LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for OPERA-L Archives

OPERA-L Archives

OPERA-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave OPERA-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: TO THIS WE'VE COME . . .
From: Alain Letort <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Alain Letort <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Sat, 1 Apr 2017 23:50:55 -0400

text/plain (91 lines)

Did I miss something?  I thought a couple of listers, including the original
poster, had written in earlier saying that this “news” was nothing but an
April Fool’s prank.

Cheers and all the best,


On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 22:08:41 -0400, Max D. Winter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>"So why, therefore, did he make this "proclamation"  at all?  The only 
>reason I can find as an even possible explanation is that  he wanted, quite 
>deliberately, for the House to come down publicly on the  conservative side 
>of a very controversial issue, without the House APPEARING to  dabble in 
>Well, actually, there is a very obvious alternative explanation.  (Obvious,
that is, to anyone 
>whose thinking has not been muddled by contemporary PC dogma.)
>The overwhelming majority of people in this country, particularly women, do
not want to 
>share a communal restroom (or locker room) with members of the opposite
sex.  (This 
>includes people who reside outside the State of North Carolina.)  So, there
are competing 
>sensibilities at work here: those of the transgendered, who want to use
restrooms based on 
>their subjective gender identity; and those of biological women and men who
don't want to 
>share a restroom with persons of the biological opposite sex.  The latter
sensibility is 
>entitled to at least the same consideration and respect as the former. 
Gelb chose the latter.  
>And given that the latter position undoubtably reflects the views of a
large number of Met 
>patrons, if not the majority of them (particularly the women), I don't
think one can say that 
>his choice was an unreasonable one.  To suggest that it was based on a
desire to cater to 
>"the conservative side" is loony, given Gelb's own left-wing leanings and
the PC sensibility 
>demonstrated in his silly no-dark-makeup policy for Otello, Aida,
Monastatos, and 
>(presumably) the Emperor Jones, Selika and the Marschallin's page in "Der
>Now, the practical enforceability of this bathroom policy - which, let us
remember, is not a 
>radical new policy but merely a declaration of the continuation of the one
that has been in 
>effect since the Met's inception - is another issue entirely.  But then,
the Met's policy of 
>people only sitting in the seat assigned to them on their ticket is not
really enforceable, 
>either, in most cases.  (As a great many Listers know and take advantage
of.)  Nor is their 
>policy of no recording during performances.  (Ditto, to some around here.)
 But those 
>policies nevertheless each serve a valid purpose.  As does Gelb's new
Declaration of Potty 
>OPERA-L on Facebook:
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to [log in to unmask]
>containing only the words:  SIGNOFF OPERA-L
>To stay subscribed but TURN OFF mail, send a message to
>[log in to unmask] containing only the words:  SET OPERA-L NOMAIL
>Modify your settings:

OPERA-L on Facebook:
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to [log in to unmask]
containing only the words:  SIGNOFF OPERA-L
To stay subscribed but TURN OFF mail, send a message to
[log in to unmask] containing only the words:  SET OPERA-L NOMAIL
Modify your settings:

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main OPERA-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager