Marilyn Harper wrote: > > > It seems to me that while the young preservation people are VERY > disproportionally female, the old guys are much more likely to be > guys. Of course the old generation for me is probably a lot older > than it is for John! It seems like in the sixties, there were a lot > more male movers and shakers at the National Trust and in the > government, though I don't know about the architects and/or craftsmen. > My vague impression is that most of the people carrying placards, > tying themselves to trees, and lying down in front of bulldozers were > women, but I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of academic > preservation programs are almost entirely female now. > > I have always wondered why that should be true. > > Marilyn I don't know the relative difference in our views of who are the old guys...but, I remember the sixties and I'm pretty sure that lying down in front of bulldozers was the kind of thing we saw after the sixties had become romanticized. (Somehow I get all puffed up and beligerant when people make the sixties sound like a time of peace and love and safe sex and fun. And I worry about people not understanding the dangers of civil disobedience.) But then most of the sixties happened in the seventies. BUT! I've also always claimed that the most effective war protests were not the ones on campuses and in the big cities, but the quiet ones in little suburban communities, by decent ,upper middle class, tax paying, veteran, republican, parents of them highly draft eligible long-haired hippy weirdo freaks. So, maybe it was the ladies of the National Trust who stopped the bulldozers. I have new and profound respect. And why wouldn't the same drive to stop the bulldozers and save the best of a community's built heritage in one generation lead to engagement in the technical preservation arena in the next? -jc (too early in the morning)