Are you a lumper or a splitter?

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Jul 00 - 07:06 PM

There's many a good tune beaten out of a dead horse

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: GUEST,Colwyn Dane
Date: 04 Jul 00 - 08:23 PM

"All music is folk music, I ain't never heard no horse sing a song."

Louis Armstrong.

Toodle-pip.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 00 - 08:24 PM

If you're into beating horses, better dead ones than live ones.

You can drag a dead horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

But I never heard a dead horse sing.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Áine
Date: 04 Jul 00 - 09:12 PM

If you beat a dead horse long enough, you'll eventually hear the music of the flies around a bloated corpse, and the lovely splat of the putrid rotting lumps of flesh splitting apart into piles of runny ooze...

Bon chance!

-- Áine (I knew though forensic classes would come in handy some day...)

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Little Neophyte
Date: 04 Jul 00 - 09:50 PM

Aine, that was really gross. Your description would even make a buzzard cringe.

Bonnie

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Áine
Date: 04 Jul 00 - 09:54 PM

Why thank you, Banjo Bonnie! It's nice to know that my sixth grade gross out skills haven't completely been lost to time.

-- Áine

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 12:40 PM

As to thread emigration, think of it more as 'manning (if I can still use that word) the lifeboats' to leave a stricken vessel. Is it still 'women and children first' nowadays? By the way, where and when did that convention start?

Ideally I am a lumper but there is no point in having a lump so large that it cannot be loaded by all who may be interested. For some reason I was reluctant to create Womens HearMe 2……..?

This thread was about grouping and there was room for more contributions. I was hoping that it could explore the question of why some groupings are acceptable and some are not? …..In a less charged atmosphere.

The lifeboats however appear to be (thread) drifting where they will?………..

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 01:57 PM

Clearly it's got to be children first, together with the people who are looking after them, in any real emergency. Which in most situations would mean there might not be too many men on the boats, though there might well be a number of women left on the sinking ship.

Fortunately we're not quite in that situation yet. (Have we had a Mudcat-on-the-Titanic thread yet?)

Thread drift is clearly continuing. But to get back on course for a moment (pending imminent shipwreck no doubt) - the only reason for objecting to a sepoarte group is because it might be oppressive. Which means the real question of what is oppressive and what is not, and who determines this.

I think a good way of working out what's fair and what is not would be to have a mind experiment. List a range of imaginary groups, then decide involve these kind of problems, and then work back to decide what it is about them that makes this difference,

For example, in the folk world, I see no objection to a dance team of dancers restricted to men, but I would object to them refusing to allow women musicians; however I would not make the same objection (at this time) to a women's dance team which insisted on having only women musicians.

I would object to a dance team of either gender which would only accept "white English" dancers; but I would not object to a team from a settled immigrant community restricting its membership to members of that community.

I would not object to a session having rules about the tradition of music which it focussed on, provided there were opportunities for different types of music as well, maybe on different nights.

And I see no problems at all in having a HearMe for women singers only, and I wouldn't see any problems with one for men songers only, but both of these would belong in a side room.

And that'll do for now.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: The Shambles
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 05:16 PM

"For example, in the folk world, I see no objection to a dance team of dancers restricted to men, but I would object to them refusing to allow women musicians; however I would not make the same objection (at this time) to a women's dance team which insisted on having only women musicians."

I would be grateful if you could enlarge a little on what point would you be prepared to make the same objection?

For does the not the longer you are prepared to make these type of adjustments to the underlying principles of equality, make the possibility unlikely, of actually ever achieving that equality?

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Áine
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 05:31 PM

Dear Roger,

these type of adjustments to the underlying principles of equality -- Ah, I think I see the problem. This is a horse of a different colour.

I do believe that the question of separate HearMe groups hangs on the question of accommodation, not equality. I don't remember having seen anyone arguing that so-and-so or such-and-such are not equal; only that certain groups (i.e., women singers, men singers, banjo players, etc.) be afforded the chance to meet together and swap songs and/or tunes. Perhaps, if you could consider the motion under the terms of accommodation, you could find a way to compromise on the issue?

-- Áine

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 06:00 PM

Funny you should mention bluegrass tuba...

Actually there was a Celtic tuba at Mystic this year and it isn't his first year there. He plays in Jerry Bryant's band FinestKind (not to be confused with Ian Robb's group). The band consists of Guitar, Mandolin, Banjo and Tuba. You haven't lived until you've heard Ashokan Farewell on tuba and mandolin. He plays right along on the jigs and reels as well. Very impressive.

I guess I'm a lumper. I only exclude excluders.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 06:39 PM

You see, what I'm trying to do is turn it the other way round. Instead of setting up criteria and then seing what fits them, I'm seeing what seems intuitively right to me, and then trying to work out what the criteria are from thta.

I think that's deductive logic rather than inductive logic. (I'm not too sure about that - but anyway, that's what a term like deductive logic ought to mean.)

So let's say I was playing in a band for a Morris side and they wouldn't allow a woman to play on that basis, I'd walk without hestitation. But if it was a women's Morris side collecting musicians, and they said no thanks - we just have women play for us, I wouldn't feel my nose had been put out of joint. (This is a thought experiment, because that's not the music I normally play anyway.)

Now tryingbto work out why I'd feel that way, it would probably be something along the lines - "There are reasons I can imagine why a group of women would want to have a piolicy like that which could be reasonable - they might be trying to get the message across that women can do this as well as any man, they might be wanting to include particular women who might have have had very bad experience with men, violence and so forth"

On the other hand with a Men Only band, those reasons wouldn't apply, or at any rate my assumption would be that they didn't. I'd see this policy as being directly discriminatory by people who wanted to stay in charge and enjoyed throwing their weight around.

Again, I could be wrong. I suppose it might be they had wives who had told them "I can just about put up with you going off cavorting with that bunch of yobs in funny costumes - but if I hear you've been having women playing tunes for you to jump around to, you'll regret it."

These thought experiments have a knack of turning into soap opera... I should quit horsing around like this.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: sophocleese
Date: 05 Jul 00 - 10:56 PM

That's interesting McGrath, approaching it from your direction.

I wondered a few years ago when I was speaking to some Rotarians who had just included a woman for the first time about why this grouping was particularly exclusive and needed to have women in it. It revolved around issues of power and influence. If the majority of people in a government are male and belong to exclusively male clubs than female concerns (or concerns which are thought to be female; like childcare) are either not addressed or are addessed only as side issues rather than as important central issues. It is necessary then to break up the exclusivity of those clubs, not only with token women but with people who weigh the issues in a different fashion.

A lot of the groups that you seem to find acceptable are ones that don't have clear, firm access to power or noticeable influence on the dominant culture. Fashion trends tend to be transmitted from the top down. People on Mudcat are clearly aware of the lack of folk music in the mainstream media. We cluster to gain strength and inspiration from each other and to avoid becoming a crowd of Alannis Morrisette clones. The people who represent, or seem to represent, the dominant culture are considered exclusive because they don't seem to need to cluster for strength in the same way.

The water gets muddier though when you consider questions of influence and hybrids. Riverdance had some influence on popular music for a time but is considered by a lot of folkies to be a hybrid of limited authenticity. For those who had no idea of that kind of music and dance it came as a shock, pleasant or otherwise. So a group of Irish stepdancers wanting to remain pure to their pre-Riverdance traditions will be considered exclusive by those who learnt three tunes from the movie and now think they are part Irish.

Then comes the knotty question of the mechanics of exclusion. Are people told bluntly, "Your opinions don't matter."? Do they work on a different sense of timing? Does A think that five seconds between songs is long enough and ten seconds means things are dragging while B needs twenty seconds to absorb the previous song before heading into the next? Is a difference in timing due to different cultures, gender, ages or something else? Are newer posters excluded when their comments or questions get buried under the familiar riffs, smartass comments and backchat that older mudcatters engage in?

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 06 Jul 00 - 08:26 AM

Lots of food for thought here. Being relatively antisocial by nature, I'm not all that familiar with the protocols or mechanics of many of these communal gatherings of people for music and dance, so I may not have much of a frame of reference for this discussion. However, I think it's intriguing what happens when our desire for "tradition" (so central to the Mudcat) collides with our desire for equality and inclusion. As much as we may respect and be drawn to traditional modes of expression, we also should recognize that there is a lot of racism, sexism, and other forms of exclusivity built into many of these traditions. This can sometimes force us to choose between authenticity on the one hand, and fairness on the other.

Speaking only for myself (of course), I will always put fairness and equality first, at the expense of authenticity if necessary. If women want to participate in a creative endeavor that is traditionally for men only -- whether it be a traditional folk dance, singing sea chanteys, etc. -- I say that they should be welcomed with open arms, and the tradition should be adapted to accommodate them. With any luck we'll be able to keep the elements of the tradition that are worth keeping, and discard the less appealing aspects.

I realize that this is only one aspect of the discussion that is taking place on this thread. As for other reasons for excluding people from musical or other crative endeavors -- relative lack of skill, incompatible approach, undesirable personal qualities, etc. -- I figure it's like any other closed party. In other words, if you want to be selective, don't hold the event on the town common (or on the internet, for that matter), and make it clear from the outset that attendance is by invitation only.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: The Shambles
Date: 06 Jul 00 - 06:58 PM

Dearest Keeper of the Book.

How about a tuba only HearMe session? Or one for horses?

My agreement is not important or required. To be clear I have no problem with themes, sessions devoted to single instruments or any other obvious division musical divisions.

An all-female grouping appears to have been accepted as a good idea. It is the reasons why this grouping is generally thought to be acceptable, when an all male-grouping probably would have never even been requested on The Mudcat, that interests me?

It is a little difficult for me to compromise, as the issue IS one of equality.

Well…You should demand equality……….You would probably request accommodation?

If I am being asked to accept that women have RIGHT to exclude men then I have to accept that men have the RIGHT to exclude women. The whole struggle for equal rights has then been a nonsense.

If I am being asked to accommodate the exclusion of men for the reasons given, I would point out that very similar reasons to these have been given in the defence of all-male groupings. These clubs, churches and organisations have been accused of being the last bastions of male chauvinism. I believe they are.

There are very good reasons, sometimes for loading women's views and input, as sophocleese demonstrates and Kevin mentions but you must always recognise when you do this that it IS sexist and a step both to equality and at the same time a step away from it…. It should be done rarely, with care, for as temporary period as possible, the reasons being carefully thought through and clearly sign posted.

It is an accommodation not a RIGHT.

Eyes should always be kept on the prize of eventual equality, a time when no one needs, requires or wants to further their gender or race at the expense of another's.

If we are confused, how do our children feel, trying to live and understand this double standard?

Tubby The Tuba (Mrs).

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Osmium
Date: 06 Jul 00 - 07:42 PM

And so is the human condition only a function of its ability to apply labels (splitters); male&female, black&white, tuba&mandolin, bluegrass&jazz - and then to apply general properties to labelled groups; immigrants, emmigrants, ethnic minotrities - and then to act on such usefull classifications; social class a,d,c,d,e - and take the whole human race technically forward?.
Labels have necessary but very limited use; where splitters abide make sure the show is run by a lumper and we can all go forward.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jul 00 - 10:12 PM

Everytime I see this thread title it makes me think it should be about jobs in the old industries. You should find lumpers and splitters in a coalmine. Or maybe in a loggers camp.

Butbtomthe point. I can't see any reason why an all male HearMe mightn't be quite OK. Provided it's not the only game in town. Male Voice Choirs aren't in my view any more intrinsically sexist in principle than all male teams in field sports. Men's voices sound different from womens voices; sometimes what you want is all men singing together, sometimes all women, sometimes the mixture is what is needed. Mixed Rugby just wouldn't be the same game. (Some might prefer it, but I'd be suspicious of the motives.)

Yes, I know that HearMes don't as yet have people singing together (and can never have it, except on a pretty local basis, whatever the technology throws up, because of time difficulties), but having the odd singaround that's all male, or all female, I really can't see the problem.

And getting back to my deductive logic, I don't feel uncomfortable with the idea. And the reason for this turns out to be that, in the context of the Mudcat, there's no power or oppression issue involved. Men don't have a louder voice in the forum, or post more. At least it certainly doen't feel that way to me. And if it did feel like that to me, I'd be against the idea.

I used to be a social worker. As a man, I was very much in a minority. I just can't remember if the men in the office ever decided to set up a separate group to talk about things, but if we had it would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I don't think anyone would have objected to it. The same went for for the small number of black people in the department. But a talking group specifically set up to exclude the minorities - that would mean something very different indeed.

So far then, I can see two circumstances in which "exclusion" is ok. One is where there is no element of power and oppression involved, and it's just for some reason like getting a particular sort of sound, or some kind of physucal equivalence, in a team sport of some kind (in which category I'd include some types of dancing); and the other is where the purpose of the exclusion is to assist a group which is in danger of being excluded (or even endangered) to play a fuller role in a community or orrganisation.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: GUEST,Barfy
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 06:11 AM

I think Shambles should prefix his all his posts with "Welcome to my home page."

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 06:28 AM

Kevin said.

"And getting back to my deductive logic, I don't feel uncomfortable with the idea. And the reason for this turns out to be that, in the context of the Mudcat, there's no power or oppression issue involved. Men don't have a louder voice in the forum, or post more. At least it certainly doen't feel that way to me. And if it did feel like that to me, I'd be against the idea."

It does not feel that way to me either and that is why it makes me uncomfortable. For if there is no power or oppression issue involved on The Mudcat, there is no NEED to exclude anyone to redress that oppression?

But how the hell would two white, institutionalised sexist males know if there were, or were not power or oppression issues involved on The Mudcat? For if only one person felt differently, we would have to accept that there were these issues, wouldn't we?

I take your 'deductive (Irish) logical' point about examining how something feels and then working back from that point. The problem with that to me is, given the nature of feelings, what feels to an individual like a nice idea today might very feel like injustice tomorrow?

That is why I think that it is so important to try have clear understood broad principles of equality, all stick to them and be aware of when and why we are departing from them.

It's a bit like trying to score the 'Golden Goal', when someone keeps moving the goal posts.

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: AndyG
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 06:57 AM

Keeping well away from the topic and inducing thread drift:

Shambles,
The tradition of "Women And Children First" began on 24th February 1852 with the wreck of HMS Birkenhead.

AndyG

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: The Shambles
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 08:26 AM

Thank you for the info and the link Andy……. Very much on topic, I think but I take your point. You are very wise.

Very brave, I was going to say men but looking through their ages they were mostly boys. They certainly all became men that day. In the very best sense of the word.

Do they have a song?

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: GUEST,Barfy
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 10:14 AM

No doubt you will write the words of one for us

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 12:29 PM

In a situation where there is inequality and oppression, it may well be right for the people on the bottom to get together in an exclusive way, but not right for the powerful people to do the same thing.

In a situation where there aren't any people at the bottom and people at the top, I can't see any harm in any special groupings, such as Women's HearMe's. And if it seemed there was harm , that'd be an indication that there we weren't really in a situation without people at the bottom and people at the top.

(And in fact we can't ignore that the Mudcat and the people on it, live in a range iof wider societies around then gklobe, some (most? all?) of which are a long way from being egalitarian and fair.)

"What feels to an individual like a nice idea today might very feel like injustice tomorrow" - so you change it tomorrow. I believe that holding to a firm principle can be just as dangerous as flying by the seat of your pants in these things. As William Blake said "Damn braces, bless relaxes."

Subject: RE: Are you a lumper or a splitter?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 07 Jul 00 - 01:00 PM

McG of H - well said, as usual.