International Women's Day: Tuesday 8 March

[P. G. Tipps]

It seems you failed to notice the thread title, Tippsy.

On the contrary, my comments seem pretty on-topic to me ... indeed given the thread title those could hardly be more so!

I'm with those (both men and women) who find International Women's Day horribly patronising at best and nothing less than an elitist, socio-political agenda at worst.

You see, the only thing that matters (at least to me) is the art, not an artist's gender or whether they are "sexually available (welcomed or enforced)".

Is that now deemed by some members to be a curiously old-fashioned view?

[kea]

Could it also be said that the position of women in society took a step backwards after the Enlightenment?

It's quite possible. Recent history has shown that practically every time women gain back certain rights from which men previously restricted them, men undertake a massive backlash against women (or more accurately against men's loss of power). Most of the 19th century seems to have marked a series of reversals against the social changes of the Enlightenment in other respects—eg the rise of nationalism, backlash against atheism & freethought, republicanism giving way to imperialism etc.

It's notable that women (as a class) are always the Enemy that men of all political, religious and national persuasions will band together to attack. For instance in the present day we have religious conservatives (whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc) on one side of things trying to make women private property, and liberal men on the other side trying to make women public property (eg through porn, prostitution, narrow cultural definitions of femininity, etc...). Classical musicians—including female ones—have tended to fall on the conservative side of things, but this basic attitude also exists in the few liberals. I'm even less of a historian, so in the 19th century I'm not sure what the backlash looked like, but I imagine it was a similar form of pincer movement.

FHG seems to have the measure of things I think.

[kea]

What's your view of female 'groupies', for instance?

Most female "groupies" are children. Quite a lot of them are the victims of rape by male artists; almost never is the male artist prosecuted for it. (The attitude that the art is more important than the faults of the person who made it is certainly one thing keeping them out of prison.) It's an ingrained subcultural problem and has been for a long time. You couldn't have come up with a more tasteless and inappropriate comparison if you'd tried.

[MrGongGong]

You see, the only thing that matters (at least to me) is the art, not an artist's gender or whether they are "sexually available (welcomed or enforced)".

So what if the art is about gender? (and i'm not referring to the Javanese instrument)

Parading your ignorance doesn't make your "arguments" any more compelling.

http://music.ucsc.edu/sites/default/files/22.OliverosDontCallThemLadies.pdf

[french frank]

I'm with those (both men and women) who find International Women's Day horribly patronising at best and nothing less than an elitist, socio-political agenda at worst.

It seems to me that your ideas embody the entire reason why - sadly - an International Women's Day was seen as necessary in the first place. There was an 'elitist socio-political agenda' in place for centuries which successfully pushed women into the domestic environment where they 'belonged'. Now such socio-political elitists protest because attitudes have changed. IMO, of course.

[MrGongGong]

It seems to me that your ideas embody the entire reason why - sadly - an International Women's Day was seen as necessary in the first place. There was an 'elitist socio-political agenda' in place for centuries which successfully pushed women into the domestic environment where they 'belonged'. Now such socio-political elitists protest because attitudes have changed. IMO, of course.

[Richard Barrett]

Now such socio-political elitists protest because attitudes have changed. IMO, of course.

I would say that was fairly well established fact rather than opinion!

[french frank]

I would say that was fairly well established fact rather than opinion!

A fact that attitudes have changed, yes, but far be it from me to "know" why any people, elitists or whoever, do anything

[P. G. Tipps]

A fact that attitudes have changed, yes, but far be it from me to "know" why any people, elitists or whoever, do anything

I think at least I'm on safe ground here by readily agreeing that attitudes have certainly changed ... and it's a pretty safe bet that when we are all dead and gone these will have changed again. Such are the ways of the world.

However, I believe kea's post indicates exactly what I mean by a socio-political agenda (whether one subscribes to it or not), or at least there are factors in play that have little or nothing to do with the worth of a particular piece of art.

I simply think one's gender is irrelevant as I would one's race or religion (or lack of it). If the BBC really thinks women composers and artists don't get a fair deal the answer is obvious ... promote more of them alongside their male counterparts over a season, not in an annual display of blatant gender-apartheid. Then let the listener judge on merit and nothing else.

That's all.

[Richard Barrett]

I simply think one's gender is irrelevant as I would one's race

It is of course only possible for you to simply think that because you are a white man.

[jean]

...I believe kea's post indicates exactly what I mean by a socio-political agenda (whether one subscribes to it or not)...

kea has made two excellent posts here in reply to yours; I have no idea how either of them 'indicates' such a thing

...or at least there are factors in play that have little or nothing to do with the worth of a particular piece of art...

Of course there are. That's what the whole discussion is about.

But there's the art that is produced, and never properly brought to the notice of the public; and as well oas that, there's the art that's never prodiduced at all, because restrictions placed on those who might produce it. All of these thing sare worth discussion.

I didn't reply seriously to your first post addresed to me here, because frankly I thought it pushed self-parody to the edge of absurdity. But I see you were serious.

Perhaps you should try to read the rest of the thread with some attempt to understand what people are saying?

.

[french frank]

I simply think one's gender is irrelevant as I would one's race or religion (or lack of it).

If only all men had thought that down the centuries, the near universal invisibility/inaudibility of women in certain spheres might never have arisen in the first place - given that, as you say, 'gender, race and religion' don't matter in spheres such as the arts. Now that such a disparity has occurred it's hardly unreasonable that many people try to equalise the situation.

[teamsaint]

I always find it odd when discussions of gender, race or religion as determinants of achievement, status and opportunity , then fail to address social class, other than by implication.

[jean]

This thread has been a discussion of gender s a determinant. I think that is worth discussing as a separate issue, just as discussing race or religion would be (which have also been barely mentioned on this thread).

The problem with addressing class as part of the discussion is that it can be made to seem, in narrowly Marxist terms, the only determining factor.

And then we don't get to discuss the position of women at all.

[teamsaint]

This thread has been a discussion of gender s a determinant. I think that is worth discussing as a separate issue, just as discussing race or religion would be (which have also been barely mentioned on this thread).

The problem with addressing class as part of the discussion is that it can be made to seem, in narrowly Marxist terms, the only determining factor.

Fair comment, but surely that can be a problem with addressing any determinant ?

In particular I had in mind discussion based in modern British circumstances.