Well, folks, it looks like a lot of people were thrown for a bit of a loop. We assumed that 8.3 would be when *we* would find out Ross was the father. Those who have now seen 8.2 know that the only person who would be finding out in 8.3 that Ross is the father is Ross.
While that part was interesting, and the episode was decent (at least the part I saw - the second half), I don't know why I didn't see the following line from Rachel coming:
"I'm not looking for a husband."
Actually, it's not too out of character for Rachel to say this, I suppose. All the same, Joey's right, Rach. "It's a cruel world out there."
Of course, would it solve anything if she did decide to marry Ross? "The lesser of two evils.........?"
I think I'll wait to see a little more about how this story develops. All I can say about this "I'm not looking for a husband" schtick is this:
I'm in no mood for another Murphy Brown style "single mother crusade".
2. Even if she doesn't marry Ross, she hasn't the right to shut him out of the baby-type decisions.
I think that no one should get married if they don't love each other. Just because they had a baby together doesn't mean they have to waste their lives being married to someone they don't truly love. Forget about religous things like...oh you have a baby..you have to get married now, nonsense!
I think that no one should get married if they don't love each other. Just because they had a baby together doesn't mean they have to waste their lives being married to someone they don't truly love. Forget about religous things like...oh you have a baby..you have to get married now, nonsense!
It's not religious. It's good sense if both parents aren't at each other throats constantly and neither one of them is seriously unstable. What's so bad about putting the welfare of one's child above one's eternal fulfillment of good sex and romantic love?
I don't think they would have Rachel cut out Ross because *she* wants to do it all herself: a) this is such a tight-knit show, and it wouldn't work and b) it would be insulting to the viewers. ER did this three seperate times with main characters, and there was a mixed reaction to the idea that the "role" of the father was to sit back and let the mother decide if she wanted him around or not and he had no right to interfere unless she said so.
Rachel's still in the early stages, probably not thinking too far ahead: plus they had to keep up the suspense about who the father was. rachel would have a reason to think that Tag might not be as willing to marry her as Ross would.
I would hope the "Rachel doesn't want me involved, so I'm not going to interfere/I don't want the father around because doing it all myself gives me self-esteem, no matter how ridiculous this strategy is in actuality" thing doesn't happen as it did on ER, because a) all three of those plots revolved around recurring/departed characters, not main ones and b) I don't think the Friends writers have reverted to the stage of mind-numbed, crack-using idiots Wells and co. have been for the past three years.
The Practice did it last season too (Cameryn Manheim's character).
Right. That's why I say I'm reserving judgment. Also, Murphy Brown and the above mentioned "The Practice" were cases where the woman involved planned it that way from the beginning. So far, this has been a surprise to Rachel, so it's probably fair to cut her some slack.
Three times? Okay, there were Carol (who eventually came back with the father) and Jing-Mei (who had her baby adopted by a couple--and got the father's permission to do so). Who's the third? Elizabeth was pregnant--but Mark was the father and there was no question he was going to be part of it. Susan was taking care of Little Suzie but it wasn't her kid. Are you talking about Abby having her abortion and the husband not finding out about it? None of the other female characters have been pregnant.
I think ER's been pretty fair in its handling of fathers. Benton is probably the best parent on the show, male or female.
plus
have
would.
the
it
so
Murphy Brown didn't plan to have a baby. She had an affair with some other journalist who left to go somewhere in South America.
Probably. But his situation at the same time is just another example (especially during last season) of just how hard it is to pull it off without that complete commitment between the parents that comes with marriage. Obviously, this is not a perfect world, and to ER's credit, they don't portray it as one. It's just that you'd think one of the characters somewhere in the past 3 seasons would have pointed this out to Karla and Peter. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Sofya stated this considered view. Waking from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
Whose? :)
Ah, but Ross & Rachel *do* love each other - they just won't admit it, even to themselves! IMO a baby will finally force them to confront & resolve their differences.
Well, I think if you don't love someone enough to at least consider the possibility of marrying them, you have no business doing anything that could produce a baby in the first place.
That may be true, but the fact of the matter is that most people do it anyway, so I think it's a good thing that a sitcom decides to deal with an issue as "controversial" as this. I think this is more common in other parts of the world than in the USA anyway. In fact, most children born in my country have single mothers or parents who just live together. Perhaps I'm too influenced by my own culture, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people deciding not to get married even though they have children.
I agree, but these things happen, and it wouldn't hurt American popular culture to see a successful single mom.
Just to play Devil's Avacado here :-) ; I'd say the American popular culture has already seen the Successful Single Mom in Murphy Brown. I would like to see a storyline in which getting pregnant accidentally does not appear to have been a wise life choice.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:37:42 GMT, "abrahammy" wrote:
Oh, that's right. I heard someone mention that sitcom when this issue was being discussed. However, I'm afraid I didn't live in the USA when that was aired, so I haven't seen it. :)
1. Well, do you think they should show it because it is good to deal with a controversial issue, or do you think they should show it because there is nothing wrong with it? Which is it?
2. I would be *happy* if Friends would actually deal with it as a controversial issue. So far it has failed to do so. Instead it deals with it as if it there is nothing wrong with it.
The fact that most people do it anyway does not make it right.
Oh, my own mom became a successful single mom - after a divorce. Death is another big cause of successful single motherhood. That's not my point. I'm talking about people who plan it that way from the beginning - "I'm going to have a baby and I'm going to raise it all by myself." How prevelant that is in society is unknown to me, but Hollywood certainly gets enamored of this kind of story every so often - Murphy Brown, Cameryn Manheim's character on The Practice. The message is that a child can get along just fine without a father - or on the flipside, without a mother.
Well, if you look at the social science literature, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that kids from single parent families are less well-off than kids from two-parent families.
And neither Rachel or Murphy Brown planned to be single moms, anyway.
And there was an entire episode on The Practice that dealt with whether or not Elinor was right in preventing the donor from having access to the child. Elinor's "no way" approach was criticized mightily during the show and I feel there will be consequences to her decision as this season progresses.
And just with this show, do you think the show will prevent Ross [who may or may not be the father] from having any contact with his child? Ross and Rachel may or may not marry, but they will likely share duties of childcare, akin to Ross' situation with Ben and Carol.
Unfortunately, you may not be far off there. I don't know the data, so I'll have to defer on that level. I would think in principle, a mother and a father is better than just a mother or just a father, but certainly you are right that is no guarantee that having a mother and a father means you are going to be raised right.
Agreed about Rachel, but I thought Murphy Brown did. However, I wasn't a fan of the show anyway, so I may have it wrong. I do recall that they did an episode aimed at Quayle.
How did it actually happen with Murphy Brown?
I do recall watching that episode and I agree they dealt with it. What got me was reading later that Cameryn Manheim herself was planning the same kind of "addition" to her family. But in the episode, I do recall opposing counsel getting in quite a few good arguments at the expense of her character. Of course, she ended up winning her case in the end, I think (?)
No, and that is why I backed up a bit and said that I would reserve judgment on Rachel. I meant that for the time being I would try to take it as a "heat of the moment" slip. In general I still think it's even better if the mother and father are also husband and wife, but in the case of Ross and Rachel, that may not be such an advantage. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889
I'm in a feminist course on family law and I'm doing a paper on the fathers' rights movement. Colour me surprised when I read the literature on this issue. I too thought, at least theoretically, that two parents are better than one.
fan
IIRC, Murphy slept with a fellow journalist who later went off to South America. He didn't really want to be involved.
Quayle, meanwhile, had made remarks about Murphy Brown a season after Murphy found out she was pregnant and gave birth. He made them during the summer break, so the season premier focused on that incident. I think many pick that episode as when MB jumped the shark.
or
got me
of
counsel
We also saw Jimmy question it. And note that there is already a (presumably) happy married couple with a child on that show. I figure David E. Kelley wanted to present a different type of family for storyline purposes. Not that it seems to matter thus far, since we haven't seen any children this season...
Oh, I still think they are - in principle. Even when having a mother and a father together doesn't produce a well adjusted young person, it still may be that their chances would have been even worse being brought up by only one or the other.
I have read enough "Letters to the Editor" about fathers' rights to think that there is all out war between the genders regarding custody after a divorce, and of course that doesn't reflect too well on those marriages that still exist, because at least half of them are headed in that direction.
On 10 Oct 2001 15:40:46 GMT, [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
Both. It may be a "controversial" (please note the quotation marks) issue in the United States, but I would hardly call it controversial. That is why it would be so good to deal with it on an American sitcom with such a broad appeal to an international audience. By portraying it in a believable way, they'd be able to show both the ups and downs that a single mom will encounter.
Why should they have to choose? There is nothing wrong with it, as long as the parents make the best out of the situation. And they don't have to date to do just that.
No, but it should tell us that we cannot close our eyes and pretend that everybody out there starts dating, gets married, moves to a nice suburb and starts a family. In my country people start dating, move in together, have children and then they *might* get married.
That is rather selfish, but remember, that is not what has happened on the show.
But my question is why a child cannot have both a father *and* a mother in his or her life, even though the parents are not dating? Besides, I've seen quite a few single moms who have raised their children wonderfully without a husband/boyfriend.
Well, I'm a liberal European, so I'm afraid I don't agree with many of the American politicians on this issue. :)
If they can do that, that would be fine, I guess. As long as the writers leave it up to us to decide whether or not it is a good idea.
it
I'm not saying marriage is some kind of magical step which guarantees good child-rearing. I'm saying that by the time you stack up all the responsibilities that parents have toward their children, I'm betting that you will have described a relationship that might as well be called a marriage, because in fact that is what it *is*, functionally.
But of course, we were talking - I think - about Rachel possibly doing this alone (which I'm guessing is not the way the story is going to go, but I think she will contemplate the idea for a time). Now, if Ross is involved in raising his new child, it at least begs the question: what does it say about his commitment to his duties (which, I'm sorry, are not really Rachel's to grant him, they are his *period*) if what he calls "home" is not what the child experiences as "home"? To me, there is only one way to describe two parents living separately and somehow "sharing" in the raising of their children: Divorced. Trust me, I know from experience, it is no way to raise a child. No, I wasn't the father. I was the child.
The "not being in love" factor is indeed something to consider, and them getting married may not be the best alternative because of it, but then that only ups the ante: if they weren't in love, why were they so irresponsible as to "do it" in the first place??
No one said anything about "closing our eyes and pretend"-ing any such thing. In fact, if art *didn't* imitate life (or vice versa or both) so well, it wouldn't be worth commenting on.
However, I think there is something to be said for them "good old days". We shouldn't turn back the clock, mind you (which is ridiculous anyway since we can't). But I mourn the loss nonetheless.
I do.
of
father
Sure, there are extraordinary people out there. I just think it makes it all the more difficult to do a good job. If such a "couple" says, "we don't like it much, but after considering all the aspects, the best alternative is to raise this child without benefit of marriage," I don't have much of a problem with that. At least there is recognition that even the best option has problems. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889