James Levine

[Karl Henning]

Neither one, nor the other of these vague generalities is a person or an organization.

Very good.

What I asked for was a person or organization who/which hindered the career of a woman conductor.

I know.  Your paradigm is too narrow;  you should guess at that, from your leading question.

[Florestan]

Your paradigm is too narrow

Only in the sense of narrowing the matter down from general considerations to documented facts.

[Ken B]

According to some here Andrei, William Lloyd Garrison was responsible for slavery, because he was "part of the system".

You are demanding that people be treated as individuals and judged on their own actions. You should know that's not the way many here operate.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I'll consider the sarcasm to have refuted the concerns I raised, then.

Andrei, I apologize for having suggested that you do not have all the answers.

[Karl Henning]

Because, clearly, if I cannot point to a person or an organization, here and now, from my own experience, there is in fact no problem, and I am doing no more than calling for a witch hunt.

[Florestan]

Because, clearly, if I cannot point to a person or an organization, here and now, from my own experience, there is in fact no problem, and I am doing no more than calling for a witch hunt.

Oh, but I didn't specify that as a condition.

[Florestan]

Andrei, I apologize for having suggested that you do not have all the answers.

No need to apologize, you are absolutely right: in the case of my question, I have no answers at all.

[amw]

One cannot explain trends involving large numbers of people without using class analysis. This also applies to things like institutionalised racism or sexism or whatever.

[Ken B]

One cannot explain trends involving large numbers of people without using class analysis. This also applies to things like institutionalised racism or sexism or whatever.

Even if that were true you cannot use "class analysis" to prove the guilt of a particular person for a particular charge. You need particular facts about that particular person.

[Florestan]

Even if that were true you cannot use "class analysis" to prove the guilt of a particular person for a particular charge.

Yes you can. I said it previously, this tactic was amply used by the communists, who concocted the theory of the "objective class ennemy": it doesn't matter that X did nothing unlawful; s/he belongs to the bourgeois class and as such is an objective ennemy of the proletariat; therefore, s/he must be either put to jail or bullied into ideological conformity and obedience.

It is mindboggling for me, frightening even, to see this type of "reasoning" employed here.

[Mirror Image]

I can certainly see this happening again and very soon:

You don't get to make up facts even if your conclusion is right

I think I have had it with GMG. Sayonara.

[Ken B]

I can certainly see this happening again and very soon:

You mean people making up facts? Yes, I can see that happening again too.

[Mirror Image]

You mean people making up facts? Yes, I can see that happening again too.

Ummm...no. You getting upset and then announcing to the world that you're leaving. It's inevitable.

[Brian]

It's okay as long as we're just so wrong he can't resist coming back 

[Mirror Image]

It's okay as long as we're just so wrong he can't resist coming back 

Hah!

[Mahlerian]

There was no evidence whatsoever that has already been presented that Mariss Jansons, by his own actions, hindered the career of a woman conductor. Associating him with a perceived "regime system which supresses women voices" is no evidence at all; it is guilt by association which would be laugh out of any court (except, of course, the communist ones, as I said previously).

The argument given was not guilt by association.  It was to say that Jansons, by virtue of his position, is able to make or break careers, and his stated attitudes mean that he will be far less likely to help along the careers of women.  That doesn't count as hindrance?  Asking for the name of a specific woman who would have been a professional conductor but didn't become one due to Jansons' influence is a spurious argument that makes the line of inquiry that you opened up impossible to close.

Your argument, on the other hand, is guilt by association (this reminds you of communism, communism is bad, so this too is bad).

Furthermore, it is preposterous, given that Jansons's recordings, far from supressing women voices, actually feature them. Ask Felicity Lott, Julia Hamari, Sarah Chang or Midori.

We were discussing women conductors, not instrumental performers.

I asked "name individual X or organization Y", and then when individual X has been named, I asked for evidence regarding him. What conditions did I change, pray tell?

You asked for a name, and a name was provided.  In fact, the evidence for that name had already been presented in the discussion of his attitudes.  You are simply demanding more evidence when your initial conditions were already satisfied, without any acknowledgement that they were in fact satisfied.

[Pat B]

It was to say that Jansons, by virtue of his position, is able to make or break careers, and his stated attitudes mean that he will be far less likely to help along the careers of women.

Aside from whether he individually helps women in their careers, his statement was directly discouraging to aspiring women conductors in general.

I don't remember how we segued from Levine to Jansons — their situations are not really comparable. I don't think Jansons's career is at immediate risk. But it would be nice to see his subsequent assurance of support put into visible action.

[Ken B]

Aside from whether he individually helps women in their careers, his statement was directly discouraging to aspiring women conductors in general.

I don't remember how we segued from Levine to Jansons 

Because the only thing worse than repeatedly committing statutory rape is having outdated attitudes.

[Florestan]

Jansons, by virtue of his position, is able to make or break careers, and his stated attitudes mean that he will be far less likely to help along the careers of women.  That doesn't count as hindrance? 

Not by a long stretch of imagination. Now it's not even guilt by association anymore, it's guilt by "it might happen".  Boggles the mind, but by now I have accustomed myself to that.

You asked for a name, and a name was provided.  In fact, the evidence for that name had already been presented in the discussion of his attitudes.

That evidence you speak about shows only, and solely, that Jansons holds conservative views on the matter. No evidence whatsoever, zilch, nada de nada, has been presented that he actually, factually and demonstrably hindered the career of any living woman conductor.

[Mahlerian]

Not by a long stretch of imagination. Now it's not even guilt by association anymore, it's guilt by "it might happen".  Boggles the mind, but by now I have accustomed myself to that.

I'm not saying "it might happen," I'm saying that it very likely has happened.  It's like saying that Trump's "you can grab them by the p*****" only expresses a hypothetical of what he might possibly do in a given situation if it were to arise.  In both cases we're discussing a situation that has certainly come up, and in which the person in question's attitudes have been made explicit.

Also, as I said, it wasn't guilt by association before.  That was you making that argument.

That evidence you speak about shows only, and solely, that Jansons holds conservative views on the matter. No evidence whatsoever, zilch, nada de nada, has been presented that he actually, factually and demonstrably hindered the career of any living woman conductor.

As I said, you have asked for evidence which, by its nature, cannot exist.  It is not a reasonable standard of proof.

To turn it around, I want you to name the key and duration of the symphony Clara Schumann would have written had she not been discouraged by society from writing it.  If you can't do that, you have given no evidence that she wouldn't have written one, and I'll assume that it was not possible for her to have written one.

Because we are, in the vast majority of cases, discussing careers that never really happened, it is next to impossible to give the names of people specifically affected.