Re: CHAT

From: HIPSource@aol.com

Greetings,

If the word "crucifixion" is being used in this forum in relation to my 
response to Mr. Brooks post then I must object, for it is a very strong and 
emotionally charged term indeed. I made every effort to respond to Mr. 
Brooks' several points in a clear and straightforward manner, and have 
received a long and thoughtful private response from Mr. Brooks which is 
genial. I will share some of his points with you.
 
Mr. Brooks has had garden visitors to see his irises and he observes some 
apparent patterns in taste along gender lines, an idea which he allows is a 
complex one. He wonders if the ascendency of certain flowers which he thinks 
reflect women's taste are evidence of the gradually improving status of 
women's rights and position through the century. He is concerned that if we 
maintain that in the old days there was no--how shall I put this--no 
difference in opportunities differentiated along gender lines--- that we deny 
the progress that has followed in this century for women. He feels that in 
horticulture women could get a toehold since it is one of the areas in which 
women traditionally were allowed some say. He remembers his mother's 
challenges as an independent woman, and her personal taste in colors. I hope 
I have paraphrased this material accurately, but if not he can clarify or 
expand to the list if he wishes.

I'm not a social historian and can't speak to the rights of women in this 
century with any authority. I will say that my impression is that a many of 
the women who were involved with AIS in the early years were women of 
privilege. The general garden literature of the period, however, reveals a 
good deal of new material directed explicitly at women of the middle class. 
The Depression reshuffled some of these categories.

I do remain unconvinced that the iris tastes of people break down along 
gender lines in any predicable quantifiable fashion. And I would add that the 
ultimate determinant of what irises are under consideration for awards seems 
to me to be the goals of the more 'notable' hybridizers who made and 
introduced them. These presumptively reflect to some degree their own 
preferences in color, form, etc., but not necessarily, for the system has 
tended to reward innovation and improvement of earlier models. I have not 
crunched numbers but speaking impressionistically I'd say that the 
preponderance of these 'notable' hybridizers have been male. Which may or may 
not reflect some latent women's rights issues.

Anner Whitehead
HIPSource@aol.com


    

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you hogging all the fun?
http://www.onelist.com
Friends tell friends about ONElist!
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index