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

[franz bieberkopf]

i'm not sure if it's different in other countries, but in Canada, today, you can find countless instances where women dominate or are at least well represented (in numbers) in academic and artistic fields. i'm having a hard time finding any useful university enrollment figures, but i've certainly happened upon them before, to say nothing of my own personal experience over the course of an Arts degree and time spent in Arts admin, where i frequently find myself to be the glaring minority as a male.

any time that i go an experimental music show where females make up less than 10 percent of the audience/participants, am i to tell myself that all the other women folk are preoccupied with child rearing or meeting men with whom to rear a child? if that seems pretty flippant, well, sadly that's the bulk of what's being forwarded in this thread right now... that and very vague social generalizations (loaded with a great deal of truth, doubtless, but not sufficient for us to decide not to have a discussion about the other stuff... namely the music).

i don't often see the same sort of underrepresentation at a folk show, i don't see the same skewed statistics at most art openings i attend... when i go to the cinematheque or the international film centre i see lots of couples, particularly older ones... i'm usually going by myself, and i'd say it's more likely that i'll see other solo dudes than gals, but not overwhelmingly so...

what about those differences?
i don't think it's necessarily a question of whether or not women are as intellectually and creatively capable so much as it is one of where these capabilities translate themselves. Schik's right, difference is great. and there are differences that we aren't really beginning to address yet. (i should take a stab after all this huffing and puffing, i know...)

i question the good faith of the initial poster in this discussion, but, again, that doesn't mean it isn't a good set of questions.

edit: a lot of posts came through since i started writing this. i think Jesse is beginning to speak at this for one... but anyhow.

[RFKorp]

so, women are generally not creative because of their brains

as far as I can tell, nobody said that women are not creative except you. Men and women are creative differently and the manner in which many women are creative is not one tied into the same mastering of technology and creating of organized disorder that has led so many more men to this form of music.

[skrobek]

i question the good faith of the initial poster in this discussion

You know what ? I...

Oh, shit, I forgot, I can't answer:

do try to resist pointing fingers at each other, people.m

people being me... too bad.

[skrobek]

so, women are generally not creative because of their brains

as far as I can tell, nobody said that women are not creative except you.

I was answering to that:

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

So don't be such a Stalinist . Otherwise, I'm interested in the rest of your answer.

[ryan]

For the record, I'm not denying anything about the percentage of female audience members at gigs. I was pointing out that women have made significant creative contributions to EAI, and I don't see them as 'only exceptions'. Skrobek, dismissing/ignoring/belittling the contributions of women makes me doubt your sincerity in asking the question in the first place.

I find the 'biology' generalization completely unconvincing, and pretty offensive actually. I'm sure the majority of females I know and respect would as well. Human society has been working against our biological inheritance from the start. Gender lines are simply not that black and white anymore. I know plenty of women, of all ages, who find the idea of having children completely repulsive.

Will's post I agree with.

[jon abbey]

I find the 'biology' generalization completely unconvincing, and pretty offensive actually. I'm sure the majority of females I know and respect would as well. Human society has been working against our biological inheritance from the start. Gender lines are simply not that black and white anymore. I know plenty of women, of all ages, who find the idea of having children completely repulsive.

I pretty much agree with this also, but since I don't have better explanations, it's hard to argue too strenuously against it.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

so, women are generally not creative because of their brains

as far as I can tell, nobody said that women are not creative except you.

I was answering to that:

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

So don't be such a Stalinist.

Since you are the one who again uses a straw man, I'd say you'd resemble Stalin more then RFKorp at this point.

I did not say women are generally not creative. Should I capitalize that?

I just said that, generally, the interests of women differ slightly from those of men, partially because they have a different biological system. I can't say it more clearer and more objective then that. If you wan't to keep on reading things into that, that's fine, but it's a waste of everybodies time here, including yours - unless you value the joy of the way you participate in this thread over the concern for the actual subject matter, in which case Franz is right to question your good faith.

[skrobek]

Since you are the one who again uses a straw man, I'd say you'd resemble Stalin more then RFKorp at this point. I did not say women are generally not creative. Should I capitalize that?

OK, this is the last time I'll answer one of your angry posts: You said what yousaid and I found that quote tragic, sorry. To me, that's an outmoded way of thinking shying away from an economical/political/psychological unbalanced situation that basically stems from man's superior physical strength. I, in all good faith, whatever you say, inquire about this situation or its aftermath today within the little world of the artists and audience that is all for experimentation, which is change. However I'll admit that I'm not happy to receive what is to me, a clearly, a caveman's argument, imo. Frankly, I would be disappointed if most people didn't disagree strongly with what you think, but if they don't, that's life, my mistake.

[ryan]

situation that basically stems from man's superior physical strength

is that your answer?! and you think that schik's is "clearly, a caveman's argument"? what a joke...

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

angry posts

just mentally add smileys, if you perceive them that way.

Admittedly, I indeed once said that you should go fuck yourself if you couldn't back up your claims and insults (not intelligent) with honest argumentation. I think you should best look out for a private space with clean sheets and a flushable toilet by now.

[skrobek]

Yes. Because I think we are living with the heritage of a long gone situation where this little difference in muscular mass was all the difference, while he is applying his idea of a "different brain" today.

If cavewomen had had an uterus AND physical strength, things would be different today, imo. Yes, I think comparing us to animals and advocating the creation of a group tackling gender issues of elephants or tigers is a caveman argument, otherwise I wouldn't have said so.

If you want to generalize, there are also behavioral differences between males from different countries, African males and European males for instance, do you draw conclusions as to the difference of their brains too ? NO. You deem evident that all those differences are cultural, sociological, economical, political. Today, because as we all know that was not always the case. Things change.

[will]

Shick, perhaps we're working with different understandings of "nature vs. nurture" - by this I mean "biological determinism versus sociohistorical determinism". I'm not sure how you're not making a "nature" argument if you are saying that men and women are fundamentally different, and then compare humans to spiders and whales. By no means am I arguing that men and women are exactly alike, obviously they do different work in reproduction, but moving from this to contemporary social and cultural life without considering the factors I laid out misses much of what actually produces the differences that are ascribed to biology.
My argument is that these larger social forces condition the superficial situation that this thread is nominally about - why there aren't so many women in contemporary experimental music.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

That first paragraph is straw man again, although less harsh than the previous ones.

That last paragraph is red herring. Of course there are differences between African & European men. And yes, their respective brains are a factor in that too. But, as with women & men, the brains are not the only factor, and I never said that, so you use a straw man again.

Although at least you try in an honest manner now.

Things indeed change.

(And should btw, because a lot of women still are in shitty life positions because they are women, without forgetting that a lot of men are in shitty, albeit often different, positions too, because they are men.)

[skrobek]

yes, their respective brains are a factor in that too.

I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore, but just to say this: I suddenly realize I shouldn't have replied any of your posts from the beginning...

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Shick, perhaps we're working with different understandings of "nature vs. nurture" - by this I mean "biological determinism versus sociohistorical determinism". I'm not sure how you're not making a "nature" argument if you are saying that men and women are fundamentally different, and then compare humans to spiders and whales.

I guess that's because I think that such a distincton in the end is unproductive and muddles the questions at hand. The biological and sociohistorical paths are inseparately intertwined, and even undistinguishable in certain areas, from the very start of evolving life on - as is clearly shown in the evolution of language and language use, at least in the way we understand that process nowadays.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

yes, their respective brains are a factor in that too.

I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore, but just to say this: I suddenly realize I shouldn't have replied any of your posts from the beginning...

Yes indeed, because of the way you do answer them, they are a mostly a waste of your own time. I think you would benefit from working on your logic skills first.

Anyhow, I'm quite pleased, I was forced to put some of my thoughts to words, and I'm gratefull I got the opportunity, so thank you for the persistence you showed before you had that sudden insight.

[will]

Shick, perhaps we're working with different understandings of "nature vs. nurture" - by this I mean "biological determinism versus sociohistorical determinism". I'm not sure how you're not making a "nature" argument if you are saying that men and women are fundamentally different, and then compare humans to spiders and whales.

I guess that's because I think that such a distincton in the end is unproductive and muddles the questions at hand. The biological and sociohistorical paths are inseperatably intertwined, from the very start of evolving life on - as is clearly shown in the evolution of language and language use, at least in the way we understand that process nowadays.

Definitely, I'm finishing teaching one class about this now, and am preparing to teach the next course on the topic (in a loose sequence in my department) next term. The argument definitely isn't "are people crude dna delivery / maintenance mechanisms or are they completely self-generated cultural constructions", clearly the answer is between these two. I just think that once you develop culture / language as a behavioral adaptation, you open the door to a toolkit that can modify and expand itself (fangs can't make more or better fangs based on the volition of the lion, but people can make more and better iPods / adjectives / etc.). This makes us qualitatively different than other species; whatever our material inheritance, it is the socio/linguistic/cutltural worlds that homo sapien inhabits that are of greatest significance to the life paths and tendencies of any given population in the species.
And ah, to relate this back to the topic at hand, that's how come eai is mostly made and listened to by dudes or something.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

Human society has been working against our biological inheritance from the start. Gender lines are simply not that black and white anymore.

Of course, and rightly so, because it is a matter of becoming more free, more undetermined, and that is a worthy fight.

I know plenty of women, of all ages, who find the idea of having children completely repulsive.

That doesn't say a thing, and you know it, because if you'd take a survey, most women of the world want children, and the numbers differ significantly of the numbers you'd get if you'd ask men.


For the record, once more, I'm not saying women should have children, and I'm not saying the only reasons for that parent survey difference are biological, but biology is a factor to be taken into account, and it is a significant, important factor. And of course the biological factors are intertwined with the socio-cultural ones, as I just explained above. Making a dichotomy out of it really doesn't help, and isolating a factor neither. Please, by all means, try to comprehend that denying that the biological factors and the differences (see the free music thread as well) exists slams some major holes in the roads to more, and more enjoyable, freedom for all, whatever sex.

[schiksalgemeinschaft]

I guess that's because I think that such a distincton in the end is unproductive and muddles the questions at hand. The biological and sociohistorical paths are inseperatably intertwined, from the very start of evolving life on - as is clearly shown in the evolution of language and language use, at least in the way we understand that process nowadays.

Definitely, I'm finishing teaching one class about this now, and am preparing to teach the next course on the topic (in a loose sequence in my department) next term. The argument definitely isn't "are people crude dna delivery / maintenance mechanisms or are they completely self-generated cultural constructions", clearly the answer is between these two. I just think that once you develop culture / language as a behavioral adaptation, you open the door to a toolkit that can modify and expand itself (fangs can't make more or better fangs based on the volition of the lion, but people can make more and better iPods / adjectives / etc.). This makes us qualitatively different than other species; whatever our material inheritance, it is the socio/linguistic/cutltural worlds that homo sapien inhabits that are of greatest significance to the life paths and tendencies of any given population in the species.
And ah, to relate this back to the topic at hand, that's how come eai is mostly made and listened to by dudes or something.

Yes, language is a tool to more freedom, and being less determined by pure physical causes, although we shouldn't forget that language itself of course is a product of material, physical bodies interacting with the world and eachother.

It is probably one of our only tools, and for sure a fundamental one. Because socio/linguistic/cultural worlds are the direct result of the fact that we use this tool (no culture or society without language, and it's obvious for the linguistic part of your triad) it's obvious that language is very important. That in essences is why I teach languages, why I'm writing all this, and why I write "poetry".

[skrobek]

Why not more women in avant-garde music ?

I don't know. I'm asking the question.

But if you say there are many, I say you're lying to yourself. Maybe because I have limited view. From what I've seen there ain't, be it on stage or in the audience.

Those I know keep some kind of distance with it. They like some aspects of it, but I sense some reservations that are seemingly hard to be voiced.

I thought they didn't want to go through a thing which is already predominantly orientated by male ideas. I don't know why, but I remember a thread here where someone posted "my noise is louder/harsher than yours" = "my silence is longer than yours". That made me think a lot. there's something here worth considering imo.

Another thought I had was, experimental music people are involved in changing music, but maybe that's a change women deny because, as they are already defined by males in our world, they are not interested or cannot fullt adhere to a "change" that reproduces the existing pattern of the father figure and his sons/disciples

last thought, more pessimistic in a way, are they wary of a "change" coming from those who are already "in power", taking their muisc that demands absolute attention and time, or a form of economical and psychological confort, as a bourgeois movement, men being to women what the bourgeois is to the worker ?