My problem with the show was not so much that it values self-presentation and links it to self esteem. Self-presentation is strategically important and self-care does affect self image (though usually one has to develop better self-image before habits of self-care will really change). My problem is twofold. First (and not surprisingly given the absolute vagueness of a phrase like "self esteem"), the show has an extremely impoverished notion of what forms and sustains our self concepts. The show went to great lengths to tell us about how deep and difficult would be the things the subject would need to face to improve her "look." As if a few shopping trips (which they took great pains to show us were "exhausting" and "ennervating"), a one-hour meeting with a "lifestylist" (!), and a "you go girl" fashion show with friends and family could somehow resolve a lifetime of self-confidence and body-image issues. I wish. Unfortunately, repeating the mantra "I cannot control the way other people perceive me, I can only control how I present myself" (which the subject is encouraged to do in this episode) is going to be about as effective as staring into a mirror and telling yourself "I'm good enough, Im smart enough, and gawddarnit, people like me." Actually, the latter would probably work better.

Second, the emotional weight the show seems to give to these notions is so disproportionate that even Tim Gunn winds up looking ridiculous. From the sheer quantity of tears shed in the second half of the first episode, one would think that we were watching a show about addiction or incest or war. It's problematic when we attach such meaning and weight to small things in this world. It tends to be a distraction from the larger issues of our day (which I suspect is precisely it's appeal).

Actually, one more thing. How elitist and self-destructive is it to suggest that one requires a fancy wardrobe from expensive designers and a platinum/diamond ring in order to sort out one's confidence issues?

Even if you discontinue contact with your father completely for the rest of your life, you won't be rid of him. You will find him lurking behind every corner, continuing to judge you through the proxies you will appoint for him: your boss, your best friend, your partner, even your own internal dialog (what would father think of my promotion? would he also have treasured these drawings my daughter has made for me? is he feeling sufficiently chastened by my absence? does he ever think of me at all?). And in your children - especially in your children (funny, my daughter laughs just like he does ...). Sometimes it's worth trying to continue such a separation anyway, but more often the strain of it is more trouble than it is worth. Usually the devil you know is better than the devil you used to know who now runs rampant in your imagination instead.

I agree with Cary that you need to free yourself of your father psychologically, otherwise all the physical distance will accomplish is to keep you stuck hoping that your absense from his life communicates your anger and pain to a father who is neither receptive nor responsive. Once you make some headway with that work, it might be worth reconnecting with him (rather than reconciling, which, as others have pointed out, sets the bar too high for the type of relationship he is likely to be able to have with you). At a certain point, the energy required to maintain a separation from family in the face of extended family functions, holidays, life events, and childrens' questions becomes more trouble than it's worth.

In my own experience reconnecting with my estranged parent, two things have been crucial. The first is something I read from Anne Lammott: "not forgiving is like drinking rat poison and waiting for the rat to die." Oh how I wished for ever so long that my continued bitterness would poison her well instead of mine! But her insensitivity to me also made her immune to my imagined toxic powers. I was the only one who suffered for that extended absense. The second has been to keep myself focussed on the mother I actually have rather than the mother I wish I had, so I am not constantly hurt and disappointed by her. This requires treating her similarly to the way I would treat a wild animal: with respect, with distance, and with an escape route always predetermined.

The Sopranos indites it's own characters. It gives you a safe distance from which to participate in the titillation of the characters' evil actions without feeling complicit in them. The Wire indites us all, and miraculously manages to make us enjoy (rather than resent) the process of finding ourselves guilty as charged. One is good entertainment, even good art, but the other can change our perspective on our own lives and the lives of those around us, and that is great art. The Sopranos exists in its own hermetic universe. The Wire does most of its artistic work when we have stopped watching it and start to see it's themes writ large in the universe we all share.

I agree that Sally Field's comment about mothers is rather rediculous in light of the evidence of thousands of years of human history. Women are just as prone to support war as men are.

However, I think the point is not that her antiwar rant was particularly insightful, but that Fox likely censored it because the network (continually and persistantly) squelches voices of dissent.

If Fox would like to censor every rediculous statement made on its network in support of the war ... well, nevermind, then it would have nothing to air.