I never thought that the Connors were poor

[Dusk Angel]

I have always read reviews of the show describing the Connors as being poor and struggling.

Sure, they had a tight budget some of the time when the bike shop went under and Roseanne quit her factory job, but most of the time they had decent clothes on their backs and plenty, plenty and more plenty of food in the kitchen.

DJ even got a Nintendo for his birthday! This was around 1990, and those cost about $200, I think. Becky seemed to have nice clothes, and I remember Roseanne giving Darlene a credit card to buy new clothing.

Don't forget about cable television! These things were luxuries in my household.

They just seemed like a typical paycheck-to-paycheck family to me.

Your thoughts?

[Mikado]

Well, this IS Hollywood were talking about here, anyone without at least 10 rooms in their mansion is considered underpriviledged :lol:......Look at the Bundys, Al was supposed to be making about $2 an hour, yet, they lived in a fairly attractive 2 story house, with new appliances ( Even if Peggy never used them )And had well-off neighbours, none of which said "poor" to me!

[Ireneparalegal]

I have always read reviews of the show describing the Connors as being poor and struggling.

Sure, they had a tight budget some of the time when the bike shop went under and Roseanne quit her factory job, but most of the time they had decent clothes on their backs and plenty, plenty and more plenty of food in the kitchen.

DJ even got a Nintendo for his birthday! This was around 1990, and those cost about $200, I think. Becky seemed to have nice clothes, and I remember Roseanne giving Darlene a credit card to buy new clothing.

Don't forget about cable television! These things were luxuries in my household.

They just seemed like a typical paycheck-to-paycheck family to me.

Your thoughts?

You said it best when you posted "living paycheck to paycheck". Also, they had some money in the bank, they did have a checking account. I never thought of them as poor, but compare them to those "other sitcoms" like Full House, Cosby Show, Family Ties, etc. You never heard issues abt struggling, financial woes or budgets on those shows and many others.

Also, the Conner kids didn't have the "best" of clothes. They didn't wear designer jeans or anything like that. You see the shows I mentioned above and that is all you see the kids wearing.

The Conner kids were seen wearing the clothes over and over in different episodes. Isn't that how real life is? Unless you are living in a $1 million dollar house or live like Paris Hilton, you don't have the luxury of having an extensive wardrobe.

Roseanne brought realism to the show and although that realism was also shown in how she had this attitude towards her mother Bev, how the Conner kids spoke disrespectfully many times, how the family seemed to eat meatloaf and leftovers, it was REAL. I knew families like that growing up and I sure can relate to Becky as a teen. I see some of her attitude and I recognize that I had that many a time as a teen.

[Janice]

I wouldn't say the Connors were poor as in Evans Family of 'Good Times' poor, but they certainly struggled to make ends meet. That was the premise of the show. Dan and Roseanne had a few jobs between them. I remember they had their lights shut off. That's not typical for most families, unless they have money problems. Their income seemed to fluctuate depending on where or if Dan and Roseanne were working. DJ may have gotten a Nintendo for one birthday, but who knows what he got the following year. The Connors did own their own home, they weren't lazy and they worked hard to provide for their kids.
I've gone my entire life with never having anything shut off, first living with my parents, then in my own marriage...and I'm far from rich. When I was growing up, my father was steadily employed as a longshoreman for 46 years, so it wasn't feast or famine. Just a consistent economic state of living. I'd go insane living from paycheck to paycheck. That feeling of insecurity would drive me nuts.

[coffield3]

They were working class so if one was out of work the family would struggle even more so if they both were out of work.

[Dusk Angel]

You said it best when you posted "living paycheck to paycheck". Also, they had some money in the bank, they did have a checking account. I never thought of them as poor, but compare them to those "other sitcoms" like Full House, Cosby Show, Family Ties, etc. You never heard issues abt struggling, financial woes or budgets on those shows and many others.

Also, the Conner kids didn't have the "best" of clothes. They didn't wear designer jeans or anything like that. You see the shows I mentioned above and that is all you see the kids wearing.

The Conner kids were seen wearing the clothes over and over in different episodes. Isn't that how real life is? Unless you are living in a $1 million dollar house or live like Paris Hilton, you don't have the luxury of having an extensive wardrobe.

Roseanne brought realism to the show and although that realism was also shown in how she had this attitude towards her mother Bev, how the Conner kids spoke disrespectfully many times, how the family seemed to eat meatloaf and leftovers, it was REAL. I knew families like that growing up and I sure can relate to Becky as a teen. I see some of her attitude and I recognize that I had that many a time as a teen.


I thought that Becky wore some spiffy clothes some of the time, but maybe I am wrong. She was such a "girly" girl. I loved the realism, too, on the show.

Did anyone notice in the episode where Roseanne is with Dan in the hospital after his heart attack, she is not wearing one stitch of makeup??? :eek: Not even concealer, from what it looked to me. And this was on national TV. Roseanne was daring, alright.

I came from a family that lived on meatloaf and leftovers, and maybe once at the beginning of the school year I could get a few shirts and a couple pairs of pants and shorts from Sears or KMart. The Gap? That was for rich kids! There's a chain in my area called The Buckle and Herberger's, a fancy department store, and my parents would have slipped into a fit of depression if I would have asked for expensive clothes from those places.

If I would have spoken to my parents they way the Connor kids did at times, I'm sure I would have known my first taste of independence by the age of 12. :lol:

The Tanners, Huxtables and Keatons were supposed to be pretty well-to-do.

Could you imagine the Oleson twins in thrift shop clothes?

Could you have seen Vanessa whining to Rudy about having to make her school clothes last another year? Or vice versa?

Could you have pictured Mallory Keaton going on a shopping spree at the local KMart or Wal-Mart to buy her closet of clothing? :2help

I think that sitcoms are pretty good mirror to our nation's social class system. I've just found it offensive over the years when I read reviews and synopsises describing the Connor family as being poverty-stricken and struggling. I lived much like how they did, yet I never felt poor or deprived.

Then again, the 1980's was a materialistic time. I think "Roseanne" debuted when that era was coming to an end.

[SparkleFarkle]

I agree, the Conners were not what most people would refer to as poor; they were a blue-collar family.

[Janice]

I thought that Becky wore some spiffy clothes some of the time, but maybe I am wrong. She was such a "girly" girl. I loved the realism, too, on the show.

Did anyone notice in the episode where Roseanne is with Dan in the hospital after his heart attack, she is not wearing one stitch of makeup??? :eek: Not even concealer, from what it looked to me. And this was on national TV. Roseanne was daring, alright.

I came from a family that lived on meatloaf and leftovers, and maybe once at the beginning of the school year I could get a few shirts and a couple pairs of pants and shorts from Sears or KMart. The Gap? That was for rich kids! There's a chain in my area called The Buckle and Herberger's, a fancy department store, and my parents would have slipped into a fit of depression if I would have asked for expensive clothes from those places.

If I would have spoken to my parents they way the Connor kids did at times, I'm sure I would have known my first taste of independence by the age of 12. :lol:

The Tanners, Huxtables and Keatons were supposed to be pretty well-to-do.

Could you imagine the Oleson twins in thrift shop clothes?

Could you have seen Vanessa whining to Rudy about having to make her school clothes last another year? Or vice versa?

Could you have pictured Mallory Keaton going on a shopping spree at the local KMart or Wal-Mart to buy her closet of clothing? :2help

I think that sitcoms are pretty good mirror to our nation's social class system. I've just found it offensive over the years when I read reviews and synopsises describing the Connor family as being poverty-stricken and struggling. I lived much like how they did, yet I never felt poor or deprived.

Then again, the 1980's was a materialistic time. I think "Roseanne" debuted when that era was coming to an end.
The Tanners, Keatons and Huxtables were well-to-do, you're right. That's how those shows were written. That wasn't unrealistic any more than the Connors, who yes, were a financially struggling family. I also wouldn't say that those families were materialistic either. They could afford to give their children more, so they did. There's no shame in struggling, just as there's no shame in not struggling.

I personally haven't heard the Connors described as poverty-stricken. Every synopsis I've read describes them as a struggling blue-collar family. Here's a few.

http://www.nickatnite.com/shows/roseanne/index.jhtml (http://www.nickatnite.com/shows/roseanne/index.jhtml)

http://www.oxygen.com/roseanne/about.aspx?index=1 (http://www.oxygen.com/roseanne/about.aspx?index=1)

http://timstvshowcase.com/roseanne.html (http://timstvshowcase.com/roseanne.html)

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094540/plotsummary (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094540/plotsummary)

http://www.tv.com/roseanne/show/54/summary.html (http://www.tv.com/roseanne/show/54/summary.html)

http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/about/ (http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/about/)

http://www.classictvhits.com/show.php?id=215 (http://www.classictvhits.com/show.php?id=215)

http://www.carseywerner.net/roseanne_eng.htm (http://www.carseywerner.net/roseanne_eng.htm)

http://television.aol.com/show/roseanne/SH0036710000/main?flv=1&ncid=yInozwVMCu0000000742&icid=rbox_tv_shows.M (http://television.aol.com/show/roseanne/SH0036710000/main?flv=1&ncid=yInozwVMCu0000000742&icid=rbox_tv_shows.M)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne_%28TV_series%29

[Ireneparalegal]

I myself have never actually read where the Conners were portraying a "poor" family. I only know they had their struggles and financial issues, for which no child should ever rant or scream at their parents for only trying to give them a better life. Roseanne showed that her business thrived and this was less than a year after that bike shop disaster. Who will ever know how well they can be if they don't try?

Realism was the factor of this show and I agree with the statement above regarding how Roseanne appeared on screen. She wore very little make-up at times and yes, she was seen at her worst. I would rather see a woman look her worst on camera and portray a scene realistically rather than see a woman all made up, dressed up to the nines and look great at looking depressed or sad. In my world when bad things have happened and my attention was needed immediately, I don't have time to do my hair or my make-up.

Although I grew up in a financially stable family, I can identify to the struggles of the Conners because of my struggle as an adult when I became injured on the job. Thank God my girls were understanding and never screamed at me when we were having hard times. :crazy:

Even after the Conners won the lottery, they fixed up their home rather than buy a brand new, bigger home. That is crazy. :lol:

[SparkleFarkle]

I only know they had their struggles and financial issues, for which no child should ever rant or scream at their parents for only trying to give them a better life. Let it go, for crying out loud. It seems like no matter what a thread is about, you feel the need to interject this.:rolleyes: I believe the question is: Did you think they were poor or not? I didn't think they were poor.

[PhilaEaglesHater]

I have always read reviews of the show describing the Connors as being poor and struggling.

Sure, they had a tight budget some of the time when the bike shop went under and Roseanne quit her factory job, but most of the time they had decent clothes on their backs and plenty, plenty and more plenty of food in the kitchen.

DJ even got a Nintendo for his birthday! This was around 1990, and those cost about $200, I think. Becky seemed to have nice clothes, and I remember Roseanne giving Darlene a credit card to buy new clothing.

Don't forget about cable television! These things were luxuries in my household.

They just seemed like a typical paycheck-to-paycheck family to me.

Your thoughts?



They were in the "WORKING POOR" Category. Paycheck To Paycheck

[Buffyboy323]

They were in the "WORKING POOR" Category. Paycheck To Paycheck
Exactly!

Just look at some of the clothes the Connor's wore. ;)

[Dusk Angel]

The Tanners, Keatons and Huxtables were well-to-do, you're right. That's how those shows were written. That wasn't unrealistic any more than the Connors, who yes, were a financially struggling family. I also wouldn't say that those families were materialistic either. They could afford to give their children more, so they did. There's no shame in struggling, just as there's no shame in not struggling.

I personally haven't heard the Connors described as poverty-stricken. Every synopsis I've read describes them as a struggling blue-collar family. Here's a few.

http://www.nickatnite.com/shows/roseanne/index.jhtml (http://www.nickatnite.com/shows/roseanne/index.jhtml)

http://www.oxygen.com/roseanne/about.aspx?index=1 (http://www.oxygen.com/roseanne/about.aspx?index=1)

http://timstvshowcase.com/roseanne.html (http://timstvshowcase.com/roseanne.html)

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094540/plotsummary (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094540/plotsummary)

http://www.tv.com/roseanne/show/54/summary.html (http://www.tv.com/roseanne/show/54/summary.html)

http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/about/ (http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/about/)

http://www.classictvhits.com/show.php?id=215 (http://www.classictvhits.com/show.php?id=215)

http://www.carseywerner.net/roseanne_eng.htm (http://www.carseywerner.net/roseanne_eng.htm)

http://television.aol.com/show/roseanne/SH0036710000/main?flv=1&ncid=yInozwVMCu0000000742&icid=rbox_tv_shows.M (http://television.aol.com/show/roseanne/SH0036710000/main?flv=1&ncid=yInozwVMCu0000000742&icid=rbox_tv_shows.M)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseanne_%28TV_series%29


I read an article years back about how winning the lottery helped the Connors "rise from poverty" and that struck me as silly. The writer must have had a Mercedes Benz and personal chef at his disposal. :cool:

I didn't mean that the wealthier sitcom families were materialistic, I should have made my message more clear. I meant that in the '80's, most viewers tended to want to see stories about wealthy, successful people. Think of Dynasty, Dallas and other shows with extreme wealth. Other than a chauffer romancing Fallon Carrington, we didn't see stories on those shows about working class people.

Of course, then, the studios were going to focus on more succesful people like the Huxtables and Tanners. They were people who were better able to give their kids nicer things. That's what I meant about examples of the wealthier kids wearing poorer quality clothes. That wouldn't make sense for a doctor's child to wear rags and children of a talk show host to walk around in Gitano jeans.

[Heist81]

Speaking of clothes, I noticed that Dan and DJ often wore the same shirts in the earlier shows.

[Ireneparalegal]

Let it go, for crying out loud. It seems like no matter what a thread is about, you feel the need to interject this.:rolleyes: I believe the question is: Did you think they were poor or not? I didn't think they were poor.

:stupid:

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. Here you are pointing it out. You did the same thing on other Roseanne threads, but you know that, so back off and let it be. Stop looking for things to point out. :crazy:

[Heist81]

A perfect dismount off of your high horse.

[Ireneparalegal]

I read an article years back about how winning the lottery helped the Connors "rise from poverty" and that struck me as silly. The writer must have had a Mercedes Benz and personal chef at his disposal. :cool:

I didn't mean that the wealthier sitcom families were materialistic, I should have made my message more clear. I meant that in the '80's, most viewers tended to want to see stories about wealthy, successful people. Think of Dynasty, Dallas and other shows with extreme wealth. Other than a chauffer romancing Fallon Carrington, we didn't see stories on those shows about working class people.

Of course, then, the studios were going to focus on more succesful people like the Huxtables and Tanners. They were people who were better able to give their kids nicer things. That's what I meant about examples of the wealthier kids wearing poorer quality clothes. That wouldn't make sense for a doctor's child to wear rags and children of a talk show host to walk around in Gitano jeans.
I got what you meant. I guess what it was that America related to in Roseanne is that not all of America lives like the Tanners, the Huxtables, etc. More people related to the Conners because they didn't have the best of everything and a lot of people who live in the United States live like the Conners. It was nice to seem "everyday" people. As much as I like the Cosby show, it was a also nice to see the Conners and see their struggles. Although the Conners were not the Evans Family (Good Times) they were the middle class family. There was no threat per se. Girls could identify with the issues the Conner girls had, the clothes they wore, etc. It was hard to feel sorry for a character, especially a girl on the Cosby Show when they had it "well-off". It almost sounds horrid to say such a thing, because no matter how much money a family has, problems will occur, however, you tend to feel sorry for the Conners for their problems more so than a wealthy family.

[SparkleFarkle]

I think of the Conners as being part of the sub group, lower middle class (the largest sub-label applied to members of the middle class). Overall, middle class persons, especially upper middle class individuals, are characterized by living off their expertise, conceptualizing, creating and consulting. A college education is one of the main indicators of middle class status, something Roseanne and Dan didn’t have. Middle class persons commonly have a comfortable standard of living, significant economic security, considerable work autonomy and rely on their expertise to sustain themselves. The lower middle class group encompasses the stereotypical "average Joe" blue collar occupations.

[Furienna]

I would say they were poor, but maybe that's just what they were compared to other sitcom families, who really were rich, like the Huxtables and the Bankses. But they sure were blue collar or working class anyway.

[browneyes106]

You said it best when you posted "living paycheck to paycheck". Also, they had some money in the bank, they did have a checking account. I never thought of them as poor, but compare them to those "other sitcoms" like Full House, Cosby Show, Family Ties, etc. You never heard issues abt struggling, financial woes or budgets on those shows and many others.

Also, the Conner kids didn't have the "best" of clothes. They didn't wear designer jeans or anything like that. You see the shows I mentioned above and that is all you see the kids wearing.

The Conner kids were seen wearing the clothes over and over in different episodes. Isn't that how real life is? Unless you are living in a $1 million dollar house or live like Paris Hilton, you don't have the luxury of having an extensive wardrobe.

Roseanne brought realism to the show and although that realism was also shown in how she had this attitude towards her mother Bev, how the Conner kids spoke disrespectfully many times, how the family seemed to eat meatloaf and leftovers, it was REAL. I knew families like that growing up and I sure can relate to Becky as a teen. I see some of her attitude and I recognize that I had that many a time as a teen.

I liked the fact that on Roseanne they mentioned their struggles of getting by. Looking back at a show like Full House it seemed unrealistic in a lot of ways. Sure Danny had an education and great job. I know several people in real life that have great jobs but as a single parents they struggle to provide for their kids.

I loved the episode of Roseanne when she took Darlene's home-ec class grocery shopping and she taught them how the cost of meat loaf. It showed realism because many people in real life make the best of what they can get at grocery stores for a good price.

[Little Mel]

Like others have mentioned, they were not poor, but a blue collar working class family. They had their ups and downs like most do, but they were never poor. All I can say is that if what they were living was considered poor by anyone, than what I'm living must be considered totally poverty. lol! I'd have loved to own my own huge home, have two businesses, and ride a Harley!! If that's poor, then let me be poor please!!!

[blink]

I never thought the Connors were poor because I grew up in a ran down trailer park and received free lunch at school. :rolleyes:

[mattc]

I remember Roseanne saying that she didn't want a show about "poor white trash" but a show about the typical, working class family. Most shows portraying real families are not accurate or show them as parodies and stupid.

Roseanne, the show, I felt was very realistic and accurate. As some have said, this was a show that portrayed: job struggles (Roseanne working at low-paying jobs like a hair salon, factory, fast food joint, diner, etc..; Dan as a dry-waller), the electricity getting cut off (plus many references to bills not getting paid), clothing worn repeatedly (which to me was crucial to its realism), Jackie was always struggling to figure out how to earn a living.

I never thought of them as poverty stricken, but certainly they were "lower middle class," which is your average family in America.

IMO, Roseanne nailed it... that's why the show immediately jumped to #2 and then #1 in the ratings... so many people could relate to it.

[magellan333]

I'd go insane living from paycheck to paycheck. That feeling of insecurity would drive me nuts.

Amen! I grew up in a family that did go from paycheck to paycheck and it sucked. Now I always work hard to keep a little in the bank.

[Will and Grace Fanatic]

They were not exactly well off, i mean roseanne did have some low paying jobs such as factory worker and fast food worker. They had clothes that look like Target store clothes not designer clothes. plus they had a time when they couldn't pay their electric bill so their lights were turned off.

[jasonbigley]

This show had a lot of realism to it. It is a lot like my family. We are hard working middle-class america people. What I also liked about this show is that it was not always sarcastic and mean spirited. It had a lot of touching moments and a lot of funny momemts, making it the right balance. The season when the Conners had the electricity turned off on them hit home to me because we have had that happen a few times.