"mad men" = Retrosexual
I (and everyone I surround myself with) am a huge supporter of the retrosexual movement. Men dress like men, women dress like women. And we all look respectable.
It is stupid that I can wear a casual pinstripe jacket and get in to any place in DC.
The '60's: When men were men, and women were objects.
If I had to hearken back to the fashions of bygone days, I think I'd tend towards the 1940s. One look in particular, that is:

Talk about genderfuck. Just look at Ro
sie: she's dressed for work, expressing her capabilities and value to society, but she's not by any means masculine. Her hair is pinned up, but she's wearing mascara, and her brows are carefully groomed. Her features are set but not stern, and she is a powerful but ultimately feminine persona. No wonder this image caught on, much more so than the Norman Rockwell version of R
osie:

Rockwell's depiction, while arguably a more accurate representation of how factory women appeared during WWII,* did not have the same reassuring appeal of J Howard Miller's, and I would argue that the feminine appearance of the latter is the secret to its enduring success as a cultural icon.
*Of course, most newly-employed women during the war worked outside factories, and many of the factory women tended to be young unmarrieds fresh out of high school, so maybe Rockewell and Miller representations, along with the many photos of women of color (who were happy to leave behind domestic work for higher-paying factory jobs), should be taken together as a cross-section of the workforce at that time. If anyone really wants to discuss this, which I doubt, we should probably split this thread, because this is tangential to my thesis topic, so I could literally go on like this forever.
TL;DR: men in suits are nice to look at but I'll take equal citizenship rights any day (I'm not holding my breath).