CBS Profits from Dumb Dads
Apparently, there is money to be made, lots of money, in portraying fathers as morons in sitcoms. CBS helped network television sink to a new low for fathers on Monday night, October 16, 2006. Its highly rated Two and a Half Men, starring Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer, redefined male impotence and groveling.Â
For those of you unfamiliar with the show, Charlie Sheen — now the highest-paid star of comedy TV — plays Charlie Harper, a composer of commercial jingles who lives in a beachfront bachelor pad in Malibu. A boozer, gambler, and endless carouser, Charlie shares his pad full-time with now-twice-divorced brother Alan, an unemployed chiropractor played by Jon Cryer, and part-time with Alan’s son, Jake, played by Angus T. Jones. Hence, the 2.5 men.
Since the show began, Alan, a total wimp, has been a pathetic doormat to women — especially his mother and first wife, Judith, who endlessly browbeats him for child support and other payments he’s not required to make. Notwithstanding that, and, with no way to support himself (which is why he lives with his brother), Alan wisely decided to bed and then marry 22-year-old, unemployable, bubble-brain Kandi, played by April Bowlby. As predictability would have it, Kandi, who hasn’t the brains to change a lightbulb, figured out how to divorce Alan and take him for the $500 grand he had just won at a Vegas slot machine.
I had hoped that, with the 2005 finale of Everybody Loves Raymond, another top CBS show with a moronic father as lead character, might come the end of showing disdain towards men on TV. But, it was not to be. Coincidentally, Ray Romano, star and moronic-father-in-chief of his namesake show, has, until Charlie Sheen’s new contract, held the record for highest-paid sitcom star. There’s gold in them, thar WimpyWood Hills.
So, as I sat down to watch Two and a Half Men this Monday past — as in Raymond, the writing and acting in this sitcom are superb — I was appalled at the plot that would unfold. Alan learned that ex-wife Judith, played by Marin Hinkle, would be remarrying — to Jake’s former pediatrician. Alan was celebrating in advance the end of his alimony payments. One wrinkle: Jake didn’t want his mother to remarry; Alan could not sit idly by.
To iron out this unacceptable wrinkle, Alan sprang into action, as any self-respecting man would: he requested his son, Jake, to henceforth address him as Alan and paid him actual money to hug and express love for his future stepfather — and call him Dad. I almost vomitted with disgust.Â
What are the CBS execs thinking? Why is the audience laughing? How much misandry exists in this country? Can you imagine the same treatment of moms on TV? When hell freezes over. It will never happen. Is life imitating art, or the other way around? I can’t tell anymore. I just know that America looks at its men as a sea of Rodney Dangerfields.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 30 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).
Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.
Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
| More from Marc H. Rudov
Stumble It!
October 18th, 2006 at 11:44 am
I turned my television off over a year ago.
I spend this extra time witnessing to men of my experiences in divorce court and its long-term consequences – loss of family, property, 18 years of sharing my income, and liberty.
The truth of a shared experience of a friend is no match against a situation comedy.
October 18th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
I would argue that one reason all these idiot dad, bumbling men comedies continue to get produced is that, after forty years of cultural dominance by feminism, misandry has become like oxygen — an invisible, ambient, ever-present feature of American “culture.”
How many MRA’s have been met with puzzled looks and incredulity when trying simply to explain the concept of “misandry?”
The typical response to expressing any objections to the hateful anti-male prejudices in these TV shows is to hear that you need to “lighten up!”
Feminism has so successfuly saturated America’s basic unspoken assumptions about the sexes that to define the male gender as incompetent, clueless, ridiculous, evil, unevolved, etc. — has become as natural as breathing.
It’s what’s taken-for-granted that holds the power to define reality.
Feminism at present controls language, law, media, and everyday ordinary interactions between people.
If this was North Korea, this degree of cultural fascism would be normal.
But this is the Land of the Free, right?
So, how come it’s normal here as well?
October 18th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
DadWithGirls-Exactly. The power that feminist cultural indocrination has on this society is both impressive and frightening. It has transcended basic forms of communication and has power over how individuals see the world around them. Both what they can see and what they cannot. Afterall, when individuals are boxed in by their own indoctrinated premises and reference points, then the only answers they can see are those that re-enforce those basic premises and reference points. That is the “oxygen- an invisible, ambient, ever-present feature of American “culture” of which you eloquently speak. That is the source of the “puzzled looks” and the “typical response”. For those who are high on this oxygen there are issues that are effectively “settled law”. And that is a central challenge for MRAs. I too have had the puzzled looks and the lighten up speech. Many times. Many of these premises and reference points should have been challenged 20 years ago. Now we MRAs are forced to dig through 10 feet of s**t before we can try to get people to open their eyes.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
It has been going on since Fred Flintstone, a nice guy who is nevertheless a buffon who needs the brilliant Wilma to save his butt.
The only broadcast over the air television I watch is football. Which has been more fun since the Seahawks started winning most of their games!
October 18th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
As an amateur scholar of media culture, I would highly recommend both “The Flintstones” and “The Jetsons” as precursors to “Nothing About Raymond” and the newest bile, “Two and 1/2 Men.”
There is a feminist logic.
It may seem crazy, dysfunctional, and evil.
But ….
It is working!
Kim Gandy gets paid every day!
October 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Remember Married With Children? Sort of the anti-everybody loves raymond. Al Bundy was a shoe salesman who got no respect and acted like sex with his wife was worse than a a burst apendix. Peg was a lazy, money spending wife with zero redeeming qualities, Kelly was a slut and Bud was…well, Bud. Pegs mother was a fat trailertrash pig. Marcy, their neighbor, was a mean, bitchy control freak and her husband was a play boy wannabee. All the characters were caricatures. Ahh the good old days.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
DadWithGirls wrote:
“It’s what’s taken-for-granted that holds the power to define reality.
“Feminism at present controls language, law, media, and everyday ordinary interactions between people.
“If this was North Korea, this degree of cultural fascism would be normal.”
The only thing I agree with in those statements is the first. What’s taken for granted can define reality. But we should not be deceived that we are “controlled” or subject to so much coersion (notice the reference to North Korea) that we cannot refute the damage.
I know very well how feminism seeks to silence its critics — believe me, I do know it! But we are right on this Web site talking. Marc was recently on a radio show in San Antonio expressing his views. We have Fathers 4 Justice displaying their adept abilities to focus media attention on their plight. Free speech — reasoned, logical, calm, and resolute speech — is still ours for the using.
I wrote a letter to the producers of this show via the Feedback link at CBS’ Web site, telling them how ludicrious and damaging their portrayal of fatherhood has become. I believe more people like us can directly contact these cultural outlets and express our views directly, rather than on MND or on the Op/Ed pages. They need to at least feel the reaction, to know that real people are out there who will speak against evil to its face. It may not have a direct impact, but then again it may. Who is to tell?
Here’s the link to the Feedback page at CBS:
“CBS INFO?” – Feedback Form
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml
Also, I encourage anyone who encounters misandry in their daily lives to read the following document, which gives men rhetorical tools to refute the arguments of feminists when they are spoken:
“The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics”
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/resources/discussion/menforjustice.net/The%20Catalog%20of%20Anti-Male%20Shaming%20Tactics.pdf
Lastly, to sharpen your skills in exposing Misandry, I encourage all who read this to buy two very well-documented and scholarly book that are profoundly absorbing to read. Both are by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young:
1. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
2. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
You will never find a more throughly documented tome of research and WELL REASONED analysis about misandry in North American culture. I highly recommend these books. But even more, I highly recommend that we contact the authors and producers of such misandric television programs and explain exactly how and why misandry damages fatherhood, and why we don’t like it.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
October 18th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Marc Rudov,
Thanks for writing the article. It puts into words what I thought about the show 2 1/2 men.
I was forwarding this article to someone and wanted to use the adjective form of misandry. In my search to verify I knew the correct spelling of the adjective I found a rather decent text with links at the Wikipedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry.
I was interested to learn about the “Society for the Prevention of Misandry in the Media.” They have a Website: http://fathersandhusbands.org/.
John Dias–thanks for the feedback links to CBS. Though I don’t expect anything to come of it, I want to tell them a thing or two.
I’m going to go with “misandric.” I found numerous uses of that spelling using an Internet search engine. Interesting that my usually trustworthy American Heritage Dictionary disappoints on this word.
My Oxford English Dictionary (which, granted, was printed 20 years ago) has numerous forms of misogyny (hatred of women) but not one entry for misandry.
I suppose this contradiction by ivory tower elites shouldn’t surprise me.
I wonder if most of those who engage in misandry are engaging in misogamy (hatred of marriage… of the cooperation and commitment required for a successful marriage) or misology (hatred of reason, discussion, learning, or knowledge–all of which are needed in a marriage or most other social endeavors)? Or maybe it’s more about greed than it is about hatred.
Scott Strohm
LovingParent@hotmail.com
Currently working to file a suit in federal court to halt the destruction of families: http://www.indianacrc.org/
October 18th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Scott,
You are correct: misandric is the adjective. Glad you liked the article.
Fighting back is our only recourse. Tom Brokaw’s greatest generation was a silent generation. Perhaps there is nobility in not discussing a tough war, but I think these guys passed down to their sons the practice of internalizing all problems. Bad formula, in my opinion.
I prefer to communicate my feelings effectively and frequently. If we all do this, the women will listen. As I’ve said before, they can use their vibrators and fingers only so long. They want real men. Real men assert themselves and stand up to women.
October 18th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Peruse the front pages of 555 of western culture’s newspapers today, Wednesday, October 18, 2006, to see the focus is women, children, blacks as good, while white men as mostly bad.
http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages
Honoring men must not sell newspapers.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:55 am
There isn’t even any point in watching football any more — or any other sport — if they allow women reporters on the sidelines or anywhere else.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:55 am
If anyone wants to know why cable movies are so popular, while sitcoms on network and cable die like flies, this is your answer.
October 19th, 2006 at 5:15 am
Rudov:
Don’t let the enemy frame the coversation: the `Greatest’ generation was never, never taciturn.
They didn’t aggrandize — especially by today’s standards — but life’s subtleties by no means escaped their scrutiny.
That men don’t or cannot communicate is one of the very worst lies of feminism. If you don’t believe it, you would do us all a favor by in your particular case just shutting up.
October 19th, 2006 at 5:34 am
I’ve stood up to the great whore, why can’t others? While I don’t live in total liberty, the state doesn’t mess. I can and have stood up to the state. Guess what? The state blinked! Just say “no!” to the whore!
October 19th, 2006 at 8:36 am
You all have it wrong, this show is a documentary of the results of feminism. The mother participant of the leftist 60’s and 70’s had married and divorced multiple times. She carried not for her children, which the state said she would be the best one to raise them. They grew up and one can not commit but bangs as much as he can get (AKA Clinton). The other, desiring the love he never got, even from an older brother he adored, got married to the same type of mother/brother he grew up with.
If anything CBS is telling us the consequences of feminism. I appluade thier effort to educate the males of this country on how bad feminism is. To bad no one is learning.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Maybe feminism marketing and programming is not as profitable.
NBC Universal makes $750M in cuts by reducing staff, scripted shows, news budget.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_X101902AU.xml.html
I expect the feminists in media that get fired could find work in academics or government, a place where profit is not measured.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:08 am
To WLS:
Telling me to shut up, when I’ve raised a valid point, means that you have neither a message nor communication skills.
Men who can shoot guns in war but not discuss their feelings — and many men of my father’s generation fit into that category — are taciturn.
I don’t give a damn what feminists say. If men sit there, mouths shut, while losing their civil and reproductive rights, they are eunuchs who do so at their own peril.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Another feminist media company losing money.
NY Times Co. 3Q Profit Plunges 39%
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003285206
October 19th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
The “money making†drive Marc talks about is destructive and very costly to all of us. Most women don’t see what is happening and continue to want to wear the pants, (except they don’t carry a wallet in any of the pockets), and prefer men who just shut up, do what they say, and PAY.
Marc is absolutely correct because if, like him, men communicate “effectively and frequently… women will listenâ€. An assertive, stand up man IS the kind of Dick Jane wants and HAS the dick Jane wants.
October 19th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Kate,
Spoken like a REAL woman, who’s unafraid to admit what she REALLY wants!
I will disagree with one point you made: obnoxious, overbearing, man-hating women aren’t “wearing the pants” — they’re carrying government-issued billy-clubs.
By the way, I’m always glad to hear that my dick and I are in demand.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
David R. observed — “If anyone wants to know why cable movies are so popular, while sitcoms on network and cable die like flies, this is your answer.”
Acutally, cable is dying as well.
More and more, men and women with intelligence are flocking to the ‘Net as an alternative to braindead broadcast/cable.
NBC (the sub-company of G.E.) today announced that it’s firing 900 employees, including on-air spokes-Barbie-newsreaders.
Mainstream media is trying to figure out how to survive.
This presents a major opportunity for MRA’s, because from now on, it’s going to be about narrowcasting … via the web, wireless, podcasts, etc.
400,000 channels….
The potential already exists.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
So that’s your problem: you equate communication
exclusively to the `art’ of bullshitting. It’s
all about “feelings”: no place for thought and
reason, articulate contemplation, synthesis, and
the discursive style.
If you want to leave all that outside the scope of
the rubric `communication,’ OK, but you don’t
thusly disqualify it as a component of human
relations.
A thoughly feminized man, that Marc Rudov: he
doesn’t speak for me.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
WLS,
I never claimed to speak for you. But, you ought to hire someone for that purpose: If you keep speaking for yourself, you’ll be forcing your poor stomach to digest the shoe leather from the big foot in your mouth.
Why don’t you get off the personal attacks on me. Stop using my blog for that purpose. If you want to rage on like a PMS-inflicted feminist, get your own damned Website.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
There you go again: offering an ad hominem
response to challenging criticism.
When you re-enforce the notion that `men don’t
communicate’ you help to set us all back.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
wls,
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?
October 20th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Plenty of nonsense is certainly uttered, but
simple misunderstanding is hardly the problem.
Most of the confusion is deliberate: a product of
one or the other sides’ attempts to hedge.
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.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
WLS, so what I’m hearing you say is that men really do communicate; we really do speak up about injustices that hurt us as a gender. We do, because Shakespeare existed.
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
October 20th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
WLS, it’s difficult to tell whether you are being purposefully obtuse, or whether you actually are so ignorant as to misunderstand the nauture of most men.
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.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Let’s get back to the subject, which is the misandric programming over at CBS, as evidenced by the show “Two and a Half Men.” As I was just reading over the comments here, one in particular struck me as particularly ignorant:
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
October 20th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Communication isn’t only about complaining and
other forms of manipulating people: that’s just
the feminist understanding; there are more
dimensions to social discourse.
However men have not stepped up to take a place in
the political realm, where policies are set and
public attitudes molded.
October 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Four years ago after watching the final episode of the 4th season of the Sopranos, I had come to the realization that nothing on network TV can compare. I don’t watch everything on HBO either, but to me the Sopranos is the best show on television ever because all the conventional rules of family drama or even family sitcoms were broken deliberately to prove a point. For those who have never watched the show, I suggest you either rent or buy all 5 seasons (season six comes out on DVD November 7th) and just take in the allegorical context of everything. The show is more than just about the mafia. To say it is just a show about the mafia would be like saying Led Zeppelin was just a heavy metal band. The show has family values, drugs, sex, violence…….a total rollercoaster of emotions that in one hour episode will give you more than an entire season of a network sitcom. In fact, the final episode of the 4th season made me realize how offensive network sitcoms are.
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.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
[...] By Jacob Blivens “I think I got some help I don’t really need…” – B.B. King Marc H. Rudov is author to various anti-feminist books and wonderfully illustrated articles published on Men’s News Daily. I implore you to read some of his older articles, Why Men Avoid Commitment or more recently CBS Profits From Dumb Dads. However after reading his latest book I felt aversion toward one of his points touching on women. Let us look deeper into Rudov’s work, specifically his most recent undertaking entitled Under The Clitoral Hood, which I suspect is doing more damage to male-female relationships than good.Under The Clitoral Hood proclaims to teach one how to garner women “without cash, booze, or jumper cables”. The beginning of the book starts out with good advice; don’t date a girl who shows no reciprocity. Then the author jumps to conclusions as to how women are sex crazed fiends whose sexuality might be on par or even, surpass a man’s. Are we so sure this is the case? Esther Vilar states in her profound exposé, The Manipulated Man, that women demonstrate more enthusiasm toward a fancy dinner party than sex. Contrarily according to Rudov women are so focused on acheving wild orgasms that men nowadays are competing with mechanical stimulation aids, vibrators, or “rampant rabbits”(see above photo). He refers to TV adulteress Eva Longoria who keeps a collection of “rabbits” in her garage to give to her female friends. It gets better though, Rudov surmises that if men could just take hold of the “engine” (female clitorus) women would be more faithful. This is nonsense, as Sam Fryman has stated in his excellent E-books, none of us should imagine we are so special that a woman we like couldn’t love someone else, or no woman should imagine the same.I find this topic of heightened female sexuality to be ridiculous and mainly mainstream media propaganda. REAL women prefer a man who can be genuinely intimate not someone who will spend hours at the “bearded clam”. If you are with a girl who needs a simulated rubber phallus you would do well to believe her character is also made of rubber, and you are with the WRONG woman. If you are with a woman who feels that your ability to stimulate her sexually, determines her loyalty and respect, you are with the WRONG woman. [...]
December 8th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
[...] In mid-October, I wrote “CBS Profits from Dumb Dads,” in reaction to yet another pathetic display of paternal impotence on a network-television sitcom. A week later, I was a guest on a San Antonio radio station, debating a misguided female psychologist in denial about the negative portrayal of men in the American media. [...]
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
[...] mid-October, I wrote “CBS Profits from Dumb Dads,” in reaction to yet another pathetic display of paternal impotence on a network-television sitcom. A [...]