Archaeologica.org

john wrote:...2. Without free opinion, and free thinking, and free speech this forum is of no use to me.

john

For clarity, I would like to say, that I personally do not want to limit discussion about certain topics. I wholeheartedly support free speech as I would very much be upset at not being able to freely express some of my opinions about certain subjects which are important to me. Frank talk about sexual subject matters, race (whatever that is), politics, and religion as related to archaeology can be conducted so long as decorum is maintained and locker-room language is avoided. That is my point. As adults, we all know what is socially acceptable. Posters do well to remember this is a public forum open to people of all persuasions and age groups. I say keep it professional.

I don't have any particular problem with avatars. I would prefer signatures so that we know who we are addressing. My brief experience on the forum is that if someone completely violates what is perceived as acceptable they are called on it. It would be nice to have more women in the forum but I feel as though I was made welcome. Mine might be a different experience than most women as I work every day with my fellow trial attorneys and who are all male. Thier language and jokes would have gotten them kicked off the list in record time. Could be my sensibilities have been too ravaged by now to see how offended other women might be. Roxanne

Since I'm a woman i thought i should give an opinion.
I have four brothers and have been around construction workers all my life, meaning, crude does not bother me.
I think where ever I am or go I take the responsibility of what i say or do, myself. i can't regulate speech or anything else others do unless they are children in my care. Even then i take the light handed approach because when there are disagreements its best to let those who have a stake in it, battle it out.
I like this form. It was never my impression that women dont post here because some members are a bit over the top. i'd post more if i had something to add. anyway thats what i like about message boards. you can skip anyone that is well not in good taste or offensive to your sensibilities. you can also find the ones that do fit your tastes and it is better to me to have a little crude nome here and there as the ones that set fire and burn the place to the ground.
i should end this since im getting metaphoric but really try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. annieo

i'd post more if i had something to add.

But you do have something to add. If you read something and you have an opinion on it, pro or con, add it. That's what gets discussions going. Who knows? Your comment could trigger someone else.

See? Simple.

Whilst we're discussing the forum itself, I'd like to ask about the blurb:

Talk about all things old, new finds and anything creditably archaeology related

Specifically what constitutes creditably archaeology related - not being awkward here, just interested.
People talking bollocks or picking petty arguments and descending into bitching (er... that's not a jibe of any sort, I agree with Ishtar's original post) actually puts me off coming back here more than anything else but maybe that's just me. Well it's either that or I'll follow the threads (more common) without necessarily having anything to offer. There's a line in an Isabel Allende book I like, something like "never miss an opportunity to keep your mouth shut."

Sorry. Just got back from dentist and am stuffed to the gills with anaesthetic, so am possibly not as coherent as I think I am.

I always thought it meant that stuff like Britney Spears, O.J., Princess Di and tarot card reading should be sent elsewhere.

History begins yesterday and archaeology is a big part of history.

I always thought it meant that stuff like Britney Spears, O.J., Princess Di and tarot card reading should be sent elsewhere.

Aw crap. Now we won't have anything interesting to discuss.

Minimalist wrote:I always thought it meant that stuff like Britney Spears, O.J., Princess Di and tarot card reading should be sent elsewhere.

History begins yesterday and archaeology is a big part of history.

Anaesthetic has worn off a bit now so... point taken. I think it's a bit soon to start the archaeological research into Britney Spears. Give it another fifty years maybe. I suppose I was wondering because my angle is probably a lot more to do with anthropology, though archaeology comes into it in a fairly significant way. I just wanted to avoid getting balled out for not keeping it strictly focused on things dug out of the ground.

By the by, now that I'm sobering up, just for the record, in non-electronic terms (ie email or this forum) I only actually know one person with any interest in archaeology and he's a bloke. Further to said record, of my sprawling shelves of books with Mexico in the title, more than a third (though not quite half) were written by women, amongst which the two titles I've long regarded as the most groundbreaking and thought provoking are by Susan Gillespie and Jill Furst. And that's simply because they're just bloody good books that have both served to radically expand (and even alter) my understanding of the subject.

Not sure if that helps but there you go.

In our culture the subject of sex is a touchy one. (No pun intended.)
The problem is that in Archaeology we are so often digging into other cultures that did not, or even still do not, have the same views.

The long unspoken of murals of Pompey, and the common acceptance of bi-sexuality in what are the historic foundation cultures of our “Western Culture” come to mind.

With the merging of Archaeology and Anthropology I can see the need for talking about it if it helps explain the overall concept of the discussion. But I don’t feel it has to be a part of every discussion. And it may something observed only in passing.

I still remember reading in high school that a sign of hospitability in the Eskimo culture was for a man to offer his wife to a visiting stranger. For a kid that was brought up in a strong church attending family, in a white suburban ghetto, that was a real eye opener. I learned that not everybody in the world lived by the same rules as I did. I am now sure that was the reasoning of the editors to insert that fact into the textbook.

As far as female participation, I welcome it. They just bring a different point of view to the table. I remember reading a story about one of those old female statuettes that were found in Europe. All the men were pontificating about it and what it meant. When a female associate looked at she saw two things that the men never saw. First, she had her hair up in what we would now call a Beehive hairdo. Second, she was wearing a woven cloth dress. Adornment and the technology to weave had not been noticed at all.

Diversity of input is a good thing. But it doesn’t have to be a required thing. Or something brought in just for it’s own sake.

Point taken, kb....from Pompeii....Priapus.

Some years ago we had a lady of the old school over here telling us what we should view on TV and what we shouldn't, she complained mightily about some programmes, and whereas I agreed with her opinion on occasion I dealt with it somewhat differently. I turned the Damned TV off!
Nobody forces anybody to read what they find offensive, as to avatars that can be different as you cannot very well read the post with your eyes shut!

kbs2244 wrote:

As far as female participation, I welcome it. They just bring a different point of view to the table. I remember reading a story about one of those old female statuettes that were found in Europe. All the men were pontificating about it and what it meant. When a female associate looked at she saw two things that the men never saw. First, she had her hair up in what we would now call a Beehive hairdo. Second, she was wearing a woven cloth dress. Adornment and the technology to weave had not been noticed at all.

Am I the only one to find the above paragraph patronising?

Hey! Why don't we start a women's page, where the ladies can retire to discuss things like hairdos and dresses over our knitting, while you men get on with more serious topics over your brandy?

Minimalist wrote:Point taken, kb....from Pompeii....Priapus.

Min - In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with showing a picture like this if it's in context. What is annoying is when people are so obsessed with sex and women's bits (not mentioning any names!) that they view history through that prism, and thus distort it.

I note that you are in the UK, Ishtar, which is probably a help on stuff like this.

Over here, we had an attorney general of the United States, ( a religious zealot by the name of John Ashcroft,) order that drapes be placed around the statue of Justice at the Justice Department headquarters. The statue's crime? A bare breast.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... tatues.htm


Now, how can one deal with that kind of stuff, I ask you?

Minimalist wrote:I note that you are in the UK, Ishtar, which is probably a help on stuff like this.

Over here, we had an attorney general of the United States, ( a religious zealot by the name of John Ashcroft,) order that drapes be placed around the statue of Justice at the Justice Department headquarters. The statue's crime? A bare breast.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... tatues.htm


Now, how can one deal with that kind of stuff, I ask you?

Min, it wasn't so long ago that we were draping our piano legs over here!