Don Satz replies to Jocelyn Wang:

>>The fact that it is only a part-time job does not justify sex
>>discrimination.  How would those women feel if they were denied their
>>regular positions based on their gender?  Yet, they deny others
>a part-time
>>gig based on theirs.
>
>I essentially agree with Jocelyn and am aamzed at what a tangled web of
>work-place discrimination we weave.

I also essentially agree with Jocelyn.  In a perfect world, none of this
nonsense would occur.

>Not that long ago, women and minority groups felt strongly discriminated
>against.  Then, affirmative action was initiated to right the wrongs of the
>past.  Now, white males feel discriminated against, but the traditionally
>discriminated against groups still feel the yoke of discrimination.  So,
>every group now senses that it is being hurt in the workplace.  That's
>equality for you.

I think you've hit it - the general sense of injury.  I said it as a joke,
but are adults discriminated against because they can't join a children's
choir? I don't see this as that far different from the situation we're
discussing here.

>Personally, I consider the affirmative action route a knee-jerk answer to
>the problem which has managed to upset most everyone.  I do empathize with
>the women of the Philharmonic, but two wrongs do not make things right -
>the best that can happen is that everyone gets screwed in equal proportion.
>There have to be better ways to handle this problem.

I sympathize.  But almost everyone favors civil rights until money
becomes involved.  Most musicians lead a precarious existence, and thus
most musicians feel economically threatened both by the status quo and
by changes to it.  While the Women's Philharmonic programming and hiring
are at best make-shifts, they are by no means identical to the VPO's
traditional egregious policies of employment.  Behind much of the comments
of "shame, shame, WPO" lies the incredible assumption that the amount of
injury is the same - that men and women are equally discriminated against
- and that jobs going to women through affirmative action hurts the most
qualified candidate.  I've seen minority women hired in very tight job
markets (and the music market is pretty tight) for the cynical satisfaction
of affirmative action requirements, but I don't complain about it.
Affirmative action is again a make-shift, but apparently a necessary one.
Without it, as we have seen, very few women or minorities were hired at
all.  I can't believe that at least some weren't the best qualified.  The
WPO in this country, as we have heard, should be a relic in its hiring
practices but isn't.  I would suspect it probably knows that and is unhappy
about it, unlike (apparently) the VPO.  Women are still kept out because
they are women.  Having also been treated to comments on the worth of women
composers (most of those making the comments haven't heard nearly enough
women's music to exude the confidence those judgments exhibit), I'd also
say that the ghetto of all-women programming still provides a service.
Without it, we wouldn't hear this music at all or at least we'd hear it
much more rarely.

Finally, I submit there are at least two double standards at work:  the
pass I'd give to the WPO and not to the VPO is certainly one of them.
However, note the lack of comment on all-male or mostly-male groups.  For
that matter, note the lack of comment on all-white or mostly-white groups.
Subconsciously, we tend to look on these things as "natural." Thorstein
Veblen a long time ago proposed a theory of hiring:  people get hired
because of prestige or because of their similarity to those doing the
hiring.  I would add this:  women and minorities get hired for positions
requiring docility and subservience.  Although it's changing, it still
lingers.  Look at hospital staffing, for example, where same-sex units are
glaringly obvious.  Although we find women doctors among the males, we also
find all-women payroll departments (except for the manager).

Steve Schwartz