Thread: TV Show Mob Wives & Rammona Rizzo

Just watched episode Omerta. How can anyone not like this show? I love it. The best show possibly ever to hit TV. That Ditra chick? How can you not like her? Teddy Atlas, the famous boxing coach, says in his book about his life that his wife is Albanian and tough as nails, and that some author he mentioned always goes on about how tough the Albanians are.

The Drita woman is Albanian. But she's just a tough little woman anyways. She keeps it 100% about those she has no love for. And Ramona - aka "Lucifer" - is a stunning looking woman with the confidence of a thousand queens. I don't know if her reputation as being Lucifer is deserved or not but from a male point of view I can see why she'd be difficult to say no too. She has a way with her eyes that makes you want to say yes.

I think I like Ditra's personality better though. She's so much more down to earth and homey.

The Chicago Mob Wives are more "trashy" or "greasy" compared to the New York cast. But both towns are full of savages and miscreants. Which makes this show all the more entertaining. Coming from Milwaukee with more refined, gentlemanly, and lady like Eye-Talians... we are pampered with amusement watching New Yorkers, Chicagoans, or Mississippians on TV. It's like watching animals in a zoo.

My homie says he can always tell someone from Chicago because they lack a certain class. He also says they're big, 'black,' and ugly. He's black himself. Of course, there are white people in and from Chicago too, as evident by Mob Wives.

When he said he can tell when they're from (in Milwaukee) Mississippi, I interrupted him, because it's a no-brainer, and said, "Because they run around outside with no shoes on."

Omerta: "Omerta" ( Ep. 217 ) from Mob Wives 2 | Full Episode | VH1.com

Originally Posted by Writ

According to a past sociology class of mine - as well as my own personal observation - the majority of people of both sexes end up marrying in their own socio-economic class.

That's pretty obvious.

Originally Posted by Writ

So, you (Joseph) need to come up with a dollar amount per annually that these selfless women are looking for. Is it $16,000 annually? $20,000? $60,000? $100,000?

At least partly based on the above, it varies -- of course. It also varies depending on the expectations of the individual. People want and expect different things. So, no - - there's no reason for me to have to answer that. Why don't you tell me? You claim to know what 99% of women want -- I don't have that gift.

Originally Posted by Writ

Your own condition that women want a man that can support a family is sexual selection.

Yes. Evolution 101.

Originally Posted by Writ

I would say most women would prefer to share a rich man with several other women than be the one and only of a faithful poor man. I don't care if that pisses you off. I don't care if some women deny it. Not going to change fact.

That's not "fact" Mr. Science -- that's an assumption based on who knows what. It's also based on the notion that women can't contribute to the income and can't support themselves or their children without a man. Of course, that's ridiculous. It also assumes that "most" women are as impressed by material things as you seem to be. If the alternative was homelessness or if they couldn't feed or clothe their children -- well, maybe. Otherwise, it's my opinion that you vastly underestimate "most" women.

Originally Posted by Writ

You're upset that I don't "hate" on Ramona or the other Mob Wives. But why should I? I'm rather amazed Big Ang - who looks like a tall man or drag queen - has been able to date mob men that lavished her with expensive gifts and houses. If she can get these alpha males then what's the excuse of the millions of women that look 100 times better than her?

I don't hate them. I'm just not impressed by them in the least. The opposite really. The only reason anyone is paying attention to these women is because of some tenuous connection to the mob -- which is always an easy sell. And I understand why women glom on to powerful and/or wealthy men -- but I don't see it as any kind of noteworthy accomplishment. Especially if the men are criminals. So my reaction is -- so what? I'm far more impressed by people who actually accomplish things.

You also seem to be impressed by your idea of this "alpha male." I personally know men who are very successful and have a good deal of accumulated wealth -- yet they were never promiscuous. They never felt the need to strut around in expensive suits with women hanging all over them. (Probably because men who are really successful don't feel the need to make such a big, public show of it.) Plus, they've stayed with one woman -- some of whom are successful in their own right.

I think YOU are impressed by your version of the alpha male -- so you assume that "most" women are too -- and that's a pretty big leap. My guess is there are plenty of women who would be turned off by someone like that -- regardless of how much stuff they might get out of it. I know most of the woman in my life would be. I'm married to an lovely, amazing woman -- a great wife and mother -- and she married me when I didn't have two nickels to rub together.

The things is, I admire people who do amazing or noteworthy things and do them with integrity and understatement. Some people would call that class. If you're "amazed" by tacky looking, foul-mouthed chicks on a reality show -- hey -- whatever. I watched part of the Omerta episode -- what a freak show. Do you realize this is on primarily so people who have nothing better to do can laugh at these women?

Originally Posted by JosephB

At least partly based on the above, it varies -- of course. It also varies depending on the expectations of the individual. People want and expect different things. So, no - - there's no reason for me to have to answer that. Why don't you tell me? You claim to know what 99% of women want -- I don't have that gift.

That's a no brainer. Like men, women want what they perceive is their best obtainable object among the options they are presented. Similar - but not totally analogous - to people purchasing homes or cars. The more money they have the better product they now they can obtain.

People of the two sexes do not make their choices based upon unconditional love towards total strangers. They have wants and agendas. The love if it does come evolves afterwards and after they've made their choices based upon initial attractions.

That's not "fact" Mr. Science -- that's an assumption based on who knows what. It's also based on the notion that women can't contribute to the income and can't support themselves or their children without a man. Of course, that's ridiculous. It also assumes that "most" women are as impressed by material things as you seem to be. If the alternative was homelessness or if they couldn't feed or clothe their children -- well, maybe. Otherwise, it's my opinion that you vastly underestimate "most" women.

Oh, that's fact. It's as much fact as putting pedophiles around children likely will result in at least one child being sexually molested. In both cases I don't need men with Ph.D.'s or psychiatrists to tell me that.

Most women are impressed with material things as are most men. Otherwise we would not have a consumer society and corporations would not spend as much money as they do on advertisements. People like more than just the basic needs of life. We could live like Indians of the 1700's with no problem. Few Americans want to though.

And females have a time in their life when they don't have children. They usually pick males that other females want and have sex with those males. Sometimes they get pregnant. So, it's not about poor, meek, women that give virgin births looking for a man simply with enough small income to provide a hut, one or two meals a day, and a few articles of clothing for their children.

I don't hate them. I'm just not impressed by them in the least. The opposite really. The only reason anyone is paying attention to these women is because of some tenuous connection to the mob -- which is always an easy sell. And I understand why women glom on to powerful and/or wealthy men -- but I don't see it as any kind of noteworthy accomplishment. Especially if the men are criminals. So my reaction is -- so what? I'm far more impressed by people who actually accomplish things.

Here's what I have noticed about men in general. They look down their noses at men below their rank and envy or "hate on" men above their rank.

People like to feel secure and self righteous in their own rank and position in life. That's why men in general have no issue with the phrase "a real man" but will apply to it what they wish.

The fact is your rank (Joseph) is too low to attract certain women. You would apply the term "gold digger" to them but not to the woman that snubs the guy making $8 an hour.

You also seem to be impressed by your idea of this "alpha male." I personally know men who are very successful and have a good deal of accumulated wealth -- yet they were never promiscuous. They never felt the need to strut around in expensive suits with women hanging all over them. (Probably because men who are really successful don't feel the need to make such a big, public show of it.) Plus, they've stayed with one woman -- some of whom are successful in their own right.

Has nothing to do with me being impressed with alpha males. I simply accept them as part of life.

And few men - very few - that are financially wealthy are faithful to their wives. Even among the working class I think I've only met 1 or 2 men in my entire life that has been totally faithful to their spouse. Men cheat. So do women. Rich men cheat for sure. That does not mean they're going to tell you.

I think YOU are impressed by your version of the alpha male -- so you assume that "most" women are too -- and that's a pretty big leap. My guess is there are plenty of women who would be turned off by someone like that -- regardless of how much stuff they might get out of it. I know most of the woman in my life would be. I'm married to an lovely, amazing woman -- a great wife and mother -- and she married me when I didn't have two nickels to rub together.

The things is, I admire people who do amazing or noteworthy things and do them with integrity and understatement. Some people would call that class. If you're "amazed" by tacky looking, foul-mouthed chicks on a reality show -- hey -- whatever. I watched part of the Omerta episode -- what a freak show. Do you realize this is on primarily so people who have nothing better to do can laugh at these women?

I don't know what your point about your wife is. Refer back to my point members of both sexes usually end up with average Janes and Joes.

Now, there are exceptions, some men will turn down gorgeous looking women for a homely looking woman. And some women will turn down rich men for poor men. But they are more the exception than the rule. Usually given the options - before a relationship or love has formed - the man will pursue the gorgeous woman and the woman will pick the rich man.

I mean... after I became a crack head is when I began attracting women to me. That right there told me women are as superficial as men. Being a hard working, income deriving, dependable, and potentially faith man and U.S. Marine had zero impact on females. Later, after I became a crack head and developed in my looks then I had attractive looking American women flirting with me and approaching me. People are shallow. Face it.

I'm a woman. I don't go for 'bad boys' and I would never put up with anything that this woman has. What have you got to say to that Writ? Not all women go for guys like that.

How about this -- would you rather share a rich man with a bunch of other women than marry a poor one? Because Writ claims it's a FACT that most women would.

Of course, that ignores that possibility that a woman might have some other way to support herself -- like a job.

How about this -- would you rather share a rich man with a bunch of other women than marry a poor one? Because Writ claims it's a FACT that most women would.

Ah, Writ and his 'facts'

I don't think I've ever dated a man who isn't poor.

But let's assume you have that actual choice.

Would you share a man with a bunch of women -- just for the stuff -- or because you're impressed with material things?

Would you share a man with a bunch of women -- just for the stuff -- or because you're impressed with material things?

Not at all. For one, I'm not really impressed with material things and two, I have my own money. It might not be much money but it's enough to have principles.

Writ has already stated that he doesn't care if women deny it. He knows -- it's FACT. Just like all rich men cheat FOR SURE!

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

I'm a woman. I don't go for 'bad boys' and I would never put up with anything that this woman has. What have you got to say to that Writ? Not all women go for guys like that.

I have a slim uncle married to a woman over 300 pounds and I've courted a woman born with disfigurements (missing hands, one leg significant shorter than the other) and disabilities. What's your point, that men usually don't judge or pursue the females and women that are hourglass shaped or otherwise fitting of the accepted beauty standards?

No. That's not your point. Exceptions are not the rules.

I fit almost none of the perceptions women have of "men." Or a "real man" for that matter. You don't see me crying tears in a bucket over it. I realize the majority of men fit X, Y, Z characteristics. Men being very visual creatures tend to place disproportionate value on looks. With women they place more value on a males social status and the resources he has.

Women like Halle Berry can marry a poor man. But 9 out of 10 of them won't and never will. Although they are rich they will either get a younger, good looking man as boy toy, or they will marry a man their age that is up in their socio-economic bracket.

It's far more likely for rich men to marry women that are impoverished.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

Ah, Writ and his 'facts'

I don't think I've ever dated a man who isn't poor.

Writ's facts included: most people marry within their own socio-economic group.

Writ's facts included: a woman like Ramona from New York Mob Wives can - and does - attract with little problem rich men, alpha males.

Now, if I were to act like a woman as women do over men that only pursue physically beautiful women, then I would be crying about how unfair it is that Ramona does not pick poor men.

A woman or man - generally speaking, I'm not talking the 1% exceptions to the rule of thumb - dates and marries those they perceive as the best catch from among the options they have.

What does that mean? That means rich, beautiful women like Halle Berry are out of reach for men like Joseph and myself. Period. And most average looking or below average looking women in Milwaukee's inner cities are limited to low-income men. They can not attract handsome and rich men like a Denzel Washington. They can not attract the more successful alpha males in Milwaukee. Those males will go for the best looking women in the inner-cities or in the better off areas.

Sorry, but that's just life.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

Not at all. For one, I'm not really impressed with material things and two, I have my own money. It might not be much money but it's enough to have principles.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Writ has already stated that he doesn't care if women deny it. He knows -- it's FACT. Just like all rich men cheat FOR SURE!

Amber is a champion of welfare. Material things impress her.

I'm poor by U.S. standards but I live like a king compared to those in abject poverty in developing nations. I have a nice 550 square foot apartment. Apparently, most Western women are impressed by material things if they desire a man with more material wealth than I have. Women in the inner-city with small incomes have no problem with my "family sustaining wages." However, American women earning say... $60,000 annually would not find my current $12,000 a year income sufficient for helping her "raise a family." If a woman earns $200,000 a year she'll be looking for a guy that earns in the six figures.

And don't point out the exceptions to me of the minority of stay at home dads.

I'm just keeping things real.

(I also benefit from a welfare system via non-service connected pension from the V.A.)

And yeah, rich men cheat, Joe. When I was a child I believed in child things and was naive. As an adult I had to face and learn the hard cold facts of life. And it's pretty Darwinian.

Sounds like too much television to me.

Originally Posted by Writ

That means rich, beautiful women like Halle Berry are out of reach for men like Joseph and myself. Period.

Wow. Really? I had no idea. I'm crushed.

Originally Posted by Writ

Writ's facts included: a woman like Ramona from New York Mob Wives can - and does - attract with little problem rich men, alpha males.

A relatively good looking woman (with the aid of ten pounds of makeup) can attract a rich man -- or an alpha male -- who by your definition would be promiscuous. Another startling revelation. Please keep the fascinating facts flowing, Writ.

Originally Posted by Writ

Writ's facts included: most people marry within their own socio-economic group.

Again, fairly obvious.

Originally Posted by Writ

$60,000 annually would not find my current $12,000 a year income sufficient for helping her "raise a family." If a woman earns $200,000 a year she'll be looking for a guy that earns in the six figures.

That doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that MOST women would rather share a rich man with other women than marry poor one -- and that you said it's a FACT -- which is what Amber and I were discussing. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. So what? Again, it ignores the more likely possibility that a women is capable of earning her own money -- and that she might have a little integrity and self-esteem.

Originally Posted by Writ

And yeah, rich men cheat, Joe. When I was a child I believed in child things and was naive. As an adult I had to face and learn the hard cold facts of life. And it's pretty Darwinian.

Of course rich men cheat, Writ. I never said otherwise. Some percentage of all men and women cheat and rich men are no exception. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a higher percentage of rich men cheat because they probably have more opportunity. I doubt you know what that percentage is. I doubt you know with any certainty what the percentage is overall -- despite that you've talked to some people who told you they cheated. I've seen figures anywhere from 12% to 40%. Studies rely on surveys -- obviously -- so it's hard to say how reliable they are. But I doubt there's anything out there that shows most people cheat or that all rich men cheat FOR SURE.

So from what we've seen in the thread -- "Writ's facts" are a mixture of the obvious, along with a good deal of opinion and guesswork -- like that MOST women in the WORLD would see Bill Clinton as the IDEAL mate, for example. Ha ha. Right. And I'm the one who's naive.

Anyway -- I don't know how we got on all this. I just came in to say I thought the show was stupid and that the women come off as tacky and loud-mouthed and they don't seem to have much going for them other than some tenuous connection to the mob or the ability to bag "alpha males." Of course, reality producers go out of their way to edit and set things up to make people look bad -- so who knows. (Although I read the chick you think is homey and down-to-earth started a fist fight with another woman in a bar. Classy.)

Originally Posted by JosephB

Wow. Really? I had no idea. I'm crushed.

Yeah, really. Has nothing to do with you being crushed. It's merely a matter of coming to terms with reality. And I'm not intending to make any offensive comment about your wife, so, don't take this the wrong way, but he has not found a cure for cancer or ended famine and thirst on earth or stopped wars from happening. In all likelihood she is as average a person and woman as the millions of "average" Americans or American omen throughout the United States. That you view her as amazing is no different than the millions of other people that say the same about their significant other, including women on welfare with their unemployed male S.O.'s that are in and out of prison. Not to mention the women on Mob Wives that once thought their former husbands were amazing.

A relatively good looking woman (with the aid of ten pounds of makeup) can attract a rich man -- or an alpha male -- who by your definition would be promiscuous. Another startling revelation. Please keep the fascinating facts flowing, Writ.

Not all women can attract alpha males. Sorry, you're wrong. And I'm not talking about one night flings. However, I will concede that rich men discriminate less against women than beautiful women discriminate against men.

Again, fairly obvious.

If it's fairly obvious why are you complaining? Your contention was all any woman really wants is a man that provides the most basic necessities of life (cars, air conditioning not required, and only the most basic foods and one meal a day) or what you suggested was "able to support a family."

That most people marry into their own socio-economic group evidences that is not the case. It evidences my point that both men and women struggle to get what they perceive is their best possible mate, and they try to draw from pools of the opposite sex they believe are the best pools they have access to draw from.

A woman raised middle-class will seek a male mate that is rich and if not rich then at least one that is not in a socio-economic group below the comforts and standards of life she's used to.

Has jack to do with "being able to raise a family." You and your wife could raise a family in my one bedroom apartment that is 550 square feet and both of you could go without a car like I do rather than having a house and mortgage (and at least one automobile) as you two do. The two of you could raise a family off of my single income of a little less than $12,000 a year.

But the two of you want more. As most people do. As I do in fact.

That doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that MOST women would rather share a rich man with other women than marry poor one -- and that you said it's a FACT -- which is what Amber and I were discussing. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. So what? Again, it ignores the more likely possibility that a women is capable of earning her own money -- and that she might have a little integrity and self-esteem.

That response I made, I don't even think had anything to do with that specific question.

And yes, most women would prefer to share a rich man with other women than be the one and only of a poor man. Hell, when Ebony Magazine interviewed several college educated young Black-American women all of them said they rather share a rich man with other women than be the one and only of a working class plumber, let alone a poor man.

A woman would prefer a a rich man that would be totally faithful to her. But if she can't have that then she would prefer to share a rich man with other women than be the one and only of a faithful man.

However, a rich man is not obtainable by the vast majority of women. So, they have the option of not having a man or settling for less. They almost always settle. And in settling they will settle for the man earning $60,000 a year before they settle for the man bringing in $12,000 a year. Makes sense. I'm not too mad at it. People always try to improve their situation in life and it's normal for people to want the most comfortable life they can get.

Women are not weaklings with no mind that calculates odds and simply give out unconditional love to any and all male strangers that approach them with sincere smiles and kind hearts. Life is more Darwinian than that.

Of course rich men cheat, Writ. I never said otherwise. Some percentage of all men and women cheat and rich men are no exception. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a higher percentage of rich men cheat because they probably have more opportunity. I doubt you know what that percentage is. I doubt you know with any certainty what the percentage is overall -- despite that you've talked to some people who told you they cheated. I've seen figures anywhere from 12% to 40%. Studies rely on surveys -- obviously -- so it's hard to say how reliable they are. But I doubt there's anything out there that shows most people cheat or that all rich men cheat FOR SURE.

So from what we've seen in the thread -- "Writ's facts" are a mixture of the obvious, along with a good deal of opinion and guesswork -- like that MOST women in the WORLD would see Bill Clinton as the IDEAL mate, for example. Ha ha. Right. And I'm the one who's naive.

Anyway -- I don't know how we got on all this. I just came in to say I thought the show was stupid and that the women come off as tacky and loud-mouthed and they don't seem to have much going for them other than some tenuous connection to the mob or the ability to bag "alpha males." Of course, reality producers go out of their way to edit and set things up to make people look bad -- so who knows. (Although I read the chick you think is homey and down-to-earth started a fist fight with another woman in a bar. Classy.)

I like that Ditra. I like the way Ramona looks and dresses more than Ditra in that way. But I like Ditra's personality much more than Ramona's.

Ultimately, if I had to make my choice, I'd rather have Ditra. I especially got a kick out of her when she said, "Karen, who you going to square up with? with your little alligator arms."

Plus, Ditra could be my bodyguard when we'd go out.

But if you've got a problem with Ditra take it up with New York. That's just New York being New York.

The Chicago cast is more "grease ball" than the New York cast. But that's just Chicago being Chicago. Like I said... we're cut from better cloth or at least raised to a higher bar in Milwaukee. So, I find it entertaining watching New Yorkers and Chicagoans. Like, if I wanted to watch Gremlins I'd tune into Atlanta.

Mob Wives Chicago cast in episode 2: "The Aftermath" ( Ep. 102 ) from Mob Wives Chicago | Full Episode | VH1.com