Listen to the Music!

For those of you who read my emails, this will be old news as I took the bulk of this from my most recent update. And since I only have three readers, this is old news. But there are some pictures in this post, and maybe it will be entertaining anyway.

I undertook one really big project over the past few months. And when I say big, I mean time consuming, because it actually involved very little effort on my part. What I did was I transferred mine and my wife’s CD collections to our computer. I did this for several reasons. These reasons include: it gave me a justification to sit on facebook and play Bejewelled Blitz while pretending to do something productive; I hate paying for music that I already own; I wanted to make some playlists for my ipod; I wanted to listen to 2 or 3 songs from an album, but not the whole thing; and a few other reasonsas well. I came away from the experience with a few observations.

I hate to pay for music I have already paid for: When I was younger, I bought a lot of tapes, mostly through Columbia House. (12 tapes for a penny!). I also bought a lot of records, both new and used. But once CD's came out, I never jumped on that bandwagon until 94 or so, even though tapes were fading in popularity in 1990. And since I had already paid for the music, I didn't want to buy it again. But, for a guy who like a lot of metal, I don’t actually own much. This has a lot to do with the fact that I had initially bought a lot of metal on tapes and records (yes, I had a record player). My Megadeth, Anthrax, Metallica, Iron Maiden, DayGlo Abortions, Suicidal Tendicies were all on tape or record. And I never bought those albums again on CD. I may have to break with my policy of not rebuying, because I miss So Far So Good So What.

I Wanted to make some playlists for my ipod: There is a strong 90’s presence in the collection. This is due to the fact that I started buying CDs in the 90’s, but cut back a lot in the 00’s. Once Itunes came out, I usually bought individual songs, not albums. There were a lot of songs that I knew I had, and I wanted to listen to when I went out walking or whatever i do when I am listening to my Ipod, and I wanted to transfer them. So I did. And I like the 90's. The 90's music, anyways. 90's style, like all other old styles, looks funny. And so will the styles of the new millenium in 10 years.

I wanted to listen to 2 or 3 songs from an album. There were a lot of compilations – Big Shiny tunes, Women and Songs, Dance Mix 92, Geffen rarities, A history of Punk. Tributes to Black Sabbath, the Ramones. One hit wonders of the 80’s. On a lot of these compilations, there were a lot of the same songs – I have 4 or 5 copies of Walk This Way, for example, and I only wanted one copy of it. Also, I only wanted a few songs from, for example, Women and Songs 6 - I had to expunge any Sheryl Crow, and Leann Rimes doesn’t do much for me either. But it was a lot easier to load the whole album that it was to just upload a couple of songs.

Other Observations: I had a of Greatest hits albums - Ramones, Clash, Offspring, Nirvana, Tragically Hip, Ministry to name a few. I was pleasantly surprised to find that my Robbie Williams and Beck were all present and accounted for – Jackass and Better Man have been edging up the playcount list. Among my spouse's CD’s – a very heavy U2 presence, followed closely by the Pet Shop Boys, and heavier on the 80’s than my collection - also a lot more of the dance music. Sadly, my Dumb and Dumber soundtrack, with Whiney Whiney; New Age Girl (by Dead Eye Dick); Crash (covered by the Primitives) and Peter Pumpkinhead (by the Crash test Dummies) was not importable. Too scratched, I think – too many beer coaster nights in Ravenscourt. The CD booklet is stuck together from what I hope is beer.

There was one CD single that bears special mention. For some reason, I particularly like a dance duo known as the Yakoo Boyz, who released, to my knowledge, one single called “Up your Kilt”. As I was very into Braveheart at the time, and the Yakoo Boyz featured bagpipes in the dance mix, it was a match made in ironic heaven. After I loaded the CD onto my computer and heard the sped up bagpipes, electronified and poppy, I got shivers down my spine and I decided to look them up. (Am I being sarcastic? You decide.) Using the all knowing Google, I found…. Nothing. A few passing references on equally all knowing Wikipedia. I looked at the credits on the CD, tried tracking down the label – nothing. No first names in the credits. This single came out in 1995, when the internet, in it’s current incarnation, was in it’s infancy. So the internet has a limitation. No one thought of creating a Yakoo Boys fan page. Maybe the members were too embarrassed by their bagpipe dalliance to post it in their current bios. Ah well, some mysteries may never be solved.

Overall, we now have 5842 songs, 17 days of music, 41 gbs. I doubt I will listen to them all. And I had, several years ago, gotten rid of my record collection, which was composed of at least the same number of records, and I had a ton of tapes from the 80s. But an interesting exercise, to say the least. I encourage all three of you to do the same.

That makes me Lol!

Long break again. This time I had an excuse - I mean, Stanley Cup playoffs started! How can I post anything when that is on every night? That, and I also had an exam to study for - not that I studied, but I would have felt guilty if I didn’t pass and was spending my time writing on a blog instead. I’ve been reading a bit more as well, now that the exam has passed; also, since it is summer, I have been getting outdoors a bit more.

I’m not sure who I want to win the Cup. I wanted Montreal, but c’est la vie. Instead, I am left between Chicago and Philly. I like and dislike aspects of both teams - Philly was the team that beat Montreal, which is a bad thing; Chicago has Toews and Sharp, which is a good thing; Chicago hasn’t won the Cup since '61, Philly since '75 ( a good year, if I recall). I think Chicago is the better team, both have lousy goalies; Chicago beat Vancouver (which is bad, because I like Luongo), Philly beat Boston (which is good, because I hate Boston). I’ve decided to support Philly, because they have more players from Saskatchewan on their team. Me supporting a team is pretty much a guarantee they will lose - so maybe that is not a good thing.

One of the other things that I was doing which was preventing me from writing on the blog was a project I was working on. I got it finished, mostly, a week ago or so, and it gave me a great deal of satisfaction. I’ll put more up on that later, I’ve been formatting an idea on that one, but I’ll go with something else today.

Funnies were Frequently Funnier Formerly: The comics, sad to say, have gotten stale. For those people who still read newspapers, the funnies were the best part of the newspaper. They aren’t any more, though. They have gotten old and not funny. They repeat the same jokes over and over, they try to be too serious, and the art has gotten amateurish.

They are being compared to the platinum age of comics - the 80’s and early 90’s, so it’s not entirely the fault of the current crop of comics. The comics that were around then were amazing - the artists used the medium to their best ability, expanding the reach of comics. When you look at comics like the Far Side, Calvin and Hobbes, Bloom County, it is impossible to not be impressed. When comparing today’s comics to the ones of that time, it is easy to see why today’s comics will never measure up.

Today’s comic’s are a metaphor for the newspaper business itself - past it’s prime and dying a slow death.

Comics are Cunningly Clever Currently: Newspaper comics are just as funny as they always were. The aforementioned comics were all quite good, but so are the current crop like Pearls Before Swine, Get Fuzzy, and Foxtrot. And let’s not forget that the 80’s and 90’s also had it’s share of lousy comics, like Garfield, Marmaduke, and some slow 60’s kickbacks were still functioning - like the Family Circus.

The art in todays comics is far better than it was - artists out more detail, more activity into every panel. They also are far more current than the Platinum age of comics ever was; on Sept 13, 2001, for example, virtually all comics had a reference to the attacks of a few days before. Previously, comics were published 3-4 weeks behind. And comics now can keep a story line going over the weekend. The ones from the 80’s never had a Sunday comic in sequence - even the great ones mentioned couldn’t do that.

Today’s comics are a metaphor the news paper business - evolving a way that no one expected.

What I think: The comics today are just as funny as the old ones were - just in a different way. Comics have changed, to be sure - they have built on the successes of the previous best crop and changed their ideas, their format, and are still growing. Sometimes they don’t succeed - there are some poor ones out there - Zits springs to mind. I do think the humour has changed, not better or worse, just different. I don’t think that there will be a collective memorial tribute for any new comics, the way there was for Charles Schultz when he passed away.

How I relate: I just finished reading Bloom County Babylon, and I truly think that Bloom County was amazing. I caught myself thinking, “Man, comics were so funny back then.” They were, but they now as well. Peanuts was amazing, and even some, like Garfield, had it’s moments. I think that Life in Hell, pre Simpsons success, was really good as well. I think that we will also look back on comics like Foxtrot and Dilbert as shining examples of the best of the 90-00’s, but the medium, is, of course, changing. The format of the comics may become less relevant as more and more is available online, and even now, there are some very well done online comics. I don’t the comics will disappear -but we won’t get another Peanuts.

I always seem to be working on these posts while I am doing laundry.

This Loneliness is Killing Me, or at least getting me Drunk

Music is, as it is to most people, important to me. I spend a lot of time interpreting lyrics, sometimes lyrics that don’t even need interpreting; and sometimes I get them completely wrong. Lately I have been thinking about some universality in music, how some themes are repeated from song to song, from genre to genre. What can be interesting is how the same theme can translate from one genre to another, how one type of performer will interpret basically the same idea. This is, of course, what makes music so important to so many of us - we can almost always find a song that expresses the same emotion that we have had or are feeling right now.

Which brings me to today’s topic. I have been listening to the Lady Antebellum song, “Need you Now” quite often lately - not necessarily because I want to, but it is on the radio all the time. What I have noticed about it is the connection between it and The Offspring song, “Self Esteem”. I did get a small connection to the song “ I drove all Night” but that was much more fragile than the other connection.

So I will assume 2 things: you have heard the songs I mention and are familiar with the lyrics, tempo, genre, etc; or you have google and can look them up. I won’t bother posting the lyrics here because it is not really necessary, but I will post partial lyrics to compare and contrast them.

So a couple comments about the bands first, focussing on the LA / TO. Lady Antebellum is basically new country or soft rock, depending on your preference. Most people prefer the country label. Offspring came to fame in the post grunge punk Socal rock scene - which is a long way of saying they are your basic harder rock band. Both bands are characterized by a certain degree of popularity outside of their core audiences - that is to say, Lady Antebellum is on more than the country stations, and Offspring is on more than the hard rock stations. Part of their appeal is, no doubt, the universality of the themes in their music. Musically, both groups are capable; while styles and tastes are different, the bands know how to play their instruments and the singers can sing.

Some of the differences between the groups are what you may expect - LA has a female lead singer; the musical focus is more on her voice than on the lyrics. TO has a male lead singer, the focus is more on the lyrics than whether the singer can hit the right notes. (An aside - I probably won’t use the band members actual names here - it’s not like I actually know them.) LA is slower, more ballad-y, TO is faster and more angry-y. LA appeals mainly to 18-35 female set, TO appeals mainly to the 18-35 male set. So some differences, some similarities.

Now to the two songs. NYN is a post breakup song, written in the first person. The singer laments their loneliness, and the feeling that, after a few drinks, they want to call up their ex and see them again. There is no background to the song - why did they break up, how long has it been, the age of the people involved. Because it is sung by a woman, we assume the person who is hurt and lonely is female - but that is an assumption only because it was written first person - it refers only to “I” and “You”. The song itself appeals mostly to women; read a few comments on the song and you will find something along the lines of “sigh - been there - know how she feels - don’t want to call but want to”. Stuff like that. It is worth noting that alcohol is a catalyst in the person’s loneliness. The alcohol both fortifies the person’s resolve and also increases the pain. The song gives no conclusion - does the ex come over or not? We are left with the feeling that the person has the phone in their hand, drunkenly crying and waiting for a response.

SE is an “I want to breakup” song. Since the song is sung by a male, we assume a male female relationship - certainly the song, while written in the first person, refers to “her” and “she” s the other in the relationship. Could be a lesbian couple, but pretty unlikely, although not specifically excluded. The song appears to be the singer telling a story about himself to a friend - man, i want to dump her, I have all the right reasons too, but I just can’t. The person is not looking for advice, as the course of action is clear; maybe he is looking for reassurance. Most people who know this song find it amusing, quotable, and funny. Some sympathy is felt for the person, but not much - more like we sadly laugh at him. Alcohol plays a part in this song as well. This song also gives no conclusion, but we are left with the impression that he won’t break up with her because he just won’t.

Both songs have some strong references to sex in them; the nature of country pop excludes direct reference to so it puts it the term “ Need you Now”. It does not say directly “I want to have sex with you right now because I am lonely” but it says in code. Part of the reason for this is that country music does not allow women to want sex but only love - the woman doesn’t want to cum, she want to feel loved. This is exactly the opposite is SE. The man knows he will get laid and this, to him, is worth the pain she otherwise causes him. He knows that this sex is no good for him - he, actually, just wants to be loved as well, but the nature of pop-punk excludes that option for men.

The references to alcohol in both songs are about the women. In NYN it is “ I’m a little Drunk and I need you now”. In SE it is “ She’s drunk again, and looking to score”. These lines, held against each other, reveal an interesting female/male perspective. The alcohol gives the woman enough courage to call her ex while increasing her pain; while the man interprets her as just being drunk and waiting to get laid.

In both songs, the pain felt by the principals is similar - but one is presented as a “poor her, she’s so alone” and the other is presented as “ha ha, he’s afraid to be alone”. This is interesting because it reinforces, reflects, or both, how relationships are supposed to be viewed by men and women. In NYN, the woman is supposed to feel hurt because she is alone, and we are supposed to empathize with her. In SE, the man is supposed to not feel anything, but because he does we laugh at him. He justifies his hurt by saying he has no self esteem, because that somehow makes his hurt OK. Basically NYN says “ I am woman, see me cry” while SE says “I’m less of a man because I cry”.

These songs have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They were written at different times for different core audiences; one was meant to be a serious heartfelt ballad and the other a fast song that makes us laugh because we know someone like that. But take the songs as two people talking about the same thing - maybe change the way you look at both songs.

PostScript.

The connection to “ I drove all night” was really kind of weak. Basically, it took place at night and involved sex. No alcohol mentioned, no breakups, nothing. Just nightime sex.

Maybe next time I will write about “ Bohemian Rhapsody” and “The Black Parade”.

Death and the Olympics

So, it’s been over a month. I’m not sure how anyone is supposed to post when the olympics are on! I mean, come on - Curling! Luge! Skeleton! Alpine skiing! and so on. I really enjoyed the Olympics, I always do. I recall the first time I was really interested in them, which was the 1984 Olympics in LA, and then the 1988 ones in Calgary. I also find it funny that Olympics were once held in a place called “Squaw Valley”.

But what I was really interested was at the start of the Olympics, when the sudden and unexpected death of the Luge athlete. I was quite shocked by it, watched the video like everyone else, and it was really difficult to watch what happened to him. I, like many people I expect, made a comment to the effect of “At least he died doing what he loved”. This is the phrase that I despise.

Death, of course, is natural and comes to us all. (Another cliched phrase.) And I certainly understand the need to rationalize the death, to somehow make it less tragic - it sucks that he died, but at least he was happy when he died. You will often see this rationalization in the extreme athletes - or even in normal people who like some high risk activities. I recall it once when reading about a funeral of some woman in Edmonton who was killed while whitewater kayaking; there was a large photo of her at the memorial in black and white, with a look of intense determination while she was in some river somewhere.

My understanding of this is simple: if someone must die, then at least they were happy when they were killed. See, for example, “Of Mice and Men” - George makes sure that Lenny is happy before he shoots him in the head. The death is less tragic this way. And on that level, if we have to make sense of death, then so be it.

My problem with the phrase is three fold. 1) It diminishes the deaths of people who do not die happy. 2) It assumes that people are OK with being dead, as long as they died happy. 3) We do not make that assumption for people who die happy doing socially irresponsible things.

The first point is quite simple, really. If someone dies in hospital, we don’t say “at least they died on hospital.” Had the luge athlete died a month later after being in a coma for a year, we would not look on him in the same way - because he didn’t die doing what he loved. But the net out was the same. Or someone who dies from an infection, or pneumonia - they weren’t happy, they didn’t die doing what they loved so their death is more tragic? No, it is still death, it still has the same effect on those who love them - except maybe the shock is less because the death may be more expected.

The second point implies that, if they had the option, they would choose the same path. If the luge athlete had been given the option of dying “happy” at 21, or dying much later, at, say, 81 - I suspect he would have sacrificed some happiness in exchange for a long life. Did he know the risks? Of course, but no one ever actually figures to be killed - the parachute will open, there won’t be an avalanche, they won’t lose control of the car. The reason people often participate in those types of activities is because of the implied risk with safety procedures ensuring no injury results. They wear helmets, life jackets, seat belts. Put a skydiver in a plane and tell them there is a 50% chance that their chute won’t open - you’d have a lot less people attempting it.

The third point is the one that really is where I dislike the phrase. I know many people who like to drink, for example. If they were killed while drinking and driving, we would not say at their funeral “ At least they died doing what they loved.” Or if someone overdoses on heroin - they were doing heroin because they loved the feeling, but we don’t mention that - it is just a senseless death. But why not afford them that luxury? Why does a socially irresponsible death make the death more, and not less, tragic? Or what about a person who dies of a heart attack after a lifetime eating rich foods, or a smoker dying of cancer after a lifetime of enjoying their cigarettes? They loved what they did, it caused their deaths.

So maybe a bit of a heavy topic today. But it’s been on my mind a lot. I’ll try to lighten it up for the next one. Maybe I’ll do that post I was talking about where I compare Lady Antebellum’s “Need you now” to Offspring’s “Self Esteem” and Celine Dion’s cover of “I drove all Night”.

I said I would do it!

Halfway through February and i am already behind. Priorities, I suppose. Read, TV, place stupid games on facebook, look at pictures of people I don’t know on Facebook, go skating (ha!), play soccer, or write on blog. Guess I know where that is. On the bright side, I finally scored in my fourth soccer game, although my goalie scored as well - putting him up to 2 goals on the season and me at 1. (That's the league I am in up there in that photo, but not my team.)

I have my next post topic planned already, having to do with the Olympics and the luge athlete who died. I caught myself using a phrase I despise (and it wasn’t ‘It is what it is’ even though i despise that phrase as well and caught myself using that) and it got me thinking about it. Today, I will finish off what I mentioning in my first post of the year - new years resolutions.

Since it’s been about 6 weeks since the new year, I figure people who did make resolutions are either well on their way to keeping them or or have long broken them. By now, if they have still kept them, they likely will - it seems to me that most resolutions are broken in the first couple of weeks. There is a corollary plan that some people do, called “abstinence month” or something like that - kind of recognition that it is too hard to give up booze (or some other sin) for a whole year, and instead jut try to avoid it for January. I suppose it has it’s merits, although I don’t really see them - why deprive yourself of something that you enjoy for 1/12 of your life? If you want to cut back on something, fine - but why just for a month? It could be just to contrast the Christmas season - a time when people regularly over consume. And if that is the reason, then I suppose I can support it.

New Years Resolutions themselves - I don’t really like them. (Note, at this point, the break in format.) It is entirely an arbitrary point in time. Plus, because they are expected to be all year, most people have a real hard time keeping them. It is just setting yourself up for failure because people tend to make real lofty resolutions - “this year, I am going to lose 50 pounds” - without any real plan on how to do it. Any basic goal setting guide will tell you a goal has to be realistic and there has to be a plan; and new years resolutions don’t have that. A better resolution might be “By Dec 31 2010, I am going to lose 50 pounds and I am going to do that by starting an exercise plan and new diet which will allow me to lose 5 pounds a month. I will measure my results monthly and change my plan and goal as necessary. If I reach my monthly goal, I will reward myself with a new pair of shoes; and if I reach my yearly goal I will reward myself with a 3 day vacation to Jasper.”

But I don’t want to pick on the process. I dislike the expectation that people should make resolutions at the new year and that we feel it is okay to ask other people what they are. When I was younger, I used to make “resolutions” like “This year I am going to drink more” and somehow ended up not reaching those goals either. Then people would ask me about my resolutions and not be sure if I was serious or not.

And yet - whether I like them or not, we do them. Maybe not always in actual resolution form - but every year we look back at the year that was and evaluate it. I regularly send out updates at the end of the year, reflecting on my events. Companies put out annual reports with goals for the next year in them. Kids get report cards. All this is because we need to have a way to mark the passage of time - and to determine if it was good or bad. So maybe I don’t like the particular NYR itself, but I still do the equivalent in other ways. I set goals at work, in my personal life, I celebrate birthdays, and I help other people do the same.

So what’s my point? I suppose that this, like so many other things I have covered in this blog, are not black and white. Disliking something in one form but supporting it in a different form, I do it and I think it is ok.

I just heard the phrase “It is what it is” on TV. Sigh.

Christmas and other connections.

I sat down at the computer with the intention of starting this post at 4; it is now close to 5 and I am just getting it started. And as soon as I am done this sentence, I need to go downstairs and pull out some laundry and throw another load in - so I can either try to make this sentence as long as possible, thereby putting off the inevitable for a few more minutes, or I can end it quickly and just get it over with, thereby getting back to this post sooner; not sure which one I will do. I guess it’s moot now; I’m done that bit now.

There have been quite a few thinks going on in my mind lately. I’ve been thinking about some connections that I’ve seen or have made - for example, I was listening to a Pink song this morning, and some of the lyrics made a connection (non-linear, mind you) to this horribly entertaining show I watched for the first time the other day, Jersey Shore. I’ll explore that later.

Song lyrics are always in my mind. I heard a song by Lady Antebellum called “Need you Now” and was very much reminded of “Self Esteem” by the Offspring. That particular connection - which I was also explore later in a post about song lyrics - was curious, given the different styles of music and core audiences of the groups. It lends credence to the theory that music is universal - maybe .

Then again, a lot of things remind me of “Self Esteem”.

Today I thought it would be good to touch on the “Merry Christmas” thing.

We don’t want to offend anyone: Let’s face it, Canada is a multi-cultural nation, as is the US, and Great Britain, and most western countries that celebrate Christmas. If companies insist on having their staff wish everyone a Merry Christmas, they will offend someone. That’s the same reason why we changed our cards to say “Happy Holidays” because even if our customers / clients aren’t christian, the end of the year is still a time of holidays in Canada. No one will be offended if we wish them a Happy Holidays.

Christmas is for Christians: It may be a holiday time for everyone, but Canada and other western nations that celebrate Christmas are founded on Christian principles. The only reason that it is a busy season for retailers is because people are buying Christmas gifts. Retailers in particular should honour the season by making, or at least allowing, their staff wish customers a “Merry Christmas”.

What I think: Not much to talk about on this issue, from the two sides. Not very timely, either. My impression, though, is that both sides have it backwards. Retailers, in particular, should recognize that their sales are due mainly to Christmas shoppers and should be trying to encourage Christmas shoppers to come into their stores. I have never met anyone who is non-Christian who gets offended at being wished a Merry Christmas, and I think that companies who instruct staff not to risk creating negative publicity.

On the other hand, Christians should be offended that retailers, in particular, wish them a Merry Christmas. Retailers use a holy occasion to create more sales; saying Merry Christmas to increase sales sounds a lot like breaking a commandment, using the Lord’s name in vain. Plus, given Jesus’ negative history with retailers (see, for example, his reaction to his church being used a marketplace or the Bible’s prohibitions on paying or receiving interest) it makes wishing shoppers a Merry Christmas more than a little ironic .

How I relate: When I was working in fast food, I never had any directives from head office, my boss, or anyone with the company to not wish people Merry Christmas. I think if I was in a non-retail business, I might keep my Christmas cards saying “Happy Holidays” but even now I send cards saying “Merry Christmas” to people I know are not Christian. If they wanted to send me solstice cards, or Ramadan cards, or anything else, I would think it pretty darn neat that they thought of me. I would not think “ Those jerks - not even asking me what religion I am before they send me a card.”

Sigh. The next load of laundry is just about done. I suppose I will format this and then go check on it.

Still haven't been down to check on the laundry. It did occur to me, however, that it is kind of funny that a lot of Christians do not consider Santa Claus to be an appropriate Christmas symbol - the whole " Let's celebrate the birth of Santa Claus" thing. I think that this is kind of funny because Santa Claus is largely based on people from a strong Christian tradition, while other Christmas symbols, such as the date, are not.

And the time now is just after 6 and I just finished listening to Fall Out Boy's cover of "Beat it".

Too Long

So I finished off the year on a very slow note. In my defence, I was of course busy, had a lot on my plate, etc. No excuse really. I finished with 21 posts, less than 2 a month. So I think that I need to do make some changes to the format of tis. First, quit trying to write an essay on each topic. Certainly I still like the format; it allows me to critically think about an issue and being forced to examine both sides of something makes me much more aware of the flaws in both sides. But it takes me an hour and a half minimum to create a readable post, which is much more that I want to spend on it. So what I propose (to myself, because this is after all, my blog only) is that I keep the same format for posts once a month, and focus on smaller issues twice a month. Maintaining 3 posts a month in this format should be doable. We will see, of course if I can maintain even that.

I had three things that I was thinking about posting here. The first was about Christmas (being that it just passed) and whether businesses should wish their clients Merry Christmas or some other PC greeting, like Happy Holidays. The second was about New years resolutions, and whether they have any value. The third is the one I was discussing with my Dad, and I have enough material to discuss it today. It is somewhat related to the Olympics.

Men are from baseball, women are from softball: Professional competitive sports have to be divided by sex. Women and men are far to different physically to compete in the same arena. Men are stronger and faster; women have better endurance. In team sports, women would never make the team; and in individual sport, women would never even qualify for competition.

Keeping the sexes separate actually gives girls better role models. Boys have their sports heroes to look up to. Only lately, because of the existence of female only sports, have girls had athletic heroes to admire and emulate. Putting the sports together would eliminate a whole generation of heros for girls.

Women also play the games differently than men. Men are much more competitive, much more rough than women are. Women would feel bullied in same sex sports and men would feel like bullies, just for playing the way they are expected to. The overall quality of the games would decline.

Forget Suffrage, we want sportage. Physical ability between genders is not only a myth, it is not relevant for most sports. Sports like golf only have a women’s tee to reinforce the notion that women are weaker than men. As long as this myth exists, it will continue to get reinforced by our society. Breaking down barriers in sport will help to make men and women equal.

A lot of the men who play sports are not in physically good shape. Look at baseball players, for example. Those fat slobs are role models? If women were in professional sports on the same level as men, not only would it help to close a huge wage gap, it would also give girls real role models - one who competed at the highest level and were paid the same as men for it.

Women only play the games differently because they are expected to. Give them the same set of rules, and they will adapt. So will men. All sports change their rules from time to time - changing them to for women would be no different. Sure the games would change -but probably for the better.

What I think: Right now, I think that football is the only sport that women would be unable to play at the same level as men. All the small sports (golf, bowling, darts, stuff like that) physical fitness has little to do with it, and so should all be mixed. Of the major sports - hockey, baseball, football (and rugby in other countries), soccer, and basketball - football is the only one where size makes that much difference. Baseball I think would be the easiest for women to get into, except for the fact that baseball is very American, and Americans like their gender roles. I could easily see women entering the hockey professional ranks first, for two reasons: size, while important, is not the most important thing - speed, accuracy, and agility are more important; and it would open up the market to a whole new set of fans. If the NHL had some female players, especially in it’s smaller markets, it would really attract a lot of attention and generate new fans. And to be competitive in this current sports climate, that is what it needs to do.

I think that if it is going to happen, it would happen for a few positions at a time. Goalies would be an easy fit, because they don’t have much physical contact with other players. Then forwards, and finally defencemen. Baseball I could see them starting in the infield first, and they wouldn’t be power hitters at first. Basketball, they would likely be guards. Football they could be play in some positions - kickers, and possibly receivers, but I think the public would have a real hard time watching women being tackled. Because we think of women as being weaker and also as victims, seeing men hit them hard would be uncomfortable for a lot of people. Soccer, there is no reason why they can’t play on the same field as men.

A good place to start would be the Olympics. There was the start of it this year, although in a roundabout way. When women ski jumpers were denied a chance to compete, it has unintentionally set the stage for women to try to compete in the same category as men in a future Olympics. Some sports would be very hard for people to watch - boxing, for example. Back in the 70’s there was a famous tennis match called “Battle of the Sexes” between a man and woman (both at the top of their game - I forgot who it was between, I think Chris Everett Lloyd and some guy, and I don’t feel like googling it. ---10 minutes later - now I googled it, and it was Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs) in which the woman won. The time is right for that type of thing again.

How I relate: Not much to say in this part. I’m male, so maybe you’d think that I don’t want women in men’s sports. But it seems that having women in an acknowledged second tier devalues them; also it would be good to see men and women actually competing. They do it in every other aspect of modern society; why should sports be different?

Interestingly, my Dad thought that women would be unlikely to play in hockey because of the fighting aspect of it, and there would be resistance to women in baseball because of the “throws like a girl” attitude. He’s right in that the public would not particularly want to see, for example, George Laroque dropping gloves with Hayley Wickenheiser; but they would get used to it. If it ever did happen, it would be very interesting to see where the protests came from - the right or the left, the feminists or the anti-feminists.

Long post this time. 4 pages, if I was handing it in, 7 if it was double spaced; 10 if I put a cover page and references with it. I hopefully will still cover the two topics I mentioned earlier, although they are less and less timely as days do by.