the "luxury" of suffering?

my first taste of mad men has led me to wonder which version of 'reality'–that of the tv show, versus that of the world of sloan wilson–is most accurate. or can they co-exist together? i guess what i mean is that the tv show addresses ideological crises that are missing from the novel, like the blatantly misogynistic attitude that men hold for women, and that women hold for themselves. or..."missing" isn't the right word. i think i'm judging man in the gray flannel suit from a modern perspective, and mad men is also "judging" the fifties from a modern perspective, so we both see things that either weren't "seen" in wilson's eyes, or else were seen but were not seen as remarkable.

in fact, in the example of misogyny that i mentioned, betsy's role actually gives her a lot more freedom and equal footing with tom, than i thought was granted to women in general in mad men, with perhaps the exception of megan (though she, of course, is able to procure this only by remaining a single woman). sloan wilson hardly addresses sexism, so from his narrative's viewpoint, it doesn't exist. rather, the injustices he expresses in the world that tom and betsy live in, are fueled by economy and politics, and equally brutalize men and women–or at least, they do for those directly involved in war (tom and maria are the only characters given some real homage for what they suffer during the war).

if betsy suffers, it doesn't seem to matter much to wilson, maybe because she refrains from the pessimism that keeps her spouse from rising above such things, or maybe because wilson doesn't feel that she's suffered. but mad men suggests that there's such a darker level of suffering pressed down beneath the surface of the smiling, well-groomed, deferential woman, and i try to imagine what my life would be like if i were betsy, the good wife, trapped just like her husband, but not allowed to show suffering. for if she did, then wilson could never give the novel a "happy ending," because tom would never be able to get over the luxury of his own suffering.