>From: Ronald Connelly <<ronconn@u.washington.edu>
>Subject: Re: style (was stylus)
>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>Reply-to: Ronald Connelly <<ronconn@u.washington.edu>
>Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
>In closing, I have to wonder why this list has only one regular female
>contributor. Is photography really such a male domain? Is there some
>mystical connection between the phallus and alt-photo? Or, could it have
>something to do with the way that lone woman is treated every time some
>issue like this comes up? Just something to think about.
Good question Ron, although I have seen quite a few contributions from other women but not as regular as Judy. I had a alt-photo class from Prescott College (AZ) on tour visit out lab Friday. Five women on man. I attended the final critique about 2 weeks ago at Sigfried Halus's alt-photo class at Santa Fe Community College and I taught with Meridel Rubenstein an alt-photo class at the Institute of American Indian Arts. Five women one man. I believe Judy says that her classes are predominately women. This is only a sample of four so I hesitate to try to draw any generalities from it.
Now rumor has it that the List is dominated by men. I believe the word *dominated* was actually used. It is probably true that the List is predominately men, though I hasten to add, it is due to no fault of mine or any other man on the list. I suppose a bunch of us could unsubscribe to help fix the quota.
The power of anyone on the list is primarily that of intelligent message content and the power of expression. I dare say that except on rare occasions, anyone man or women who follows this criteria has been treated with the utmost courtesy. Put forth obvious bunkum and you may feel the sting. The word *domination* carries a lot of weight and should not be used casually, even if to try to gain a few debating points.
This is a computer based list. There is a lot of cultural baggage to overcome about computers. I retired after 26 years in the computer industry and was active in organizing several PC clubs way back in the early days. Talk about male domains. We recognized it for what it was and we were truly not happy about it. We tried desperately to get more women involved, and we had active recruiting policies. As manager I built the computing lab at the City of Los Angeles and I was able to build a staff that was over 50% women by helping to establish an intern program with Cal State Los Angeles.
The tide has turned and I believe it has had a lot to do with the Internet, e-mail and the Web. Computer sales people are not flabbergasted and stunned if a woman walks in to buy a computer as they were 15 years ago. Most of us men in the early days were quite evangelical about our computers and encouraged our friends, men and women, and wives and girlfriends to join this new found religion.
My suspicions are that the reason that there are fewer women on the list than men has more to do with the inertia of this computer past than any acts currently going on.
I resent any suggestion that the list is *male dominated* It implies that there is some sort of male cabal hereabouts. It also indicts all men on the list. There could be a claim made that there have been some instances where some men have shown bad manners, perhaps even exhibiting some domineering traits by trying to ruffle a few feathers. Sorry but I see no cabal, conscious or unconscious.
There have been overt and covert references to language rules as if on some far off mountain top there sits an elected committee who votes on how the language will be used. We have Word Nazis like Edwin Newman and William Safire expostulating from on high about these matters as if they had been handed these rules from Mt. Sinai.Oh what a wonderful way for one class to distinguish itself from the lesser ones and still maintain their *progressive* elan.
English is a marvelously tolerant language. Pick out a few word and plop them down in most any order and you will probably get your meaning across. Not nearly as fussy about word order as many others. U kin allso spel da woids en moast eny weigh u liek en piple will probably catch the meaning, however there are some who will be truly offended. They must insure that the offendedness be visible, otherwise they might be mistaken for one of the lower classes.
I am suspect of those who presume to make the rules for the rest of us. My argument is made to the list as Luis pointed out it is here whether we like it or not. I am probably entitled to a little digression as I frequently post matter that is pertinent.
As for the lone women and how she was treated, the obvious reference is to Judy, I see no problem in how she was treated. No one has impugned her integrity, or demeaned her for being a woman, or made any references to her character. All that I have seen is that her ideas have been dissected and challenged as much as mine or any other person on the list. She has been given plenty of consideration for issues for which many on the list consider to be peripheral and not germane to the business at hand. This is an intelligent forum and people will play rough. I know Judy and she is fair, will back down when she is shown to be wrong, will stand her ground when she is right, and I daresay does not expect special treatment for being the "lone woman on the list", which she is not.
Phallus and alt-photo? You are kidding of course, or have you just discovered Sigmund Freud?
Thanks for the time
Dick Sullivan
<center>
Bostick & Sullivan
Http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
</center>
</x-rich>