Re: And why. . .? (long)

Geof. Riggs wrote: 

> 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.  

I've never visited a 'Wagner group' so this means nothing to me.  I'll take
your first hand observations as accurate unless I read otherwise.  I'm glad
I wasn't there.

It's different here.  First, no one really knows a Usenet participant's sex
unless it is offered.  And even if one suspects the sex, who knows about
that person's orientation? 

The original question (about women participants) was tendered with a bit of
comedy. My subsequent post was therefore in a kind of irreverent vein.  I
personally do not consider myself 'sexist', but I do recognize a
fundamental physical and psychological difference between the sexes.  

What is a sexist?  Someone who considers women inferior?  Not me. 
Different, yes.  But certainly not inferior.    

Still, I suspect that most Wagner listeners are men--especially when it
comes to the Ring.   

And I think it attributable to putative content.  Not the philosophical
stuff; but rather the trappings: killing, thievery, banishment, wild sex,
etc.  Think about the difference in gender between those that might want to
watch a Meryl Streep movie and those who enjoy the Terminator.

Finally, Newsgroups are historically male propagated.  The technology began
as an offshoot of arpanet (the male dominated military) and was built by
unix geeks for unix geeks--99.9% men.  It was only recently...umm...let's
see...probably the ubiquitous rise of MS Outlook Express with it's
dedicated newsreader that the masses were first able to easily navigate
Usenet.  

So, here we have a topic (Wagner) that may appeal mainly to men, discussed
on a medium that, until recently, was used mainly by men.  If my analysis
is correct then it's not surprising to me why there are few women on this
group.

Still (as David Hume made a career of pointing out) what IS is not
necessarily what OUGHT to be.

michael-gnu/linux ru224791       














> 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