Jocelyn Wang wrote:

>Likewise, the same justification can be made for choirs that are
>exclusively of one gender, paid or not.  The sexes have distinctly
>different voices and therefore sing differently.  However, is there any
>difference in the way they play musical instruments? Of course not, and,
>if there were, a case could be made for excluding one or the other.  Given
>that women have borne and continue to bear the brunt of most sexism, they
>would be the ones likely to suffer the most.  However, if there is any
>difference in the way they play musical instruments, I, for one, have yet
>to see any concrete examples.

Ms Wang is correct.  There is no discernable difference in the way males
and females play musical instruments.  The musical prowess of male vs
female is not in question -- at least not by me and certainly not by Ms.
Wang.

That, however, is NOT the point.  Never has been.  The point is this: some
(not all) formerly all-male orchestras would wish to return to a single
gender condition and some (not all) currently all-male orchestras would
like to remain single gender.  Why? Certainly not because of any real or
perceived inferiority in female players.  Rather, the males feel (rightly
or wrongly) that they perform, rehearse and travel better as an ensemble of
single gender.

Now whether or not you (or I) think that such a notion has any validity
makes little difference.  The notion nonetheless remains.  And until Ms.
Wang -- and many others -- divest themselves of the belief that the
argument put forth by the single-gender proponents is base largely or
solely upon some inherent inferiority amongst female musicians, this
argument is stalled.

It must be said, also, that -- given that this notion has any validity at
all -- the logic of gender-exclusion stands on rather firm ground.  It also
provides the topic for an interesting discussion.  Let's just leave the
"discrimination baggage" at the door please.

David Pitzer