mike wilson wrote: >> From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2006/10/24 Tue AM 11:52:43 GMT >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Your first camera >> >> On 10/22/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> it is a truism* that historically most artists, sculptors etc. are >>> also men, and men are supposedly more visually-oriented than women. So >>> a non-gearhead explanation could be that men are more likely to want >>> to go out and take pictures. >>> >>> A better way to make your son a man amongst men (assuming that's >>> something to be desired, which I think is highly debatable) is to >>> teach him to like football & beer. There are few sadder sights than a >>> cluster of middle-aged men in beige peering longingly into the window >>> of a camera shop. >>> >>> *this is not necessarily a direct result of any genetic differences, >>> but could derive from the greater social power of men historically. >>> >> While it may (or may not) be that a larger percentage of (so-called) >> serious photographers are men, I think it's true that in it's early >> days, a photography (at least in its "higher levels") included a >> larger percentage of women than other visual arts. Think Margaret >> Bourke-White, Imogen Cunningham, Dorothea Lange, Tina Mondetti, Julia >> Cameron, Leni Reifenstal (a great photographer despite what may have >> been her politics). >> >> I've always thought that was because photography was, at the time, a >> relatively new medium, and was struggling to be accepted as a true >> "art". There was less resistance to women participating as there >> wasn't so much of an establishment as there was in other artforms. >> Not only that, but as a newer artform, it may have naturally attracted >> women who had an artistic bent, but were effectively shut out from >> more established visual arts. >> >> Interesting that someone mentioned automobiles as a guy thing that >> rears it's head on this list on a more-than-regular basis. As most of >> you know, I'm an ardent cyclist. It's interesting that in it's >> infancy in the late 1800's, cycling (a new technology at the time) was >> embraced by women, and has been seen as a great liberating force, not >> just due to the freedom afforded by personal transportation, but due >> to the fact that bikes can't be ridden with high-button boots, long >> dresses and corsets. Physically liberating clothing was required, >> which was greatly resisted by many (if not most) males of the time. >> Many of the movements to allow women on bicycles (with appropriate >> dress) were direct forerunners of the suffragette movement and >> therefore women's liberation. > > I always wondered if Dubya might have had better luck in the long term by > dropping Raleighs on Baghdad. Mil spec ones should cost about 20K, so > everyone would be happy. >
Actually, the MilSpec bikes cost about $600, but they fold for Airborne use. This actually came up in a thread on a forum I read often (About what to do the next time some idjit E-6 requisitions a 'vehicle' instead of a truck, the suggestion was to issue a pink girl's bike). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
