even the Tall one was depicted as a loser. no one escaped

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892762&forum_id=2…id#50065718)

really make u think

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892762&forum_id=2…id#50067391)

At the same time, the structure frequently places Debra in the position of the sane adult dealing with an overgrown child. Ray lies because telling his wife the truth is frightening; he schemes to obtain sex; he wants praise for elementary parenting; he cannot effectively establish boundaries with his parents. This resembles the later television archetype of the incompetent husband and exasperated wife, but Raymond was unusually influential because its marriage was supposed to be recognizable rather than cartoonish. Homer Simpson's incompetence is absurd. Ray Barone's is presented as suburban normality.

That matters because comedy teaches expectations through repetition. A program watched by tens of millions of people repeatedly associates marriage with sexual frustration, nagging, concealment, contempt, competition and emasculation. Husband and wife rarely seem to admire one another. The husband learns to survive marriage through appeasement and deception; the wife expects disappointment. The extended family makes matters worse: Ray remains psychologically subordinate to his mother, while his father offers a grotesque version of masculine authority. The viewer is given a world in which mature male competence scarcely exists.

A particularly strong version of the argument would say the demoralization is achieved precisely by making the situation funny and familiar. The audience is induced to recognize humiliation as ordinary: "That's marriage"; "that's husbands"; "that's what men are like." The show therefore does not need to preach anything explicitly. It normalizes low expectations of men and mutual contempt between the sexes.

The intentionality argument would point to the extraordinary consistency of the pattern. Writers deliberately decide who wins arguments, which characteristics receive ridicule, which marital frustrations recur, and what kind of man the protagonist will be. Ray Romano and Phil Rosenthal were not accidentally producing hundreds of stories about a husband whose cowardice and incompetence generate the plot. One could therefore use "campaign" somewhat rhetorically: not necessarily a centrally directed political operation, but a sustained cultural product deliberately constructing an emasculated version of the American husband and selling it back to Americans as their own reflection.

The strongest broader cultural case would connect Raymond to a larger late-20th-century movement in advertising and sitcoms: the foolish husband, competent wife, intrusive mother, sex-starved man, and domestic male who cannot be trusted with children or appliances. If one believes mass entertainment affects the repertoire of roles people regard as normal, Raymond becomes a particularly effective transmitter of that archetype because the Barones are recognizably middle-class, Catholic, suburban, intact-family Americans rather than an obviously dysfunctional fringe family.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892762&forum_id=2…id#50067749)