a shock factor. It’s counter-cultural to be traditional.

Secondly, it is typical for younger generations to rebel. The Baby Boomers rebelled against the traditions and morals of the Silent Generation. What we don’t hear about is that the Silent Generation rebelled against the excesses of the Jazz Age. It’s a generational cycle.

People also return to “simpler ages” when society radically changes.

Over the last 30 years, our culture and geopolitical environment has dramatically altered. We went from the Cold War to an era of democracy to the emergence of global terrorism. The last decade has also seen a technological revolution unparalleled in history. Jobs, the economy, even the very idea of work is changing. This technology has changed tradition and culture, and we’re globally accessible in ways that were never possible before. Life is essentially much more complicated than when our grandparents were starting out.

Thus, we fetishize eras that we think were simpler and glamorize them. Were the 1950s/60s simple? Absolutely not. People were just as messed up then as they are now. If anything, alcoholism and abuse were permitted culturally, which was wrong. Anyone who longs for Betty Draper’s life from Mad Men is crazy. She is one unhappy and despicable person. (There were happy housewives in the 1960s. January Jones just lacks the nuance to bring that to the role, and the unhappy housewife fits the stereotype of what we think thanks to Betty Friedan.) However, the glamor and predictability of that era appeals to us.

During the Enlightenment and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, pastoral scenes were popular that depicted happy peasant farmers. (Think of the fabric toile.) They romanticized simpler times. In no way was it easy to be a peasant farmer, but it was glamorized because society understood it. We’re seeing a similar theme.

To a large degree, I think single women writing on this topic remains taboo. The feminist movement has been most successful in removing the expectation that all twentysomething women should marry. Now, this is something that you say in hush-hush terms with your girlfriends, or you place caveats around it. (Of course I’d get married, if the right person came along…) It’s no longer socially acceptable to say, “I want to get married.” As a society, we just expect people to stumble into fairy tale romances that sometimes end in marriage.

I believe it was Phyllis Schafly who said men benefit from the Pill and feminism the most. They’ve been freed from all obligations, yet women are still expected to live a man’s lifestyle while naturally craving marriage and motherhood. As studies show, that’s a nearly impossible balance to achieve.

Danielle Crittenden captures this element of relationships in her book What Our Mothers Didn’t Teach Us. Couples enter into long-term relationships, yet don’t have any expectations for a lasting commitment. Inevitably, this changes as the proverbial biological clock goes off. Suddenly the woman wants commitment, and the guy is left thinking, “When did things change?”

While society has supposedly “liberated” women, those that want marriage and family are expected to remain silent until it magically happens. Women who are open about their goals are viewed as pushy, desperate or free-loaders. (Think of the movies Leap Year, The Back-Up Plan or Sex and the City‘s Charlotte) It’s not acceptable to be honest. I think this should change. If being a homemaker is your goal, why should you have to hide it? (Focus on the Family’s Boundless has the best coverage of this topic.)

As Liz says, “It’s possible that then, as now, there were some women who really did enjoy being completely dedicated wives and mothers. And that this being true in no way negates the fact that many women do not enjoy being full-time housewives, and that women should pursue whatever path makes them happiest.”

I think it comes down to pursuing what makes you happy. Some women are meant to work outside the home. Some aren’t. Some want children. Some don’t. It’s acceptable to make the choices that fit your life. You shouldn’t feel pressured into following a certain path because society dictates it.

Feminism claims to have made all choices available to women, but they’ve just replaced one stereotype with another. If they truly want all women to pursue what makes them happy, they should respect my pearl-wearing, monogrammed self when I advocate for traditional roles. Don’t get all huffy when conservative women extol the values of homemaking. I’m doing what makes me happy. Isn’t that supposed to be the goal of feminism?

Ladies, if you are domestically-inclined like me, come out of the wannabe housewife closet and leave a comment. You may think you’re the last old-fashioned woman on earth, but trust me, there are others like you.

*No dresses after 7 p.m. and only dressing up for church are debatable. Even my 1942 copy of Emily Post that I use as a reference would argue that attire should be determined by the appropriateness of the event. It’s now acceptable to wear a business suit or pants in the evening. Also, the leadership of the church determines dress, so it is only correct to follow the guidelines of what the pastor wears. Manners exist to put others at ease not to prove a point. If you showed up at my cburch in a three-piece suit, you would stand out.

I would also suggest Rule #19 Clean your kitchen every night before bed and don’t leave the house until your bed is made in the morning. This makes getting up in the morning and coming home at night much more pleasant.

**I do hope that Miss Cox realizes that no amount of rules, manners or pretty things will make you happy, nor are they the foundation of a happy marriage and family. Her promotion of style over substance is off-putting, but that just may be the nature of her blog. Even in the 60s, life wasn’t a Doris Day movie.

Update: On her own, my mom read this post and commented. I think her reflections are much more powerful having lived out my case for domesticity. Mom’s comments reminded me of the expression, “On your deathbed, no one ever regrets not spending more time in the office.” Sadly, our culture places work above family, and women believe this lie. My mom, a homemaker since 1980, wrote:

I’m shocked at the responses to your blog post, for example, one poster said her mom was “miserable, angry and bored” staying home, and it was “more about scrubbing toilets.” Don’t you have to scrub the toilets anyway whether you work or not?

Being a housewife is so much more than scrubbing toilets. Housewives serve a valuable function in society by being volunteers in the community keeping the doors of many non profits open and helping others. It is being the stable force in the family holding down the fort supporting your children and husband. It is also having fun like sharing long lunches with friends and doing whatever your heart desires. The possibilities are as limited as your imagination.

My memories of being home with you are happy, fun and busy. We were rarely bored and always had some craft project going on, planning something fun or volunteering together for something. I’m entering into a later phase of my life now and have never had any regrets about staying home, making due with a limited budget, driving used cars, and living in a less expensive house, to focus on my family. I can’t imagine thinking right now, “Darn, I should have gotten a full time job and put Adrienne in daycare so we could have new cars and a bigger house. I can imagine my regret if I had missed those special times we shared when you were growing up if I had worked. It is all about priorities and what is important in life. I am totally at peacewith my choice to stay at home.

I’ve briefly thought about this comparison after a random remark was made in a Mad Men episode about Goldwater. There are strong similarities — popularity with grassroots, going against party establishment, strong fiscal conservative values and the mobilization of new conservative supporters.

Of course there are huge differences. Goldwater would sharply oppose Palin’s social conservativism. Palin could also benefit greatly from studying Goldwater’s grassroots organization if a run for the White House is in her 2012 plans.

As we know, Goldwater lost in 1964, but his campaign and efforts largely helped Reagan win 1980. Will Palin follow a similar path? Thoughts?