Ken Follett wrote:

>
>
> In respect of the female:male ratio in historic preservation if we look to
> the chauvinist culture of the construction industry in general then it may
> make sense that women would feel more comfortable in an emerging niche,
> particularly one that embraces a more complex and intelligent set of values.
>
> ][<en

The challenge is to keep the traditions that work and to loose the ones that
make it harder to do good work.  Its not that women are more intelligent, its
just that men feel obligated not to be stupid around women.  Men enjoy being
stupid...in moderation.

So one night in Williamsburg six preservationeer type guys went out and had
serious conversations accented by moments of stupidity, made an Elvis
sighting...(who did not want to be associated with a bunch of
preservationeers)...and a memory was made.  No women that night.

Let us assume for a moment that female preservationeers are too serious to find
the joy the males found in that evening.  If we had had apprentices that
evening, male or female, would we have not insisted that they participate in
this valuable learning exercise?  Guys apply pressure to guys to do stupid
things.  Perhaps when the old guys are woment it won't be so important, but
maybe it is now.  And hey!  Its not like we're bonding by jumping off bridges,
crushing beer cans on our foreheads or playing chicken with cars...again.
Besides, preservationeers tend to be at the mild mannered, sensitive end of the
spectrum!  (bat guano anyone?)