Re: And why. . .? (long)

Elizabeth Hubbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]
> 
> ....
> 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

Sorry to hear what happened in your life.  I'm beginning to realize
that one of the biggest sins is to appear to be intelligent.  No
matter how innocent your attitude is, there'll always be at least a
few who will bear resentment.  George W. may be the most intelligent
of all, who knows how to get elected President.