One of the things that stands out to me is the fact that "the bands with even one female member is a whopping 388 out of 2000 bands". Like Samhita and Ann, I'm a bit appalled. I'm also a bit intrigued. I would think that there are a whole lot of social factors going into whether or not women would be playing in bands, including but not limited to how the culture at large influences who is interested in being a musician and who thinks they should be on the side of the stage offering their adoration, as well as a multitude of other factors that stem from both the sociological and the individual. After all, even in conceivably feminist-friendly spaces, the aura of the greater culture still looms. As Tina Weymouth of Talking Heads said regarding the early days of punk rock, ‘Women musicians tended to be treated like women drivers…if they aren’t much good, well what can you expect? And if they’re hot stuff, it is despite the fact they are women' ('RiotGrrl: Revolutions From Within', Signs, Vol 23, No. 3).
That sort of stigma has to be somewhat debilitating as an artist, or even getting to the point where one wants to be an artist. If that mindset is still prevalent (and I see no indication that it is not), then it not only affects women who are musicians but the men judging them. If a woman is auditioning for a band or even looking to audition members for her own band, wouldn't it seem plausible for social assertions such as the kind Weymouth discussed to be - even unintentionally - damaging? Are women in bands an example of another case where women are, due to the stigmas and stereotypes surrounding them, judged differently than their male peers? It seems likely that Dr. Bonnie Bassler's conclusion about women in science, that "women scientists have to achieve two and a half times what their male counterparts have to achieve to have the same credibility" may be also applied to women in bands.
So, assuming that the amount of women even interested in making music is less than men (ignoring, for the moment, why that may be), then it would make sense for the amount of women and the amount of men in bands at festivals like SXSW wouldn't be equal. But the disparity between 388 bands that have even one female member versus the whole 2000 bands available seems a bit high. And questioning that seems like a good thing. Which is why questions like this on the Feministing post:
"Would you have rather they skimped on the acts they wanted to to play just so there would be more women there?"
rather confound me. Firstly, it sets up a false argument. The argument isn't that the promoters should have skimped on bands they wanted to play there in order to maintain a greater level of equality, but why is there such an inequality? What reasons could there be for people wanting to have more male bands play than bands that contain women? It could be as simple on an individual band level as "The bass line in band X is better than the whole of band Y". But in looking at the whole, a different set of issues emerge. Looking at the individual bands is focusing on the trees instead of the forest.
But almost more importantly, thoughts like the one above only reinforce societal inequities. There is a scene in American History X, where Edward Norton's father is talking about how in reading books written by people other than the white men who have always made up the tomes of great literature, there is some disservice being done to those other works. In essence, it boils down to the thought that to highlight a neglected work means to undervalue or ignore a work that has already been considered great. But that isn't really how it goes. If all we read is Shakespeare and Dickens and Twain, we miss the bigger picture. And we cut voices out of our bigger picture. Access to public space is an exercise of privilege - the privilege to be noted and noticed. Too often, the already privileged occupy that space, because they are, also too often, those who control the distribution. So instead of griping about demanding the sublimation of the organizers' own desires for gender equality - an equality that may already be hampered by things outside of their control - we should be looking at how who controls the modes of exposure helps or hampers those who become exposed, and how that affects things like parities between bodies, parities between gender divides and racial divides and even the content of songs.
25 comments:
This post is really confusing . . .
"So instead of griping about demanding the sublimation of the organizers' own desires for gender equality - an equality that may already be hampered by things outside of their control - we should be looking at how who controls the modes of exposure helps or hampers those who become exposed, and how that affects things like parities between bodies, parities between gender divides and racial divides and even the content of songs."
What does that mean?
Instead of saying "what, do you want these guys to ignore who they want to highlight?", the question should be why (and how) are these the guys who control who is heard and seen? Why is that more important than more people being heard and seen? And, perhaps more importantly, what else is stopping people from being heard and seen?
The thing of note for me is not just who controls who is in what band, but who controls who hears those bands, and what we can recognize from learning who controls what and how long it has been that way - and how what we see and hear as 'normal' then impacts the make up of bands. It's a whole huge issue that is rather circular in influence and reason, and simplifying it to demanding why these guys should highlight bands they don't like is missing a huge swath of the point.
I still don't understand.
Wouldn't the organizers of the event (SXSW, Inc.) decide who makes the cut? Who else would decide?
And wouldn't there be a limited number of spaces, since the SXSW festival is only a few days?
Let me see if I can clear this up--
Yes, it is the organizers of SXSW who decide who can play. The event is over a week long, and it now encompasses music, film, and an entire interactive element. Petra is saying that it is stupid to ask the organizers to choose bands based on gender parity, and not on deserving groups (judging on music and performance). We should look at the entire picture--essentially why there are so fewer females in bands in the first place--and not on the organizers specifically. But she also wants to know how these organizers pick these bands, who they are exposed to, since that influences their decision. She wants to focus on the big picture, the influences that underlie the decision.
SXSW has become a huge influencer for music, and every year there are bands that break through, going on to become household names. (The Gin Blossoms were the darling of the 1992 SXSW festival.) It might just be the indie music press that deigns who the next great thing is, or it might be the chattering classes--those festivalgoers who Twitter and blog and whose aggregation automatically becomes a story.
Wow, MM really cleared that up. Thanks!
I still don't get it.
You're saying --
SXSW is an extremely important music festival, which is organized by SXSW, Inc.
There is some sort of gender disparity among the bands selected by SXSW, Inc.
However, despite what some have suggested, it's "stupid" to ask SXSW, Inc., to choose bands based on gender parity.
Instead, we should "look at the entire picture--essentially why there are so fewer females in bands in the first place--and not on the organizers specifically." [My emphasis]
But we should also specifically investigate the organizers' influences and determine how the organizers pick the bands.
Isn't that a contradiction?
...
Also, what's the result we're trying to achieve? Isn't it gender parity?
If SXSW is such an influential concert, wouldn't creating gender parity here produce some sort of gender parity in the "real" world?
Instead, we should "look at the entire picture--essentially why there are so fewer females in bands in the first place--and not on the organizers specifically." [My emphasis]
But we should also specifically investigate the organizers' influences and determine how the organizers pick the bands.
Isn't that a contradiction?
No. Because (a) looking at the organizers influences and determining how they pick bands is part of the bigger picture, and doesn't unduly influence who they want to pick. And because this isn't an either/or thing. We can focus on both the big picture and the little picture, but in matters such as this it just makes sense to focus more on the bigger picture, since that definitely influences how the little picture comes out. In other words, there is a bigger picture issue that then directly affects the smaller SXSW one. The question isn't (or shouldn't be) that we should make these guys take bands they don't want or like just because those bands may have female members or be all girl bands. First of all, it is their festival. Second of all, we don't know the breakdown of bands who auditioned for the gig. If 500 bands containing women auditioned, and 7000 bands that didn't contain women auditioned, it would be impossible for the SXSW guys to create any sort of gender parity, even if they took every single one of the bands even containing one female member.
The lack of information about the breakdown of bands who wanted a spot is a large problem, so if we were going to make any sort of judgements about these guys, we would need more information about how they came to be the SXSW guys, along with "how these organizers pick these bands, who they are exposed to, since that influences their decision."
The end goal is something nearing gender parity at festivals like SXSW, but if the starting point is so totally skewed away from that being a remote possibility, then focusing on making the SXSW guys put gender parity as a priority is focusing on the wrong issue. Plus, it is their show, and we don't know how they pick the bands they pick.
I'm definitely party to the theory that everyone's a bit sexist, but even if that sexism influences an individual's choice, that still doesn't negate that choice. Like, if I were to be forced to pick the best first wave punk band, and it was between Blondie, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, and Siouxsie & the Banshees, I would pick The Clash. There are two bands there with women front runners, and 3 without any women members at all. I picked a band without any women members, but that in and of itself isn't enough to make my decision suspect. I just think that The Clash is the best punk band of all time. The greater issue becomes when I pick a majority of men (or male bands) in every category in every era. But still, my picks are somewhat mitigated by the fact that there are more men in each of these categories than women to choose from.
It is a bit of a circular problem, because if women aren't being granted exposure then less of them will be in bands. But if less women are in bands, we cannot assert that there should be a parity of women and men represented at music festivals. This is a multi-pronged problem, so focusing on one festival and the people who put it on when major aspects of the problem exacerbate their own position is like putting a band-aid on a burn victim.
"It is a bit of a circular problem, because if women aren't being granted exposure then less of them will be in bands. But if fewer women are in bands, we cannot assert that there should be a parity of women and men represented at music festivals."
Yes, exactly. I totally agree.
The ultimate goal is to achieve some degree of gender parity, right? I don’t see how you can realize that goal that unless you encourage music festival organizers like SXSW, Inc. to select more bands with female members. Like you said, this is how bands gain exposure.
It doesn’t seem to matter what currently influences the festival organizers’ decisions. For whatever reason, the status quo doesn’t produce gender parity. The festival organizers must alter their selection process if they wish to cultivate gender equality.
Since there’s a limited number of performing slots – the music portion of the festival is only four days long – choosing more female artists would necessarily mean choosing fewer male artists, wouldn’t it? I don’t see how this is a false argument.
(The only other solution, as far as I can tell, is to allow more artists to perform, but that would be an additional cost to the festival organizers, which would probably be passed on to the festivalgoers.)
It doesn’t seem to matter what currently influences the festival organizers’ decisions. For whatever reason, the status quo doesn’t produce gender parity.
I think it does matter what currently influences the festival organizers' decisions. If what greatly influences their decision is partially the fact that there are simply less women bands - or even bands that contain women - applying to be a part of SXSW, it would be detrimental to the festival to say, "You have to take 75-80% of the bands containing female members in order to facilitate gender parity" or to say "there has to be an about even ratio between male bands and female bands/bands containing a female member". Doing that could (a) diminish the overall quality of SXSW as a music festival if 50% of the bands with female members are crap and (b) do little to influence greater gender parity if something happens like only 500 bands with even one female member audition. In that case, yelling about how 375 bands contain even one woman is completely unfair to the organizers. So it is important to seek out the salient information to see what can be done and what should be done. If the problem is mostly based on there being a parity of female musicians, then there is little the SXSW guys (or any other festival organizer) can do about that.
"Since there’s a limited number of performing slots – the music portion of the festival is only four days long – choosing more female artists would necessarily mean choosing fewer male artists, wouldn’t it?"
It would; but the organizers wouldn't necessarily have to "skimp on the acts they wanted to play" in order to help create a more equitable concert. That is a false argument.
But again, as I said, I don't think this problem starts with SXSW or any other music festival, and so boiling it down to the music festival without looking at the outside issues that influence those festivals is not approaching the picture from exactly the right perspective. If there are from the onset less women musicians, then passing the problem onto SXSW or other music festivals is in itself not a fair way to frame the argument.
"If the problem is mostly based on there being a parity of female musicians, then there is little the SXSW guys (or any other festival organizer) can do about that."
In this situation, there is little the organizers can do to achieve gender parity aside from "skimp[ing] on the acts they wanted to play."
I agree with you that SXSW, Inc. shouldn't limit the number of acts in order to achieve gender equality. But the commenter is not making a false argument when (s)he asks if this kind of "skimping" would be preferable to having such a pronounced gender disparity. To me, that seems like a fair question.
"But the commenter is not making a false argument when (s)he asks if this kind of "skimping" would be preferable to having such a pronounced gender disparity. To me, that seems like a fair question."
The question is asked in bad faith. It is a dismissal of the problem, and refuses to look deeper at the reasons why there is such a parity. I don't know what the women of Feministing want to have happen in order to change the gender divide among musicians, or among musicians who play at shows like SXSW. What I do know is that the question sets up a false dichotomy between bands containing women and bands the festival organizers want to hear. Right there the question facilitates a break down because it requires that more bands containing women musicians are automatically not bands the organizers want to hear. That is not necessarily the case; if I had a choice between seeing Jacob Dylan and Aimee Mann and I can only see one, I'm not skimping on the artist I want to see because I love both. I may, on any given day, love one more than the other, but to suggest that if I see Aimee Mann that I'm "skimping" on Jacob Dylan, that I am unnecessarily denying myself pleasure, is to offer a black and white view of the world, and of this particular situation.
"In this situation, there is little the organizers can do to achieve gender parity aside from "skimp[ing] on the acts they wanted to play.""
In that situation, they cannot achieve gender parity, nor should they be expected to. Hence the 'big picture'-'little picture' part of the post.
This post isn't about solving this particular problem, but the fact that there is no way to simply and succinctly solve this problem. This problem is directly related to the bigger picture and the history of the musical arts and of the gender divide in general.
That's why there is the question of who the organizers are and how they pick the bands they pick. Because without knowing those things, we are missing huge swaths of the picture, as well as potentially missing how festivals such as this employ the people who pick the bands. It is just as important to recognize who controls who is seen as it is to recognize the disparity between who is actually seen.
You’re saying that it’s unfair for the commenter to assume that festival organizers preferred the bands that they chose to other bands that they did not choose?
"You’re saying that it’s unfair for the commenter to assume that festival organizers preferred the bands that they chose to other bands that they did not choose?"
No. But what you just wrote isn't what the commenter wrote; the commenter, by setting up a situation in which the organizers would have to "skimp" on the bands they wanted to play there, inferred that the organizers would have to include bands they did not want to have playing at SXSW. I'm saying that this is a false dichotomy, that the organizers could very well have liked a lot of the bands they did not include but just didn't include them because they had an alternate reason for picking the bands they did end up including - whether those bands fit the feel of the festival better, whether these were the bands the organizers liked best, whether the band had performed at SXSW in the past, etc. The false dichotomy is between having a band play that the organizers liked and having a band play that the organizers didn't like simply because that band had a woman in it. There could be a range of bands that organizers liked but picked a different band instead. In this way, picking alternate bands would not mean "skimping" on bands the organizers liked; it would just mean that the organizers would have different bands there they liked. Which is partially why I think in order to make a judgement about the SXSW organizers, we need more information about how they put together the festival.
What I am saying is that no matter what the break down of the ratio of women to men at SXSW, the problem is more global than SXSW; that even if SXSW had included any group that applied to play if they had a woman in the group, then there would still be a gender inequality skewed toward more men performing than women. In this way, we have to look at the outlying reasons for why more women are not in bands, as well as tackle how to get more women performing at venues such as SXSW without expecting a parity between the sexes right away for reasons outside of the organizers of SXSWs' control.
In other words, we can explore and research who makes up the organizers, if that influences the decisions they reach when deciding who to include and who not to include while also looking to the greater societal reasons for why there are less women in bands.
I think I understand.
You’re right. The organizers may have “wanted” to include other bands.
I think the commenter’s point – and mine – is that there was a limited number of performing slots, and the organizers must have chosen the acts that they most preferred. Encouraging the organizers to choose bands with more female members would mean replacing some of those acts that they most preferred with other acts that they preferred less.
You’re saying that it’s not immediately apparent that the organizers preferred these bands. Maybe they felt that more male performers would appeal to the crowd, or maybe they were being pressured by their sponsors to select more male musicians.
We don’t know the selection process, so it’s unfair for the commenter to assume that festival organizers preferred the bands that they chose to other bands that they did not choose.
I don’t understand why you said “no.” What am I missing?
"I don’t understand why you said “no.” What am I missing?"
I was telling you that no, I wasn't "saying that it’s unfair for the commenter to assume that festival organizers preferred the bands that they chose to other bands that they did not choose".
I think the commenter’s point – and mine – is that there was a limited number of performing slots, and the organizers must have chosen the acts that they most preferred.
And I think that may be what you're saying, but that there is no indication that is what the original commentator said on the Feministing post; or at least, that isn't what s/he wrote. S/he made it a zero sum game, and it isn't one. S/he made it so that there were two options: bands the organizers wanted to play SXSW, and bands with women.
"We don’t know the selection process, so it’s unfair for the commenter to assume that festival organizers preferred the bands that they chose to other bands that they did not choose."
Almost. We don't know the selection process, so we can't automatically blame SXSW for the paltry amount of bands containing female musicians. We don't know if they listened blind, or if some kind of privilege came into play. We don't know how many bands with women applied for spots, and we don't know if the make up of the band - whether or not the members are women, are gay, are a minority - played a role in the selection process or not. The only thing we do know is that it sucks that there were so few women musicians and bands at SXSW. We don't have all of the whys. And without the whys, we can't rightly blame SXSW's organizers for something that may or may not have been partially their fault.
"Encouraging the organizers to choose bands with more female members would mean replacing some of those acts that they most preferred with other acts that they preferred less."
But who is encouraging SXSW's organizers to choose more bands with female members? I'm not; I'm concerned that there are not so many women at SXSW; but before I write a prescription for the problem, I'd like to know where the problem stemmed from. Ann and Samhita didn't say anything about SXSW organizers having to bring in other women bands; they just said "fuck that" to the fact that there weren't more women acts at SXSW.
And the commenter created a dichotomy, not a gradient scale; which was part of the problem.
However, even if SXSW organizers were encouraged to pick more female bands (which I haven't done, because I don't know how they picked the bands in the first place), I'm suspicious of the idea that they would automatically be picking bands they liked less. It could be like this:
I could see either Aimee Mann or Jacob Dylan in concert. They're playing on the same day, so I only can see one. I want to see Jacob Dylan, but his show is sold out. So I see Aimee Mann instead. I would have preferred to see Dylan to Aimee Mann, but that doesn't mean that I like Dylan more than Aimee Mann, or that I'll be doing myself and my ticket money a disservice by seeing Aimee Mann. Now, if the choice was between Jacob Dylan and... Miley Cyrus, then there would be an issue. The commenter seems to be skipping the relative balance of Aimee Mann and Jacob Dylan and moving directly to the alternate band being Miley Cyrus.
If someone brought the parity to the organizers' attention and they chose to do something about it, I would hope that they would pick an Aimee Mann. In other words, I would hope it would work out the way affirmative action things are supposed to work, where you pick a band on par with another band. Because to do otherwise would actually damage the festival and what the festival aspires to do, namely, be a great place to discover new music and maybe jump start a career.
"You’re saying that it’s not immediately apparent that the organizers preferred these bands. Maybe they felt that more male performers would appeal to the crowd, or maybe they were being pressured by their sponsors to select more male musicians.
We don’t know the selection process, so it’s unfair for the commenter to assume that festival organizers preferred the bands that they chose to other bands that they did not choose."
Exactly. It may just be that they are mostly guys, and just didn't recognize the way the bands they picked skewed, whereas as women and feminists, Ann and Samhita picked up on that right away as something that was missing and something that hurt their own enjoyment of the festival because it also hurt their inclusion in the festival. One of the ways privilege is demonstrated is by the things a person doesn't notice. On the other hand, privilege may not have played any part of it at all, and there were just simply scant bands with women in them. In which case, 288 may be just about all of the bands that were women bands or bands that had a women member.
"And I think that may be what you're saying"
I can't edit, so I'm just going to write this here. I DO think that's what you're saying. I'm not convinced that is what the original commenter was saying.
"I would have preferred to see Dylan to Aimee Mann, but that doesn't mean that I like Dylan more than Aimee Mann, or that I'll be doing myself and my ticket money a disservice by seeing Aimee Mann."
No, but it means that you "want" to see Dylan more than Aimee Mann. That's what preference means.
That doesn't mean you dislike Aimee Mann, but the commenter never said anything about "liking." Nor did s/he say that this would be "doing a disservice." You're setting up a false argument by implying that s/he did.
This is the part of your argument that I'm having the biggest problem with. You're insisting that the commenter "argued" things that weren't explicitly said.
(In fact, the commenter wasn't even necessarily making an arugment. S/he asked a question, which you're assuming was asked rhetorically.)
That doesn't mean you dislike Aimee Mann, but the commenter never said anything about "liking.
It was an analogy.
No, but it means that you "want" to see Dylan more than Aimee Mann. That's what preference means.
And I acknowledged that by saying I would have preferred to see Dylan over Aimee Mann. What I'm saying, and what you seem to be missing, is that the divide between my enjoyment of Dylan and my enjoyment of Aimee Mann is small, so it requires no real pain on my part to see Aimee Mann. The problem I have with the commenter is that this aspect of picking bands isn't acknowledged as a possibility. It goes right from Dylan to Miley Cyrus. Because it is entirely possible - plausible, even - that the organizers wanted to have other bands play there but could not. They may have wanted other bands more, but the commenter's language suggests that every band the organizers didn't pick is like Miley Cyrus to them.
You're setting up a false argument by implying that s/he did.
The commenter's argument is a false argument, because s/he is talking about something not present in the post. Neither Ann nor Samhita said that SXSW organizers should have picked more women to have women; they said "fuck that" to the fact that there were more women at the SXSW festival.
This is the part of your argument that I'm having the biggest problem with. You're insisting that the commenter "argued" things that weren't explicitly said.
And you're inferring information that isn't readily provided. There is nothing in the commenter's question that suggests that this is a preference issue. That is what you're saying, and you're attributing that sentiment to someone else. I'm going by what was exactly written:
"Would you have rather they skimped on the acts they wanted to to play just so there would be more women there?"
There is no "skimped on acts they would have rather played there"; there is no "skimped on acts they would have preferred to play there". That is what you've said, but that isn't what is there in the text of the comment.
(In fact, the commenter wasn't even necessarily making an arugment. S/he asked a question, which you're assuming was asked rhetorically.)
S/he may have very well been asking a question; but the way s/he framed the question was to either get the answer she wanted or get an answer that would look ridiculous. It would be like if I was late picking you up and you were mad, and I said, "What? Would you rather I ran all the red lights from my house to yours?" Right there, I'm setting up a false choice. The choice isn't running the red lights or getting there on time. There are other factors involved, like me leaving my house earlier. And the false choice is what that question offers, and a false argument is what the question would create.
But here's an entirely separate thing: I'm more than happy to converse about the state of this commenter's statement, but that comment (and all the motivations behind it) is a small part of the post. The question hit me wrong when I read it, but the premise of the post isn't based upon nor contingent upon refuting that question. That question was just one that demonstrated the simplicity I think needs to be avoided if we are to get any real answers or make any real changes. Everything I've said about the question I firmly believe, but I also think it is a minor part of the post meant to highlight something rather than prove it.
“What I'm saying, and what you seem to be missing, is that the divide between my enjoyment of Dylan and my enjoyment of Aimee Mann is small, so it requires no real pain on my part to see Aimee Mann.”
I understand what you’re saying. I think you’re inferring too much. You’re also using language that the commenter never used, and then attributing that language to the commenter.
You make a good point about the hazards of assumption – that the commenter shouldn’t assume the concert organizers necessarily wanted these bands – but then you undermine that point by assuming all sorts of things about this commenter.
You say that “the commenter's language suggests that every band the organizers didn't pick is like Miley Cyrus to them.” That’s an inference on your part. I don’t think the commenter’s language suggests that at all. Why is it fair for you to make this assumption, but unfair for me to assume the commenter is talking about preference?
If you were given a choice of fruits, for example, and you said, “I want apples. Don’t skimp on the apples,” it doesn’t mean that you don’t like any other fruit or that you think apples are far superior to every other fruit. It just must means that you want apples more than you want the other fruits.
…
“The commenter's argument is a false argument, because s/he is talking about something not present in the post.”
I don’t think that’s true at all. A follow-up question, by its very nature, asks you to go beyond what is explicitly present in the post.
…
“It would be like if I was late picking you up and you were mad, and I said, ‘What? Would you rather I ran all the red lights from my house to yours?’ Right there, I'm setting up a false choice.”
Let me offer what I think is a more accurate analogy. Imagine you wrote a post condemning the Israeli incursion into Gaza, and as a follow-up question, I asked: “Would you rather the Israeli government use only bilateral talks to prevent mortar fire?”
Of course there’s a whole range of diplomatic and military options beyond large-scale military incursions and bilateral talks. But I asked this question – and phrased in a kind of rhetorical way – precisely because you weren’t offering any suggestions as to what Israel should do.
I think the purpose of a question like this is usually to show that the person decrying a particular “injustice” hasn’t really offered any alternative solutions.
The fact that the questioner doesn’t explicitly present any options beyond military incursions and bilateral talks doesn’t necessarily imply that she believes there ARE no other options. In other words, the question relates to only one possible option. That doesn’t mean the questioner denies that other options exist.
…
“But here's an entirely separate thing: I'm more than happy to converse about the state of this commenter's statement, but that comment (and all the motivations behind it) is a small part of the post. The question hit me wrong when I read it, but the premise of the post isn't based upon nor contingent upon refuting that question.”
I understand that, and after giving it more thought, I largely agree with what you’re saying. You convinced me that we probably do need more evidence about the selection process to adequately judge the gender disparity among SXSW performers.
My only real problem is that I think you’re being unfair to the commenter.
By the way, according to my Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of “either” is: “Being the one and the other of two.”
On the other hand, the definition of “rather” is: “More readily or willingly; preferably; in some degree.”
The former sets up a clear dichotomy; the latter implies that there are other available options.
I understand what you’re saying. I think you’re inferring too much.
And I think you are inferring just as much, if not more.
You say that “the commenter's language suggests that every band the organizers didn't pick is like Miley Cyrus to them.” That’s an inference on your part. I don’t think the commenter’s language suggests that at all. Why is it fair for you to make this assumption, but unfair for me to assume the commenter is talking about preference?
I didn't say it was unfair of you; I said that this was my reading. And I stand by my reading. I don't even say "this is exactly what the commenter was thinking", because I myself use words like "suggest" to make it clear that this is my interpretation, based on the language provided. I do think you are reaching beyond the boundaries of the language provided and attributing motivations to the commenter, something I don't think I've done - mostly because I don't care why the question was posted so much as what the question says.
The poster could be anti-the argument. The poster could be pro- the argument. The poster could be trying to trap the writers, or could be genuinely curious. My problem isn't with the commenter, but with the question - how it is formed, and what it means. You use words like "prefer" and "rather", but the original question doesn't. That makes it so that your argument is one that contains nuance. The original question doesn't. It uses "want", and that's it. So to then infer that the commenter meant the preferences of the SXSW organizers or who they would rather have there is something I don't see in the question; perhaps that is what they meant to say, or intended to say, or wanted to say. But it isn't what they said, because they were missing the necessary words to say that. And since I don't know him/her personally, I can only go by what they write, and read what they write. And since I don't know him/her personally, I can't attribute any motivations to why s/he wrote the question in the first place. Nor do I want to. Because of that, I don't think I'm being unfair to the commenter, because the commenter is pretty much a nonentity to me. Maybe that's unfair in and of itself, but I don't think so.
"You use words like 'prefer' and 'rather', but the original question doesn't. That makes it so that your argument is one that contains nuance. The original question doesn't. It uses 'want', and that's it. So to then infer that the commenter meant the preferences of the SXSW organizers or who they would rather have there is something I don't see in the question."
This is WRONG!
The original comment is:
"Would you have RATHER they skimped on the acts they wanted to to play just so there would be more women there?"
This is WRONG!
The original comment is:
"Would you have RATHER they skimped on the acts they wanted to to play just so there would be more women there?"
No, I'm NOT! The 'rather' is in the wrong place in the sentence to make it about the BANDS! You placed the 'rather' and the 'prefer' in between the bands, demonstrating that the rather and prefer refer to the bands. In the commenter's sentence, the 'rather' is about the Feministing ladies. That is the difference; that changes the meaning of the sentence.
Post a Comment