Why aren't there more women involved in this music ?

[RFKorp]

Just thought of 2 more women

Katherine Young - bassoon
Rachel Thompson - viola, violin (sometimes analog synths?)

[jkudler]

I'm reading this thread with some interest - since as Joe mentioned - gender politics in avant garde art is something I'm actively engaged in as an organizer. It's taking me some time to get through it all - so I'll reserve much comment until later - but I have to say - as perhaps one of few women reading this thread - if you're looking to understand why women are less involved in these communities - this quote from the thread ought to shed some light - ouch guys - this is a big turnoff.

Women are, generally, more interested in producing biological offspring than in cultural offspring.

Add to that any generalized statement about women not having an interest in or biology equipped for analytical thinking and I'm pretty much out the door.

Thanks for posting that list from Clare's site.

it's a million times easier to read this thread if you just ignore any/all comments like the above, or the nature/nurture amateur-evolutionary biology stuff. all of schik's future posts may have an asterisk after them from here on out for me, but i honestly haven't read this stuff carefully enough to be sure.

is the listing of names helpful, gang? my initial reaction was that it was a bit missing-the-point to just reel off names, particularly if the point is "there's women. . . i can name one!", but maybe it's helpful for folks.

it is nice to see some new people coming out of the woodwork here.

-jesse

[mudd]

lists not so much, but links are nice.

m

[skrobek]

Yes, thanks a lot for the links and lists. It doesn't answer the question, but it's very interesting nonetheless. There's even musicians in Paris I wasn't aware of !

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

all of schik's future posts may have an asterisk after them from here on out for me, but i honestly haven't read this stuff carefully enough to be sure.

So should I asterisk your posts too, then?

It's ridiculous how what I said is being reduced to merely biology, amature evolutionary simplifications, turn offs or whatever.

The quote Bonnie pulled isn't much more than a simplistic answer to an idiotic question, as I tried to explain at lenght.

Still, biology came before culture, so if one trully wants to pose & answer the 'why'-question, it shouldn't be a suprise to any reasonable human being that one should start with some biology in order to explain the birth of culture.

Also, I've talked this through with a friend of mine who is a biologist : there simply isn't any singificant debate anymore among scientists about the question wheter male & female brains function slighty differently : they do. And yes, of course our surroundings & historical society also influence our behaviour. Duh.

Again, I haven't read any argument against my basic premises. People only use words like "turn-off", "simplistic", "unintelligent", "sexist", etc., but do not argue against the content of the statements. If it is such a dumb thing to say, it shouldn't be hard to refute, so please, instead of being judgemental & putting asterisks without truly reading/thinking things through, try to explain what is wrong about what I wrote.

[J.F.]

Certain phrases within that "biology-train of thought" sound generalising and simplicistic; then again, the way they are bedded into the whole picture you offered also to me makes it easy to relativate some things like that quote above, put some of that into a perspective that makes sense to me.

Anyway, I find it equally useless... focussing on the biology-side as well as completely ignoring it.


Su Schlotte (Köln?) cello
Christina Troeger (Darmstadt) violine
Margret Trescher (Mainz) flute
Eiko Yamada (Heidelberg) recorders
Tiziana Bertoncini (Italy/Köln?) violin
(predominantly with a classical background, certainly not at all jazz or some rock, which I find interesting in regards of this thread)

[Jacques Oger]

For people who like lists (even for those who don't)

Isabelle Duthoit (clarinet, France)
Irene Schweizer (piano, Switzerland)

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Anyway, I find it equally useless... focussing on the biology-side as well as completely ignoring it.

of course, my sole intention was balancing it. but as I said, the entire question is useless. the question how to lessen sexism in all kinds of areas is more interesting.

the question formulated in the topics title is sexist itself - why should there be an equal amount of men-women in everything?

[mudd]

Also, I've talked this through with a friend of mine who is a biologist : there simply isn't any singificant debate anymore among scientists about the question wheter male & female brains function slighty differently : they do.

there is also not a single piece of evidence that this is relevant to the discussion at hand. there is lots of evidence that trotting it out as if it were relevant is a chauvinistic approach to important social problems, though. it belittles major social issues. it provides a ready-made excuse for sexists, atrocity apologists, and more. it also serves to divert the debate away from social issues that have far greater need of discussion.

which is not to say i am accusing you of these actions. but if you're going to bring biology to the table, you're carrying that flag and people familiar with the debate recognize it as such.

m

[will]

all of schik's future posts may have an asterisk after them from here on out for me, but i honestly haven't read this stuff carefully enough to be sure.

So should I asterisk your posts too, then?

It's ridiculous how what I said is being reduced to merely biology, amature evolutionary simplifications, turn offs or whatever.

The quote Bonnie pulled isn't much more than a simplistic answer to an idiotic question, as I tried to explain at lenght.

Still, biology came before culture, so if one trully wants to pose & answer the 'why'-question, it shouldn't be a suprise to any reasonable human being that one should start with some biology in order to explain the birth of culture.

Also, I've talked this through with a friend of mine who is a biologist : there simply isn't any singificant debate anymore among scientists about the question wheter male & female brains function slighty differently : they do. And yes, of course our surroundings & historical society also influence our behaviour. Duh.

Again, I haven't read any argument against my basic premises. People only use words like "turn-off", "simplistic", "unintelligent", "sexist", etc., but do not argue against the content of the statements. If it is such a dumb thing to say, it shouldn't be hard to refute, so please, instead of being judgemental & putting asterisks without truly reading/thinking things through, try to explain what is wrong about what I wrote.

Sure, humans reached anatomical modernity before they reached behavioral modernity, but insisting that this temporal sequence is necessarily a causal sequence is problematic. If you want to argue for male brains versus female brains, find a concrete example of this that can't be explained by social /cultural / historical forces.
I think that the lists are great, a good reminder of how many women are involved.

[skrobek]

"more" doesn't mean "as much"...

[p_ano]

i can't even believe this biology thing is even an argument. biology is totally out. the singularity is coming, and we will all be connected.

let us rejoice for the many amazing and talented women who are involved in this music.

[ryan]

If it is such a dumb thing to say, it shouldn't be hard to refute, so please, instead of being judgemental & putting asterisks without truly reading/thinking things through, try to explain what is wrong about what I wrote.

Pretty sure that's been done.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Sure, humans reached anatomical modernity before they reached behavioral modernity, but insisting that this temporal sequence is necessarily a causal sequence is problematic.

Thanks for that post. Of course it's problematic ("messy"), but still, there are causalities, not? As I said earlier, the biology and culture (roughly : the use of tools, language is a tool - social relations before that were determined biologically) started to influence eachother since culture came into existence. I never claimed it to be a one-way thing.

Is there someone here who claims that biology isn't a factor anymore, nowadays?

If you want to argue for male brains versus female brains, find a concrete example of this that can't be explained by social /cultural / historical forces.
I think that the lists are great, a good reminder of how many women are involved.

Fully agreed on the list, I was thinking the same when I saw the first one. A much more fruitfull & usefull way to tackle the subject than the original sort of debate this thread has generated (including mine btw).

I'll try to get back for the brain thing, I'll consult the biologist first, so that there's indeed actually some meat on the bone.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

If it is such a dumb thing to say, it shouldn't be hard to refute, so please, instead of being judgemental & putting asterisks without truly reading/thinking things through, try to explain what is wrong about what I wrote.

Pretty sure that's been done.

Pretty sure my posts were reduced to 1 quote.

But, and this is more pertinent, it's also telling, and hilarious, that some point out that I'm generalizing (note that that 1 quote contained an asterisk under the form of the word "generally"), and that I shouldn't do that - while a word like "women" in the basic question is a huge generalization itself. Except for one thing : all women are genetically women, and that is (except for Jamie Lee Curtis) about the only thing they all have in common, so it's the biology that is the only thing that sets them apart from men. (If we would be able to bring all forms of sexism and even all culturaly generated differences to an end, would there be as much women as men, as active, as succesfull, as etc?)

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

"more" doesn't mean "as much"...

You're right on this, I missed it myself, I think I must have read it into to the question because of the tone of your posts, being rather polictical. I should have been more carefull.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

the singularity is coming, and we will all be connected.

I hope so. It would probably be a thrill to fully overcome our biological determinants.

[skrobek]

We all know that there are differences between a man and a woman's hormonal system. Probably those hormones generate differences in our brains' reaction.

However, no biologist is able to state the link between those differences and music-making.

Whatever he/she says, it won't be of any relevance to the question under discussion.

It seems African people run faster than white people. Their muscular mass is different, so there are differences. In general. So what, as far as experimenting with sound is concerned ?

Not saying there are no physiological differences. But until someone explains how these are relevant to creativity, who cares ? It's just an extrapolation, and one that closes the door to any evolution. Saying there's such difference in creative potential closes the door to any real discussion, because, at the end ofthe day, they're different, you know...

I think it is ALL political. Maybe I'll be proven wrong by a biologist who will find out how a woman's brain structure impacts on her creativity, but Its not the case afaik...

[faster]

there are causalities, not?

There are differences in biology between men and women. But using that as an answer--like the evolutionary biologists do--is deeply problematic: you have no idea what the causalities are.

Couldn't you also argue that the male tendency to compete should have been a deterrent to men playing improvised music (or some other reverse argument), and that, therefore, men playing improvised music are working against the prerogatives of their bodies? (Caveat: I'm not proffering this as a likelihood, just an example of how the "evidence" of biology and the demographics of improvised music can be related in many possible ways).

In cases where the only causal link between a contemporary phenomenon and an age-old biological difference is speculative, it's a good idea to remember that you're only speculating. I'd say it's also a good idea to think about the ramifications of your speculation: Is there any use value in this (strained, speculative) hypothesis? What negative consequences might it invoke? How might it make people feel? What behaviors and attitudes might it abet, what doors might it close?

[ryan]

If it is such a dumb thing to say, it shouldn't be hard to refute, so please, instead of being judgemental & putting asterisks without truly reading/thinking things through, try to explain what is wrong about what I wrote.

Pretty sure that's been done.

Pretty sure my posts were reduced to 1 quote.

Its exactly that particular quote, which you yourself singled out in bold as the most obvious answer, that I, among others, found "wrong" and thoroughly explained why. No reduction is necessary, and I, for one, made no blanket statements about your posts in general.