In the Holdsworth reading this week, he discusses various reasons why there has been a shift in theory to go beyond the cultural landscape approach for effective human geography research. One such reason is the almost total absence of women scholars in the earlier traditions of human geography. The fact that in much of the staid built environment and cultural landscapes, a male hand has orchestrated almost all of it, and on top of that, any analysis has been dominated by male voices, is an interesting thing to think about. I myself find that when considering the power implications on the landscape, I most readily think about race and class, but rarely about gender. Just wondering if anyone has noticed the power implications of the "masculine gaze" upon the cultural landscapes, perhaps in their wanderings on Crown Street, or otherwise? Janice Monk talks about how sources such as weaving, pottery, and quilting have been overlooked by the male oriented scholarly writings on landscape. How might such landscapes be different if gender roles had traditionally been reversed, or more equal? In turn, how might research and representation of these places be different? Do we all still look through the "masculine gaze" despite our own gender and despite arguably more progressive times? Are there places in the world where this male orientation is not a factor?