Re: PC--What is it good for?

In article <slrnfltlk5.ue2.dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David DeLaney
<dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> lurking horror <lurkinghorror@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> > Why is it that visions of highly computerised future everyday life 
> >> > always go along with a 1960s vision of family life?
> >> > mawa
> >
> >And, WTF, "1960s vision of family life?" There won't be a mom, dad and
> >Junior in the near future?
> 
> There's a good chance there's not a mom, dad, and Junior all in the same
place
> at the same time NOW. 

In an actual. "real" non-cynical view of the world, there are MANY
families that live together, in the same house, spending the nights at
home, dinner, etc. Junior Pimpleface spending the day at the mall does
not qualify, if he still lives at home.

And, duh. For those among you that weren't there, in the reality of
1960's family life, there were plenty of divorced, separated,
teen=pregnant runaway and other such familys. Very few people actually
lived the REAL life that the Cleavers ****trayed.

> That's why mawa said "1960s version" and not "1990s
> version" or "current version". We are loooong past the days when the
> stereotype of the nuclear family had real teeth in it because once you
were married, you
> didn't get divorced and you DID have children or else...

As well aware of the current reality of homelife as I am, it seems the
view of what is a family is being unrealistically viewed in a context
of what people THINK it is, as to how it really is. The catch is, I
suppose, that no one (especially me) is trying to say that EVERY modern
family is like this, but that the AVERAGE (statistically speaking) is
still, more often than not, TWO parental figures, and one or more
dependent. Whether dad smokes a pipe, or mom wears pearls has nothing
to do with it.

I think the telling ****tion of this whole bit was the word
"stereotype," although I am not sure how referring to a mom a dad and
Junior called that into being. The magic of seeing more than what is
actually there, I suppose. Not to mention the unrealistic "stereotype"
of what people obviously THINK the families of the 60's was, but
weren't.

-- 
In times like these, it helps to recall that there have always been times
like
these.
            -- Paul Harvey