"The King of Anti-Woke"

I am not that much a fan of 90s sitcoms, but i got in the mood of watching more of Kevin James lately and so i ended up watching "THE KING OF QUEENS" now.

I am in middle of Season 6 and i already came to the conclusion:

"OH MY! THEY WOULDNīT DARE TO DO THIS TODAY!"

To make long things short, this sitcom has everything the woke- and cancel-culture would love to see banned and cancelled!

When i started to do some inquiries about THE KING OF QUEENS and what people think of it today, it took me exactly 3 seconds to come across some German article with the title "4 Points why THE KING OF QUEENS is not funny today!" and there it was.

They listed 4 major points, where they expressed their feelings towards the series while criticizing exactly those things in the series, what the woke- and cancel-culture hates so much as well.

Well I for my part, i think THE KING OF QUEENS is funny in every way, including all those aspects of the series which the woke and cancel-culture thinks ainīt funny after all....in fact i think those things are the funniest thing in the whole sitcom and i am actually cracking up every time Deacon is worried about his son being gay.

Yeah, some jokes are funny because they're taboo or transgressive.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

I donīt remember anyone calling those jokes there "taboo" or "transgressive" back in the 90s.

So who decided that those jokes are "taboo" and "transgressive" today?

Who decided that it is a bad idea to find those jokes funny or help us god...to laugh about it?

Well, look who just "woke" up...

runs...

There are 3 problems, as I see it, with the OP. Firstly, why would anyone want more Kevin James? It's bad enough when he turns up in Everybody Loves Raymond. Secondly, King Of Queens isn't, and never was, funny. Thirdly, you can find young people (say under 25-30) who are offended by anything and everything. I remember someone telling me they enjoyed Friends, but thought it was a bit too much sometimes. Friends? Now, I love Friends and, maybe, in the mid 90's it was pushing boundries as far as US network tv was concerned? But I literally hadn't heard anyone say anything like that about it in the previous 20+ years.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Isn't that basically the topic of this thread restated (how a couple decades ago things considered funny by the mainstream are now considered offensive by the wokestream)?

There was a turn in the 1990s where every TV dad basically had to become a lovable idiot. You couldn't do I Love Lucy anymore, because a "dingbat housewife" was misogynistic. And so began the reign of the idiot TV dad. Tim the Toolman Taylor, Ray Romano, 50 shades of Kevin James.

Of course, putting the shoe on the other foot raises misandrist concerns (e.g., men being lazy, stupid, stubborn, incompetent) and this leaned into feminist stock objections against non-helpful husbands. Because these shows are light comedies (at the end of the days these are happy families and our "oafs" are "lovable oafs"), however, they seemingly normalize/valorize bad behavior. "Boys will be boys."

And so, the stock objections of feminists against deadbeat dads seemed to confirm that America has double-standards letting men get away with murder in the domestic setting (i.e., just another child to manage). Thus, even these compensatory moves angered people, resulting in more criticism, the apotheosis of which was a counter-show called Kevin Can F**k Himself in which the light comedy becomes barbed and the true star is the victimized housewife who is cursed with a TV dad. The Wikipedia entry for the show states, "the show explores the life of Allison McRoberts, a woman struggling to redefine her life amid an unhappy marriage to her husband Kevin, an insensitive, unambitious man-child." Put the shoe on the other foot, and this would be like the Redpill/manoshere complaining that I Love Lucy simply confirms that women are useless gold-digging fools who sap the patience and pocketbooks of their loyal husbands.

Bottom line. Notice who the fool is. Notice the patterns of victimage and redemption. Notice the resolution pattern at the end of the episode (and notice how many times the lesson is taught). We're always doing politics. Even insipid sitcoms are doing politics.

Can anyone dispute that The Honeymooners was the first feminist sit-com?
Ralph always has to learn a lesson and Alice is almost always right (the reason Ralph asks Alice if she's going to start with the "I told you so's" is because he knew she was always in the perfect position to do so). And Ralph's worst transgressions were not the result of any of his "hair-brained schemes", but rather when he's motivated by his male chauvinism (which is probably at least a quarter of the "classic 39" episodes).

No, I meant that they used to be taboo but they're not taboo anymore, e.g., a liberated/feminist woman could be used as a comical character in the 40s but nowadays casual sex is seen as each woman's right so most people don't find that character funny anymore.

It depends on how you look at it. Here is a quotation from a free-floating, free-thinking blogger who views it as misogynistic in The Honeymooners: Nostalgia is sometimes not so nice.
Respondents in the comment chain under the article, however, see things differently:
Whether or not it is feminist depends on the speech-act you think the show is performing.

It is interesting to note that in the old days you could have a show with a Ralph or a Lucy character as the buffoon, but in the 90s you could really only have a Ralph. Is that an expansion of contraction of our imagination? Is that "punching up" or is it "punching the safe target"?

At any rate, I don't think that it is self-consciously feminist, so much as it just happens to have a man playing the fool. Dumb people do dumb things and Ralph is dumb.

I used to watch this show every night about five years ago when it was on MeTV and agree... But in the end, we always see his motivations (at the end of the show) were really about having a better life for the two of them, as opposed to living tight as a bus driver. (Does she ever make cracks about not having a dishwasher, or not having enough money?)


He always has a scheme, she's always in touch with reality, and when he falls on his face, she picks him up. Some might think "a beautiful woman married to a fat bus driver living in a tiny apartment" is unbelievable, but I guess that's the stuff dreams are made of.

But I never found the show funny

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Hmm... I think in a lot of ways The Honeymooners was intentionally feminist just to counter the usual depiction of men on TV at that time (which made the show both funny & unique).

Most other men in sit-coms weren't buffoons, but wise and kindly husbands or fathers who were the leaders in their family (and who usually knew better than even their wives). The fact that Ralph's chauvinism was such a consistent theme kind of proves the feminism wasn't just an accident, or that Ralph was just dumb. Part of the reason he was dumb was that he was a chauvinist & vice versa.

Ralph Kramden was to male chauvinism what Archie Bunker was to bigotry.

The oldest trick in the book is the pairing of the "straight man" with the "banana man," the fool with the foil. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. Mork and Mindy. George and Gracie.


There is an endless parade of fools in popular entertainment: Falstaff, Farley, Fatty Arbuckle -- Fat men, in particular, are a popular target for amusement. Ralph is a fat fool needing a foil, and that's where Alice comes in. It's not consciously feminist, but part of a formula.



Any feminism is just a side-effect of picking the familiar fat man character as the fool.

OT: Mike & Molly is literally an encyclopedia of fat jokes.

You're going to the moon, Captain. Bang zoom.

Granted and granted. But I'm going to maintain my contention. Ralph's chauvinism was too consistent to merely be a coincidence or couple-time plot contrivance - it was a theme.

Ralph's chauvinism and perspective on gender roles (his refusal to acknowledge they were changing in post-WWII society with such advances as married women working) was a major part of his personality, just like Archie Bunker's bigotry was part of who he was.

I suppose that we'll disagree then.
Well, if you've watched the show closely, you may have detected patterns I have not. On face and without an explication via close reading of certain episodes, however, this just seems like the folly of man.

Bocaccio's Decameron can be read as feminist because many tales are told by women, many of which involve wive outsmarting their husbands. However, it can also be read as misogynist, as there are many cheating and petty wives in these stories.

A lot depends on the reader, the background assumptions of consumption (the cultural codes by which we read and the default assumptions made about people), and the questions we put to the text.

I guess I push strongly for the null hypothesis because there is so much wide-ranging speculation about literature (this is usually the point where Crumb barges in and starts screaming at me about me allegedly only wanting art to say what I want it to say).

Funny to mention Archie Bunker. I'm watching All in the Family this very minute on MeTV.

I'm not looking for a debate... (not right now anyway).

But as far as being familiar with the subject matter, I'd guess that I've seen every episode of The Honeymooners (classic 39 episodes) dozens of times each over the last 58 years. Without looking them all up I'd guess about a quarter of them (at least) have a plot where Ralph's chauvinism gets him in trouble.
So yeah, if there's any patterns there, I think I've picked up on them.

Given that you've actually watched the show, that gives you some store credit. I am not convinced, but perhaps you're right. I am just saying that you have not yet offered definitive proof here.