Why is it always 'kings and queens'...?
Why is it always 'hims and hers'...?
Why is it always 'men and women...?Something's fishy, it occurs.
Might 'queens and kings' (say) shake up things...?
Indeed, might 'women'-leading-'men'
WORD order cue a new WORLD order...?
It ain't "might," of course, but "when."
(Too soon, 'Minnie and Mickey':
that wicket's still sticky!
But 'Donald and Daisy'
keeps makin' me crazy.)
Punchline "Evenings -- Sam and Janet"...?
Rabid feminists all pan it
and would dearly love to can it.
(Sources say they plan to ban it.)
"Will and Grace...? Not "Grace and Will"...?
(Some folks watch'd "Greg and Dharma." Still... )
With his "Daphnis and Chloe," Ravel,
and the Ballets Russes also, was smitten.
Things would not have gone nearly as well
were it "Chloe and Daphnis" he'd written.
All know Yusuf and Potiphar's wife,
call'd Zulaikha -- sound sources are rife.
(He who sniggers "Zulaikha and Yusuf"
his cojones just might lose the use of.)
'George and Martha' (i.e., 'Dad and Mum')
reign our nation's Ur-parents, by gum!
Should we list 'em as 'Martha and George'
as a more-perfect nation we forge...?
'Bart and Lisa's the usual order, so, far be it from me to suggest
that (say) 'Lisa and Bart' might yield pref'rable art.
(I can hear you now: "Give it a rest!")
Although 'Darby and Joan''s been the norm,
it's caus'd many a women's-lib storm.
I feel sure 'Joan and Darby' would solve
most such storms. So: prepare to revolve!
'Steve and Edie'...? Not 'Edie and Steve'...?
I am finding that hard to believe.
Without change, big steps rearward we'll take,
back to Adam and Eve...and that snake.
"Mork and Mindy" grabb'd views on TV:
Sixty million! (That sounds like a load.)
If 'twere "Mindy and Mork," would they've all reach'd a fork
in the march-t'ward-equality road...?
Does the 'Romeo...Juliet' chain
cause a modern-day feminist pain...?
Were the names switch'd about, would that feminist shout...?
(Also, what gives with 'Tarzan and Jane'...?)
G.B. Shaw's "Cleopatra and Caesar"...?
One dare sneak nothing past that ol' geezer.
If her highness Shaw'd known, he might throw her a bone.
Or Shaw might place her last -- just to tease 'er.
It's all "Hansel and Gretel" to Grimm.
Women's Lib...? It means diddley to him.
Grimm fears "Gretel and Hansel"'d cause readers to cancel
their orders for fresh tales he'd limn.
Roy and Dale's "Happy trails to you" just...
might by Dale and Roy better be sung.
Once Dale's voice takes the lead, Roy'll eventually heed
our critique: "Roy, your voice sounds like dung."
TV's Golden Age air'd Burns and Allen.
If the tube had air'd Allen and Burns,
"Say goodnight, Gracie" wouldn't get laughs; nor it shouldn't.
('Course, that ain't the way the world turns.)
Behold! 'Boris,' back'd up by 'Natasha.'
If 'Natasha got follow'd by 'Boris,'
would such
order bring peace...? Would misogyny cease...?
Would most men suffer ongoing tsoris...?
Hands, please: who recalls Sonny and Cher...?
I bet none can recall Cher and Sonny.
Don't cry, "Such was the time: diff'rent age; diff'rent clime:
we call'd women 'girls'...waitresses 'honey.'"
Although lots applaud 'Nichols and May,'
I by all means prefer 'May and Nichols.'
Yet, no matter the ranking, their act won't end tanking:
the stuff they came up with still tickles.
The Bible reads "Samson...Delilah."
If "Delilah" appear'd before "Samson,"
would the big guy ignore that duplicitous whore...
and Shem's wife, Japheth's daughter and Ham's son...?
As young children we read 'Dick and Jane.'
If instead we had read 'Jane and Dick,'
would the L-G-Bi crowd long ago've been allow'd
to their birth sexuality pick...?
"The Thin Man" presents Nick and Nora.
If that film featured Nora and Nick,
would the casting couch cast a chihuahua call'd Hasta,
thus spoiling this classical flick...?
Tell me: Why always 'Adam and Eve'...?
How's about, just for once, 'Eve and Adam'...?
Would such switcheroo, do you believe,
not exuberate She Who begat 'em...?
Further, why hear we always 'Babe Ruth'...?
Seldom mention'd -- alas! -- is Ruth Babe.
She'd have sent homers flyin,' caus'd fans (am I lyin'...?),
like Jabberwock's raths, to outgrabe.
Also, why always 'Ozzie and Harriet,'
never 'Harriet' followed by 'Oz'...?
Would transposing pair'd names tend to bum dudes and dames,
dooming both to a bout of the blahs...?
Fin'lly, why must it be 'Ralph and Alice'...?
Might we never hear 'Alice and Ralph'...?
The latter's preferr'd, while the former -- my word! --
remains too chauvinistic...by halph!
Mother Goose sings of Jack and his Jill.
Mother: choose a new tack! Jill and Jack
could still tackle their hill and if water
they'd spill,
they'd just refill those buckets they pack.)
Frank Loesser composed "Guys and Dolls."
Had Frank penn'd "Gals and Men," "Dolls and Guys,"
"Dames and Dudes," "Jills and Jacks" would he've suffer'd attacks
from some femm'ophobe hacks in disguise...?
I liked Ike. (I liked Mamie as well.)
I like 'Mamie and Ike' even better.
If you'd force HER to choose the best order to use,
she'd say
"Last one" -- although I've not met 'er.
You say 'Abelard' follow'd by 'Eloise,'
not the other way 'round. But do you...
...say, as well, 'Desdemona... Othello...? She's
earn'd promotion from spot #2.
It was not call'd "When Sally Met Harry,"
tho' such seems the more obvious choice.
Still, why'd Reiner not choose it...? How dare he...
...not give Meg -- and the ERA -- voice.
'Butterbeans and Susie'...? 'Pyramas and Thisbe'...?
('Archy and Mehitabel': how hard to rhyme might THIS be...?)
'Ferdinand and Isabella'...? Heathcliff and his Cathy...
...but here I pause. How come...? Because
this grows too psychopathy.
