Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 16 May 2000 18:12:46 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Linda Rogers <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>It is my understanding that the Women's Philharmonia, which is, I believe
>the orchestra that folks have been talking about, is an orchestra that was
>brought together for special concerts and recording projects and not only
>does it not offer full time employment to anyone, but indeed employs women
>musicians from a number of other orchestras. This is no one's main job.
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.
>In presenting a very special artistic program in a very special
>fashion--the music of women composers, played by women--they would
>probably be able to legally defend their practice as meeting the artistic
>needs of the particular project.
Sounds very much akin to the VPO's rationale for hiring only white males.
>Just as theater groups can defend casting practices. (No one forces a
>theater group to take applications from both genders for a gender-specific
>role, or from all ages for a role that has a certain age attached, or to
>cast a white man in the role of Martin Luther King, etc.)
A terrible analogy, as it implies that they only want musicians who play
like women. If the way the two genders play is fundamentally different,
then a justification can be made by orchestras who only want to hire
musicians who play like men.
>The women involved in the Women's Philharmonia are making an artistic
>statement about women in the arts in a visual way that strikes the eye
>and the heart. It is a performance piece.
Music does not strike the eye. It is a medium of sound. WPO is not
living by the same rules that it wants other orchestras to play by.
-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: http://members.xoom.com/culvermusic/
|
|
|