Maybe I'm coming to this whole conversation late... I've been trying to pick up the thread and I can't seem to figure it out... Seems like it started from someone basically sending out a casting email to the list seeking an actress to host a video podcast show about Golf.
I think this is the first time a casting email has been sent to this group which is often more DIY oriented and tends to shun things like traditional scripts and actors.I don't think the casting email was sexist in any way... just sort of misplaced since it would probably acheive better results from a craigslist posting for an actress rather than to this list. Hey, if a video producer is seeking an attractive woman to host a show about golf, go right ahead. That's the person they're seeking for the role. It has nothing to do with any of the conversation happening here. Carry on...
-JoshOn 5/10/06, Charles HOPE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was at dinner last night, with 2 women and 4 guys, and the 2 women
totally dominated the discussion.
Why can't we look at people as individuals that are either assertive or
retiring, and quit looking at their chests for some sort of pattern or
correlation? I won't shut someone up because of their sex; so why
should I try to give them extra floor time? This is just perpetuating
group-based thinking.
I don't want more female vloggers. I don't want fewer of them either. I
wouldn't mind more vloggers, but why should I value them more or less
based on their genitalia?!
SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant
Individual
Use
Explains
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group videoblogging on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
.
SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant
Individual
Use
Explains
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
