My Spoiler Warning: like I said if you don’t watch the show or haven’t kept up with it, don’t read any further but I feel that everyone who is fed up with TV should start with Season one on DVD and follow up to the recent season to be up to speed. If you watch you may come to the conclusion that network TV is full of reality shows and fluffed tired sitcoms that have nothing to say anymore.

The episode I am talking about is the episode where Carmella throws Tony out of the house after his goomarah (mistress) calls the house. Carmella answered the phone and was totally devastated and threw out all of Tony’s clothes and golf bags onto the driveway of their expensive Northern Jersey home. When Tony comes into the house and Carmella is absolutely hysterical the cards come out on the table concerning their loveless marriage. She always knew Tony cheated on her but didn’t mind because she lived in a McMansion in a swanky area of New Jersey. In effect her hysteria was just her self destruction due to her own denial. Tony was forced to camp out in the home theatre room where they both had an exchange that was some of the best dialogue in a TV show or a movie that I had ever heard. On the DVD I had creator David Chase’s audio commentary on during this scene which he stated that he wasn’t totally happy with because he felt Arthur Miller would have done a better job. But for me personally, I don’t think Arthur Miller could compare to it.

In the home theatre room, the cards were put on the table. Tony called Carmella on her own materialism while she tried to refute it all. He told her that without how he made his money she wouldn’t have this garish house. The line of the episode for me was when he told her that what she really wanted out of life “was a little Hyundai and a simple gold heart on a chain.” I was floored because he was right. To say that to a totally materialistic woman is as bad if not worse, than dropping a C bomb on her. But in fact, they both had valid grievances towards each other and the episode pulled no punches. It wasn’t cut and dry like on a sitcom and there was no happy ending either. It left me drained as a viewer to watch and I can remember turning off the TV when the episode was over. I wasn’t the slightest bit interested in watching anything else and for the past 4 years since I couldn’t tell you what shows were on network TV. As far as Everybody Loves Raymond, my reaction was that show is still on the air?

But when the final season with the last 8 episodes ends next year, I know I am cancelling my cable TV. I don’t think a show that breaks the rules like this will ever happen again.

So my endorsement to all of you is this. If you haven’t watched the Sopranos, go rent or buy all the seasons on DVD. It is very worthwhile and I would hope you come to the same conclusion which would be to turn off your TV.

However men have not stepped up to take a place in
the political realm, where policies are set and
public attitudes molded.

ecoTim said:
“If anything CBS is telling us the consequences of feminism. I appluad thier effort to educate the males of this country on how bad feminism is. Too bad no one is learning.”
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/10/18/cbs-profits-from-dumb-dads/#comment-20328

I cannot buy that line of reasoning because it implies that CBS was making an ideological point against feminism, or against misandry. But no such point was made. The viewers were left to draw their own conclusions. When CBS depicts men behaving SO badly, are they not attempting to ADVANCE feminism by marginalizing the role of fathers? In the episode in question, a father PAYS his son to speak to him only formally (not call him “Dad”), and instead embrace his mom’s sugar daddy and call HIM dad??? No obvious commentary against this was supplied. CBS was depicting it because they were creating a fantasy that they wish would be modeled in reality.

I mean, just think about it — CBS “opposing” feminism? What??? In what world will this ever happen?

John Dias

In fact, while Shakespeare was a wonderful communicator, to imply that MEN have been communicating their issues well over the past 4 or 5 decades indicates that you haven’t developed much in the way of logical thought.

Men have been conditioned to “shut up” and simply live with the cards that they are dealt, to not complain.

Even feminists like the individual posting as Malven seem to want to encourage men to shut up and internalize issues and stresses on their lives.

Feminists encourage such tactics among America’s men in order to silence opposition to their own efforts to develop gender apartheid in this nation.

From WLS’ earlier post:
“A thoughly feminized man, that Marc Rudov: he
doesn’t speak for me.”

Sort of how you’re a thoroughly brain-damaged woman, WLS.

And since you’re apparently doing your best to provoke him, I rather doubt that he would WANT to speak on behalf of a rather stupid bitch like yourself anyway.

If men have been speaking up so effectively, how do you explain the systematic marginalization of fathers in custody battles, the prevalence of restraining orders as a divorce tactic (used by wives against husbands), the ridicule of men and in popular culture, and the demonization of masculinity in general? Were men — as a whole — communicating effectively during all of this? Or were they still of the opinion that the “strong and silent type” was some measure of manliness and gentlemanly behavior?

I submit that the woes I have described above are a direct result of men being neutralized and lulled to sleep by the very concepts that they let define their manhood — chivalry to make them defer to women on anything, and acceptance of misandry to (in their minds) illustrate their tolerance. What tripe!

When men communicate well, they will stop tolerating double standards. This applies in the romantic sphere, the cultural sphere, and especially in the political sphere. The men’s movement is precisely about men speaking up, and rejecting gender roles that pidgeonhole them into lives of tacit submission and servitude. The hell with that! I say men need to CHANGE their mindsets and reap the benefits of the resulting emancipation.

Now, like KateM asked, what the hell was it that you meant to say?

John Dias

Specificially, the claim that men don’t communicate
well—Shakespeare, we must suppose, was a dumb
ass—is a ploy to discredit their testimony
without directly confronting its substance. The
most dispiriting part of it all is that too many
`men’ theselves assent so readily to the libel.

The sad reality IS that most men, (and women), don’t communicate well at all these days.

After reading and rereading what you’ve written I am still trying to figure out… what is your point?

When you re-enforce the notion that `men don’t
communicate’ you help to set us all back.