International Women's Day: Tuesday 8 March

[P. G. Tipps]

Did I ever say so? The gist of what I wrote is that there's neveretheless been an awful lot of it about over the centuries and if you can't see that then you need (or have wilfully put yourself beyond) serious help.

I wasn't around in previous centuries and I assume you weren't either, ahinton.

I am talking about the present day when we all agree (I somewhat boldly assume that might include you) that attitudes have changed from even a couple of decades ago never mind previous centuries.

The discussion is about International Women's Day on R3 and our respective opinions about same. It would appear, not for the first time on a public forum, that there is a clear variance of view on the matter.

Mercifully, there is no scientific or medical evidence, of which I am aware, that anyone who does not share your own general view of the world requires 'serious help' ... absolutely none whatsoever!

[MrGongGong]

I think the problem with Scotty/Rob/Tipp's "argument" is that it makes a fundamental assumption about music and culture then bases everything else on that (Scrote would be proud!).
There are plenty of (female or gay or black or disabled or white or Welsh or old or etc etc) musicians and artists for whom their identification with a group IS fundamental to the work they create. To assume (or in this case INSIST) that ALL music has to be transparent with regard to its creator is more than little ignorant of the myriad ways in which people create and engage with creative (and other) activities.

[ahinton]

I wasn't around in previous centuries and I assume you weren't either, ahinton.

I was around for some of the last one; weren't you?

I am talking about the present day when we all agree (I somewhat boldly assume that might include you) that attitudes have changed from even a couple of decades ago never mind previous centuries.

I somewhat boldly assume that, because you recognise that attitudes have changed (even though still insufficiently far), you realise that there were major problems in earlier times, whether or not you graced those times with your august presence.

Mercifully, there is no scientific or medical evidence, of which I am aware, that anyone who does not share your own general view of the world requires 'serious help' ... absolutely none whatsoever!

When suggesting that you either did so or were beyond it, I did not refer to my "own general view of the world", whatever you might think that to be...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Now then, children. Please play nicely.






Adding my two pennyworth:

In 1970, the annual election for university union president was underway. Up to this time, previous presidents had, as far as I am aware, always been men. A woman stepped forward as a candidate and put up posters saying "Why not a woman president?". She campaigned on this theme throughout the run-up to the election, losing support as she did so. Two years later, another woman put herself forward, and campaigned on student/university issues, never bringing up her gender, and won by a comfortable margin.

[ahinton]

There are plenty of (female or gay or black or disabled or white or Welsh or old or etc etc) musicians and artists for whom their identification with a group IS fundamental to the work they create. To assume (or in this case INSIST) that ALL music has to be transparent with regard to its creator is more than little ignorant of the myriad ways in which people create and engage with creative (and other) activities.

True as that may be, there are also plenty from whom it is not, but that's not quite the point, really; if one particular group is or has been treated adversely in ways designed to discourage or confined their artistic activity that's always a bad thing both for those for whom such a sense of identification is fundamental and for those for whom it's not.

I think the problem with Scotty/Rob/Tipp's "argument" is that it makes a fundamental assumption about music and culture then bases everything else on that (Scrote would be proud!).

I do not imagine that the sidelining of women as composers is something that Prof. Scruton would either advocate today or condone in history, but please leave "Rob" out of it, because he isn't real. Oh, hang on a minute...

[ahinton]

Now then, children. Please play nicely

...but compose just how you want!

In 1970, the annual election for university union president was underway. Up to this time, previous presidents had, as far as I am aware, always been men. A woman stepped forward as a candidate and put up posters saying "Why not a woman president?". She campaigned on this theme throughout the run-up to the election, losing support as she did so. Two years later, another woman put herself forward, and campaigned on student/university issues, never bringing up her gender, and won by a comfortable margin.

Good point in principle but, given that, in each case, it was clear that the candidates were women, can you really be certain that the one who pushed that fact loudly lost purely because she did and the one who didn't do so won purely because she didn't?

[french frank]

Just a thought: being 'gender-blind' means you don't notice when there aren't (m)any women, doesn't it?

[jean]

Good point in principle but, given that, in each case, it was clear that the candidates were women, can you really be certain that the one who pushed that fact loudly lost purely because she did and the one who didn't do so won purely because she didn't?

You can't.

As an attempt to show that all women need to do to achieve success in whatever field is to shut up about being women, it's suspiciously short on detail.

[ahinton]

You can't.

As an attempt to show that all women need to do to achieve success in whatever field is to shut up about being women, it's suspiciously short on detail.

Well, it is indeed, although I don't think tht EA went quite that far!

At the risk of repeating the b***d**g obvious, one of the daft things about all of this is that one can never tell that a piece of music has been composed by a woman just by listening to it in any case.

[ahinton]

Just a thought: being 'gender-blind' means you don't notice when there aren't (m)any women, doesn't it?

It's hard to see how it could do otherwise, though someone here might just provide Tipps as to how the dangers of this might be avoided....

[jean]

Just a thought: being 'gender-blind' means you don't notice when there aren't (m)any women, doesn't it?

I think that's the point.

[Richard Barrett]

Just a thought: being 'gender-blind' means you don't notice when there aren't (m)any women, doesn't it?

Being "gender-blind" is a way of saying things are OK and don't need to change, which is all very well if you belong to the dominant group. In academic circles, for example, there is a growing body of opinion that men should refuse to sit on conference panels that don't include at least one woman. This seems to me an embarrassingly minimal demand. Yet there are still many (men) who don't accept the relevance of it - because, I presume, they're "gender-blind".

[jean]

Being "gender-blind" is a way of saying things are OK and don't need to change, which is all very well if you belong to the dominant group...

That's exactly what I meant.

[french frank]

That's exactly what I meant.

It was what I meant too.

That said, do we really want a situation where women feel they have to declare what they have to offer as women (re Alpie's example) and men declare what they have to offer as men ? That would seem to lead back in the wrong direction.

[jean]

Depends entirely on context. Alpie gives no detail of either campaign, which means that as an illustration of anything it can hardly be taken seriously.

As it stands, it's just another defence of the status quo.