From: konrad (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 20:36:38 PST
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Ed Halter @ NYUFF wrote:
> What this means I suppose is open to interpretation. But within this irony,
> undoubtedly something crucial is revealed.
I notice that too. How would you interpret your lack of doubt
that it's meaningful? Is it because there are more Frameworks
men than women? Because more men speak up in a public forum than
women? -- men's approach to listserv discussions overrides
women's with its aggresiveness and loquacity? -- men talk and
don't listen? -- men are boorish and women are sensitive? --
men are still amateur-wrestling with their consciences in the
face of a feminism that wishes they would get the point? --
women need to speak for themselves? -- we need to move to a
post-p-c discourse?
<US centric mode on> Shit we're marrying same sex couples here in
post-queer SF b/c we have a new mayor who for some reason (take
back the Green vote? -- he almost lost to a Green party
candidate) wants to put a democratic data-point well outside the
spectrum of Kerry-Edwards -- well, not for long.... and we have
Other Cinema and the MadCat film festival, too, like NYUFF, RBMC
etc.. These seem to be the models for action, if one has a
problem with the way things are: infiltrate, mimic *and* oppose.
<off>
With these type of activities actually happening, you'd
think we could get past the whole numbers game, a sideshow,
antecedent.
James' implicit remark that no woman was appointed to the
self-appointed committee for eternal, er Essential Cinema pretty
much sources the problem and insinuates the plan of action the
Guerilla Girls affected.
And he's male just like our mayor is straight (and Catholic)!
konrad
^Z
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.