Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
RE: Let's have a conversation about Women participants and and the Foro
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
Kalo
Posts: 400
Joined: Jan. 25 2011
|
RE: Let's have a conversation about ... (in reply to Escribano)
|
|
|
Okay, this came to mind that might help guys with all this Female stuff. For 8 years, I played electric guitar. I am tough on myself and I practiced my butt off. I can play Jimi Hendrix, blues, rock, etc. I even programmed all my chain of effects. However, back then what was REALLY offending was when I would participate in our weekly Jam nights ala BLUES!!! I would get passed up and would end up having to go last because no one wanted to give me a chance because I was a female. I might point out that this happened before anyone heard my playing...so, I would sit and have to wait HALF the night.. In the meantime, I would have dudes come up to me showing off about how well they played and make rude remarks to me that I would not care to share. I was told by a great mentor of mine to not comment on the rudeness and just let my playing do the talking.. So, that is what I did and as much as I don't want to admit this...MOST of the times, I would out play some of the men! So, I think this is the same for flamenco guitar...Women don't want to be brushed off and pre judged...We want to be given a fair chance. Going back to my rock guitar playing days, after I played I would receive comments like, "wow you play like a man"... At one point there was this guy who heard that comment and said, Dude, that is rude to be telling her "she plays like a man"... I realize this guy who was being "politically correct" felt that this comment offended me, but, I realized that this person who made the comment was just trying to be nice and compliment my playing.. I was not OFFENDED in the least. I will admit that I've read some insulting posts on guys dissing each others playing which made me hesitant to post more playing of myself... Again, this is just my two cent as a female Kalo
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 6 2014 19:17:48
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3457
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
RE: Let's have a conversation about ... (in reply to Miguel de Maria)
|
|
|
quote:
Another thing to keep in mind is that Kalo and Cristina, represent the females that have chosen to stick around here. We can only guess at the mindset of the (possibly) many that might have contributed, were it not for the prevailing environment. I think there are three elements in the prevailing environment that might keep some females from participating or that caused former female participants to drop off. (And, by the way, that add nothing to a discussion or debate.) A. The negativity, bad-mouthing, one-upmanship, and lack of civility that sometimes characterize discussions ranging from flamenco knowledge and opinions to off-topic themes. B. As has been brought out in this thread, the foul language that is thrown around and that adds nothing to the discussion. C. Finally (and related to B, above), the sometimes juvenile use of language describing body parts and bodily functions that (as I have noted in previous posts on this thread) would lead one to believe that the membership consists of 12-year old school boys telling "potty jokes" on the playground. Intuitively and without evidence, I would hazard a guess that "C" might be the most important reason women stay away. After all, what mature, thoughtful woman wants to share her thoughts and opinions with a group of grown men acting like 12-year old schoolboys? It might be that they are not overly "offended" by such conduct; rather, it may be that they want to participate and interact with mature men who display a certain decorum in discussing various topics. That Kalo and Cristina hang on is a credit to their tenacity and their ability to discern that the Foro consists of more than grown men acting like schoolboys. But how many women may have read the Foro and were turned off by the comments they initially encountered? Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East." --Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 6 2014 22:47:48
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
RE: Let's have a conversation about ... (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
There, another example of incongruency. You were saying that you don´t want negativity. I then pointed out how you wish no negativity before desastrous background. With you then evading into what kind of negativity you would not be wanting ( -> "tunneled"), whereas a congruent and honest reply would have been that you just prefer to fade out negative news of the world. And what the "tunnel-vision negativity" is concerned, it makes me wondering what kind of media you consume, or how you do. For my part, curently vastly limited to online presentation of "Der Spiegel" and "Die Zeit" as well as news and docus of a German states TV-channel ( ZDF), I am supplied with "relentless" ( is that the term?) reports of destruction and ( upcoming) escalation. With scientific findings on environmental decay all the time and ever faster surpassing former predictions, whilst on the political field a race on mineral resources is leading to confrontation all over Asia, Europe and the USA. ( Just last weeks info on fished-out and waste / mercury toxicated oceans, extincting species, shrunk Amazonas Basin etc. and on political aggravation has been extremely alarming material for hours on end.) How would your "intellectually vibrant discussion" allow for anything less than that? Would that be like with one forum member who sometime ago down-played climate change and the increased occurance of hurricans in the USA by saying that nothing had changed? ( With me wondering if that person would still keep neglecting, now that no meteorologist should dare to utter such deliberate blind man's buff.) - The USA have been ranking first in the world with denying the ecological desaster and with casting propaganda films to the people in US according to which for instance CO² issues were inventions of economical competitors who were merely aiming to sabotage US economics by requesting environmental investments into pollution filtering etc. And so it mustn´t wonder that you as employee of US adminstration might have been aligned to that agenda for the past decades. However, your still retained vision of a significantly lesser effected world makes me wonder if the mainstream media in the USA are still covering up the ecological situation. Are they, or is it just that you prefer to skip corresponding reports / negativity? Ruphus
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 7 2014 13:25:14
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
RE: Let's have a conversation about ... (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
Very funny! "On topic" like evading to ad hominem vulgarity whenever been proven of inconsistency. Or like going off with collegial grudge in a thread about wood, etc. Off topic is not the issue, and for "intellectually vibrant discussions" participants should before all be aiming to ensure distinguishing between subjective precondition like wishful thinking / rejection of wordly facts and coherences and what could be a sincere debate. And last not least, the skill of keeping up a logical string in an argument wouldn´t hurt either. - When truely enslaving oneself to factual priority there remains so much of erring still, but when tailoring perception ( or rather exclusion for that matter) to personal preference and jumping from one blocked logical aspect to another to escape unwanted meanings ... it makes for no bowing to reality, let alone for an "intellectually vibrant" one. From what I think to see, the most vibrant rejection here on the foro, just as in life, ( apart of religious controversies) seems to be happening when political / societal infamy and specially the ecological state are mentioned. ( Things for most solidly documented and there to stay.) Reaction to it basically coming in with buddhist principle, obviously assuming what be faded out will not be in existance either. I don´t know about vibrancy, but intellectual such mental proceeding certainly isn´t. Rather does it seem to me like escaping stand of tailoring. Ruphus
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Aug. 8 2014 10:09:24
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.09375 secs.
|