Keets Keeps Baiting Me/Who vs. Kiss/The Family

[Sigel James Civ 10 ABW/LGCW <James.Sigel@usafa.af.mil>]

Keets:

>Tsk, tsk. Twice I've suggested that men are just as responsible for this 

>abominable behavior as women, and twice you've skipped right over it.

Aw, c'mon now Keets you can "suggest" all you want, doesn't mean I'm biting.
I didn't skip it, I just didn't find it all that relevant.  You see, the
point I was trying to make is that the sexual revolution was the catalyst
for this change.  It's the CHANGE in society that I was pointing out.
Women's roles have dramatically changed in a relatively short period of
time, in sociological terms, not men's so much.  I didn't bother with the
men because men's roles have changed for only one reason - women have taken
traditional male roles, aka the Sexual Revolution.  But all in all, men
haven't changed.  We were termed fat, lazy slobs long before the sexual
revolution and we still are held in the same regard now.  All one has to do
is read any one of the million women's magazines to see that.  Sure men have
an effect on what happens at home, but their role in the family really
hasn't changed as drastically as the women.  That's why I "skipped" it.  I
was addressing your more heavy charge of insinuating that I believe women
should stay at home.  Sorry, I felt more compelled to address that instead.

> (women's choices) Not that much choice.

You must look in a more broad (no pun intended!) sense my good lady.
Compared to 30/40 years ago, women's choices have soared.  In 1959 the woman
had one choice - be a wife and if not, be ridiculed.  In 1999, a woman can
choose to be a wife, a mother, a professional, a professional AND a mother,
a single mother, single, a lesbian, whatever path she wants.  Now those are
choices.  Compared to men, your number of acceptable choices towers over
mine.  I was raised to do one thing: get a job and raise a family.  And all
I wanted to be was a Cosmo model!!!

>And fathers and children should have a similar bond.

I definitely agree.  Fathers do need to be more involved and lay off the
ESPN when Jr. is crying.  However, fathers have to CREATE that bond with
their children.  Mothers on the other hand, have it automatically.  At least
that's what every single solitary mother has ever said to me about it.  It's
much more difficult to create something out of nothing, than to have those
tools from the start.

>Somebody or other did a poll of Boomer men, BTW, and found their biggest 

>disappointment was the lack of quality time they'd had with their dads.

The difference being, children have had centuries to adapt to that.  Don't
kid yourself into thinking that Dads were home before the Industrial
Revolution.  Not at all true.  Even for a father who worked the farm right
on his own land, he spent 12-16 hours every day in the fields, not spending
"quality" time with the kids but working his ass off (out here in the
fields...)  Or in medival Europe, dad might have been off fighting with
those damned Saxon dogs instead of hanging out with Jr.  Or whatever.
Remember, one of the reasons that the sexual revolution ever happening was
because women got fed up with men running around as they pleased.  If they
weren't working all day, they were out getting loaded and chasing skirts all
night.  For the sake of this discussion, I was thinking a little more
contemporary.  This generation of children has evolved to adapt to daddy's
lack of attention just like kids have for centuries.  Only now are they
experiencing mommy's lack of attention in addition to daddy's.  In
sociological terms, this is a brand new phenomena, and we don't have all the
data in to understand the after effects yet.  But a cultural phenomena it
is.

 >I hope you don't think this lets you out of responsibility to your
(future) 

>kids.

Hey, what kind a crack is that?  I said in that same paragraph that if my
wife can't work from home, then I will be there.  Hey, no matter what Gen
Walk says, a hypocrite I ain't!!!

>>See My Way (Rog, I hope your new songs are better than that!)

>The lyrics are as good as anything Pete was writing during that period. The


>music needed work though. Think they should rework it now?

Now THAT's funny!  Lyrically (even in that period), if Pete ever writes
anything that starts with - "ba-da-ba-da-ba-da-ba-dabba-daaaaaab..." I'm
quitting on The Who forever!  The first time I ever heard "See My Way" and
heard that, I hit the floor and ducked!  I thought an angry Porky Pig was
attacking me.

Mark:

>It's a study in selfishness.

Unfortunately, a study on both sides as to whom is the most selfish.  It's
also a study in "one-upmanship".

>It's sort of like choosing Who music over Kiss.

Ah!!!  Sacrilige!!!  Don't EVER compare the Democrats to The Who again!!!!
Or the Repubs for that matter.  Why I oughta...  I like the metaphor, but to
me choosing between the Big Two parties is more akin to choosing between
your testicles getting ripped off by a rabid dog, or roller skating down a
hill with a fork in your mouth.

Alan:

>Then what's this I hear about his (Charlie Manson's) periodic parole
hearings?

I too have been a novice expert on Charlie and The Family.  Sad to say
(sorry Mark) when the death penalty was revoked in California by the
bleeding hearts, Charlie's original death sentence was overturned and
changed to life in prison WITH parole eligibility every several years or so.
Not a bad deal for the pro-death penalty poster boy.  However, Sharon Tate's
mother shows up at every hearing (including the other Family butcher's
parole hearings as well) and simply shows the board the crime scene photos.
No speeches, no demands, just the pictures.  Charlie might be up for parole
now and again, but he ain't never getting out.  Another wacky side story to
confirm what Mark (I think) said about Charlie wanting to be in prison:
Charlie got out of the joint I think in 1967 and landed right into San
Fransico's Summer of Love.  Dispense some acid, spew strange sermons, and
now you've got the Family.  However, at his '67 parole hearing, he asked
that he remain in prison.  He never wanted to leave.  He even WARNED them
not to let him out.  So they let him out anyway and Helter Skelter almost
came off.

And I think NO BEATLE has ever commented on Charlie's White Album/Bible
obsession, ever.  I do know John Lennon flat out refused to ever talk about
it, except for saying that Charlie was nuts and he wouldn't address it.  But
I've never read any comments on the Beatles/Family connection from a Beatle.
I would love to though; interesting.

Have a great weekend Kids,

Jim in Colo Springs

"I didn't kill nobody... I love everybody.  All I did was set them free!"
Charles Manson