Originally posted by KingOlerud
View Post
But barely a decade later, when Friends, probably a bigger sitcom, in terms of ratings and marketing campaigns, did that with the Rachel Green character, there was no sort of backlash from anyone, and this was when the O'Reilly/Hannity/Limbaugh "pop culture war" was at a big peak.
Thing is, compare the two characters. Brown was a world famous TV journalist, who certainly would afford to have her baby without the father being involved in their lives. Rachel, while from money, had been cut off from her parents' funds and was single and working at a for commission job in mid-town Manhattan, with only close friends (including her daughter's father, whom wouldn't find out about being the child's father for a few episodes into the storyline) as her support structure.
Seems like the Friends scenario would have been more palpable for the "we need to be careful about life turning out to imitate art" crowds. But since in the ensuing years single parenting did rise as being a mainstream occurrence, whether the mother could afford to have the father (forcibly or not) in the child's life or not.
And, I think I mentioned this about the BLM "platform item" about the destruction of the nuclear family unit's importance, mainstream pop culture did manage to cultivate the prevailing thought that you don't need to be tethered to those who conceived you, or even whom you were raised with to be your life support structure, regardless of whether or not those persons deserve your cutting them out of your life or not. Also, the way lefty journalism gives their readers/viewers/listeners green lights to be asshats to their righty family members at in-person social gatherings should tell you how ingrained such notions are already in mainstream society.
So yeah, it is scary to think how right you are sounding here.
Comment