Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Davy Jones, 1945-2012 (293 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ah, but the reason you hear those songs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    being given air time is that they are not "threatening".  the music of the sixties threatened and changed the old way of thinking - our music altered the direction of this nation.

    listen to the songs - listen to "yellow taxi" of the seventies - to "a day in the life" - listen and read the lyrics - even of the stones who were the forefront of the sexual revolution.

    even today, the music of my generation threatens the comfortable status quo.

    motown was about relationships, girl/boy, love, breakups.

    the british invasion was about adult sexual attraction, peace, compassion, anti-war and much more.

    the powers with the bucks were desperate to return my generation back to shoppers (who checked the labels in the back of your clothes to make sure you were wearing the proper "villager" or "weejuns" attire).  the sixties and hippies didn't care about that - they cared about one another - that cost the corporations money...

    so, the corporations/producers/teevee moguls had to try to either get IN on the "revolution" or to turn back the tide with the innocuous.

    it didn't work.

    the monkees ended with the sixties - they left some fun songs but they didn't make the cut into the next generation of activists.

    EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

    by edrie on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:31:18 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for mentioning Joanie Mitchell (0+ / 0-)

      who could even laugh at her entourage in 'Playing real good for free' ... That is how it was supposed to be - and how it was, for some.

      Am I right, or am I right? - The Singing Detective

      by Clem Yeobright on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:57:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  clem, just found this article about the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        real person behind the monkees...

        it's a good read and, since we've been grumbling about the group, i thought i'd ad this as a tribute to a really decent human being named davey jones.

        it's sad as his mentor has now outlived him... what a tragedy - but what a history jones had prior and after the tv series and the band!

        rip, davey jones - and have fun jumping those winged horses you now can ride over the clouds!

        EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

        by edrie on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:27:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, I've listened to it. (0+ / 0-)

      The Boomers think they invented culture, and that music died with them.

      It's cute, really.

      •  we're not claiming we invented culture - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        but you have to admit our generation made definite changes in the cultural layout of this nation.

        18 year olds could no longer be sent to fight a war by politicians they could not vote to choose.

        the walls of separation were broken down - cities and schools integrated.

        the basis for an unjust war exposed for the nation to see.

        women could finally choose to control their own bodies and reproductive futures - something which strongly benefit men, as well.

        women broke through the glass ceiling to take their rightful place in the workforce.

        medicare.  social programs to assist those who needed help.  all grew and expanded in my generation.  we had a social consciousness and social conscience that came with the exposure from legitimate and respected news media.

        gays finally could begin to come out of the closet (although this one took much much longer to finally accomplish).

        these are a few of the major accomplishments of the boomers.  why these things and so much more?  the times were right because of the widespread dissemination of information via television (which had not yet become reality tv all the time).  

        there was funding for the arts and people actually supported local dance, opera, theatre companies and museums.

        there was a huge upsurge in the people who could obtain the american dream - jobs were available, homes were obtainable, growth was exploding...

        then, the first oil crisis hit during carter's presidency and the republicans who had hated all of the social programs enacted since fdr finally saw a way to try to return to the '20s... and they started laying the groundwork to take this nation back to the pre-depression era of no worker's rights, no public education, no health care for the masses.  

        and just as my generation deserves credit for so many changes, we also deserve blame for the greed of SOME of my generation and the complacency of others.

        it is now up to your generation to pick up the ball we've dropped and move it forward.  the nation is now in your hands - as is the future!

        as for the music...

        listen to the lyrics of the music of the 30s, 40s, 50s - and see how that all changed with the beatles.  they started the social consciousness movement on a wider scale with the release of "eleanor rigby" - followed by many more songs about the human condition.  add in the folk singers, starting with pete seeger (before our time) but growing with singers like dylan (couldn't stand his tone-deaf voice, btw), joni mitchell, joan baez and so many many more.

        we were the dawning of the age of aquarius.  we were the enlightened generation.  we made it stick because we had the technology to get our message out and across wider spectrums than did previous generations.

        heck, i even remember our very first teevee when i was a very small child. it was a 21" round screen - black and white - zenith.  we still have that tv case at home, even though the picture tube and innards are long gone.

        ours was a generation of techology that let the word be spread without the heavy influence of money that we see today.  it was a naive and innocent generation that suddenly turned around and saw and heard (through our music) the suffering of so many around us.  it was a generation that sang of the consequences of war and death and we rebelled.  this wasn't wwII, where there was a clear and just reason for fighting - this was a dirty, concealed, hidden war with no real objective or purpose - and people were made to fight and die without knowing why.

        our music spoke of that.

        our music wasn't "cute" - it was painful and somber, in many occasions, it hurt.  as we did.  it hurt.

        how many roads must a man walk down, before they can call him a man

        - the answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind...

        EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

        by edrie on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:46:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  one more... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

          by edrie on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:49:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  this still makes me cry. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            i hadn't realized how much my generation was overshadowed by the deaths of so many during viet nam.  the fear of death.  the sense of loss.

            to this day, i've not looked at my high school class list because i don't want to know which ones didn't make it back.

            funny - that was almost 50 years ago - and i still cry when i hear this.

            perhaps this is why my generation is still so intense and serious.  we never forget - we just don' t speak of it.

            EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

            by edrie on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 11:52:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Precisely the attitude I was talking about. n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  This quote: (0+ / 0-)
          ours was a generation of techology that let the word be spread without the heavy influence of money that we see today.
          I think this is just naive.  It cost (and still costs) record companies money--lots of money--to promote artists.  It cost them quite a bit more money back in those times to produce the records themselves (especially since, these days, music is a file, not even a physical object anymore).  Even the acts you're talking about had managers, recording contracts, record company representation, and the panoply of people involved in the process.  It took money to distribute records, and it took money to get radio airplay.

          Make no mistake--music, even protest music, was and is a business.  It always has been.  They sold an image, just as much as Hot Topic today sells counterculture (mostly in the form of the Goth image) in every single mall in these United States.

          The minute the ink was dry on the recording contract, the music was commodified.  Don't think it wasn't.

          •  we're on different parallels here... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            my generation came from the very naive to the less naive...

            the kiss of the 40s and 50s movies was a far cry than the open sexuality of the 60s sexual revolution.

            money was involved but not in the same way as now.  it was more hidden.  the artists were often cheated in massively unfair contracts - but it was the music that mattered to them and to us.

            it wasn't about "getting rich" as much as it was about "getting heard".  artists weren't into the arts for the big bucks - that came later...and it was good and wonderful, but the real drive for success was the recognition and acceptance of their music.

            we were a generation that took the repressed soul and released it to the world.

            hell, in MY days as a freshman at an all woman's college, you still wore gloves to "town" - and you did NOT wear "pants" - only skirts of a respectable length.  the miniskirt caused shockwaves in this country - and, god forbid, a young man's hair was so long it touched the top of his ears!

            really, if you haven't seen the film Pleasantville, go watch it.  it explains so much of the suppressed nation that existed before the 60s.

            we were raised in the day of "father knows best" and "andy griffith" and other stereotypical shows that were just that - typical  of the culture that existed.

            yes, it took money to get airtime - the payola scandals rocked the nation - there were many stations in this country that would not play the beatles untill they were on ed sullivan, and even then, still refused.

            the independent dj was the one who put the music on air.  watch the current pbs offering of the stage play "memphis" (the story of the white dj dewey phillips) tells of the first intro of black music to the white youth community and the difficulties of getting controversial music heard.  this was in the late 50s...

            for your assumption that protest music was a "business" - you couldn't be more wrong.  the changes that hit america as a result of those songs sent terror in the hearts and minds (AND pocketbooks) of those who ran the majority of the businesses in this country.  it was the independent record label (or, in the beatles' case, their OWN label, apple) that got the music out.

            things were very different then - the stores were independent, not chain stores.  you could FIND controversial music then.


            this is so much more than i can explain in a single post or two or three at 1am in the morning - let's hold off and let me sit back and do a more comprehensive, documented and footnoted diary for you in a short while.

            there are many on this site of my generation who can bring more to this discussion than will find it in this thread this late date.

            aha!  the reason the music didn't get "commodified" as you suggest is that this was the era of the live concert - the artists still had the audiences before them in smaller venues to express their own art without the control that is now wielded.  that is a big difference from then to today.  one example was the ed sullivan show where one group changed it's lyrics on the live show, infuriating sullivan.  the artists pushed the limits and got away with it.  i believe the group was the stones - and the lyrics were "suggestive" (for that day - today, it would be milquetoast).

            ah, but it's late and i've got the rare obnoxious headache and the screen is making it worse, so if you'll forgive me - i'll sign off for tonite and we can continue this down the road...


            EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

            by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:11:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If they got mass produced... (0+ / 0-)

              ...they were commodified.

              Yes, I know the history of the time period.  Don't assume the younger generations are ignorant or naive.  The cultural hegemony we've been subjected to ensures we know the history quite well, thank you very much.

              The major record labels were making bank off the Beatles, off of Motown, off of Joni Mitchell.  Artists may have had their independent labels--hell, even Madonna had her independent "Maverick Records" label for more than a decade, which was responsible for bringing Alanis Morisette to the world--they were usually still part of a larger corporation (in Madge's case, Warner Brothers).  Some have truly broken away to become their own entities (like Deathrow Records), but most were not and are not.

              Again, live concerts were part of the promotion of the records, but they weren't the money-makers they are today.  They were used to promote record sales--today, the situation is actually reversed, where the record is designed to gin up concert sales (at least for major artists).

              Yeah, there's a generational gap here.  Mostly, it's that the Xers and younger have almost no illusions about how our media works.  Every time I teach a new Cultural Studies class, that skepticism comes through stronger and stronger.  The fact is that commodifying dissent is nothing new in the world, and it was going on in 1965 just as much as it's going on in 2012.  It's just Gen X and younger are kind of inoculated from it because it's become so pervasive, but it was always there.  All you have to do is spend a weekend with a "Behind the Music" marathon on VH-1, and you'll see what I mean.

              •  i am worried by what you say. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                how can one "teach" a subject from outside their own experience if they are not willing to listen to the "living history" of those who were on the ground at that time.

                i learned a great deal by sitting for hours listening to my grandfather describe his life as a young boy in north carolina.  it was a world that is totally non-existant today... and it is through his experiences that i gained insight into the reality that was HIS life experience.

                you and i seem to be "fighting" over who is more correct in our observations of a time i actually lived through and you have read and studied about.

                it is our different perceptions that should be openly discussed - without anger or argument over who is "right" or who is "wrong".  each of us have our own life experiences and they are valid.  i can not tell you what it was like to be a young person growing up in your generation because i wasn't involved in that experience.  i can study it, learn about it, ask about it - but i did not live it - so your recounting of those experiences gives me greater insight into YOUR generation.  my assessment, however, doesn't change what you experienced nor does it invalidate your life experiences.

                please consider that what i lived and what shaped my life also is something you can never have experienced.  you can read, study, ask about it - but you can not experience it because you were not there.

                that is not infantilizing you - it is pointing out that we come from different times.  each of us lived our own times and has a better perspective on those times than the other could ever hope to have.  that is reality.

                EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:06:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again with the backhand. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Charles Hall

                  I teach my subject just fine.  I've heard the "living history" over and over and over.  I keep saying that to you, and you keep not hearing it.

                  Let me make this painfully clear.  Generation X has had nothing but the Baby Boomers' "living history" all our lives.  The "cultural hegemony" I keep talking about is the Boomers' insistence that everyone else listen to yet-another rendition of their "living history", as if we haven't heard it before.  If it's not our parents reliving their glory days, it's film and television glorifying it over and over and over.  Boomers are obsessed--completely obsessed--with making sure the younger generations hear "their history".  It's almost all they ever talk about--how the Baby Boomers single-handedly and heroically ended racism, how they ended sexism, how they ended the Vietnam War, how great the Beatles were, etc.

                  And yet, I and the rest of my generation hear the hypocrisy.  The Baby Boomers are still deeply racist.  Every time I hear Chris Matthews gush about Barack Obama, I hear the hint of "the black kid done good, and it proves I'm not a racist because I elected a black man", and Matthews is certainly not unique among liberals of his generation.  It's patronizingly racistt.  And for the record, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed, no Baby Boomer was old enough to serve in Congress.  That was the WWII generation's doing.  Boomers are still horribly, horribly homophobic.  Marriage equality is primarily blocked by people 50+; the younger generations support marriage equality overwhelmingly.  Boomers are the "Greed is Good" generation--not just "some" of them, but most of them.  If it wasn't the Gordon Gekkos on Wall Street, it was "Reagan Democrats" and the home-flippers in the 'burbs who, together, wrecked our economy.  Boomers experienced the sharpest levels of divorce our society has seen--yet another manifestation of the sheer self-centeredness I'm talking about here--leaving many in my generation to grow up in broken homes.

                  The Boomers ought to be renamed the Ozymandias generation:

                  "Look on my Works ye Mighty, and despair!"

                  And then, before I even graduated high school, a Baby Boomer published a book about my generation, "Generation X", that labeled us a bunch of shiftless slackers who'd never amount to anything.

                  Forgive me if I have little nice to say about the Baby Boomers.  I'm just a slacker who won't amount to anything.

                  •  wow. (0+ / 0-)

                    we are not "one" - we are many - and many different views.  we never claimed to end racism - we DID end racist laws and gave those who are discriminated the tools to fight.

                    i am not your parents.  my experiences are my own.  i am not interested in being lumped into your "boomers" definition.  i am sorry you are angry that we didn't fix everything, which we didn't.

                    that is now up to you and future generations to finish what we started.  we, as a generation, fought the same battles you fight still - and we made headway in changing the dynamic.  

                    you bring up marriage equality.  when i was a teen, homosexual men still committed suicide to prevent people from finding out or from being exposed.  you seem to resent that we were unable to give you everything (marriage equality).  what we gave you was the right to be who you are without being ostracized from society, fired from work (although that still happens, there are laws now to protect those discriminated against) and, slowly, opened the door so that you could finish pushing it open.

                    for your generation (if i may be allowed to temporarily allowed to generalize to make a point), i repeatedly hear the comment about not voting for democrats or only voting 3rd party or all parties are the same.

                    had my generation shared those beliefs, none of the current laws would be in place

                    so, please, don't assume that all of us born after wwII are like the author you reference.  that was one person and one person's belief.  


                    divorce.  another criticism?  do you have ANY idea what it was like for women to be trapped in horrendous marriages without the ability to walk away?  do you know how many women were married by gay men who were terrified that someone would find out and lied to the women to cover up?

                    it is the boomer generation that changed attitudes by making being gay a part of the rainbow world we lived in.  we started the dialogue that subsequent generations need to now complete.

                    furthermore, you think divorce is a bad thing - i don't agree.  why would any two people stay together and be miserable?  

                    reagan? you blame MY generation for that?  sorry.  MY generation pushed eugene mcgovern - and lost horrifically - because we were so far to the left of mainstream america.  reagan happened a full 20 years after my "youth" - and between my parents and the next 2 decades of voters, that one cannot be laid on the backs of the boomers alone.

                    perhaps one of the things about my generation you've missed is the focus we had on tolerance.  stating that my generation had racist, homophobic views is a blanket generalization that shows you really don't know much about us.

                    that is sad.

                    i am so floored by your comment that i think i need to step away from the computer.  now.

                    EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                    by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:52:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Homophobia. (0+ / 0-)


                      The Boomers didn't do squat for LGBT rights.  What was done was done by LGBT people themselves, and it had absolutely nothing--NOTHING--to do with non-LGBT folks of that generation.

                      In fact, Betty Friedan led feminists in 1969 in an anti-lesbian crusade that poisoned feminism against lesbians for an entire generation, writing that lesbians were a "Lavender Menace" threatening the entire movement, shoving lesbians back into their closets in service of the "greater good".  She called lesbians a "clear and present danger" to the movement, and distanced NOW from the Daughters of Bilitis (at the time, the only lesbian organization in the U.S.).

                      Harry Hay made repeated overtures to link the Gay Liberation Front to the Peace Movement and the overall youth movement, only to be rebuffed time and time again because those movements were afraid of being seen as "too pink" (and, by "pink", they didn't mean communist/socialist).

                      It wasn't until a handful of drag queens, lesbians, and gay men had had bloody damn enough after one police raid too many in the Stonewall Bar that LGBT stood up for ourselves and fought back.  And we had no allies in that fight.  None.

                      Perhaps you should learn LGBT history before you go talk about it.

                      •  for your information, friend, i worked in ny (0+ / 0-)

                        in the theatre and ballet for the majority of my career.  i worked and was friends with many people who were finally able to be themselves - and worked with and was friend with those who faced horrific discrimination.  

                        you choose to give several isolated individuals about whom you have read (given that you were not even born when betty freidan incident occurred) as total proof of what was happening.  

                        you again have not dealt with the FACT that i was living this contemporaneously and was/is aware of the dialogue that was starting by MY generation at the time.

                        it is frightening to think that you teach "culture" from a position of distance and refuse flatly to open your own mind to the possibility that there is more to the history than you have assumed.  perhaps, it is not i who should go learn history.  

                        were you to learn "history", you would learn that issues do not change miraculously overnght. as i said previously, we opened the door so that it could be pushed open - before my generation, the discussions of equality never existed.  only the prejudice was there.  and, yes, SOME of the prejudice is still there - but the door is opened and now, gays can openly serve in the military, in some states- can legally marry and more.  

                        the problem, now, as i see it with SOME in generations x,y,z and more is they blame my generation for not "fixing" everything for them.  well, sorry - it takes work on your part, too.  we started something but if you want it better, pick up the ball and carry it forward.  we are not going to be around to "give" you everything you want - you're damned well going to have to do some of the heavy lifting now that we are old!

                        EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                        by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:20:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yeah, okay, whatever. (0+ / 0-)

                          I stand by what I said.  That is the history of the movement.

                          My mind is open.  Yours is not.  You insist that everyone listen to you, and you haven't spent a moment listening to anyone else.

                          You're right.  This discussion is over, but you have confirmed everything I've already suspected.  I thank you for that.

                      •  if you are going to use betty freidan as your (0+ / 0-)

                        reason for your misstatement, then perhaps you should do some additional reading about her support for gays.

                        you pick and choose to bolster your own argument but you forget to do thorough research, thus, your argument can easily be debunked.

                        while i do not usually link to wikipedia, this entry is appropriately footnoted so that you can look up the exact positions yourself.  as a former college teacher myself, my assignment to you is to do your own homework before stating a position as unequivocal fact.  here is the link - and here is the quote with approprite notations for expansion.

                        as per the wiki entry on betty freidan and her opinions on lesbian politics"

                        When she grew up in Peoria, Ill., she knew one gay man. She said, "the whole idea of homosexuality made me profoundly uneasy."[21] She later acknowledged that she had been very square and was uncomfortable about homosexuality.

                        "The women's movement was not about sex, but about equal opportunity in jobs and all the rest of it. Yes, I suppose you have to say that freedom of sexual choice is part of that, but it shouldn't be the main issue ...."[22]

                        She ignored lesbians in the National Organization for Women (NOW) initially but objected to what she saw as demands for equal time.[21] "'Homosexuality ... is not, in my opinion, what the women's movement is all about.'"[23]

                        While opposing all repression, she wrote, she refused to wear a purple armband or self-identify as a lesbian (although heterosexual) as an act of political solidarity, considering it not part of the mainstream issues of abortion and child care.[24]

                        In 1977, at the National Women's Conference, she seconded a lesbian rights resolution "which everyone thought I would oppose" in order to "preempt any debate" and move on to other issues she believed were more important and less divisive in the effort to add the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution.[25]

                        She accepted lesbian sexuality ("'Enjoy!'"), albeit not its politicization.[26] In 1995, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, in Beijing, China, she found Chinese advice to taxi drivers that naked lesbians would be "cavorting" in their cars and so drivers should hang sheets and that lesbians would have AIDS and so drivers should have disinfectants to be "ridiculous", "incredibly stupid", and "insulting".[27]

                        In 1997, she wrote that "children ... will ideally come from mother and father."[28] She wrote in 2000, "I'm more relaxed about the whole issue now[.]"[29]

                        as i pointed out to you earlier, we opened the door in the 60s.  with the sexual revolution, we made it possible for the natural extension of that revolution to include gays.  the changes over the 60s and 70s came in slow shifts, not in a cataclysmic instant change.  no one waved a magic wand and said "POOF! BEGONE discrimination and prejudice!"  it took years of fighting and that fight for equality continues through today.

                        what i see from your posts (and please feel free to correct me if i am wrong) is a strong resentment from you that we have not been able to complete the process that we have started so that yours and future generations could reap the benefits.  

                        i am struck by your anger at the boomer generation and the harsh judgmental comments you have made in this thread.   you appear to believe that we have done nothing of value because there is still work to be done.  you deny that my generation was an important contributor to the process that still continues.

                        i would be fascinated to hear your comparison of the world as WE knew it in the 40s and 50s to the world that we changed in the 60s and 70s.  (the world you had not entered yet, btw.)

                        and, as this started off as a discussion on how television and technology helped make those changes possible (JUST as the cell phone and tweets have made dramatic alterations in the world in the last months), i am curious how this conversation devolved into an attack on the boomer generation.  as i said in an earlier comment... wow.  just wow.

                        EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                        by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 03:05:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Your quote... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...REALLY doesn't help your position at all.  Re-read it.

                          It reconfirms her intense homophobia.  She "recanted" only in that it had embarrassed her in the past, and she didn't want lesbianism to be a "distraction" to feminism any more.

                          And it took her until 1995 to become that "enlightened".

                          What's truly sad is that you really don't know this history, yet you think you do because you "lived it".

                          •  you are wrong. simply put. ....... (0+ / 0-)

                            and you cannot see it or admit it.

                            i guess our first encounter was more accurate than subsequent ones.  too bad.

                            EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 04:00:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I'm not wrong on this. (0+ / 0-)

                            Go and re-read it.  It's not a matter of not seeing it or not admitting it.  It doesn't say what you appear to want it to say.

                            I'm sorry, but it just doesn't.

                          •  i am capable of understanding what she said. (0+ / 0-)

                            it is what you say that is being debated.  

                            you have stated that the boomer generation did nothing to advance gay rights (not true).  you accused freidan of the following:

                            In fact, Betty Friedan led feminists in 1969 in an anti-lesbian crusade that poisoned feminism against lesbians for an entire generation, writing that lesbians were a "Lavender Menace" threatening the entire movement, shoving lesbians back into their closets in service of the "greater good".  She called lesbians a "clear and present danger" to the movement, and distanced NOW from the Daughters of Bilitis (at the time, the only lesbian organization in the U.S.).
                            in that statement, you were wrong.  friedan (NOTE: my spelling corrected from earlier reversal of i and e) lead a movement to get women recognized in the work place and in society.  she was NOT starting a "gay rights" movement which would have distracted from her writings on women's rights to equal employment, health care, birth control, etc.

                            and, you neglect to put in context her objection to the insertion of homosexuality into the feminist movement.  in MY day - one which i lived DURING the explosion of the work "the feminine mystique" onto our identities, the common accusation from the men (who were threatened by our expression of self worth) was that we were all "lesbians".  that was the term used to denigrate and undermine the movement.

                            at that particular point in time, homophobia was rampant.  gays were afraid to admit their own sexuality and the spectre of "gayness" was to push women back into the kitchen.

                            that friedan and others in the feminist movement fought against being labeled lesbians (which they were not, btw), was to prevent the movement from being stopped in its tracks.

                            it is ONLY through the feminist movement, which resulted in access to birth control and, eventually, the right to determine whether or not a woman had to bear a fetus to term, that the gays found the cover and support to speak up and speak out.  it was OUR generation's acceptance of sexual freedom that gave rise to the possibility of gays becoming visible members of society.

                            you take out of context some small fragment of a movement without understanding the greater whole of that movement and twist it to support your own preconceived bias.  that is both unfortunate and ...  well, i won't use the word i started to use - i'll just end with "unfortunate".

                          •  Ask your lesbian friends about Friedan. (0+ / 0-)

                            Seriously.  This was not a "minor thing".  Look into the "Radicalesbians".  There was very real, very tangible anger, and Friedan's "Lavender Menace" comment led to the creation of a resistant lesbian-feminist movement.

                            It's not a "small fragment of a movement", and I certainly understand the whole of it, thank you very much.

                            You're way, way off-base here, and the first part of your post is just justifying her homophobia.  It's sad and lame, but an oh-so-typical defense of the homophobia (or other bigotry) of one's heroes.

                          •  dear, you are too young to understand what (0+ / 0-)

                            was happening in the time and context of my generation.  you were not born yet.

                            you are missing what i posted.  whether or not friedan was resistant to the movement of lesbians in the TIMEFRAME that it happened is NOT what i am alluding to.

                            the attempts to take the movement into a direction that the nation was not ready to address was the issue.  you do NOT seem to be able to comprehend the situation as it existed in the time this occurred.

                            as long as you continue to look at this through modern perspective and judgement, you will never understand.

                            what an idiotic claim that i am defending homophobia.  there are times that i think the younger gay activists don't have a clue what it was like to live before the 60s and the changes that occurred because of that generation.

                            you are sadly misguided. and you continue to refuse to acknowledge that you might not know "everything" about this matter.

                            this is a self sustaining ignorance.  and it does harm to the movement to obtain gay rights in this nation.  who do you think is STILL on the ground fighting for YOUR issue?  you do not have sufficient majorities to win this battle without those from multiple generations, including mine.

                            so, before you go off blowing off - i suggest you step away from the computer and take a deep breath - while the REST of us keep on fighting for your right to marry, live openly, etc.

                            alienating us is non-productive.  fortunately for you, i am not swayed by the chosen ignorance of a single individual.  i will continue fighting for your rights in spite of your open hostility and deliberate misrepresentation of what my generation has done to benefit you.

                          •  Wow. The patronizing is overwhelming. (0+ / 0-)

                            Pardon me if I fail to be impressed by that display of heterosexist privilege.

                          •  whaaaa haaaa haaaaaaabwaaaahhhhhhaaaaaa (0+ / 0-)

                            haaaaa heeeee heeeeehaaaaa BWAAAAAAAhaaaaaaahaaaaa...


                          •  Whatever, Mary. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  omigod! it has been YEARS since anyone called me (0+ / 0-)

                            "mary" - now you really have brought a smile to my face - not laughter, but a genuine smile.

                            even thought i don't think you intended to do that, thank you for the good memories!

                          •  duh - though, not thought... nt (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Then you know the hand gesture... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and the head turn that goes with it.  ;)

                          •  again, you show your generational difference. nt (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Ummm... wow. Just... wow. (0+ / 0-)
            •  Apple Records (0+ / 0-)

              Just for the record (pardon the pun), Apple Records was still contracted for distribution through EMI and Capitol Records through 1975, and EMI retained ownership rights over the music.  In 1984, Michael Jackson bought ownership rights to the Beatles' music catalog from ATV, the company that had previously bought the Beatles' publicly-traded (for tax-dodging purposes) company, Northern Songs.

              The entire Beatles songbook was quite literally a commodity the Beatles themselves traded on (and, it turned out, lost out on), but distribution was still left up to the big boys (EMI and Capitol Records) until the dissolution of the band.

          •  one more quick regarding the quote of mine you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright


            remember, my generation went from typewriter to electric typewriter - the computer came MUCH later!

            the first "portable" calculator was released at $350.  the television explosion was sweeping the nation and the heads of those operations had yet to realize how much money they could make through content control and advertising - the news divisions were still under "broadcast news" and not "entertainment" (that switch was in the early 80s after palin was out at cbs and cronkite was forced to retire.  that is a diary unto itself.)

            the first cell phones cost $1,500 and were big boxes with receivers connected by curly cords.  i know, i bought one.  

            there were still "party lines" (groups of people sharing a phone line) and NO such thing as "fiber optics".  radio stations had live djs and did local shows.

            yes, it was a very different world than you can begin to imagine if you weren't there.  

            heck, i remember complaining because gas had gone up to $.33 a gallon!

            nite for now...

            EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

            by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:16:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OMG. (0+ / 0-)

              Seriously, back off on the assumptions.

              You're behaving like I'm some kind of 12 year old kid with no concept of history at all.  This is exactly the attitude I was referring to above.  Boomers have this ugly tendency to infantalize everyone younger than they are, and to assume everyone younger than them needs an education on the Boomers' experiences.  Trust me, we don't.

              I grew up with a black-and-white TV.  I learned to type on an electric typewriter, though my parents still owned a manual one at the time.  Car phones were for rich New Yorkers, not kids growing up in Nebraska.  DJs are still live today, although I find I prefer Jack-FM's "DJ-less" format (or, frankly, my own iTunes mix).

              •  i am not trying to offend you - but from you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                profile, you are 35 yrs old.  i am 66, going on 67.

                that 30 year difference in the development of electronics is as big a jump as my grandfather's technology to my generation was.

                he started out before airplanes, cars, electricity, etc.

                i remember the first electronic typewriter introduced in school - it was high school for me.  

                i am trying to point out the big differences technology has made between our generations.  i am betting you didn't stick your feet into an xray machine to check if the toes fit the new shoes - and exposed you to a ton of unnecessary radiation.

                when i was majoring in biology in undergrad, scientific american published the first diagrams of the double helix - we had just begun to realize the significance of dna - it wasn't mapped.

                this isn't to put you down, it is to try to explain that technology has moved in huge giant leaps in between our generations - yours is moving as quickly if not moreso.  computers in the early days were the size of warehouses with raised floors and controlled climates.  now, your telephone has as much, if not more, computing power than those first giant batch processors.

                it isn't a slam against you or your generation to point out the differences of experiences we both have had.  it is an attempt at viewing the past and how that past affected each of us that is my point.

                neither of our sets of experiences invalidates the other's.

                again, i should be in bed - didn't mean to check back in.  another day.. to be continued.

                EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:59:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, my profile hasn't been updated in years. (0+ / 0-)

                  And you continue with the assumptions.  I've seen a Cray, live, with my own eyes.  I learned to type on an electric typewriter.

                  What's shocking to me is that you think the younger generations are completely ignorant, when all we've heard all our lives is this.  Over and over and over.

                  •  wow. where do you get the idea that (0+ / 0-)

                    i think the younger generations are completely ignorant?  that's your perception, btw.

                    as for your profile, you said you were 35 - when you joined, if you have not updated your profile, that would make you 41 - still a generation separating us.

                    seeing a cray, live, means that you have seen an existing one.  that is NOT the same as being there when it was first invented and introduced.

                    also, learning to type on an electric typewriter is not the same as being around when the first one was introduced (the year was 1961, btw - ibm selectric was the model - and if your profile is correct, that still 10 years prior to your being born).

                    instead of being touchy about this, why not consider that our experiences are different, just as the experience of the young ones coming up now in the electronics age of cell phones, laptops, notebooks, ipads, etc.

                    maybe if you are hearing this over and over - then you should stop/pause for a minute and try to hear what is being said - not take offense by it.

                    being younger than someone else does not diminish you - it only makes your experiences different.  

                    i'm out of here now.  this isn't an argument for me - it is simple statement of generational changes that started out as a simple remembrance of a singer who died.  i'll be leaving this thread now.

                    EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                    by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:37:51 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Or maybe... (0+ / 0-)

             should stop being pedantic about.

                      •  aha... when one has no valid argument, (0+ / 0-)

                        then resort to ad hom?

                        too bad.  i've listened to you through your posts and i am sorry that you are unable to even consider the possibility that there are perspectives other than your own.

                        EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                        by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:22:04 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh, please. (0+ / 0-)

                          You opened the door when you called into question my ability to teach.

                          If you don't like it, don't engage in ad hominems yourself.

                          You're the one ignoring other perspectives.  You've absolutely refused to listen to a single thing I've said.

                          Scroll up.  You'll see you started with the ad hominem attack on my ability to teach, something which you have absolutely no basis to comment about and yet you did anyway.  Twice.

                          •  i questioned the basis for what you teach - (0+ / 0-)

                            a lack of understanding of the generation you so blithely trash.

                            i said i was concerned that you are teaching a subject about which you show an unwillingness to entertain that you might have an inaccurate view.

                            your hostility toward the boomer generation is flagged throughout your posts and that is what concerned me enough to make my original statement of worry and it still continues throughout this continued discussion.  

                            when one who teaches has a closed mind, then the information that is being disseminated comes into question.

                            i am sure you are qualified to teach - it is the material upon which you base your lessons that i call into question.

                            according to your position, were i to teach biology again (something for which i am certified to do as well as theatre arts and oral interpretation), then it would be perfectly fine for me to teach that there are only two phyla - the plant and animal kingdom and MAYBE blue-green algae as a possible third.  why? because that is what i was taught originally.  nevermind that there are now 6 (that we know of).  

                            my question to you is this:  as a teacher, do you feel a responsibility to continually expand your own knowledge base by incorporating additional information to be more accurate in your presentations?    or, do you think you already "know" it all.

                            my professor once wisely said, "it is what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts!"

                            that is my advice to you - albeit unsolicited.

                            open your mind.
                            expand your knowledge.
                            expand your understanding.
                            stop being so damned defensive!  that is the sign of a closed mind.

                            EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 04:10:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  correcting an error above... two KINGDOMS... (0+ / 0-)

                            not phyla - phyla are a subclassification of kingdom.

                            you see, for me, accuracy is important - more important than ego.

                            EdriesShop coupon code for february is FEBRUARYBLOWOUT. More to come in the next few days! - Is GlowNZ back yet?

                            by edrie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 04:12:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You won't even admit it was ad hominem (0+ / 0-)

                            And now, a third time, you've impugned my professionalism--again, without any basis.

                            It's clear to me you just want to argue and that you want the last word.

                            Fine.  You can have the last word.  Go right ahead.

                          •  then my last word is this: (0+ / 0-)

                            if this is what you are teaching about the boomer generation, you scare me.

                            and it is sad that this is the "knowledge" you are trying to pass onto your students.

                            i am not trying to insult you - i am trying to open your mind to the possibility that you are on the wrong track and you are putting your students on that same erroneous track.


                          •  And now you've repeated the ad hominem four times. (0+ / 0-)

                            Again, without any basis.

                            It tells me a lot about your character, not only that you won't admit it, but that you insist it's true and you insist on continuing to repeat it.  Saying you're "not trying to insult" me, while in the middle of insulting me, is disingenuous.  I suspect you already know this.

                          •  let me be perfectly clear on this. (0+ / 0-)

                            i question ANY "educator" who has a bias built into his/her subject.

                            that is not an ad hom - it is a statement of fact.

                            i will challenge ANY person who says they teach a subject then goes on to represent that subject in a narrowed and biased manner.

                            if you are insulted by my questioning your beliefs and methodology, that is your issue.  it is not an insult.  it is a blanket statement regarding the quality of education that ANY person offers.  from the statements you have made here, your open anger, your misrepresentation of a person, a generation, your unwillingness to acknowledge that there might be more to an issue than you, yourself know is what i am challenging.

                            it doesn't matter whether it is you or someone else - i would still post exactly the same comments... therefore, i do not intend this to be personal.  it is you who is taking it as such.

                          •  You must be a terrible dress-maker. (0+ / 0-)

                            I can tell because you spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet and engaging in defense mechanisms.

                            Oh, wait.  "It's not the same", right?  It's "different" when I impugn your professionalism and your ability to do your job, but not when you do the same to me?

                            Ad hominem is ad hominem is ad hominem.  It's truly sad that you resorted to it, and that you've repeated it five times now, and that you absolute refused to either recognize it or apologize for it.

                            But it tells me everything I need to know about you.

                          •  sorry, honey. was never a "dressmaker" - (0+ / 0-)

                            but i WAS one of four tutu makers in the country back in the day.

                            and, you can try to impugn anything you like, and, especially since you've never seen my costumes, you will be as "accurate" as you are in describing my generation.

                            i will repeat - for the SIXTH TIME - in the hopes that you can understand what i am saying:

                            i do not impugn your ability - just your factual accuracy based on what you have typed here in this thread.  you are waaaay too caught up in the "personal attack" mode here.  

                            now.  go away.  and read more information and ask others of my generation and try to expand instead of protect your narrow views.

                          •  LOLOLOL! n/t (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site