Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    interesting...
    i visited the national museum of women in the arts a few months
    ago and loved it. the exhibits were arranged by subject (still-lifes,
    portraits, etc), and the pictures exhibited a fair amount of humor.
    i could feel the energy there -- it always feels good for women
    to come together and to build something of their own. on the day
    i visited (shortly after the opening but before the permanent exhibit
    was on display), i saw very few men, and even fewer who were
    well-behaved (actually, there was one man who seemed to be enjoying
    himself and his companion). most of the other men were WHINING (like
    five-year olds -- were they threatened or what?) one was complaining
    to his wife (?) (who was trying to enjoy herself) about the dreadful
    coffee he'd just had. another approached a museum employee and said
    in one of the snottiest voices i've ever heard "Is there any ART
    in this museum?" (to be fair, the exhibit location was not overly
    obvious). i saw no men who'd come unaccompanied by women. maybe
    they think that if they denigrate it and/or ignore it, it'll go
    away.
    
    liz

    Since I'm assuming most of us have not had the opportunity to visit
    the museum, let's give some thought to the issues the critic raises...
    
    	1) Assuming the critic were correct and that the art on display
    is second rate, is he correct in saying that women in art should
    simply claim victory and cease fire?
    
   	2) How does this apply to other areas where there have been
    significant advances?  Quit while we're ahead?
    
    	3) Were all the artists whose works are on display first
    rate by his definition (Graves, Martin et al) what do you suppose
    he would have had to say regarding the museum? Would he have made
    the comment about gender?
    
    	4) How would we feel about a male-only museum?
    
    >  i could feel the energy there -- it always feels good for women
    >  to come together and to build something of their own

    	If this read "It always feels good for men to come together
    to build something of their own" would we let that stand or would
    we say it was a throw-back to the earlier non-enlightened years?
    
    Marge

    we'd probably feel that a "male-only museum" was normal -- in fact,
    that is nearly the norm today. i happen to enjoy the energy i described
    (and i haven't excluded other types of energy). if you DON'T enjoy
    it, fine, but i don't understand why it sounds like a "throwback"
    to you.
    
    liz

    	> i don't understand why it sounds like a "throwback" to you.
    
        I did not offer my opinion... I posed the question.
    
    Are there any opinions from the readership regarding the critic's
    comments that once the struggle is won, women should know enough
    to back off?  (paraphrased)
    
    Marge

    A museum is a place to display art, period.  If women think they
    are still being discriminated against in the art world, I would
    like to see it.  I think it is sad that musuems should become a
    political place.  Art is emotional in nature and, yes, I think in
    many instances I can better identify with a work done by a woman,
    however I have no desire to see only women's art.  
    
    Separating women's art from men's only makes everything worse, it
    causes people to dwell on the issue, discourages men from viewing
    (no matter how much you encourage me, I would feel a little
    uncomfortable walking into an art show labelled "Men's Art," it
    just doesn't seem very welcoming) what could benefit them.  
    
    
    Debra
    

    Two observations: both from Britain.
    
    I have been a judge of photographic work for some years now, and have
    from time to time been on the selection committees for museum exhibits.
    In every case we saw the prints displayed with no indication of the
    photographers identity nor of their chosen title. We chose work on their
    own strength. I would have been appalled to have been asked to choose
    if the photographers were identified by sex (unless it were specifically
    an exhibit were that was significant).
    
    On one occasion I judged a children's exhibit: we were reminded that
    "if you have to say 'that is good for a 10 year old' then objectively
    it is bad"
    
    In the light of the latter I would have to say that I feel that a museum
    that says - in effect - "these are good works of art by women" is saying
    also "but they can't stand up in comparison to works by men". In fact
    I believe that this museum is doing a positive disservice to women in
    art.
    
    (Incidentally the blind judging technique is not unique to photography
    in Britain, it is also used by the Royal Academy to judge works of art
    submitted for their annual show).
    
    /. Ian .\

If the museum mounted a Dorthea Lange or Margaret Bourque-White
retrospective (trivial with Lange: her best stuff is in the public
domain, easy with Bourque-White: Life Magazine owns her work),
I'd be there in a minute.

If they put up Judy Chicago's dinner table, I'd drop by to look at
it again.

What *is* there now?  Has anyone criticized it *as* art, rather
than as art by women?

And, while we're on the topic, how would you distingush, say,
Dorthea Lange from Walker Evans, or Margaret Bourque-White from
her male Life magazine counterparts?

Martin.
(apologies if I've spelled Bourque-White incorrectly.)

    I must admit, I'm not much into art, so I have no opinion as to
    whether or not women are discriminated against in the art world.
    However, the question raised in .4  "Are there any opinions from
    the readership ... that once the struggle is won, women should know
    enough to back off"  applies to all struggles, not just this particular
    one concerning art.  If you're involved in a struggle, and you win,
    you achieve what you were struggling for, why keep struggling? 
    Work to maintain what you have achieved, but I think that to continue
    to push the issue causes the push-ers to lose credibility.  As was
    said in .0, if an artist is really good, why would he/she want their
    art judged based on gender?  If women are not discriminated against
    in the art world, why take a step backwards and create a segregated
    exhibit?

    Y'know, I can remember wandering through the Dahlem museum in
    W.-Berlin, one of my favorite places, but I can't for the life of
    me remember *any* works by women there.  Is my memory at fault?
    
    And a bit closer to home:  "everyone" knows about the Arts &
    Crafts movement at the end of the last century, William Morris
    and the Kelmscott Press, T[homas] J. Cobden-Sanderson, William
    Johnston, ...the list goes on.  We're indebted to them for quite
    a few things; I personally acknowledge a debt to Johnston and his
    students for the revival of traditional scribal and enluminer
    work.  But one never hears of any women being in on the revival.
    Probably weren't any, right?  I mean, Morris is positively famous
    so if there were any creditable women they'd've shown up too,
    right?  Well, not quite. A few years ago I ran across a book in a
    used-book store in Dallas about the women of the Arts & Crafts
    Movement.  They did BEAUTIFUL work!  Easily the equal of what was
    being done by the men.  What happened?
    
    To paraphrase Mark Twain, "the reports of our equality are
    greatly exaggerated".
    
    						=maggie

    re: -.1
    
    I don't know where you learned about the arts and crafts movement,
    but I learned almost as much about Morris' wife as I did William.
    I think I would have learned just as much, if she had done more.
    
    The problem is not with today's art world, but yesterday's.  I think
    only women's art in the past should be given special attention now
    because it probalby wasn't given enough THEN and we would be missing
    out if we didn't look for it.
    
    
    
    Debra
    
    

    Your comments on the Arts & Craft Movement touch a point: museums have
    two distinct phases - permanent exhibits and temporary exhibits.
    
    Most museums have far more work than they can place on permanent exhibit.
    Some rotate lesser known works so that eventually everything is shown
    (the Tate in London does this), others simply store things in air
    conditioned vaults for the future. Unfortunately when selecting which
    things to put on show they "obviously" choose items by the best known
    member of the movement. Hence work by a few men in the A&C movement
    are always shown, work by the women rarely ...
    
    It would be in rectifying this sort of thing that the museum for women
    could have a significant role. 
    
    
    But when it comes to temporary exhibits, I still feel that it is both
    misdirected and misguided to choose works by living artists based solely
    on their sex. I feel very strongly that work by living artists should be 
    selected for hanging by "blind judging" unless the exhibit is to 
    illustrate a particular thing, or is an exhibit of work by a particular 
    artist or school.
    
    /. Ian .\

    "...once the struggle is won, women should know enough to back off"
    
    We do.
    
    It ain't won yet.
    
    ---------
    
    The only difference between "male-only" museums and "men's art"
    exhibits, and "women-only" museums and "women's art" exhibits is
    that the "distaff" side has labelled them. "male-only" museums and
    "men's art" exhibits have been the norm, all there was, and in some
    cases still is - only nobody called them by those labels. When you
    went to a museum or an exhibit what you got was men's art.
    
    This may be changing, but it is changing slowly.
    
    -----
    I'd like to know how wide-spread the "blind" judging is. Anybody
    know?
    
    Dawn
    

    I've read some stories recently about art galleries discriminating
    against female artists. There was a piece some months ago about some
    female artists doing some kind of performance piece to protest it (if
    I've remembered correctly).

    As long as women are underrepresented in galleries and museums, it
    makes sense to show their work separately because otherwise it won't
    get exposure. Once equality arrives (!), there won't be need for this
    kind of segregation.

    					-- hs

    Re: .13
    
    I have to disagree with showing women's work separately if they
    are discrimated against.  Have we all forgotten Brown vs. the Board
    of Education?  Separate necessarily says "not equal."  The women
    who show their work in "women only" museums will most definitely
    NOT get the exposure they deserve!  If such discrimination does
    exist in a gallery, legal action should be taken.
    
    
    Debra
    

    In "'The Art that is Life': The Arts and Crafts Movement in America,
    1875-1920" a recent temporary exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts,
    Boston, there were a number of items by women, including some striking
    pottery and ceramics.
    
    From the pamphlet, under the topic "Spreading the Reform Ideal":
    
    "Arts and Crafts ideals spread throughout American society in a
    variety of ways.  Hundreds of Arts and Crafts societies were
    established to exhibit and sell craftsmen's work and to promote
    high standards of workmanship.  Many periodicals, among the
    _The_Ladies'_Home_Journal_ and _House_Beautiful_, were founded as
    part of this movement, and were dedicated to promoting, in the words
    of the _House_Beautiful_ motto, "Simplicity, Economy, and
    Appropriateness in the Home."  Utopian communities such as the
    short-lived Byrdcliff Colony in Woodstock, New York, were models
    of "the simple life"in which art, labor, and leisure are integrated.
     At Byrdcliff, furniture and other crafts were created in a bucolic
    setting, and such activities as calisthenics, drama, and music were
    part of the daily routine.
    
    "Women were the leaders in applying Arts and Crafts principles to
    social reform, creating many organizations to teach or market crafts
    for philanthropic purposes.  Crafts programs at settlement houses
    were seen as a way for immigrants to retain pride in their native
    heritage or as a creative activity that would alleviate the tedium
    of factor work.  The Paul Revere Pottery, which produced breakfast
    and tea sets, lamps, tiles, and vases from 1907 to 1942, grew out
    of the Saturday Evening Girls' Club attended by young immigrant
    women at the North End Branch of the Boston Public Library.
    
    "The emergence of design schools was an important part of the reform
    movement's efforts to raise the standards of commercial production.
     Museums were to serve as inspiration for contemporary designs,
    and schools affiliated with museums emphasized the importance of
    good design in basic household objects, as did certain independent
    design schools and university-affiliated design programs.  The role
    of women in the Arts and Crafts movement is significant here also,
    since admittance to design schools created unprecedented professional
    opportunities for women."
    
    Most of the pottery by women was anonymous; however there was one
    who was named (and there was even a book about her in the gift kiosk
    at the end of the exhibit)--but I've forgotten her name.  There
    were a lot of male names, though.  Kind of discouraging; I looked
    at the anonymous work and the ghosts crowded around me.
    
    I'm pretty sure I was told the exhibit was designed by a woman,
    but I don't know her name (but I think somebody out there does,
    hint, hint).
    

    re .14
    Selection of art by galleries is generally done on the basis of
    what those in charge of the gallery regard as worthwhile art. There
    have been *many* cases in the past where male artists were not
    accepted by the current 'powers-that-be' - the Impressionists
    being an obvious example. Often artists with something to say had
    to find a way to start up their own galaries before their works
    could find an audience. The womans gallery is in many ways just
    continuing this tradition. Further, if work is not seen it will
    never gain recognition. The denying of space to women in galleries
    is probably too subtle to be able to be delt with in the courts.
    
    Bonnie

    Though I admit that an art gallery is not high on my list of
    preferred activities, I would not go out of my way to a
    self-professed "women's" gallery.  I expect to see and have seen
    art by many talented women showcased in exhibitions at regular
    museums and galleries, but I admit I haven't been keeping count.
    
    I agree with those who say that labelling a collection as "women's
    art" is self-defeating.  However, I expect that these same collections
    would get a lot more attention if they were instead described
    something like "alternative" (though I hate that word).  The idea
    is not to wave a red flag in everyone's face saying "See!  Here!
    Art that isn't good enough to be in regular museums so we had to
    give it its own place!"
    
    I too am puzzled as to why there might be a bias in the art world
    today, I tend to see more women then men in charge of galleries
    and museums in the articles I read.  Or is this just another case
    of "women are their own worst enemies"?
    
    				Steve

     Suppose you were fantastically wealthy, and you owned a painting that
     you wanted to donate to a museum.  Suppose further that the work was
     painted by a woman who had not yet gained wide popularity as an
     artist, and that both a famous "mainline" museum and a "women's"
     museum were interested in receiving and displaying the painting.
     
     To which museum would you donate the painting?
     
     --Mr Topaz
     
     p.s.'s:
     
     re the Berlin museum:  I'm reasonably sure, or at least slightly
     sure, that there's a Berthe Morrisot hanging there.
     
     re Judy Chicago:  If you like the combination of an ink blot test
     and Gynecologist's Illustrated, then "The Dinner Table" is for you.

    Someone said (Steve Lionel, I think, and I'm paraphrasing here)
    that art by women would have a wider audience if it were presented
    in the mainstream rather than in a "women's art gallery".  I would
    like to put forth this hypothesis.  I think what is really meant
    when we say that the art would have a wider appeal is that it would
    have a wider appeal to *men* which is "considered" in our society to
    be a more mainstream audience than women.
    
    This reminds me of a disagreement I had with my SO once.  It occurred
    to me at some point that I read books whose authors are mainly women.
    He reads books whose authors are mainly men.  Hmmm.  Why is that?
    For me, women writers provide more pertinent role models, they speak
    more for me and to me, and, well, *heck*, they're just more *like*
    me, at least in this one surface respect.  But if I don't have any
    further information to go on, I'll pick the book on Arctic exploration
    that is written by the woman, not the man.  And by the same reasoning,
    women artists are simply going to attract my attention more than
    a male artist.  Sexist?  Yes, it is, and I don't have any excuses
    to offer for it either.
    
    	-Ellen

    re .18:
    
    > To which museum would you donate the painting?
    
    I would donate it to the museum with the largest attendance and who
    gave me written assurance that the piece would be on display at
    least x% of the time and in a favored spot.
    
    Marge

    I'm confused: why are some people assuming that art in a gallery of only
    women's art isn't good enough to go into a "real" art gallery?

    Re: .16
    
    When a gallery/musuem denies a work of art because of the painter's
    style (ex: Impressionists) then those painters should open up a
    separate gallery, however when they refuse to show a piece because
    of the painter, then it is clear cut discrimiation just like any
    other case.  The problem does arise if it is not clear WHY the work
    is refused.  I don't think this problem is as hard to resolve as
    most people because, although art of today varies quite a bit, it
    can still be divided into different styles.  From what I have seen
    both women and men share work within these styles.
    
    I, personally, wouldn't want to go to a "women's art only" gallery
    because I like to see a lot of different stlyes and would assume
    that this gallerey separated itself because all the art would be
    of the same nature.  Similarly, I wouldn't go to a gallery showing
    only The New York style...etc.
    
    Personally, I haven't seen even a hint of discrimination, but I
    guess I haven't been around much.
    
    
    Debra
    

    
    For what it's worth.............
    
    When I go to galleries or museums I never even give consideration
    to the fact that it might be a womens' or a men's, or a mainstream.
    Only when I find something extraordinarily fascinating do I attempt
    to find out more about the person behind it. For me, if it's
    interesting, I check it out. I daresay that most people I know
    seem to feel the same.

If you go to a museum and see a French painting next to a Spanish painting, 
next to an American painting, etc., you get to see contrasts in styles.  
This is a good thing.  If you go to another room or into another museum 
that has only French paintings, for example, then you get to see 
similarities in styles.  This is also a good thing.  If you start to notice 
similarities, and you have information about cultural and historical events 
relevant to that particular group, you might even begin to speculate about
the role that culture and history play in influencing that art.  If you 
think about women's art, looking at a bunch of it together in one place 
might allow you to see certain similarities which might allow you to infer
certain cultural influences, such as the influence of gender in art.  

Another reason why I think having a museum for women's art is a good 
idea is that less well known artists get a chance to have their work 
displayed!  If the women's museum were successful, other mainstream 
galleries might decide to display similar exhibits.  This would lead to an 
even wider distribution of less well known art.  Also, some women who 
haven't been all that interested in art before might go to this museum 
because it is all women and then become interested in other kinds of art, 
as well.  

If you have been a member of a second class (as women have been), it's wonderful
to see one of your own succeed in the mainstream.  For example, it's nice
to see Holly Near on the program at Folk concerts as well as Women's music
concerts.  But there is something extremely powerful about being surrounded 
by the work of other women.  I like listening to women's music, and I also 
like Paul Simon, but I wouldn't want him to perform at a Women's music 
festival.  It would dilute the experience for me.  But if I really wanted 
to hear Holly Near, I have a choice. I could go to a Women's concert,
or I could go to a Folk concert.  Each experience would be pleasant but 
different, and I do think there's room for both.  It's not as if we're saying, 
"Pull all the art produced by women off the walls of the world's museums and 
put it in a women's museum."
                                                                     

    
    
    I visit as many museums as I can when I visit a city - I have been
    to England (Midlands mostly), Italy (north of Naples), parts of
    Canada and a number of large cities east of the Rockies.  I enjoy
    many forms of art work but I love Women's Art and ask at each museum
    I visit if they have any.  To many times the response has been that
    they have a few token works by a specific woman.  I am looking forward
    to being able to visit a museum and wander from room to room and
    not have to be on the look out for THE painting by the token female
    that the museum has on exhibit.
    
    I do not like all the stuff done by women but then I don't have
    to.  It feels good to be able to judge a piece of art by comparing
    it to another work done in the same time frame by a different artist
    with a similar background.  A Woman's Art Museum highlights the
    work done by women, maybe it is too good to be put in a "mainstream"
    museum.
    
    As far as it having to be acknowledged by "males" - if I like a
    painting or sculpture or print and I can afford to by a copy (or
    an original) I do - that is the type of acknowledgement artist really
    need.  A Woman's Art Museum would probably cause me to spend more
    on art then I do at the MFA.
    
    By-the-by - Does anyone know where I can find a Snake Goddess Statue?
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	Woman's Art
    				Inspired by the Goddess
    					In her image
    

    I read about this case some years ago in _Ms_, and I've
    forgotton the names (grovel), but here was the general situation:
    
    "The Jolly Toper" was a portrait attributed to Van Eick.  It
    was judged to be masterful, vibrant, earthy, and everything
    wonderful.  Then it was reattributed to Van Eick's teacher, a
    woman.  Suddenly, it was not longer masterful, vibrant, earthy,
    or anything like that; it was sentimental and overdone.
    
    Please don't say that prejudice in the evaluation of art doesn't
    exist; it clearly does, and at the highest levels.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  When you donate a piece of work to a museum, you must also
    choose the museum which will accept the piece.  Museums reject
    free works of art every day.

    Mary Cassatt's work has often been down graded because she
    was a woman. I have heard the critcism that the only good
    parts of her works were what Whister told her to do with
    light and color and that she really didn't understand the point
    of it....being primarily interested in womanish things such as
    painting the relationship between mothers and children
    

    I am reminded of the phrase used by a slightly confused visitor to the
    RA Annual Show a few years ago, who on being interviewd by the BBC said
    "Well, ... I like what I know!"
    
    a reply a few back suggested that the "mainstream" could be interpreted
    as male acceptance, which may be true. It is certainly possible that
    the world of art critics (largely male dominated, certainly dominated
    by the old boy net of the art world) feels threatened by a view point
    different from their own.
    
    *BUT* a "women's gallery" represents exactly the same blinkered viewpoint:
    it says to the world: "I don't want to judge these works on their merit,
    I want to judge them primarily by being created by women!"
    
    The message is erroneous, unfortunate, and not complimentary to the
    march of egaletarianism.
    
    /. Ian .\

    <--(.28)
    '*BUT* a "women's gallery" represents exactly the same blinkered viewpoint:
    it says to the world: "I don't want to judge these works on their merit,
    I want to judge them primarily by being created by women!"'

    
    Consider, Ian:  if women are under-represented in most galleries,
    what does that say about the selection criteria in those
    galleries? To me it says that those who select them say
    *covertly* "I don't want to display work based on merit alone,
    but rather on merit plus the sex membership of the artist, with
    men getting n points added and women n points subtracted and
    the value of n determined such that only the very best/safest/
    whatever women will qualify". 
    
    Yes, the women's gallery has as their *first* criteria sex
    membership, but that has two advantages:  (1) it's upfront, and
    (2) it serves to place works before the public eye that would
    otherwise languish in *undeserved* obscurity.  If that is
    done for awhile, perhaps the covert devaluation of women artists
    will end.
    
    						=maggie
    
    (And lest it be thought that I am an uncritical judge of artistic
    merit, I should say that the most wretchedly-bad work I've
    ever seen on display was done by women.  I felt positively
    embarrassed for them.)

    Maggie (and others) :- I don't disagree: the mainstream does ignore work 
    by major female artists. 
    
    Gallery displays are massively male dominated.
    
    I don't say that is right, but two wrongs don't make a right, and creating
    a women only gallery doesn't correct the problem, it exagerates it.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Not necessarily.  If the work is good, what better way to show
    that it is being excluded on non-aesthetic grounds than to have
    it SHOWN?
    							Ann B.

    OKay, so how DO we correct the problem?
    
    Presumably, women have been trying for *YEARS* (or is that Eons,
    Eaon? :-)) so one would think about everything's been tried.
    
    What do we do? How do we break down the bastion?
    
    Dawn
    

    
    	re: .28, .29, .32 (and probably more)
    
    	Why not an ART museum (notice the absence of gender) run by
    	women who feel women's art is being discriminated against ???
    
    	That way, art by both sexes could be displayed together (truly
    	important I believe), without the concern of favoritism or
    	segregation.
    
    	Of course, then the women running the museum would have to
    	practice what they preach, and not be biased against men's art.
    
    	I don't feel that the solution to discrimination and segregation
    	is MORE discrimination and segregation.  If it is true that
        many museums discriminate against women, the strongest gesture
    	towards equality women can make is to display the arts equally,
        not further separate them.

        re .33: EXACTLY !

        /. Ian .\

    ... and then there should be men taking part in the artistic
    judgements, and men taking part in the administration, just to
    be fair, you know.  However, >>in the current cultural climate,<<
    this would soon result in the same old situation.
    
    And sooner or later some second-rate male artist would be turned
    down, and complain that he was being discriminated against because
    he was male, and demand that he be let in, and take it to court....
    (Would the artist do this because it is a masculine characteristic?
    No, he would do it because there are over 5,000,000,000 people on
    this planet and some of them are jerks, and some of *them* are artists,
    and some of THEM are male.)
    
    Skip the hassle.  Stet.
    
    							Ann B.

    RE: 33-35
    
    Confusedly enuff, I agree with all three!!
    
    But - I've been thinking a lot about this issue (for reasons unknown
    to myself) and it's occurred to me that: 1)For art to become known,
    it has to be shown (Egad! Iambic pentameter! :-)) 2)Once it becomes
    known, if enuff people think it's good, it will be purchased, and
    word will get around 3)Once there is enuff $$$ in the women's community
     to support such things as art, things will change drastically.
    
    So, I don't think there's a thing wrong with a women's art museum.
    Is there a black history museum? If so, should whites exhibit, or
    have it be called "racist"?
    
    MEn and women are essentially raised in two different cultures -
    why shouldn't women's culture and experience, espressed as art,
    be allowed a forum?
    
    All of this applies only to museums, NOT to galleries, necessarily.
    Tho' they're as sexist, if not more so than museums.
    
    I'd like to think that a museum administrated by women would fare
    better, but once again, I fear we're up against *attitudes*, not
    logic.
    
    Dawn

    
    	Re. .36
    
    	I must admit, I also disagree with the idea of a 'black' only
    	museum.
    
    	As I said in .33, I don't feel that if equality is your goal,
        setting up another mutually exclusive museum is the way to
    	achieve equality.  
    
    	.35 suggests that eventually, the men will take over a 
    	museum that is set up to include women's art.  I have to wonder
    	then, is your point that women MUST have separate everything
    	in order to be equal, lest men get a say too and everything
        goes back to being unequal ???  I don't buy it.
        It would be what those who care about the museum make it.  If
    	it is allowed to be turned around, it would seem to me that
    	it's because no one fought to keep the original intent of
    	equality.
    
    	karen
    
    	

425.37 said:
>"...women MUST have separate everything lest men get a say too and 
>everything goes back to being unequal ???    I don't buy it."

Hmmm.   I am reminded of a sociological classroom "game" called the Fishbowl
that I participated in.   In the game all students drew their chairs into a 
circle and four or five people drew their chairs into a mini circle in the 
middle.   People in the center circle could talk--everyone else had to be 
silent.   To get into the center circle from the big outer circle, one could 
just tap the shoulder of someone in the middle and take their place.     
Then one could talk.    We then preceeded to have a class discussion on 
the current book we were reading.   In this particular class there were 
25 people and 4 of them were men.   The men were in the center more than 
half the time (someone had been assigned to count and time everyone's 
amount of time in the center unknown to the rest of us).   Afterward we 
discussed why there was such a disparity.

Women in the outer circle would tap the shoulder of someone in the inner 
circle who had been in *the longest*.   Men in the outer circle would tap 
the shoulder of someone they perceived as *not contributing* (or as some of
them put it, they didn't want to interrupt whoever was speaking).    Add to 
this that the women had a tendency to be more polite so that if a man and a 
woman began speaking at the same time, the woman would wait and allow the 
man to speak his thought, whereas the men would just plow ahead.  So, you had 
men doing most of the talking when, in fact, they were very much the 
*minority*.    If there had been an equal number of men and women, I don't 
think any but a few vocal women would have had a chance to say much.    And 
that is *very* interesting.   The women gave everyone an equal chance to 
throw their two cents in, whereas the men let the ones who had already 
contributed a dollar stay in the middle to continue contributing their two 
cents.   
    (In an art museum, would those who selected the pieces to be
    shown prefer the famous names perhaps?)

By the by you can observe part of this in day to day conversations--if 
two people start talking at once, who gives ground first?    Often if it 
is a man and a woman, the woman gives ground and the man continues talking.
I was simply astounded and horrified at how often that happened when I 
first started to be aware of it.

But, I'm getting sidetracked.   My point is that, for whatever
reason, men tended to dominate the conversations--and they were
COMPLETELY unaware of how much their actions caused them to 
monopolize the floor, the attention, & etc.    

>"...women MUST have separate everything lest men get a say too and 
>everything goes back to being unequal ???    I don't buy it."

I don't know if I buy it, but there may be something to it--at
least in this day and age.

Tamar                                      

    RE: women giving way to men in conversations...
    
    Right. And if you don't - you keep talking and out-shout them -
    they call you... 
    
    
    STRIDENT!
    
    :-)
    
    
    Tamar - VERY interesting story about that "game". That "game", by
    the way is called "life" :-)
    
    Dawn