Re: And why. . .? (long)

[from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]

mpresley wrote:
> Canyon Rick wrote:
>
>
> > And why do women not post to this group?  Are we all sexist pigs here?
>
>
> Good question.  But first, 'all men and sexists pigs' is pretty much a
> tautology.  As my wife tells me, "When it comes to men there's plenty of
> bacon to go around."
>
> Maybe it's a Usenet thing.  I usually lurk the Jeep newsgroup and a couple
> of geek groups.  Strangely, I think I've seen more women in the Jeep group
> than anything else.  (Of course, there's an old saying that it's almost
> impossible to have sex in a Jeep.  Maybe they feel safer because of that,
> or maybe they are just looking for really adventurous men--beats me). 

I'm afraid it may be a curious dynamic within certain Wagner groups
both online _and_ offline.

Certainly, there was a curious dynamic in one offline Wagner group in
New York City that Liz and I got along with fine for well over ten years.

The group was roughly thirty strong and we'd meet once a month, rotating
the venue at a different person's home each time.  Likewise, each of us
were responsible, on a rotating basis, for giving a presentation of some
sort geared to be the catalyst for a lively discussion.  Usually, the
given month's presenter would be someone other than that month's host,
though not invariably.  The general age of the group covered everyone
from eighteen to eighty, although a plurality were in their forties and
fifties.

There were a few women in the group, including a brilliant language
specialist/botanist who, near retirement age, managed to suddenly absorb
a lifetime's reading, and then some, on the Ring cycle within the very
few years that she was a member (that "and then some" is based on the
simple fact that I have been passionately reading up on and listening to
the Ring since childhood and yet this woman is now considerably ahead of
me!).

Liz and I were happy to become good friends with the botanist from the
start.  Yet one of the rotating hosts resented her at first, even though
he mellowed after a bit when realizing what an impressively steep
learning curve she was maintaining.

After things had mellowed out and the group had seemed to establish an
even keel, Liz and I foolishly assumed (since, modesty aside, I had
managed to become one of the more dependable presenters there) that we
had enough credibility with the group to invite someone new to our number.

In fact, quite a few of the members already there had not been "founding
members" (unlike myself who had been there from the start) but had
joined later during the course of the ten+ years, having been invited by
one member or another to join.  So what Liz and I were doing in inviting
someone in was nothing new.

Ironically, the reason why relative newcomers had decided to stick
around was the lively, relaxed atmosphere of give and take that had
developed in the group.  Sure, there might be the occasional friction
that would develop from time to time.  But though it was hardly the lion
and the lamb lying down together, there was, for instance, an avowed
Marxist leftist sitting down with an avowed Eastern Orthodox monarchist,
and so on.  Somehow, a perennial curiosity in Wagner's works carried us
all through, and while joshing at each other's (philosophical) expense
occasionally "went down", it was (usually) in the spirit of boistrous
camaraderie, and that was all.  Above all, there was never any feeling
that we had to watch our backs.

So when Liz and I invited a Baroque specialist -- and a woman -- who had
recently become fascinated with Meistersinger and Parsifal to sit in on
some meetings and provide, perhaps, a presentation or two of her own, we
little knew how disgustingly everybody else would behave.

And it was disgusting and despicable.

It startled Liz and myself when a few members took the Baroque
specialist's remarks in discussion as having a belligerent subtext that
said in effect "I know better than you; I am always right".  This
impression of theirs was perhaps(?) due, unconsciously, to the flouting
of certain expectations primarily built around the _botanist's_ previous
behavior, which had been relatively obsequious at first until she got
her footing and then proceeded quietly to amaze us all.  Conversely,
this Baroque specialist felt no need for such a "breaking-in" period,
and, frankly, both Liz and myself naively felt no need for such a
process in her case either, since everyone had seemed so friendly during
all those years.  These were, never forget, personal friends of ours for
years who had constituted at least 75% of our social circle.  We thought
we knew them.

Try to understand, energized opinions and suggestions from _everyone_ in
a freewheeling way was the order of the day at each discussion session.
 Put bluntly, IT WAS FUN AS WELL AS BEING INFORMATIVE!!!!!!  It was
sometimes even rambunctious, and we all relished that and were grateful
-- I thought..............

When the Baroque specialist allowed her own enthusiasm to dictate the
manner of her remarks, it was no different from the occasionally voluble
remarks of, say, the Eastern Orthodox monarchist's, for instance.  A
basic fund of information and spirit of exploration dictated everyone's
enthusiastic exchanges, and the Baroque specialist joined in that spirit
right away like someone who had been starved for such feisty give and
take (very likely, she had been).  She was plainly happy to be
there.

Yet the occasionally emphatic nature of her remarks, not quite as
voluble as the monarchist's but still emphatic, suggested to some,
rightly or wrongly, a know-it-all attitude that clearly did not accord
with her frequent professions of open gratitude at how much she felt she
was picking up from the richly varied backgrounds of our invigorating
group.  Mine and Liz's feeling still is that these professions of
gratitude were genuine and that she was not trying to seem better or
smarter than anyone else.  Her crime, if it was a crime, was unbridled
enthusiasm, IMO.

Too many others, though, were simply not happy to see her there.
Perhaps because she was a newcomer, perhaps because she was a woman who
(unlike the botanist at first) saw no need to "hide her light under a
bushel", whatever, there developed a mind-bogglingly malicious cabal
against her.

One or two of the rotating hosts would deliberately leave her name off
invite lists from time to time (even though, like everyone else, she had
been formally voted in to the mailing list by majority vote [1999]);
some attempted to sabotage e-mail exchanges amongst the entire group by
surreptitiously snipping out her e-mail address along the way, cutting
her off from half of these discussions before a fair number of us were
even aware that she had been summarily cut out of the exchange
altogether (most would only realize what had happened when it was way
too late), and so on.

The chief reason why I believe there may have been a sexist element in
all of this comes down to the distressing fact that two men (both
occasional hosts, BTW, and one of them the one who had first taken such
exception to the botanist) emerged as the ringleaders in all this
hazing.  They really acted like bullies.

It's perfectly true that both these guys were nominally liberal
Democrats, so some, perhaps, might (glibly?) assume that sexism was not
necessarily involved.  Yet, personally, I don't discount the possibility
of partly _un_conscious sexism here all the same -- and a hefty dose of
hypocrisy in the bargain.

She only managed to give two presentations all told to our group.  Both
times she was accorded distinctly unpleasant treatment by one or the
other of these two men, and it was small wonder that they managed to
throw her off so badly that the quality of her presentation consequently
suffered.  Ironically, she is today a respected Wagner lecturer,
apparently, and has appeared regularly with at least two different
Wagner societies, having been asked back at least twice.  This suggests
that what our group saw of her was hardly representative.

The group finally busted up in a yelling standoff on Oct. 26, 2001 (note
how I still vividly remember the date......), where the two hosts who
resented her hauled off and, in front of anyone, accused the Baroque
specialist of sabotage.

Basically, they dressed her down in a pretty crude way, and Liz and I,
who had invited her into the group in the first place, were thoroughly
mortified.  But evidently the two hosts, who, BTW, had been friends of
ours for years (one had been a founding member and an usher at our
wedding), didn't give a damn about that.

After that, the two hosts took it upon themselves to reinstitute a
series of monthly meetings where not merely the specialist and the two
of us were never invited but others who had more calmly suggested to the
two hosts that they might be overreacting and who had still no great
liking for the specialist anyway were also kept away.  Even one member
who had maintained careful nuetrality was kept out!

Who's to say whether this Fascistic spirit is intrinsic to any Wagner
group?  Very likely, it really isn't.  I only know, though, that mine
and Liz's social activities were cut down by at least 66% percent after
that horrible night in October.

That said, I have to say that this unpleasant experience has left me
occasionally wondering (with, perhaps, only half a grain of salt)
whether or not there may not be a vaguely unconscious sexist element
latent in a fair number of Wagner groups after all.  While the Fascistic
thought-control element that emerged after our social explosion is
clearly pathological, the (unconscious?) sexism that may have been the
catalyst for all this horror may not be.  It may be more typical than
some here might imagine.

Thus ended ten of the happiest years of my life.

Sadly,

Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com