# Misogyny on the podium



## Becca

What is it about some male conductors and their opinions about women conducting? It isn't as if they have to deal with a woman on the podium. Examples...

Jorma Pannula:
Q: _Do you think it is good that women enter the profession and become conductors? _
Pannula: _No! What the hell, we have men already. It is such a limited profession… They can try, but it is a completely different deal. I can't comment on media or public opinion. But women… Of course they are trying! Some of them are making faces, sweating and fussing, but it is not getting any better - only worse! They can come [to my masterclasses] and try. It's not a problem - if they choose the right pieces. If they take more feminine music. Bruckner or Stravinsky will not do, but Debussy is OK. This is a purely biological question._

Vasily Petrenko:
"_[orchestras] react better when they have a man in front of them ... a cute girl on a podium means that musicians think about other things_".

Now add a new one to the list:

"_Well, I don't want to give offence, and I am not against it, that would be very wrong. I understand the world has changed, and there is now no profession that can be confined to this or that gender. It's a question of what one is used to. I grew up in a different world, and for me seeing a woman on the podium… well, let's just say it's not my cup of tea._" - Mariss Jansons

"_My cup of tea is Yorkshire. With a little honey and plenty of milk. Kind of a camel colour. Doesn't matter if the camel is male or female..._" - Barbara Hannigan


----------



## Woodduck

Men! Always thinking about "other things" when they ought to be keeping their minds on the job. I mean, that's what a female conductor is doing, isn't it? Just doing her work, too focused on making music to realize that the silly half-smile on the concertmaster's face means that he's wondering what that "cute girl" looks like under other circumstances? 

Honestly, I don't know know how women have put up with us all these millennia.


----------



## josquindesprez

Becca said:


> It's not a problem - if they choose the right pieces. If they take more feminine music. Bruckner or Stravinsky will not do, but Debussy is OK. This is a purely biological question.


Well how generous of him.


----------



## Botschaft

I recently attended a concert featuring Brahms' symphony no. 1 with a female conductor (conductress? conductrix?) as well as a female concertmaster (concertmistress?), and I can honestly say that it was one of the best renditions I've heard of that work. This must prove that no music can be too ‘masculine’ to be conducted by a woman. The only thing I found lacking in it was the repeat in the first movement, but what do you expect from a woman.  I still wonder though if there’s music which is too feminine for a male conductor.

As for the second quote it isn’t necessarily reflective of misogyny, accusations of which shouldn’t be made lightly. What I’ve read the quotee doesn’t actually disapprove of women conducting. Context is important, and perhaps sometimes the conductor’s physique really does influence the performance.


----------



## Becca

Improbus said:


> perhaps sometimes the conductor's physique really does influence the performance.


How about the physique of the orchestra members or especially the soloists? Or are male conductors not susceptible to that?


----------



## Botschaft

Becca said:


> How about the physique of the orchestra members or especially the soloists? Or are male conductors not susceptible to that?


I wouldn't know, but we cannot infer that this Petrenko is a misogynist regardless, nor do I agree with his assertion.


----------



## KenOC

I think there are plenty of female soloists who project the drama, passion, and beauty of classical music fully as well as their male counterparts. So I can imagine no reason the ladies wouldn’t perform as well as conductors.

Still, I have heard no female conductors currently that impress me as at all exceptional. Not that they are very many to start with! I lay it to luck of the draw, nothing else.


----------



## Botschaft

KenOC said:


> Still, I have heard no female conductors currently that impress me as at all exceptional.


I've heard that they can pull off Debussy quite well.


----------



## Becca

KenOC said:


> Still, I have heard no female conductors currently that impress me as at all exceptional. Not that they are very many to start with! I lay it to luck of the draw, nothing else.


How many currently active male conductors would you describe as exceptional? And what percentage of all active conductors do they represent?


----------



## Larkenfield

The subject might possibly be discussed more dispassionately if the progress that women have made as conductors over the past 30 years were finally acknowledged by other women before disparaging the men who are not for women on the podium. There are now a number of prominent female conductors and the list is growing:

https://www.vanclassicalmusic.com/the-rise-of-the-female-conductor/

The subject is such a hot potato that if any man tries to explain the male sexual response and vulnerability to an attractive or magnetic woman on the podium, he will be crucified, because the power of women to influence the culture and their power over men is on the rise. Men have a biologically different sexual response - it's much quicker and more immediate than what women have, and yet there are women who continue to imagine that it's like their own and men should be impervious to that influence no matter under what circumstances. Maybe that situation will eventually work itself out given enough time, though I rather doubt it.

In the meantime, women are making headway as conductors and let's celebrate it. But I doubt if it's that men feel women are incapable of conducting but that men are still sexually vulnerable to a sexy woman on a podium or in the orchestra - it _can_ be a distraction because of the way that men and women are typically wired biologically, and that's where the problem arises.

So if women want to continue making headway on the podium, and I'm sure they will, they might try every now and then, if they haven't done so already, to look at the situation from a male point of view as women pursue their creative ambitions. This might enable both sides of the gender issue to adjust the radiance of their magnetic energy accordingly.


----------



## KenOC

Improbus said:


> I've heard that they can pull off Debussy quite well.


You should be aware, sir, that feminist hit squads may be operating in your neighborhood...


----------



## KenOC

Becca said:


> How many currently active male conductors would you describe as exceptional? And what percentage of all active conductors do they represent?


Precisely my point. You may want to re-read what I wrote.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> The subject is such a hot potato that if any man tries to explain the male sexual response and vulnerability to an attractive or magnetic woman on the podium, he will be crucified, because the power of women to influence the culture and their power over men is on the rise. *Men have a biologically different sexual response - it's much quicker and more immediate than what women have*, and yet *there are women who continue to imagine that it's like their own and men should be impervious to that influence* no matter under what circumstances. Maybe that situation will eventually work itself out given enough time, though I rather doubt it.
> 
> I doubt if it's that men feel women are incapable of conducting but that *men are still sexually vulnerable to a sexy woman on a podium or in the orchestra - it can a distraction because of the way that men and women are typically wired biologically, and that's where the problem arises.*


Thus far, I'm unaware that this "problem" has been an issue among _gay_ male orchestral musicians confronted with, say, Leonard Bernstein on the podium. Do we neglect to consider gay men, whose sexual responses are not a whit more subtle than those of straight men, because...well, because we just don't talk about gay men? Or because even a gay male leader is more acceptable to men than a female one?


----------



## Nereffid

Larkenfield said:


> The subject is such a hot potato that if any man tries to explain the male sexual response and vulnerability to an attractive or magnetic woman on the podium, he will be crucified, because the power of women to influence the culture and their power over men is on the rise. Men have a biologically different sexual response - it's much quicker and more immediate than what women have, and yet there are women who continue to imagine that it's like their own and men should be impervious to that influence no matter under what circumstances. Maybe that situation will eventually work itself out given enough time, though I rather doubt it.
> 
> In the meantime, women are making headway as conductors and let's celebrate it. But I doubt if it's that men feel women are incapable of conducting but that men are still sexually vulnerable to a sexy woman on a podium or in the orchestra - it _can_ be a distraction because of the way that men and women are typically wired biologically, and that's where the problem arises.
> 
> So if women want to continue making headway on the podium, and I'm sure they will, they might try every now and then, if they haven't done so already, to look at the situation from a male point of view as women pursue their creative ambitions. This might enable both sides of the gender issue to adjust the radiance of their magnetic energy accordingly.


There's a reasonable, if not especially compelling, argument to be made about the inherent biological differences between men and women, and how this impacts on society. But talking about "vulnerable" men and painting them as unfortunate victims isn't the way to do it.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Those are all just personal opinions. If you are really a strong woman, you should not give a flying fig about them.


----------



## gustavdimitri

:lol:


----------



## SiegendesLicht

It is a funny coincidence that this thread has come up just as I am planning to hear the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra in Hamburg tonight, conducted by the lady whose photo the OP has as her avatar - the Lithuanian Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla (I don't know how to spell that name either, I just copied it from the Elbphilharmonie website). On the program are Mozart, Elgar, Messiaen - and Debussy  I believe it is going to be very, very cool.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> There's a reasonable, if not especially compelling, argument to be made about the inherent biological differences between men and women, and how this impacts on society. But talking about "vulnerable" men and painting them as unfortunate victims isn't the way to do it.


There's also a reasonable, if not especially compelling argument to be made about what Janssons says is, "_a question of what one is used to. I grew up in a different world,"

_His admission illustrates that generational attitudes differ. We might not like what he says, and some may choose to characterise him as 'chauvinist' (or worse), but there's an element of truth in it. Some people reach for the label too quickly, which is why others complain that you can't have an open and honest debate because of the speed with which accusations close down the discussion.

It's a pity he added the tea thing.


----------



## gustavdimitri

SiegendesLicht said:


> It is a funny coincidence that this thread has come up just as I am planning to hear the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra in Hamburg tonight, conducted by the lady whose photo the OP has as her avatar - the Lithuanian Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla (I don't know how to spell that name either, I just copied it from the Elbphilharmonie website). On the program are Mozart, Elgar, Messiaen - and Debussy  I believe it is going to be very, very cool.


Hope you will enjoy yourself!


----------



## gustavdimitri

I have a very soft spot for Marin Alsop, just love her!


----------



## gustavdimitri

Here a strong combination of four of my favourites!

Alsop
The RCO
Shostakovich
The Concertgebouw


----------



## Agamemnon

Larkenfield said:


> The subject might possibly be discussed more dispassionately if the progress that women have made as conductors over the past 30 years were finally acknowledged by other women before disparaging the men who are not for women on the podium. There are now a number of prominent female conductors and the list is growing:
> 
> https://www.vanclassicalmusic.com/the-rise-of-the-female-conductor/
> 
> The subject is such a hot potato that if any man tries to explain the male sexual response and vulnerability to an attractive or magnetic woman on the podium, he will be crucified, because the power of women to influence the culture and their power over men is on the rise. Men have a biologically different sexual response - it's much quicker and more immediate than what women have, and yet there are women who continue to imagine that it's like their own and men should be impervious to that influence no matter under what circumstances. Maybe that situation will eventually work itself out given enough time, though I rather doubt it.
> 
> In the meantime, women are making headway as conductors and let's celebrate it. But I doubt if it's that men feel women are incapable of conducting but that men are still sexually vulnerable to a sexy woman on a podium or in the orchestra - it _can_ be a distraction because of the way that men and women are typically wired biologically, and that's where the problem arises.
> 
> So if women want to continue making headway on the podium, and I'm sure they will, they might try every now and then, if they haven't done so already, to look at the situation from a male point of view as women pursue their creative ambitions. This might enable both sides of the gender issue to adjust the radiance of their magnetic energy accordingly.


I think this is true for adolescent boys. I believe I've read that testosteron levels of adolescent boys immediately rise as soon as they spot a girl and that grades of boys significantly drop when they sit together with girls in the class room. Some young men even drive their car against a tree when they spot a beautiful woman. So yes, girls are a huge distraction for boys. The reverse doesn't seem to be true: boys seem to have no impact on girls.

Yet I think the effect wears off when men grow up. Perhaps a more serious problem is that women don't have the aura of authority like men have. People tend to obey older people more easily than younger people and to obey men more easily than women.


----------



## Becca

"_In a recent interview with the British newspaper 'The Telegraph', a quote from me was published which has provoked considerable attention in the media. I would like to respond to this with the following statement:

I come from a generation in which the conducting profession was almost exclusively reserved to men. Even today, many more men than women pursue conducting professionally. But it was undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive for me to point out that I'm not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform. Every one of my female colleagues and every young woman wishing to become a conductor can be assured of my support, for we all work in pursuit of a common goal: to excite people for the art form we love so dearly - music._" - Mariss Jansons

"_I woke up this morning to see Mr Jansons apology. I appreciated it. I love the music which enriches our lives, the musicians who make it, and the composers who write it. Of course it is upsetting one of our colleagues said something like that in an interview. Thankfully, we are united in sound, if not always in perspective. As Berg said to Gershwin, music is music..._" - Barbara Hannigan


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> So if women want to continue making headway on the podium, and I'm sure they will, they might try every now and then, if *they haven't done so already, to look at the situation from a male point of view as women pursue their creative ambitions*. This might enable both sides of the gender issue to adjust the radiance of their magnetic energy accordingly.


Seriously? This is infuriating! Women going into conducting are forced every day of their lives to look at their situation from a male point of view. It is the bane of their existence. It's not on them. It's on the people who think with their genitals.


----------



## manyene

Petrenko is known for his wry sense of humour - and, after all, his wife is a gifted choral conductor in her own right.


----------



## mbhaub

Conducting is one of the last bastions of male domination and for many people in the older generation, having a woman conduct just seems so wrong. It wasn't that long ago that our major orchestras were exclusively male, with the "obvious" exception of the harpist. Go read some biographies of older conductors - they often spoke about how women messed up the camaraderie and focus of an orchestra. Well, times change and now we realize it wasn't a big deal at all. In smaller orchestras women dominate the string sections. Yet there's still a resistance to having women conduct. The most electrifying account of the Brahms 2nd I've ever heard wasn't Bernstein, Solti, Barenboim or Rattle - it was Sarah Caldwell some 45 years ago. I still remember that performance; it was just tremendous. I also remember the critic who reviewed it who couldn't help himself by closing with "It just goes to show a woman, even a fat, dumpy one, can conduct." He was skewered for that.

In the intervening years I've been to women-led concerts with Alsop, Falletta, Karina Canellakis, Mei Ann Chen and others who can conduct Mahler, Beethoven, Dvorak just as well as the boys. Simone Young's Bruckner is top-notch, too.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Simone Young's Bruckner is indeed "top notch". As is her recording of Mathis Der Maler (the opera, that is).
Am I wrong to suggest that nobody would have batted an eyelid if someone of the female persuasion conducted an orchestra back in the inter-war years? Vitezslava Kaprálová did so with both the Czech Phil and the BBC, because she was a promising young composer, who happened to be not a bloke. She can't have been the only one. Same sort of era when women's football matches could attract 50,000+ fans to games at Goodison Park. It's taken a long time to get back to that sort of parity, a long way off perfect, but at least some were taking it seriously 80 years ago.


----------



## LezLee

I wonder what the result of a ‘blind’ test would be with say, half a dozen unannounced performances of the same piece on the radio played to a group of men. Could they really tell the gender of the conductors?


----------



## CnC Bartok

I think you know the answer to that one, Lez! :devil:


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> "_In a recent interview with the British newspaper 'The Telegraph', a quote from me was published which has provoked considerable attention in the media. I would like to respond to this with the following statement:
> 
> I come from a generation in which the conducting profession was almost exclusively reserved to men. Even today, many more men than women pursue conducting professionally. But it was undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive for me to point out that I'm not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform. Every one of my female colleagues and every young woman wishing to become a conductor can be assured of my support, for we all work in pursuit of a common goal: to excite people for the art form we love so dearly - music._" - Mariss Jansons
> 
> "_I woke up this morning to see Mr Jansons apology. I appreciated it. I love the music which enriches our lives, the musicians who make it, and the composers who write it. Of course it is upsetting one of our colleagues said something like that in an interview. Thankfully, we are united in sound, if not always in perspective. As Berg said to Gershwin, music is music..._" - Barbara Hannigan


This sort of thing aggravates me that Jansons has to 'apologise' for giving his opinion because it does not meet certain politically correct views which are all the rage today. I have no strong views about this subject only to say that whoever makes it in the conducting profession it should be on account of their musicianship and not their gender. But this constant shutting down of fair discussion by those with loudest voices is not the way.


----------



## eljr

Becca said:


> Jorma Pannula
> 
> if they choose the right pieces. If they take more feminine music. Bruckner or Stravinsky will not do, but Debussy is OK. This is a purely biological question.[/I]


These are the words of an uneducated moron.


----------



## KenOC

eljr said:


> These are the words of an uneducated moron.


I looked up Jorma Panula and he appears to be neither uneducated nor a moron -- quite the opposite in fact. It seems unlikely that his disagreeing with your viewpoint would make him so.


----------



## bz3

KenOC said:


> I looked up Jorma Panula and he appears to be neither uneducated nor a moron -- quite the opposite in fact. It seems unlikely that his disagreeing with your viewpoint would make him so.


He's right of course but it's not PC to admit it. So is the fact that men are better composers than women, but it's still true. Doesn't mean women can't be good or great composers, and it doesn't mean women can't be good or great conductors/performers. I agree with Argerich than Schumann is better played by a woman.


----------



## Becca

DavidA said:


> This sort of thing aggravates me that Jansons has to 'apologise' for giving his opinion because it does not meet certain politically correct views which are all the rage today. I have no strong views about this subject only to say that whoever makes it in the conducting profession it should be on account of their musicianship and not their gender. But this constant shutting down of fair discussion by those with loudest voices is not the way.


Has it possibly occurred to you that when an eminent person in a profession makes negative *public* comments about women in that profession, they are serving to perpetuate that negative view which makes it that much harder for women to make inroads and, quite probably, dissuades many from even trying no matter their potential talent. And before you say it, talent and drive to overcome obstacles are two very different and unconnected abilities. If those are his views and his reasons, then fine, but he doesn't need to broadcast them to the world.


----------



## Bulldog

bz3 said:


> I agree with Argerich than Schumann is better played by a woman.


I've listened to a lot of Schumann solo piano over the decades, and I find the Argerich view without merit. This men vs. women crap is toxic.


----------



## Becca

Here is something else that Barbara Hannigan had to say on the subject...

_Convention has kept the field dominated by men. Convention and, of course, some everyday sexism - because before a woman gets on the podium, she needs to get into a conducting class at university, and before that even, she needs to see the career as a viable option, something I didn't as a child.

A friend's young daughter saw me conducting on TV the other day, and said: "Mommy, I didn't know women were allowed to be conductors."_


----------



## Botschaft

Nereffid said:


> There's a reasonable, if not especially compelling, argument to be made about the inherent biological differences between men and women, and how this impacts on society. But talking about "vulnerable" men and painting them as unfortunate victims isn't the way to do it.


That treatment is reserved for women, of course. :lol:


----------



## brianvds

Becca said:


> Has it possibly occurred to you that when an eminent person in a profession makes negative *public* comments about women in that profession, they are serving to perpetuate that negative view which makes it that much harder for women to make inroads and, quite probably, dissuades many from even trying no matter their potential talent. And before you say it, talent and drive to overcome obstacles are two very different and unconnected abilities. If those are his views and his reasons, then fine, but he doesn't need to broadcast them to the world.


Yup. It is perfectly true that all the best composers and conductors are men, but given his comments, it now appears that there exists a clique of male musicians that have been going to great lengths to denigrate and keep women out of classical music. And thus, we cannot really say with any confidence that women do not have the same potential in this field. The experiment itself is set up to be completely biased.

Which is why I am very much in favor of such things as blind auditions for positions in orchestras. And indeed blind judgement of competitions for soloists.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> politically correct views which are all the rage today.


More labelling that shuts down discussion. What do you mean, in this case, by politically correct views?


----------



## Botschaft

MacLeod said:


> More labelling that shuts down discussion. What do you mean, in this case, by politically correct views?


You need us to explain to you the concept of political correctness? If not what is it that you fail to comprehend?


----------



## Becca

Calling something 'politically correct' in a negative manner is usually a way of saying that the person doesn't want to change their biased and/or sexist ideas and that the old ways of thinking were better even though they usually meant that certain groups were considered unworthy of the same respect, consideration and opportunities.


----------



## KenOC

Historically (let's face it) the conductor, the "maestro", is the alpha male, ruling the roost, king of the hill, etc. Bugs Bunny knew this well.


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> You need us to explain to you the concept of political correctness? If not what is it that you fail to comprehend?


"Us"? Which "us" are you talking about? The whole of TC? All those people who know what PC means but are unwilling to actually explain it unless the ignorant who has asked has justified himself? All those people who share an as yet unexplained view about women conductors?

I specifically said, "in this case", meaning that I'm asking DavidA which particular politically correct view(s) applies in this particular discussion.. If he were to do so, it would enable me to respond more carefully than just to jump to the lazy and possibly incorrect conclusion that he does indeed take a view that women should not be conductors.

If you align yourself so closely with DavidA, you might be able to explain for him in his absence.


----------



## Botschaft

Becca said:


> Calling something 'politically correct' in a negative manner is usually a way of saying that the person doesn't want to change their biased and/or sexist ideas and that the old ways of thinking were better even though they usually meant that certain groups were considered unworthy of the same respect, consideration and opportunities.


I see that you want me to prove you wrong just like I did with cultural Marxism. Or would you rather that your thread not be closed?


----------



## Machiavel

DavidA said:


> This sort of thing aggravates me that Jansons has to 'apologise' for giving his opinion because it does not meet certain politically correct views which are all the rage today. I have no strong views about this subject only to say that whoever makes it in the conducting profession it should be on account of their musicianship and not their gender. But this constant shutting down of fair discussion by those w ith loudest voices is not the way.


thats what feminism is doing around the world. shutting men from speaking because feminism is not a movement for them but a religion almost as true as science yet they cannot even acknowledge that feminism represent so few womens around the world. 1 in 10 maybe less.there was 100 000 womens to the bug march in the united states and many of them were coming from around the world, some were even paid to be there. 100 000 in a country of 300 millions

Hate to say it but I have never ever talk to a moderate femisnit in my life and I mean women because they represent 99 percent of their movement


----------



## Guest

Machiavel said:


> thats what feminism is doing around the world. [etc]


Can't we stick to the specific point about attitudes to women conductors, and not clamber on to soapboxes?


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> I see that you want me to prove you wrong just like I did with cultural Marxism. Or would you rather that your thread not be closed?


I'll not speak for Becca, but what* I'd *like you to do is to be plain-speaking about the subject in hand, without resorting to provocative and irrelevant posts.


----------



## Botschaft

MacLeod said:


> "Us"? Which "us" are you talking about? The whole of TC? All those people who know what PC means but are unwilling to actually explain it unless the ignorant who has asked has justified himself? All those people who share an as yet unexplained view about women conductors?


I don't think I'm alone in knowing what political correctness is.



> I specifically said, "in this case", meaning that I'm asking DavidA which particular politically correct view(s) applies in this particular discussion.. If he were to do so, it would enable me to respond more carefully than just to jump to the lazy and possibly incorrect conclusion that he does indeed take a view that women should not be conductors.
> 
> If you align yourself so closely with DavidA, you might be able to explain for him in his absence.


Political correctness is intolerance of whatever is considered bigoted or hurtful, specifically towards groups labeled as weak, justifiably or not. Its implications are that people who are simply speaking their mind or sometimes just reporting facts are to be silenced or punished for doing so. It is to put manners and feelings above all else, including truth, honesty, and freedom. But this is really just scratching the surface.


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> I don't think I'm alone in knowing what political correctness is.
> 
> Political correctness is intolerance of whatever is considered bigoted or hurtful, specifically towards groups labeled as weak, justifiably or not. Its implications are that people who are simply speaking their mind or sometimes just reporting facts are to be silenced or punished for doing so. It is to put manners and feelings above all else, including truth, honesty, and freedom. But this is really just scratching the surface.


Well that might be helpful to some other readers here, but wasn't asking for a definition of 'political correctness', but what 'politically correct views' DavidA was referring to *in this particular case*. Let's look again at what he said, before we lose sight of it.

Misogyny on the podium



> This sort of thing aggravates me that *Jansons has to 'apologise' for giving his opinion because it does not meet certain politically correct views which are all the rage today.* I have no strong views about this subject only to say that whoever makes it in the conducting profession it should be on account of their musicianship and not their gender. But this constant shutting down of fair discussion by those with loudest voices is not the way.


So, when DavidA is around, he might be in a better position to explain what he meant than anyone else.


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> Has it possibly occurred to you that when an eminent person in a profession makes negative *public* comments about women in that profession, they are serving to perpetuate that negative view which makes it that much harder for women to make inroads and, quite probably, *dissuades many from even trying no matter their potential talent.* And before you say it, talent and drive to overcome obstacles are two very different and unconnected abilities. If those are his views and his reasons, then fine, but he doesn't need to broadcast them to the world.


Frankly if a woman is dissuaded from trying by what Jansons said she won't make it anyway!


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> Calling something *'politically correct' in a negative manner i*s usually a way of saying that the person doesn't want to change their biased and/or sexist ideas and that the old ways of thinking were better even though they usually meant that certain groups were considered unworthy of the same respect, consideration and opportunities.


And this is the very argument the PC use to shut down argument! Any comment which might be deemed negative is pounced upon as anti-feminist and shut down. Surely in a civilised society men like Jansons can give their opinion without such censorship


----------



## Ingélou

I think Mr Janson shouldn't have made a comment like that in public, because it just makes the situation worse for present and upcoming female conductors.

But if he had said, 'I can't get used to women conductors, but I know that's my age and the world is changing and so the next generation won't have that problem' - in other words, been more *self-deprecating* as he was in his apology - then he possibly could have achieved the difficult feat of airing his opinion and at the same time not causing offence.

After that he should have said with a shamefaced laugh, 'But I'm a ridiculous old dinosaur and I'm very glad that those who come after will judge conductors on their musical merits, not on their gender, sexuality or appearance.'

But he didn't do it that way because just maybe he doesn't have enough empathy.

As for not being able to speak one's true opinion - the world has always been like that. I grew up in Yorkshire where we call a spade a spade - but I've learned to keep my more extreme views about garden implements to myself.


----------



## Strange Magic

Pannula, Petrenko, and Jansons were actually speaking in a code. They were referring secretly to black people when they were seeming to discuss "women" on the podium. If you go back through this thread and make that substitution, you will find everything suddenly falling into place.


----------



## Guest

I do not believe that this discussion should be shut down. Possibly the men who made these sexist remarks are in a position of influence enabling them to put obstacles in the way of up-and-coming female conductors. It would therefore be helpful to know what their views are so that these young conductors, and the music industry in general, can make an informed decision about whether or not to engage with them professionally.

It is also interesting to know that apparently some men find it distracting to have a female boss, and that a female boss is considered to be less authoritative than a male one. To me it seems a no-brainer that the problem is with those particular men, rather than the woman concerned, and that they should join a different orchestra if they can't cope with it. I would be surprised but interested to see if there is any evidence that male musicians leave an orchestra after a woman is appointed as conductor.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Frankly if a woman is dissuaded from trying by what Jansons said she won't make it anyway!


Do you think it is okay for a young woman to face such prejudice throughout her studying and training to become a conductor? One comment would be unlikely to dissuade someone, but if such a view is widespread then many talented women could be dissuaded from such a career. Do these high profile conductors represent the views of the music establishment and the teaching institutions?

I'm with you though, I believe the conversation shouldn't be shut down so that we can see how bad the problem is.


----------



## Botschaft

Ingélou said:


> As for not being able to speak one's true opinion - the world has always been like that.


That's a shame. The world would've been a much better place if people focused less energy on silencing and shaming others than on trying to tolerate their opinions or better to actually listen to and understand them.



> I grew up in Yorkshire where we call a spade a spade


Well where I grew up we don't. Consider that.



> - but I've learned to keep my more extreme views about garden implements to myself.


I know what the consequences of keeping "extreme views" to oneself can be and it's not pretty, because sometimes those views are the right ones.


----------



## Guest

Funny, I've played in jazz ensembles with female lead singers--some of them VERY good-looking--and no one ever talked about how women shouldn't front bands otherwise the male musicians can't keep their minds on their playing. Nor did I ever personally see or otherwise hear about male musicians not being able to mind his music because a "cute girl" was up front singing. It's so ridiculous. Men are worried about the female competition and hiding behind this "people can't accept it, male musicians would lose their minds" stuff. Men don't want women conducting because they just might turn out to be as good as they are if not better. The first quote in the OP says it all: Women shouldn't be conducting because there's only so much work available and it should go to us men.

Unfortunately, classical music is not a discipline that traditionally gave a squat about women and their talents and aspirations. It's really shameful how few female composers there are. I can't believe that it is only because women aren't biologically equipped to compose. Classical music is an old white man's club and always has been. It's been breaking down a bit with the influx of Asians and women as orchestra musicians but its tradition is rooted in white male dominance and it still is. When white men aren't conducting, some Asian men have been given the baton. At least it stays among the men. When are they going to hand the baton to an Asian woman? I know there are many who want to conduct and are perfectly capable of it.


----------



## CypressWillow

Strange Magic said:


> Pannula, Petrenko, and Jansons were actually speaking in a code. They were referring secretly to black people when they were seeming to discuss "women" on the podium. If you go back through this thread and make that substitution, you will find everything suddenly falling into place.


Clever, *Strange Magic*. A great reminder of the famous quote of Pastor Martin Niemoller, which we would do well to remember today.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> And this is the very argument the PC use to shut down argument! Any comment which might be deemed negative is pounced upon as anti-feminist and shut down. Surely in a civilised society men like Jansons can give their opinion without such censorship


What does this have to do with feminism? It is about equal, respectful treatment of individuals irrespective of gender. Jansons wasn't censored, a lot of people just let it be known that he was a sexist a$$. He deserved to be shamed and perhaps he recanted because a little light went on in his head.


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> What does this have to do with feminism? It is about equal, respectful treatment of individuals irrespective of gender. Jansons wasn't censored, a lot of people just let it be known that he was a sexist a$$. He deserved to be shamed and perhaps he recanted because a little light went on in his head.


No, certain people felt he hadn't the right to express his opinion and pounced on them. If you want a debate in a free society you have to allow people to express their views whether you agree with them or not. It's called freedom of speech!

I haven't any strong views on the particular subject under debate. I have got strong views on whether people should be allowed to express their opinion.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> No, certain people felt he hadn't the right to express his opinion and pound on them. If you want a debate in a free society you have to allow people to express their views whether you agree with them or not. It's called freedom of speech!


I note you've not chosen to respond to my earlier question. Is that because despite freedom of speech, you've chosen not to make your views on women conductors known?

I also wonder, given freedom of speech, why those who have, according to you, "censored" Jansons, aren't also allowed to express their opinion with your disparaging "poltically correct" labelling?


----------



## Nereffid

I think there might be a subtle difference between believing someone doesn't have the right to an opinion, and believing someone's opinion is stupid and offensive.


----------



## DaveM

My problem is with the word 'misogyny'. It's original meaning and still it's main meaning (regardless of the fact that it is being frequently used more broadly in the media) is 'hatred of women'. I would say that the more appropriate word here is 'sexism'. So, if women are being kept out of more prestigious classical music positions such as conducting based on the premise that they just don't measure up to men then that is sexism, not misogyny. 

I would add that even though you see milder terms (such as prejudice) used under the moniker of misogyny these days, it's original -and main- meaning is so pejorative that I think it should be reserved for the most extreme situations such as a man who routinely demeans and/or abuses women.


----------



## Becca

DaveM said:


> My problem is with the word 'misogyny'. It's original meaning and still it's main meaning (regardless of the fact that it is being frequently used more broadly in the media) is 'hatred of women'. I would say that the more appropriate word here is 'sexism'. So, if women are being kept out of more prestigious classical music positions such as conducting based on the premise that they just don't measure up to men then that is sexism, not misogyny.
> 
> I would add that even though you see milder terms (such as prejudice) used under the moniker of misogyny these days, it's original -and main- meaning is so pejorative that I think it should be reserved for the most extreme situations such as a man who routinely demeans and/or abuses women.


Point taken, although there are times when it is difficult to see the line between misogyny and prejudice.


----------



## Botschaft

EdwardBast said:


> What does this have to do with feminism? It is about equal, respectful treatment of individuals irrespective of gender.


Feminism is about equal or superior _outcome_ in all aspects of society for women _specifically_, even at the expense of equal opportunity, and that's that.


----------



## Barbebleu

Improbus said:


> I've heard that they can pull off Debussy quite well.


Tut tut!bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I note you've not chosen to respond to my earlier question. Is that because despite freedom of speech, you've chosen not to make your views on women conductors known?
> 
> I also wonder, given freedom of speech, why those who have, according to you, "censored" Jansons, aren't also allowed to express their opinion with your disparaging "poltically correct" labelling?


My dear sir, I have freedom to respond or not to respond to your questions. The fact that the second is self-contradictory should be obvious


----------



## Strange Magic

Improbus said:


> Feminism is about equal or superior _outcome_ in all aspects of society for women _specifically_, even at the expense of equal opportunity, and that's that.


Can you share a reference to this definition? Here is Wikipedia:

"Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes."

It's your inclusion of "superior outcome" that interests me.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Larkenfield said:


> The subject is such a hot potato that if any man tries to explain the male sexual response and vulnerability to an attractive or magnetic woman on the podium, he will be crucified, because the power of women to influence the culture and their power over men is on the rise. Men have a biologically different sexual response - it's much quicker and more immediate than what women have, and yet there are women who continue to imagine that it's like their own and men should be impervious to that influence no matter under what circumstances. Maybe that situation will eventually work itself out given enough time, though I rather doubt it.
> 
> In the meantime, women are making headway as conductors and let's celebrate it. But I doubt if it's that men feel women are incapable of conducting but that men are still sexually vulnerable to a sexy woman on a podium or in the orchestra - it _can_ be a distraction because of the way that men and women are typically wired biologically, and that's where the problem arises.
> 
> So if women want to continue making headway on the podium, and I'm sure they will, they might try every now and then, if they haven't done so already, to look at the situation from a male point of view as women pursue their creative ambitions. This might enable both sides of the gender issue to adjust the radiance of their magnetic energy accordingly.


I think many women or at least many young women definitely get flustered when they see or have even minimal interaction with someone who they find attractive.....quite similarly to men. if the suggestion is that men's concentration will be shot by the attractiveness of a female conductor, I think the same could easily be true of female performers.

The obvious solution is to have conductors reach a minimum age of 83 before a public performance to ensure that the performers will not be distracted by their physical attractiveness.


----------



## Gordontrek

Nereffid said:


> I think there might be a subtle difference between believing someone doesn't have the right to an opinion, and believing someone's opinion is stupid and offensive.


Yes, but it is not our job as a society to police and punish offensive language. It's our job to make sure people grow up educated and sensitive enough not to use offensive language, or hold the backwards views that spawn them, in the first place.
As important as it is to draw attention to the obstacles female conductors face, it is extremely unlikely that you're going to change the minds of people like Panula and Petrenko. It would be a far better use of our time and energy to educate the next generation enough to prevent them from becoming Panula or Petrenko (in terms of their views, not their musicianship). I would much rather see a world where female conductors are regarded as just as "normal" as male conductors.


----------



## DaveM

The answer is a conductor in the manner of Yuja Wang. Instant acceptance! :devil:


----------



## Botschaft

Strange Magic said:


> Can you share a reference to this definition?


My reference is reality. That might not be good enough for you, but I nevertheless maintain that my definition is accurate.



> Here is Wikipedia:
> 
> "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes."


But this isn't a very satisfactory definition, is it? We need to establish what is meant by equality and for whom exactly in order for this to make any sense. This also sounds much like a feminist's definition of feminism. Would we ever grant a Nazi the privilege of defining Nazism?



> It's your inclusion of "superior outcome" that interests me.


Would a feminist ever care if women collectively have more power in any area? The answer, of course, is no. Feminism, as the name implies, is about women's interests, and that's it.


----------



## Strange Magic

Improbus said:


> My reference is reality. That might not be good enough for you, but I nevertheless maintain that my definition is accurate.
> 
> But this isn't a very satisfactory definition, is it? We need to establish what is meant by equality and for whom exactly in order for this to make any sense. This also sounds much like a feminist's definition of feminism. Would we ever grant a Nazi the privilege of defining Nazism?
> 
> Would a feminist ever care if women collectively have more power in any area? The answer, of course, is no. Feminism, as the name implies, is about women's interests, and that's it.


Thank you. A quite remarkable post.


----------



## Dedalus

DavidA said:


> No, certain people felt he hadn't the right to express his opinion and pounced on them. If you want a debate in a free society you have to allow people to express their views whether you agree with them or not. It's called freedom of speech!
> 
> I haven't any strong views on the particular subject under debate. I have got strong views on whether people should be allowed to express their opinion.


Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism or from the consequences of your speech. In no way was his freedom of speech curtailed.

So often I see this defense used in social media: somebody freely states their opinion, they get a large amount of angry backlash including both criticism and insults (because that's how the internet is), then they cry free speech because people aren't leaving them alone--an utter non-sequitur.

As soon as you unleash your opinions in a public forum they are fair game. This is especially true of public figures.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Many orchestras can play well with no conductor - so a female conductor should not alter that much.

However - they are up against formidable competition from men and prejudice to get anywhere significant in the profession. Of all the thousands of young musicians who dream of being conductors - hardly any get there to a paid appointment. I know some outstanding conductors who take on local town amateur orchestras and never get paid a penny and that's all they do. It's a flooded market.

I doubt if we will see a woman obtain a major appointment - unless a big orchestra decides to make a political point on gender.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> ...I doubt if we will see a woman obtain a major appointment - unless a big orchestra decides to make a political point on gender.


Not sure what "major" means here. Here's a BBC piece on who's who among woman conductors. Some of these appointments seems pretty major.

http://www.classical-music.com/article/best-female-conductors


----------



## MarkW

As someone who grew up in Boston during Sarah Caldwell's heyday, I always thought she got a raw deal.


----------



## KenOC

I'd guess that some here won't be satisfied until females are represented among conductors equally (or more than equally) with males. But let me ask:

In sports, many types of contests field males and females separately because of the differing physical attributes, on average, between the sexes. Do we have any evidence that the attributes required of a great conductor are shared equally between males and females? I'd guess that we have no such evidence, and that we simply substitute what we _want _to be true, and then we cling to our view with great vigor.

In many cases in life, the intensity of our belief is inversely proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it.


----------



## DavidA

Dedalus said:


> Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism or from the consequences of your speech. In no way was his freedom of speech curtailed.
> 
> So often I see this defense used in social media: somebody freely states their opinion, they get a large amount of angry backlash including both criticism and insults (because that's how the internet is), then they cry free speech because people aren't leaving them alone--an utter non-sequitur.
> 
> As soon as you unleash your opinions in a public forum they are fair game. This is especially true of public figures.


And on the other hand I've seen quite often someone expressing his/her opinion and then they get told they shouldn't have said it. Even some of our university campuses are now 'safe spaces' where nothing but the accepted 'wisdom' can be spoken.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> And on the other hand I've seen quite often someone expressing his/her opinion and then they get told they shouldn't have said it. Even some of our university campuses are now 'safe spaces' where nothing but the accepted 'wisdom' can be spoken.


There are instances of outright suppression of unpopular or "incorrect" speech - of people prevented from speaking by rowdy audiences, for example. But that's irrelevant here. Jansons said something a lot of people found objectionable and they said so. Bravo.


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> Feminism is about equal or superior _outcome_ in all aspects of society for women _specifically_, even at the expense of equal opportunity, and that's that.


_Some _may take feminism to be so, but you pronounce it as though it definitively is, and as if all who sign up to it are intent on a superior outcome.



Improbus said:


> Would we ever grant a Nazi the privilege of defining Nazism?


Er...well...yes. Nazism was created by Nazis, wasn't it?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> And on the other hand I've seen quite often someone expressing his/her opinion and then they get told they shouldn't have said it. Even some of our university campuses are now 'safe spaces' where nothing but the accepted 'wisdom' can be spoken.


"Freedom of speech" is itself subject to debate - what it means, what it implies, how it should be used. Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech means, definitively, that we should all be allowed to say anything we want, regardless of any consequences, has an overly simplistic view of the freedom.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> "Freedom of speech" is itself subject to debate - what it means, what it implies, how it should be used. Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech means, definitively, that we should all be allowed to say anything we want, regardless of any consequences, has an overly simplistic view of the freedom.


Views differ from place to place. In my country, freedom of speech means simply the freedom to state any opinion you like. Any exceptions are quite limited (crying fire in a crowded theater) and are themselves quite controversial.

I understand that elsewhere, even in some European countries, some opinions are forbidden to be given voice. I sincerely hope that sort of thing is kept to the east side of the Atlantic.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Views differ from place to place. In my country, freedom of speech means simply the freedom to state any opinion you like. Any exceptions are quite limited (crying fire in a crowded theater) and are themselves quite controversial.
> 
> I understand that elsewhere, even in some European countries, some opinions are forbidden to be given voice. I sincerely hope that sort of thing is kept to the east side of the Atlantic.


In your country, freedom of speech is the subject of as much debate as it is in mine, so don't kid yourself. Take a cursory glance at Wiki and you'll see that some aspects are curtailed - not just the 'fire' cliche.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> In your country, freedom of speech is the subject of as much debate as it is in mine, so don't kid yourself.


Tell me what I can't say. Debate there may be, but curtailment of freedom of speech, by law, there is not. There may be consequences (_e.g_. libel and slander suits) but those are after the fact and civil, not criminal actions.


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> Do we have any evidence that the attributes required of a great conductor are shared equally between males and females? I'd guess that we have no such evidence, and that we simply substitute what we _want _to be true, and then we cling to our view with great vigor.
> 
> In many cases in life, the intensity of our belief is inversely proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it.


Do we have any evidence that there are gender-dependent attributes of a great conductor?


----------



## KenOC

Nereffid said:


> Do we have any evidence that there are gender-dependent attributes of a great conductor?


None that I know of. Scientifically, we can't dismiss the null hypothesis, that there is no difference between the sexes in "great conductor" potential.

We need to be careful of being conditioned by the "traditional view" of the conductor as an alpha male, imposing his will on a group of subordinate males and females.


----------



## Nereffid

Gordontrek said:


> Yes, but it is not our job as a society to police and punish offensive language. It's our job to make sure people grow up educated and sensitive enough not to use offensive language, or hold the backwards views that spawn them, in the first place.
> As important as it is to draw attention to the obstacles female conductors face, it is extremely unlikely that you're going to change the minds of people like Panula and Petrenko. It would be a far better use of our time and energy to educate the next generation enough to prevent them from becoming Panula or Petrenko (in terms of their views, not their musicianship). I would much rather see a world where female conductors are regarded as just as "normal" as male conductors.


But surely part of the process of educating the next generation (and, by the way, there's 33 years between Jansons and Petrenko) is to call out specific instances of objections being raised to female conductors. Teachable moments and all that.

Also, I don't think anyone on this thread said anything about _punishing_ people for their views. (Wouldn't the appointment of more women conductors be punishment enough?)


----------



## Donna Elvira

KenOC said:


> I'd guess that some here won't be satisfied until females are represented among conductors equally (or more than equally) with males. But let me ask:
> 
> In sports, many types of contests field males and females separately because of the differing physical attributes, on average, between the sexes. Do we have any evidence that the attributes required of a great conductor are shared equally between males and females? I'd guess that we have no such evidence, and that we simply substitute what we _want _to be true, and then we cling to our view with great vigor.
> 
> In many cases in life, the intensity of our belief is inversely proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it.


I think this topic belongs on one of the other sites on this forum because it evolves into politico/cultural talk.
I was going to post something about Sarah Caldwell's "raw deal' but I clicked on Auto Save Restore and lost the whole post I had written. That reply, at least, was spefically talking about music.
This topic is just the type that made another forum I participated in devolve into ad hominens and infected with that politico/cultural talk that makes so many problems.
Really, who cares what a bunch of conductors say about women, I want to hear what they say about MUSIC.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Tell me what I can't say. Debate there may be, but curtailment of freedom of speech, by law, there is not. There may be consequences (_e.g_. libel and slander suits) but those are after the fact and civil, not criminal actions.


This is straying into a side issue - you can read Wiki as well as I can, and in any case, you'll see from my post that I referred to the idea of "freedom of speech without consequences".

The question is not whether Jansons is "allowed" to say what he thinks, (and certainly not what the definitions are of 'freedom of speech' and 'political correctness') but whether we should consider his views, ask how widespread they might be, and/or whether his status as a leading conductor confers on him a degree of influence that might adversely impact on women directly, or on others' attitudes to women etc etc etc.

For my part, I find it disappointing that a leading conductor feels this way - that he cannot step out of his generational attitudes and embrace the idea that a woman may have exactly the same capabilities and is entitled to the same opportunities as he himself has enjoyed.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> ...For my part, I find it disappointing that a leading conductor feels this way - that he cannot step out of his generational attitudes and embrace the idea that a woman may have exactly the same capabilities and is entitled to the same opportunities as he himself has enjoyed.


Well yes, you obviously feel this way because you disagree with his views. And yet you have put forward no evidence that they are wrong. Better to say that he has put forward no evidence to support his own (since there is no evidence either way).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Well yes, you obviously feel this way because you disagree with his views. And yet you have put forward no evidence that they are wrong. Better to say that he has put forward no evidence to support his own (since there is no evidence either way).


What evidence do I need? He's the one who acknowledged the old attitudes, and that it would be worng to be against women conductors. Perhaps I should more pertinently pose the question, "What does he make of the old attitudes...why were they/are they held...does he believe that it is because there is a difference in male and female capabilities...or is it the idea that women are a distraction...etc??"


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> What evidence do I need? He's the one who acknowledged the old attitudes...


"Old" = "wrong"? Certainly not proven. Otherwise, after all these thousands of years we must be getting pretty darned smart, something else that I consider quite unproven!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "Old" = "wrong"? Certainly not proven.


Who needs proof? I don't understand. Jansons said it would be wrong, not me.



> "Is he enthused by the biggest change in the conducting scene, the rise of young women to positions of prominence in the orchestral world? "Hmm, well…" Jansons pulls an embarrassed face, knowing he's about to say something deeply politically incorrect. "Well, I don't want to give offence, and I am not against it, that would be very wrong. I understand the world has changed, and there is now no profession that can be confined to this or that gender.


[edited to quote directly from the article in _The Daily Telegraph_]


----------



## Guest

Petrenko is a young man, his sexist comments have nothing to do with his generation.

We should perhaps be considering cultural background as well.


----------



## Granate

Petrenko: I don't believe women conductors are a distraction

I agree with the cultural background issue in Eastern Europe (see also the latest European survey on Gender-related opinions by country), but I can't believe no one went to the Wikipedia page, read the controversy and then go to the source...



Vasily Petrenko to The Telegraph said:


> This is an example of misquotation and actually quite a grotesque distortion from what I was saying," he protests. "It was also because of translation between several languages, because the article never appeared in English. [He doesn't speak Norwegian and did the interview in English, which was subsequently translated into Norwegian and then back again.] And from a 45-minute interview there were about four sentences.





> His most notorious quote was that "a cute girl on a podium means that musicians think about other things". Did he really say that?
> 
> "No, not at all," he says. "We were saying that because a woman conductor is still quite a rarity at the moment, their appearance at the podium, because of the historical background, always has some emotions reflected in the orchestra. One of the key points of the success of any conductor is the ability to have strong emotions in yourself while you're conducting. You need to project those emotions to the orchestra, and if you don't have it the orchestra won't follow you. They need to believe in you."
> 
> Petrenko says he was referring to Russia, where female conductors are still virtually unknown. He seems to mean that a woman is such an unfamiliar sight on the podium that the musicians may find it difficult to accept her authority, or be disconcerted by her sexuality.





> Be that as it may, Petrenko's strongest defence against accusations of bias against female conductors is the fact that he's married to one. Evgenia Chernysheva-Petrenko trained as a choral conductor in St Petersburg, and now teaches music at both the University of Liverpool and Liverpool Hope University.
> 
> "It's much easier for her here," her husband reports. *"In St Petersburg she was trying very hard as a singer and as a conductor, and I nearly got into a fight when one of the guys in the company said to her 'When will you stop? Why are you doing that?'"*
> 
> "The role of women in society was so different there. Evgenia would ask choral members 'What do you think about the concert I conducted?' and they'd say 'Does it matter?'"


----------



## EdwardBast

Improbus said:


> Feminism is about equal or superior _outcome_ in all aspects of society for women _specifically_, even at the expense of equal opportunity, and that's that.


That is an absurd definition. In any case, what is at issue here is equal treatment and equal opportunity irrespective of gender, a position that is a current societal norm. People who support it and who criticize those who speak against it don't betray an allegiance to an "ism," they display a normal awareness of civilized ethical standards. Of course people have the right to disagree and express their opinion. When they do so they should expect to be called out as the troglodytes they are.


----------



## Nereffid

KenOC said:


> Well yes, you obviously feel this way because you disagree with his views. And yet you have put forward no evidence that they are wrong. Better to say that he has put forward no evidence to support his own (since there is no evidence either way).


I would suggest that, (1) given that a male-dominated social system was firmly in place long before the idea of an orchestral conductor even existed, and (2) given that in all other areas, in the arts and elsewhere, where women have finally been given a chance to operate on equal footing with men, the sexes have proved equal, then the sensible position is to be on the side of having women conductors.

It's hard to provide evidence for or against something when a system is in place to prevent the existence of evidence in the first place.


----------



## Nereffid

Granate said:


> Petrenko: I don't believe women conductors are a distraction
> 
> I agree with the cultural background issue in Eastern Europe (see also the latest European survey on Gender-related opinions by country), but I can't believe no one went to the Wikipedia page, read the controversy and then go to the source...


Good find. I withdraw any criticisms I made of his supposed position. I hope the people who agreed with what they thought were Petrenko's comments will now have the good grace to condemn him for his actual opinion. :devil:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> "Freedom of speech" is itself subject to debate - what it means, what it implies, how it should be used. Anyone who thinks that freedom of speech means, definitively, that we should all be allowed to say anything we want, regardless of any consequences, has an overly simplistic view of the freedom.


Yes but if we start censoring statements like Jansons made then goodbye free speech!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Yes but if we start censoring statements like Jansons made then goodbye free speech!


No one is censoring. They may be censuring.


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> Yes but if we start censoring statements like Jansons made then goodbye free speech!


True, but seeing as Jansons's statement hasn't been censored, I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Cens*u*ring is not the same as cens*o*ring.


----------



## Botschaft

MacLeod said:


> _Some _may take feminism to be so, but you pronounce it as though it definitively is,


It's what all of organized feminism has in common.



> and as if all who sign up to it are intent on a superior outcome.


I did say equal _or_ superior, didn't I?



> Er...well...yes. Nazism was created by Nazis, wasn't it?


Yes, but generally you would have someone less biased define it as objectively as possible. Unfortunately Wikipedia, as one would expect, isn't entirely unbiased.



EdwardBast said:


> That is an absurd definition.


Perhaps it is not so much the definition itself that is absurd as what it's a definition of.



> In any case, what is at issue here is equal treatment and equal opportunity irrespective of gender, a position that is a current societal norm. People who support it and who criticize those who speak against it don't betray an allegiance to an "ism," they display a normal awareness of civilized ethical standards.


Then what's even the point of a feminist movement in the West, or calling yourself a feminist? By that standard _I'm_ a feminist, and I don't even care if women are equal (or men for that matter) as long as there's no discrimination (which isn't the main issue of feminists since they support discriminatory affirmative action).



> Of course people have the right to disagree and express their opinion. When they do so they should expect to be called out as the troglodytes they are.


Supposing they really are troglodytes, and even then name-calling is no substitute for actual arguments. Sometimes the "troglodytes" are right, and the only way to know if they're not is to disprove what they stand for, and then you need to know what that actually is.



Nereffid said:


> Good find. I withdraw any criticisms I made of his supposed position. I hope the people who agreed with what they thought were Petrenko's comments will now have the good grace to condemn him for his actual opinion. :devil:


Perhaps they, like me, were more careful not to jump to conclusions.



MacLeod said:


> No one is censoring. They may be censuring.


But they did misrepresent, which can be equally damaging.


----------



## DavidA

Nereffid said:


> True, but seeing as Jansons's statement hasn't been censored, I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> Cens*u*ring is not the same as cens*o*ring.


If you read the context of my statement that will become clear I hope


----------



## Guest

Improbus said:


> It's what all of organized feminism has in common.
> 
> You seem unwilling to allow for the possibility that, as with any -ism, not all who claim to subscribe have a clear understanding of what that -ism is. You yourself want to remove the possibility of bias in definitions, don't you? So where are we to go for clarity? Not any man - far too biased!
> 
> I did say equal _or_ superior, didn't I?
> 
> Yes, and it's the 'superior' I was querying.
> 
> Yes, but generally you would have someone less biased define it as objectively as possible. Unfortunately Wikipedia, as one would expect, isn't entirely unbiased.
> 
> In the case of Nazism (a bizarre choice, presumably aimed at the crude rhetorical) it would seem perverse not to ask the creators of National Socialism what they meant by it.
> 
> Then what's even the point of a feminist movement in the West, or calling yourself a feminist? By that standard _I'm_ a feminist, and I don't even care if women are equal (or men for that matter) as long as there's no discrimination (which isn't the main issue of feminists since they support discriminatory affirmative action).
> 
> It was Machiavel, David A, Ken OC and yourself that seem to be concerned about the feminist agenda. No one else mentioned it until you all did!
> 
> But they did misrepresent, which can be equally damaging.


But you accept that no-one's censoring?


----------



## fluteman

MacLeod said:


> No one is censoring. They may be censuring.





Nereffid said:


> True, but seeing as Jansons's statement hasn't been censored, I'm not sure where you're coming from.
> 
> Cens*u*ring is not the same as cens*o*ring.


Woodduck, MacLeod, and Nereffid, in their usual intelligent way (thanks, gentlemen, I enjoy your posts) put their collective finger on the thing that annoys me about this kind of debate here the most. In what possible way can one argue that Mariss Jansons is being censored? As one of the most famous and prominent conductors in the world, his comments are routinely published and widely distributed and read. He has received a lot of criticism for his remarks and has "apologized" by saying "it was undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive for me to point out that I'm not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform." But he didn't retract his original statements, nor has he been sanctioned in any way for them, nor will he be, in all likelihood. And at 74, I don't think he's worried very much about future career development.
The issue here has nothing to do with musical ability, and everything to do with accepting women in positions of authority in a field that is still very much bound by ancient tradition. In my opinion, that lack of acceptance has an especially negative impact on women succeeding as conductors, and can result in women with more forceful personalities having more success (in the financial and career sense) than women with more artistic ability.
But I'm especially annoyed how certain posters here (even some moderators!) repeatedly confuse criticism for censorship. Criticism is an inevitable result of an absence of censorship.


----------



## Strange Magic

@Improbus, could you please provide a definition and/or example(s) of _organized feminism_, other than your own, such that we gain more insight into your expressed views? I also looked up your TC pseudonym, and see that it is a Latin word that perhaps itself provides additional insight; again, your comment would be of interest.


----------



## Larkenfield

Fifty-five women on the podium both past and present: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_classical_conductors

Why these conductors aren't being discussed more is anyone's guess, rather than continuing to argue that no one is being given a chance. There's still a noticeable degree of sexism (a more accurate description than mysogyny, IMO) in a very competitive field but some are already out there performing now and more women are on the rise. So how did they get there? What are some of their views on conducting? How is the audience reacting to them? What is their acceptance by listeners? What are their recordings? Are they being given a chance in the recording studio where they could widen their reputations? Are they single or married? Did they play an instrument or sing before they got on the podium? What conductors did they study under? What's their education? What's their preferred repertoire? What countries do they represent? What countries are they in now? . . .


----------



## KenOC

One item that hasn’t been mentioned in this debate is the marketability of conductors. Most CM consumers buy (tickets, CDs, or whatever) largely based on the conductor. So in selecting a conductor, the questions must be asked: Will this person fill the seats in the hall? Sell a lot of recordings?

Perhaps there is a belief in the industry that the ultimate customers are more likely to prefer a male acting as conductor to a female, and for reasons that have nothing to do with talent or skill.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Fifty-five women on the podium both past and present: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_classical_conductors
> 
> Why these conductors aren't being discussed more is anyone's guess, rather than continuing to argue that no one is being given a chance. There's still a noticeable degree of sexism (a more accurate description than mysogyny, IMO) in a very competitive field but some are already out there performing now and more women are on the rise. So how did they get there? What are some of their views on conducting? How is the audience reacting to them? What is their acceptance by listeners? What are their recordings? Are they being given a chance in the recording studio where they could widen their reputations? Are they single or married? Did they play an instrument or sing before they got on the podium? What conductors did they study under? What's their education? What's their preferred repertoire? What countries do they represent? What countries are they in now? . . .


Answers on a postcard to.....


----------



## Botschaft

MacLeod said:


> But you accept that no-one's censoring?


No one's censoring, though I'm sure many would like to. People and especially Americans should be careful not to take their freedom of speech for granted, as there are many who would happily take it away from them. And even with freedom of speech we have things such as defamation and de-platforming.



Strange Magic said:


> @Improbus, could you please provide a definition and/or example(s) of _organized feminism_, other than your own, such that we gain more insight into your expressed views?


It seems to me quite self-explanatory, but let's say that it's any instance of an organization based on feminism, such as a feminist political party (we have one in Sweden that strangely almost entered the Riksdag).



> I also looked up your TC pseudonym, and see that it is a Latin word that perhaps itself provides additional insight; again, your comment would be of interest.


How dare you?! :lol:


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> I think there are plenty of female soloists who project the drama, passion, and beauty of classical music fully as well as their male counterparts. So I can imagine no reason the ladies wouldn't perform as well as conductors.
> 
> Still, I have heard no female conductors currently that impress me as at all exceptional. Not that they are very many to start with! I lay it to luck of the draw, nothing else.


 I find that I have to agree with that. JoAnne Falleta (sp?) might be the best that I've heard and her work on recordings at least is inconsistent. Marin Alsop is a great disappointment, for a Bernstein protégé. Her recordings play it safe and are real snoozers. Simone Young gave us a couple of decent Bruckner Symphonies but more facelessness in the majority of them.
As Ken says, it's a small sample size. No reason that we won't one day have a well respected dynamo one day that happens to be female, as long as the playing field is level and they get equal opportunities.


----------



## wkasimer

MarkW said:


> As someone who grew up in Boston during Sarah Caldwell's heyday, I always thought she got a raw deal.


My recollection is that Caldwell was admired as a conductor, but had some serious issues in terms of organization and administration.


----------



## eljr

KenOC said:


> I looked up Jorma Panula and he appears to be neither uneducated nor a moron -- quite the opposite in fact. It seems unlikely that his disagreeing with your viewpoint would make him so.


I too had taken the time to look him up.

It did not change the fact that his statement were the words of an uneducated moron. Should I instead call him a misogynistic azz?

Fair enough, we can go with that.

-----------------------

I have know, still do actually, geniuses who too have little sense in many matters.

I think we make a grave mistake when we equate education with infallibility.

If his viewpoint was that the world is flat, would you say he simply had a different point of view?

------------------------

If you still believe his statement not moronic and uneducated, please provide a link to the study that shows women biologically only able to conduct music Mr. Panula's deems feminine.


----------



## eljr

DaveM said:


> My problem is with the word 'misogyny'. It's original meaning and still it's main meaning (regardless of the fact that it is being frequently used more broadly in the media) is 'hatred of women'. I would say that the more appropriate word here is 'sexism'. So, if women are being kept out of more prestigious classical music positions such as conducting based on the premise that they just don't measure up to men then that is sexism, not misogyny.
> 
> I would add that even though you see milder terms (such as prejudice) used under the moniker of misogyny these days, it's original -and main- meaning is so pejorative that I think it should be reserved for the most extreme situations such as a man who routinely demeans and/or abuses women.


mi·sog·y·nis·tic
məˌsäjəˈnistik/Submit
adjective
strongly prejudiced against women.


----------



## eljr

stomanek said:


> I doubt if we will see a woman obtain a major appointment - unless a big orchestra decides to make a political point on gender.


Let's hope this occurs sooner rather than later.


----------



## DaveM

eljr said:


> mi·sog·y·nis·tic
> məˌsäjəˈnistik/Submit
> adjective
> strongly prejudiced against women.


And your point is? My post addressed the fact that 'prejudice' appears in definitions of misogyny. The word misogyny and its derivatives originated from the Greek/Latin words for woman hater. That has always been its primary meaning.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Improbus said:


> My reference is reality. That might not be good enough for you, but I nevertheless maintain that my definition is accurate.
> 
> But this isn't a very satisfactory definition, is it? We need to establish what is meant by equality and for whom exactly in order for this to make any sense. This also sounds much like a feminist's definition of feminism. Would we ever grant a Nazi the privilege of defining Nazism?
> 
> Would a feminist ever care if women collectively have more power in any area? The answer, of course, is no. Feminism, as the name implies, is about women's interests, and that's it.


I think we have to separate feminist ideals from the incidents. That Wikipediatric D) definition is a great definition of the ideals and I have no doubt there are many feminists that adhere to these ideals. Are they always practiced? I can pick out incidents where like you said, they step over the line, but that can be attributed to them being on the defensive and overcompensating. These may be more outspoken and aggressive individuals, and I don't think is fair to judge the whole by some incidents.

Back on topic of the conductors, I hear Alsop whipping and Glover whipping up a storm in the music, that can't be distinguished from male conductors. I believe, especially when it comes to classical music, that individuals, musicians or conductors, can turn off any sexual instincts or bias.


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> I can pick out incidents where like you said, they step over the line, but that can be attributed to them being on the defensive and overcompensating. These may be more outspoken and aggressive individuals, and I don't think is fair to judge the whole by some incidents.


An amusing sidelight: "Feminism site Medusa Magazine shuts down after founder admits it was pure satire"

…"We thought no one in the world could possibly hold views as ridiculous as that, so we wrote it as satire and published it," the creator wrote.

The site's headlines include theatrical headlines such as "Trump Initiates Gay Holocaust," "Don't Gender your Pets," "Here's how you can start paying Reparations"...

Medusa will be shut down because "there is no point in operating a caricature website of Feminism anymore when real life Feminists are now more insane than any caricature we could ever dream up," according to the creator… Medusa's creator encouraged fans simply to start reading actual feminist content, as the messages are typically the same as the hoax site.


----------



## Botschaft

KenOC said:


> An amusing sidelight: "Feminism site Medusa Magazine shuts down after founder admits it was pure satire"
> 
> …"We thought no one in the world could possibly hold views as ridiculous as that, so we wrote it as satire and published it," the creator wrote.
> 
> The site's headlines include theatrical headlines such as "Trump Initiates Gay Holocaust," "Don't Gender your Pets," "Here's how you can start paying Reparations"...
> 
> Medusa will be shut down because "there is no point in operating a caricature website of Feminism anymore when real life Feminists are now more insane than any caricature we could ever dream up," according to the creator… Medusa's creator encouraged fans simply to start reading actual feminist content, as the messages are typically the same as the hoax site.


That's a great example of Poe's law in action.


----------



## Woodduck

In my years as an employee of the University of Washington in Seattle, I had the unenviable job of reading onto tape a great deal of academic horsepucky, including treatises of postmodern feminist deconstructionism which I was supposed to make sound meaningful and fascinating for disabled (or should I say "differently abled") students stuck in women's studies courses. I can assure the uninitiated that there are indeed realms of feminist thought into which sane minds venture only at the risk of coma or Crohn's disease. The original feminists, who merely fought for women's rights, would not recognize these philosophical monstrosities.

Fortunately, none of that crapola needs to be read by anyone who just wants to see women treated as fully functional human beings in traditionally masculine fields, or elsewhere for that matter.


----------



## eljr

Woodduck said:


> In my years as an employee of the University of Washington in Seattle, I had the unenviable job of reading onto tape a great deal of academic horsepucky, including treatises of postmodern feminist deconstructionism which I was supposed to make sound meaningful and fascinating for disabled (or should I say "differently abled") students stuck in women's studies courses. I can assure the uninitiated that there are indeed realms of feminist thought into which sane minds venture only at the risk of coma or Crohn's disease. The original feminists, who merely fought for women's rights, would not recognize these philosophical monstrosities.
> 
> Fortunately, none of that crapola needs to be read by anyone who just wants to see women treated as fully functional human beings in traditionally masculine fields, or elsewhere for that matter.


It always takes radicals to move the country to the middle.


----------



## Flamme

Oh well thats very politically INCORRECT from that bunch and thats a mortal sin nowadays... I still wait to see more women miners, car mechanics or electricians...Thse professions are certainly at the top of mysoginist list and deserve every bit of OUTRAGE...


----------



## Tallisman

Christ, complaining about political correctness has itself become the new political correctness. It's become as uber-ideological and combative as the thing it purports to reject for those precise reasons. Started off cool and different, now its just sad and boring. I think you all know that women can achieve the heights men typically achieve, but you're dismissing that idea simply because it sounds slightly feminist and politically correct. 

Even Schopenhauer, towards the end of his vexed life, realised this fact. 
"I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man."

Men and women have biological differences, as well as certain inherent (or at least deeply culturally ingrained) differences. That this should make a female conductor's interpretative potential any less than that of a man is nonsensical trash, a lame excuse. 

It's quite simple, really: people should gain positions and jobs based on merit. I don't want discrimination, nor do I want that new abomination they call 'positive' discrimination. Meritocracy is the way to go, as well as informing yourself before you mouth off.


----------



## Tallisman

woodduck said:


> in my years as an employee of the university of washington in seattle, i had the unenviable job of reading onto tape a great deal of academic horsepucky, including treatises of postmodern feminist deconstructionism which i was supposed to make sound meaningful and fascinating for disabled (or should i say "differently abled") students stuck in women's studies courses. I can assure the uninitiated that there are indeed realms of feminist thought into which sane minds venture only at the risk of coma or crohn's disease. The original feminists, who merely fought for women's rights, would not recognize these philosophical monstrosities.
> _
> fortunately, none of that crapola needs to be read by anyone who just wants to see women treated as fully functional human beings in traditionally masculine fields, or elsewhere for that matter._


amen ................


----------



## Tallisman

fluteman said:


> Woodduck, MacLeod, and Nereffid, in their usual intelligent way (thanks, gentlemen, I enjoy your posts) put their collective finger on the thing that annoys me about this kind of debate here the most. In what possible way can one argue that Mariss Jansons is being censored? As one of the most famous and prominent conductors in the world, his comments are routinely published and widely distributed and read. He has received a lot of criticism for his remarks and has "apologized" by saying "it was undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive for me to point out that I'm not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform." But he didn't retract his original statements, nor has he been sanctioned in any way for them, nor will he be, in all likelihood. And at 74, I don't think he's worried very much about future career development.
> The issue here has nothing to do with musical ability, and everything to do with accepting women in positions of authority in a field that is still very much bound by ancient tradition. In my opinion, that lack of acceptance has an especially negative impact on women succeeding as conductors, and can result in women with more forceful personalities having more success (in the financial and career sense) than women with more artistic ability.
> But I'm especially annoyed how certain posters here (even some moderators!) repeatedly confuse criticism for censorship. Criticism is an inevitable result of an absence of censorship.


Thank you for hammering the nail right on its head


----------



## Star

I must confess that I have never together desire to see women conductors unless they are there on merit. Those I have heard have not brought anything too special to the party that I can think of. Of course when he is not against the idea but for goodness sake let them be there because they are the best. As to the ridiculous idea that women will distract men players, what has happened all these years with women players and male conductors?


----------



## 1996D

If a man wrote the piece it's only logical that it's best understood by another man. However, as long as female conductors base their interpretation on that of a previous conductor there should be no problem, which is what they're doing anyway. Good musicians can oftentimes direct themselves and we've had a genius already record how almost every piece should be played, so as long as humility is kept by these new politically birthed conductors the music should be decent.



Woodduck said:


> Fortunately, none of that crapola needs to be read by anyone who just wants to see women treated as fully functional human beings in traditionally masculine fields, or elsewhere for that matter.


They are being treated more than fairly, otherwise they wouldn't be conducting at all.


----------



## 1996D

On second thought this is absolutely horrendous...


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> If a man wrote the piece it's only logical that it's best understood by another man. However, as long as female conductors base their interpretation on that of a previous conductor there should be no problem, which is what they're doing anyway. Good musicians can oftentimes direct themselves and we've had a genius already record how almost every piece should be played, so as long as humility is kept by these new politically birthed conductors the music should be decent.
> 
> They are being treated more than fairly, otherwise they wouldn't be conducting at all.


Holy ****.

Let me get this straight. 1.) Women don't understand music written by men as well as men do. Assuming this applies to singers and instrumentalists as well as conductors, and given that most classical music in the repertoire has been composed by men, most performances by female musicians must be inferior to most performances by male musicians. 2.) Women wouldn't be conducting at all if they were not treated _more_ than fairly. Therefore, fairness would ensure that all conductors are men.

Am I understanding your thinking (or whatever has caused you to say these things) on the subject?


----------



## mbhaub

Horrendous, how? I didn't watch the whole thing, but I hear/see nothing out of line.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> On second thought this is absolutely horrendous...


Yeah, the pianist needs to find a good musician to coach him and needs to live with the piece a few more years before playing it in public. 

But seriously: it's the _Calgary Philharmonic._ What do you want - Furtwangler and the BPO?


----------



## 1996D

I'll be seeing her with Trifonov soon, I'll tell you how it goes.



Woodduck said:


> 2.) Women wouldn't be conducting at all if they were not treated _more_ than fairly. Therefore, fairness would ensure that all conductors are men.
> 
> Am I understanding your thinking (or whatever has caused you to say these things) on the subject?


In our social democracy the formula is: ability + minority status = recognition: and given that there are currently no prominent Black conductors alive I'll say women are being treated indeed more than fairly.


----------



## mbhaub

Woodduck said:


> But seriously: it's the _Calgary Philharmonic._ What do you want - Furtwangler and the BPO?


Really? Just because Calgary happens to be in cowboy country you think the orchestra is not so good? They're terrific, they have a fine conducting staff. Just because Calgary has the annual Stampede, doesn't mean that that wonderful, beautiful city doesn't have fine arts organizations. The philharmonic's problem is that too many concerts are going the way of pops. Star Wars live. Abba. Paul Brandt (ok, that will sell well with the rodeo cowboy crowd), Mary Poppins...like too many American orchestras. You ought to go to Calgary and hear them. I bet the Mahler 2 coming up this fall will be just fine!


----------



## Woodduck

mbhaub said:


> Really? Just because Calgary happens to be in cowboy country you think the orchestra is not so good? They're terrific, they have a fine conducting staff. Just because Calgary has the annual Stampede, doesn't mean that that wonderful, beautiful city doesn't have fine arts organizations. The philharmonic's problem is that too many concerts are going the way of pops. Star Wars live. Abba. Paul Brandt (ok, that will sell well with the rodeo cowboy crowd), Mary Poppins...like too many American orchestras. You ought to go to Calgary and hear them. I bet the Mahler 2 coming up this fall will be just fine!


Take it easy. I took a little jab at our alpha-male throwback who made a ridiculously unfair remark about a performance by the Calgary Philharmonic, and now _I'm_ the one saying that the Calgary Philharmonic is "not so good"? I have no opinion of the Calgary Philharmonic, or, for that matter, of cowboy country. I'm sure they're both lovely. You can be danged good and still not be Furtwangler and the BPO.

The proper translation and subtext of my remark, taken in context, is: "This performance may not be by your gender-approved Wilhelm Furtwangler and the Berlin Philharmonic, if that's what you require, but then nothing is, so your calling it horrendous is absurd and basically misogynist."

Peace.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, not a bad orchestra at all. I think the pianist did a pretty good job as well.

Digressing a bit re: female conductors: One that I’ve been pretty impressed with lately is Simone Young conducting Bruckner symphonies.


----------



## mmsbls

1996D said:


> If a man wrote the piece it's only logical that it's best understood by another man. However, as long as female conductors base their interpretation on that of a previous conductor there should be no problem, which is what they're doing anyway. Good musicians can oftentimes direct themselves and we've had a genius already record how almost every piece should be played, so as long as humility is kept by these new politically birthed conductors the music should be decent.
> 
> They are being treated more than fairly, otherwise they wouldn't be conducting at all.


Such sexist views are inappropriate on TC. While you may believe that women are innately inferior to men in conducting or other musical activities, we take strong exception to such beliefs and request that you do not continue to post such views here or elsewhere on TC.


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> I'll be seeing her with Trifonov soon, I'll tell you how it goes.
> 
> In our social democracy the formula is: ability + minority status = recognition: and given that there are currently no prominent Black conductors alive I'll say women are being treated indeed more than fairly.


The cry of the oppressed man!

Seriously...:lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

1996D said:


> On second thought this is absolutely horrendous...


It's not enough to make dismissive blanket statements such as this without something more specific. I did not find this an "absolutely horrendous" performance at all. But there seemed to be a noticeable difference in temperament between the conductor and the pianist who could be rather heavy-handed and hard to accompany because when he got loud he forged ahead without consideration for the orchestra, or at least some awareness of it, and I felt that he had a somewhat queasy rubato. But horrendous - I don't think so.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Yeah, I don't think the pianist was particularly interested in what the orchestra or conductor was doing at times. But it's a competition performance, so chances of rehearsal time must surely have been limited? I have heard much horrendouser performances of this piece.....!

I hope the conductor is good, she's doing the First Night of the Proms this summer!


----------



## Jacck

1996D said:


> I'll be seeing her with Trifonov soon, I'll tell you how it goes.
> In our social democracy the formula is: ability + minority status = recognition: and given that there are currently no prominent Black conductors alive I'll say women are being treated indeed more than fairly.


there is even a funny hierarchy of victimhood, it is called intersecionality. All this feminist ideology sounds like some horrible orwellian newspeak to me and reminds me of the communist slogans from my childhood. Just google words like "matrix of domination" and "vectors of oppression and privilege". I wonder when these "intellectuals" discover tensors of toxic masculinity :lol:

Just to be sure: I believe that women in music are as capable as men and have no problem with female conductors. However the politicial correctness and diversity ideology and all this stuff became especially in US academia insufferable. I am grateful that I am not an academician in the US and do not need to write "diversity statements" etc, not to mention that the job market is horrible and only an insane person would start a Ph.D. nowadays
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/bad-job-market-phds/479205/


----------



## 1996D

mmsbls said:


> Such sexist views are inappropriate on TC. While you may believe that women are innately inferior to men in conducting or other musical activities, we take strong exception to such beliefs and request that you do not continue to post such views here or elsewhere on TC.


Understood, I won't generalize, I'll just say that Canellakis, the most championed female conductor, has horrible recordings, and that I'll be seeing her live soon and reporting her performance in detail on this very thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ She is an artist not a gender.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> there is even a funny hierarchy of victimhood, it is called intersecionality. All this feminist ideology sounds like some horrible orwellian newspeak to me and reminds me of the communist slogans from my childhood. Just google words like "matrix of domination" and "vectors of oppression and privilege". I wonder when these "intellectuals" discover tensors of toxic masculinity :lol:
> 
> Just to be sure: I believe that women in music are as capable as men and have no problem with female conductors. However the politicial correctness and diversity ideology and all this stuff became especially in US academia insufferable. I am grateful that I am not an academician in the US and do not need to write "diversity statements" etc, not to mention that the job market is horrible and only an insane person would start a Ph.D. nowadays
> https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/bad-job-market-phds/479205/


And yet by all measures, and despite this conspiracy that you see, women enjoy poorer opportunities that men in nearly all sectors. What always gets me about people (men) adopting the position that you do is how whining their objections sound! And isn't that because of some sort of insecurity? You can certainly find crazy views and ideas on the internet but that is not a measure of the world we live in.


----------



## Jacck

conductors are overrated. They just randomly wave their baton, assume funny grimaces and the orchestra plays by itself anyway. They will be replaced by AIs


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> And yet by all measures, and despite this conspiracy that you see, women enjoy poorer opportunities that men in nearly all sectors. What always gets me about people (men) adopting the position that you do is how whining their objections sound! And isn't that because of some sort of insecurity? You can certainly find crazy views and ideas on the internet but that is not a measure of the world we live in.


we do not need feminism, or blackism (or what its called) or any other minoritism. The correct -ism has existed since the Renaissance, it it called humanism, and it has advocated human (not male or female, black or white) rights for all since many centuries. Any movement, that claims that women are opressed, without failing to recognize that men can be and are opressed too, is chauvinistic. My fight is not with women, who I like, but with this toxic ideology.


----------



## Enthusiast

Toxic? Please address the main question. Women and BAME people have far poorer opportunities and outcomes than men in most (all?) countries and this is not fair: what should be done about it? If you are a humanist you should care about this deeply.


----------



## wkasimer

mmsbls said:


> Such sexist views are inappropriate on TC. While you may believe that women are innately inferior to men in conducting or other musical activities, we take strong exception to such beliefs and request that you do not continue to post such views here or elsewhere on TC.


One of the best features of unfettered free speech is that it's really easy to figure out who's a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, or a complete idiot, because they tell you. When they're censored, I'm forced to guess.

Since I know that 1996D is a misogynist, I now know that I can't trust his opinion about any female performer, and I suspect that I can't trust his opinion about much of anything else, either. Without knowing his obvious and abhorrent bias, I might be tempted to take him seriously.

So if you, as an administrator, feel that 1996D is a disruption to TC, don't provide him with a platform - simply banish him entirely. But deciding what they can or cannot write is not, in my opinion, a good solution.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> Toxic? Please address the main question. Women and BAME people have far poorer opportunities and outcomes than men in most (all?) countries and this is not fair: what should be done about it? If you are a humanist you should care about this deeply.


I disagree with your claim that women in the west are opressed, marginalized, discrimited etc, so my solution is to do exactly nothing at all, and let the free market sort it out. You cannot change people's attitudes by ordering it from above. 
I agree that women in many non-western countries are still opressed, have limited rights etc. and the west should exert politic and economic pressure on those countries to improve their human rights, but that is all we can do.


----------



## 1996D

wkasimer said:


> Since I know that 1996D is a misogynist, I now know that I can't trust his opinion about any female performer, and I suspect that I can't trust his opinion about much of anything else, either. Without knowing his obvious and abhorrent bias, I might be tempted to take him seriously.


I strongly believe the truth should be spoken, even in our social democracy where providing a voice to all characters is important. Should generalizations be considered misogyny? Only if the motive is malicious. My intent is to not harbour unrealistic expectations and propel very inexperienced individuals into the larger stage, simply because they fit the democratic agenda.

It is unfair to them and to the paying audiences--I consider it appalling that one of the greatest pianists in the world (Trifonov) have to be directed by a near amateur in the field of conducting--and that it may ruin the entire performance because some are overambitious in their progressive ideologies.

The only reason Canellakis is where she is--very ironically--is because of her gender, and that is an overreaction even in the democracy. High art should absolutely be exempt of politics whether that be in a tyranny or social democracy.


----------



## wkasimer

1996D said:


> I strongly believe the truth should be spoken.


A couple of points which are obvious to everyone else on TC, and shouldn't need to be stated:

1) Opinion is not truth.
2) Generalization is not truth.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> I strongly believe the truth should be spoken, even in our social democracy where providing a voice to all characters is important. Should generalizations be considered misogyny? Only if the motive is malicious. My intent is to not harbour unrealistic expectations and propel very inexperienced individuals into the larger stage, simply because they fit the democratic agenda.
> 
> It is unfair to them and to the paying audiences--I consider it appalling that one of the greatest pianists in the world (Trifonov) have to be directed by a near amateur in the field of conducting--and that it may ruin the entire performance because some are overambitious in their progressive ideologies.
> 
> The only reason Canellakis is where she is--very ironically--is because of her gender, and that is an overreaction even in the democracy. High art should absolutely be exempt of politics whether that be in a tyranny or social democracy.


It's misogyny.

You seem to think conductors make all the interpretive decisions when collaborating with soloists in the performance of a concerto. Where did you get this strange idea? It is wrong. The soloist has the leading role in interpretation.


----------



## 1996D

You're in denial, go do your homework and listen to Canellakis before you accuse of misogyny, then tell me she deserves to be conducting at the biggest stage. It's very clear you no idea what you're talking about.

Conducting is the hardest thing next to composing.


----------



## mbhaub

Jacck said:


> conductors are overrated. They just randomly wave their baton, assume funny grimaces and the orchestra plays by itself anyway. They will be replaced by AIs


That's right! So overrated, so over paid, worshipped, honored. When a performance goes bad, the orchestra gets blamed. When it goes well, the conductor takes the credit. I know several conductors who admit freely that the reason they took up the baton was because they weren't good enough players on their instrument to make it. To be fair, there have been some conductors who really know their stuff, have an uncanny ability to coax something special out of an orchestra and deliver an extraordinary performance. But by and large there are few of those today. There are many competent, technically fine conductors. But it's not that difficult of a job. Stressful, to be sure. But being a cop, teacher, doctor, nurse, pilot and many other jobs are no less stressful. There's a lot more to it that waving a stick, but it's not as difficult as some would like to think. The salaries these people are paid is insane and contributes to the severe budget challenges orchestras have.

And yes, I have spent time on the podium. Complete Nutcrackers, symphony concerts, Pops concerts, Christmas concerts, an opera. Playing in the orchestra is much more fun.


----------



## Dedalus

1996D said:


> If a man wrote the piece it's only logical that it's best understood by another man. However, as long as female conductors base their interpretation on that of a previous conductor there should be no problem, which is what they're doing anyway. Good musicians can oftentimes direct themselves and we've had a genius already record how almost every piece should be played, so as long as humility is kept by these new politically birthed conductors the music should be decent.
> 
> They are being treated more than fairly, otherwise they wouldn't be conducting at all.


Is it only logical that only a gay man can understand Tchaikovsky? Is it only logical that a bitter middle aged deaf man can understand Beethoven? Is it only logical that only a British bloke would understand Elgar? Why stop at gender?

Or why stop at music? To think I thought I understood all those books I've read by female authors. Any time I read a comic book, I had better check to see no woman penciled those panels, otherwise I won't be able to understand them.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> The only reason Canellakis is where she is--very ironically--is because of her gender, and that is an overreaction even in the democracy...


There's no reason to believe that. At 38 she has been appointed as the chief conductor of an orchestra in the Netherlands and principal guest conductor of an orchestra in Berlin. (She studied conducting at Juilliard.)

People don't get appointed to these positions if they are limited talents. There are far more wannabe conductors than orchestras so there's no reason to believe that the two orchestras above accepted second best in the name of some gender political correctness.


----------



## 1996D

Dedalus said:


> Or why stop at music? To think I thought I understood all those books I've read by female authors. Any time I read a comic book, I had better check to see no woman penciled those panels, otherwise I won't be able to understand them.


Good composition is such a masculine endeavour that only men are capable of it; the male equivalent of giving birth, but except of a biological entity, an abstract and emotional entity. A conductor has to mirror the composer's creation in order to recreate it, and orchestral works are often of such contrapuntal complexity that only a similar mind to that of the composer can properly recreate it.

By similar I don't mean life experience, but rather a particular capacity for abstraction and the emotional comprehension and breadth to match it.


----------



## Jacck

DaveM said:


> There's no reason to believe that. At 38 she has been appointed as the chief conductor of an orchestra in the Netherlands and principal guest conductor of an orchestra in Berlin. (She studied conducting at Juilliard.)
> 
> People don't get appointed to these positions if they are limited talents. There are far more wannabe conductors than orchestras so there's no reason to believe that the two orchestras above accepted second best in the name of some gender political correctness.


and this is the REAL problem with any kinds of quotas. If you introduce any quotas for minorities (and women are not a minority!), then if a member of the minority gets the job, everyone will assume, that he got it not because of talent and hard work, but because of being privileged. So the quotas are damaging to the minorities themselves.

there was a pressure to find a female physicist for the Nobel Prize and so they found one
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181008-why-dont-more-women-dont-win-nobel-prizes-in-science
now, do people really believe that she deserved it, or do they think that she got it because of this pressure to award it to a women? I know this has been discussed on some physics blogs I follow and some physicists actually held this opinion, ie that there were better male candidates, but she got it because of political reasons. (I myself have no opinion on this, since I don't know her work)

Maybe the reason, why women don't go to STEM fields, is the same as the reason, why female toddlers prefer dolls and male toddlers cars. But the current political climate prohibits to even ask such questions.

(the BBC article itself is pretty horrible propaganda and if one searches Mary K. Feeney on scholar.google, it is obvious what kind of ideologically driven "researcher" she is. She herself obviously did not go to a hard STEM field)


----------



## Jacck

1996D said:


> Good composition is such a masculine endeavour that only men are capable of it; the male equivalent of giving birth, but except of a biological entity, an abstract and emotional entity. A conductor has to mirror the composer's creation in order to recreate it, and orchestral works are often of such contrapuntal complexity that only a similar mind to that of the composer can properly recreate it.


this is sheer nonsense imho. I don't think the differences between the sexes are that great that we are two different species. Many women have men-like brains and vice versa. And there are many fine compositions by women and interpretations by women.


----------



## Dedalus

1996D said:


> Good composition is such a masculine endeavour that only men are capable of it; the male equivalent of giving birth, but except of a biological entity, an abstract and emotional entity. A conductor has to mirror the composer's creation in order to recreate it, and orchestral works are often of such contrapuntal complexity that only a similar mind to that of the composer can properly recreate it.
> 
> By similar I don't mean life experience, but rather a particular capacity for abstraction and the emotional comprehension and breadth to match it.


I'm still wondering why you stop at music. You could make the same argument about literature. That literature is such a masculine endeavor that only men are capable of it. Only men have the Apollonian and creative gifts suitable for the creation of great literature. You could say the same about visual arts. Only men have the visual and spacial intelligence to create truly good art.


----------



## paulbest

Becca said:


> What is it about some male conductors and their opinions about women conducting? It isn't as if they have to deal with a woman on the podium. Examples...
> 
> Jorma Pannula:
> Q: _Do you think it is good that women enter the profession and become conductors? _
> Pannula: _No! What the hell, we have men already. It is such a limited profession… They can try, but it is a completely different deal. I can't comment on media or public opinion. But women… Of course they are trying! Some of them are making faces, sweating and fussing, but it is not getting any better - only worse! They can come [to my masterclasses] and try. It's not a problem - if they choose the right pieces. If they take more feminine music. Bruckner or Stravinsky will not do, but Debussy is OK. This is a purely biological question._
> 
> Vasily Petrenko:
> "_[orchestras] react better when they have a man in front of them ... a cute girl on a podium means that musicians think about other things_".
> 
> Now add a new one to the list:
> 
> "_Well, I don't want to give offence, and I am not against it, that would be very wrong. I understand the world has changed, and there is now no profession that can be confined to this or that gender. It's a question of what one is used to. I grew up in a different world, and for me seeing a woman on the podium… well, let's just say it's not my cup of tea._" - Mariss Jansons
> 
> "_My cup of tea is Yorkshire. With a little honey and plenty of milk. Kind of a camel colour. Doesn't matter if the camel is male or female..._" - Barbara Hannigan


can you name me 1 ~~~ legendary women conductor~~~~ one legendary woman composer~~~~At least as great as Furtwangler (neither male mod conductors cannot rank with him).,,,no make that at least as great as Dutoit ,,or Vanska?

Well we have Marin Alsop on Naxos who is doing superb work.


----------



## CnC Bartok

1996D said:


> You're in denial, go do your homework and listen to Canellakis before you accuse of misogyny, then tell me she deserves to be conducting at the biggest stage. It's very clear you no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> Conducting is the hardest thing next to composing.


Of course she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an orchestra. She really ought to be at home cooking supper and doing the housework. Whatever next? She'll be expecting to be allowed into a university soon, then The Vote.

I thought all the bigots with the wind-up motives had quietened down here.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> Good composition is such a masculine endeavour that only men are capable of it; the male equivalent of giving birth, but except of a biological entity, an abstract and emotional entity. A conductor has to mirror the composer's creation in order to recreate it, and orchestral works are often of such contrapuntal complexity that only a similar mind to that of the composer can properly recreate it.
> 
> By similar I don't mean life experience, but rather a particular capacity for abstraction and the emotional comprehension and breadth to match it.


The dirty little secret is that if you give women the opportunity, they can often equal and surpass men in areas once thought to be only under the purview of men. One telling example is the long-running Survivor series where we are seeing slightly-built women out-lasting big muscled men in tests of stamina, coordination and just gut-level determination.

When it comes to conducting, the only reason why we might (erroneously) believe that it is best left to men is because men conducting the major orchestras is, for the most part, all we have known.


----------



## Becca

paulbest said:


> can you name me 1 ~~~ legendary women conductor~~~~ one legendary woman composer~~~~At least as great as Furtwangler (neither male mod conductors cannot rank with him).,,,no make that at least as great as Dutoit ,,or Vanska?
> 
> Well we have Marin Alsop on Naxos who is doing superb work.


If you can't understand the past attitude (and present in some cases as seen in this thread) that women are not capable of doing these things therefore they were actively discouraged and refused opportunity, then I doubt that you want to see it. Just look at Fanny Mendelssohn, Alma Mahler and a host of others. Nearer our time there is the example of the Vienna Philharmonic attitude towards women members (and, fwiw, it took a lot of international public pressure to start to change that!) Wait until there are a substantial percentage of well-known current and past women composers and conductors, then the question would be more useful.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> we do not need feminism, or blackism (or what its called) or any other minoritism. The correct -ism has existed since the Renaissance, it it called humanism, and it has advocated human (not male or female, black or white) rights for all since many centuries. Any movement, that claims that women are opressed, without failing to recognize that men can be and are opressed too, is chauvinistic. My fight is not with women, who I like, but with this toxic ideology.


Rubbish. Feminism _does_ recognise male oppression and is much more geared toward humanism than what you are referring to, which is lip-service to human equality while carrying on business-as-usual.

Humanism doesn't pay enough attention to detail or political, social, economic inequality and as such even lets men down routinely.


----------



## Enthusiast

wkasimer said:


> One of the best features of unfettered free speech is that it's really easy to figure out who's a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, or a complete idiot, because they tell you. When they're censored, I'm forced to guess.
> 
> Since I know that 1996D is a misogynist, I now know that I can't trust his opinion about any female performer, and I suspect that I can't trust his opinion about much of anything else, either. Without knowing his obvious and abhorrent bias, I might be tempted to take him seriously.
> 
> So if you, as an administrator, feel that 1996D is a disruption to TC, don't provide him with a platform - simply banish him entirely. But deciding what they can or cannot write is not, in my opinion, a good solution.


His views are objectionable. But the overwhelming impression is one of someone making an absolute fool of himself. If it was a bit less it would be entertaining but this is just a car crash. Still, I agree: his views posted here don't do much harm. I draw the line at hate speech but this doesn't really apply, here.


----------



## mmsbls

wkasimer said:


> One of the best features of unfettered free speech is that it's really easy to figure out who's a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, or a complete idiot, because they tell you. When they're censored, I'm forced to guess.
> 
> Since I know that 1996D is a misogynist, I now know that I can't trust his opinion about any female performer, and I suspect that I can't trust his opinion about much of anything else, either. Without knowing his obvious and abhorrent bias, I might be tempted to take him seriously.
> 
> So if you, as an administrator, feel that 1996D is a disruption to TC, don't provide him with a platform - simply banish him entirely. But deciding what they can or cannot write is not, in my opinion, a good solution.


In general free speech is a laudable policy for public society, and when some make racist, sexist, homophobic, or other discriminatory statements, we hope that others will openly oppose such statements to counteract their effects. On TC we generally don't immediately delete such statements as long as other members do push back strongly (as happened in this instance). However, there is a limit to how much we will allow.

At TC, members do not have free speech. All members agree to abide by our Terms of Service which specifically prohibit such speech as insults, chiding, inappropriate advertising, and obscene content. Deciding whether to allow or prohibit (perhaps delete) certain statements is often a difficult decision based on many factors. Unfortunately, we moderators are frequently required to make these type of decisions. We prefer to make our rules known through the ToS, comments in threads, PMs, and warnings before we take action to ban a member.


----------



## Haydn70

mmsbls said:


> In general free speech is a laudable policy for public society, and when some make racist, sexist, homophobic, or other discriminatory statements, we hope that others will openly oppose such statements to counteract their effects. On TC we generally don't immediately delete such statements as long as other members do push back strongly (as happened in this instance). However, there is a limit to how much we will allow.
> 
> At TC, members do not have free speech. *All members agree to abide by our Terms of Service which specifically prohibit such speech as insults, chiding, inappropriate advertising, and obscene content.* Deciding whether to allow or prohibit (perhaps delete) certain statements is often a difficult decision based on many factors. Unfortunately, we moderators are frequently required to make these type of decisions. We prefer to make our rules known through the ToS, comments in threads, PMs, and warnings before we take action to ban a member.


If only that were true. I and another member were recently insulted. I reported the offensive post and nothing was done...not even the decency of a response from a moderator.

Anyway, I know my vote doesn't count, but I will say that 1996D should not be banished. I find it refreshing that he states unfashionable ideas so candidly and bluntly.


----------



## Jacck

Haydn70 said:


> If only that were true. I and another member were recently insulted. I reported the offensive post and nothing was done...not even the decency of a response from a moderator. Anyway, I know my vote doesn't count, but I will say that 1996D should not be banished.


I don't know what insult you are talking about, but you people are too oversensite and run to the moderators to complain. How can you get insulted by anyone on the internet? If someone writes that I am an idiot or any other insult, so what? He does not know me. Why should I get insulted? If he uses too many insults, no one will take him seriously anyway. What I think crosses the line are things like cyber-bullying, or if someone gets hold of your personal information and starts spreading it online etc. Otherwise you can say whatever you want.


----------



## Haydn70

Jacck said:


> *I don't know what insult you are talking about*, but you people are too oversensite and run to the moderators to complain. How can you get insulted by anyone on the internet? If someone writes that I am an idiot or any other insult, so what? He does not know me. Why should I get insulted? If he uses too many insults, no one will take him seriously anyway. What I think crosses the line are things like cyber-bullying, or if someone gets hold of your personal information and starts spreading it online etc. Otherwise you can say whatever you want.


There is no reason why you should know as you were not the guilty party. While I appreciate most of your post I don't get why you wrote that first sentence.

I agree that folks on this site are oversensitive. But if there are rules, they should be applied equably.


----------



## Becca

mmsbls said:


> In general free speech is a laudable policy for public society, and when some make racist, sexist, homophobic, or other discriminatory statements, we hope that others will openly oppose such statements to counteract their effects. On TC we generally don't immediately delete such statements as long as other members do push back strongly (as happened in this instance). *However, there is a limit to how much we will allow.*


I have very, VERY mixed feelings about this. While I am very sensitive to this type of issue for reasons going far beyond musical, I also know that actively suppressing these individuals can often do more harm than good as it gives rise to a sense of being bullied over what they see as a free speech issue. The consequence is often to make them feel that they are the oppressed and so it firms up their attitudes and no amount of argument and real world facts will dislodge them. About the best that can be done is to ignore and isolate them. When the wall you are banging your head on turns out to be concrete rather than cardboard, turn around and walk away because you won't accomplish anything useful.


----------



## wkasimer

mmsbls said:


> At TC, members do not have free speech. All members agree to abide by our Terms of Service which specifically prohibit such speech as insults, chiding, inappropriate advertising, and obscene content.


Chiding is prohibited? There's been no shortage of chiding, particularly in this thread. One could describe virtually every response to 1996D as "chiding".



> Deciding whether to allow or prohibit (perhaps delete) certain statements is often a difficult decision based on many factors. Unfortunately, we moderators are frequently required to make these type of decisions.


And as such, these decisions are necessarily subjective, and thus subject to bias - witness the problems that Facebook currently suffers when they attempt to define "hate speech".


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn70 said:


> If only that were true. I and another member were recently insulted. I reported the offensive post and nothing was done...not even the decency of a response from a moderator.


People are required to "accept" the Terms of Service before becoming members. We understand that some will not always act in accordance with the ToS. We do not respond to reported posts except in very specific incidences because there is essentially nothing we can say. Site rules prohibit us from giving out information about our actions toward specific members (or whether, in fact, we acted or not in the case of reported posts).


----------



## KenOC

Haydn70 said:


> There is no reason why you should know as you were not the guilty party. While I appreciate most of your post I don't get why you wrote that first sentence.
> 
> I agree that folks on this site are oversensitive. But if there are rules, they should be applied equably.


I believe that the mods _try _to apply the rules equably. But like anyone else, their judgment is clouded by their own views, fashionable or otherwise. We all see the world through our filters.

BTW a mod will never speak of any action taken WRT another member. So complaints to the mods are seldom responded to because -- what's to say?


----------



## wkasimer

Becca said:


> I have very, VERY mixed feelings about this. While I am very sensitive to this type of issue for reasons going far beyond musical, I also know that actively suppressing these individuals can often do more harm than good as it gives rise to a sense of being bullied over what they see as a free speech issue.


True enough, but the owners, moderators, and administrators of TC also have the right to freedom of association. 1996D and his ilk are welcome to say and write whatever they wish, but the powers-that-be of TC are under no obligation to provide them with the platform for doing so.


----------



## mmsbls

wkasimer said:


> ...
> And as such, these decisions are necessarily subjective, and thus subject to bias - witness the problems that Facebook currently suffers when they attempt to define "hate speech".


I'm not sure how to respond to this. I would think that everyone here knows that _every decision _moderators make is subjective.


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> I believe that the mods _try _to apply the rules equably. But like anyone else, their judgment is clouded by their own views, fashionable or otherwise. We all see the world through our filters.
> 
> BTW a mod will never speak of any action taken WRT another member. So complaints to the mods are seldom responded to because -- *what's to say*?


Well they could say "We have examined what you consider to be an insult to you and found that it doesn't violate TC terms." It is called common courtesy.


----------



## mmsbls

Unfortunately, this issue has somewhat derailed the thread. Please return to discussions that involve Misogyny _on the podium_ rather than misogyny or other general forum behavior.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> Rubbish. Feminism _does_ recognise male oppression and is much more geared toward humanism than what you are referring to, which is lip-service to human equality while carrying on business-as-usual.
> Humanism doesn't pay enough attention to detail or political, social, economic inequality and as such even lets men down routinely.


when I refered to humanism, I had in mind mainly the German humanists such as Goethe, Schweitzer, Einstein, with whom I am most familiar with. The word humanism is very broad. What I meant is worldview based on universal human rights, equality, freedom and ethical values such as compassion etc. I don't think modern feminism is about this. 
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/a-takedown-of-the-narcissism-of-modern-feminism/8333290
But I admit, that I know practically no feminists personally. The movement is very marginal in my country and has little sympathy even among women. I see no systemic discrimination of women. They have the same opportunities to study, travel, self-realize. We have more female than male doctors, lawyers, judges (we have like 60% female judges), we have some female politicians, and in general, they are not much better than there male counterparts, equally corrupt. 
The problem with feminism is that many of the feminists are way too aggressive and that creates a serious image problem for them. For example when an angry PC mob makes a CERN scientist appologize in tears over his offensive T-shirt, they have won a battle, but are losing the moral war. 
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/14/rosetta-comet-dr-matt-taylor-apology-sexist-shirt


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure how to respond to this. I would think that everyone here knows that _every decision _moderators make is subjective.


Sounds like you need my patented Hate-o-Meter, with guaranteed accurate results for hate speech. Simply speak into it, for instance: "Adolf Hitler is a dirty rotten scoundrel!" and you will see a hate score of at least 7 Orwells. Oh wait, I forgot it's OK to hate Hitler. Now that raises a problem, doesn't it.


----------



## paulbest

look there have been many women artist who have equaled/surpassed men, piano violin. 
As we all are now aware, Hillary Hahn has the definitive, never to be equaled Bach. 
In piano, De la Rocha has the definitive Albenez. There are others as well, Pettersson's violin concerto Isabelle van Keulen and Ida Haendel. That list can be extended,,,oh wait, Uchida in Mozart,, passes up all other male recordings. 
There is no doubt women have the spirit of creative genius. I love to hear women perform Ravel,,,just to see how well they can do,,,usually Ravel trumps them, Still it offers a feminine perspective on the masters works,. Now in Debussy, not many women have tackled his male dominated recordings, with any degree of success.. 
So yes and no, We want women artist in our fav composers, just not on the podium.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> We want women artist in our fav composers, just not on the podium.


Do we? Who is this "we"? Include me out!


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> We want women artist in our fav composers, *just not on the podium.*


What's different about the podium? Is this akin to wanting women in all positions in a company except general manager? Is it the notion that men shouldn't take direction from women?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> What's different about the podium? Is this akin to wanting women in all positions in a company except general manager? Is it the notion that men shouldn't take direction from women?


They might get vertigo, or the vapours?


----------



## pianoville

There is definitely no "misogyny on the podium" as you are saying. Of course there are some people with weird opinions but that doesn't mean that's the common opinion. I'm sure if you asked 100 musicians about women conducting 99 of them wouldn't think it's a bad thing.


----------



## Larkenfield

Women conductors: the Podium Ceiling!
...
Antonia Brico conducted the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra in February 1930. She also conducted the New York Philharmonic in July 1938. Imagine what talent and determination it took for her to get that far in a sea of male egos.

*Antonia: A Portrait of the Woman* is a 1974 documentary that included her struggle against gender bias in her profession. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. I have seen it and it's excellent. Anyone can view it online for a small fee.

https://www.amazon.com/Antonia-Portrait-Woman-Brico/dp/B01GIYEL3S

Some women have it in their _soul_ to conduct, and it comes down to who's going to stand in their way. But to think that they have absolutely nothing to contribute in this area is not an assumption I would be willing to make: there are already successful female conductors:

http://www.classical-music.com/article/best-female-conductors

Male arrogance on the subject is truly a wonder to behold. The past does not necessarily equal the future.


----------



## paulbest

Look you do not see any female pianist/violinists demanding female conductor in their performances/recordings. Not a one.
They are all very happy with a male counter part, yet he must be proven to conduct. Hillary Hahn has been quite good at choosing the best conductor in her recordings, so far.

I am not sure who raised this issue with allowing more women at the podium, but it isa fact, men have proven to be superior conductors,. Need I list the past greats for you?
You know who is who in conducting. 
Besides I could not even imagine a women at the podium for a Pettersson sym.
I have no issues whatever in seeing a mostly female string section. You can not tell the dif from a all male vs a all female string section,. 
It will sound exactly the same. 
In fact I much prefer a 50/50 orchestra, especially women in the flutes (sole exception, prefer a male flutist in Debussy's Prelude)


Anyway, if women wish to step up, its perfectly acceptable. But with a critical ear, I can not give up any allowances, misgivings. 

OK women let me see you conduct Henze. The 1st woman that can pull off Henze I am a believer.
Or Elliott Carter's music. 
Something easy.


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> As we all are now aware, Hillary Hahn has the definitive, never to be equaled Bach.


This is just another of your ridiculous comments. It would be much better if you simply stated that Hahn is your favorite Bach violinist.


----------



## Becca

paulbest said:


> I am not sure who raised this issue with allowing more women at the podium, but it isa fact, men have proven to be superior conductors,. Need I list the past greats for you?


As I said.........



Becca said:


> If you can't understand the past attitude (and present in some cases as seen in this thread) that women are not capable of doing these things therefore they were actively discouraged and refused opportunity, then I doubt that you want to see it.


----------



## paulbest

Bulldog said:


> This is just another of your ridiculous comments. It would be much better if you simply stated that Hahn is your favorite Bach violinist.


I guess you have not read the reviews/amazon/YT comments lately. Besides which violinist are you thinking of in Bach?
Everything I say on TC can be backed with facts.


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> I guess you have not read the reviews/amazon/YT comments lately. Besides which violinist are you thinking of in Bach?
> Everything I say on TC can be backed with facts.


That's it? Opinions on Amazon and YT are now facts? You have no facts, just over-the-top personal views. Neither you nor your comments are larger than life - get a grip on reality.


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> Look you do not see any female pianist/violinists demanding female conductor in their performances/recordings. Not a one.
> They are all very happy with a male counter part, yet he must be proven to conduct. Hillary Hahn has been quite good at choosing the best conductor in her recordings, so far.
> 
> I am not sure who raised this issue with allowing more women at the podium, but it isa fact, men have proven to be superior conductors,. Need I list the past greats for you?
> You know who is who in conducting.
> Besides I could not even imagine a women at the podium for a Pettersson sym.
> I have no issues whatever in seeing a mostly female string section. You can not tell the dif from a all male vs a all female string section,.
> It will sound exactly the same.
> In fact I much prefer a 50/50 orchestra, especially women in the flutes (sole exception, prefer a male flutist in Debussy's Prelude)
> 
> Anyway, if women wish to step up, its perfectly acceptable. But with a critical ear, I can not give up any allowances, misgivings.
> 
> OK women let me see you conduct Henze. The 1st woman that can pull off Henze I am a believer.
> Or Elliott Carter's music.
> Something easy.


Since the subject was brought up, I cannot imagine _any_ conductor, male or female, in front of a Pettersson symphony, except perhaps his 7th that has a small, very small glimmer of hope and light in it. The same goes for his violin concerto, which I doubt if Hillary Hahn will ever play to put it on the map, as some might hope, because it's almost one hours worth of tension and crisis with few if any redeeming rewards for the soloist... No one except insiders has any idea how Hilary Hahn happens to play or record with certain orchestras or conductors, but some are assuming that it's because the conductor is male rather than the conductor is good... Furthermore, no one has any idea what orchestra musicians are happy with unless one asks them and no one is in a position to ask them except perhaps locally; consequently one can only make another gigantic assumption. It's not even logical. It's an assumption without any reference to back it up. The rest of the remarks could easily be construed as patronizing. These kinds of prehistoric attitudes will have to die if the music has a future that is welcoming to all, and then excellence will seek its own level because no great orchestra is going to put up with a bad conductor, whether male or female.

Contemporary female conductors (repost): http://www.classical-music.com/article/best-female-conductors
Historical list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_classical_conductors


----------



## Dimace

I believe that in some jobs men are better than women. In other jobs women are doing better. F1 for example. The drivers are men. Synchro Swimming. Here we have only women. Harp performers are only women. For the horns we have only men. There is no misogyny but what the woman's and man's body and mind can do and what can't. All, without exception, the great composers were men. Some of the very best pianists were women. etc. etc.


----------



## Becca

Dimace said:


> I believe that in some jobs men are better than women. In other jobs women are doing better. F1 for example. The drivers are men. Synchro Swimming. Here we have only women. Harp performers are only women. For the horns we have only men. There is no misogyny but what the woman's and man's body and mind can do and what can't. All, without exception, the great composers were men. Some of the very best pianists were women. etc. etc.


Try reading past posts before you go making comments such as "All, without exception, the great composers were men. "

Horn:
Berlin Philharmonic - Sarah Willis
Gothenberg Symphony - Lisa Ford (principal)
London Symphony - Angela Barnes
New York Philharmonic - Leelanee Sterrett (associate principal), Alana Vegter 
Philharmonia - Kira Doherty
Bavarian RSO - Ursula Kepser
usw.

As to harpists, yes most BUT NOT ALL are women - probably because that's the one instrument that orchestras found acceptable for a woman.


----------



## KenOC

This dispute has been around for quite a while!


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> Good composition is such a masculine endeavour that only men are capable of it; the male equivalent of giving birth, but except of a biological entity, an abstract and emotional entity. A conductor has to mirror the composer's creation in order to recreate it, and orchestral works are often of such contrapuntal complexity that only a similar mind to that of the composer can properly recreate it.


Where'a my shovel?? It [the you-know-what] is really getting pretty deep around here....:lol::devil:


----------



## Heck148

Dimace said:


> Harp performers are only women. For the horns we have only men.


No; and No......


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Look you do not see any female pianist/violinists demanding female conductor in their performances/recordings. Not a one.
> They are all very happy with a male counter part, yet he must be proven to conduct. Hillary Hahn has been quite good at choosing the best conductor in her recordings, so far.
> 
> I am not sure who raised this issue with allowing more women at the podium, but it isa fact, men have proven to be superior conductors,. Need I list the past greats for you?
> You know who is who in conducting.
> Besides I could not even imagine a women at the podium for a Pettersson sym.
> I have no issues whatever in seeing a mostly female string section. You can not tell the dif from a all male vs a all female string section,.
> It will sound exactly the same.
> In fact I much prefer a 50/50 orchestra, especially women in the flutes (sole exception, prefer a male flutist in Debussy's Prelude)
> 
> Anyway, if women wish to step up, its perfectly acceptable. But with a critical ear, I can not give up any allowances, misgivings.
> 
> OK women let me see you conduct Henze. The 1st woman that can pull off Henze I am a believer.
> Or Elliott Carter's music.
> Something easy.


Did your doctor warn you that misogyny is one of the side effects of whatever medication you're on? Or is this the result of too much Pettersson?


----------



## wkasimer

Dimace said:


> Harp performers are only women. For the horns we have only men.


You really need to get out more.


----------



## science

Clearly the classical music world has to make a better effort to allow women to develop their talents as conductors. It is likely that we're missing out on half of the great conductors in the world just because of some reactionary portion of our community (which is on the whole a conservative one anyway).


----------



## paulbest

wkasimer said:


> You really need to get out more.


 There MIGHT BE a few male harpists , but as we all know its a woman's art.
Horns, women? Perhaps, but the finest horners are all men, That's what he is getting at.
Do we really need to explain everything, in details? 
I mean come on, think what we are saying ,,,speaking in generalities, nothing in absolutes. 
You guys should already know this by now.


----------



## paulbest

Bulldog said:


> That's it? Opinions on Amazon and YT are now facts? You have no facts, just over-the-top personal views. Neither you nor your comments are larger than life - get a grip on reality.


 The folks posting supreme adulations and standing applauses the world over PLUS every Hahn concert are sold off years in advance,,,and we are talking mega $$$$$$ for a seat, everyone has been enthralled of her Bach when it 1st came out, I was ina Tower Records store on Decatur in New Orleans, , I recall Hahn was on,,,playing Bach,,even I had to take a look at the cd, and was enchanted,,, (did not purchase the cd).

She could sell out her Bach, in any/every city 2x over.
Has there ever been anyone to come even close to her Bach? 
Well?
This is what others are saying,,and as a recording critic, top notch I might add(others here can verify that claim) , I can verify its a authentic performance.


----------



## BachIsBest

paulbest said:


> In fact I much prefer a 50/50 orchestra, especially women in the flutes (sole exception, prefer a male flutist in Debussy's Prelude)


This is quite possibly the oddest comment I have seen on TC. It implies that the poster has listened to every flute piece in the repertoire, can clearly differentiate between female and male flautist, and has come to a clear preference on every piece that is female for everything save, for no apparent reason, Debussy's Prelude.

But then again, this is a thread where someone posted on how letting feminists define themselves was like letting Nazi's define themselves.


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> The folks posting supreme adulations and standing applauses the world over PLUS every Hahn concert are sold off years in advance,,,and we are talking mega $$$$$$ for a seat, everyone has been enthralled of her Bach when it 1st came out, I was ina Tower Records store on Decatur in New Orleans, , I recall Hahn was on,,,playing Bach,,even I had to take a look at the cd, and was enchanted,,, (did not purchase the cd).
> 
> She could sell out her Bach, in any/every city 2x over.
> Has there ever been anyone to come even close to her Bach?
> Well?
> This is what others are saying,,and as a recording critic, top notch I might add(others here can verify that claim) , I can verify its a authentic performance.


What a joke. Authentic? Did Bach tell you that, or have you been traveling in your time machine.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Since the subject was brought up, I cannot imagine _any_ conductor, male or female, in front of a Pettersson symphony, except perhaps his 7th that has a small, very small glimmer of hope and light in it. The same goes for his violin concerto, which I doubt if Hillary Hahn will ever play to put it on the map, as some might hope, because it's almost one hours worth of tension and crisis with few if any redeeming rewards for the soloist... No one except insiders has any idea how Hilary Hahn happens to play or record with certain orchestras or conductors, but some are assuming that it's because the conductor is male rather than the conductor is good... Furthermore, no one has any idea what orchestra musicians are happy with unless one asks them and no one in a position to ask them except perhaps locally; consequently one can only make another gigantic assumption. It's not even logical. It's an assumption without reference to back it up. The rest of the remarks could easily be construed as patronizing. These kinds of prehistoric attitudes will have to die if the music has a future that is welcoming to all, and then excellence will seek its own level because no great orchestra is going to put up with a bad conductor, whether male or female.
> 
> Contemporary female conductors (repost): http://www.classical-music.com/article/best-female-conductors
> Historical list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_classical_conductors


 Well so true, I most certainly have no desire to throw any road blocks for women to step up to the podium. What is disheartening for any conductor today, men or women, is to follow up behind a long list of legendary conductors. Daunting and challenging.

Yet a few are showing spectacular talents, Neemi Jarvi for one, Salonen, and that list could go on.

All the conductors on the CPO Pettersson set show us fine talents, and the orchestras as well, 1st rate. 
The Schnittke performances on CD, most are 10 of 10 stars. The Henze releases, all 10 of 10 stars, And as most know, I am not as liberal with the stars as say Hurtwitz, who is too often,,,well lets say ,,, can be too generous.

I am not interested in looking at your links. I am sure there are fine women conductors in the world, Just none in my musical favs. .

As I have said, has nothing whatsoever to do with bias, *misogyny*, I prefer a orch 50/50. well maybe 40/60.


----------



## paulbest

Bulldog said:


> What a joke. Authentic? Did Bach tell you that, or have you been traveling in your time machine.


why don't you just come out and say you don't really care for Hahn's Bach, and just get it over with. 
why resist the collective vote?
Why?


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> There MIGHT BE a few male harpists , but as we all know its a woman's art.
> Do we really need to explain everything, in details?
> I mean come on, think what we are saying...
> You guys should already know this by now.


Truly, we should all be ashamed of our ignorant biases. Thank God you arrived on the forum in time to save us. Women can now be certain that their brains and arms are ideally formed for playing the harp, and men who harbor a secret love for plucking and glissandi can seek out gender conversion therapy before they inadvertantly walk into the wrong restroom.


----------



## Guest

I have discovered a couple of previous threads on this topic going back to 2007-2008:

What's in the men conductors that women can't do?

Women Conductors & Composers

A quick glance through these older threads suggests that there's nothing of significance in the present thread that wasn't raised before. The previous ones tried to explore wheher or not there was any scientific evidence to support any of the assertions made concerning the relative capabilities of men/women in composing and conducting.

It doesn't look like there was much progress on these matters, but at least the discussions then seemed more civilized compared with the flow of insults being dished out here. Maybe that's because Moderator involved (Chi-townPhilly) took an interest in the subject and appeared to try to steer the discussion away from excessive hostilties being expressed by either side.


----------



## Rogerx

Heck148 said:


> No; and No......


Indeed, ridiculous remark as if _Xavier de Maistre_ never excited.


----------



## Jacck

Partita said:


> I have discovered a couple of previous threads on this topic going back to 2007-2008:
> What's in the men conductors that women can't do?
> Women Conductors & Composers
> A quick glance through these older threads suggests that there's nothing of significance in the present thread that wasn't raised before. The previous ones tried to explore wheher or not there was any scientific evidence to support any of the assertions made concerning the relative capabilities of men/women in composing and conducting.
> It doesn't look like there was much progress on these matters, but at least the discussions then seemed more civilized compared with the flow of insults being dished out here. Maybe that's because Moderator involved (Chi-townPhilly) took an interest in the subject and appeared to try to steer the discussion away from excessive hostilties being expressed by either side.


as I wrote before, conductors are overrated. It is a perfect place for narcissists with big egos, because they get all the spotlight and fame etc., and I don't know why women could not be good conductors. We know women pianists or violinists or harpsichordists, they can interpret the music. So why not conduct an orchestra?

but you write about scientific evidence. For example, there is some evidence, there male abilities have bigger variance than female abilities, which means, that the Gaussian curve is broader in males, ie you get more men than women who are more stupid, but also more brilliant. And the more you move to disciplines such as theoretical physics, where a genius level IQ is required, the more male dominated it is
https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/
there is scientific evidence for this. Of course then there is the question of interpretation of the evidence. These differences could be innate, or they could be the result of social conditioning (as certain groups will no doubt claim - without much evidence). But as the article shows, the differences are significat at the top 0.01% of people.

and there is also unquestianable evidence that sex hormones have a significant effect on cognitive abilities, temperament, emotions etc. For example, testosteron makes people more aggressive, competitive, dominance seeking. Men have on average more testostorene than women, which might explain why they tend to occupy positions of power. Women lack the drive to compete with these men (I myself lack this drive too, for the matter)


----------



## Bulldog

paulbest said:


> why don't you just come out and say you don't really care for Hahn's Bach, and just get it over with.
> why resist the collective vote?
> Why?


As it happens, I have nothing against Hahn's Bach. However, there are many excellent Bach performers on the violin, and your statement that everyone knows that Hahn is the best is inaccurate.

Concerning the collective vote, there is no such thing. There's just you praising her to the sky and using the preferences of some other people to confirm the rightness of your praise.

By the way, what are the characteristics of a top-rate recording critic?


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> but you write about scientific evidence. For example, there is some evidence, there male abilities have bigger variance than female abilities, which means, that the Gaussian curve is broader in males, ie you get more men than women who are more stupid, but also more brilliant. And the more you move to disciplines such as theoretical physics, where a genius level IQ is required, the more male dominated it is
> https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/
> there is scientific evidence for this.


A shame the link in the article to the Duke research didn't work. We're left with very little evidence to support any of these contentions.



Jacck said:


> and there is also unquestianable evidence that sex hormones have a significant effect on cognitive abilities


Is there? I've got to go to work, so can't look now, but if you can point to some, that would be helpful!


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> Is there? I've got to go to work, so can't look now, but if you can point to some, that would be helpful!


you can even observe it. Many women suffer from PMS (pre-menstrual syndrome) or get post-partum blues, post-partum depression or lactation psychosis. All these things are cause by the changes in hormone levels (estrogen, progesteron, prolactin) which effects the brain and the psyche. There are mental disorders specific to males and to females, which again suggests some brain differences. And there are just countless scientific review articles or orginal research studies, that you can find and that deal with the effects of hormones on the brain
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5286723/pdf/DialoguesClinNeurosci-18-373.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335177/pdf/fnins-09-00037.pdf

and please avoid any studies produced by these gender studies "intellectuals". They lack scientific integrity, do not use the scientific method and are ideologically driven. This whole "gender studies" field is rubbish pseudoscience, as the new Sokal hoax proves
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
there long history of manipulating the statistics concerning the so called gender pay gap and similar things show clearly, that truth is not what they seek.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> you can even observe it. Many women suffer from PMS (pre-menstrual syndrome) or get post-partum blues, post-partum depression or lactation psychosis. All these things are cause by the changes in hormone levels (estrogen, progesteron, prolactin) which effects the brain and the psyche. There are mental disorders specific to males and to females, which again suggests some brain differences. And there are just countless scientific review articles or orginal research studies, that you can find and that deal with the effects of hormones on the brain
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5286723/pdf/DialoguesClinNeurosci-18-373.pdf
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335177/pdf/fnins-09-00037.pdf
> 
> and please avoid any studies produced by these gender studies "intellectuals". They lack scientific integrity, do not use the scientific method and are ideologically driven. This whole "gender studies" field is rubbish pseudoscience, as the new Sokal hoax proves
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
> there long history of manipulating the statistics concerning the so called gender pay gap and similar things show clearly, that truth is not what they seek.


I can find, like you, plenty of studies of the effect of hormones on cognitive _functioning _in various populations - including rats - but not "unquestionable evidence" of the effect on cognitive _abilities_. Your point - not yet supported by any evidence you've offered - is that because hormones affect intelligence, it's reasonable to conclude that some professions suit women better (and conducting isn't one of them?)


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> I can find, like you, plenty of studies of the effect of hormones on cognitive _functioning _in various populations - including rats - but not "unquestionable evidence" of the effect on cognitive _abilities_. Your point - not yet supported by any evidence you've offered - is that because hormones affect intelligence, it's reasonable to conclude that some professions suit women better (and conducting isn't one of them?)


I do not care about conducting. I am not a musician and have no problem with women conductors. But yes, I believe that because of some innate differences, men and women tend to naturally gravitate to certain professions. But there are no absolute boundaries. There might be women with high interest in computers, maths or engineering and I am sure their male colleagues would welcome them among themselves, and there might be men with an interest of being a nurse or work in a kindergarten (I hope they are not pedophiles). So yes, I do believe there are innate differences, but there is also social conditioning, and it is very difficult to separate the two. I have no opinion about music or conducting, since I have little experience in this area. But there is a fact, that most computer science people are men and that the field has problem attracting women, despite these gender activist trying very hard, offering various incetives for the women. I would say it is an ideology trying to change human nature, and communism tried to do the same and failed. I would leave these things to the free market. (of course blatant discrimination should be punished)


----------



## Guest

Misogyny on the podium

I guess I've completely misunderstood the point you were making in this earlier post, where, in a thread explicitly about conducting, you refer to scientific evidence about what women are _cognitively _suited to.

My bad.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> As it happens, I have nothing against Hahn's Bach. However, there are many excellent Bach performers on the violin, and your statement that everyone knows that Hahn is the best is inaccurate.
> 
> Concerning the collective vote, there is no such thing. There's just you praising her to the sky and using the preferences of some other people to confirm the rightness of your praise.
> 
> By the way, what are the characteristics of a top-rate recording critic?


Whilst I might very occasionally follow up leads on music forums regarding new composers, I'm seldom inclined to accept recommendations on particular artists. That's because I have found over the many years I've been acquiring classical music that it's far safer to base my purchasing decisions on professional views on the best recordings.

I reckon that some people (and I'm pointing no fingers) get hooked a particular style of playing they like and think that everyone else will also like it. Some folk may also only have one artist performing a particular piece because that's all they have ever acquired, but they recommend it to others nevertheless.

When it comes to picking recordings by different artists, I have generally found it useful to follow the advice on the BBC's weekly radio programmme, "Record Review". They bring in an expert in the particular field and compare recordings. I have acquired virtually all of their "Building A Library" recommendations over the past 15 years or so, and have been generally well pleased with the results. I have by no means relied exclusively in the BBC source, as there are several other useful sources of advice.

In the case of Bach's violin works, my preferences are for the likes of Frank Zimmerman, Julia Fischer, Arthur Grumiaux, Alina Ibragimova, Rachel Podger, Gil Shaham. As will be seen, I have likings among both male and female artists.

In general, although I have some favourite artists including conductors, this choice has always based on purely objective criteria. I have many recording by female conductors.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> I do not care about conducting. I am not a musician and have no problem with women conductors. But yes, I believe that because of some innate differences, men and women tend to naturally gravitate to certain professions. But there are no absolute boundaries. There might be women with high interest in computers, maths or engineering and I am sure their male colleagues would welcome them among themselves, and there might be men with an interest of being a nurse or work in a kindergarten (I hope they are not pedophiles). So yes, I do believe there are innate differences, but there is also social conditioning, and it is very difficult to separate the two. I have no opinion about music or conducting, since I have little experience in this area. But there is a fact, that most computer science people are men and that the field has problem attracting women, despite these gender activist trying very hard, offering various incetives for the women. I would say it is an ideology trying to change human nature, and communism tried to do the same and failed. I would leave these things to the free market. (of course blatant discrimination should be punished)


So much wrong here! Why the snide comment about male nurses and kindergarten teachers? Your attitude shines through. You feel these are not proper men's jobs and fear that men who are attracted to these roles must have criminal motives. And then you come to women in traditionally male roles - science and maths and so on - suggesting that most practitioners are men because they "naturally gravitate to such roles". You do not really countenance the possibility (and it is much more than that) that our ideas about which gender is appropriate for such roles might have influenced this "gravitation" but do acknowledge that social conditioning might play a role - you acknowledge it and then drop it. You go on to suggest that trying to change that conditioning is trying to change human nature which is clearly not true. And, finally, you link all this to communism - which apparently failed to achieve gender equality (but you don't say in what ways and how but could it be that the old communist leaders, labouring under the same social conditioning, installed a glass ceiling in the same way that capitalism has?). Apparently the free market will achieve gender parity for us if only we are patient. The free market's mechanism for doing this is feminism - an analysis you reject.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> So much wrong here! Why the snide comment about male nurses and kindergarten teachers? Your attitude shines through. You feel these are not proper men's jobs and fear that men who are attracted to these roles must have criminal motives. And then you come to women in traditionally male roles - science and maths and so on - suggesting that most practitioners are men because they "naturally gravitate to such roles". You do not really countenance the possibility (and it is much more than that) that our ideas about which gender is appropriate for such roles might have influenced this "gravitation" but do acknowledge that social conditioning might play a role - you acknowledge it and then drop it. You go on to suggest that trying to change that conditioning is trying to change human nature which is clearly not true. And, finally, you link all this to communism - which apparently failed to achieve gender equality (but you don't say in what ways and how but could it be that the old communist leaders, labouring under the same social conditioning, installed a glass ceiling in the same way that capitalism has?). Apparently the free market will achieve gender parity for us if only we are patient. The free market's mechanism for doing this is feminism - an analysis you reject.


no, I say that there are gender differences, which are very likely a combination of innate factors and social factors, and that it is almost impossible to separate the two. Feminism is not a free market solution, since it tries to come up with forced solutions (regulations) which distort the natural interactions, specifically the free job market. The modern gender ideologies deny any possibility of innate differences and believe that gender is a social construct and they act on this ideology. Some extremely "progessive" countries such as Sweden try to implement "gender neutral upbringing". It will be sad to observe the massive resurgence of mental ilness in Sweden as a result of these social experiments. 




the Scandinavian countries in general have a pretty bad reputation in regard to child rights. There is this Nazi-like Barnevernet in Norway which forcully separates children from their families based on the decision of some questinable social scientists and psychologists. 
https://www.thelocal.no/20170215/norway-barnevernet-serious-warning-echr-human-rights
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/norways_hidden_scandal
so yes, I find these gender ideologies outright dangerous for the human society, mental health and well-being. These gender ideologies have brainwashed many women with victimhood complexes, with men-hating and started a gender war, which will ultimately make no gender happy. 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap


----------



## Enthusiast

I am not sure I read anything in what you are saying except a display of a certain attitude. Men and women _tend to be _different. But that is not news. It is a result innate and social factors which you suggest cannot be separated. That is not news. The question is whether you are happy with the current situation or not. I read some material concerning journalistic reports of what sound like fairly extreme and esoteric social experiments in Scandinavia. These have zero relevance to the subject and anyway do not represent any mainstream thinking. You are now dropping the "free market" solution that you recommended earlier without any attempt to defend it. You merely attack something undefined that you call "feminism". And all of this has gone a long way from the question of women conducting orchestras and shows no sign of returning to throw some light on that question.


----------



## Guest

I'm trying to think of circumstances, in the present day and age, why the best person for a conductor's job who happened to be female would be rejected from further consideration. Does anyone have any evidence that this kind of thing is a regular occurrence? Has it happened to them personally, or can they identify any particular examples where they suspect it has happened? Or is this entire discussion based on a suspicion that it must have happened given the male dominance of this profession?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm not sure what that evidence would look like. The glass ceiling is transparent. Given that many members of the concert-going population will share the view that women cannot be good conductors, cash-strapped orchestras will think twice before appointing a woman. This could well be more common with the more minor orchestras that are the usual stepping stones in a conductor's career. But how to prove this? Who can say that a recruiting panel was influenced (consciously or unconsciously) by a belief that no woman can conduct as well as men or that a woman would be rejected by their orchestras? And, before it even gets to that stage, it is likely that male students and novices find it easier to get conducting experience and assistant positions - but, again, how to prove it? 

I think the best evidence is that in our more gender-open time we are seeing that some women are getting and holding conducting positions and that some distinguished women soloists are able to consider conducting careers like their male counterparts. The thing that has changed is our attitudes. Nothing else. But this evidence would be rejected by those whining souls who believe that untalented women are being promoted because of their gender rather than their talent. For them the circular argument - that women can't conduct and so a woman getting a conductor job can only result from some PC conspiracy - explains everything and undermines all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## paulbest

Jacck said:


> as I wrote before, conductors are overrated. It is a perfect place for narcissists with big egos, because they get all the spotlight and fame etc., and I don't know why women could not be good conductors. We know women pianists or violinists or harpsichordists, they can interpret the music. So why not conduct an orchestra?
> 
> but you write about scientific evidence. For example, there is some evidence, there male abilities have bigger variance than female abilities, which means, that the Gaussian curve is broader in males, ie you get more men than women who are more stupid, but also more brilliant. And the more you move to disciplines such as theoretical physics, where a genius level IQ is required, the more male dominated it is
> https://qz.com/441905/men-are-both-dumber-and-smarter-than-women/
> there is scientific evidence for this. Of course then there is the question of interpretation of the evidence. These differences could be innate, or they could be the result of social conditioning (as certain groups will no doubt claim - without much evidence). But as the article shows, the differences are significat at the top 0.01% of people.
> 
> and there is also unquestianable evidence that sex hormones have a significant effect on cognitive abilities, temperament, emotions etc. For example, testosteron makes people more aggressive, competitive, dominance seeking. Men have on average more testostorene than women, which might explain why they tend to occupy positions of power. Women lack the drive to compete with these men (I myself lack this drive too, for the matter)


Although I have issues with your following post 219, as misogyny , here I agree, There are quite a few men conductors who would have made better conductors of ,,,~~~trains~~~. 
Just aweful, We all have our *least fav conductors list*.

I'd rather have seen a woman at the podium than many a very famous male conductors past 60 years.

Orchestra quality makes ALL THE WORLD dif. 
take Boulez's Vienna and compare to Celibadache's Munich. HA!

The Vienna has never impressed me at all. Its all men
If Boulez had the Munich and Celibidache the Vienna, results would have been quite different. 
= Boulez is a superior conductor, Celibidache's tempos are way off.


----------



## Larkenfield

Partita said:


> I'm trying to think of circumstances, in the present day and age, why the best person for a conductor's job who happened to be female would be rejected from further consideration. Does anyone have any evidence that this kind of thing is a regular occurrence? Has it happened to them personally, or can they identify any particular examples where they suspect it has happened? Or is this entire discussion based on a suspicion that it must have happened given the male dominance of this profession?


You might find this article of interest: https://thewalrus.ca/why-are-there-so-few-female-conductors/


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> I'm trying to think of circumstances, in the present day and age, why the best person for a conductor's job who happened to be female would be rejected from further consideration. Does anyone have any evidence that this kind of thing is a regular occurrence? Has it happened to them personally, or can they identify any particular examples where they suspect it has happened? Or is this entire discussion based on a suspicion that it must have happened given the male dominance of this profession?


Yes agree, There have been quite a few very famous male conductors who we all wish , there had been a woman at the helm. 
As someone wrote *conductors are quite often over rated*. 
If a woman shows superior skills, allow the man to humble retreat from the podium and the superior conductor do her work.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> Although I have issues with your following post 219, as misogyny , here I agree, There are quite a few men conductors who would have made better conductors of ,,,~~~trains~~~.
> Just aweful, We all have our *least fav conductors list*.
> 
> I'd rather have seen a woman at the podium than many a very famous male conductors past 60 years.
> 
> Orchestra quality makes ALL THE WORLD dif.
> take Boulez's Vienna and compare to Celibadache's Munich. HA!
> 
> The Vienna has never impressed me at all. Its all men
> If Boulez had the Munich and Celibidache the Vienna, results would have been quite different.
> = Boulez is a superior conductor, Celibidache's tempos are way off.
> 
> View attachment 118346


What rubbish! A whole succession of groundless statements. I already knew that your taste in violinists was far from mine ... but taste is like that. But you alone deplore Boulez's (or almost anyone else's) VPO! I wonder what you have heard that led to that extraordinary view? And, although you are not alone in finding Celibidache's Munich work too slow, that doesn't sum up his career (which included decades of performing at fairly normal - and often fast - speeds). And, anyway, IMO (and not only me) there are very few of his Munich performances that are actually _spoiled _by his slow speeds. They more often than not led to him demonstrating astonishing insights and creating moments of unrivaled power. The Munich Phil sounded good under him, no doubt, but hardly as good as the VPO. Given how extraordinary your view on these two example is, I feel reluctant to ask you to specify which male conductors are on your least favourite list. But your posts are so often very general and rarely go into specifics (we don't even know which works of your favourites Schnittke and Carter you like and whether there are any that you dislike) so it would be good to see your list along with what you have heard them do that has led you to feel they are no good (and, no, a failure to programme Pettersson doesn't count as a good reason).


----------



## wkasimer

paulbest said:


> Well so true, I most certainly have no desire to throw any road blocks for women to step up to the podium. What is disheartening for any conductor today, men or women, is to follow up behind a long list of legendary conductors. Daunting and challenging.
> 
> Yet a few are showing spectacular talents, Neemi Jarvi for one, Salonen, and that list could go on. .


Neeme Jarvi is a spectacular talent? That's news to me....


----------



## 1996D

I don't know why you're all getting upset, everything I've said is supported by tangible events and tangible individuals, patterns of human behavior that simply cannot be ignored: if you chose to ignore history then go ahead, but you will pay for it when the world changes. 

Don't live by the times, seek truths that apply in all ages, throughout human history.


----------



## RockyIII

I think it is very difficult, impossible even, to constructively discuss a topic on which some people have strong emotional and oftentimes irrational beliefs, but here I go.

In the Unites States, at least, the attack on women's rights is going strong, and that's a crying shame. It is disappointing to me to see such beliefs expressed on a forum of music lovers. Sadly, the prejudices began long before women stepped on the podium and continue way beyond it.


----------



## Jacck

RockyIII said:


> I think it is very difficult, impossible even, to constructively discuss a topic on which some people have strong emotional and oftentimes irrational beliefs, but here I go.
> 
> In the Unites States, at least, the attack on women's rights is going strong, and that's a crying shame. It is disappointing to me to see such beliefs expressed on a forum of music lovers. Sadly, the prejudices began long before women stepped on the podium and continue way beyond it.


"women's rights are attacked" seems like a matra that triggers emotional responses in some people. Is that really true? What womens rights are attacked or violated on a systemic level? Women have the same rights that men do and some more. You cannot base the fight for womens right on lies such as gender pay gap
https://fee.org/articles/harvard-st...ed-entirely-by-work-choices-of-men-and-women/
and expect intelligent people with integrity to support you

You mean Trump? Yes, he is toxic, but remember that 53% of white women voted for him and chose him over Clinton. I am labeled misogynist, but I would no doubt have voted for Clinton.


----------



## infracave

It is obvious that women cannot be great conductors as they lack one essential quality : looking as cool on a motocyle as good ol'Herbert.









Checkmate, feminists !


----------



## Haydn man

In the time I have enjoyed TC there have been several posters who have seemed to enjoy being deliberately provocative.
They didn’t seem to stay long once they had had their fun and members gradually realised they were being baited
Trying to ‘correct’ the strange ideas will only fan the flames.
Let’s get back to rubbishing contemporary classical music because we all really know the truth there


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> I don't know why you're all getting upset, everything I've said is supported by tangible events and tangible individuals, patterns of human behavior that simply cannot be ignored: if you chose to ignore history then go ahead, but you will pay for it when the world changes.
> 
> Don't live by the times, seek truths that apply in all ages, throughout human history.


What a splendidly opaque post! More Nostradamus than nuanced analysis.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> I don't know why you're all getting upset, everything I've said is supported by tangible events and tangible individuals, patterns of human behavior that simply cannot be ignored: if you chose to ignore history then go ahead, but you will pay for it when the world changes.
> 
> Don't live by the times, seek truths that apply in all ages, throughout human history.


You sound like a crackpot, quite frankly. Can you point to any scientific evidence (medical, psychological etc) that you believe supports your opinion that women generally are unable to match the performance of men as conductors of classical music?


----------



## Enthusiast

^ He's offering "tangible events" and "tangible individuals" ... and he's paying due attention to "history". Apparently, we are going to pay the price for ignoring these ephemera. A crackpot, indeed.


----------



## wkasimer

Jacck said:


> "women's rights are attacked" seems like a matra that triggers emotional responses in some people. Is that really true? What womens rights are attacked or violated on a systemic level?


I'm pretty sure that RockyIII is talking about abortion, and I am NOT going there....


----------



## Barbebleu

RockyIII said:


> I think it is very difficult, impossible even, to constructively discuss a topic on which some people have strong emotional and oftentimes irrational beliefs, but here I go.
> 
> In the Unites States, at least, the attack on women's rights is going strong, and that's a crying shame. It is disappointing to me to see such beliefs expressed on a forum of music lovers. Sadly, the prejudices began long before women stepped on the podium and continue way beyond it.


Just have a look at what happened in Alabama today to get a flavour of what's going on in America currently. And their avowed intention is to get this law passed in every state. The mind boggles.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> What rubbish! A whole succession of groundless statements. I already knew that your taste in violinists was far from mine ... but taste is like that. But you alone deplore Boulez's (or almost anyone else's) VPO! I wonder what you have heard that led to that extraordinary view? And, although you are not alone in finding Celibidache's Munich work too slow, that doesn't sum up his career (which included decades of performing at fairly normal - and often fast - speeds). And, anyway, IMO (and not only me) there are very few of his Munich performances that are actually _spoiled _by his slow speeds. They more often than not led to him demonstrating astonishing insights and creating moments of unrivaled power. The Munich Phil sounded good under him, no doubt, but hardly as good as the VPO. Given how extraordinary your view on these two example is, I feel reluctant to ask you to specify which male conductors are on your least favourite list. But your posts are so often very general and rarely go into specifics (we don't even know which works of your favourites Schnittke and Carter you like and whether there are any that you dislike) so it would be good to see your list along with what you have heard them do that has led you to feel they are no good (and, no, a failure to programme Pettersson doesn't count as a good reason).


 A friend, another Petterssonian and I discussed Boulez/Vienna vs Celibidache?Munich, I told him, if Boulez had the Munich, the Bruckner would have come off much finer. 
This Vienna is lack luster compared to Celibidache's Munich in Bruckner, He completely agreed, He is a huge Bruckner fan, as I am not at all. I was only making a compare of the 2. 
Its a hobby of mine, to make comparisons.

Here is the lack luster Vienna
5 stars of 10 = mediocre






Here is the STUNNING Munich, with Celibidache;s usual sluggish tempos. 
I can't stand his meditative style . Lacks forward motion, just snails along, everything he ever recorded is out of tempos.


----------



## paulbest

wkasimer said:


> Neeme Jarvi is a spectacular talent? That's news to me....


He did very good in the Prokofiev set. 
Which recording did you hear him as *less than talented*..I will take a look and see if I need to adjust my opinion.


----------



## wkasimer

paulbest said:


> He did very good in the Prokofiev set.
> Which recording did you hear him as *less than talented*..I will take a look and see if I need to adjust my opinion.


No, you need to stop moving the goalpast. You called Jarvi "a spectacular talent". He is competent, and not much more than that.


----------



## paulbest

wkasimer said:


> No, you need to stop moving the goalpast. You called Jarvi "a spectacular talent". He is competent, and not much more than that.


OK Ok, Perhaps you've seen him in concert/know his performances,,,I was only basing my opinion on his Prok set. Whicjh others on amazon (not always trust worthy I agree) gave him good reviews.
*competent* is acceptable, At least he is far better than a lot of *past greats*
Like Karajan, Celibidache, ,,,Klemperer also has iffy recordings, , Dutoit, Mazzel, there are many others who fall below Neemi, far below Neemi,,,btw Neemi is superior to his son, Paavo.

Now grant it Celibidache is in his last yr of conducting, still, in spite of, this Debussy Prelude is the world's longest timing

You need to speed up the vid to 1.25.


----------



## paulbest

He should have stopped conducting years ago, and let a women step up.
Why didn't he?
Ego,


----------



## fluteman

BachIsBest said:


> This is quite possibly the oddest comment I have seen on TC. It implies that the poster has listened to every flute piece in the repertoire, can clearly differentiate between female and male flautist, and has come to a clear preference on every piece that is female for everything save, for no apparent reason, Debussy's Prelude.
> 
> But then again, this is a thread where someone posted on how letting feminists define themselves was like letting Nazi's define themselves.


I have yet to meet anyone who can reliably tell the difference between male and female flutists in a blind listening test. I certainly can't, and I am very good at recognizing the sound of specific famous flutists. While it's true that men tend to have larger chest cavities, and this is thought to be a factor in the sound ultimately produced, it is only one of a multitude of potential factors, and not one of the major ones. (For anyone who cares, I'd say the biggest factors are usually: (1) the player's principal teacher; (2) the player's performing background and experience; (3) whether the player is primarily an orchestral player or a soloist.)

But it would be a walk in the park compared to telling the difference between male and female conductors in a blind listening test.


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> You mean Trump? Yes, he is toxic, but remember that 53% of white women voted for him and chose him over Clinton. I am labeled misogynist, but I would no doubt have voted for Clinton.


Those were the figures trumpeted by Trump and were based on exit polls. The more accurate figures are 45-47% of white women. Furthermore, only 39% of women overall voted for Trump.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> He should have stopped conducting years ago, and let a women step up.
> Why didn't he?
> Ego,


Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## millionrainbows

"Misogyny on the Podium," a series of concerts which tonight features Sir Mick Jagger conducting the LSO. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Men! Always thinking about "other things" when they ought to be keeping their minds on the job. I mean, that's what a female conductor is doing, isn't it? Just doing her work, too focused on making music to realize that the silly half-smile on the concertmaster's face means that he's wondering what that "cute girl" looks like under other circumstances?
> 
> Honestly, I don't know know how women have put up with us all these millennia.


That's why a female conductor should always go up to the concertmaster before the concert, and punch him in the gut, just to set things up correctly.


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> Where do you get this stuff?


Just curious are you a fan of Celibidache?


----------



## Jacck

DaveM said:


> Those were the figures trumpeted by Trump and were based on exit polls. The more accurate figures are 45-47% of white women. Furthermore, only 39% of women overall voted for Trump.


it does not really matter. My point was, that although I am being labeled a misogynist, I would prefer a woman. If I were an actual misogynist, I would never prefer a woman. And if the women were so opressed as the feminists say, then why would so many of them vote for this archetype of toxic masculinity? Maybe the actual reality is a little more complex.

What I perceive very negatively is the current cultural climate at american academia, which has been hijacked by these gender ideologues and diversity freaks, the whole false narratives of rape culture and sexual harassment, and the constate state of being offended by everything, and the need for safe spaces. I do perceive many of those people living in the spell of these ideologies to be almost clinically insane, reality denying and immature. When they come up with things such as that the university needs to have an Office for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, you are required to submit a "diversity statement" as part of a job application, then something is seriously off. It really does remind me of communism, where people also had to prove their ideological purity. It is really totalitarianism
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/1/21/summers-race-interview/
these people are not liberal, though they are preaching liberal ideology. They are immature, intellectually dishonest and totalitarian.

I mean seriously, read this
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/2/5/law-school-rape-law-discussion/
they are actually having a discussion in a law school, if rape laws should be taught there, because the courses could trigger a psychological trauma. In what kind of an reality defying alternative bubble do these immature entitled narcissistic people live? They are insane and should go to Africa or somewhere to wake up.

this is really Orwellian. Read some examples of the diversity statements
https://physicalsciences.ucsd.edu/_files/examples-submitted-diversity-statements.pdf
you are actually FORCED to submit something like this

or this
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/10/4/harvard-seeks-wider-perceptions-of-rape/
when did Academia stop being about truth, and started being about THIS?


----------



## DaveM

Jacck said:


> it does not really matter...


It does matter because when you said 'Remember 53% of white women voted for Trump...', you were making a point using a figure that implied greater than 50%. In addition, since your point apparently involved women overall and not some specific point regarding white women in particular, the more correct figure would be the 39% of all women, not some figure related to white women.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> Just curious are you a fan of Celibidache?


Yes and for good reason. He is considered as one of the great Bruckner interpreters and some of his best recordings were in the last years of his life. In fact, his recordings were so in demand that recordings of his live performances continued to be released long after he passed away.


----------



## Jacck

DaveM said:


> It does matter because when you said 'Remember 53% of white women voted for Trump...', you were making a point using a figure that implied greater than 50%. In addition, since your point apparently involved women overall and not some specific point regarding white women in particular, the more correct figure would be the 39% of all women, not some figure related to white women.


I googled it and the number come up and I did not check it further. Even if just 40% of women voted for him, then it raises the question why did the supposedly opressed women vot for this evil patriarch, and not for a member of their own gender? I know the answer to this question, since I am grounded in reality, but the feminists, who are not grounded in reality, because they live in fictious world of false narratives really struggle with the answer. They are having a cognitive dissonance and it is amusing to read how they sometimes cope with it
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2...r-the-same-reasons-men-did-racism-and-sexism/
for example these feminists - to be able to keep their narrative - conluded, that "women voted for Donald Trump for the same reasons men did - racism and sexism". So where are all the opressed united women that suffer under the evil patriarchy and need being freed from their shackels by these brave champions of feminism? Maybe their whole narrative about the world and the society needs some rethinking. The whole movement is fundamentally wrong.


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> Yes and for good reason. He is considered as one of the great Bruckner interpreters and some of his best recordings were in the last years of his life. In fact, his recordings were so in demand that recordings of his live performances continued to be released long after he passed away.


So you have no issues with his slower tempos? It is well known his tempos are slowest of any recording. I never attach myself to any one performer, to, the point of excluding others, which actually may reflecta superior understanding of the work. 
Take Samson Francois in Ravel,w hich I am listening to now...back in the LP days, I never took a interest in his approach...Then I bought the 6 cd set/Erato/on the cheap,,and felt, well maybe I need to reconsider. ,,,Now I understand why I did not take to his interpretations.

He lacks the forward energy which is clearly displayed in several other recordings I have. He is too idiosyncratic , doing things with his own personal touch too often. Ravel often suggested that pianists take the score exactly as written. easier said than done, Gieseking set the tempos/textures, all Francois had to do was study Gieseking closely.

To his loss, he did not.

Several others did study Gieseking's master recording to their success, Bavouzet being the finest student of Gieseking.

So what I am saying is, Celibidache has ample time to study the great masters before him, He did not, He went on his own path, which many of us feel he lacks the vibrancy offer in many other recordings.

I know someone here that follows Reiner in every recording.

For me, Reiner is too controlling in his recordings, the orch lacks a certain creative gestures so needed at times. 
There, that's 2 conductors I wish the records were made by a woman.

This si 2019, with hindsight we can see the faults of Reiner and Celibidache. back in the LP days, we had few other choices. There were not a lot of recordings available. and since both had contracts with the big labels, we simply bought, trusting in the quality.

Now we have plenty of options and so why continue to hang onto any artist, when superior can be had?

Argerich is a legend , which has a faithful following. Heifetz is another artist with a huge faithful following.

If a superior artist comes along, I will surely reconsider my 1st choice.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/10/4/harvard-seeks-wider-perceptions-of-rape/
> when did Academia stop being about truth, and started being about THIS?


What does that have to do with the pursuit of truth in Academia? It's a pamphlet addressing rape, published at Harvard for the benefit of the Harvard community. Rape is certainly a subject of concern at colleges and universities. I don't think anyone is implying that it's what Academia is "about."

I can agree with some of your observations about the silly extremes of political correctness, but lumping rape into that category is a good way to lose potential allies.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> So you have no issues with his slower tempos?


No, I rather like them. He's not the first artist to use different tempos than the 'typical'. That includes a number of well-known pianists.



> He lacks the forward energy which is clearly displayed in several other recordings I have. He is too idiosyncratic , doing things with his own personal touch too often.


Interesting that you have several recordings of a conductor you don't like. Being idiosyncratic and having a personal touch has served a lot of conductors well.



> So what I am saying is, Celibidache has ample time to study the great masters before him, He did not, He went on his own path, which *many of us* feel he lacks the vibrancy offer in many other recordings.


You have no way of knowing what time he spent or did not spend studying the great masters. It is hard to believe that he was made principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic (a pretty demanding orchestra) for 7 years if he had not reflected some understanding of the great German masters at the very least. Btw, what's with the 'us'. Two can play that game: many of us disagree.


----------



## 1996D

Many knowledgeable men keep their understandings secret because they think disinformation is what's keeping them in power... I disagree, you can tell it like it is and be open when people want to believe the opposite, at least anonymously.

Do you realize when you've let an ideology take over your reason? This is a very interesting subject, and explains a lot of the irrational events in history. You think what everyone else around you thinks and your reason cannot overcome it--the complete opposite of Nietzsche's Übermensch.


----------



## haydnguy

To the OP question, I think it's partly the struggle to gain equal access in many industries and also that classical music in general is averse to change. I have seen old videos where there wasn't one woman in the orchestra. Now there are women in the orchestras. So maybe it will improve. Time will tell.


----------



## KenOC

I have been following this thread with interest. The prevailing views are clear but are probably unique in the history of human thought and very much specific to this time and place. They are far different from views that have prevailed throughout history and that still prevail in most of the world’s societies.

Still, those holding these views seem to grant them the power of moral imperatives, although they can point to no texts considered sacred for their authority. I have the feeling that these people might seize those with different views* and, possibly, burn them alive in their outrage.

This reminds me of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (I was in the area at the time) where the prevailing emotion seemed to be righteous indignation. That’s a wonderful emotion because it allows you to hate while feeling noble at the same time.

If I say that women are on average constitutionally incapable of becoming first-class conductors, just as they have shown a similar inability composition-wise to add to our core musical repertoires, what then? Have I transgressed? Shall I be punished? (I will add, parenthetically, that in fact I have no opinion at all re woman conductors.)

*On sexism, racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, anti-LGBT bias, or whatever the burning issues of the day happen to be.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> If I say that women are on average constitutionally incapable of becoming first-class conductors, just as they have shown a similar inability composition-wise to add to our core musical repertoires, what then? Have I transgressed? Shall I be punished?


Yes you have and yes you will. Officers have been dispatched. Put your affairs in order.


----------



## haydnguy

KenOC said:


> I have been following this thread with interest. The prevailing views are clear but are probably unique in the history of human thought and very much specific to this time and place. They are far different from views that have prevailed throughout history and that still prevail in most of the world's societies.
> 
> Still, those holding these views seem to grant them the power of moral imperatives, although they can point to no texts considered sacred for their authority. I have the feeling that these people might seize those with different views* and, possibly, burn them alive in their outrage.
> 
> This reminds me of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (I was in the area at the time) where the prevailing emotion seemed to be righteous indignation. That's a wonderful emotion because it allows you to hate while feeling noble at the same time.
> 
> If I say that women are on average constitutionally incapable of becoming first-class conductors, just as they have shown a similar inability composition-wise to add to our core musical repertoires, what then? Have I transgressed? Shall I be punished? (I will add, parenthetically, that in fact I have no opinion at all re woman conductors.)
> 
> *On sexism, racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, anti-LGBT bias, or whatever the burning issues of the day happen to be.


Most probably it's because in early times women were looked on as physically inferior. They were physically different enough so that they were less able to go "hunt". When you look at biblical times you can see it there. Even the Bible as a whole shows it because of the way it portrays women. No great apostles, no books written by women. (At least in my denomination. Now pastors are allowed to be women. But that's the way that women were looked upon.

Now, we know that human beings are, except in rare cases, pretty much alike. Men and women, of course, are different in obvious ways. But I think that science is the reason that views have changed. Plus, ethically it's wrong.


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> No, I rather like them. He's not the first artist to use different tempos than the 'typical'. That includes a number of well-known pianists.
> 
> Interesting that you have several recordings of a conductor you don't like. Being idiosyncratic and having a personal touch has served a lot of conductors well.
> 
> You have no way of knowing what time he spent or did not spend studying the great masters. It is hard to believe that he was made principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic (a pretty demanding orchestra) for 7 years if he had not reflected some understanding of the great German masters at the very least. Btw, what's with the 'us'. Two can play that game: many of us disagree.


Obviously had he spent time studying ho ravel and Debussy was suppose to go in tempos, we would have recordings at least close to the great French conductors recordings. 
Why try to cover for him? Is my Q. At least you admit his tempos are a aberration from the standards, *I rather like THEM*

I avoided all celibidache's recordings, having heard one LP long ago, I figured, more than likely,,,and later on , confirmed . 
I had no idea he led the Berlin, post Karajan. I also avoided like the plague anything to do with Karajan. man the poor Beerliners, 2 lousey conductors, Just when they thought could not get any worse, along steps in Celibidache, Good for the Berliners.

I bet any money the Karajan Berlin was very heavily staffed men orchestra. Like their counter part the Vienna.

Obviously today, the Berlin's 3 main orchestras most likely are staffed with at least 25% women. All the majors have at least 25%+ women,~~~whereas 30+ years ago the % may been less than 10%. 
As I say, I much prefer to see a healthy balance in a orchestra, makes for a more rounded performance. But then even a 50/50 orchestra could not have helped out old Karajan's records. His early 1950's records, his Wagner opera, had some great conducting,,or was it the orchestra that pulled it off as a success and he just stole the credit,,,most likely the case.....
his conducting ,went down hill just after that record. ~~~~~

*Great german masters*, like KNA, Keilberth, Furtwangler? (Not Klemperer), , Sure, had Celibidache followed these 3 masters, he may have learned something. He has no fire in his conducting, the 3 previous mentioned were all about DYNAMIC energy. 
btw another german conductor over rated is Clemens Krauss. Keilberth's Ring is far superior.

How could I forget the great Karl Bohm,,,

You should know these things by now, it is all so old news.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I have been following this thread with interest. The prevailing views are clear but are probably unique in the history of human thought and very much specific to this time and place. They are far different from views that have prevailed throughout history and that still prevail in most of the world's societies.


Do you really suppose that there have not been women in all eras who knew that male views of their supposedly inferior abilities have been horse manure? There would have been a great many more of them had they not been robbed of the opportunity to discover their innate powers.



> Still, those holding these views seem to grant them the power of moral imperatives, although they can point to no texts considered sacred for their authority.


Texts? Really? You need texts? Texts like, say, the Bible or the Koran? I prefer a mixture of experience, observation, reason and common sense. I'll bet you do too.



> I have the feeling that these people might seize those with different views* and, possibly, burn them alive in their outrage.


You're entitled to your feelings. And your texts.



> This reminds me of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China (I was in the area at the time) where the prevailing emotion seemed to be righteous indignation. That's a wonderful emotion because it allows you to hate while feeling noble at the same time.


So preoccupied with emotion today.



> If I say that women are on average constitutionally incapable of becoming first-class conductors, just as they have shown a similar inability composition-wise to add to our core musical repertoires, what then?


Hopefully you will be ignored, both by women and by men who harbor no such assumptions and are concerned with the opportunities accorded to actual human beings, not with hypothetical "averages."



> Have I transgressed? Shall I be punished? (I will add, parenthetically, that in fact I have no opinion at all re woman conductors.)


Good thing you added that. The executioner is sharpening his blade.



> *On sexism, racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, anti-LGBT bias, or whatever the burning issues of the day happen to be.


This is one particular issue. Other issues will have their own importance, their own solutions, and their own threads. But let me remind you, since you want to cite history, that some of those "isms" have been, quite literally, burning issues, whether involving crosses or bodies. Rejecting the attitudes that lead to such atrocities shouldn't require the justification of "texts," in this or any era.

What is the point of your post?


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> ...You should know these things by now, it is all so old news...


You are assuming that you know more about the subject than I do. Well, you don't. You didn't even know that Celi had a tenure in Berlin. Another thing you probably didn't know is that most of his recordings were released after he died since he believed more in live than studio performances and didn't want most of the recordings released while he was alive.

The reason they were released after death was because there was a demand for them that went on for years. Many of those were Bruckner. It's unlikely that record companies would release recordings of a conductor posthumously if the situation was as that 'so old news' .


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...What is the point of your post?


I wish I could say that it was just to get a rise out of you. But that, unfortunately, is far from the truth.


----------



## Heck148

paulbest said:


> There MIGHT BE a few male harpists , but as we all know its a woman's art.
> Horns, women? Perhaps, but the finest horners are all men, That's what he is getting at.


and he's wrong...there are some terrific women horn players, and women are filling some major orchestra principal jobs as well...Gail Williams, long-time assistant principal in Chicago was/is a great player....fabulous talent...


----------



## KenOC

Heck148 said:


> and he's wrong...there are some terrific women horn players, and women are filling some major orchestra principal jobs as well...Gail Williams, long-time assistant principal in Chicago was/is a great player....fabulous talent...


And, amazingly, more than one world-class (and world-famous) woman trumpet player! In my youth there was only room for one, and that was always a man.


----------



## KenOC

haydnguy said:


> Most probably it's because in early times women were looked on as physically inferior. They were physically different enough so that they were less able to go "hunt".


Sexual dimorphism in our species certainly accounts for much of the historical dominance of males. Among other things, it explains why polygamy (and the keeping of harems) has historically been widespread while polyandry has been vanishingly rare. From an evolutionary standpoint, it can be argued that polygamy benefits the species overall.

But it doesn't account for other forms of seeming discrimination against females, for instance the rule often observed under Sharia law that the value of a woman's testimony is accounted half that of a man. I have my own theory on this, which is better left unstated.


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> You are assuming that you know more about the subject than I do. Well, you don't. You didn't even know that Celi had a tenure in Berlin. Another thing you probably didn't know is that most of his recordings were released after he died since he believed more in live than studio performances and didn't want most of the recordings released while he was alive.
> 
> The reason they were released after death was because there was a demand for them that went on for years. Many of those were Bruckner. It's unlikely that record companies would release recordings of a conductor posthumously if the situation was as that 'so old news' .


Ok, Tell you what , If you want, I can hep you locate other fine recordings in Bruckner. I mean, in all my fav composers , I have multiple records. 
I did a compare of the Bruckner 7th codas of 1st/4th movements, 2 really nice codas. Eschenbach's Frankfurt is better than his Stuttgart. 
Celibidache's later with the Munich/live in japan, is superior to his earlier live with the Berlin. 
Furtwanglers is FAST, just at 1 hour. Not very good.
The best as far as I can tell is the Knappertsbusch/Koln live/1963, comes in a little over 1 hour. 
Celibidache's two 7ths are well over 1 hour. The earlier with the Berlin is like 28 minutes in movement 1. 
Furtwangler's 1st movement /Berlin live 1951 is 19 minutes 
KNA's /Koln 1st move is at just under 20 minutes.

Knappertsbusch has the superior performance of all I surveyed. The sound does suffer, but I kind of like the old mono *muffled* sound,,,gives a old world feeling,,takes you back to Bruckner's times. However the loss in the string clarity is a liability in the record.

Still, I give the KNA/Koln 1st prize.

EDIT:
Wait, can I take back the 1st to KNA?
Thanks
Furtwangler/Berlin 1949, 1st prize. now grant it you must use head phones, otherwise you will miss the string section in the 2 codas, 1st/4th move.

I thought,,,maybe,, Furtwanglers 49 is superior to his 1951, Sure enough, Yet once again the legend of Furtwangler lives on. KNA takes 2nd

.EDIT
Wait, double 1st prize, KNA and Furtwangler/49 share.


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> Ok, Tell you what , If you want, I can hep you locate other fine recordings in Bruckner. I mean, in all my fav composers , I have multiple records.
> I did a compare of the Bruckner 7th codas of 1st/4th movements, 2 really nice codas. Eschenbach's Frankfurt is better than his Stuttgart.
> Celibidache's later with the Munich/live in japan, is superior to his earlier live with the Berlin...


The good news is that there are far more good Bruckner recordings than bad, probably because, unlike the usual war-horses which conductors may have to record whether they like it or not, Bruckner is a calling to those who really want to record him.

I like Celibidache's Bruckner, but he's not always my favorite; I do like his #7 Adagio, long as it is. Tintner does an amazing job of the early symphonies which are all the original versions. If anyone has not heard the original #3 Adagio with the salute to Wagner at the end, they haven't heard the real #3. Simone Young also does a nice job including a 7th that is a nice counter to the Celi version but maybe her better accomplishment is having made the #0 (Nulltie) sound like it deserves to be the #1.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> OK Ok, Perhaps you've seen him in concert/know his performances,,,I was only basing my opinion on his Prok set. Whicjh others on amazon (not always trust worthy I agree) gave him good reviews.
> *competent* is acceptable, At least he is far better than a lot of *past greats*
> Like Karajan, Celibidache, ,,,Klemperer also has iffy recordings, , Dutoit, Mazzel, there are many others who fall below Neemi, far below Neemi,,,btw Neemi is superior to his son, Paavo.
> 
> Now grant it Celibidache is in his last yr of conducting, still, in spite of, this Debussy Prelude is the world's longest timing
> 
> You need to speed up the vid to 1.25.


I thought that was lovely but then I wasn't watching my stopwatch while listening. So what if it lasts longer than other accounts? It is heavenly and floats in a way I have rarely heard.

Now, to suggest (as you did in a subsequent post) that Celibidache was past it when he gave that performance and should have been replaced by a woman conductor is plain crazy. Why pick the male conductors who are at the top of the pile, the ones who have recorded the exceptional and the unforgettable, to be replaced? No, women with talent should be given opportunities to compete fairly and on merit _with their peers_ for conducting opportunities. As they gain a lifetime's experience some of them will go on to produce equally special performances. But to remove the very best men to make room for new women seems like a very stupid policy!

The trouble is that the playing field is not level so it is (or at least has been until recently) rarely seen that a woman could compete fairly and equally with men so some sort of mechanism is needed to level the field. And on top of that much needs to be done to encourage women to think of a conducting career and to work towards it.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> A friend, another Petterssonian and I discussed Boulez/Vienna vs Celibidache?Munich, I told him, if Boulez had the Munich, the Bruckner would have come off much finer.
> This Vienna is lack luster compared to Celibidache's Munich in Bruckner, He completely agreed, He is a huge Bruckner fan, as I am not at all. I was only making a compare of the 2.
> Its a hobby of mine, to make comparisons.
> 
> Here is the lack luster Vienna
> 5 stars of 10 = mediocre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the STUNNING Munich, with Celibidache;s usual sluggish tempos.
> I can't stand his meditative style . Lacks forward motion, just snails along, everything he ever recorded is out of tempos.


They are playing different music so the comparison is not easy but I certainly don't hear any problem with the distinctive VPO sound (and the masterly sound-blending abilities of Boulez). I can bring the vast majority of critics to agree with this and that trumps you Petterssonian friend's opinion!

And why again are you bemoaning the slow speeds that Celibidache favoured at that time in his life? His accounts of most of the Bruckners from Munich (OK, not the 7th) are wonderful. I treasure them. But some people do, like you, find them too slow - just as many as think they are so special. I think they are special and you, from the sound of it, don't. That's OK. But the existence of many who consider them irreplaceable ought to be enough for you to target someone else for removal "to make room for" a woman. I do agree that Celibidache gets wonderful playing from his Munich orchestra (and was often praised for "making them sound better than they are") but that is part of what he was at that stage in his career. Ditch him and you ditch that, too.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> I thought that was lovely but then I wasn't watching my stopwatch while listening. So what if it lasts longer than other accounts? It is heavenly and floats in a way I have rarely heard.
> 
> Now, to suggest (as you did in a subsequent post) that Celibidache was past it when he gave that performance and should have been replaced by a woman conductor is plain crazy. Why pick the male conductors who are at the top of the pile, the ones who have recorded the exceptional and the unforgettable, to be replaced? No, women with talent should be given opportunities to compete fairly and on merit _with their peers_ for conducting opportunities. As they gain a lifetime's experience some of them will go on to produce equally special performances. But to remove the very best men to make room for new women seems like a very stupid policy!
> 
> The trouble is that the playing field is not level so it is (or at least has been until recently) rarely seen that a woman could compete fairly and equally with men so some sort of mechanism is needed to level the field. And on top of that much needs to be done to encourage women to think of a conducting career and to work towards it.


*the very finest men conductors removed,,,,*

Trust me, there have been so many bad, just aweful, horrific , recordings made by male conductors past 50 years, , in fact allow me to say for every one great/excellent/outstanding record, there are 3++ *average/lackluster/duds/,,,a special few even get zero stars out of 10!!!.
Trust me, as a record critic past 30+ years, I should know.

Many old days conductors remained in a seat of power for all sorts of various reasons. Some of their records, show it was more about ego power, than true creative powers.

I like your last comment, women should be encouraged to step into the podium. Look at pop music, women are showing creative energy and great success, Madonna, Beyoncé etc.

Why should not , this same female creative energy be developed on the podium? 
~~Footnotes, hopefully women conductors will resist any temptations to get involved in any dramas involving orchestral members,,,you know how people are nowadays,,,that spark could ruin her career....~~~


----------



## paulbest

No Disagree, The Vienna, is the same under whoever conductor, The Munich same under whoever. 
One is a great virtuoso orch, the other plays crappy, 
Makes no dif the music is dif, Just look with your eyes, the Vienna, all of them, not a virtuoso in the whole bunch. The Munichians are all to the last man, virtuoso. 


IMHO the Vienna needs a good strong women conductor to whip that orchestra into shape. Solid proof , the Vienna's *men olnt* policy has resulted in complete stagnation and mediocrity. 
The Vienna, hopefully today, is at least 25%+ women. I am not sure, but every orch has at least 10%+ women, so I assume the Vienna has also made that necessary change.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> *the very finest men conductors removed,,,,*
> 
> Trust me, there have been so many bad, just aweful, horrific , recordings made by male conductors past 50 years, , in fact allow me to say for every one great/excellent/outstanding record, there are 3++ *average/lackluster/duds/,,,a special few even get zero stars out of 10!!!.
> Trust me, as a record critic past 30+ years, I should know.


If there are so many awful conductors and performances why have you chosen to target one of the greats during what was a magnificent flowering of his art?

Trust you? Why should I? You very rarely post anything specific that shows the knowledge I would expect from an experienced critic. You often post very strange opinions that an experienced critic would, I feel, know would require very detailed argument to be accepted as meaningful. And when you are specific you come up with an opinion that is wildly out of sync with most critical opnion. Again, knowing this, you would also know that you would need to give detailed reasons for your unusual view to be taken seriously. If you were a record critic for 30 years please post a link to some of your reviews. Unless, of course, your critiquing was as an Amazon punter. No, I'm sorry, critic or not I do not trust your ear or taste - at best they are very different to mine, even when you are advocating composers who I enjoy (Carter, Pettersson, Schnittke, Ravel).


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> No Disagree, The Vienna, is the same under whoever conductor, The Munich same under whoever.
> One is a great virtuoso orch, the other plays crappy,
> Makes no dif the music is dif, Just look with your eyes, the Vienna, all of them, not a virtuoso in the whole bunch. The Munichians are all to the last man, virtuoso.
> 
> IMHO the Vienna needs a good strong women conductor to whip that orchestra into shape. Solid proof , the Vienna's *men olnt* policy has resulted in complete stagnation and mediocrity.
> The Vienna, hopefully today, is at least 25%+ women. I am not sure, but every orch has at least 10%+ women, so I assume the Vienna has also made that necessary change.


I've nothing more to say about this except you are in a minority of one in not recognising that the Munich Phil of the time sounded much better under Celibidache than anyone else and even then could not match the Vienna Phil. Let's not talk about this further - at best we disagree 100%.


----------



## Becca

paulbest said:


> *
> Trust me, as a record critic past 30+ years, I should know.


As noted in above posts, if you are going to claim that, then you had better provide proof otherwise it is just meaningless.

If you have indeed been a published critic for 30 years then you would know that not even critics have a monopoly on truth because when it comes to opinions about performances, it is only opinion, there is no truth. For every recognized critic with a strong opinion in one direction, there will certainly be at least one other who has the opposite opinion, not only for performances but for composers and compositions also, and the sooner that you start to acknowledge that, the better.

Having said all that, this has very little to do with the OP so if you want to pound on about the topic, start another thread and let this one return to the main topic - although that does seem to have run its course so I wouldn't be disturbed if the thread was closed.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> What does that have to do with the pursuit of truth in Academia? It's a pamphlet addressing rape, published at Harvard for the benefit of the Harvard community. Rape is certainly a subject of concern at colleges and universities. I don't think anyone is implying that it's what Academia is "about."
> I can agree with some of your observations about the silly extremes of political correctness, but lumping rape into that category is a good way to lose potential allies.


I don't even get this whole obsession with rapes and harassment. I don't know the American campuses from a students perspective, but rape is not prevalent on Czech campuses. In my 6 years of living in a student dormitory in Prague, I have not heard about a single case of rape among students. Yet, the news gives the impression, that 1 in 5 women on American campuses was raped. Is it even possible? Either the statistics is completely bogus, or the activists are using some very vague definition of rape, or the American men are really pigs. I just can't believe that students on campuses - the supposed elite of the nation - engages in rapes with such frenquency, and given the tendency of these women activists to lie, I have a tendency to dismiss their rape and harrassment narratives as political activism. 
(I am of course strongly against rape and the perpetrators should be punished)

this is a good article
Commissars in our universities
my country has an experince with communism and with political commissars (politruks) and with forced exams from marxism-leninism etc. And these diversity commisars and diversity offices and the whole unfounded irrational belief that diversity is good (why should it?) are strongly reminiscent of the communism


----------



## Enthusiast

It is likely that the prevalence of rape varies greatly between countries. However, one thing that has been learned in Britain (and I'm sure the US is the same) is that historically rape has been very under-reported. Victims are reluctant to report it as they feel shame and embarrassment, are reluctant to be put through the extremely intrusive and public processes that are involved in investigating and prosecuting cases, processes that often lead nowhere. As most rape involves people who know each other - including date rape - the cases often hinge on whether or not the victim encouraged or invited the intercourse. So it could be that rape is far more common on Czech campuses than is reported?


----------



## paulbest

OK, great, just when I expose out the bad conductors which the major labels pumped, we have harsh critics come around lamblasting my personal opinions. 
Well then, you want to continue with no critique?
In everything social aspect today, everything is critiqued for standards. 
Sports, music, , industry, craftsmen, all are rated by standards. 
Should we not also have standards in classical music? 

If composers have given us incredible masterpieces,,,should we not expect the artists to give equal genius in the performances?

This is all I am saying. 
If you want to hang on to your ideas of whats excellent and less so, go right ahead. In my 35 yrs, I've only sought the finest performances,,,8,9,10 stars, 7 stars went to the trash can. 

Celibidache would never make it on my cd shelf,, neither a whole host of other *famous* conductors,. 
You guys are protectionists, conservationists. You just wish the industry to be dressed in all white. . 
Trust me, for every 1 great recording in Mahler, Bruckner, Mozart,,,there are 3 deserving the 7 star rating = trash can. .


~~~~Which supports the OP, women might not do any worse than some male contenders. ~~~


----------



## Becca

Just because those are your opinions of 35 years, it doesn't mean that others (some with more than 35 years listening) have the same opinion, nor are they required to. And there is nothing to say that your opinion is a majority view.

And you aren't 'exposing bad conductors', you are offering opinions on performances that you don't like, the two things are not the same.


----------



## paulbest

Well I refrained from mentioning any (more, other than the obvious flubs )conductors names, due to not wishing to offend their fan club.
Look I was impressed with Neemi Jarvi's Prokofiev set, and someone here felt the urge to let me know Neemi was not a *spectacular conductor*. 
I took his word for it and lower my assessment of Neemi Jarvi's credentials. 
But he is surely superior than his son, Paavo. 
I should also note Neemi has a top notch orch in his Prokofiev set, the Scottish RADIO sym orch.


----------



## Enthusiast

And actually he is not exposing anyone. He tends not to be specific and has not named the conductors who he feels are so mediocre and I am left wondering in he actually has an opinion at all. The only "bad" conductor he has named - Celibidache - is one that many revere and, anyway, he is the same conductor who he was praising a few days before! The only conductor he has praised as far as I can remember is Neeme Jarvi, a conductor who is hardly in the same class. So, yes, he is dealing with what appears to be opinion but it is far from clear that he has actually heard them.


----------



## Guest

I've lost track of what we're talking about in this thread: misogymy, rape, Bruckner, Celibadache, Jarvi, VPO, conductors?

I think I'll comment on Bruckner. My preferred recordings are:

Sym 3 - Gergiev/Munich
Sym 4 - Barenboim/BPO [Honeck/Pittsburgh]
Sym 5 - Barenboim/BPO
Sym 6 - Barenboim/BPO
Sym 7 - Haitinck/RCO
Sym 8 - Barenboim/BPO
Sym 9 - Barenboim/BPO

I used to have several other recordings of 4, 5, 7, 8 but I binned the whole lot a few years ago. I'm a fan of Barenboim, both as pianist and conductor, and the BPO can do no wrong.


----------



## CnC Bartok

The Vienna Philharmonic play crappy? Hilarious!


----------



## Becca

paulbest said:


> But he is surely superior than his son, Paavo.


You just don't get it, do you? There is absolutely nothing 'surely superior' about it ... other than your personal opinion. Others may (and probably do) feel differently, and their view is no less valid than yours.


----------



## Barbebleu

paulbest said:


> Well I refrained from mentioning any (more, other than the obvious flubs )conductors names, due to not wishing to offend their fan club.
> Look I was impressed with Neemi Jarvi's Prokofiev set, and someone here felt the urge to let me know Neemi was not a *spectacular conductor*.
> I took his word for it and lower my assessment of Neemi Jarvi's credentials.
> But he is surely superior than his son, Paavo.
> I should also note Neemi has a top notch orch in his Prokofiev set, the Scottish RADIO sym orch.


It's actually the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and not the one you quoted. I had the privilege of attending many of Neeme Jarvi's concerts with the RSNO at the City Halls in Glasgow in the 80's and they were excellent, but even I would hesitate to rate them higher than, say, the Berlin Phil or the CSO or the Vienna Phil under any one of their resident conductors.

But that's only my opinion and not a hard fact!


----------



## Enthusiast

Meanwhile we have all forgotten the insane idea that women can't conduct. That's a mercy and we should thank paulbest for the distraction.


----------



## Guest

Barbebleu said:


> It's actually the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and not the one you quoted. I had the privilege of attending many of Neeme Jarvi's concerts with the RSNO at the City Halls in Glasgow in the 80's and they were excellent But even I would hesitate to rate them higher than. say, the Berlin Phil or the CSO or the Vienna Phil under any one of their resident conductors.
> 
> But that's only my opinion and not a hard fact!


I was about to point out the error too, posted by a record critic of 35 years experience.

May I also add that I have the RSNO/Jarvi Prokofiev symphonies. Jolly good they are too.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> Meanwhile we have all forgotten the insane idea that women can't conduct. That's a mercy and we should thank paulbest for the distraction.


No, in fact I always tie in my main ideas with the OP Q. 
I've stated often, that I wish some past *famously great male conductors* had stepped down and allow a woman to take the podium.


----------



## paulbest

Barbebleu said:


> It's actually the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and not the one you quoted. I had the privilege of attending many of Neeme Jarvi's concerts with the RSNO at the City Halls in Glasgow in the 80's and they were excellent, but even I would hesitate to rate them higher than, say, the Berlin Phil or the CSO or the Vienna Phil under any one of their resident conductors.
> 
> But that's only my opinion and not a hard fact!


Do you actually think think the Berlin/Vienna can perform Prokofiev as did the Scottish? Honestly?
Glad you gave us eye witness report on Neemi Jarvi's conducting talents.

Some here feel I am just making things up as I go.
My 2 eras, told me *Neemi Jarvi is a capable conductor*. 
Your post confirms my opinion to the un-delights of my detractors.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> No, in fact I always tie in my main ideas with the OP Q.
> I've stated often, that I wish some past *famously great male conductors* had stepped down and allow a woman to take the podium.


No matter how many times I wish a woman had written _Hamlet_, that still wouldn't qualify me as a supportor of equality for women. It's a nonsensical idea. (Sorry, millionrainbows, if that seems like the kind of subtle disparagement that you dislike).


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> No, in fact I always tie in my main ideas with the OP Q.
> I've stated often, that I wish some past *famously great male conductors* had stepped down and allow a woman to take the podium.


Yes - your argument that the answer to the lack of opportunities for women conductors is for the old guys to step down. But since then the argument has gone round in circles while you studiously avoid answering the objection that it is often in old age that the great conductors give us their most treasured and treasurable recordings. So isn't the answer merely to focus on equality of opportunity?


----------



## wkasimer

paulbest said:


> Look I was impressed with Neemi Jarvi's Prokofiev set, and someone here felt the urge to let me know Neemi was not a *spectacular conductor*.


That was me. I have heard plenty of Jarvi in a wide variety of repertoire, and do not think that he is a "spectacular talent" by any stretch of the imagination. And I am mystified at how anyone could make such a statement based on his recording of a single composer's works. He may well be a splendid interpreter of Prokofiev, but that does not make him a "spectacular talent".



> I took his word for it and lower my assessment of Neemi Jarvi's credentials.


I am skeptical of anyone who changes their opinion based on someone else's disagreement. I have strong opinions based on a lot of listening, and if someone disagrees with me, that's fine - but I'm not likely to alter my opinion.



> But he is surely superior than his son, Paavo.


I prefer the son. That's partly because he conducts music I care more about than his father does.



> I should also note Neemi has a top notch orch in his Prokofiev set, the Scottish RADIO sym orch.


That, of course, says little or nothing about Neeme Jarvi's level of talent.


----------



## wkasimer

paulbest said:


> Some here feel I am just making things up as I go.


Because that's exactly what you're doing.



> My 2 eras, told me *Neemi Jarvi is a capable conductor*.


"Capable" is not synonymous with "spectacular", which was your original claim. No one is arguing - at least I am not - that Neeme Jarvi isn't "capable".



> Your post confirms my opinion to the un-delights of my detractors.


I think that you have a rather inflated opinion of your effect on others.


----------



## paulbest

wkasimer said:


> That was me. I have heard plenty of Jarvi in a wide variety of repertoire, and do not think that he is a "spectacular talent" by any stretch of the imagination. And I am mystified at how anyone could make such a statement based on his recording of a single composer's works. He may well be a splendid interpreter of Prokofiev, but that does not make him a "spectacular tale.


Ok I agree, I was in fact basing my opinion on that set alone, Perhaps I need to hear more from him, before I make a half baked opinion.

His son did fine/OK work with Hahn in some concertos. So again, perhaps my opinion there was wishy-washy.
But these minor errors does not lessen my voting power in recordings from the LP days.

man , in those days, you can't believe what trash conductors were making back then. 
Thankfully things have improved.

Trust me, if we had access to KNA and/or Furtwagler's Bruckner complete cycle in DDD, ,,,many a Brucknerian would believed they had gone to heaven. 
I saw the list mentioned below, none of those conductors even make my top 25 list as greats.
Take Ormandy, Reiner, Maazel, Bernstein. ,,,, go read amazon's reviews,,,,lots of 5 stars. You think I believe them? Based on what I know?
Women can't do any worse, that's for sure.

EDIT, can I add 1 or 2 more?
Thanks
Haitink James Levine


----------



## paulbest

wkasimer said:


> Because that's exactly what you're doing.
> 
> "Capable" is not synonymous with "spectacular", which was your original claim. No one is arguing - at least I am not - that Neeme Jarvi isn't "capable".
> 
> .


Capable means , more successful than quite a few previously *famous star studded* *great* conductors, that's for sure. 
I have in mind several from the LP days, who had big contracts with the major labels. lol, ,,,would loved to have refunds,,but the store owner said the LP had no scratches. ...out of luck and $10 less in wallet.
If Neemi has done what many a great famous could not in yrs previous, I count him great IN MY BOOK. 
You think Reiner could makea complete Prok set to compete with Neemi Jarvi? based on his discography?
Reiner was pumped by the critics.


----------



## Luchesi

paulbest said:


> Ok I agree, I was in fact basing my opinion on that set alone, Perhaps I need to hear more from him, before I make a half baked opinion.
> 
> His son did fine/OK work with Hahn in some concertos. So again, perhaps my opinion there was wishy-washy.
> But these minor errors does not lessen my voting power in recordings from the LP days.
> 
> man , in those days, you can't believe what trash conductors were making back then.
> Thankfully things have improved.
> 
> Trust me, if we had access to KNA and/or Furtwagler's Bruckner complete cycle in DDD, ,,,many a Brucknerian would believed they had gone to heaven.
> I saw the list mentioned below, none of those conductors even make my top 25 list as greats.
> Take Ormandy, Reiner, Maazel, Bernstein. ,,,, go read amazon's reviews,,,,lots of 5 stars. You think I believe them? Based on what I know?
> Women can't do any worse, that's for sure.
> 
> EDIT, can I add 1 or 2 more?
> Thanks
> Haitink James Levine


I now have this image burned into my mind. The orchestras (1988) in both Chicago and New York were "terrible" according to Horowitz.

He also mentions a mistake that Mozart made in the A major Concerto. Start about 19:45 mins in.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Pedant alert!!!

Neeme Jarvi made his excellent Prokofiev Symphony recordings with the Scottish National Orchestra. They added the "Royal" bit in 1991!

Their Barber recordings under Marin Alsop are really rather special, by the way.....


----------



## Heck148

paulbest said:


> Look I was impressed with Neemi Jarvi's Prokofiev set, and someone here felt the urge to let me know Neemi was not a *spectacular conductor*.
> I took his word for it and lower my assessment of Neemi Jarvi's credentials.
> .....I should also note Neemi has a top notch orch in his Prokofiev set, the Scottish RADIO sym orch.


N. Jarvi's Prokofieff Symphony set is OK. well recorded by Chandos, played decently by the *Scottish National Orchestra*, but none of them get top billing imo....pretty straight ahead, almost pedestrian interpretations...others do it a lot better - Mravinsky, Rozhd'stsky, Ormandy, Reiner to name a few, OTTOMH...


----------



## paulbest

Well there you have Horowitz with his assessment of 2 or 3 major US orchestras. 
and he says the orch is much more important than the conductor. 
I agree on all his opinions. 
Fascinating interview,,He goes on to say, 
Mozart is his #1 composer, he means Mozart to him is the greatest composer. 

There you have it.


----------



## Heck148

paulbest said:


> You think Reiner could makea complete Prok set to compete with Neemi Jarvi? based on his discography?
> Reiner was pumped by the critics.


Reiner was a great interpreter of Prokofieff, several light years beyond Jarvi....Jarvi is no where near in the same class with the likes of Reiner and Bernstein....if Reiner is pumped by the critics, it is deservedly so...He's also pumped by musicians...who may [begrudgingly] admit that he was a great conductor, but a rather miserable person.


----------



## paulbest

Ok, and Reiner's Bartok CfO? 
how many stars out of 10?


----------



## Heck148

paulbest said:


> Ok, and Reiner's Bartok CfO?
> how many stars out of 10?


10.....of course....


----------



## paulbest

Heck148 said:


> 10.....of course....


 lol, OK, Heck, 
we remember the good old days over at GMG, lol. glad to see you again. 
Reiner does a fine Bartok, , But as always I love the Hungarian orchestras in Bartok.


----------



## paulbest

So lets get back to the OP Q.
Has the classical music INDUSTRY, somehow overlooked , neglected, disparage,,,,maybe even shunned, in the past 50 years, the idea of allowing women on the podium?

It is 2 am , I can't sleep, thinking about what Horowitz said about the orch having a a greater sense of importance vs the importance of the conductor, Obviously it depends on the composer being performed.

In the past there have beena few *marriages made in heaven* , Mravinsky/Lenningrad. Bohm /Berlin (not sure if it the same or dif Berlin as Karajan's, maybe Bohm had the Berlin PO, and Karajan the Berlin SO,,anyone?). Bruno Walter had a excellent career with the Columbia.

Szell and Ormandy's records, never amounted to any high ratings to my ears. Not sure who held who back from *reaching for the stars*. Haitink's records with the Concertgebouw are all OK/good, nothing I'd give the highest ratings.

Add you own praises or damnations.

So as I looked at Horowitz's record with Giulini/La Scala orch/1988, I thought, well let me go see Uchida/Tate's 23rd. 
When I came across Uchida's live 2001 from Salzburg , with the Salzburg Camerata, which I give ,,,well 8 generous stars out of a possible 10. 
Uchida might argue that number with me, and grant her orchestra , a 10. 
I can not. 8, not 9 stars.

That opinionated rating , aside,
What I noticed is that, unlike my previous dis-satisfaction , with other soloist as conductor in Mozart's PC;s. ,,here was a great success, to my happy surprise.

I was already aware of Uchida's passion for Mozart, yet here in her conducting we can see this passion bloom right there on the podium , as well on the piano. 
Amazing find.

How many other conductors do you know whose skills exhibit this style of passionate display?

I am giving Uchida a 10 on conducting, 10 on piano.

I would not give Giulini a 10 on his conducting the 488 concerto with Horowitz. maybe a 8, and his orchestra a 9.

Ashkenazy's record juggling both positions, does not match what Uchida has accomplished here.

Now it is true a great conductor does not have to exhibit this same passionate display as Uchida here. Note Bohm's live record with the Vienna 1971, hardly any display of emotive affect, yet his attention to detail is evident. Apparently in the rehearsal , he established his ideas , and the orchestra with its all star line up, were in sync with Bohm (yeah I know I trashed the Vienna the other day, but I was referring to the post Bohm era, as a lack luster under Boulez, here was the final glory of the Vienna in 1971)

Uchida has tapped into Mozart's energy superior to various other famous conductors. 
This 2001 performance is solid evidence that a woman has this capacity and should by all means, be presented the opportunity to conduct.


----------



## Becca

Except that you did not get back to the OP, it was not about reviewing a conductor, it was about the obstacles that women face in becoming and succeeding as a conductor because of their gender.


----------



## paulbest

I understand, those barriers have been long established and its anyones guess when that will change.
Just think about this, how beautiful Hahn's performances are. Spell binding , lush, gorgeous tones and colors. 
Just think if a woman conductor exhibits these same talents as Hahn in her violin.
I mean , we are all in for some real treats. 
So this is why I posted Uchida at the podium YT upload.
I was adamant on not having soloist as conductor in Mozart's PC's. , As I gave low stars on every such a one. Ck my amazon comments, I made this same opinion years ago, that it is impossible for a soloist to juggle so many balls with conducting. 

(now I know others will jump in and say, *well it was a common practice in Mozart's time,,and since then...*)
I ain't buying. 
Look at Horowitz /Mozart 23 with Giulini. Sure he could have conducted, perhaps superior to the laid back Giulini, but he felt, better to it right, with all those notes Mozart throws at a soloist, one has to be super artist to pull off successfully.
Yet Uchida has done this impossible feat with stunning success. 
She is the only one I know , who has made a success of this daunting challenge. 

We need more great women artists in the podium , such as Uchida, with supreme passion.
I hope in my lifetime to see a woman in the podium with a record of Pettersson.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> Humanism doesn't pay enough attention to detail or political, social, economic inequality and as such even lets men down routinely.


I'm not sure "humanism" can pay attention to anything, given it is not a person but an abstract idea.

On the other hand, we can find out what specific humanist organisations are paying attention to. For example,

https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/human-rights-and-equality/



> For example we work for:
> 
> 
> an extension of section 6 of the Human Rights Act to treat religious organisations providing public services on behalf of the state as public authorities
> an end to the exemptions from the Equality Act for religious groups which allow much egregious discrimination on grounds of religion or belief and of sexual orientation to continue lawfully
> no weakening in the UK's existing human rights settlement, for example as a result of proposals to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a 'British Bill of Rights', or pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights
> the realisation of a single equality act in Northern Ireland, as is the case in the rest of the UK, as well as the proposed Northern Ireland 'Bill of Rights' to supplement the Human Rights Act
> incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into UK law
> a fair and just balance between the right of one person to express or manifest a religion or belief and the rights of others not to suffer discrimination, where the two may conflict
> defending freedom of speech and expression, including internationally, on campus, and in advertising, while having appropriate limits on harassment and incitement to violence, and the right balance in law on conscientious objection
> Promoting socio-economic rights, for example through our affiliate Humanists for a Better World
> an end to irrelevant religious discrimination in publicly funded posts such as non-teaching jobs in religious schools or general pastoral support jobs in hospitals and prisons, which are often unfairly reserved only for religious people or people of particular religions
> equal treatment of the non-religious according to need in the limited number of roles that are legitimately reserved to meet a specific and specialist need such as belief-specific pastoral support for patients and staff in healthcare, prisons, or other institutional settings. In these settings, specific non-religious support is often lacking
> an end to the exemption from equality law for non-denominational organisations whose rules exclude non-religious people, as used to be the case for the Scouts and the Guides
> an end to religious privilege in marriage laws, through the legalisation of humanist and same-sex marriage across the UK
> fair and equal treatment of religious and non-religious perspectives in public broadcasting, including, for example, opening up _Thought for the Day_ to humanist perspectives





(And before anyone asks, no I'm not a member - I just did a Google search)


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> Except that you did not get back to the OP, it was not about reviewing a conductor, it was about the obstacles that women face in becoming and succeeding as a conductor because of their gender.


Did someone post this article already? Given the obstinate resistance to the idea, it's worth repeating anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...ans-issue-tackling-conductings-gender-problem



> There are 61 full member orchestras in the Association of British Orchestras, offering more than 100 titled roles for conductors. Only four of these positions are currently held by women. Murphy [Southbank Sinfonia's managing director] surveyed the British artist managers with five or more conductors on their books. Almost 95% of these conductors are male. A recent screengrab from a leading British orchestra's website of their page of "conductors coming soon" features photographs of 27 conductors, all of whom are male. Far from building on the inspiration of its first female winner, 2016's Donatella Flick conducting competition - for musicians under 35 - featured no women among the 20 contestants at the final stage.


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> Except that you did not get back to the OP, it was not about reviewing a conductor, it was about the obstacles that women face in becoming and succeeding as a conductor because of their gender.


Obstacles that are more personal than societal, one which gives them every possible chance.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Obstacles that are more personal than societal, one which gives them every possible chance


...he said, having lived for may years disguised as a woman trying to penetrate a mostly male profession.


----------



## fluteman

paulbest said:


> lol, OK, Heck,
> we remember the good old days over at GMG, lol. glad to see you again.
> Reiner does a fine Bartok, , But as always I love the Hungarian orchestras in Bartok.


Of course, Reiner was Hungarian. And he was also a student of Bartok. Also, his Chicago Symphony Orchestra included a number of Hungarians, including principal cellist Janos Starker and then-associate concertmaster Victor Aitay. He isn't my favorite conductor overall, but when it comes to Bartok and Richard Strauss, he is at or near the top, despite the less than first-rate sound quality of some of his RCA recordings.


----------



## 1996D

Getting to the top of any field can never be hard enough, as hardship breeds strength and excellence. 

There are no excuses.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Getting to the top of any field can never be hard enough, as hardship breeds strength and excellence.
> 
> There are no excuses.


What field are _you_ at the top of?

What other hardships would you subject people to to "build strength and excellence"?


----------



## millionrainbows

We're talking about fields, not personal info.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> We're talking about fields, not personal info.


Who is "we"? Trying to speak for everyone else again, as usual?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Getting to the top of any field can never be hard enough, as hardship breeds strength and excellence.
> 
> There are no excuses.


If we put aside the difficulties of getting to the top of a field for a second, and instead focus on the difficulties entering it, I think it's easier to pinpoint one of the subtle differences in men's versus women's experiences in this situation.

I haven't given conducting as a profession very much consideration in my musical life. But I also haven't given it none at all. I intend to take as many music electives as is feasible at my college next year, and have been seriously considering the conducting elective basically since committing to my school, especially as it's run by the school's orchestra conductor, whom I have experience with and already love as a teacher. As well-informed as I am on the myriad sex scandals in the conducting world, from Levine to Dutoit to the smaller cases and all in between, I wasn't aware of these specific attitudes in the OP. I'd just never become aware and so never considered it, not that reading them came as very surprising.

Reading these quotes is discouraging to the young woman who, even if just for a second, considered trying conducting. That discouraged feeling is easy to internalize, I would venture to say more easily internalized the younger you are. Does that mean free speech is not okay? Of course not, your opinions are yours and legal and I personally believe any attempts at impeding discourse based on potential to say something insulting is condemnable and anti-democracy. But the only point is that the potential for a comment to repel a young woman from even setting foot in a conducting course, comments such as one saying a woman conductor would simply be "not [a seasoned major conductor's] cup of tea," certainly exists. It probably isn't even immediate, and likely not even acknowledged consciously the first time, like anything one reads in an isolated instance. But I'd just propose that women could easily internalize the concept that there's something inherently, I don't know, unnatural about a woman being up on the podium. Becca above mentioned somewhere a friend's young daughter commented, "I thought women weren't allowed to be conductors." Surely it's clear here how the internalization started early.

We can exhaust ourselves with the gender stats all we want, and we should, but I only commented on this because as important as numbers are in arriving at a solution I think insight from women is useful too, especially as rare a commodity as we are here on TC, especially younger women. It's as necessary to understand the possible discouragement women feel even before setting foot in the field, as it is in discussing the discouragement they feel when already in it. My gut reaction to these quotes was some sadness and disappointment, sure, but more importantly was the feeling of, huh, I've thought of conducting a lot, and never even considered my mere sex getting in the way. Or this idea that some men that I respect [Jansons] have, that women conductors are just not something they considered imaginable, for whatever reason led them to that impression. My mom and I were just musing today on what I might do as a job when I'm an adult. She happened to say "God, I feel like you'd be a great conductor. I feel like you might just... have it, I don't know why, I just want you to see." And I thought, I'm gonna take this class next year and explore some of my favorite pieces and see. I almost wish I had not read these quotes tonight.

There are no 'excuses' in any field, I suppose. But maybe women couldn't even get far enough in the field to prove that they _had _no excuses, because the guys already at the top served them a big healthy dose of uncertainty and cognitive dissonance to scare them away before they could even set foot in it.


----------



## Becca

A number of women conductors have commented on how often they encounter girls who say things such as "I didn't know that women were allowed to be conductors", or mothers who tell them how great it is that their daughters see what options a woman can aspire to. That alone tells a lot about the subtle sexist pressures that are still encountered.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> We're talking about fields, not personal info.


Well the field in Q is the classical music conductor spot.
Which has a lot LOT to do with personal bio. 
I am in COMPLETE TOTAL agreement with 1996D
W/O suffering, a conductor has no depth, no passion, no emotive elements to offer,,OPr lets say a conductor not in touch with the Zeitgeist *There he goes again with his ~Zeitgeist thingy,,I wish he'd shut up~), (Did I over hear many of you thinking such?), So w/o Zeitgeist in a conductors experience, soul, life experiences, the conducting will tend to be meritless, blandish, mediocrity, nothing-too-special...Which brings me to this point,,,well 1st let me say, any composer, great that is, memorable that is, 1st rate that is, STUHNNI*NG that is, will tell you it is due to his sufferings, heartaches, pains, woes, sorrows , it is there that is the source spring of his creativity,,,\
~~~ Now where did I leave off,,,,,???~~~ Oh yeah, what my last point is.
Surveying my classical music recordings LP's, CD s , over the past 35 yrs,,,
adding up all the conductors qualities, + the record engineers, + most of the orchestras were heavily male dominated,,adding them all together in one group,,,I'd have to give the entire instustry, a ..Let me see, I don't wish to go too harsh, unforgiving,,yet I also have no impulses to go too liberal, too forgiving,,
I'd give that entire industry a grade
~~~~ C~~~~ average = nothing great, soso, hitsN misses = could have done better.
Especially in the record engineers, I give that bunch a grade D, which is just near a grade F ,. 
Sure there were a few grade B records, but then there were quite a few grade F's. 
F stands for failure.

So in fair considerations~~~that whole male dominated industry rates a C = Its high time for women to step in and give us new energies, new interpretations, new life to our old standard favs.


----------



## Becca

At this point I thought that it would be nice to link some videos which show a few of those who are showing that women are making headway.

And before anyone makes comparisons with well known older male conductors, try comparing them with their age peers.


----------



## mmsbls

Minor Sixthist said:


> ...
> There are no 'excuses' in any field, I suppose. But maybe women couldn't even get far enough in the field to prove that they _had _no excuses, because the guys already at the top served them a big healthy dose of uncertainty and cognitive dissonance to scare them away before they could even set foot in it.


I've only quoted the end of your post, but I agree completely with your thoughts and sentiments.

There are no excuses, but there are reasons for what occurs in the world. Given everything we've learned in the past several decades about the potential effects of bias towards women and other groups, I'm rather surprised that some would believe the reason women are not better represented in conducting is lack of innate ability rather than negative societal bias.


----------



## Larkenfield

Maybe I missed it, but I doubt it, any mention of this previously posted article on the top female conductors who are already receiving recognition and positions with prominent and well-known groups, including conducting a BBC Proms concert. This suggests that they are not without talent and have earned their way through the hard knocks of life to get as far as they have. I think people forget the incredible drive that's required of any conductor, and such a list shows that some women have it.

I do not find it inconceivable that a woman conductor might be the best choice for a symphony orchestra or any other ensemble rather than another male ego who might be thinking he's God and conducts accordingly, meaning not outstandingly. There should be more discussions and examples of females who are already conducting now and Becca has just provided some. Are they known for giving lousy performances or can they be quite excellent? Though not a full-time conductor, Barbara Hannigan is a born leader who can be quite outstanding on the podium, and yet how many of you have even heard of her because it might require that you get out of your complacency and easy chair to hear what's actually going on in the contemporary marketplace and concert halls? The past history of conducting does not necessarily indicate the future when there are already active examples of outstanding excellence by female conductors in a predominately male-dominated field.

For women to ultimately succeed in major conducting positions, I believe their insights and understanding of the music on a very broad level will need to match those of their male counterparts, and overall I believe that may yet need to be demonstrated, which essentially leaves the field wide open for men. But women have certainly proven their genius and brilliance as soloists with their astonishing insights and performances of the music. I generally prefer them.

I do not see them wanting to take over the field; I think they're wanting room to conduct when they have the dedication and drive and might be better than some of their male counterparts. And it's not inconceivable that they are.

Prominent female conductors: http://m.classical-music.com/article/best-female-conductors


----------



## Phil loves classical

People tend to have a bias for the composers' native orchestras or native-born conductors, like the Czech Philharmonic under Kubelik playing Dvorak or Smetana. Sometimes like this case it is deserved, but it could also be unfair in some cases. Here is an article I thought interesting on the bias for foreign conductors in America. Is it because they normally play Beethoven and other European classical? Relating to women is it because there is no "authentic", native-born female conductor at the BPO and VPO, that orchestras would want to compete to get on their roster to attract concert goers to their Bruckner, Beethoven programs? The days of conductor/composer entourages like Walter/Mahler are gone forever. Maybe it starts on the composers' native soil to foster the talent. Is it a coincidence that American born Alsop is acclaimed for her Barber but not for Prokofiev?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/opinion/gelles-orchestra-conductors.html


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> A number of women conductors have commented on how often they encounter girls who say things such as "I didn't know that women were allowed to be conductors", or mothers who tell them how great it is that their daughters see what options a woman can aspire to. That alone tells a lot about the subtle sexist pressures that are still encountered.


Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


What a lot of utter ********!


----------



## Becca

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


Being insulting and condescending doesn't do your case any good.


----------



## eugeneonagain

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


How is it there in the 19th century? Be careful you don't steal a loaf of bread or you might end up with a character-building sentence of two years hard-labour.


----------



## Larkenfield

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


You have no idea what these women have suffered, because you probably haven't looked, in the same way that no one has any idea of what you've suffered. Or is one's suffering to be discounted if one is not Nelson Mandela? No one is denying its value as a character builder. But the gigantic assumption here is that they haven't faced any or enough and that they expect a position to be handed to them without demonstrating their depth of abilities or strength of character. Links have been posted on women who are already in conducting positions of authority and have demonstrated their outstanding abilities. It does not work to glibly speak in generalities about suffering when you know nothing about these women, and I mean nothing, because you evidently don't like the whole idea of female conductors. Male conductors are in no danger of becoming extinct.


----------



## CnC Bartok

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


Indeed. Let's not forget the immense suffering that wealth from the family's pharmaceutical company imposed on poor Thomas Beecham, or the appalling hardships (Graf/Count) Nikolaus Harnoncourt must have endured, before becoming among the best conductors in the history of music.

I have two daughters, I would do anything to help them achieve their goals and dreams. But I think the idea of beating them up, or starving them to that intention, goes a bit beyond my remit as a father?

Suffering is in the mind, suffering from inane delusions seems to be your issue?

MacLeod put it about as eloquently as possible in post #325


----------



## paulbest

\The less suffering, the less creative art,
~~~ No brainer,
~~~Common, sense, 
~~~basic math,
~~~Not rocket science, ya kno
~~ suffering, 
~~mind in touch with reality~~
~~~is living creative art. 
~~~Old as the hills.


----------



## Larkenfield

paulbest said:


> \The less suffering, the less creative art,
> ~~~ No brainer,
> ~~~Common, sense,
> ~~~basic math,
> ~~~Not rocket science, ya kno
> ~~ suffering,
> ~~mind in touch with reality~~
> ~~~is living creative art.
> ~~~Old as the hills.


Don't forget to mention that true suffering is only a male prerogative as a builder of character because women are obviously immune to personal loss, accidents, death, catastrophes, political upheavals, sexual predators, stupidity, arrogance, hubris, blind prejudice, acts of God, acts of war, loss of a child, sexism, earthquakes and tornadoes. Only male suffering in the name of art is worthy of consideration, keeping in mind, of course, that women are obviously incapable of having great depth of feeling, character, or insight in their artistic development from a certain arrogant and self-satisfied male perspective.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler?


Putting Mahler in the same suffering category as Mandela and King is way off the mark. Mandela spent decades in prison. King was always the target for a bullet, and one eventually snuffed out his life. Mahler had it very easy in comparison.


----------



## Becca

paulbest said:


> \The less suffering, the less creative art,
> ~~~ No brainer,
> ~~~Common, sense,
> ~~~basic math,
> ~~~Not rocket science, ya kno
> ~~ suffering,
> ~~mind in touch with reality~~
> ~~~is living creative art.
> ~~~Old as the hills.


I would not argue that suffering *can* produce creative art but the idea that it is *necessary* is just arrant nonsense and anything but common sense or reality.


----------



## KenOC

Becca said:


> I would not argue that suffering *can* produce creative art but the idea that it is *necessary* is just arrant nonsense and anything but common sense or reality.


Agree. This whole suffering shtick is a waste of time. Did Mozart suffer? Mendelssohn? Maybe they did, how would we know? Beethoven? We often think so, but he had a wildly successful life as the premier composer of his generation, offered a generous monetary stipend with no requirements other than he stay in Vienna! And anecdotes from his later life, when he was composing his final quartets, often describe him in jolly good humor.

The bottom line is, we don't know how much any artist really "suffered" compared with any others. Trying to relate their suffering to their creativity doesn't make any sense at all.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Have you ever heard of Nelson Mandela? Martin Luther King? Gustav Mahler? All these men faced incredible societal obstacles to achieve what they did, and I'm certain in the case of Mahler that his music wouldn't be as great if he hadn't faced heavy antisemitism, if his daughter hadn't died, and if his wife didn't cheat on him. Nothing creates character more than suffering does, so the answer seems to be that women today don't want to suffer to become conductors, they'd rather do it to create a family (like they've always have), or achieve success in a field more widely recognized by society.


Needed to hear this tonight: I was almost getting worried that, at my current rate of suffering relatively few life tragedies per year, I wouldn't amass enough suffering tokens by the time I entered the music world to be capable of achieving things.

Phew! Thank God for those brave men that still exist to keep the great hurdle of sexism alive, so I can still make the sacred jump from the lowly, comfortable prole childhood to that of the self-actualized sufferer. Thank you for your service - I could not have achieved my suffering without you.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Don't forget to mention that true suffering is only a male prerogative as a builder of character because women are obviously immune to personal loss, accidents, death, catastrophes, political upheavals, sexual predators, stupidity, arrogance, hubris, blind prejudice, acts of God, acts of war, loss of a child, sexism, earthquakes and tornadoes. Only male suffering in the name of art is worthy of consideration, keeping in mind, of course, that women are obviously incapable of having great depth of feeling, character, or insight in their artistic development from a certain arrogant and self-satisfied male perspective.


I am confused, not sure to take this asa approbation or condemnation, to my post...btw
I left you a short but sweet lil note, on the Pettersson's page


----------



## 1996D

CnC Bartok said:


> Indeed. Let's not forget the immense suffering that wealth from the family's pharmaceutical company imposed on poor Thomas Beecham, or the appalling hardships (Graf/Count) Nikolaus Harnoncourt must have endured, before becoming among the best conductors in the history of music.
> 
> I have two daughters, I would do anything to help them achieve their goals and dreams. But I think the idea of beating them up, or starving them to that intention, goes a bit beyond my remit as a father?
> 
> Suffering is in the mind, suffering from inane delusions seems to be your issue?
> 
> MacLeod put it about as eloquently as possible in post #325


I do agree that some react poorly to hardships, but none among the great minds; the capacity to grow from adversity is a prerequisite to doing anything extraordinary.


----------



## paulbest

1996D said:


> I do agree that some react poorly to hardships, but none among the great minds; the capacity to grow from adversity is a prerequisite to doing anything extraordinary.


w/o suffering , set backs, disappointments , tragedies , frailties , , there is no such thing as great living art.
These 2 events are sides of 1 coin. 
When a composer has created unreal, great living art, be assured this creative imagination has been fired in the kilns of harshness, deprivations, great loss.

Otherwise known through man's history, in every culture, in every land, rebirth.

Composers are the greatest of the reborn ones. 
Life comes from death, 
Old as the hills, ...no older. 
This is a truth whether you are on planet earth or any of the billions of planets in the universe. 
Those nay sayers, violently, pugnacious, set against 1996D, I thought you guys were more well read up on this subject.


----------



## Woodduck

So now it's the _capacity_ to grow from adversity. You started out with "Getting to the top of any field can never be hard enough, as hardship breeds strength and excellence."

I hear pedals spinning backward.

The only safe generalization is that the capacity to SURVIVE adversity is a prerequisite to achievement. Adversity is universal, but none of us can say how anyone's adversity, or response to adversity, contributes to their achievement or hampers it.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> w/o suffering , set backs, disappointments , tragedies , frailties , , there is no such thing as great living art.
> These 2 events are sides of 1 coin.
> When a composer has created unreal, great living art, be assured this creative imagination has been fired in the kilns of harshness, deprivations, great loss.
> 
> Those nay sayers, violently, pugnacious, set against 1996D, I thought you guys were more well read up on this subject.


Remarkable how people who are not great artists claim to know how great artists do what they do.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> Remarkable how people who are not great artists claim to know how great artists do what they do.


 I know that there is a great artist in me just dying to get out. It better happen soon.


----------



## eugeneonagain

paulbest said:


> \The less suffering, the less creative art,
> ~~~ No brainer,
> ~~~Common, sense,
> ~~~basic math,
> ~~~Not rocket science, ya kno
> ~~ suffering,
> ~~mind in touch with reality~~
> ~~~is living creative art.
> ~~~Old as the hills.


Bizarre presentation. It's simply not true that creative art is all a product of suffering. This is a hackneyed romantic myth particularly propagated during the romantic art era and which has stuck around. Having to exert oneself and use energy attempting to achieve goals is not by definition 'suffering'. And certainly the idea - which is merely a reversal of this idea using backwards reasoning - that to get anything worthwhile one must suffer, is nonsense. There is as much creativity in joy and plenty examples of such.

What has actually happened here, and in that thought-mess further up the thread, is to propound this tired trope as a universal, incontrovertible fact and then to add another falsehood about women desiring no obstacles and a leg-up on the path to achievement. The intention being to claim that the positions are unearned because there weren't enough odds against them. It's a complete confusion between the ideas of suffering and achievement and work. As if they are synonyms rather than things which sometimes collide.

It's a view that can't be taken seriously.


----------



## paulbest

And so, do you even think , that you can split off Shostakovich;s musical achievements , from his personal bio? 
THIS I just got to hear the answer to.
Now don't post impetuously, oh no, give your ideas time to mature and develop on that Q.
take all the time you need.
We are looking for something substantial, nothing scratching the surface, as so far has been exhibited. 
You guys are just flinging out whatever comes to mind.
PS
I have no intentions to make any adjustments, recantations to any of my above composition. 
ain't budging 1 inch.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Hard to disagree with such a vague premise. Of course the events of his life impacted on his work as a composer as did his need to write music that pleased the authorities. But it seems to me that (a) aside from that, he lived a fairly good life (as a national hero etc) and (b) all the signs are that he was a great composer before politics interfered with his output (the early symphonies, the first violin concerto etc). Many see the quality of his public music declining as politicians interfered with him. Certainly, he is a very poor example of (male) suffering causing or contributing to his greatness.



> You guys are just flinging out whatever comes to mind.


And there was I thinking that it was you that is doing that ... and often in response to (generously) considered posts. Probably that is because you are never wiling to post explanations or examples of your often contradictory statements.



> PS
> I have no intentions to make any adjustments, recantations to any of my above composition.
> ain't budging 1 inch.


So, you are not worth talking to? I personally often hope to learn something here. There are some who may be engaging in competitive debating but most, I think, are at least open to changing their position in response to a good argument. If someone posts vaguely or lazily or if I just think they may be wrong I will question them. There is always the hope that this will enable them to strengthen their argument and perhaps eventually convince. But people who just ignore questions and objections are just behaving like a machine with attitude - boring!


----------



## EdwardBast

paulbest said:


> And so, do you even think , that you can split off Shostakovich;s musical achievements , from his personal bio?
> 
> I have no intentions to make any adjustments, recantations to any of my above composition.
> ain't budging 1 inch.


Here is the logic underlying this latest contribution to your argument:

Shostakovich suffered. Shostakovich was a great composer. Therefore all great composers must suffer.

This argument is exactly as valid as:

Shostakovich drank lots and lots of vodka. Shostakovich was a great composer. Therefore all great composers must drink lots and lots of vodka.

No one needs your recantation. The argument is silly on its face.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> I know that there is a great artist in me just dying to get out. It better happen soon.


It will only get out when YOU are dying. Adversity will make you strong and dead simultaneously.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Bizarre presentation. It's simply not true that creative art is all a product of suffering. This is a hackneyed romantic myth particularly propagated during the romantic art era and which has stuck around. Having to exert oneself and use energy attempting to achieve goals is not by definition 'suffering'. And certainly the idea - which is merely a reversal of this idea using backwards reasoning - that to get anything worthwhile one must suffer, is nonsense. There is as much creativity in joy and plenty examples of such.
> 
> What has actually happened here, and in that thought-mess further up the thread, is to propound this tired trope as a universal, incontrovertible fact and then to add another falsehood about women desiring no obstacles and a leg-up on the path to achievement. The intention being to claim that the positions are unearned because there weren't enough odds against them. It's a complete confusion between the ideas of suffering and achievement and work. As if they are synonyms rather than things which sometimes collide.
> 
> It's a view that can't be taken seriously.


That was quite the virtuoso explanation. It must be the product of great suffering.


----------



## Luchesi

I wrote my best poetry back when I was suffering. Suffering is the mental state that opens up access to personal viewpoints which your audience might conclude are Universal.


----------



## 1996D

The perspective shared is from personal experience, the denial you're in of how the world works will only hurt yourselves.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ So everyone but you (and some weirdos with huge chips on their shoulders) is blind to what is happening in the world? Unlikely. No, there is something wrong with the way you are processing your experiences and it is harming _you_. If you can't think your way out of your misery and misogyny you should consider getting help.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> I wrote my best poetry back when I was suffering. Suffering is the mental state that opens up access to personal viewpoints which your audience might conclude are Universal.


I wrote my best poetry and painted my best pictures when I was in love, either with a person or, simply, with life. Pain has never done anything for my creative activity but hamper it.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> I wrote my best poetry and painted my best pictures when I was in love, either with a person or, simply, with life. Pain has never done anything for my creative activity but hamper it.


Are you saying you're normal? That's a healthy conclusion.

It was one of life's coincidences for me. I was suffering and I had recently come across the poetry of Dylan Thomas, Emily Dickinson, TS Eliot

and Thomas Hardy;

An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small, 
In blast-beruffled plume, 
Had chosen thus to fling his soul 
Upon the growing gloom.

So little cause for carolings 
Of such ecstatic sound 
Was written on terrestrial things 
Afar or nigh around, 
That I could think there trembled through 
His happy good-night air 
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew 
And I was unaware.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> The perspective shared is from personal experience, the denial you're in of how the world works will only hurt yourselves.


The perspective you shared, if you're referring to the one claiming women depend on misogyny for a hardship that makes them successful, could only have been from 'personal experience' if you're a woman. Which I doubt you are because... you would be quite the anti-woman woman. Even then this perspective already depends on 2 absurd premises, 1. that good art requires externally-imposed hardship and 2. that in some twisted way a systematic anti-woman attitude in a certain field would encourage women to thrive there.

We don't need any more anti-woman people, there are more than you think even in my cohort. Mass social media and its anonymity only makes everything worse. I am happy to believe the vast majority of men don't hold those views, and thankful for the ones who constantly fight and shun it, but I can assure you I don't need to look far at all on any of my otherwise benign social media platforms to find a buzzing anti-woman hivemind that reminds you all that stuff is still alive and well.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Luchesi said:


> Are you saying you're normal? That's a healthy conclusion.
> 
> It was one of life's coincidences for me. I was suffering and I had recently come across the poetry of Dylan Thomas, Emily Dickinson, TS Eliot
> 
> and Thomas Hardy;
> 
> An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small,
> In blast-beruffled plume,
> Had chosen thus to fling his soul
> Upon the growing gloom.
> 
> So little cause for carolings
> Of such ecstatic sound
> Was written on terrestrial things
> Afar or nigh around,
> That I could think there trembled through
> His happy good-night air
> Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
> And I was unaware.


A nice respite from arguing to see some Thomas Hardy here. He has to be my favorite, at least currently. I really enjoy "The Masked Face" and "Hap." What a cool guy.


----------



## Woodduck

Minor Sixthist said:


> The perspective you shared, if you're referring to the one claiming women depend on misogyny for a hardship that makes them successful, could only have been from 'personal experience' if you're a woman. Which I doubt you are because... you would be quite the anti-woman woman. Even then this perspective already depends on 2 absurd premises, 1. that good art requires externally-imposed hardship and 2. that in some twisted way a systematic anti-woman attitude in a certain field would encourage women to thrive there.
> 
> We don't need any more anti-woman people, there are more than you think even in my cohort. Mass social media and its anonymity only makes everything worse. I am happy to believe the vast majority of men don't hold those views, and thankful for the ones who constantly fight and shun it, but *I can assure you I don't need to look far at all on any of my otherwise benign social media platforms to find a buzzing anti-woman hivemind that reminds you all that stuff is still alive and well.*


Misogyny is indeed alive, and virulent. We can find it easily in the rash of new state laws, created primarily by men, instituting female slavery by making women slaves to zygotes, embryos and fetuses.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Misogyny is indeed alive, and virulent. We can find it easily in the rash of new state laws, created primarily by men, instituting female slavery by making women slaves to zygotes, embryos and fetuses.


Hyperbole appears to be alive also. I have a dog. Where I live, it would be quite illegal for me to kill it simply because I don't want it any more. So am I a slave to my dog?


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> Hyperbole appears to be alive also. I have a dog. Where I live, it would be quite illegal for me to kill it simply because I don't want it any more. So am I a slave to my dog?


The fact that you wanted a dog (otherwise you wouldn't have said "don't want it _anymore_") means it was your choice. Therefore you are not a slave to anything but your own decisions. By contrast, women who were raped didn't have a choice. And many women who find themselves pregnant never wished to be.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> The fact that you wanted a dog (otherwise you wouldn't have said "don't want it _anymore_") means it was your choice. Therefore you are not a slave to anything but your own decisions. By contrast, women who were raped didn't have a choice.


If the discussion is about pregnancies resulting from rape, or fetuses with severe problems, or a true endangerment of the mother's health, then I agree the parallel does not apply. Most abortions, I believe, do not fall in those categories.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

KenOC said:


> Hyperbole appears to be alive also. I have a dog. Where I live, it would be quite illegal for me to kill it simply because I don't want it any more. So am I a slave to my dog?


Would you rather let the dog live with an owner completely incapable of giving it a comfortable existence, than terminate its growth before it has sentience? Unwanted babies aren't magically placed into loving care. Where I live there are so many kids in public care systems, they rarely end up in secure homes, and if they do it's rarely before some bouncing around if they aren't 'picked.' That sounds like a lot more suffering than if they had been terminated as zygotes months before gaining sentience.

I also thought the discussion Woodduck originally began had everything to do with rape, as it referred to new American laws that would force a girl to carry her rapist's baby to term, or possibly face murder charges, now in more than 3 states.


----------



## Becca

At the risk of getting into politics, let me ask the same question as asked by one senator "How many laws are there which control a man's body?"

P.S. Regarding dogs, there are the various animal care facilities, so that argument doesn't work. (And don't go equating having a dog with a pregnancy.)


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> At the risk of getting into politics, let me ask the same question as asked by one senator "How many laws are there which control a man's body?"


I'm not convinced that's a fruitful line of argument. Whether women like it or not, they are the child-bearing gender. That has enormous consequences for humanity. If the preservation of sperm became a significant issue, doubtless laws would be passed.


----------



## Becca

The current argument has nothing to do with the consequences for humanity, it is strictly a political-religious view being forced on women to control their actions with legal threats. Some may make arguments to the contrary but they are rationalizations and mostly hyperbole.


----------



## KenOC

Becca said:


> P.S. Regarding dogs, there are the various animal care facilities, so that argument doesn't work. (And don't go equating having a dog with a pregnancy.)


I was pointing out that that equating a general ban on abortions with slavery is hyperbole. And in most cases, the parallel I used holds.


----------



## DaveM

Re: the understanding of misogyny by men in some states: Reporter: ‘So what do you think about misogyny on the podium?’ Man: ‘I think it’s awful that they would be doing something like that on a podium. Keep that stuff in the bedroom where it belongs!’


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Hyperbole appears to be alive also. I have a dog. Where I live, it would be quite illegal for me to kill it simply because I don't want it any more. So am I a slave to my dog?


No more than you're a slave to your wife because can't legally kill her.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> No more than you're a slave to your wife because can't legally kill her.


My point exactly.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> If the discussion is about pregnancies resulting from rape, or fetuses with severe problems, or a true endangerment of the mother's health, then I agree the parallel does not apply. Most abortions, I believe, do not fall in those categories.


You "believe." By contrast, the women don't have to "believe." They _know._

Too many efforts to control the behavior of women throughout history have been based on the "beliefs" of men.


----------



## Haydn man

Returning back to the rather odd idea of personal suffering as a requirement to make great art/music, that would seem to rule a number of 20th century popular music artists. Not aware that Lennon or McCartney suffered much but still managed to write music that most would agree is great


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> My point exactly.


I gave you that one. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> The current argument has nothing to do with the consequences for humanity, it is strictly a political-religious view being forced on women to control their actions with legal threats. Some may make arguments to the contrary but they are rationalizations and mostly hyperbole.


Sorry, not sure I get this. I wasn't condoning the controlling of women's bodies, merely attempting to suggest why it's a red herring to point out that there are no laws controlling men's bodies.

We seem to have slipped off the podium altogether if we're now talking rape and abortion.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

To 1996D and paulbest:

Does "suffering" have the capacity to be a catalyst (among other factors) for the creation of great art? Yes, I don't think anyone's denying this. It's a bit absurd, however, to assume that great art MUST be the product of suffering, but whatever.

Does this mean that the sole reason that there are not many female conductors is because women, by and large, choose different career paths? Not at all. Not all "suffering" is the same, and not all of it has the same effects. You seem to be equating all types of suffering, discrimination, and oppression and making a blanket statement about the effects they should have on creative output. Just because women face some type of discrimination, especially subtle discrimination, that leads them away from the conducting profession, it does not necessarily mean that this "suffering" would create great female conductors.


----------



## Luchesi

Haydn man said:


> Returning back to the rather odd idea of personal suffering as a requirement to make great art/music, that would seem to rule a number of 20th century popular music artists. Not aware that Lennon or McCartney suffered much but still managed to write music that most would agree is great


The Beatles lived in our good times today. 

Bach's blindness

Handel's blindness

Haydn couldn't compose after the age of about 70, even though he was still driven by musical ideas.

Mozart's suffering while he wrote the requiem

Beethoven suffered a long time from hearing problems etc.

Schubert suffered from syphilis

Chopin suffered from consumption

Schumann died of terrible mental illness

1. Schubert (1797-1828) 31
2. Bellini (1801-35) 33
3. Mozart (1756-91) 35
4. Bizet (1838-75) 36
5. Purcell (1659-95) 36
6. Gershwin (1898-1937) 38
7. Mendelssohn (1809-47) 38
8. Nikolai (1810-49) 38
9. Chopin (1810-49) 39
10. Weber (1786-1826) 39


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> The Beatles lived in our good times today.
> 
> Bach's blindness
> 
> Handel's blindness
> 
> Haydn couldn't compose after the age of about 70, even though he was still driven by musical ideas.
> 
> Mozart's suffering while he wrote the requiem
> 
> Beethoven suffered a long time from hearing problems etc.
> 
> Schubert suffered from syphilis
> 
> Chopin suffered from consumption
> 
> Schumann died of terrible mental illness
> 
> 1. Schubert (1797-1828) 31
> 2. Bellini (1801-35) 33
> 3. Mozart (1756-91) 35
> 4. Bizet (1838-75) 36
> 5. Purcell (1659-95) 36
> 6. Gershwin (1898-1937) 38
> 7. Mendelssohn (1809-47) 38
> 8. Nikolai (1810-49) 38
> 9. Chopin (1810-49) 39
> 10. Weber (1786-1826) 39


We all have problems. Some of us are artists. Some aren't. It's all irrelevant.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> 1. Schubert (1797-1828) 31
> 2. Bellini (1801-35) 33
> 3. Mozart (1756-91) 35
> 4. Bizet (1838-75) 36
> 5. Purcell (1659-95) 36
> 6. Gershwin (1898-1937) 38
> 7. Mendelssohn (1809-47) 38
> 8. Nikolai (1810-49) 38
> 9. Chopin (1810-49) 39
> 10. Weber (1786-1826) 39


Well, an early death is certainly problematic, but it's hardly the suffering that prompted the composition of great art.


----------



## Larkenfield

The Myth of the Tortured Artist - and Why It's Not a Myth:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tortured-artists_b_1605509

I am reluctant to dismiss the suffering of others as "irrelevant" when it might not be irrelevant to them at all. Suffering the catastrophic loss of a limb or paralysis would hardly be irrelevant; it would change one's life forever. Suffering doesn't mean that an artist is necessarily in the state of misery in the act of creation - they could actually be quite content and happy in the process - but that it's in their background and it's something that can be drawn on for strength and creative drive... Suffering does not happen in vain. To live is to experience a certain measure of suffering, and the great artists find some meaning in it in order to survive. To think that Chopin's suffering from tuberculosis had no impact on his creative life is hard to believe. Illness can also contribute to depression and melancholy. His suffering was something to overcome... and so was mine. It can deepen one's perspective on life, and in some instances, make for a better and more creative person because life becomes more precious.


----------



## Guest

Artists are the sum of their experiences - as are we all - and this may impact in some way on what they compose, though some of the influence may be subtle and imperceptible. I don't think anyone is dismissing that idea, only that "suffering" (yet to be defined) is a _pre-requisite _for "great art".

[add]Interesting article - though let down by the fact that it is written by someone advertising their book, and examples of tortured artists such as



> Or that Frankenstein was inspired by a volcanic eruption?


Real-life examples are also debatable - for example, that Van Gogh "gave us Post-Impressionism" (he didn't).

And then his central thesis is pants.



> I never claimed that art cannot be produced without suffering, only that art produced without suffering is not likely to be very good. Why? Because the central function of an artist is to convey an idea. That idea can be visceral or intellectual; it can be conveyed through a painting, a song, a poem, or a guy dancing around in a moose costume. The method doesn't matter. Artists, both brilliant and hackneyed, create out of the same basic desire to communicate. But it's we art lovers who invest our attention, our time, in their creations. Why should we invest in a work of art that was created without conflict, or struggle, or pain? Where is the challenge?


----------



## Enthusiast

MacLeod said:


> Artists are the sum of their experiences - as are we all - and this may impact in some way on what they compose, though some of the influence may be subtle and imperceptible. I don't think anyone is dismissing that idea, only that "suffering" (yet to be defined) is a _pre-requisite _for "great art".


The sum? A lot more than an artist's experience goes into their art. What we call talent is inborn and I don't think there have been any really notable composers who were not born with a real facility for their calling. Then there is their personalities (which are probably a mixture of innate - inherited - and learned factors) which will play big roles in determining what they do with their talent. After that their experiences - including peaks and troughs - are bound to play a role but I don't think it is possible to say that experiencing X will always lead an artist to produce Y. Lots of people - even lots of artists - suffer but few become great artists. Similarly, as we have seen, some great artists had relatively trouble free lives. Take an individual composer and you can begin to tease out how there various factors might have led to what they became. But there is no sensible prospect of generalising about any of it other than the need for talent.


----------



## Enthusiast

Quite a few artists behaved very badly, often towards the women in their lives, creating real suffering for others. At least we have stopped short of saying _that _is a requirement for greatness.


----------



## Guest

@Enthusiast. You're right, of course. I was trying to avoid getting into a detailed analysis of all the contributing factors. I just wanted to make the point that it was not only the experience of suffering, but every other life experience that can contribute. I just put it clumsily.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Quite a few artists behaved very badly, often towards the women in their lives, creating real suffering for others. At least we have stopped short of saying _that _is a requirement for greatness.


Your greatness is enhanced if you not only cheat on your wife but also paint a series of nude studies of your mistress, or set her poetry to music.


----------



## Rubens

This discussion makes me want to listen to some Gesualdo.


----------



## Becca

Given the requirements for greatness, we had better check which of the Wagners really wrote the operas :lol:


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> The perspective you shared, if you're referring to the one claiming women depend on misogyny for a hardship that makes them successful, could only have been from 'personal experience' if you're a woman. Which I doubt you are because... you would be quite the anti-woman woman. Even then this perspective already depends on 2 absurd premises, 1. that good art requires externally-imposed hardship and 2. that in some twisted way a systematic anti-woman attitude in a certain field would encourage women to thrive there.
> 
> We don't need any more anti-woman people, there are more than you think even in my cohort. Mass social media and its anonymity only makes everything worse. I am happy to believe the vast majority of men don't hold those views, and thankful for the ones who constantly fight and shun it, but I can assure you I don't need to look far at all on any of my otherwise benign social media platforms to find a buzzing anti-woman hivemind that reminds you all that stuff is still alive and well.


I'm not anti-women, I accept that the world is fair, and that you have to give a little more if you're not getting what you want. People that think the world is unjust are in delusion about the sacrifices it takes to get where they want to go.

If you know yourself you'll always get what you want, albeit at a price.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

It's only real art if you fall for a stage actress after seeing her once, stalk her, harass her with dozens of letters, and then like, write a crazy heroin trip symphony where you kill her, then die yourself, so she gets with you. Then you...lose your mind in the end. And it rolls down the steps.

I'm honestly so haunted by the story of that symphony... I mean, I hear at one point in the middle some guy will spring up from the audience and start playing the oboe. Gruesome stuff.


----------



## paulbest

1996D said:


> I'm not anti-women, I accept that the world is fair, and that you have to give a little more if you're not getting what you want. People that think the world is unjust are in delusion about the sacrifices it takes to get where they want to go.
> 
> If you know yourself you'll always get what you want, albeit at a price.


No, you see the New French Revolution XXVII, is all about the Illuminati crushing the poor faces into the mud.
How can you give to a monster? thats attacking you? eating your flesh?
This is what Pettersson's music is all about.

Women who can conduct superior to their male counterparts, are being discriminated against. 
We could all name several male conductors past 50 yrs, we wish had a woman in his spot.


----------



## Rubens

Call me mysogynistic or whatever, but the only time I will let a woman conduct me is if she's wearing a dominatrix outfit. Even Mirga. Especially Mirga.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> I'm not anti-women, I accept that the world is fair, and that you have to give a little more if you're not getting what you want. People that think the world is unjust are in delusion about the sacrifices it takes to get where they want to go.
> 
> If you know yourself you'll always get what you want, albeit at a price.


"The world is fair?" The world is indifferent. The world doesn't do good and bad, humans do. Humans are doing bad terrible things to each other all the time, and always have. In any given empire in history, some people were born into slavery and servitude, some into money and ease. If life were fair doesn't that imply some degree of equal opportunity? Not equity, of course we can't all be dealt the lucky hand. But isn't equal _treatment_ fair? Individual determinism and all that? Fair is a weird word. Maybe the world is 'impartial', but I wouldn't say the world is 'just.' It's too many loaded words in that broad blanket statement, neither of us are going to achieve much philosophical proving of that point.

Achieving anything takes sacrifice, yes. Accepting the need to face challenges should not mean embracing misogyny as a natural condition. We shouldn't strive to keep it a natural condition. Why should we? This is kind of a snuck premise, this equating misogyny to a sacrifice a person should have to make to achieve things. You're jumping from that faulty premise to the much more facile concept of hard work taking sacrifice, rendering the whole argument pretty flimsy.

"If you know yourself you'll always get what you want, albeit at a price." What? If a plantation slave "knew himself," I'm pretty sure it did not help him whatsoever get what he wanted. Not that I think the slaves had access to enough Descartes to even worry over "knowing themselves." I think the first of their wants would be to escape the need to work tirelessly and endure horrendous abuse. They did not get that, maybe a very tiny, negligible percentage did. They did not get what they wanted. This is a disturbingly naive statement.

The women in pre-1920 America didn't get to vote no matter how hard they wanted. They certainly didn't have autonomy if they wanted, they couldn't own land, could hardly even imagine a job outside about their cult of domesticity. This patriarchal stuff was also an omni-empire thing. I feel like I'm talking about AP World History key concepts. "Knowing yourself" does not get you anything. I thought you said that was what sacrifices were for. And misogyny, apparently.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I'm not anti-women, *I accept that the world is fair,* and that *you have to give a little more if you're not getting what you want.* People that think the world is unjust are in delusion about the sacrifices it takes to get where they want to go.
> 
> *If you know yourself you'll always get what you want, albeit at a price.*


Give a little more of what? Innumerable human beings have given their all, including their lives, and not gotten what they want - or, more to the point, what they would have gotten if the world were actually fair. It's pretty funny how some apologists for the status quo say, "well, life is just unfair." You, on the other hand, "accept that the world is fair." Seems like people who want to keep others in their place will resort to any twisted logic to have their cake, eat it, and make sure that those they look down on don't get any.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...It's pretty funny how some apologists for the status quo say, "well, life is just unfair." You, on the other hand, "accept that the world is fair." Seems like people who want to keep others in their place will resort to any twisted logic to have their cake, eat it, and make sure that those they look down on don't get any.


Jimmy Carter, on defending his opposition to federal funds being used for abortions: "Life is often unfair." (in 1977)


----------



## paulbest

Minor Sixthist said:


> "The world is fair?" The world is indifferent. The world doesn't do good and bad, humans do. Humans are doing bad terrible things to each other all the time, and always have.
> .


You see, this is what I hear in Pettersson, ,,or did you read his statement about his core inspiration , and just copy it? More than that, I ama nature freak, been following Jacques Cousteau since childhood.

Yet you can not believe how often I hear resentments towards Pettersson's music,,they tell me, there is no such idea in Pettersson, his music is nota protest against vile injustice, ,,,it is only a self indulgent pity and disgrace, how he acrries on the same old same old in all his symphonies...One guy even called his muisca *loser*,,,then, if I can recall, he heard Pettersson's 8th, and now has fallen in love with Pettersson, well, lets say he has developed some intrigue about looking further into the composer.

Pettersson's music is philosophical, it is loaded with meaning, as one very wise man said, *He who has ears, let him hear*, Obviously not everyone has ears to hear,,Oh yeah, they sure think they do, but alas, those who *know* (ancient greek word , read GNOSIS here, as the English *know* is pitiful, and bankrupt, devoid of all ancient greek linguistics.), these understand his music, Pettersson's music ahs to havea antenna to hear, then a mind to grasp, translate the morse codes, then a soul to feel, then a spirit to ,,,to,,,,ah yes, a spirit that exalts , in Pettersson's victory over evil. 
;;;now I have to tie this back into minor sixthis ideas,,,,hummmm,

~~ well if one misses(lack of listening to dreams, premonitions, gut feelings) knowing (gnosising) one's Self, then one will most assuredly mishearing Pettersson as well.

can women feel music to the depths that a male conductor can?

lacking this, neither man, nor woman can conduct with much success, Music is at least 50% emotional connection. with me, its even more.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

paulbest said:


> You see, this is what I hear in Pettersson, ,,or did you read his statement about his core inspiration , and just copy it? More than that, I ama nature freak, been following Jacques Cousteau since childhood.
> 
> Yet you can not believe how often I hear resentments towards Pettersson's music,,they tell me, there is no such idea in Pettersson, his music is nota protest against vile injustice, ,,,it is only a self indulgent pity and disgrace, how he acrries on the same old same old in all his symphonies...One guy even called his muisca *loser*,,,then, if I can recall, he heard Pettersson's 8th, and now has fallen in love with Pettersson, well, lets say he has developed some intrigue about looking further into the composer.
> 
> Pettersson's music is philosophical, it is loaded with meaning, as one very wise man said, *He who has ears, let him hear*, Obviously not everyone has ears to hear,,Oh yeah, they sure think they do, but alas, those who *know* (ancient greek word , read GNOSIS here, as the English *know* is pitiful, and bankrupt, devoid of all ancient greek linguistics.), these understand his music, Pettersson's music ahs to havea antenna to hear, then a mind to grasp, translate the morse codes, then a soul to feel, then a spirit to ,,,to,,,,ah yes, a spirit that exalts , in Pettersson's victory over evil.
> ;;;now I have to tie this back into minor sixthis ideas,,,,hummmm,
> 
> ~~ well if one misses(lack of listening to dreams, premonitions, gut feelings) knowing (gnosising) one's Self, then one will most assuredly mishearing Pettersson as well.
> 
> can women feel music to the depths that a male conductor can?
> 
> lacking this, neither man, nor woman can conduct with much success, Music is at least 50% emotional connection. with me, its even more.


I don't know Petersson. I didn't copy his statement, no. I think mine was a pretty general statement about humans.

I don't really know what the rest of this post is trying to say.



> can women feel music to the depths that a male conductor can?


Yes.


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> "The world is fair?" The world is indifferent. The world doesn't do good and bad, humans do. Humans are doing bad terrible things to each other all the time, and always have. In any given empire in history, some people were born into slavery and servitude, some into money and ease. If life were fair doesn't that imply some degree of equal opportunity? Not equity, of course we can't all be dealt the lucky hand. But isn't equal _treatment_ fair? Individual determinism and all that? Fair is a weird word. Maybe the world is 'impartial', but I wouldn't say the world is 'just.' It's too many loaded words in that broad blanket statement, neither of us are going to achieve much philosophical proving of that point.
> 
> Achieving anything takes sacrifice, yes. Accepting the need to face challenges should not mean embracing misogyny as a natural condition. We shouldn't strive to keep it a natural condition. Why should we? This is kind of a snuck premise, this equating misogyny to a sacrifice a person should have to make to achieve things. You're jumping from that faulty premise to the much more facile concept of hard work taking sacrifice, rendering the whole argument pretty flimsy.
> 
> "If you know yourself you'll always get what you want, albeit at a price." What? If a plantation slave "knew himself," I'm pretty sure it did not help him whatsoever get what he wanted. Not that I think the slaves had access to enough Descartes to even worry over "knowing themselves." I think the first of their wants would be to escape the need to work tirelessly and endure horrendous abuse. They did not get that, maybe a very tiny, negligible percentage did. They did not get what they wanted. This is a disturbingly naive statement.
> 
> The women in pre-1920 America didn't get to vote no matter how hard they wanted. They certainly didn't have autonomy if they wanted, they couldn't own land, could hardly even imagine a job outside about their cult of domesticity. This patriarchal stuff was also an omni-empire thing. I feel like I'm talking about AP World History key concepts. "Knowing yourself" does not get you anything. I thought you said that was what sacrifices were for. And misogyny, apparently.


This is where legacy comes in play.

You're not just you, you're a combination of the work of all your ancestors and what they gave to their children, what they taught, what they built. You're born with what your blood fought for, what they won and what they lost. Your countrymen fought wars so you could be here, they conquered other countries, and established their will upon the world.

If you're in a first world country you carry the genes of people who won the land by sweat and blood, and live in luxury because of their suffering. If you study European history you'll see that every inch of the prime land that is Europe cost the lives of many brave men.

You think wanting a better world for your children is a new phenomenon? People have been thinking this way since the dawn of time.

Life is a competition and it has been fair since day 1.


----------



## paulbest

Minor Sixthist said:


> I don't know Petersson. I didn't copy his statement, no. I think mine was a pretty general statement about humans.
> 
> I don't really know what the rest of this post is trying to say.
> 
> Yes.


yeah, well I am a bit dyslexic when it comes to trying to express thoughts,,,no fault yours.

not sure if I can re-sum, edit any of my ideas ,,,maybe I am trying to say that some composers music has to do with the old greek Eleusinian mysteries. 
Initiation.

OK , so glad we agree woman can connect deeply and carry this into conducting podium.

Yet you would agree, men in general, tend to go deeper,,,or let me rephrase,,,there area (significant) greater number of men who are more passionate about high musical arts, than the woman group.
Could we also agree here.

You ask, remise based on,,,??
Good Q, glad you asked..
Well look at TC, how often, how enthused , the women members posting on TC lately?

This must signify something,,,,of a aberration, ,,even perhaps rather peculiar phenomenon. . 
I just don't think women ,,,OK, OK, ~~~in general~~, ( ,,,aside,,shuuush ,,but almost inclusive as a group mind, you did not see me write that),,,,,,their musical high art experiences , do not register as deep as the high art music does to us.

have you ever seen a woman ~~fanatical~~~ over high art?

I mean siome of us here will feud , bicker, snide,,,down right HATE others who can not agree with our musical opinions and assessments.

Woman won't ever reach that point,,,they are like sorority members,,,they'll just shrug the sholder and say,,well its just my belief,,thats all,,and that's that. We carry grudges and animosity for those of *the other camp*.

Women are dumbfounded, as to why we take our high art, so down right serious and adamantly stubborn to changes.

anyway, hope you can follow some of what I am trying to figure out , as to why woman don't really get all excited over High art.

I mean, we will pay top $ for a OOP LP/CD, I've seen cds as high as $$$$$ on amazon. Not that I would payn that,,,but I've paid $60 for a single cd,,,,,whereas with a woman, just any old record will do,,,as *they are all the same*. 
Again, I am in no way supporting any agenda that keeps women out of the podium. Yet we also don't want a woman posted for no other reason than *its the right thing to do* = a balance is a good thing, =not always men dominating the podium.

If you have seen Uchida conducting the Camerata Salzberg, you'd see how what I previously surmised, is all bunk, Uchida conducts the 23rd concerto with facial, body movements , with passionate commitment to the success. The Camerata Salzberg , repsonds OK, nothing spectacular.


----------



## paulbest

1996D said:


> This is where legacy comes in play.
> 
> You're not just you, you're a combination of the work of all your ancestors and what they gave to their children, what they taught, what they built. You're born with what your blood fought for, what they won and what they lost. Your countrymen fought wars so you could be here, they conquered other countries, and established their will upon the world.
> 
> If you're in a first world country you carry the genes of people who won the land by sweat and blood, and live in luxury because of their suffering. If you study European history you'll see that every inch of the prime land that is Europe cost the lives of many brave men.
> 
> You think wanting a better world for your children is a new phenomenon? People have been thinking this way since the dawn of time.
> 
> Life is a competition and it has been fair since day 1.


 Yes exactly, take the Notre Dame cathedral . Magnificent? ..well perhaps, indeed all old cathedrals are wonderous and spectacular. ,,,but at what cost?

Millions lost their lives so those monsters could have life...
Cathedrals are buildings of the Illuminati, nothing more...
The land in EU, USA,,well every inch of the planet, has blood of the innocents.

The EU illumianti just wished the YV;s would just,,,go away, they ain't, They are here to stay. 
Someone has to die,,,and the YV feel, if they are going to die, at least they will bring down some Illuminati supporters with them.

I have to keep scrolling up,,,i often forget what the OP topic is asking...so now I guess I have to tie this all back in to Why are woman excluded from the podium?

Welll take Hillary Hahn, ..Very easily she could have pursued a conducting career, and no doubt would have carried the same passionate successes as on Violin, into the podium box. 
Attention to details, tenderly crafting the passages nuances,,,stitching the fabric into a gorgeous symphonic , EX-Hillary_ation of sound.

But she as well as other highly gifted women decided to go virtuoso, to give us breath taking performances.

WE owe to many women performers, definitive recordings of many of our favorite music.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> This is where legacy comes in play.
> 
> You're not just you, you're a combination of the work of all your ancestors and what they gave to their children, what they taught, what they built. You're born with what your blood fought for, what they won and what they lost. Your countrymen fought wars so you could be here, they conquered other countries, and established their will upon the world.


I know. I don't know what this has to do with misogyny in the conductor world, though, nor my points.



> You think wanting a better world for your children is a new phenomenon? People have been thinking this way since the dawn of time.


See above, except this time I especially don't understand why you bring this up. I didn't mention wanting a better world for my children. Why are you responding to points nobody here entertained? You're conversing with several straw men.



> Life is a competition and it has been fair since day 1.


Of course life is a competition. Again, I already addressed the ambiguity of the use of "fair" for this situation and how its broadness impedes understanding of a tenable, sensible argument. All I can infer from your drilling this "fairness" thing is that you think it's acceptable, and in fact simply a fact of life, that women should have to endure and accept the attitudes of their superiors that distance them from certain fields or careers, because for reasons left vague, they just don't 'belong' in those fields. This thread has established that this happens in the music world. The point of this thread, to me, is "how can certain people better themselves so their attitudes don't keep women out of this part of the music world," not "let's talk about why women should accept these intimidating attitudes as certainties." I don't know how else to respond to your points than to continuously reiterate my own gatherings.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> This is where legacy comes in play.
> 
> You're not just you, you're a combination of the work of all your ancestors and what they gave to their children, what they taught, what they built. You're born with what your blood fought for, what they won and what they lost. Your countrymen fought wars so you could be here, they conquered other countries, and established their will upon the world.
> 
> If you're in a first world country you carry the genes of people who won the land by sweat and blood, and live in luxury because of their suffering. If you study European history you'll see that every inch of the prime land that is Europe cost the lives of many brave men.
> 
> You think wanting a better world for your children is a new phenomenon? People have been thinking this way since the dawn of time.
> 
> Life is a competition and it has been fair since day 1.


This is irrelevant and unresponsive to Minor Sixthist's post, and it ends with a statement that's simultaneously a non sequitur and a falsehood. That level of irrationality can't be easy to achieve.

If you believe that life - everyone and everything - has been fair to you, be grateful for your good fortune and have the grace to keep quiet about other people's circumstances.


----------



## 1996D

The world is a beautiful place and the more you study it, the more perfect it becomes. Women have different roles, they are mothers first, it's not misogyny keeping them down but their duties to nurture the next generation.

As I said before if you know who you are you'll always get what you want, but if you fight your nature you will lose. Knowing your strengths and playing to them is an important part of self actualization.


----------



## Larkenfield

It's a changing world. More women want to be seen as women first - people, individuals, human beings - rather than as bearers of offspring, and in the modern world they are under no duty or obligation to have children. Not all do, or should one presume that they are failures? They have children because they decide to have children, or have the biological urge to have children, or to be fulfilled through motherhood, or to please their male counterparts - all of which suggest choice on her part, not duty. The duty part can be viewed as disguised male misogyny and superiority that are sometimes used to psychologically pressure and manipulate them. They are women and individuals first and they deserve to be recognized as that because no one wants to be manipulated, at least the ones that I've known, then appreciated for their willingness to bear children. That underlying male superiority is really quite something though males physically may have the strength to do certain things that women generally do not, but not necessarily on an emotional, creative or psychological basis because physical strength is normally not required. But they are not obligated or duty-bound to be mothers first. They are indispensable to humanity to do so, despite being in an increasingly over-populated world, but they are human beings first... and more and more of them can pick up on a disguised sense of underlying male superiority that isn't becoming in today's world. They're waking up and they're not stupid. They're looking for strong males they can respect without that misogynistic attitude, and fortunately they do exist.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> It's a changing world. More women want to be seen as women first - people, individuals, human beings - rather than as bearers of offspring...


And the fertility rate of Americans of European extraction continues to decline. Darwin is not happy! Odds in the evolutionary survival sweepstakes continue to change daily.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Women have different roles, *they are mothers first*, it's not misogyny keeping them down but their duties to nurture the next generation.


Uh, no thanks. I apologize to be the female to break it to you, but we are not 'mothers first' unless that's exactly what we want to be. It's 2019. Seems your mind is still in some century when girls weren't permitted to pursue a life outside domestic duties, and how crude and deplorable it is to hear that some men would still prefer that of us before and above all else. I hate to be the one to disturb you by saying women aren't confined to the home anymore. Because I want to, I'll be pursuing my education at a not-too-shabby school near Boston, then I'll get some job, whatever it is, and all the while I'll be playing music and learning and enjoying my freedoms. I plan to have children sometime. I apologize that it will never be with a man who views me as a vessel.



> As I said before if you know who you are you'll always get what you want, *but if you fight your nature you will lose. Knowing your strengths and playing to them is an important part of self actualization.*


So what are you saying my 'strength' here is? What 'nature' am I 'fighting?' Childbearing? Child rearing? Husband rearing too, right?

I'm afraid you're living in a different century. You don't know the first thing about my nature. You don't know the first thing about my strengths. Unless they include at least shedding a bit of light on the detritus that is your purported line of reasoning.


----------



## 1996D

Larkenfield said:


> The duty part can be viewed as disguised male misogyny and superiority that are sometimes used to psychologically pressure and manipulate them.


You have to realize that every great man in history had a mother who loved them and taught them, and many then wives who did important jobs so they could achieve what they did. Human accomplishment is a joint societal effort, and for the the vast majority of women the most value they can provide is as mothers and wives.

It's not a changing world, we are in a particular stage in a society were the rules are lax and the freedom is ample, where we have enough wealth to afford inefficiency. This stage will not last forever, and just because it exists today, just because you can, doesn't mean you have to disobey your nature and waste your potential.

Stages like the one we are in now are all over history, nothing has changed.


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> And the fertility rate of Americans of European extraction continues to decline. Darwin is not happy! Odds in the evolutionary survival sweepstakes continue to change daily.


 I wouldn't mind seeing the American food manufacturers sued for what they do to food and ill health in this country. I'm all for free enterprise but it seems to be that the desire for quality is very low on their list. They do so much better in Europe where they truly love the things of the earth, local produce, and then well prepared meals with wine. Evidently the sperm count in America continues to be fewer in number or they're going on strike like former members of Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters Union - and I find it hard not to blame them. If I were one of them myself I might feel the same way.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> You have to realize that every great man in history had a mother who loved them and taught them, and many then wives who did important jobs so they could achieve what they did. Human accomplishment is a joint societal effort, and *for the the vast majority of women the most value they can provide is as mothers and wives.*


I'm sorry you've devolved to a state of disillusioned reality that has led you to confidently state this as the truth.



> *It's not a changing world,* we are in a particular stage in a society were the rules are lax and the freedom is ample, where we have enough wealth to afford inefficiency. This stage will not last forever, and just because it exists today, just because you can, doesn't mean you have to disobey your nature and waste your potential.
> 
> Stages like the one we are in now are all over history, nothing has changed.


It's like there's fault in every line here. Many great women had fathers who loved and taught them. Some great men had terrible mothers who got in the way of their growth. Some great women had loving husbands who helped them. Some great men had terrible wives. The point is these generalizations don't prove a single thing. Especially not when you're using weasel words to make each one. There's no significance to these claims.

It is a changing world. It's always a changing world. Please don't make me cite examples that prove 'we live in a changing world.' This is not remedial history.



> *nothing has changed.*


Oh, many things have changed. Many for the better. You're denying simple history, and more importantly denying the simple tendencies of history. Though given your views, I'm sure you wish we were still in the 1870's. It's funny how your tone continues to be unwaveringly patronizing and didactic throughout. I don't believe I'm being taught a thing except how to keep my patience.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing the American food manufacturers sued for what they do to food and ill health in this country. I'm all for free enterprise but it seems to be that the desire for quality is very low on their list. They do so much better in Europe where they truly love the things of the earth, local produce, and then well prepared meals with wine. Evidently the sperm count in America continues to be fewer in number or they're going on strike former like members of Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters Union, and I find it hard not to blame them. If I were one of them I might feel the same way.


All that poisonous food doesn't seem to bother Hispanic immigrants, whose fertility rate is twice that of Americans of European extraction. Maybe the explanation lies elsewhere?


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> Oh, many things have changed. Many for the better. You're denying simple history, and more importantly denying the simple tendencies of history. Though given your views, I'm sure you wish we were still in the 1870's. It's funny how your tone continues to be unwaveringly patronizing and didactic throughout. I don't believe I'm being taught a thing except how to keep my patience.


 Of course the world is constantly changing, but cyclically, not in any particular direction. Socially/politically we act the same as we always have. Read Plato's Republic, still the premier book on human behavior.

I'm sure I'd understand you immediately if I saw you in person, you're taking all this a little too personally, which suggests you have something at stake in this. I'm just explaining why things are the way they are, and why misogyny barely has any impact.

You really ought to hate the world if you think genuine potential is being hampered by misogyny, I can't imagine the hatred you carry around.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> Of course the world is constantly changing, but cyclically, not in any particular direction. Socially/politically we act the same as we always have. Read Plato's Republic, still the premier book on human behavior...


It is? Now I'm beginning to understand where these ideas of yours are coming from.


----------



## mmsbls

I think almost everyone on the thread does believe that misogyny is not only a thing but also a problematic thing that ought to be confronted and eliminated. So maybe we could focus on how to change it.

I have read every post in the thread, but I apologize that I don't remember all the themes and arguments. I would like to know where people feel the musical community should focus to open up opportunities for women in conducting. Obviously, one answer is everywhere, but I'd like to see where the greatest effort would yield the greatest rewards. 

Orchestras hiring more women as conductors would clearly help in a number of ways, but I think there are likely too few women pursuing conducting such that the overwhelming number of applicants are men. I think it's necessary to increase the number of capable women entering the field. Ought the focus then be on graduate schools encouraging more women, undergraduate schools ensuring that women are not dissuaded from conducting, or earlier? I understand that society's general view of women's capabilities likely needs to change, but the music community can't really have a significant effect on that issue.

I'd be particularly interested in any women's experiences related to conducting, composing, or related fields. I will say that my daughter, who recently graduated from a major university's graduate program in music, said her women student composer friends universally experienced prejudice in their endeavors. According to my daughter, the prejudice was obvious to just about everyone.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I think almost everyone on the thread does believe that misogyny is not only a thing but also a problematic thing that ought to be confronted and eliminated. So maybe we could focus on how to change it.
> 
> I have read every post in the thread, but I apologize that I don't remember all the themes and arguments. I would like to know where people feel the musical community should focus to open up opportunities for women in conducting. Obviously, one answer is everywhere, but I'd like to see where the greatest effort would yield the greatest rewards.
> 
> Orchestras hiring more women as conductors would clearly help in a number of ways, but I think there are likely too few women pursuing conducting such that the overwhelming number of applicants are men. I think it's necessary to increase the number of capable women entering the field. Ought the focus then be on graduate schools encouraging more women, undergraduate schools ensuring that women are not dissuaded from conducting, or earlier? I understand that society's general view of women's capabilities likely needs to change, but the music community can't really have a significant effect on that issue.
> 
> I'd be particularly interested in any women's experiences related to conducting, composing, or related fields. I will say that my daughter, who recently graduated from a major university's graduate program in music, said her women student composer friends universally experienced prejudice in their endeavors. According to my daughter, the prejudice was obvious to just about everyone.


I also have family members in this field, including one established and one up-and-coming conductor, and I would respond to your question by saying that the first and perhaps biggest step is already taking place, and that is, more women playing in the orchestras (more non-whites, too). The more they are there and accepted as part of the scene, the less of a leap it will seem when one becomes a conductor. Prejudicial attitudes don't die immediately, or perhaps not all all, but those who have them certainly die, and the question is how the new generation looks at the issue. That may be cold comfort for women trying to break through right now, but any headway they make today could pay greater dividends in the future.


----------



## Larkenfield

_"I will say that my daughter, who recently graduated from a major university's graduate program in music, said her women student composer friends universally experienced prejudice in their endeavors. According to my daughter, the prejudice was obvious to just about everyone."_

Not speaking as a woman here, but I would say that the place to start is with the Mind - how not to succumb mentally to attitudes of extreme prejudice, misogyny, chauvinism, blatant sexism, and other such unconscious attitudes usually from males who like to delight in them with whom women will probably encounter along the way. One has to develop a certain amount of emotional and psychological immunity in order to continue on until one has an opportunity to prove oneself on the podium in the competitive marketplace. No one without talent and ability is likely to be hired! Those who do not develop some type of immunity are probably not meant to succeed in such a demanding field of conducting anyway and this is how some in the field are screened out where there are both men and women. But I think it's fair to say that all anyone with the talent is looking for is to be an on an equal playing field to demonstrate their abilities, and certain chauvinist attitudes in the field are in the process of being exposed and this will ultimately be better for everyone without the misogynistic attitudes that men don't have to contend with, though prejudice can manifest of many different levels unrelated to one's gender. Someone should do a study on the Psychology of Misogynism, if it hasn't been done already, and make it a welcome part of the curriculum because Plato seems to have left that chapter out of his "Republic".


----------



## Larkenfield

"Art is irrational. That cannot be denied. Something burst inside you, and you begin to sing. That's what black people did under slavery and what soldiers do in times of war. It carries them along and gives them the courage to keep on going. When we overcome our personal horrors and make art of them, then our music has a message." -Allan Pettersson



Larkenfield said:


> The Myth of the Tortured Artist - and Why It's Not a Myth:
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tortured-artists_b_1605509


----------



## Becca

mmsbls said:


> I think almost everyone on the thread does believe that misogyny is not only a thing but also a problematic thing that ought to be confronted and eliminated. So maybe we could focus on how to change it.
> 
> I have read every post in the thread, but I apologize that I don't remember all the themes and arguments. I would like to know where people feel the musical community should focus to open up opportunities for women in conducting. Obviously, one answer is everywhere, but I'd like to see where the greatest effort would yield the greatest rewards.


While it may seem to be quite a stretch, I see quite a few parallels for women between classical music and aviation. The following quote (with my comments) comes from Suzanne Salat, who is the Chief Pilot Flight Operations at one of the two major business aircraft manufacturers:

_"We're also fortunate to have a number of female role models and pioneers to look up to. So, although firsts are still happening... women coming into the industry now aren't the first. And yet, there is still a perception on the outside that girls should become flight attendants [violinists/flautists] not pilots [conductors]. There's an underlying thought process that we need to change. I believe showing girls the possibility and mentoring them is key..."_

That is so very true, girls need to become aware that the possibility exists so that they can strive for it. Let me requote something said by Barbara Hannigan that I posted much earlier in this thread:

_"Convention has kept the field dominated by men. Convention and, of course, some everyday sexism - because before a woman gets on the podium, she needs to get into a conducting class at university, *and before that even, she needs to see the career as a viable option*, something I didn't as a child.

A friend's young daughter saw me conducting on TV the other day, and said: "Mommy, I didn't know women were allowed to be conductors."_


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> "I will say that my daughter, who recently graduated from a major university's graduate program in music, said her women student composer friends universally experienced prejudice in their endeavors. According to my daughter, the prejudice was obvious to just about everyone."
> 
> Not speaking as a woman here, but I would say that the place to start is with the Mind - how not to succumb mentally to attitudes of extreme prejudice, misogyny, chauvinism, blatant sexism, and other such unconscious attitudes usually from males who like to delight in them with whom women will probably encounter along the way. One has to develop a certain amount of emotional and psychological immunity in order to continue on until one has an opportunity to prove oneself on the podium in the competitive marketplace. No one without talent and ability is likely to be hired! Those who do not develop some type of immunity are probably not meant to succeed in such a demanding field of conducting anyway and this is how some in the field are screened out where there are both men and women. But I think it's fair to say that all anyone with the talent is looking for is to be an on an equal playing field to demonstrate their abilities, and certain chauvinist attitudes in the field are in the process of being exposed and this will ultimately be better for everyone without the misogynistic attitudes that men don't have to contend with, though prejudice can manifest of many different levels unrelated to one's gender. Someone should do a study on the Psychology of Misogynism, if it hasn't been done already, and make it a welcome part of the curriculum because Plato seems to have left that chapter out of his "Republic".


Men are fascinated by women. What are the ramifications and the unintended consequences of men's natural feelings of overprotection and interest? Very very few women will welcome it, but that doesn't change the nature of men.

There's such an infinitesimally small chance that we're here, so, whether we're born male or female we should be treated exactly the same, because we've discovered that FACT of our improbability. It's not a matter of culture. Culture is a human construct.


----------



## DaveM

The fewer positions there are in a given field which has traditionally been the prerogative of men, the more likely men are to feel threatened and the more likely the attempt will be to exclude women.


----------



## Guest

Whilst there may be specific actions that can be taken in the music industry, it will be against a continuing cultural background where male-female relationships may be seen as problematic.

For example, an analysis of the proportion of time that female characters speak in _Game of Thrones_...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48335099

Is this in any way significant? I don't know.

On the other hand, I was involved yesterday in interviews for a new member of our education adviser team - 11 applicants, shortlisted to four candidates, all women. The selection was 3 men, one woman, aided by two women headteacher. Our team is roughly gender equal, our wider service has more women, but if the same analysis were applied to our team meetings, I'm sure male speech would dominate.

In the meantime, there are plenty of role models for women aspiring to be conductors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_classical_conductors


----------



## Boychev

Ah yes, classical music, that most masculine of artforms. Mothers, hide your daughters.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> For example, an analysis of the proportion of time that female characters speak in _Game of Thrones_...
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48335099


this is insanity. Last year or so, there was a controversy regarding one Czech computer game. It is a historical game set during the 1400's in medieval Bohemia - Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I did not play the game, but I followed the controversy. Some SJW's complained that there are not enough female and people of color protagonists. Really?
I don't know what gives these SJWs the right to bully private companies in foreign lands, that their products do not contain enough people of color, completely disregarding the fact, that there were few people of color in medieval Bohemia. If the people of color want a game of their own, they can make it, but why bully others? These totalitarian SJWs count the number of times a man, a woman, and people of color speak in TV shows. Nobody prevents them from making their own products. The real problem is that they are absolutely stupid and totally incapable of producing anything of value
These people PERPETUATE racism, sexism etc. through their insistence that the color of your skin matters and requires special treatment. 
https://vortainment.com/2018/02/07/...e-deliverance-because-of-historical-accuracy/


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ Internet debates are a special part of hell. Debates like that do not reflect the views of any ordinary people. They are unique to popular internet forums. Don't get worried about them: ignore them.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ Internet debates are a special part of hell. Debates like that do not reflect the views of any ordinary people. They are unique to popular internet forums. Don't get worried about them: ignore them.


it is not only about internet forums. The problem is that these kind of people infiltrate universities, governments, media and companies and use force to implement their policies and use bullying to silence any critique. See for example google
https://diversity.google/annual-report/
why does google need to have a statistics like this?
and then you have a SJW who again comes and claims that "more progess MUST be made"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janice...eals-more-progress-must-be-made/#5a45a5863bef

why are there so few women in computer science? I have 2 university degrees - in medicine and in physics (just BSc). While in medicine the number of males and females was roughly balanced, possibly even more women than men, in physics, computer science etc it is like 10:1. Is it because the universities discriminate against women? I do not think so. Women do not want to pursue this kind of career. So there are only few of them with these kinds of degrees. And then these gender ideologues (who of course have some bullhsit degree) come and start forcing companies to unconditionally hire more women. But where should these companies find these women? In practice they hire every women that they can find to fill some quotas, which leads to degradation of quality and competitivness.

I do not say that there are no women with interest in computer science, mathematics, physics, engineering, but it is an objective fact, that their proportion is small. Now you can try to find ideological explanations that it is because there are not enough role models and stuff like that. But why is it not the case in medicine or law? Some 100 years ago, medicine was almost completely male dominanted, now it is becoming female dominated. Why do we not see the same development in STEM? It is impossible to even try to answer the question for fear of persecution

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues
Summers was of course fired from his job afterwards


----------



## Boychev

Counting does not constitute bullying.


----------



## Jacck

and this is for MacLeod
The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
who asked for a reference about the higher male variance and higher performance in maths. 
_
"Males outperform females on most measures of visuospatial abilities, which have been implicated as contributing to sex differences on standardized exams in mathematics and science. An evolutionary account of sex differences in mathematics and science supports the conclusion that, although sex differences in math and science performance have not directly evolved, they could be indirectly related to differences in interests and specific brain and cognitive systems."_


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Of course the world is constantly changing, but cyclically, not in any particular direction. Socially/politically we act the same as we always have. Read Plato's Republic, still the premier book on human behavior.
> 
> I'm sure I'd understand you immediately if I saw you in person, you're taking all this a little too personally, which suggests you have something at stake in this. I'm just explaining why things are the way they are, and why misogyny barely has any impact.
> 
> You really ought to hate the world if you think genuine potential is being hampered by misogyny, I can't imagine the hatred you carry around.


I'm well aware of the cyclical motion of the world, and empire. Its existence does not indicate that no single-direction growth is taking place. Technological complexity has grown like an exponential curve with inflection at the Industrial periods. Regardless, consistent with this trend I've noticed in your posts, your broad claims on the changing world and the staticity of human nature have approximately 0 to do with any of the points I brought up about conductors and women. I continually address the OP with both narrow and broad applications. You extrapolate the argument to the broadest of terms in order to make it impossible for any conclusions to prove the flaws in your logic. You don't like to argue, you like to bloviate.

It's not that I take 'this' personally. Don't enjoy any satisfaction that you've offended me. I came here to state my case with an intent to defend it, the latter is half the battle. And it makes sense that I have 'stake' in this argument. As I made apparent in my first post here, it directly applies to me. I think I'm obligated to argue head-on with misogynists. I readily use that word only because you've made statements on women's roles whose implications would keep women in domestic roles and consequently in submission to men.

I don't carry an inch of hatred around. As it happens, I hear the sort of views you expressed on this thread extremely rarely in 'real life.' I don't remember the last time I heard them aloud. They only manifest in such high frequency on the Internet - anonymously, without placing a face on the words, what a surprise that is - and I know where they are so I know where to avoid if I don't want to bother myself with them.

I don't hate the world. I do like stating my case in it, though, and having the words to reasonably defend it, without veering far off course to create a diversion for the opposition - I understand we can't all relate to this sentiment.


----------



## Enthusiast

Minor Sixthist said:


> As it happens, I hear the sort of views you expressed on this thread extremely rarely in 'real life.' I don't remember the last time I heard them aloud. They only manifest in such high frequency on the Internet - anonymously, without placing a face on the words, what a surprise that is - and I know where they are so I know where to avoid if I don't want to bother myself with them.


I may be unfair but I always assume that the extreme (and rather weird) views that get forcefully made all over the internet - along with the habit of not engaging in true debate about them - is a result, not so much of being able to hide behind anonymity, but of the internet providing a place that "losers", loners, "people who need to get out more", can express their unhealthy and irrational beliefs .... and can even find others like themselves who share such weird and unsustainable beliefs. They are sick, I think, and as a global community, we take them seriously at our peril.


----------



## Open Book

The "extreme" views that appear only on the Internet and not so much in public any more, does it matter where they appear? Isn't their failure to completely disappear possibly indicative that they might be part of the nature of more people than we care to think about, even part of (masculine) human nature? Instead of just a sick, pathological minority?

Decades ago the engineering firm I worked for interviewed a male candidate. He was viewed favorably until he heard he was going to be introduced to his female boss. He walked out with the words, "I'm not working for a woman".

No one openly does this today, but is it possible many men still feel this way, that they prefer not to have to work under a woman? That it is just their nature to only respect men as superiors because during most of human history they only had to deal with men, who held all the power, and that this behavior has become ingrained?


----------



## Becca

^^ What is fascinating - and disturbing - are the rationales used to support the status quo ante.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> and this is for MacLeod
> The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
> who asked for a reference about the higher male variance and higher performance in maths.
> _
> "Males outperform females on most measures of visuospatial abilities, which have been implicated as contributing to sex differences on standardized exams in mathematics and science. An evolutionary account of sex differences in mathematics and science supports the conclusion that, although sex differences in math and science performance have not directly evolved, they could be indirectly related to differences in interests and specific brain and cognitive systems."_


Thanks for providing the link. Note further down...



> A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to sex differences in mathematics and science achievement and ability- including the effects of family, neighborhood, peer, and school influences; training and experience; and cultural practices. We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> this is insanity. Last year or so, there was a controversy regarding one Czech computer game. It is a historical game set during the 1400's in medieval Bohemia - Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I did not play the game, but I followed the controversy. Some SJW's complained that there are not enough female and people of color protagonists. Really?
> I don't know what gives these SJWs the right to bully private companies in foreign lands, that their products do not contain enough people of color, completely disregarding the fact, that there were few people of color in medieval Bohemia. If the people of color want a game of their own, they can make it, but why bully others? These totalitarian SJWs count the number of times a man, a woman, and people of color speak in TV shows. Nobody prevents them from making their own products. The real problem is that they are absolutely stupid and totally incapable of producing anything of value
> These people PERPETUATE racism, sexism etc. through their insistence that the color of your skin matters and requires special treatment.
> https://vortainment.com/2018/02/07/...e-deliverance-because-of-historical-accuracy/


I think you missed my main point. I said,



> Whilst there may be specific actions that can be taken in the music industry, it will be against a continuing cultural background where male-female relationships may be seen as problematic.


The link to the GoT survey was merely a tiny and immediate example which may or may not be of significance, but it contributes to the cultural background.


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> The "extreme" views that appear only on the Internet and not so much in public any more, does it matter where they appear? Isn't their failure to completely disappear possibly indicative that they might be part of the nature of more people than we care to think about, even part of (masculine) human nature? Instead of just a sick, pathological minority?
> 
> ...is it possible many men still feel this way, that they prefer not to have to work under a woman? That it is just their nature to only respect men as superiors because during most of human history they only had to deal with men, who held all the power, and that this behavior has become ingrained?


I don't think there can be any doubt that the continuing existence of misogynist sentiments and ideas is indicative that they are "part of the nature of more people than we care to think about." But part of "masculine human nature" as such? The only way to gather evidence that misogyny is part of masculine human nature is to observe men who are misogynists. But the evidence is, in fact, that some men are misogynists and others are not. That leaves a great many men devoid of our hypothetical "masculine human nature," and poses the very perplexing question of what sort of human nature these men have.


----------



## Jacck

Open Book said:


> No one openly does this today, but is it possible many men still feel this way, that they prefer not to have to work under a woman? That it is just their nature to only respect men as superiors because during most of human history they only had to deal with men, who held all the power, and that this behavior has become ingrained?


Women dislike having a female boss in the workplace MORE than men do, study finds
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-queen-bee-in-the-corner-office/534213/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ng-female-boss-workplace-men-study-finds.html

there is the view/prejudice that women tend to be more emotional, less able to be objective and to seperate feelings from cold logic, to play favorites more etc.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> I may be unfair but I always assume that the extreme (and rather weird) views that get forcefully made all over the internet - along with the habit of not engaging in true debate about them - is a result, not so much of being able to hide behind anonymity, but of the internet providing a place that "losers", loners, "people who need to get out more", can express their unhealthy and irrational beliefs .... and can even find others like themselves who share such weird and unsustainable beliefs. They are sick, I think, and *as a global community, we take them seriously at our peril.*


We must take them seriously _wherever_ they appear. The internet may enable them to spread their toxic ideas more easily, but it also makes us aware of how widespread are ideas we may have preferred to think belonged to the past or existed only on the remote and harmless fringes of society.

The price of a rational society is eternal vigilance and the willingness to speak up, here and everywhere.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for providing the link. Note further down...
> "A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to sex differences in mathematics and science achievement and ability- including the effects of family, neighborhood, peer, and school influences; training and experience; and cultural practices. We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics. "


I was saying the same before, that it is hard to separate what is biology and what is social conditioning. But it is unquestionable that biological differences exist. At the beginning of my scientific career some 10 years ago, I was involved in an fMRI research of male/female/homosexual/transsexual people, and I have written a paper about the influence of sex hormones on the mental rotation task in fMRI. Women's ability of visuospatial processing correlated with levels of estrogene, you could even see that brain regions that correlated with the level of the hormones. Fortunaly, I am not longer involved in this kind of politically charged research, where you have to very carefully word your findings, and I am now interested in psychoneuroimmunology which is more interesting.

I do not claim that women are worse than men. But sex hormones shape our behaviors, because they affect our brains. Our bodies are similar, yet subtly different and so are our brains. The gender ideologues are in denial of these facts and try to redesign human nature. I find the gender neutral upbringing and similar ideologically driven attrocities to be emotional abuses of children.


----------



## Open Book

Becca said:


> ^^ What is fascinating - and disturbing - are the rationales used to support the status quo ante.


So you won't even entertain the idea that this is remotely possible, that there is some innate behavior that might be hard to overcome by teaching? You're too disturbed? I don't like it either, that doesn't make it untrue just because we don't like it.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> We must take them seriously _wherever_ they appear. The internet may enable them to spread their toxic ideas more easily, but it also makes us aware of how widespread are ideas we may have preferred to think belonged to the past or existed only on the remote and harmless fringes of society.
> 
> The price of a rational society is *eternal vigilance and the willingness to speak up, here and everywhere*.


this kind of totalitarian behavior on the left is responsible for the election of Trump. He is as much the product of the left, as he is the product of right, both having their toxic ways. 
https://psycharchives.org/bitstream/20.500.12034/1434/1/jspp.v5i1.732.pdf
I am telling you this as someone, who is relatively objective, because I am not so much influenced by the deep divisions within US politics.


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> Women dislike having a female boss in the workplace MORE than men do, study finds
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-queen-bee-in-the-corner-office/534213/
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ng-female-boss-workplace-men-study-finds.html
> 
> there is the view/prejudice that women tend to be more emotional, less able to be objective and to seperate feelings from cold logic, to play favorites more etc.


Yeah, but do the women really show worse in these qualities as bosses compared to men or are their male subordinates just less tolerant of these qualities in women?


----------



## Jacck

Open Book said:


> Yeah, but do the women really show worse in these qualities as bosses compared to men or are their male subordinates just less tolerant of these qualities in women?


Honestly, I do not know. I can only tell my own experiences, which are limited. I've had both, male and female bosses, and encountered good people and psychopaths among both groups. I do not mind working for a woman, if she has some wisdom.


----------



## Becca

Open Book said:


> So you won't even entertain the idea that this is remotely possible, that there is some innate behavior that might be hard to overcome by teaching? You're too disturbed? I don't like it either, that doesn't make it untrue just because we don't like it.


Don't put words into my mouth.


----------



## Open Book

Becca said:


> Don't put words into my mouth.


How am I putting words in your mouth? What words?

My question is, Do you think it's totally impossible that there is anything innate in misogynistic behavior? You seem to think so. Why is it impossible?


----------



## KenOC

Open Book said:


> ...My question is, Do you think it's totally impossible that there is anything innate in misogynistic behavior?


Behavior leaps from beliefs and values. And people in general seem quite capable of believing a great number of ridiculous things, some quite contradictory to their observations and experiences in the real world. Further, people buy their beliefs wholesale; there must be some sort of quantity discount! If you ask somebody their opinion on one matter, then you can be pretty sure you know their opinions on a hundred others.

I'm not speaking of left or right -- each seems equally capable of ignoring what they see with their own eyes and trashing whole areas of science that would not be in dispute except that they violate fervently-held ideologies.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> I don't think there can be any doubt that the continuing existence of misogynist sentiments and ideas is indicative that they are "part of the nature of more people than we care to think about." But part of "masculine human nature" as such? The only way to gather evidence that misogyny is part of masculine human nature is to observe men who are misogynists. But the evidence is, in fact, that some men are misogynists and others are not. That leaves a great many men devoid of our hypothetical "masculine human nature," and poses the very perplexing question of what sort of human nature these men have.


Yes, some men are misogynist and some are not. I have been well acquainted with both, especially professionally.

Some people are attracted to the opposite sex and some are attracted to the same sex. One was long seen as unnatural and perverted. Today we're to believe both behaviors are natural and innate.

Yet there is denial that traditional males behaviors that we don't like are natural to some males. I said _some_. The deniers consider toxic masculinity a product of bad upbringing which can be easily coached out of existence by enlightened upbringing.

How do we know this is true? How do we know there isn't a natural dichotomy of male behavior as well as of sexual orientation?


----------



## Becca

Open Book said:


> How am I putting words in your mouth? What words?





Open Book said:


> So you won't even entertain the idea that this is remotely possible


I highly doubt that there is an innate behavior after all there are successful matriarchal societies. Power in western society has been male-centric for a very long time. We are still overcoming a lot of the societal biases that have built up over the centuries and that seemed to peak during the Victorian era.


----------



## Woodduck

I wrote:



> The price of a rational society is eternal vigilance and the willingness to speak up, here (on the internet) and everywhere.


Jacck responds:



Jacck said:


> this kind of totalitarian behavior on the left is responsible for the election of Trump. He is as much the product of the left, as he is the product of right, both having their toxic ways.
> 
> I am telling you this as someone, who is relatively objective, because I am not so much influenced by the deep divisions within US politics.


Well, gee wizz, I thought I was just doing my civic duty and being part of a responsible free press.

So, in your advanced culture, the way to deal with toxic ideologies, prejudice and injustice is to sit down and shut up? That was real effective in Germany in 1930. And they didn't get a fumbling amateur like Trump, did they?


----------



## Open Book

Becca said:


> I highly doubt that there is an innate behavior after all there are successful matriarchal societies. Power in western society has been male-centric for a very long time. We are still overcoming a lot of the societal biases that have built up over the centuries and that seemed to peak during the Victorian era.


Educate me, please. Name some matriarchal societies, especially successful ones. Are they confined to small, isolated societies that have little contact with outsiders?


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> Yes, some men are misogynist and some are not. I have been well acquainted with both, especially professionally.
> 
> Some people are attracted to the opposite sex and some are attracted to the same sex. One was long seen as unnatural and perverted. Today we're to believe both behaviors are natural and innate.
> 
> Yet there is denial that traditional males behaviors that we don't like are natural to some males. I said _some_. The deniers consider toxic masculinity a product of bad upbringing which can be easily coached out of existence by enlightened upbringing.
> 
> How do we know this is true? How do we know there isn't a natural dichotomy of male behavior as well as of sexual orientation?


Sexual orientation is not an attitude or a behavior. Misogyny is either or both. Attitudes and behaviors are learned and can be changed, even if that is sometimes difficult. Difficulty is not an excuse.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> Attitudes and behaviors are learned and can be changed, even if that is sometimes difficult. Difficulty is not an excuse.


Can be changed with threats of punishment? That might work changing the behavior but not the attitude, which can be hidden.

How do you know attitudes can be changed?


----------



## Becca

Open Book said:


> Educate me, please. Name some matriarchal societies, especially successful ones. Are they confined to small, isolated societies that have little contact with outsiders?


I am sure that you are quite capable of doing it for yourself ... should you be so inclined. As to whether they are isolated or not, what does that matter? If they work then that makes it unlikely that there is an innate misogyny.


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> Can be changed with threats of punishment? That might work changing the behavior but not the attitude, which can be hidden.
> 
> How do you know attitudes can be changed?


You're kidding, right? Who's talking about threats and punishment? Not me. And you're going to tell me seriously that you've never known anyone's attitude to change? Sounds like you've never considered changing any of yours and are looking for an excuse not to. Either that or you're very young and haven't seen much of the world.

Yes, people's attitudes change. How do I know? I've lived long enough to change some of my own, and to have seen others do the same. It's something to hope for and work toward.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> You're kidding, right? Who's talking about threats and punishment? Not me. And you're going to tell me seriously that you've never known anyone's attitude to change? Sounds like you've never considered changing any of yours and are looking for an excuse not to. Either that or you're very young and haven't seen much of the world.
> 
> Yes, people's attitudes change. How do I know? I've lived long enough to change some of my own, and to have seen others do the same. It's something to hope for and work toward.


"Sounds like you've never considered changing any of yours and are looking for an excuse not to."

That was pretty unnecessary. And speculative. Why fly off the handle like that?

I'm not young and I have seen many different kinds of people in my life. People change only when they want to, and then you still don't know how they feel inside. Maybe they don't change so much as conform.

As for punishment, if there is punishment for not obeying his female boss, like being fired, than a man might change his behavior (show outward respect for his boss) but not necessarily his attitude (inwardly resents his boss). There, was that so terrible?


----------



## Open Book

Becca said:


> I am sure that you are quite capable of doing it for yourself ... should you be so inclined. As to whether they are isolated or not, what does that matter? If they work then that makes it unlikely that there is an innate misogyny.


So no successful matriarchal society you've heard of ever made much of an impression on you that you would remember it? Like how is it ruled, how is labor distributed, what happens when such a society brushes up against its neighbors and the encounter leads to war?


----------



## fluteman

Enthusiast said:


> I may be unfair but I always assume that the extreme (and rather weird) views that get forcefully made all over the internet - along with the habit of not engaging in true debate about them - is a result, not so much of being able to hide behind anonymity, but of the internet providing a place that "losers", loners, "people who need to get out more", can express their unhealthy and irrational beliefs .... and can even find others like themselves who share such weird and unsustainable beliefs. They are sick, I think, and as a global community, we take them seriously at our peril.


Alas, in my experience unenlightened views on topics like this are not exclusive to internet losers and loners. But I have noticed that many who cling to some rather bizarre theories take great comfort in finding more of their kind in an internet forum, and will even argue that the presence of other posters who agree with them somehow validates their views.
When I mention some of comments I read here to real, live, successful performing classical musicians, they shake their heads in disbelief. And though it is just one example of what I am referring to, anyone who believes there are no real barriers to women having successful careers in classical music should speak to some women trying to have successful careers in classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> "Sounds like you've never considered changing any of yours and are looking for an excuse not to."
> 
> That was pretty unnecessary. And speculative. Why fly off the handle like that?
> 
> People change only when they want to, and then you still don't know how they feel inside. Maybe they don't change so much as conform.
> 
> As for punishment, if there is punishment for not obeying his female boss, like being fired, than a man might change his behavior (show outward respect for his boss) but not necessarily his attitude (inwardly resents his boss).


Sorry. It's just that you seem to be making excuses for bad male behavior.

I certainly agree that people have to want to change, and that requires seeing alternative possibilities. So what do we do when we see destructive attitudes toward women? Just assume that they're part of "masculine human nature" and throw up our hands? Wait for "market forces" to fix everything? Move to Jacck's Czech Republic, where apparently they don't worry about bigotry and so their bigots don't elect Neanderthals like Donald Trump?

Seems clear to me that the very least we can do is try to identify the issues clearly, posit and exemplify those "alternative possibilities," and not settle passively for the status quo.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Open Book said:


> The "extreme" views that appear only on the Internet and not so much in public any more, does it matter where they appear? *Isn't their failure to completely disappear possibly indicative that they might be part of the nature of more people than we care to think about, even part of (masculine) human nature? Instead of just a sick, pathological minority?*


_"Maybe misogyny is just human nature and we're all wrong to say it's a bad thing!"_

I am thoroughly disturbed.


----------



## KenOC

> _Maybe misogyny is just human nature and we're all wrong to say it's a bad thing!_​


A good portion of the human race considers women the lesser sex, to the point of treating them as chattel property and, essentially, breeding stock. I'm sure they consider our behavior to be odd at best.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Open Book said:


> How am I putting words in your mouth? What words?
> 
> My question is, *Do you think it's totally impossible that there is anything innate in misogynistic behavior?* You seem to think so. Why is it impossible?


There's also something innate in racist *prejudice.* Notice the emphasis: prejudice is the thought that precedes a potential behavior. I.e.: humans certainly do have innate prejudices - preconceived impressions - about people of other skin colors.

Experimentation on children showed that, when shown a flashcard with a drawing of 5 children on it, each going down a skin color gradient from white to black, children perceived those with a similar color to themselves as more nice and less threatening than the children with the different skin color. I couldn't find that video, but instead found a different one detailing a similar experiment with the very same results, if you're interested.






If you determined the answer to 'is misogyny innate' is a 'yes,' an assumption I might make is that you then deem misogyny defensible. I only make that assumption because reasonably you're not just asking these questions for fun: you want validation from these questions that something about misogyny is justified because it's "innate." Does that mean you'd take the above evidence of racial prejudice as justification for racism? Curious.

Prejudices don't excuse behaviors. If prejudices excused behaviors, racism would be just fine. Hopefully you don't think racism is just fine. Boggles me how you'd view misogyny differently.

An "innate behavior" is an* instinct. *I am confident that instinct is, definitionally, the only term that may be categorized as an "innate behavior." Other than id-driven behaviors, which are only the most basic functions, your behavior is not innate. I can tell you women-hating is not innate because I have hundreds of thousands of years of human survival to prove it. Misogyny is evolutionarily the absolute last thing that would become innate in a sexually reproducing species.

I wonder if we will find empirical evidence of misogynistic prejudices. Funny...when men thrice my age leer and whistle at me as I walk alone by my school or in the city or in my neighborhood, God forbid in a skirt in the summer heat, I sometimes think they're having other innate thoughts than hatred.


----------



## Guest

Our "innate" thoughts presumably come after our instinctive reactions, which may actually be manifest in visible though not necessarily conscious behaviours.

I think this is much less clear cut than is allowed for, and instinctive reactions that, if consciously acted upon might be deemed prejudiced or sexist are more widespread than we might like to think.

I hope I never behave towards the women I work with in a sexist or prejudiced manner. I hope I have always behaved properly, and treated them equally. However, I can't deny that I might have subconsciously behaved differently towards them according to whether I have found them attractive or not.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> I may be unfair but I always assume that the extreme (and rather weird) views that get forcefully made all over the internet - along with the habit of not engaging in true debate about them - is a result, not so much of being able to hide behind anonymity,* but of the internet providing a place that "losers", loners, "people who need to get out more", can express their unhealthy and irrational beliefs* .... and can even find others like themselves who share such weird and unsustainable beliefs. They are sick, I think, and as a global community, we take them seriously at our peril.


Ironic that this is exactly what this thread is. Learning about the inner workings on how ideology can cloud reason can only be done anonymously, because in real life people can get extremely emotional.

You're not only sheep, but sheep that feel the need to argue about why you think what everyone else thinks, and even then, complain about it... It doesn't get any lower than that.

It confirms that ideology can never be reasoned with under any circumstances, even with the weakest and most insecure.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

MacLeod said:


> Our "innate" thoughts presumably come after our instinctive reactions, which may actually be manifest in visible though not necessarily conscious behaviours.
> 
> I think this is much less clear cut than is allowed for, and instinctive reactions that, if consciously acted upon might be deemed prejudiced or sexist are more widespread than we might like to think.
> 
> I hope I never behave towards the women I work with in a sexist or prejudiced manner. I hope I have always behaved properly, and treated them equally. *However, I can't deny that I might have subconsciously behaved differently towards them according to whether I have found them attractive or not.*


And such is completely natural. There is nothing morally wrong here. Women do the very same.

What I posit is that an attitude toward women in our highly industrialized, digitalized, progressive 21st-century world that suggests that their presence in certain fields is unnatural and unwanted - STEM, conducting, composing, many more - is not a healthy philosophy for the art world or any. Attitudes like the one listed in that ever-important OP thirty pages back keep women out of musical fields by planting the idea that they are not welcome in those fields. Thus a woman with innate potential who's repelled on the onset fails to make her contribution to the music world, leaving unrealized potential both for herself and, for all my Jeremy Bentham lovers, for the community that doesn't have her music to hear and see and stimulate economic activities.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> You're not only sheep, but sheep that feel the need to argue about why you think what everyone else thinks, and even then, complain about it... It doesn't get any lower than that.


You're not only a feeble arguer, but a feeble arguer who feels the need to go ad hom as a last resort, and even then, you bloviate and grasp at straws... It doesn't get any funnier than this.

"Ideology." What's your ideology, misogynism?


----------



## mmsbls

Can we turn the thread back towards the OP (attitudes towards women conductors) and refrain from insults either direct or indirect?


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Can we turn the thread back towards the OP (attitudes towards women conductors) and refrain from insults either direct or indirect?


Look at post no. 1 in this thread, mmsbls. Can you find any insults, direct or indirect, in the two quoted portions? You could characterize the topic of this thread as, Why do some male conductors think women make inferior conductors? And sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly, some are quick to respond that women actually are inferior, as conductors, and even generally. So it's a thread of insults.

My response is essentially an empirical one. It wasn't all that long ago (before the mid 20th century) that women were thought to be unworthy of any place in a symphony orchestra, even as harpists. Few have that attitude today. Now women have begun to make significant progress as conductors, and I'd predict that in time this debate will become moot as well. Whatever the innate intellectual or instinctive differences between the sexes, it's clear that both have much to contribute when it comes to music. That's all. Forgive me for not being more patient with the women can't be serious musicians argument in any form, but it is a very old one that time has demonstrated to be untrue.


----------



## philoctetes

I always like to point out that early and baroque music is full of star female ensembles,leaders and soloists, whether in mixed or all-female groups, and many are very successful. Same for chamber music of most periods. The problem is with music of a certain period and format, orchestral classical and romantic music that remains the primary domain of male chauvinism in music long after other genres have accepted women in their ranks.

The traditional classical orchestra has to be the most psychologically insecure beast ever to exist on any music performance stage. all those muscians, too many to pay well, dressing up to please far richer patrons, all that decorum, ritual, pomp, all that attention on the maestro, the wordly expert who keeps everything from falling apart with a wave of his well-manicured hand.... a perfectly fertile ground for chauvinism if there ever was one, protected from outside influence by the sanctimony of ritual and tradition, uniforms, regimentation, rigorous trials, etc... it's an institution that struggles to justify itself anymore, with the exception of those who can keep up with the changing landscape and follow new paths and customs. Equality in numbers will be most difficult at "the top", and not everybody can play with the Berlin Philharmonic anyway, male or female, so having a backup option is always a good idea.


----------



## Open Book

fluteman said:


> My response is essentially an empirical one. It wasn't all that long ago (before the mid 20th century) that women were thought to be unworthy of any place in a symphony orchestra, even as harpists. Few have that attitude today. Now women have begun to make significant progress as conductors, and I'd predict that in time this debate will become moot as well. Whatever the innate intellectual or instinctive differences between the sexes, it's clear that both have much to contribute when it comes to music. That's all. Forgive me for not being more patient with the women can't be serious musicians argument in any form, but it is a very old one that time has demonstrated to be untrue.


I like this post. There are some extremes here on both sides but your post is sensible and measured. You don't deny that there may be some innate differences between the sexes. But your open mind and your senses (the empirical part) have shown you that women can be, have been, great musicians, as well as men. So you conclude there's a likelihood women can be great conductors, too.

Yes, aspiring women conductors will face some misogyny just like in certain other fields. It's obvious from the quotes in the OP how some men feel about mentoring women.

Extremists, just because I believe misogynistic behaviors are partly innate does not mean I approve of the practice or that I think we should do nothing about it. So quit putting words in my mouth.

I simply believe misogyny will never totally disappear. Women can work around it to some degree. Finding good male allies in one's profession who are not misogynistic is important.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Open Book said:


> I simply believe misogyny will never totally disappear. Women can work around it to some degree. Finding good male allies in one's profession who are not misogynistic is important.


Agreed, it will never truly disappear. Neither will racism, nor really any kind of hatred parents are capable of impressing on their children, or analogously, communities on their members. You did state you disapprove of the practice, but understand how others could have construed this argument about innate behaviors as rationalizing or mitigating toward misogynists and their generally gross attitudes. I agree women can and should 'work around' those attitudes by finding male allies, but I would at least consider it slightly important to add to this ideal solution that men who express attitudes of superiority should attempt to the best of their ability to introspect and try to edit those attitudes. If it's not clear why we should strive against misogyny _ipso facto_ I once again cite my good man Bentham and his utilitarianism - more than just women have a stake our resolution. It's a joint effort to make the workplace a better one for both sexes. But surely keep responsibility for reform where it's due.

Misogyny won't go away, but like the great smart people we are, let's view that as more of a challenge than a resignation.


----------



## KenOC

My reasoned generalizations from observation and experience are your prejudices, if you happen to disagree with them. And vice versa of course!


----------



## Minor Sixthist

I hope no one has gotten _too_ too tired of constantly seeing my little owls on their screen as I post all my blasted posts. I'm sorry, let's say I only wanted to spread JJ Audubon's great art as far and wide as I could. Not that I retract any of my points. But do check out JJ Audubon if you haven't, of course.


----------



## Jacck

the problem with words such as misogyny, racism etc is that they are used as bullying tools to silence people. If you say something possibly truthful, but critical about a women, or about a person of color, you are labeled a misogynist or a racist and all discussion is shut off. This breeds resentment and anger, especially if the other side is allowed to say even completely dishonest and untruthful things about you. Just read all the bullhsit that feminists are allowed to say about men, using broad generalizations such as "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture". If men actually used the same kind of broad generalizations to characterize women, then the SJW would go crazy. Image the media being constantly filled with discussions about women gold-diggers, women histrionics. It is obvious that many feminists are misandric, toxic and aggressive, yet it is constantly the men who are painted as bad. 
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/
https://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Misandry-Teaching-Contempt-Popular/dp/0773530991

I am neither a misandrist, nor a racist, nor a homophobe and I believe in equality of oportunity, not of outcome. But mutual relationships must be based on respect, and you cannot force people to feel respect. And I have zero respect for cry bullies.


----------



## Boychev

Person A: "Women are naturally worse than men at math."
Person B: "That's misogynistic."
Person A: "STOP BULLYING ME I HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION YOU'RE CENSORING MY FREE SPEECH YOU SJWS ARE LITERALLY NAZIS WHY DO YOU HATE MEN SO MUCH"


----------



## Jacck

Boychev said:


> Person A: "Women are naturally worse than men at math."
> Person B: "That's misogynistic."
> Person A: "STOP BULLYING ME I HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION YOU'RE CENSORING MY FREE SPEECH YOU SJWS ARE LITERALLY NAZIS WHY DO YOU HATE MEN SO MUCH"


1) is it true or not that women do not pursue STEM careers and that research has shown that they underperform at the highest level of mathematics (top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman)?
2) if it is false, then use arguments to show that it is false. If it is true, then why do you label people misogynists for speaking the truth?

https://www.quora.com/Are-men-better-at-math-and-science-than-women-or-the-reverse


----------



## Boychev

There's a big leap from "women underperform at the highest level of mathematics (top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman)" (which is such a random statement anyway that I'm not even going to ask what you are talking about here) to "women are biologically predisposed to be worse at mathematics than men". Making that leap and then using that "women are innately worse at mathematics" to shut down arguments critical of the discrimination women face, of how girls and women are socialized, and of the way culture discourages certain career choices for women - that's what's misogynistic. You're taking stats for how many women are in STEM and how they do on tests and jumping to conclusions in order to justify your biases. And then screaming "BULLY" when someone disagrees with you.


----------



## Jacck

Boychev said:


> There's a big leap from "women underperform at the highest level of mathematics (top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman)" (which is such a random statement anyway that I'm not even going to ask what you are talking about here) to "women are biologically predisposed to be worse at mathematics than men". *Making that leap and then using that "women are innately worse at mathematics" to shut down arguments critical of the discrimination women face, of how girls and women are socialized, and of the way culture discourages certain career choices for women* - that's what's misogynistic. You're taking stats for how many women are in STEM and how they do on tests and jumping to conclusions in order to justify your biases. And then screaming "BULLY" when someone disagrees with you.


I have repeatedly stated that I have nothing agaist women in general. I like them, I respect them. But I have a problem with feminists, gender activists, SJWs etc. This joke shows a lot of truth








I just don't see any serious obstacles for women, who want to go into STEM. There were women in the past, who succeeded despite having a lot of obstacles and prejudice, such as Emmy Noether, Lise Meitner, M.C. Sklodowska etc. There are good theoretical physicists today, for example Lisa Randall. So I do not believe all this "discrimination" narrative. Medicine was also just a men's club 100 years ago, and now there are more women than men. But not STEM, or the technical jobs in general - car mechanics, plumbers, electricians. But some people simply need to maintain their faith that the genders are completely equal and all the differences are due to socialisation and discrimination and bias and stereotypes.

https://quillette.com/2018/02/15/sex-stem-stubborn-facts-stubborn-ideologies/


----------



## Boychev

Why are the overwhelming majority of nurses women, Jackk? Why don't more men pick that career? Is it because of innate differences between the sexes, or is it something else, what do you think?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

^Okay, in the case of STEM vs humanities as well as nursing itself, innate differences in the sexes are at play here, at least in part.

It’s true that more men are predisposed to choose STEM than women are. Of course, like you said, that shouldn’t mean the women who do pursue STEM are discouraged from entering and thriving in that field. The same is unequivocally said for men who want to be pre-school teachers: a dangerous and unfortunate attitude exists among both women and men that these men must be predators for wanting to pursue a niche that puts them in contact with young children, when no suspicion like that is justified at all. The argument here is that men and women who have acquired prejudices about women or women - because I’m still of the belief they’re not innate in normal circumstances, but acquired - should strive to edit their attitude to be more inclusive for the eventual good of both women and men and their community. 

It hasn’t been at established where music lies in terms of how the sexes innately choose. It’s far less cut and dry than STEM versus humanities. The only thing we should acknowledge is that attitudes that have potential to exclude or discourage are unhealthy and unwelcome.


----------



## Jacck

Minor Sixthist said:


> It hasn't been at established where music lies in terms of how the sexes innately choose. It's far less cut and dry than STEM versus humanities. The only thing we should acknowledge is that attitudes that have potential to exclude or discourage are unhealthy and unwelcome.


I said nothing about gender differences in music, because I know next to nothing about this, or about music in general. I am tone death myself. I played a little guitar at high school, but abandoned it quickly, because I could not sing. There are many fine women interpreters of music, so I see no reason why they could not become good conductors, because conducting is interpretation.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> Ironic that this is exactly what this thread is. Learning about the inner workings on how ideology can cloud reason can only be done anonymously, because in real life people can get extremely emotional.
> 
> *You're not only sheep*, but sheep that feel the need to argue about why you think what everyone else thinks, and even then, complain about it... It doesn't get any lower than that.
> 
> *It confirms that ideology can never be reasoned with under any circumstances, even with the weakest and most insecure.*


Maybe it is because I'm a sheep that all I hear from you is bleating? And no need to warn me that you can't be reasoned with. I'd already noticed that.

But, yes, this is also an internet forum ... but it is one where the majority do regularly try to hold posters to the evidence and facts. It is also one where members do try to reason with posters they disagree with. It is your failure to reason or respond to reasoned argument that has led to the hot water you find yourself in. Believe me, if you took the disagreements seriously instead of merely repeating your opinion with slightly more attitude we might have had a good discussion. We don't even know where you get your certainty about this matter from - some sad life event, perhaps - or why you are so reluctant to argue the point. The message that gets through is that you are a bit of a sad character. But that's no excuse.


----------



## Enthusiast

Minor Sixthist said:


> I hope no one has gotten _too_ too tired of constantly seeing my little owls on their screen as I post all my blasted posts. I'm sorry, let's say I only wanted to spread JJ Audubon's great art as far and wide as I could. Not that I retract any of my points. But do check out JJ Audubon if you haven't, of course.


Excellent art but much detail for an avatar, perhaps. I hadn't even noticed until you drew our attention to it.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> We must take them seriously _wherever_ they appear. The internet may enable them to spread their toxic ideas more easily, but it also makes us aware of how widespread are ideas we may have preferred to think belonged to the past or existed only on the remote and harmless fringes of society.
> 
> The price of a rational society is eternal vigilance and the willingness to speak up, here and everywhere.


I get you but you can't argue with these people. In Britain these days the bigots, xenophobes and misogynists get more publicity than those using more enlightened and reasoned approaches and, even though much of this publicity is not supportive, it has been associated with a rapid growth in support for these views and in the confidence (to come out of the woodwork) of people who hold them. It seems to give the message that the views are a legitimate if wrong alternative. If people will not engage in reasoned debate they are best buried in obscurity.

They do sometimes draw on the work of dodgy academics, though, and this is an area where they can be countered. It astonishes me that universities give space to racists and misogynists and their phony research. It seems they (the universities) have swallowed the line that such views are legitimate alternatives and that a commitment to free speech means they should be given space. But that still doesn't explain why their deeply flawed methods aren't recognised for what they are.


----------



## Boychev

Minor Sixthist said:


> ^Okay, in the case of STEM vs humanities as well as nursing itself, innate differences in the sexes are at play here, at least in part.
> 
> It's true that more men are predisposed to choose STEM than women are. Of course, like you said, that shouldn't mean the women who do pursue STEM are discouraged from entering and thriving in that field. The same is unequivocally said for men who want to be pre-school teachers: a dangerous and unfortunate attitude exists among both women and men that these men must be predators for wanting to pursue a niche that puts them in contact with young children, when no suspicion like that is justified at all. The argument here is that men and women who have acquired prejudices about women or women - because I'm still of the belief they're not innate in normal circumstances, but acquired - should strive to edit their attitude to be more inclusive for the eventual good of both women and men and their community.
> 
> It hasn't been at established where music lies in terms of how the sexes innately choose. It's far less cut and dry than STEM versus humanities. The only thing we should acknowledge is that attitudes that have potential to exclude or discourage are unhealthy and unwelcome.


What innate difference would explain the huge discrepancy of the number of men vs women participating in STEM jobs? What do you mean more specifically? We're talking here about 50% of the population representing a much smaller percentage of the workforce.

As per a quick google search:



> STEM Workforce
> 
> Women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2016).
> 
> Women make up half of the total U.S. college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
> Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (62%) and biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences (48%) and relatively low shares in engineering (15%) and computer and mathematical sciences (25%).
> For example:
> 
> 35.2% of chemists are women;
> 11.1% of physicists and astronomers are women;
> 33.8% of environmental engineers are women;
> 22.7% of chemical engineers are women;
> 17.5% of civil, architectural, and sanitary engineers are women;
> 17.1% of industrial engineers are women;
> 10.7% of electrical or computer hardware engineers are women; and
> 7.9% of mechanical engineers are women.


(citing: https://nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/ )


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> They do sometimes draw on the work of dodgy academics, though, and this is an area where they can be countered. It astonishes me that universities give space to racists and misogynists and their phony research. It seems they (the universities) have swallowed the line that such views are legitimate alternatives and that a commitment to free speech means they should be given space. But that still doesn't explain why their deeply flawed methods aren't recognised for what they are.


exactly the opposite is true. The universities stopped being places where free exchange of ideas is possible. For example the "controversial" canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson is being painted by the media as the enemy, as a bigot, racist, misogynist etc. If you actually listen to him or read anything by him, it makes much more sense that the PC religion of equity. And Peterson, despite always being polite and just stating his opinions, is being prohibited to having lectures or mobs of angry SJWs organize protests etc. And most of these anti-liberal tendencies come from students which is really worrying for future


----------



## Enthusiast

^ You may have fallen for them but I haven't. It is so great that Peterson is polite but he is also intellectually dishonest. But it suits those who swallow his narrative to also see themselves as discriminated against in the name of PC. His is a shoddy science-philosophy hyrbrid and his protestations of innocence fool few. I support the protests. His opinions should not be granted the honour of respectability.


----------



## Boychev

Jacck said:


> exactly the opposite is true. The universities stopped being places where free exchange of ideas is possible. For example the "controversial" canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson is being painted by the media as the enemy, as a bigot, racist, misogynist etc. If you actually listen to him or read anything by him, it makes much more sense that the PC religion of equity. And Peterson, despite always being polite and just stating his opinions, is being prohibited to having lectures or mobs of angry SJWs organize protests etc. And most of these anti-liberal tendencies come from students which is really worrying for future


Or maybe him going on and on about how masculinity represents order while femininity represents chaos, how women in the workforce are problematic because they create sexual tension, how women who don't marry and have children end up unhappy, and how women have never been oppressed, how men can't control "crazy women", and how feminists don't criticize Islam because they dream of being dominated - maybe all that has more to do with him being labeled a misogynist than some cabal of PC fanatics controlling the universities, or whatever it is that you imagine is going on.


----------



## philoctetes

Boychev said:


> There's a big leap from "women underperform at the highest level of mathematics (top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman)" (which is such a random statement anyway that I'm not even going to ask what you are talking about here) to "women are biologically predisposed to be worse at mathematics than men". Making that leap and then using that "women are innately worse at mathematics" to shut down arguments critical of the discrimination women face, of how girls and women are socialized, and of the way culture discourages certain career choices for women - that's what's misogynistic. You're taking stats for how many women are in STEM and how they do on tests and jumping to conclusions in order to justify your biases. And then screaming "BULLY" when someone disagrees with you.


Assuming the data is reliable, why would one not make a conclusion about what the data implies? It's not a big leap at all, it's how research is typically done but here we are to make an exception and say that all humans are born with equal potential at math with no proof (?)

We are still unable to untangle nature from nurture in these arguments and we never will, because men and women ARE different, but in a statistical, distributed sense, and the debate often obscures some of these obvious but random differences. Women have to make different choices than men- we can talk about the sexism of that as a Bayes factor, a "condition" that skews the outcome - so pursuing art and science is not always their best option in a real world. What's important is that we nurture talent in all genders and races without bias and reward it in proportion without bias.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I agree but would like to add that any data on broad tendencies of large population groups do not tell us anything about individuals. To get back to the subject of the thread (!), it may be (I think not but could be wrong) that a greater proportion of men would make great conductors than women but that would not mean that there are not many women who have what it takes to rise to the top of that tree. The use of these crude averages to argue that x are not capable of y is absolutely wrong.


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> I have repeatedly stated that I have nothing agaist women in general. I like them, I respect them. But I have a problem with feminists, gender activists, SJWs etc. This joke shows a lot of truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see any serious obstacles for women, who want to go into STEM. There were women in the past, who succeeded despite having a lot of obstacles and prejudice, such as Emmy Noether, Lise Meitner, M.C. Sklodowska etc. There are good theoretical physicists today, for example Lisa Randall. So I do not believe all this "discrimination" narrative. Medicine was also just a men's club 100 years ago, and now there are more women than men. But not STEM, or the technical jobs in general - car mechanics, plumbers, electricians. But some people simply need to maintain their faith that the genders are completely equal and all the differences are due to socialisation and discrimination and bias and stereotypes.
> 
> https://quillette.com/2018/02/15/sex-stem-stubborn-facts-stubborn-ideologies/


Yeah, it's ironic how the people advocating for proportionate numbers of women in fields where they are numerically scarce are themselves involved in fields where women traditionally predominate.

Unless things have changed from my recollections, women going into STEM will meet obstacles from a few _individual_ men who don't want to see them there. It's tragic when these men are bosses or tenured university professors who have influence, but I presume institutions are a little smarter about who they give such power to these days.


----------



## Open Book

philoctetes said:


> Assuming the data is reliable, why would one not make a conclusion about what the data implies? It's not a big leap at all, it's how research is typically done but here we are to make an exception and say that all humans are born with equal potential at math with no proof (?)
> 
> We are still unable to untangle nature from nurture in these arguments and we never will, because men and women ARE different, but in a statistical, distributed sense, and the debate often obscures some of these obvious but random differences. Women have to make different choices than men- we can talk about the sexism of that as a Bayes factor, a "condition" that skews the outcome - so pursuing art and science is not always their best option in a real world. What's important is that we nurture talent in all genders and races without bias and reward it in proportion without bias.


We should nurture natural talent in individuals but we shouldn't impose quotas. Just because women make up 50% of the population, does not mean we should force a 50% participation from them in every occupation.

Who disagrees with me? Who isn't going to be happy unless they see 50-50 male-female participation in every occupation?


----------



## philoctetes

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I agree but would like to add that any data on broad tendencies of large population groups do not tell us anything about individuals. To get back to the subject of the thread (!), it may be (I think not but could be wrong) that a greater proportion of men would make great conductors than women but that would not mean that there are not many women who have what it takes to rise to the top of that tree. The use of these crude averages to argue that x are not capable of y is absolutely wrong.


Of course, this is why I mention statistics. Not to cite averages, but to cite standard devations, K-factors, measure of overlap and separation. I've worked with statistics on that level as an engineer, most people don't even know what they are so have no feet on the ground.

Back in the day of Men are from Mars Women from Venus etc.. I brought this up when a friends wife told me that my love life would be better if I accepted the junk in that book. So the use of stats can argue both ways.


----------



## philoctetes

Open Book said:


> Who disagrees with me? Who isn't going to be happy unless they see 50-50 male-female participation in every occupation?


My sister, for one, who once said that was the goal... she is a humanities professor yet my niece, who is very artsy, barely got through college and now waits on tables at the age of 30, living with a guy in medical school.


----------



## Open Book

Boychev said:


> There's a big leap from "women underperform at the highest level of mathematics (top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman)" (which is such a random statement anyway that I'm not even going to ask what you are talking about here)
> 
> Why is this a random statement? It seems a pretty clear and concise statement to me. There are statistics that back this up.
> 
> People in STEM have to have a fairly high level of mathematical ability, therefore any discrepancy at the top will affect who participates in STEM fields to some degree.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Boychev said:


> What innate difference would explain the huge discrepancy of the number of men vs women participating in STEM jobs? What do you mean more specifically? We're talking here about 50% of the population representing a much smaller percentage of the workforce.


Both preference based on innate biology and negative attitudes within the field influence this discrepancy. But we can't just ignore the biology part.

Men have better spatial relationships than women and generally outperform women in competitive settings in math. These would be the two big ones.

"Our results show that women shy away from competition while men embrace it and this difference is explained by gender differences in confidence and in attitudes toward competition." [Obviously this in a very specific situation during the experiment. This is not a generalization.]

https://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.JEP.pdf

"Girls tend to have less positive math attitudes: They have higher levels of math anxiety and lower levels of confidence in their math skills. This means even when girls show similar performance levels to boys, they are often less sure of themselves. In addition, we see larger gender differences in spatial skills, the way students approach solving math problems and math-intensive career choices. Considered along with the larger gender differences seen among higher-performing math students, who are the most likely to pursue a math-intensive career, varying spatial skills and problem-solving approaches, among other factors, may help us understand why boys go on to pursue math-intensive career choices more frequently than girls do."

https://www.scientificamerican.com

So yes, in part the discrepancy is due to more boys wanting to pursue math than girls. There is nothing discriminatory in a girl's choice to do humanities over math if that's their natural inclination - and as these studies suggest, it generally is their natural inclination.

I'm not saying negative attitudes toward women in STEM dont exist. Both these articles suggest they do, and if you read them they'll discuss that. But the innate biology facet of the story is absolutely valid and justified. It shouldn't incite argument to suggest women and men do have innate differences in not only physique but also some cognitive processes.


----------



## Open Book

Boychev said:


> Why are the overwhelming majority of nurses women, Jackk? Why don't more men pick that career? Is it because of innate differences between the sexes, or is it something else, what do you think?


I think women are more nurturing on the average.

We give girls dolls to play with. Give a girl a new doll and she likely will reach for the doll and cradle it in her arms and take care of it.

Do you have girl children in your family? What kind of toys do you give them? Dolls? Trucks? More gender-neutral toys?

What's your opinion on nursing?


----------



## Open Book

philoctetes said:


> My sister, for one, who once said that was the goal... she is a humanities professor yet my niece, who is very artsy, barely got through college and now waits on tables at the age of 30, living with a guy in medical school.


Interesting.

I'm interested in who on this board believes 50-50 because I think many here say things that imply this belief. They brush against it, but never actually come out and clearly express it.


----------



## philoctetes

These aptitudes, for want of a better term, are distributed differently for men than for women but how we can't be sure due to correlations between variables. It takes both sexes to make a family and spawn the species. I'm not sure nature was thinking about the women competing against men for careers when things evolved this way.

I'm especially amused by people who want these quotas without ever going through the STEM career path themselves. We can spot them a mile away.


----------



## Open Book

Boychev said:


> There's a big leap from "women underperform at the highest level of mathematics (top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman)" (which is such a random statement anyway that I'm not even going to ask what you are talking about here)


Why is this a random statement? It seems a pretty clear and concise statement to me. There are statistics that back this up.

People in STEM have to have a fairly high level of mathematical ability, therefore any discrepancy at the top will affect who participates in STEM fields to some degree.


----------



## philoctetes

Open Book said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I'm interested in who on this board believes 50-50 because I think many here say things that imply this belief. They brush against it, but never actually come out and clearly express it.


Oh, I could tell stories all day about my sister's contradictions. The darn thing is that she made an academic career out of them, contributing to the collective damage to our national intellect by daily deconstruction in the classroom.

Hey, I like to read the same literature she does, we have shared these things all our lives. But I don't base my judgments of reality on the standards of an art student.


----------



## fluteman

philoctetes said:


> I always like to point out that early and baroque music is full of star female ensembles,leaders and soloists, whether in mixed or all-female groups, and many are very successful. Same for chamber music of most periods. The problem is with music of a certain period and format, orchestral classical and romantic music that remains the primary domain of male chauvinism in music long after other genres have accepted women in their ranks.
> 
> The traditional classical orchestra has to be the most psychologically insecure beast ever to exist on any music performance stage. all those muscians, too many to pay well, dressing up to please far richer patrons, all that decorum, ritual, pomp, all that attention on the maestro, the wordly expert who keeps everything from falling apart with a wave of his well-manicured hand.... a perfectly fertile ground for chauvinism if there ever was one, protected from outside influence by the sanctimony of ritual and tradition, uniforms, regimentation, rigorous trials, etc... it's an institution that struggles to justify itself anymore, with the exception of those who can keep up with the changing landscape and follow new paths and customs. Equality in numbers will be most difficult at "the top", and not everybody can play with the Berlin Philharmonic anyway, male or female, so having a backup option is always a good idea.


Bravo. If more here truly understood your comment, many of the most lengthy, acrimonious and usually not very enlightening debates here at TC would disappear, including several in this thread. The traditional symphony orchestra, though it represents a glorious tradition in western music, has increasingly become anachronistic in the mid and late 20th, and now the early 21st, centuries. There is nothing right or wrong about that, it is just a natural result of cultural evolution. (And I'm not saying that the symphony orchestra has no place in contemporary music, just not the central and all-important place it occupied in the 19th century.)

People who think classical music has to mean 100 men dressed in black tie and tails playing 19th-century acoustic instruments in a traditional acoustic concert hall, sitting in front of a majestic and commanding male conductor/king standing on his podium/throne, are going to be unhappy with many of the developments in 20th and 21st century music. It would be silly to argue that their preferences are wrong, and that they need to accept 20th and 21st century music _in toto_. But it is equally silly for them to argue that classical, or more accurately serious or art music, is going downhill, is losing its audience, or is become less relevant, when the reality is that the particular classical music world they embrace is becoming more and more exclusively a museum's-eye view of our cultural past.

Protesting against women on the podium is yet one more futile attempt to preserve an increasingly obsolete paradigm.


----------



## WildThing

Open Book said:


> Do you have girl children in your family? What kind of toys do you give them? Dolls? Trucks? More gender-neutral toys?


I have a daughter, age 4, and she is attracted various kinds of toys and topics that don't fit into any kind of neat stereotypes about gender. She seems to get just as much enjoyment out of princess dolls and stuffed animals as she does super hero action figures, dinosaurs and squirt guns. It seems to be just as much about what she comes into contact with and what we as parents show enthusiasm for as anything else.


----------



## Open Book

WildThing said:


> I have a daughter, age 4, and she is attracted various kinds of toys and topics that don't fit into any kind of neat stereotypes about gender. She seems to get just as much enjoyment out of princess dolls and stuffed animals as she does super hero action figures, dinosaurs and squirt guns. It seems to be just as much about what she comes into contact with and what we as parents show enthusiasm for as anything else.


But..but..trucks?


----------



## WildThing

Open Book said:


> But..but..trucks?


:lol: I don't know, I don't think we have really given her much exposure to trucks. But I'll get back to you on that one.

There's a popular kids show at the moment called Paw Patrol where different breeds of dogs perform various jobs and rescue duties: you have a helicopter pilot, a policeman, a fireman, a construction worker, etc. I haven't noticed any discrimination on her part between the female dogs and the male dogs, or between the helicopter pilot and the construction dog who drives a bulldozer. She loves them all.


----------



## Luchesi

Open Book said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I'm interested in who on this board believes 50-50 because I think many here say things that imply this belief. They brush against it, but never actually come out and clearly express it.


I think it should be 50-50 in music performance. From what I've seen girls and boys will play differently from their inner selves. And I would give an edge to the girls. But maybe it's because of what we listen for in the performances at that age (under 18).

How does it develop from then? Well, beyond the age of 18 it becomes a view of rarer individuals, not general groupings. The distractions are different for young adults, for men and women.


----------



## paulbest

Luchesi said:


> I think it should be 50-50 in music performance. From what I've seen girls and boys will play differently from their inner selves. And I would give edge to the girls. But maybe it's because of what we listen for in the performances at that age (under 18).
> 
> How does it develop from then? Well, beyond the age of 18 it becomes a view of rarer individuals, not general groupings. The distractions are different for young adults, for men and women.


Yes I promoted this idea, 50/50, post back.

But I would not wish to go overboard to make it 40/60.

That's going too far.
55 men/45 women is OK, but not 60 women/40 men. No I could not agree with that ratio,.

Women are going to approach music slightly dif from men, of course, thats obvious,,,which is how I arrived at the notion of a 50/50, or 55/45 ratio...even a 60 men/40 women would even be acceptable, perhaps the ideal ratio.

But certainly the least ratio I would accept is 30 women to 70 men. Anything less that that, is unacceptable, and a recording, based on that equilibrium formula, will most likely suffer the sterility that has plagued so many 60's, 70.s recordings.


----------



## Jacck

Boychev said:


> Or maybe him going on and on about how masculinity represents order while femininity represents chaos, how women in the workforce are problematic because they create sexual tension, how women who don't marry and have children end up unhappy, and how women have never been oppressed, how men can't control "crazy women", and how feminists don't criticize Islam because they dream of being dominated - maybe all that has more to do with him being labeled a misogynist than *some cabal of PC fanatics controlling the universities*, or whatever it is that you imagine is going on.







is it even possible that this kinds of people are allowed to study university? Just listen to them sometimes. They are both incredibly stupid, incredibly intolerant and fanatical, and they feels themselves to be morally superior. They call other people fascists, misogynists, racists for stating scientifically argued facts.


----------



## fluteman

Open Book said:


> But..but..trucks?


One of my daughters, when very young, loved construction equipment and in particular earth movers. She wanted a toy one, but red, not the conventional yellow. Fortunately, a German company made just the thing. Now she's in high school and deeply interested in biology, zoology and environmental science.


----------



## paulbest

Oh those gals that walked are militant feminists, You MOST certainly, do not want any of those types in your orchestra.


----------



## philoctetes

Luchesi said:


> I think it should be 50-50 in music performance. From what I've seen girls and boys will play differently from their inner selves. And I would give edge to the girls. But maybe it's because of what we listen for in the performances at that age (under 18).
> 
> How does it develop from then? Well, beyond the age of 18 it becomes a view of rarer individuals, not general groupings. The distractions are different for young adults, for men and women.


This is where we ask: what does 50-50 really mean? does it mean that every music group should be divided 50-50? But nobody really wants that do they? That's the only way to be sure that the world is divided 50-50. And that's the only part I agree with, wrt music performance.

With certain things though, some traditional unbalance is probably optimal, tested by generations, which I favor over blind equality as long as the optimization is a "moving window" adapting to the here and now...


----------



## Larkenfield

Minor Sixthist said:


> Both preference based on innate biology and negative attitudes within the field influence this discrepancy. But we can't just ignore the biology part.
> 
> Men have better spatial relationships than women and generally outperform women in competitive settings in math. These would be the two big ones.
> 
> "Our results show that women shy away from competition while men embrace it and this difference is explained by gender differences in confidence and in attitudes toward competition." [Obviously this in a very specific situation during the experiment. This is not a generalization.]
> 
> https://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.JEP.pdf
> 
> "Girls tend to have less positive math attitudes: They have higher levels of math anxiety and lower levels of confidence in their math skills. This means even when girls show similar performance levels to boys, they are often less sure of themselves. In addition, we see larger gender differences in spatial skills, the way students approach solving math problems and math-intensive career choices. Considered along with the larger gender differences seen among higher-performing math students, who are the most likely to pursue a math-intensive career, varying spatial skills and problem-solving approaches, among other factors, may help us understand why boys go on to pursue math-intensive career choices more frequently than girls do."
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com
> 
> So yes, in part the discrepancy is due to more boys wanting to pursue math than girls. There is nothing discriminatory in a girl's choice to do humanities over math if that's their natural inclination - and as these studies suggest, it generally is their natural inclination.
> 
> I'm not saying negative attitudes toward women in STEM dont exist. Both these articles suggest they do, and if you read them they'll discuss that. But the innate biology facet of the story is absolutely valid and justified. It shouldn't incite argument to suggest women and men do have innate differences in not only physique but also some cognitive processes.


STEM jobs. "Women are still expected to remain in subordinate roles in science, are sexualized in the workplace, and are maligned for doing their jobs." For women to stay in the field it's important that the climate be welcoming and their intelligence respected. Surely, a little more perspective on the male ego by males themselves is in order.

https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/its-nothing-new-sexism-in-the-lab


----------



## sharkeysnight

Those studies both seem to discuss preference and aptitude in testing, which, when you consider how boys and girls are treated differently even as newborns, seems to indicate very little about biologies and more to do with how/what they are taught and made to feel about subjects.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Larkenfield said:


> STEM jobs. "Women are still expected to remain in subordinate roles in science, are sexualized in the workplace, and are maligned for doing their jobs." For women to stay in the field it's important that the climate be welcoming and their intelligence respected. Surely, a little more perspective on the male ego by males themselves is in order.
> 
> https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/its-nothing-new-sexism-in-the-lab


Of course. My only point was the natural differences between what males and females _generally_ want to do also must be considered. Earlier posts were trying to suggest that the discrepancy between males and females in STEM could only be accounted for by destructive male attitudes. I was being fair in saying it's both.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> is it even possible that this kinds of people are allowed to study university? Just listen to them sometimes. They are both incredibly stupid, incredibly intolerant and fanatical, and they feels themselves to be morally superior. They call other people fascists, misogynists, racists for stating scientifically argued facts.


Are you threatened by a handful of foolish teenagers? So threatened that you can ask how "these kinds of people" should be "allowed" to study at university? Isn't that question a little, um, "intolerant and fanatical"? We allow all kinds of people to attend university here, even immature young people who think they know it all. What do you do with them in the Czech Republic, draft them into the military? Or don't you have immature young people there?

If it will help you feel better, I can assure you that these kids represent a confused, fanatical fringe and are not typical of the political left in this country. They do not constitute a vast movement that's plotting to neuter the population. I can in fact tell you that there are far, far fewer of them than there are, even now, of good old-fashioned bigots, who only seem more normal because they have centuries of traditional prejudice to appeal to.


----------



## Boychev

philoctetes said:


> Assuming the data is reliable, why would one not make a conclusion about what the data implies? It's not a big leap at all, it's how research is typically done but here we are to make an exception and say that all humans are born with equal potential at math with no proof (?)


Because there is no proven connection between having a Y-chromosome, or going through puberty as a woman, and aptitude at math.

Here's a simple example: there is a group of people who have learning disabilities. On average they perform worse at tasks like, say, taking tests and doing academic work, than people without learning disabilities. We can be confident in claiming that their worse performance is due to the various underlying medical conditions they have, because we have a decent idea of what those medical conditions are, how they affect the brain, and ultimately how they make you worse at, say, solving equations, or understanding a text.

Nobody to my knowledge has given proof that somehow through some mechanism the Y-chromosome is necessary to do great at math. Nor that "female hormones" somehow make women underperform in STEM. Nor that biological sex on its own somehow influences what career you will pursue: on the contrary we see that sex in a social context influences that, i. e. through the cultural products marketed towards girls, through parenting, through prejudice, simply through the fact that these fields are already mostly male, and so on. All things that we can already examine and critique and try to deal with, rather than having a conversation about how women are biologically different from men. All that such a conversation does is shut down the really important discussion which is about the kind of culture we live in, whether or not and how we could improve it.

Now, if the point in question was simply stated as: "It's right that women don't pursue STEM because they have a more important social role in that they have to be mothers and homemakers", I would politely disagree, but we could at least have a discussion about that, know where we differ in our values, and maybe even reach some sort of a consensus ultimately. But just going "Women are biologically different than men" intentionally avoids the real issue at hand: namely what significance do we as a culture assign to sex in determining a person's identity. It's a debate about values, not about biology.



> *We are still unable to untangle nature from nurture in these arguments and we never will*, because men and women ARE different, but in a statistical, distributed sense, and the debate often obscures some of these obvious but random differences. Women have to make different choices than men- we can talk about the sexism of that as a Bayes factor, a "condition" that skews the outcome - so pursuing art and science is not always their best option in a real world. *What's important is that we nurture talent in all genders and races without bias and reward it in proportion without bias.*


You'll find no disagreement from me here.


----------



## philoctetes

You're asking for genetic proof that doesn't exist but you would probably deny that if it did. You want to have science as art, one that supports your beliefs, so you ignore any data that isn't genetic. It's not going to fare well when science moves in this direction because certain people want to be "successful" at it. Starting a career in science by ignoring evidence by selection is not a strong plan.


----------



## Boychev

Open Book said:


> Why is this a random statement? It seems a pretty clear and concise statement to me. There are statistics that back this up.
> 
> People in STEM have to have a fairly high level of mathematical ability, therefore any discrepancy at the top will affect who participates in STEM fields to some degree.


Why the "top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman"? What highest level of mathematics are we talking here - the top 0.01% of men and women taking tests, respectively, or PhDs, or academic work, or what? What are we testing exactly?


----------



## Boychev

philoctetes said:


> You're asking for genetic proof that doesn't exist but you would probably deny that if it did. You want to have science as art, one that supports your beliefs, so you ignore any data that isn't genetic. It's not going to fare well when science moves in this direction because certain people want to be "successful" at it. Starting a career in science by ignoring evidence by selection is not a strong plan.


I'm sorry, what?


----------



## 1996D

The whole point which the handful of people driving this thread is denying, is that women are where they are not because of misogyny but because of their natural state of being.

Women were emancipated at the same time as the Jews, and while the latter immediately caught up in all fields of human accomplishment, the former simply never did, to this very day. There is simply no logical debate: the facts speak for themselves and this thread truly proves that ideology cannot be reasoned with. 

You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences that come with doing so.


----------



## sharkeysnight

1996D said:


> The whole point which the handful of people driving this thread is denying, is that women are where they are not because of misogyny but because of their natural state of being.
> 
> Women were emancipated at the same time as the Jews, and while the latter immediately caught up in all fields of human accomplishment, the former simply never did, to this very day. There is simply no logical debate: this thread truly proves that ideology cannot be reasoned with.
> 
> You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences that come with doing so.


Good lord. What's next, the biological relationship between nose shape and moral purity? This is completely insane.


----------



## Luchesi

philoctetes said:


> This is where we ask: what does 50-50 really mean? does it mean that every music group should be divided 50-50? But nobody really wants that do they? That's the only way to be sure that the world is divided 50-50. And that's the only part I agree with, wrt music performance.
> 
> With certain things though, some traditional unbalance is probably optimal, tested by generations, which I favor over blind equality as long as the optimization is a "moving window" adapting to the here and now...


 off-topic;

I think they've figured out dark matter. It was axions all along.


----------



## philoctetes

Luchesi said:


> off-topic;
> 
> I think they've figured out dark matter. It was axions all along.


Thanks this is very cool, stealing me away from the NBA game


----------



## 1996D

sharkeysnight said:


> Good lord. What's next, the biological relationship between nose shape and moral purity? This is completely insane.


May I remind you all that we're comparing women's accomplishments on activities which men have historically excelled at.

Women have other fantastic qualities, and the true misogyny might be comparing women to men.

Love women as they are and accept them as they are, do not hold them to unrealistic standards.


----------



## Larkenfield

The gender balance in orchestras was greatly affected by the start of blind auditions:

‘In a blind audition the identity of the performer is concealed from the judges so as to prevent bias. The performance takes place behind a curtain so that the judges cannot see the performer. Blind auditions are standard in symphony orchestras and have been shown to increase the hiring of women. According to a 2001 study by Cecilia Rouse of Princeton and Claudia Goldin of Harvard, the introduction of blind auditions to American symphony orchestras increased the probability that a woman would advance from preliminary rounds by 50 percent. Among those symphonies, "about 10 percent of orchestra members were female around 1970, compared to about 35 percent in the mid-1990s." Rouse and Goldin attribute about 30 percent of this gain to the advent of blind auditions, though they admit that their "estimates have large standard errors and at least one persistent effect in the opposite direction." Jazz bassist and clinical psychologist Art Davis is known for launching a legal case which led to the current system of blind auditions for orchestras. In 2010, the competitive talent show The Voice of Holland introduced the use of blind auditions to televised talent shows; the format was then quickly franchised to dozens of other countries.’ 

Perhaps blind auditions need to be applied or tried for STEM jobs and are a way for women to demonstrate their knowledge, expertise and abilities without the sexism and prejudice. It’s certainly not true that women are incapable of creative or scientific thinking regardless of how many or few are attracted to a predominately male dominated field.


----------



## DaveM

1996D said:


> Women were emancipated at the same time as the Jews, and while the latter immediately caught up in all fields of human accomplishment, the former simply never did, to this very day...


Well that's a rather extreme oversimplification as are the conclusions you're drawing from it.


----------



## philoctetes

I know people hate anecdotal submissions but... when I got out of grad school I had a chance to work at JPL in Pasadena. When they told me they were hiring a woman to meet quota I was OK with that. At a later interview I was asked if I would work for a woman, I said sure with no hesitation and was offered a job pretty quickly without even meeting the woman who would be my boss. But her boss and I butted horns on the phone before he gave me the job. All this was a red flag that I was too naive too see. I was down to my last hundred dollars and out of options.

There was no question about my boss' skills, she had a background in astro and physics like myself. But I learned that hiring me was the end of a long search because nobody wanted to work for her, and it wasn't long before coworkers, and even her boss, were advising me to break away ASAP. 

The problem was that she was the type who would dash in to my office and want answers for an important meeting within the hour. She was known as a tyrant and for some reason I let this go on longer than i should have, 

And her boss, the one that I tangled with on the phone, would humiliate his employees in meetings so that nobody would want to go to them. She and I were of a small handful who would put up with this abuse. But she went around the office complaining of discrimination as if she was his only victim, and othes rolled their eyes behind her back. I see this all the time, women assuming that alpha males only abuse them. And I became conditioned to this kind of boss, male and female, and they became very common in my career as if I had a target on my back.

So there may be more than knowing how to conduct to be a good conductor. We know that men like her boss were also common as conductors might not be welcome now, I say might because those alpha dudes still seem to get their way. The point of this story is that some women may have similar personal shortcomings, attempting to play alpha games, combined with a hostile working environment, that prevent them from reaching a high level of respect. A lot of men aren't very good at it either. It's not just about what happens on the stage and popularity is a professional asset these days.

FYI this was all in the early 80s. We still had ashtrays in the offices too.


----------



## Open Book

Boychev said:


> Why the "top 0.01% of the population, not the average man and average woman"? What highest level of mathematics are we talking here - the top 0.01% of men and women taking tests, respectively, or PhDs, or academic work, or what? What are we testing exactly?


The top 0.01 % of all test scores. They looked at the top 0.01 % of mathematical test scores and found that men and women did not perform equally at this level though they did at lower levels. That is a very high level, though, which few people achieve. This is a bit suspect, actually.


----------



## Guest

philoctetes said:


> Assuming the data is reliable, why would one not make a conclusion about what the data implies? It's not a big leap at all,


One can make a conclusion, of course. Just not the one you're making. By all means pose a hypothesis - that women are less likely to perform as well in maths because of innate factors - but please don't claim it as a conclusion.



1996D said:


> The whole point which the handful of people driving this thread is denying,


"The handful...driving"? You seem to imply not only that the minority here is denying, but also that the minority are in some way conspiring to take this thread in some particular direction against the will of the rest.

Whether your views are representative of the majority in the wider world or not, in this partuclar thread, they stick out like a sore thumb as a glaring minority view. If anyone's doing any "driving", it's you and your...old-fashioned determination.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> Are you threatened by a handful of foolish teenagers? So threatened that you can ask how "these kinds of people" should be "allowed" to study at university? Isn't that question a little, um, "intolerant and fanatical"? We allow all kinds of people to attend university here, even immature young people who think they know it all. What do you do with them in the Czech Republic, draft them into the military? Or don't you have immature young people there?
> 
> If it will help you feel better, I can assure you that these kids represent a confused, fanatical fringe and are not typical of the political left in this country. They do not constitute a vast movement that's plotting to neuter the population. I can in fact tell you that there are far, far fewer of them than there are, even now, of good old-fashioned bigots, who only seem more normal because they have centuries of traditional prejudice to appeal to.


I do not know how fringe these people are, but look at what happened at Harvard with students being "triggered" by courses about rape law
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law
or the recent Sullivan case
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/opinion/race-identity/harvard-law-harvey-weinstein.html

It does not seem like "fringe" fanatics, when the university caves in to their absurd demands. 
In Czech Republic, law students that would refuse some part of the curriculum, because it "triggers" them, would simply be told, that they don't have to be at the school and are free to leave, if they dislike it. It is like medical students being triggered by blood.

My point is that this whole leftist ideology is wrong and totalitarian, and the rot starts will all these professors of gender studies and similar ideological pseudosciences. The students are just the end result of the brainwashing. There are simply wrong ideological asssumptions at the heart of this movement (that men and women are the same, and they have to be equally represtend on all jobs, if that does not happen, it is discrimination etc). Here some reasonable feminist actually sees the problem
https://qz.com/1218680/the-science-of-sex-differences-is-nothing-for-feminists-to-be-afraid-of/
and here Peterson - the archenemy No1 of these fanatics
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/equity-when-the-left-goes-too-far/


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> There are simply wrong ideological asssumptions at the heart of this movement (that *men and women are the same,* and they have to be equally represtend on all jobs, if that does not happen, it is discrimination etc).


You seem determined to misrepresent others' arguments. I don't think anyone is saying that "men and women are the same". Your assumptions about others' "ideology" is wrong, and your ideological opposition to "ideology" is ironic.


----------



## Larkenfield

MacLeod said:


> You seem determined to misrepresent others' arguments. I don't think anyone is saying that "men and women are the same". Your assumptions about others' "ideology" is wrong, and your ideological opposition to "ideology" is ironic.


Yes. I don't see everyone saying that men and women are the same, only that men and women are capable of being good at the same thing and deserve to demonstrate their talent and ability on more of an equal playing field. Otherwise, _vive la différence._ I do not go along with those who consider women on the podium a political rather than a social, moral, or artistic consideration. Keep politics out of it because it's not the answer to what's going on in the arts. The arts are the humanities and the unhappiness needs to be sorted out on that level. Men are in no danger of being pushed off the podium by the minority of women who have the talent and wish to conduct, and women are willing to earn their position.


----------



## Boychev

1996D said:


> The whole point which the handful of people driving this thread is denying, is that women are where they are not because of misogyny but because of their natural state of being.
> 
> Women were emancipated at the same time as the Jews, and while the latter immediately caught up in all fields of human accomplishment, the former simply never did, to this very day. There is simply no logical debate: the facts speak for themselves and this thread truly proves that ideology cannot be reasoned with.
> 
> You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences that come with doing so.


The whole point which 1996D who seems intent on spewing his smelly nonsense in this thread is denying, is that women are where they are not because of their natural state of being but because of misogyny.

1996D has been an emancipated person all along, and while many other emancipated people have throughout history developed a deeper level of empathy, self-awareness, and understanding of the human condition, 1996D simply never did, to this very day. There is simply no logical debate: the facts speak for themselves and this thread truly proves that ideology cannot be reasoned with.

You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences that come with doing so. Like how if you want to ramble nonsense about women being biologically inferior to men, someone somewhere (on a college campus even) might have a problem with your bigotry and even go so far as to protest you and hurt your special snowflake feelings.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> May I remind you all that we're comparing women's accomplishments on activities which men have historically excelled at.
> 
> Women have other fantastic qualities, and the true misogyny might be comparing women to men.
> 
> Love women as they are and accept them as they are, do not hold them to unrealistic standards.


In the hope that you start posting something specific (instead of repeating the same assertions again and again with no attempt to engage any of the objections that have been raised) I ask that you tell us how women are and what they are good for in your world view. And while you are at it could you also tell us if your rule that women can't excel at conducting whether that applies to all women or whether it might be possible for a few women to buck the trend that you see.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Enthusiast said:


> In the hope that you start posting something specific (instead of repeating the same assertions again and again with no attempt to engage any of the objections that have been raised) I ask that you tell us how women are and what they are good for in your world view. And while you are at it could you also tell us if your rule that women can't excel at conducting whether that applies to all women or whether it might be possible for a few women to buck the trend that you see.


He already told us. They're good for having babies and mothering. That was about it.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I must have blacked out when I read that! I had thought him okay with women singers and instrumentalists. Anyway, generous of him to allow women a role in his utopia.


----------



## Open Book

MacLeod said:


> You seem determined to misrepresent others' arguments. I don't think anyone is saying that "men and women are the same". Your assumptions about others' "ideology" is wrong, and your ideological opposition to "ideology" is ironic.


Oh, yes indeed there are people saying women and men are the same and that if women are not 50% represented in all jobs there must be discrimination. Ever heard the expression "gender fluid"? Where have you been?

And there is intolerance on college campuses for a variety of viewpoints. Conservative speakers, even moderate, reasonably-spoken ones, are shut down by being drowned out with catcalls, if not with aggressive threats and near-violence. Look around the web.

Everything should be debated. Nothing should be shut down on a college campus.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Oh, yes indeed there are people saying women and men are the same and that if women are not 50% represented in all jobs there must be discrimination. Ever heard the expression "gender fluid"? Where have you been?
> 
> And there is intolerance on college campuses for a variety of viewpoints. Conservative speakers, even moderate, reasonably-spoken ones, are shut down by being drowned out with catcalls, if not with aggressive threats and near-violence. Look around the web.
> 
> Everything should be debated. Nothing should be shut down on a college campus.


I was referring to the debate in this thread...I can't comment on what insane things people in the outside world might be saying.


----------



## philoctetes

This inside / outside duality is afflicting another thread as well. I just posted about "dog whistling" to address it there. It's becoming very easy to confuse moderation with extremism as the extremists use similar meta-language as the moderates. Be aware that there are extremists (however you want to define them) who pretend to be moderate and use language that sounds moderate but eventually gets interpreted as a "dog whistle", by someone, by projection, by media hysteria, whatever... it happens across all fences, all spectra...

I'm not proposing that dog whistlers be arrested as I see happening recently. I'm just saying that anybody might be mistaken for one if not careful. There is a lot of crazy talk going on *out there* and one has to make an effort to sort it out and not become part of it.


----------



## Guest

Boychev said:


> this thread truly proves that *ideology *cannot be reasoned with.


Let's be careful how we use this word. It shouldn't be assumed to mean the same as "dogmatically holding to principles, regardless of their worth." An ideology can be a good thing - or is no-one allowed to formulate their principles into an ideology?

See here... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ideology


----------



## Open Book

MacLeod said:


> I was referring to the debate in this thread...I can't comment on what insane things people in the outside world might be saying.


If you read between the lines there are people here as well. Anyone who is for imposing a 50/50 quota on the gender makeup of an orchestra probably qualifies.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> If you read between the lines there are people here as well. Anyone who is for imposing a 50/50 quota on the gender makeup of an orchestra probably qualifies.


Please, cite the person who's posted such a view and we can engage in a proper debate.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> Let's be careful how we use this word. It shouldn't be assumed to mean the same as "dogmatically holding to principles, regardless of their worth." An ideology can be a good thing - or is no-one allowed to formulate their principles into an ideology


What I find wrong is this whole concept of identity politics, ie that you have some underprivileged genders/races/minorities and that you need to take "affirmative action" to elevate these supposedly underprivileged groups. This politics does not help anyone, since it increases and perpetuates the very things that it tries to combat, ie race and gender hatred, stereotypes etc. When any member of the supposedly underprivileged class is actually gifted, and achives something of worth, then he is viewed as someone who achieved his success just because some quotas etc. These supposedly underpriviled classes get entrenched in their victimhood, and any critique becomes impossible, because the critics are accused of "racism", "sexism" etc. I find this whole politics very pernicous. I am firmly for equality - before the law, and having the same opportunity. Anything else is wrong.

Concerning women. There are some gender differences in the brain/mind, but they are like differences between male and female faces. Men have more autistic brains, they have more aptitude for technical matters and think about things and goals and problems and solutions and social hierarchies. Women are more social, they are better at analysing social situations, tensions, emotions, have better intuition. But these differences are not absolute. You can have women with excellent technical abilities and men who are very emotion-like.

Concering women and arts, and also music. I see no reason why women in arts shouldn't be equal to men. As was already stated, they penetrated chamber music. And the conducting is the last bastion of male chauvinism, a perfect place for narcissists to bathe in the spotlight, so they are competing against these types, and there might be discrimination (this is outside my experience). Even so, I would leave it to spontaneus evolution and free markets rather than force some quotas.


----------



## Open Book

MacLeod said:


> Please, cite the person who's posted such a view and we can engage in a proper debate.


Go to page 34. Luchesi and paulbest mention exact proportions for women performers in music. I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean they would want to see quotas strictly enforced. Maybe these are just numbers they would expect to see or prefer to see.

Still, why assume there must be certain proportions at all?


----------



## Guest

@Luchesi and paulbest

Are you saying that men and women are the same?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> @Luchesi and paulbest
> 
> Are you saying that men and women are the same?


When the French say "Vive la différence", they aren't talking about types of cheese.


----------



## Jacck

How Did Liberalism on Campus Turn Into Intolerance and Censorship?
https://www.newsweek.com/how-did-liberalism-campus-turn-intolerance-and-censorship-397536
I know I am a little perserverant on this topic, but it is because I am in academia myself and teach students, both Czech and international, and we also have a collaboration with one of the Ivy League universities, so I follow the situation there. Frankly, I would not like to work there. Just too many regulations, restrictions and BS.

academia nowadays is a terrible career choice anyway. 
https://www.lindau-nobel.org/blog-mental-health-academia/


----------



## fluteman

philoctetes said:


> I know people hate anecdotal submissions but... when I got out of grad school I had a chance to work at JPL in Pasadena. When they told me they were hiring a woman to meet quota I was OK with that. At a later interview I was asked if I would work for a woman, I said sure with no hesitation and was offered a job pretty quickly without even meeting the woman who would be my boss. But her boss and I butted horns on the phone before he gave me the job. All this was a red flag that I was too naive too see. I was down to my last hundred dollars and out of options.
> 
> There was no question about my boss' skills, she had a background in astro and physics like myself. But I learned that hiring me was the end of a long search because nobody wanted to work for her, and it wasn't long before coworkers, and even her boss, were advising me to break away ASAP.
> 
> The problem was that she was the type who would dash in to my office and want answers for an important meeting within the hour. She was known as a tyrant and for some reason I let this go on longer than i should have,
> 
> And her boss, the one that I tangled with on the phone, would humiliate his employees in meetings so that nobody would want to go to them. She and I were of a small handful who would put up with this abuse. But she went around the office complaining of discrimination as if she was his only victim, and othes rolled their eyes behind her back. I see this all the time, women assuming that alpha males only abuse them. And I became conditioned to this kind of boss, male and female, and they became very common in my career as if I had a target on my back.
> 
> So there may be more than knowing how to conduct to be a good conductor. We know that men like her boss were also common as conductors might not be welcome now, I say might because those alpha dudes still seem to get their way. The point of this story is that some women may have similar personal shortcomings, attempting to play alpha games, combined with a hostile working environment, that prevent them from reaching a high level of respect. A lot of men aren't very good at it either. It's not just about what happens on the stage and popularity is a professional asset these days.
> 
> FYI this was all in the early 80s. We still had ashtrays in the offices too.


I could tell stories like that too, but the the bottom line is, times have changed in many fields -- yours, mine (law) and classical music. In fact, there has been more change in classical music than in many other fields. Tyrannical conductors typically are much less tolerated. And conductors who allegedly use their positions of power to harass or abuse young women -- or men -- in particular are much less tolerated, doubtless because the conductors don't wield quite as much power as they once did. As I said, the entire paradigm of the symphony orchestra and its conductor/king ruling with a well-manicured iron hand in a silk glove is fading.


----------



## Larkenfield

Misogyny on the forum...
Disorder in the court!


----------



## mmsbls

The thread seems to be focused on much broader issues than misogyny on the podium or in music in general. While the OP talked about some male composer attitudes towards women, general questions arose as to potential bias against women lessening the likelihood they would become major conductors. Two types of bias were identified. First, the effect of blind auditions for orchestral members increasing the percentage of women hired showed a clear bias against women in orchestral settings. Second the past several decades have identified systemic bias against women from an early age such that women were subtly and aggressively dissuaded from certain achievements. People also mentioned the possibility of differences in innate (i.e. genetic) potential.

While there could be innate differences that would affect one's conducting ability, it's not clear whether men or women would have an advantage. The evidence displayed in the thread seems to have to do with extraordinary levels of IQ and participation in the STEM fields. Neither of these has any obvious relationship to conducting. I'm not sure whether men are innately superior to women in physics and math, but I suspect the participation rates have a significant amount to do with systemic negative societal influences. At any rate, I see no relationship to conducting. I guess I would ask why people are discussing that in detail.

It's possible that orchestras are presently not biased against selecting women conductors. I doubt that given past evidence and general societal norms. I still feel that the systemic bias young women experience throughout their lives contributes rather significantly to the number of women choosing to pursue conducting _at much earlier stages of their career_ limiting the field of potential women conductors. Given the limited field, it would not be surprising that fewer candidates from this field would be among the best overall candidates. If one only selected composers from the class of men whose name started with "S", the number of excellent conductors would be substantially reduced.

Overall I believe there is much greater likelihood that the number of women conductors is limited by societal bias than by any potential innate ability.


----------



## paulbest

Open Book said:


> If you read between the lines there are people here as well. Anyone who is for imposing a 50/50 quota on the gender makeup of an orchestra probably qualifies.


No what I am saying is that the majority male orch's of the 60's/70's, have *run their course*,,many of those majority male recordings, just do not get the music right,.

oh yes ,. lets blame it on the conductor,,,,
no what I am saying, conductors whether man or woman, needs to be something like Renier, Koussvitzky ,,,well not that exteme,,,but xcertainly more judicial than say, ,,Estrada at the Frankfurt PO, who is just too nice to replace any artist who is not maiking the cut...
You know it takes a virtuoso orch to pull off many of the composers I favor..
So tahts what I am getting at,,,if a guy can pull off the nuances required,,,replace him with a gal.

Mostly male orchestras just don't offer the rounded softness and gentle delicacy that a woman offers. 
But combined, 1 man flute, 1 woman flutist, now we have the best of both genders.


----------



## paulbest

mmsbls said:


> The thread seems to be focused on much broader issues than misogyny on the podium or in music in general. While the OP talked about some male composer attitudes towards women, general questions arose as to potential bias against women lessening the likelihood they would become major conductors. Two types of bias were identified. First, the effect of blind auditions for orchestral members increasing the percentage of women hired showed a clear bias against women in orchestral settings. Second the past several decades have identified systemic bias against women from an early age such that women were subtly and aggressively dissuaded from certain achievements. People also mentioned the possibility of differences in innate (i.e. genetic) potential.
> 
> While there could be innate differences that would affect one's conducting ability, it's not clear whether men or women would have an advantage. The evidence displayed in the thread seems to have to do with extraordinary levels of IQ and participation in the STEM fields. Neither of these has any obvious relationship to conducting. I'm not sure whether men are innately superior to women in physics and math, but I suspect the participation rates have a significant amount to do with systemic negative societal influences. At any rate, I see no relationship to conducting. I guess I would ask why people are discussing that in detail.
> 
> It's possible that orchestras are presently not biased against selecting women conductors. I doubt that given past evidence and general societal norms. I still feel that the systemic bias young women experience throughout their lives contributes rather significantly to the number of women choosing to pursue conducting _at much earlier stages of their career_ limiting the field of potential women conductors. Given the limited field, it would not be surprising that fewer candidates from this field would be among the best overall candidates. If one only selected composers from the class of men whose name started with "S", the number of excellent conductors would be substantially reduced.
> 
> Overall I believe there is much greater likelihood that the number of women conductors is limited by societal bias than by any potential innate ability.


Well think about it,,,Would it have been possible for a woman conductor to pull off a Shostakovich cycle like Mravinsky?

Or a Daphne like Martinon?

If I advised a woman coming into conducting,,i'd suggest to her, that she takes on seldom recorded, yet grossly overlooked masterpieces,
Like Henze, Pettersson. There is plenty of works, not yet mastered by male conductors, and these 2 composers allow for a variety of expression.

Shostakovich has already been defined. No need for any more records.


----------



## Woodduck

paulbest said:


> Mostly male orchestras just don't offer the rounded softness and gentle delicacy that a woman offers.


This is why men who place personal ads never specify a preference for male orchestras.


----------



## mmsbls

paulbest said:


> Well think about it,,,Would it have been possible for a woman conductor to pull off a Shostakovich cycle like Mravinsky?
> 
> Or a Daphne like Martinon?


I may not understand your question, but I can't imagine anything we know now that would preclude that possibility. The complexity of brains is enormously greater than we understand today. We have no idea whatsoever whether female brains would be incapable of such conducting.



paulbest said:


> If I advised a woman coming into conducting,,i'd suggest to her, that she takes on seldom recorded, yet grossly overlooked masterpieces,
> Like Henze, Pettersson. There is plenty of works, not yet mastered by male conductors, and these 2 composers allow for a variety of expression.


I would think that might be good advice for men or women conductors.


----------



## Open Book

paulbest said:


> No what I am saying is that the majority male orch's of the 60's/70's, have *run their course*,,many of those majority male recordings, just do not get the music right,.
> 
> oh yes ,. lets blame it on the conductor,,,,
> no what I am saying, conductors whether man or woman, needs to be something like Renier, Koussvitzky ,,,well not that exteme,,,but xcertainly more judicial than say, ,,Estrada at the Frankfurt PO, who is just too nice to replace any artist who is not maiking the cut...
> You know it takes a virtuoso orch to pull off many of the composers I favor..
> So tahts what I am getting at,,,if a guy can pull off the nuances required,,,replace him with a gal.
> 
> Mostly male orchestras just don't offer the rounded softness and gentle delicacy that a woman offers.
> But combined, 1 man flute, 1 woman flutist, now we have the best of both genders.


So we're back to the question of whether men and women play differently and whether a shrewd listener can tell one from the other. 
This was discussed in the thread on women pianists and soundly rejected, probably because one person asserted women can't properly play the piano and different implied inferior (for women) in that thread.
Here you seem to be saying that an all-male orchestra is inferior because it lacks certain qualities that only female musicians can supply. So you'd like to see certain minimum percentages of women. And nobody is getting too upset so far.
In general I don't think you can tell the gender of a musician from their sound, but maybe en masse there are gender-related qualities that are discernible.
I like the orchestras of the past and I think orchestras of today are technically better. There is a larger pool of talent today because of the addition of women and minorities and because there are simply more people in the world for the about the same number of orchestras. And there are probably better training methods. Everything improves with time. Sports are better today, WWE wrestling is better, symphony orchestras are better.
Not opera singers, though, we're told.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> Concering women and arts, and also music. I see no reason why women in arts shouldn't be equal to men.


Nor do I. In fact, women in arts *are *equal to men.

Open Book alleges (#531) that there are posters here - paulbest and Luchesi - who have argued ("if you read between the lines") that men and women are the same. Paulbest quotes Open Book and says,



paulbest said:


> *No *what I am saying is that the majority male orch's of the 60's/70's, have *run their course*,


@Paulbest, thanks for clarifying what you don't mean (even if I don't quite understand what you do mean).

I think it important to clarify that "men and women are equal" does not mean that "men and women are the same". The last is patently untrue - men and women are biologically different. No more need be said. But the former is slightly more complicated. Men and women plainly aren't equal, but they _should _be. That is, there is no justification for treating them differently. They should have equal access to job, career, status, influence, power, resources, opportunity - and if there are barriers to equality, we should commit to lowering them.



mmsbls said:


> While there could be innate differences that would affect one's conducting ability, it's not clear whether men or women would have an advantage. The evidence displayed in the thread seems to have to do with extraordinary levels of IQ and participation in the STEM fields. Neither of these has any obvious relationship to conducting. I'm not sure whether men are innately superior to women in physics and math, but I suspect the participation rates have a significant amount to do with systemic negative societal influences. At any rate, I see no relationship to conducting. I guess I would ask why people are discussing that in detail.


I agree. Presumably, it's being discussed because it's caught up in the general debate about society, and the "identity politics" hot air distracting from the main point.



mmsbls said:


> Overall I believe there is much greater likelihood that the number of women conductors is limited by societal bias than by any potential innate ability.


I agree, and the evidence emerging from arguments propounded by some here illustrate the societal bias in operation.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Nor do I. In fact, women in arts *are *equal to men.


It's amusing how some here are easily persuaded by their own unsupported opinions. Myself, I await more weighty evidence in this matter.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> It's amusing how some here are easily persuaded by their own unsupported opinions.


Thank heaven we're not running a country...


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> How Did Liberalism on Campus Turn Into Intolerance and Censorship?
> https://www.newsweek.com/how-did-liberalism-campus-turn-intolerance-and-censorship-397536
> I know I am a little perserverant on this topic, but it is because I am in academia myself and teach students, both Czech and international, and we also have a collaboration with one of the Ivy League universities, so I follow the situation there. Frankly, I would not like to work there. Just too many regulations, restrictions and BS.
> 
> academia nowadays is a terrible career choice anyway.
> https://www.lindau-nobel.org/blog-mental-health-academia/


I am not sure that much (any?) of this - or the many similar posts - is relevant to the questions here as it is not about music and is not - except as a form of whataboutary - about gender discrimination. But I must confess, Jacck, that I'm never sure whether to trust the articles you link to. I don't see a reason or need for regularly posting links to fairly right wing articles and journals while claiming to be neutral yourself.


----------



## Enthusiast

KenOC said:


> It's amusing how some here are easily persuaded by their own unsupported opinions. Myself, I await more weighty evidence in this matter.


A more enlightened position might be to accept the premise of equality unless and until the opposite is demonstrated.


----------



## 1996D

If we remain stubborn on judging a person's value by what men are naturally good at, then it's God, or nature, whatever you believe in, that's the misogynist.

Things are as they are, and they are not because a large quantity of men have a deep seated hatred of women; the world simply wouldn't function if that was the case. Most men love women and would turn the world upside down for them.

Goodness and justice is in the nature of man, most certainly in mine.


----------



## CnC Bartok

DaveM said:


> Thank heaven we're not running a country...


That's a shame. Were desperately looking for someone to run ours at the moment........


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> If we remain stubborn on judging a person's value by what men are naturally good at, *then it's God, or nature, whatever you believe in,* that's the misogynist.
> 
> Things are as they are, and they are not because a large quantity of men have a deep seated hatred of women; the world simply wouldn't function if that was the case. Most men love women and would turn the world upside down for them.
> 
> Goodness and justice is in the nature of man, most certainly in mine.


I'm not sure I understand the part in bold.

As for "misogyny", I'm not wedded to the idea that all sexism is misogyny either - and certainly there's plenty of love between men and women on a personal basis, and even on a community basis. But that does not invalidate the claim - one of the "things that are as they are" - that women are systemically prevented from accessing certain opportunities in certain fields, and are encouraged to enter others - teaching, netball, secretarial etc.

Positive change is happening, however - at least, I see it in the UK.


----------



## Guest

CnC Bartok said:


> That's a shame. Were desperately looking for someone to run ours at the moment........


No need for desperation - they're forming a jolly enthusiastic queue at the moment, though I don't think it will be 50:50 men:women!


----------



## CnC Bartok

MacLeod said:


> No need for desperation - they're forming a jolly enthusiastic queue at the moment, though I don't think it will be 50:50 men:women!


It will almost certainly be 50:50 idiots:knobs, though.....


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Overall I believe there is much greater likelihood that the number of women conductors is limited by societal bias than by any potential innate ability.


Reading through this thread I think the vast majority of posters, including myself, would tend to agree with you.

I would only add that it's impossible to say how much of the limitation in the number of women conductors at the present time is due to "societal bias" as opposed to other reasons why some talented women may have preferred to choose other professions, e.g. resulting from better pay, working conditions etc.

A further problem is that even if we knew with greater certainty the cause of the imbalance it's not obvious how to deal with it in order to make it less of a problem in future. I don't think that I have seen any suggestions on this matter anywhere in this thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> If we remain stubborn on judging a person's value by what men are naturally good at, then it's God, or nature, whatever you believe in, that's the misogynist.
> 
> Things are as they are, and they are not because a large quantity of men have a deep seated hatred of women; the world simply wouldn't function if that was the case. Most men love women and would turn the world upside down for them.
> 
> Goodness and justice is in the nature of man, most certainly in mine.


You don't get it, do you? Firstly, just because on average men and women are "different" doesn't mean that all women are good at womenly things and all men are good at "manly" things. Secondly, who says the average difference means that "average women" can't conduct while "average men" can. These two points have been repeated again and again in this thread. You have not engaged with either point.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> If we remain stubborn on judging a person's value by what men are naturally good at, then it's God, or nature, whatever you believe in, that's the misogynist.
> 
> Things are as they are, and they are not because a large quantity of men have a deep seated hatred of women; the world simply wouldn't function if that was the case. Most men love women and would turn the world upside down for them.
> 
> Goodness and justice is in the nature of man, most certainly in mine.


I'm still struggling to understand your main point.

As far as I have followed your statements and responses so far, it seems that you believe that the male species only possesses all the necessary ingredients in their biological and psychological make-up to be able to conduct an orchestra so as to get the very best out of it in terms of matching what the composer intended. This you believe holds true regardless of orchestra, or any particular composer.

If this is what you are saying, could you please confirm it. If I have misunderstood any part of it, perhaps you could clarify your point of view once again. Can you also state precisely what evidence you rely upon to make this claim, and here be as detailed as you like so that I and others may have chance to look at it.

I know that you have previously referred to Plato's _Republic as _providing a justification of your view, but that seems to be almost entirely irrelevant to the matter in hand. If it isn't irrelevant, perhaps you could spell out the connections of this document with your reasoning rather more fully. That aside, can you point to any modern published sources on music that you believe supports your view?


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> ...
> A further problem is that even if we knew with greater certainty the cause of the imbalance it's not obvious how to deal with it in order to make it less of a problem in future. I don't think that I have seen any suggestions on this matter anywhere in this thread.


Yes, I think you're correct. Of course it's rather difficult to "fix" this issue. I said before that I think there are two problems. First, bias in selecting women conductors for orchestras. Second, societal bias in subtly or directly diminishing women's desires to pursue conducting. This bias limits the number of qualified women available to fill conductor positions.

The first problem may not have good solutions until after the second problem is "fixed." Perhaps then the problem will fade.

The second problem is similar to what my original community of High Energy physicists found when exploring how to increase the racial diversity of the community. They didn't see bias in selecting black physicists to postdoc or faculty positions. They simply saw extremely few black physicists in grad schools, and to a lesser extent, black physics undergrads. They concluded that they would have to actively promote physics among the black community perhaps at multiple levels. Obviously, that was a difficult task.

Promoting conducting to women presumably is much easier because there already are a high percentage of women in university music programs. Perhaps there could be a group for women with "chapters" at good music schools that focuses on discussing conducting and trying to open up opportunities for women at various levels. The group could have women conductors speak at the music school periodically. The group would naturally develop a network that could help aspiring women conductors enter graduate programs and conducting schools or festivals. Eventually the number of qualified women could increase such that the second problem is less of an issue.


----------



## Larkenfield

The question for me is, how many women do want to conduct? I would imagine it's far fewer in numbers than men rather than being any in any kind of a 50-50 ratio, at least under the present conditions in society. But to help solve the problem for those who are gifted, I believe they would greatly benefit by being sponsored by a prominent male conductor who's already established in the field. Women need allies and they should be developing them according to their ambitions. I'm reminded of the story about Louis Armstrong, who finally came to the conclusion after a series of disastrous problems that he needed a powerful white man behind him in a country full of prejudice against blacks, and when he found the right man he split his earnings 50-50 for the rest of his life. Under the circumstances, I would say he was a wise man, and I believe women should consider a similar type of partnership, setting aside the financial side of it, with a prominent male conductor-sponsor who believes in her. Some of them might make it farther ahead rather than trying to make it solely on their own in a sometimes misogynistic world.


----------



## 1996D

Men have always done what they've thought is best for women. If the men in this thread feel that having women conducting is a good thing, then that proves my point, because to say that they've shown a lack of talent in the field is a big understatement.

To be willing to attend their concerts is indeed a sacrifice, nothing a misogynistic man would do.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ An irrational and incoherent post. You are still posting but haven't responded to a single specific point or question raised. Even if you do think that your opinion is all that is needed to prove your point you must surely recognise that merely repeating that opinion ad nauseam is not going to change minds, take this discussion further or explain why you think these things. All it does is give an impression that you lack even a basic education. But you talk as if you see yourself as an expert critic.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> The question for me is, how many women do want to conduct? I would imagine it's far fewer in numbers than men rather than being any in any kind of a 50-50 ratio, at least under the present conditions in society...


I also have a feeling that a "distortion-free" percentage, i.e assuming no societal barriers, would be less than 50:50 for women. As far as I'm aware, there is no data that that can shed any light on this. All that's available seems to be the odd anecdote dotted around the press occasionally.

I suppose some kind of questionnaire aimed at music school students, and members of various orchestras, would be of some assistance but in the absence of that it's all guesswork as to how many women do want to conduct or would like to do so at some future stage in their careers.

As mmsbls has said, if any attempt was made to force through in some way a higher percentage of women conductors without ensuring that there is a suitable flow of younger people to replace them in due course as they retire, the result could make the situation even worse in the longer term if this process entailed promoting individuals who are not currently best qualified for the job, purely for the sake of achieving some notional target.


----------



## EdwardBast

Partita said:


> I also have a feeling that a "distortion-free" percentage, i.e assuming no societal barriers, would be less than 50:50 for women. As far as I'm aware, there is no data that that can shed any light on this. All that's available seems to be the odd anecdote dotted around the press occasionally.


It might be enlightening to compare the percentage of women in choral conducting versus orchestral conducting, both in professional ensembles and conservatory programs. My impression in studying and teaching at a large conservatory was that there was a pretty even gender balance in choral conducting and a dearth of women in orchestral conducting. If this is true, it might suggest a correlation between the traditional gender balance in the types of ensembles themselves and that for conductors in each case. For obvious reasons, gender balance is standard in choruses, whereas, traditionally, the gender balance in orchestras, especially before blind auditions became standard, has been heavily skewed male. Balanced ensembles = gender balance among conductors? As orchestras become more balanced will gender equity among conductors eventually follow?


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Men have always done what they've thought is best for women.


Have they? All men? Some men in particular? Would you like me to offer some pointers to men who've only done what they've thought is best for themselves?



1996D said:


> If the men in this thread feel that having women conducting is a good thing, then that proves my point, because to say that they've shown a lack of talent in the field is a big understatement.


Proves what point?

So many questions. So little likelihood that they'll be answered.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> It might be enlightening to compare the percentage of women in choral conducting versus orchestral conducting, both in professional ensembles and conservatory programs. My impression in studying and teaching at a large conservatory was that there was a pretty even gender balance in choral conducting and a dearth of women in orchestral conducting. If this is true, it might suggest a correlation between the traditional gender balance in the types of ensembles themselves and that for conductors in each case. For obvious reasons, gender balance is standard in choruses, whereas, traditionally, the gender balance in orchestras, especially before blind auditions became standard, has been heavily skewed male. Balanced ensembles = gender balance among conductors? As orchestras become more balanced will gender equity among conductors eventually follow?


Possibly so in some areas, but most of the well-known choral ensembles I'm familiar with are headed up by a male conductor. I'm thinking of the likes of:

John Eliot Gardiner: Monteverdi Choir etc
Harry Christophers: The Sixteen
Masaaki Suzuki: Bach Collegium Japan
Paul McCreesh: Gabrieli Consort
Philippe Herreweghe: Collegium Vocale Gent
Stephen Cleobury: King's College, Cambridge
Peter Phillips: Tallis Schoilars
Lionel Meunier: Vox Luminis
John Butt: Dunedin Consort
Ton Koopman: Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir


----------



## philoctetes

It's all about the thermostat

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/health/women-temperature-tests.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> I also have a feeling that a "distortion-free" percentage, i.e assuming no societal barriers, would be less than 50:50 for women. As far as I'm aware, there is no data that that can shed any light on this. All that's available seems to be the odd anecdote dotted around the press occasionally.
> 
> I suppose some kind of questionnaire aimed at music school students, and members of various orchestras, would be of some assistance but in the absence of that it's all guesswork as to how many women do want to conduct or would like to do so at some future stage in their careers.
> 
> As mmsbls has said, if any attempt was made to force through in some way a higher percentage of women conductors without ensuring that there is a suitable flow of younger people to replace them in due course as they retire, the result could make the situation even worse in the longer term if this process entailed promoting individuals who are not currently best qualified for the job, purely for the sake of achieving some notional target.


Now I most certainly agree with this excellent post..
As all the long over due male retirees go away,,,thank the Good Lord,,,,lets mot assume thata woman should automatically step in place...or that a man should step in place,,,there should be 2 principle conductors,,,one for the old standards and 1 for 20th C works. ….there is no way a conductor is going to connect equally to say Tchaikovsky and also Henze. tahts impossible. If the woman wants 20th C , let her go with it,,if the man conductor wants 18TH C works, that's great...this way each will bring his/her best conducting and the audiences will have a great offering of musical styles.

How is a conductor going to work a Beethoven and a Schnittke , in one program?

Can't be done.

But as you say no woman should be givena free ticket to the podium, She has to prove she can bring us fresh approaches with all 10 star performances,,,well a few 9;s are OK too. But no 8's.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> She has to prove she can bring us fresh approaches with all 10 star performances,,,well a few 9;s are OK too. But no 8's.


While all the current male conductors can bring us performances of any score?


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> It might be enlightening to compare the percentage of women in choral conducting versus orchestral conducting, both in professional ensembles and conservatory programs. My impression in studying and teaching at a large conservatory was that there was a pretty even gender balance in choral conducting and a dearth of women in orchestral conducting. If this is true, it might suggest a correlation between the traditional gender balance in the types of ensembles themselves and that for conductors in each case. For obvious reasons, gender balance is standard in choruses, whereas, traditionally, the gender balance in orchestras, especially before blind auditions became standard, has been heavily skewed male. Balanced ensembles = gender balance among conductors? As orchestras become more balanced will gender equity among conductors eventually follow?


It reminds me of the military. The higher-ups didn't want to deal with the problems they expected of having with women as military members. It was forced on the military, and there were a lot of new problems -- and there's a lot of good that came out of it.

Of course, the military doesn't have to make money to support itself.


----------



## Luchesi

There’s a scene in the movie "The Competition" that first made me think about the differences between male and female musicians. One of the stars of the movie, Amy Irving, is supposed to play a Mozart concerto and one of the keys on the piano has fallen, it wasn't caught by the piano technician, and it's glaringly out of tune. 

So we watch the opening tutti and then she begins to play.. She gets to that bad note and it's jarring for her! She lifts her arms in the air and she can't go on! 

The conductor leans over and says, now honey, take it easy, calm down, we’ll get the technician out here and he'll fix the key. Don't fall to pieces out here on me!

They go backstage and she immediately says, no, I want to play the Prokofiev Third! The conductor says WHAT?? ..but I don't have the instruments or the players for a Prokofiev concerto! And she says yes you do! They're all waiting downstairs for the next concerto, the Shostakovich concerto. And the conductor fires back, well I don't FEEL like conducting the Prokofiev RIGHT NOW!

The viewing audience is supposed to empathize with the girl. But they're not supposed to empathize with the older conductor. It's just taken for granted that the movie viewers will react this way, so it works for the feeling of the story and the plot ending.


----------



## Luchesi

In this entertaining movie critique just look at all points about misogyny she can bring up. More than I have ever come across before. So I feel a little bit sheepish how about that..


----------



## 1996D

I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to see more female conductors, then you should go see the current ones perform and support them in that way. You would then hear my point loud and clear.

Ironic that I'm the one that just went to see Cannelakis...

All I see in this thread is blind virtue signalling, the women here being especially self centred.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> All I see in this thread is blind virtue signalling, *the women here being especially self centred.*


A self-important misogynist who has no noticeable virtues to signal shouldn't be accusing others of self-centeredness and virtue-signaling.

You discredited yourself with your very first post here, in which you introduced yourself by claiming that "if a man wrote the piece it's only logical that it's best understood by another man." Sorry, but that isn't logical. It's plain prejudice, and it's a stunning display of ignorance. In the thirty pages since then you've done nothing to erase an ugly first impression. On the contrary, you've made it perfectly clear that your purpose here is to stereotype, limit, insult and degrade women - to keep them "in their place" - while imagining that you can hide behind ludicrous statements like "men have always done what they've thought is best for women." If that were true it would be the greatest indicator of men's poor judgment ever recorded. Unfortunately, the things men have done for, to and with women have often been much worse than stupid. But then, according to you, women should have realized that their fate was just, and that the world - in which women have been considered property, raped with impunity, and burned as witches - "is and always has been fair."

Things are obviously quite different on Earth II. Sounds like a place where the females of the species are all quite content with cooking, cleaning and popping out babies. I'll bet you can't wait to get back. Don't let us detain you.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> All I see in this thread is blind virtue signalling


Virtue-signalling it may be...but that still makes it virtuous.

Any chance of answering my questions (or anyone else's)? Or is this just another trolling fly-by?


----------



## Barbebleu

Woodduck said:


> A self-important misogynist who has no noticeable virtues to signal shouldn't be accusing others of self-centeredness and virtue-signaling.
> 
> You discredited yourself with your very first post here, in which you introduced yourself by claiming that "if a man wrote the piece it's only logical that it's best understood by another man." Sorry, but that isn't logical. It's plain prejudice, and it's a stunning display of ignorance. In the thirty pages since then you've done nothing to erase an ugly first impression. On the contrary, you've made it perfectly clear that your purpose here is to stereotype, limit, insult and degrade women - to keep them "in their place" - while imagining that you can hide behind ludicrous statements like "men have always done what they've thought is best for women." If that were true it would be the greatest indicator of men's poor judgment ever recorded. Unfortunately, the things men have done for, to and with women have often been much worse than stupid. But then, according to you, women should have realized that their fate was just, and that the world - in which women have been considered property, raped with impunity, and burned as witches - "is and always has been fair."
> 
> Things are obviously quite different on Earth II. Sounds like a place where the females of the species are all quite content with cooking, cleaning and popping out babies. I'll bet you can't wait to get back. Don't let us detain you.


Brilliant. :tiphat::clap:xxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Larkenfield

The Battle of the Sexes: Be good to each other or there can be dire consequences.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Has any woman conducted and recorded a Beethoven symphony cycle?


----------



## KenOC

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Has any woman conducted a Beethoven symphony cycle?


I don't think so. An early Beethoven review credited him with "good invention and a serious, manly style." Hardly music suited for a female conductor!

(Running for cover, changing name and phone number, etc.) :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

Women in Music: The electrifying Barbra Hannigan:


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> The Battle of the Sexes: Be good to each other or there can be dire consequences.


I immediately thought of this hilarious old movie when I saw what Jacck posted today in another thread:



> I remember the anticlimatic feeling that I got, when after 6 hours of exhausting climb we climbed Mount Washington (New Hampshire) and found a parking lot with McDonalds at the summit.​


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to see more female conductors, then you should go see the current ones perform and support them in that way. You would then hear my point loud and clear.
> 
> Ironic that I'm the one that just went to see Cannelakis...


Ironic that you use one single individual to attempt to confirm the delusion with which you so want others to agree - and by providing a flimsy concert critique as anecdotal 'evidence.' This is farcical. I think you could use some statistics 101, or maybe the few classes that precede it too. How powerful the human will is to withstand the brunt force of pure logic if it, for some crazy reason, wants to stay in its dark bitter self-pity land.



> All I see in this thread is blind virtue signalling, the women here being especially self centred.


Quote us next time, I know you haven't much liked doing that in this thread. If you want my opinion, it wouldn't take an entire Sigmund Freud to suggest the possibility that you're _intimidated_ by head-on conflict with women, and forming new reactions to cover that angst. 'Defense mechanism' crosses my mind. All a hunch, but you have this thing in your posts of prodding and then running off immediately, evidently out of the enjoyment of eliciting some negative reaction you want to see. Running off both figuratively, and actually, quite literally, as I observe your green dot seems to go gray right at the snap of a finger after you've posted. You're not here for the dialogue, you're the boy on the curb who throws a dozen smoke bombs at the ground and plugs his ears so he doesn't hear the snapping, then the angry adults yelling at the commotion. Just my several cents.

That in mind, as many IQ points as I feel we've all sacrificed beating this dead horse, I genuinely hope you can eventually reach some form of closure for whatever set of negative experiences led you to what I think many here agree is a slightly off-color Weltanshauung. I regret that we couldn't change your mind and I wish you the best.


----------



## Larkenfield

A


1996D said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to see more female conductors, then you should go see the current ones perform and support them in that way. You would then hear my point loud and clear.
> 
> Ironic that I'm the one that just went to see Cannelakis...
> 
> All I see in this thread is blind virtue signalling, the women here being especially self centred.


Oh boy. Are _you_ in trouble.  The ladies are just getting warmed up. Someone would have to be as clairvoyant as Nostradamus to predict the outcome of any concert, whether by a male or a female conductor. The outcome would of course depend on the orchestra, the conductor, and the choice of program... Oh boy. Are _you_ in trouble.


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> Ironic that you use one single individual to attempt to confirm the delusion with which you so want others to agree - and by providing a flimsy concert critique as anecdotal 'evidence.' This is farcical. I think you could use some statistics 101, or maybe the few classes that precede it too. How powerful the human will is to withstand the brunt force of pure logic if it, for some crazy reason, wants to stay in its dark bitter self-pity land.
> 
> Quote us next time, I know you haven't much liked doing that in this thread. If you want my opinion, it wouldn't take an entire Sigmund Freud to suggest the possibility that you're _intimidated_ by head-on conflict with women, and forming new reactions to cover that angst. 'Defense mechanism' crosses my mind. All a hunch, but you have this thing in your posts of prodding and then running off immediately, evidently out of the enjoyment of eliciting some negative reaction you want to see. Running off both figuratively, and actually, quite literally, as I observe your green dot seems to go gray right at the snap of a finger after you've posted. You're not here for the dialogue, you're the boy on the curb who throws a dozen smoke bombs at the ground and plugs his ears so he doesn't hear the snapping, then the angry adults yelling at the commotion. Just my several cents.
> 
> That in mind, as many IQ points as I feel we've all sacrificed beating this dead horse, I genuinely hope you can eventually reach some form of closure for whatever set of negative experiences led you to what I think many here agree is a slightly off-color Weltanshauung. I regret that we couldn't change your mind and I wish you the best.


Understanding the mental gymnastics made to believe an illogical and unnatural ideology is indeed why I'm here. To properly analyze and not debate you must take your time. I know that for you everything you do is personal, but don't make the mistake of projecting it.

If you want statistics read Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment: https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/2003-murray-humanaccomplishment.pdf

Lets see if you your logic is strong enough to defeat your ideology.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Understanding the mental gymnastics made to believe an illogical and unnatural ideology is indeed why I'm here. To properly analyze and not debate you must take your time. I know that for you *everything you do is personal,* but *don't make the mistake of projecting it.*


1. It's not, and I never gave that impression; 2. You do a wonderful job projecting your own 'stuff.'



> If you want statistics read Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment:


I don't want stats. I don't want stats from a person I just pointed out does not have the vaguest impression what sound stats are. You check off every stat fallacy in the Introductory Stats Book within any two posts.



> https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/2003-murray-humanaccomplishment.pdf
> 
> Lets see if you your logic is strong enough to defeat your ideology.


Oh, great. A 700-page PDF. You've sure accomplished your objective by linking me a huge lengthy document, not providing even a short quote from the material, and thinking I will immediately know what the point is you're trying to make. My fever is lifted, I'm changed, my views have transformed!

Is this what you do in arguments in real life too? Do you throw a paperback of Plato's Republic at the other person and, like, celebrate your victory?

It also irks me that you keep incorrectly using 'ideology.' I think misogyny is a bad thing. That's an idea, it's not a thought system. I'm not in need of 'defeating' any ideology of mine currently, and I think the idea I mentioned is one that might stick with me too, I don't know. At this rate I might be just _slightly_ unconvinced by the opposition.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> If you want statistics read Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment: https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/2003-murray-humanaccomplishment.pdf


https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious



> Why Is Charles Murray Odious? Less because of his empirical methods than because of his horrible moral values…


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious


It's interesting that this hit job on Murray also contains an ad for a book titled "Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity." If anybody's interested, they may want to read Murray's writings (he's quite respected in his field) and make up their own minds.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> It's interesting that this hit job on Murray also contains an ad for a book titled "Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity." If anybody's interested, they may want to read Murray's writings (he's quite respected in his field) and make up their own minds.


Yes, but I've got a pile of half read books on my bedside table and Murray's doesn't attract. Mind you, it was worth finding out that he prefers Aristotle over Plato.

From Q&A: Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment



> Q. Who was the most accomplished person who ever lived?
> A. Now we're talking personal opinion, because the methods I used don't work across domains, but I have an emphatic opinion.
> 
> Aristotle.


https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/10/16/QA-Charles-Murrays-Human-Accomplishment/63221066339488/


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Yes, but I've got a pile of half read books on my bedside table and Murray's doesn't attract.


As I remember, Hitler once said that he avoided books he disagreed with because they might dilute his beliefs.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> As I remember, Hitler once said that he avoided books he disagreed with because they might dilute his beliefs.


Doubly dubious post Ken. I hope your intentions were entirely comedic?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Doubly dubious post Ken. I hope your intentions were entirely comedic?


Simply pointing out (as if it were needed) that ideology wins over facts every time.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Simply pointing out (as if it were needed) that ideology wins over facts every time.


But whose facts, and whose ideology? Mine?


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> But whose facts, and whose ideology? Mine?


To not seek facts is intellectual cowardice. They are easy to find, if you want. G'night!


----------



## Guest

Minor Sixthist said:


> you have this thing in your posts of prodding and then running off immediately, evidently out of the enjoyment of eliciting some negative reaction you want to see. Running off both figuratively, and actually, quite literally, as I observe your green dot seems to go gray right at the snap of a finger after you've posted.


Applicable to others here, perhaps? Though they actually sign off 'G'night'.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> It's interesting that this hit job on Murray also contains an ad for a book titled "Trump: Anatomy of a Monstrosity." If anybody's interested, they may want to read Murray's writings (he's quite respected in his field) and make up their own minds.


What makes it a hit job? It attempts to show that Murray believes the following:

1.) Black people tend to be dumber than white people, which is probably partly why white people tend to have more money than black people. This is likely to be partly because of genetics, a question that would be valid and useful to investigate.

2.) Black cultural achievements are almost negligible. Western peoples have a superior ability to create "objectively" more "excellent" art and music. Differences in cultural excellence across groups might also have biological roots.

3.) We should return to the conception of equality held by the Founding Fathers, who thought black people were subhumans. A situation in which white people are politically and economically dominant over black people is natural and acceptable.

I think the author does a pretty good job of showing that these are indeed Murray's beliefs, and of showing how poorly justified some of them are. The discussion of Murray's limited cultural horizons is especially hilarious: it points out that in _Human Accomplishment_, in order to prove the superiority of Western culture, Murray consults "experts" in order to decide what achievements are "significant"; he conveniently cuts off his cultural survey at the year 1950; he has virtually nothing to say about the whole extraordinary history of black music, including jazz (while citing very minor European composers for their "seriousness of purpose"); and he neglects non-Western music altogether (you know, frivolous people like those sitar pluckers sitting cross-legged by the Ganges).

Scholarship like that doesn't exactly make me proud to be of white European extraction.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> Women in Music: The electrifying Barbra Hannigan:
> 
> Yes, the in-depth study of this difficult music and the performing experience needed to be able to perform this is mind-boggling to me!
> 
> I wonder if she's trying to make a point about misogyny..


----------



## fluteman

Sadly, the profound ethnocentrism, if not outright racism, reflected in some TC posts (I'm not referring specifically to the above discussion about Murray, an author whose work I have not read) is all too prevalent in our culture. I once glanced at my daughter's 7th-grade history textbook and found a lengthy discussion about Johannes Gutenberg and his invention of the movable type printing press. At the end was a lengthy footnote with very small print, unusual for a textbook for younger students. In this footnote, it was explained that the movable type printing press existed in China and Korea centuries before Gutenberg's "invention". However, as there is no evidence that Gutenberg knew anything about Chinese or Korean printing presses, it concluded that he should be given full credit for the invention anyway. 

It looked likely that the entire footnote was added as an afterthought, and probably wasn't there at all in the earliest editions of this book. We are started at an early age with the idea that the contributions to civilization of non-white, non-European cultures are less important.


----------



## sharkeysnight

That reminds me of someone I had to deal with at work last week who was upset with us for mentioning, before a performance, that the theater was built on indigenous land. He went on to say something along the lines of "Why don't we pay respect to the settlers, who built cities and brought civilzation? What were the Indians doing besides wandering around in groups?" There's always a wave of that. There was a production recently that incorporated sign language and we got a bunch of complaints that were like, "why can't they just have a captioned performance?". Sometimes I feel like one of the biggest social problems we're facing is essentially a crisis of empathy.


----------



## Luchesi

fluteman said:


> Sadly, the profound ethnocentrism, if not outright racism, reflected in some TC posts (I'm not referring specifically to the above discussion about Murray, an author whose work I have not read) is all too prevalent in our culture. I once glanced at my daughter's 7th-grade history textbook and found a lengthy discussion about Johannes Gutenberg and his invention of the movable type printing press. At the end was a lengthy footnote with very small print, unusual for a textbook for younger students. In this footnote, it was explained that the movable type printing press existed in China and Korea centuries before Gutenberg's "invention". However, as there is no evidence that Gutenberg knew anything about Chinese or Korean printing presses, it concluded that he should be given full credit for the invention anyway.
> 
> It looked likely that the entire footnote was added as an afterthought, and probably wasn't there at all in the earliest editions of this book. We are started at an early age with the idea that the contributions to civilization of non-white, non-European cultures are less important.


"Sadly, the profound ethnocentrism, if not outright racism, reflected in some TC posts (I'm not referring specifically to the above discussion about Murray, an author whose work I have not read) is all too prevalent in our culture."

Our culture? Every group of humans does it. If non-white cultures had majority power would it surprise you that they did it even more viciously? (Aren't they currently doing it from their own cultural standpoint?) Every animal group develops animosities and discriminating attitudes towards groups that are slightly different. This allows the eventual divergences which are the mother's milk of evolution.

It's natural. It's not PC. It's not what would we would ideally like to see. But it's why we're here.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Our future must be as one world. Looking back at the history of different cultures we can see ethnocentrism everywhere but that is no way to live now. We need to look forward because that is where we are going. Shouldn't Chinese students and British students be studying the same history - even if the topics are chosen to reflect their own countries the facts of who did what when must surely be the same. There is no room and no excuse for ethnocentrism these days.

I find this statement extraordinary:



> Every animal group develops animosities and discriminating attitudes towards groups that are slightly different. This allows the eventual divergences which are the mother's milk of evolution.


Animal group? Are you suggesting that our ethnicities reflect differences in species? You could not be more wrong if you are! And the divergences that fuel evolution are mutations rather than a meeting of different groups.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Our future must be as one world. Looking back at the history of different cultures we can see ethnocentrism everywhere but that is no way to live now. We need to look forward because that is where we are going. Shouldn't Chinese students and British students be studying the same history - even if the topics are chosen to reflect their own countries the facts of who did what when must surely be the same. There is no room and no excuse for ethnocentrism these days.
> 
> I find this statement extraordinary:
> 
> Animal group? Are you suggesting that our ethnicities reflect differences in species? You could not be more wrong if you are! And the divergences that fuel evolution are mutations rather than a meeting of different groups.


I understand the feelings of fear and disgust. But I wonder if teaching this foundational view would be helpful, or would it be harmful and misused?


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> "Sadly, the profound ethnocentrism, if not outright racism, reflected in some TC posts (I'm not referring specifically to the above discussion about Murray, an author whose work I have not read) is all too prevalent in our culture."
> 
> Our culture? Every group of humans does it. If non-white cultures had majority power would it surprise you that they did it even more viciously? (Aren't they currently doing it from their own cultural standpoint?) Every animal group develops animosities and discriminating attitudes towards groups that are slightly different. This allows the eventual divergences which are the mother's milk of evolution.
> 
> It's natural. It's not PC. It's not what would we would ideally like to see. But it's why we're here.


I have no major dispute with this point, except to say, though it may be "natural" to denigrate and disrespect anyone and anything foreign or unfamiliar to us, it is certainly not civilized, and in my opinion, it is also unwise.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> I understand the feelings of fear and disgust. But I wonder if teaching this foundational view would be helpful, or would it be harmful and misused?


I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are asking (or saying). Fear and disgust? Teaching?


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are asking (or saying). Fear and disgust? Teaching?


Since it's your opinion that this is not a mechanism of evolution then you're probably the wrong person to ask.

You think that teaching and exploring it would be harmful?


----------



## Jacck

Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
maybe not everything about the Ashkenazi Jews was nurture

the problem is that there is a very dangerous line here.

Humans are wired for prejudice but that doesn't have to be the end of the story 
http://theconversation.com/humans-a...-doesnt-have-to-be-the-end-of-the-story-36829

the vulnerabillities of the human brain are exploited by neuromarketing and neuropolitics
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/...cs-where-campaigns-try-to-read-your-mind.html


----------



## 1996D

Murray has a moment in the book where he talk about women, I believe he just points out the fact that they've done very little before and after emancipation in the matter of significant accomplishment, how the latter had very little effect on them, while on the Jews it had a profound effect.

All supported by statistics of course, and a very good method of identifying significant figures. You have to read the whole book, there is simply no shortcut to understanding.

On the previous post written about American Indians, I agree that empathy is needed, but no more. The pity or fake pity that people project upon them is something harmful in itself, and as I've said before, you have to accept people as they are, love them as they are.

Measuring all people to the standard of select high achieving men, with thousands of year of selection through war, and hundreds of years of Christian order and high culture is ridiculous. This doesn't mean they're inferior, but simply different, with a different purpose--this goes for all historically 'oppressed' people.


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> Since it's your opinion that this is not a mechanism of evolution then you're probably the wrong person to ask.
> 
> You think that teaching and exploring it would be harmful?


I don't think you can dismiss what I said about evolution as a personal opinion. You surely do not think there is more than one species of human? If it were true that different races of humans were so genetically different that a process of speciation is occurring then I'd be happy enough for it to be explored and taught. But it is just simply not true. From genetic studies it is clear that there is far far more genetic variation between the individuals of a race (or a discrete geographical environment) than there is between any sort of averaged out genetic profile of different races. There are some wicked academics who (for motives that are far from pure) produce data that seems to show genetic differences between races but these are quite simply not true. Racism and white supremacism are alive and well in academia .... and on TC. This is not a debate between two valid views - it is a clash between science and extreme right wing politics. There is only one truth in this question.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> *Murray has a moment in the book where he talk about women*, I believe he just points out the fact that they've done very little before and after emancipation in the matter of significant accomplishment, how the latter had very little effect on them, while on the Jews it had a profound effect.


He has more than a moment - most of a whole chapter. But he does have a moment to say this:

_Has sexism been a barrier to accomplishment among women? Yes, without doubt._

Murray, p86


----------



## paulbest

Look facts are
Has anyone actually seen a all, 100% woman orchestra?
What woulda all woman orchestra sound like?

Could they perform as a all male Vienna , all male Berlin orchestra?
This is the Q here...
WE most certainly are in need of changes,,,lets stay focused.
Which ever gender can command a all star orcfh with all star performances, gets the job.,

Gender means nothing at this stage in the game.


55% male/45% female is the ideal balance for a stunning performance.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Murray has a moment in the book where he talk about women, I believe he just points out the fact that they've done very little *before and after **emancipation *in the matter of significant accomplishment, how the latter had very little effect on them, while on the Jews it had a profound effect.


Besides being disparaging to women, this comparison is meaningless, not least because "emancipation" is undefined. Emancipation from what? What does an "emancipated" Jew have in common with an "emancipated" woman? Is an "emancipated" Jewish woman an "emancipated woman"?



> *All supported by statistics of course*, and a very good method of identifying significant figures. You have to read the whole book, *there is simply no shortcut to understanding.*


Anything can be supported by statistics. You seem to have taken quite a few shortcuts and still not reached understanding.



> On the previous post written about American Indians, I agree that *empathy is needed, but no more.* The *pity or fake pity that people project upon them* is something harmful in itself, and as I've said before, *you have to accept people as they are, love them as they are.*


How sweet of you to concede that it's acceptable to "empathize" with people you wouldn't lift a finger to lift out of difficult circumstances, or care to compensate for the theft of their homes, the deliberate destruction of their culture, and the decimation of their populations by slaughter and disease. How comfortable for you that you are immune to feeling "fake pity."

It's so easy to "love" people "as they are" when you don't give a damn how they are.



> *Measuring all people to the standard of select high achieving men*, with thousands of year of selection through war, and hundreds of years of Christian order and high culture *is ridiculous.*


So why did you enter this thread to do just that?



> This doesn't mean they're inferior, but simply different, *with a different purpose**--this goes for all historically 'oppressed' people.*


People do not HAVE purposes. They CHOOSE THEIR OWN purposes, and they naturally carry out those purposes when they're unconstrained by the purposes to which others attempt to put them. There's clearly a great deal you don't know about "historically oppressed people." Try being one of those people for a while, and come back to us when you've had enough of being "loved as you are."


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> 55% male/45% female is the ideal balance for a stunning performance.


Yes, there's no doubt that a slight male domination will make all the difference. Several studies show that 54%/46% or 56%/44% would not be quite right. 55% female/45% male would be an abomination.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Besides being disparaging to women, this comparison is meaningless, not least because "emancipation" is undefined. Emancipation from what? What does an "emancipated" Jew have in common with an "emancipated" woman? Is an "emancipated" Jewish woman an "emancipated woman"?
> 
> Anything can be supported by statistics. You seem to have taken quite a few shortcuts and still not reached understanding.
> 
> How sweet of you to concede that it's acceptable to "empathize" with people you wouldn't lift a finger to lift out of difficult circumstances or to compensate for the theft of their homes, the deliberate destruction of their culture, and the decimation of their populations by slaughter and disease. How comfortable for you that you are immune to feeling "fake pity."
> 
> It's so easy to "love" people "as they are" when you don't give a damn how they are.
> 
> So why did you enter this thread to do just that?
> 
> People do not HAVE purposes. They CHOOSE THEIR OWN purposes, and they naturally carry out those purposes when they're unconstrained by the purposes to which others attempt to put them. There's clearly a great deal you don't know about "historically oppressed people." Try being one of those people for a while, and come back to us when you've had enough of being "loved as you are."


As usual, Woodduck, I'm quite impressed that you take the time and trouble to so eloquently reply to white supremacist posts. Or even, white Christian male supremacist posts. For my part, I strongly suspect that these posters are not musicians themselves, and have never played in an orchestra. If they had, they would have noticed the influx in orchestras recent years, not only of women, but of non-white musicians from all over the world. Not surprisingly, the heavily-populated, industrialized and modernized Pacific rim has contributed to this trend considerably, and not only China and Japan but also Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines.

Education and opportunity have expanded. Talent and potential ability were always there. I also notice the Chinese are now exploring the dark side of the moon. Somebody needs to warn them about their non-white, non-European, non-Christian evolutionary inferiority before someone gets hurt.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> As usual, Woodduck, I'm quite impressed that you take the time and trouble to so eloquently reply to white supremacist posts. Or even, white Christian male supremacist posts. For my part, I strongly suspect that these posters are not musicians themselves, and have never played in an orchestra. If they had, they would have noticed the influx in orchestras recent years, not only of women, but of non-white musicians from all over the world. Not surprisingly, the heavily-populated, industrialized and modernized Pacific rim has contributed to this trend considerably, and not only China and Japan but also Taiwan, Korea and the Philippines.
> 
> Education and opportunity have expanded. Talent and potential ability were always there. I also notice the Chinese are now exploring the dark side of the moon. Somebody needs to warn them about their non-white, non-European, non-Christian evolutionary inferiority before someone gets hurt.


Yeah, it does appear that all the non-white, non-male, non-hetero, non-Christian folks who collectively make up the majority of the world's population are forgetting that they're supposed to have "different purposes."


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> Yes, there's no doubt that a slight male domination will make all the difference. Several studies show that 54%/46% or 56%/44% would not be quite right. 55% female/45% male would be an abomination.


What I am saying is, it can be 35 women/65 men, but not the other way around, why?
What is the gender of all the great composers?

In some mysterious fashion, the connection betwixt man and the gods of music,,,,,can't recall the name the greeks gave to the spirit of music,,anyhow,,,men seem more inspired by The High Arts than are women,,,but this does not at all preclude/exclude women from bringing us their gifts, Not at all.
35/65


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Larkenfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women in Music: The electrifying Barbra Hannigan:
> 
> Yes, the in-depth study of this difficult music and the performing experience needed to be able to perform this is mind-boggling to me!
> 
> I wonder if she's trying to make a point about misogyny..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the unfunny comedy show at least distracts from the awful racket that supposes itself to be music!
Click to expand...


----------



## DaveM

paulbest said:


> What I am saying is, it can be 35 women/65 men, but not the other way around, why?
> What is the gender of all the great composers?
> 
> In some mysterious fashion, the connection betwixt man and the gods of music,,,,,can't recall the name the greeks gave to the spirit of music,,anyhow,,,men seem more inspired by The High Arts than are women,,,but this does not at all preclude/exclude women from bringing us their gifts, Not at all.
> 35/65


We will probably never know whether composing classical music was highly male-based because of some gender based ability or because of the restrictions on women typical in the days of the great composers. But we do know that there is no reason to believe that men have some superiority in playing the instruments of the orchestra or in interpreting the music.

For those who believe otherwise, I'd like to see a double-blind study proving the counter-argument.


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> Larkenfield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Women in Music: The electrifying Barbra Hannigan:
> 
> Yes, the in-depth study of this difficult music and the performing experience needed to be able to perform this is mind-boggling to me!
> 
> I wonder if she's trying to make a point about misogyny..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not post this Ligeti video. It looks like Luchesi did. Ms. Hannigan is not conducting here. Rattle obviously is. I would not have used it as a representative example of Hannigan's talent though she's known for her Ligeti performances. I doubt whether she's trying to make a point about misogyny; she may simply be performing a work that she likes and is good at and bringing certain contemporary works to the attention of the public, which I feel is good and benefits everyone.
> 
> I posted this brief one and do consider her charming and electrifying at her best, and she doesn't need a male conductor conducting everything that she performs because she can mostly do it herself. But I would never expect that she would be interested in full-time conducting, only what she performs herself. The only point I'm making is that sometimes a female conductor can be quite effective in front of an orchestra and give an outstanding performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More on Hannigan conducting: https://www.barbarahannigan.com/watch/conducting/
> 
> With every video I've seen, the musicians seem to greatly enjoy playing for her - they're usually happy and smiling - and sometimes that's half the battle for any conductor.
Click to expand...


----------



## philoctetes

A new name for me: Mirga Grazinyte-Tyla - with an interesting composer as well...


----------



## paulbest

DaveM said:


> We will probably never know whether composing classical music was highly male-based because of some gender based ability or because of the restrictions on women typical in the days of the great composers. But we do know that there is no reason to believe that men have some superiority in playing the instruments of the orchestra or in interpreting the music.
> 
> For those who believe otherwise, I'd like to see a double-blind study proving the counter-argument.


Yes, agree.
When more women become inspired by Barbara Hannigan, we will have our all female orchestra one day. 
She is a master at whatever she does.

I could easily see her conducting a all female orchestra. with stunning results.


----------



## paulbest

Barbara Hannigan , just might get me into Ligeti YET. I owe Ligeti a sincere apology,,for his work with Barbara's ELECTRIFYING!!! Performance, STUNNING> 
Ligeti had no idea his work could project into reality as Barbara worked it.
UNREAL

Now as I was looking ata old Mike Oldfield Tubular Bells YT upload,,,up came Boulez's Notations.

Here you can virtually witness a magnificent performance at the Lucere Festival Orch, under Boulez.

Here you will witness a perfectly blanaced 55/45 gender orchestra.

This performance proves my theory , thesis being, the ratio 55/45 makes not only The Ideal, but more so, The PerfectI! symphonic blended orchestral fabric.

I told you.

True you might not care for the music, but the perfomance can not be denied, Its a 10/10,, make that OFFTHECHARTS.
Here is where male/female disappear and its just a mesmerizing experience.

Love to see this same group in Henze.
Lucerne Orch? 
Who even has any recordings of this group?
Yet which orch in the world can match this quality of artistry?


----------



## philoctetes

Ojai Festival Welcomes Barbara Hannigan (5/28/19)

https://www.independent.com/2019/05/28/ojai-festival-welcomes-barbara-hannigan/

Anybody going? I could if I got motivated enough.


----------



## Open Book

DaveM said:


> We will probably never know whether composing classical music was highly male-based because of some gender based ability or because of the restrictions on women typical in the days of the great composers.


No, we'll never know because the heyday of classical music is past.

What will be interesting to see is if women pop musicians today achieve equality with men in composing their own music. Women have been able to get away with performing the music of others more easily than men have. Many women pop stars write their own lyrics but not their own music, at least not entirely. Of course popular music is highly collaborative, but you have typically had male bands performing their own music and female "diva" solo singers performing the music of professional writers.

It will be interesting to see if women compose at the same rate as men and with the same quality now that they have more freedom to choose that as a profession. The gap is narrowing, but will it continue?

Since I don't much like today's popular music (I just don't get it) I can't be a fair judge of that.


----------



## DaveM

Open Book said:


> No, we'll never know because the heyday of classical music is past.
> 
> What will be interesting to see is if women pop musicians today achieve equality with men in composing their own music. Women have been able to get away with performing the music of others more easily than men have. Many women pop stars write their own lyrics but not their own music, at least not entirely. Of course popular music is highly collaborative, but you have typically had male bands performing their own music and female "diva" solo singers performing the music of professional writers.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if women compose at the same rate as men and with the same quality now that they have more freedom to choose that as a profession. The gap is narrowing, but will it continue?
> 
> Since I don't much like today's popular music (I just don't get it) I can't be a fair judge of that.


Male pop bands and the males that write their music still far outnumber their female counterparts, but from what I see, individual pop females who write the material they sing are giving males a pretty good run for their money. Just off the top of my head: Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Christina Perri, Beth Nielsen Chapman, Sara McLaughlin, Adele, Joni Mitchell, Alicia Keyes, Dolly Parton, Carole King, Stevie Nicks, Mariah Carey, etc. All of them have written the lyrics and the music.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> Male pop bands and the males that write their music still far outnumber their female counterparts, but from what I see, individual pop females who write the material they sing are giving males a pretty good run for their money. Just off the top of my head: Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Christina Perri, Beth Nielsen Chapman, Sara McLaughlin, Adele, Joni Mitchell, Alicia Keyes, Dolly Parton, Carole King, Stevie Nicks, Mariah Carey, etc. All of them have written the lyrics and the music.


Some of the female singers you mention do _not _write their own material. The are basically CEOs of organizations that create the music they present, often written by middle-aged Norwegians. I'm not making this up. Read the incredible Atlantic Magazine article *Hit Charade*.

An excerpt: "The illusion of creative control is maintained by the fig leaf of a songwriting credit. The performer's name will often appear in the list of songwriters, even if his or her contribution is negligible. (There's a saying for this in the music industry: 'Change a word, get a third.') But almost no pop celebrities write their own hits. Too much is on the line for that, and being a global celebrity is a full-time job. It would be like Will Smith writing the next _Independence Day_."


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, it does appear that all the non-white, non-male, non-hetero, non-Christian folks who collectively make up the majority of the world's population are forgetting that they're supposed to have "different purposes."


You're taking it out of context... What I meant was not to project your desires unto people who want different things than you: if a non-white man genuinely wants to be part of an orchestra and has the talent, then of course he should get the position.

My point was simply not to put expectations on people who desire things vastly different from what you value, like so many are doing in this thread. People don't want to do things they're not good at, can we agree on that?

Wanting this fantastical equality of outcome is out of touch with the different abilities and wills of people. It is in other words anti-reason and purely ideological to make you feel less guilty and like a better person, at the cost of your intellectual freedom.

You do realize you can easily be manipulated now? You are cattle, a member of a controllable mob incapable of clear thought.

You will act irrationally to support what you believe in and it will be exploited, no different than a Catholic fanatic in medieval Europe.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> You're taking it out of context... What I meant was not to project your desires unto people who want different things than you: if a non-white man genuinely wants to be part of an orchestra and has the talent, then of course he should get the position.
> 
> My point was simply not to put expectations on people who desire things vastly different from what you value, like so many are doing in this thread. People don't want to do things they're not good at, can we agree on that?
> 
> Wanting this fantastical equality of outcome is out of touch with the different abilities and wills of people.


It's irresistible, isn't it? I just can't tear myself away; there's someone "wrong on the internet" and they must be challenged...

...mustn't they?

The whole point of a Forum is to discuss, so the principle of ignoring the absurd, the irrelevant, the confused, the illogical (never mind the prejudiced and bigoted) seems illogical. But what's the point of trying to discuss with someone who refuses to discuss, who simply pops in once a day to post the most infuriating nonsense.

Was it worth the effort to post even this musing?


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> I posted this brief one and do consider her charming and electrifying at her best, and she doesn't need a male conductor conducting everything that she performs because she can mostly do it herself. But I would never expect that she would be interested in full-time conducting, only what she performs herself. The only point I'm making is that sometimes a female conductor can be quite effective in front of an orchestra and give an outstanding performance.


Just to note that she does conduct pieces that she has no singing role in. On her CD "Crazy Girl Crazy" she conducts Berg's Lulu Suite (the singing role is minimal) and a Gershwin arrangement "Crazy Girl Suite" (no singing). I am sure I have seen her conducting other things but can't remember what. I imagine that as her voice ages she will be conducting more and more.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> You're taking it out of context... What I meant was not to project your desires unto people who want different things than you: if a non-white man genuinely wants to be part of an orchestra and has the talent, then of course he should get the position.
> 
> My point was simply not to put expectations on people who desire things vastly different from what you value, like so many are doing in this thread. People don't want to do things they're not good at, can we agree on that?
> 
> Wanting this fantastical equality of outcome is out of touch with the different abilities and wills of people. It is in other words anti-reason and purely ideological to make you feel less guilty and like a better person, at the cost of your intellectual freedom.
> 
> You do realize you can easily be manipulated now? You are cattle, a member of a controllable mob incapable of clear thought.
> 
> You will act irrationally to support what you believe in and it will be exploited, no different than a Catholic fanatic in medieval Europe.


 I don't quite know for sure what goes on inside your head, but it would seem that getting the story straight about what other people have said is not one of your strong points.

You now claim that your "main point" was simply not to put unrealistic expectations on people who do not want to do things they are not good at. Are you sure about this? I had understood that your main point was that women generally do not have the right properties to become first class conductors, and that nothing can be done about because this is the way their "maker" deemed things to be so at the time of Creation, or whenever..

Your excuse now for claiming that you didn't mean that, but something else, is lame because it ought to be obvious that it is generally understood and accepted by respondents here that there is clearly no value in encouraging people to do things for which they have no aptitude, relative to other occupations in which they might have a comparative advantage.

You talk about people wanting "equality of outcome". I do not believe this is fair at all. The emphasis throughout this thread has always been equality of opportunity for women, not just in conducting but anywhere in society generally.

On this matter, it has been pointed out the achievement of equality of opportunity is not as easy as it may seem. Simply legislating against discrimination may be an essential requirement in some areas, but it may not be sufficient. There could be, and there probably are, adverse societal hindrances in some occupations that are impossible to eradicate in the short term. Various longer-term measures may be required to change negative attitudes against women that are not justified by objective assessments.

To tell people who think differently from you that they are "... _cattle, a member of a controllable mob incapable of clear thought"_ is a bit strong, isn't it? I am sure that I do not think in that way, but have worked it for for myself that discrimination in any walk of life is not justified. I'm happy to see any measures introduced that may be expected succeed in eradicating the discrimination, provided of course they are done in a cost-effective manner and their success reviewed periodically.

I would say that people on this forum generally have indulged your brand of nonsense very generously, far more so than any of it deserves.


----------



## 1996D

^ Can you put 1 and 2 together? Read what you wrote, all the answers are there. Anyway, I got what I wanted, I have the answer I was looking for.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> Just to note that she does conduct pieces that she has no singing role in. On her CD "Crazy Girl Crazy" she conducts Berg's Lulu Suite (the singing role is minimal) and a Gershwin arrangement "Crazy Girl Suite" (no singing). I am sure I have seen her conducting other things but can't remember what. I imagine that as her voice ages she will be conducting more and more.


Yes, she has also conducted without performing herself and it looks like the orchestras are enjoying themselves by being in the presence of her magnetic energy. I'm all for this and feel strongly that certain women have leadership ability on the podium and they deserve the same opportunity as a men to demonstrate their considerable abilities to light up the concert halls. Best wishes.


----------



## paulbest

Open Book said:


> No, we'll never know because the heyday of classical music is past.
> 
> What will be interesting to see is if women pop musicians today achieve equality with men in composing their own music. Women have been able to get away with performing the music of others more easily than men have. Many women pop stars write their own lyrics but not their own music, at least not entirely. Of course popular music is highly collaborative, but you have typically had male bands performing their own music and female "diva" solo singers performing the music of professional writers.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if women compose at the same rate as men and with the same quality now that they have more freedom to choose that as a profession. The gap is narrowing, but will it continue?
> 
> Since I don't much like today's popular music (I just don't get it) I can't be a fair judge of that.


he *HEYDAY* is INDEED over and DONE.

Furtwangler will never rise from the dead to conduct my favorite composers, 
Not going to happen..

Women at the pen?
Nah, ain't gonna happen, not to the pinnacle of say Bach, Mozart, nor,,,,Henze. …(note how I placed Henze right along side the Big Two) No woman will make a opera as great as Wagner, a VC as great as Shostakovisch.
Not gonna happen. 
But what will most certainly happen is 
The Woman will give birth and this birth will be the Reborn High Art Tradition.

Yes it is already happening. Look at Hannigan.
Need further evidence?

Here looky at what I came across late last night and can't wait to surprise you guys

The New Birth (conducting/virtuoso , NOT in composition, please no woman allowed) is here and now


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> You're taking it out of context... What I meant was not to project your desires unto people who want different things than you: if a non-white man genuinely wants to be part of an orchestra and has the talent, then of course he should get the position.
> 
> My point was simply not to put expectations on people who desire things vastly different from what you value, like so many are doing in this thread. People don't want to do things they're not good at, can we agree on that?


It's been sufficiently covered by Mac and Partita by this point, but just another straw man from you. No surprise here.



> Wanting this fantastical equality of outcome is out of touch with the different abilities and wills of people. It is in other words anti-reason and purely ideological to make you feel less guilty and like a better person, at the cost of your intellectual freedom.


It is in other words the idea that you can't accept that women could have the same "abilities as wills" as men. Even if men transmit attitudes to women that they shouldn't do what they want to do. The suggestion that I proposed and that has been carried in this thread is that those attitudes might well just repel women from the jobs they want at the outset. It's a simple idea. It's merely a hypothesis that I propose might be true for some women. I offer my personal experience as evidence that, yeah, for even the more confident young women these attitudes come as upsetting and easy to internalize. But no, you just can't accept that I or another young woman might be capable of reputable composing and/or conducting, because the thought bothers and intimidates you. I've already arranged a large variety of things I like, between choral 4-parts and brass quintets. I've mastered 4 years of counterpoint, figured bass, basic writing. Honestly, you're giving me so much motivation to advance. Keep at it, I need a chip on my shoulder.



> You do realize you can easily be manipulated now? You are cattle, a member of a controllable mob incapable of clear thought.


Weird Orwellian non sequitur. In which, of course, you seem to separate yourself from your own controllable mob. No, _you're_ special, right? You don't think with the crowd. We should really switch roles, actually, for this to make sense. your attitude is the 'I'm not like other girls!' attitude carried by every young teenage girl ever. Maybe you haven't had enough exposure, though, right. You'd scare a girl away.

None of this is really worth addressing.


----------



## paulbest

1996D said:


> You're taking it out of context... What I meant was not to project your desires unto people who want different things than you: if a non-white man genuinely wants to be part of an orchestra and has the talent, then of course he should get the position.
> 
> My point was simply not to put expectations on people who desire things vastly different from what you value, like so many are doing in this thread. People don't want to do things they're not good at, can we agree on that?
> 
> Wanting this fantastical equality of outcome is out of touch with the different abilities and wills of people. It is in other words anti-reason and purely ideological to make you feel less guilty and like a better person, at the cost of your intellectual freedom.
> 
> You do realize you can easily be manipulated now? You are cattle, a member of a controllable mob incapable of clear thought.
> 
> You will act irrationally to support what you believe in and it will be exploited, no different than a Catholic fanatic in medieval Europe.


wow, wish I had wrote this,,,can I plagiarize your post?
,,,I will try to add cream on the top, later today when I have time
Bravo!!!!


----------



## paulbest

Minor Sixthist said:


> It's been sufficiently covered by Mac and Partita by this point, but just another straw man from you. No surprise here.
> 
> It is in other words the idea that you can't accept that women could have the same "abilities as wills" as men. Even if men transmit attitudes to women that they shouldn't do what they want to do. The suggestion that I proposed and that has been carried in this thread is that those attitudes might well just repel women from the jobs they want at the outset. It's a simple idea. It's merely a hypothesis that I propose might be true for some women. I offer my personal experience as evidence that, yeah, for even the more confident young women these attitudes come as upsetting and easy to internalize. But no, you just can't accept that I or another young woman might be capable of reputable composing and/or conducting, because the thought bothers and intimidates you. I've already arranged a large variety of things I like, between choral 4-parts and brass quintets. I've mastered 4 years of counterpoint, figured bass, basic writing. Honestly, you're giving me so much motivation to advance. Keep at it, I need a chip on my shoulder.
> 
> Weird Orwellian non sequitur. In which, of course, you seem to separate yourself from your own controllable mob. No, _you're_ special, right? You don't think with the crowd. We should really switch roles, actually, for this to make sense. your attitude is the 'I'm not like other girls!' attitude carried by every young teenage girl ever. Maybe you haven't had enough exposure, though, right. You'd scare a girl away.
> 
> None of this is really worth addressing.


All teen girls think EXACTLY the same way, with only slight variations. Men are from heaven, woman of earth. 
Read the old ancient Chinese sayings. 
Sop if men are from heaven, should it not be logical to suppose we have heaven sent artists who compose celestial gifts of beauty?

A wman will never attain anything even close to Ravel and other greats. 
If it has not happened in 400 yrs,,why would it begin now?

What women can offer are their solo virtuoso , Like Hillary Hahn who has trumped every male performer in Bach. She will reign as champ. No man will ever approach her Bach.
Which male pianist will approach Uchida's Mozart? She reigns as supreme master in Mozart.

Woman can succeed in this High arts, Just not at the writing table.

You do realize some have a higher awareness of things than most others? 
There are folks with special gifts of reasoning. 
Yet the herd can't accept this, so they kill the prophet, happens all the time through history. 
man hates the lights.

Chip on sholder?
You already have one. 
And you are from NY,,,typical conservative shallow thinking process. 
In conducting, this is where woman's next great challenge lies.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> wow, wish I had wrote this,,,can I plagiarize your post?
> ,,,I will try to add cream on the top, later today when I have time
> Bravo!!!!


Why would you want to plagiarise it? You are capable of equally compelling argument on your own.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> All teen girls think EXACTLY the same way, with only slight variations. Men are from heaven, woman of earth.
> Read the old ancient Chinese sayings.
> Sop if men are from heaven, should it not be logical to suppose we have heaven sent artists who compose celestial gifts of beauty?
> 
> A wman will never attain anything even close to Ravel and other greats.
> If it has not happened in 400 yrs,,why would it begin now?
> 
> What women can offer are their solo virtuoso , Like Hillary Hahn who has trumped every male performer in Bach. She will reign as champ. No man will ever approach her Bach.
> Which male pianist will approach Uchida's Mozart? She reigns as supreme master in Mozart.
> 
> Woman can succeed in this High arts, Just not at the writing table.
> 
> You do realize some have a higher awareness of things than most others?
> There are folks with special gifts of reasoning.
> Yet the herd can't accept this, so they kill the prophet, happens all the time through history.
> man hates the lights.
> 
> Chip on sholder?
> You already have one.
> And you are from NY,,,typical conservative shallow thinking process.
> In conducting, this is where woman's next great challenge lies.


What an extraordinary post. The reasons why there have been so few women composers are well enough known. The presence now of a number of very able women composers seems to have passed you by. Do I need to name them for you? Actually there have been several threads about women composers - why don't you spend some time reading through them instead of posting nonsense about things you have no knowledge of.

As for Uchida's Mozart, well it is very fine but that is because she is a fine artist not because she is a woman. There are several male pianists who have excelled in Mozart, too.


----------



## philoctetes

Contrary to what the chauvinists believe, looking in their rear-view mirror at all their pumped-up glories, woman are very likely to have their own heyday in many accomplishments, especially music, and it's going to happen very soon. Once women make musical decisions based on their own aesthetics, we hear things that we haven't heard before, and that's going to grow, spread, and advance. Crossing my fingers that I'm alive to hear what's coming.

Annette Peacock helped launch an entire record company, ECM, with her compositions 50 years ago, played by now-legendary members of the modern jazz world, such as Paul Bley and Paul Motian. Myra Melford is one of the premier pianist-composers in modern jazz today. When men actually open the door for women, not to be gentlemen or condescending, but to stop blocking opportunity, these fossil attitudes will be proven wrong time and again. I'm talking about music, not firefighting, soldiering, etc... people just ignore these things and keep talking trash.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9OUa0at8Wv_ZeCaZwFQlgQ


----------



## EdwardBast

paulbest said:


> All teen girls think EXACTLY the same way, with only slight variations. Men are from heaven, woman of earth.
> Read the old ancient Chinese sayings.
> Sop if men are from heaven, should it not be logical to suppose we have heaven sent artists who compose celestial gifts of beauty?
> 
> A wman will never attain anything even close to Ravel and other greats.
> If it has not happened in 400 yrs,,why would it begin now?
> 
> What women can offer are their solo virtuoso , Like Hillary Hahn who has trumped every male performer in Bach. She will reign as champ. No man will ever approach her Bach.
> Which male pianist will approach Uchida's Mozart? She reigns as supreme master in Mozart.
> 
> Woman can succeed in this High arts, Just not at the writing table.
> 
> You do realize some have a higher awareness of things than most others?
> There are folks with special gifts of reasoning.
> *Yet the herd can't accept this, so they kill the prophet, happens all the time through history.*
> man hates the lights.
> 
> Chip on sholder?
> You already have one.
> And you are from NY,,,typical conservative shallow thinking process.
> In conducting, this is where woman's next great challenge lies.


Only a few among the hordes of prophets are killed. Most are kept alive for comic relief. Rest assured, you aren't in any danger!:






It must be hard writing a longish post in which every single statement is absurd. I prophesy that no woman will ever match this accomplishment. "It hasn't happened in 400 years, why would it begin now?"


----------



## Minor Sixthist

paulbest said:


> All teen girls think EXACTLY the same way, with only slight variations.


I suppose all illiterate misogynists think the same way too. Some write worse than others, though, it's clear. But I guess its not difficult for one to reach anything worse when another has already reached literal illegibility.

You're wrong, too. You are fighting mostly with adults. You are in this argument diametrically opposed to other white men, I can name them. The same logic applies to younger people. Nobody said most of us weren't less read and mature and more annoying. As a whole we are. We don't all agree on the same things, how asinine. If we all 'thought' the same, more teenaged girls would populate this site. Basic variation in a population. Even if you think my beliefs represent those of all teenaged girls, you haven't even addressed what those thoughts comprise. What else am I supposed to address here?


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> Some of the female singers you mention do _not _write their own material. The are basically CEOs of organizations that create the music they present, often written by middle-aged Norwegians. I'm not making this up. Read the incredible Atlantic Magazine article *Hit Charade*.


That might apply to some of what Mariah Carey & Stevie Nicks wrote and some of Taylor Swift's as she has become more famous. The others have been long known to write their own stuff.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

“Chip on sholder?
You already have one. 
And you are from NY,,,typical conservative shallow thinking process.“

Good to have a ‘chip on sholder’ as an ambitious young person eager to prove somebody wrong. It is a completely positive thing from my perspective, and mine is the only one that matters when it comes to what I myself want to achieve. Don’t worry about me, I’ll be just fine. An ambitious person takes a challenge as inspiration to do even better.

You’d be right to say chips on shoulders for bitter old men... different story. You don’t have enough potential energy left to resolve your baggage if you’re so obstinate you refuse to. This is nobody’s fault but your own.

Our chips are very different. I thank you for having an attitude that contributes to mine.

“NY... conservative.” Paul, you had a 50/50 shot here and you blew it. Not only is NY very much not conservative, my views should have looked a pretty similar way from the onset. It’s very hard and confusing to rebut when you misconstrue very basic facts evident from my arguments.


----------



## Open Book

DaveM said:


> Male pop bands and the males that write their music still far outnumber their female counterparts, but from what I see, individual pop females who write the material they sing are giving males a pretty good run for their money. Just off the top of my head: Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Christina Perri, Beth Nielsen Chapman, Sara McLaughlin, Adele, Joni Mitchell, Alicia Keyes, Dolly Parton, Carole King, Stevie Nicks, Mariah Carey, etc. All of them have written the lyrics and the music.


Taylor Swift has help from male songwriters, in fact one accused her of appropriating a song for herself when she had written only the lyrics. I think her music is terribly mediocre regardless.

Lady Gaga also performs music in a collaborative way with professional, mostly male songwriters. I think any performer adds her own touch to anything and makes some contribution, however.

To find out who wrote a pop song, say Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" (which I love, by the way; some of her songs are an exception to my general aversion to current pop music), google

Gaga Alejandro composer

I give Dolly Parton credit, certainly Carole King, also Lucinda Williams and a few other women, for composing their own good quality material. But not all women do.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think you can dismiss what I said about evolution as a personal opinion. You surely do not think there is more than one species of human? If it were true that different races of humans were so genetically different that a process of speciation is occurring then I'd be happy enough for it to be explored and taught. But it is just simply not true. From genetic studies it is clear that there is far far more genetic variation between the individuals of a race (or a discrete geographical environment) than there is between any sort of averaged out genetic profile of different races. There are some wicked academics who (for motives that are far from pure) produce data that seems to show genetic differences between races but these are quite simply not true. Racism and white supremacism are alive and well in academia .... and on TC. This is not a debate between two valid views - it is a clash between science and extreme right wing politics. There is only one truth in this question.


This is an example of how an emotional thread topic can elicit a post like this.

I meant to talk about segregated groups allowing for the divergence necessary for evolution.

But this does bring up the question -- since we have some genetic material from Neanderthals -- were we both the same species? It's a surprising fact that we shared Europe with Neanderthals for over 10,000 years. That's a long time.


----------



## Open Book

DaveM said:


> Yes, there's no doubt that a slight male domination will make all the difference. Several studies show that 54%/46% or 56%/44% would not be quite right. 55% female/45% male would be an abomination.


It's important to use the correct recipe.

Note that we have people of opposing viewpoints calling for quotas. One ideology thinks there is absolutely no difference in women and men and they feel representation in anything should be proportional to population proportions, about 50/50.

The other calls for quotas because they believe women and men play music differently and the ideal sound calls for a certain proportion of each. This is the first time I have ever heard that reasoning for desiring quotas.


----------



## DaveM

Open Book said:


> Taylor Swift has help from male songwriters, in fact one accused her of appropriating a song for herself when she had written only the lyrics. I think her music is terribly mediocre regardless.
> 
> Lady Gaga also performs music in a collaborative way with professional, mostly male songwriters. I think any performer adds her own touch to anything and makes some contribution, however.
> 
> To find out who wrote a pop song, say Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" (which I love, by the way; some of her songs are an exception to my general aversion to current pop music), google
> 
> Gaga Alejandro composer
> 
> I give Dolly Parton credit, certainly Carole King, also Lucinda Williams and a few other women, for composing their own good quality material. But not all women do.


See my post #640. IMO, just because some women collaborate on some of their pop song output does not make their song-writing acumen any the less. It is not unusual for many pop singers, male or female, to have written their own songs earlier in their careers -songs that got them off the ground- and then have considerable help as their careers took off and demand for their recordings increased.

Since this all came up because of the question of female pop song composition, it is important to note that some of the greatest male bands and individual singers got considerable help also or, in some cases (think Elton John & Bernie Taupin) their entire career was a collaboration.


----------



## Open Book

DaveM said:


> See my post #640. IMO, just because some women collaborate on some of their pop song output does not make their song-writing acumen any the less. It is not unusual for many pop singers, male or female, to have written their own songs earlier in their careers -songs that got them off the ground- and then have considerable help as their careers took off and demand for their recordings increased.
> 
> Since this all came up because of the question of female pop song composition, it is important to note that some of the greatest male bands and individual singers got considerable help also or, in some cases (think Elton John & Bernie Taupin) their entire career was a collaboration.


True, but to a lesser degree. Fewer males have taken the Elton John route. Elvis is one.


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> This is an example of how an emotional thread topic can elicit a post like this.
> 
> I meant to talk about segregated groups allowing for the divergence necessary for evolution.
> 
> But this does bring up the question -- since we have some genetic material from Neanderthals -- were we both the same species? It's a surprising fact that we shared Europe with Neanderthals for over 10,000 years. That's a long time.


that might be some reason why we differ from the African population. There were at least 2 migration waves from Africa to Eurasia. First the Neanderthals and later the homo sapiens. The sapiens interbred with the Neanderthals and inherited some of their genes. Also, the cold climate in the Northern hemisphere exerted harder evolutionary pressures than the warm climate of Africa. I read that the Neanderthals were more autistic and had good mathematical abilities, while the sapiens were more social
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07770-7


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> This is an example of how an emotional thread topic can elicit a post like this.
> 
> I meant to talk about segregated groups allowing for the divergence necessary for evolution.
> 
> But this does bring up the question -- since we have some genetic material from Neanderthals -- were we both the same species? It's a surprising fact that we shared Europe with Neanderthals for over 10,000 years. That's a long time.


OK but evolution is a slow (and often a very slow) process. It is mutation rather that creates the occasional advantage that then gets selected. Many of us have some Neanderthal genetic material, true, but we were never the same species. As I understand it, the Neanderthals spread out from Africa and established themselves in many places. Then our own species arrived on the scene, again spreading out from Africa. We lived side by side in many places and there must have been some interbreeding (hence the Neanderthal genetic material that many of us carry). But the Neanderthals dies out. It isn't clear why. They were stronger and had bigger brains. But evidently we had some telling advantages.


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> that might be some reason why we differ from the African population. There were at least 2 migration waves from Africa to Eurasia. First the Neanderthals and later the homo sapiens. The sapiens interbred with the Neanderthals and inherited some of their genes. Also, the cold climate in the Northern hemisphere exerted harder evolutionary pressures than the warm climate of Africa. I read that the Neanderthals were more autistic and had good mathematical abilities, while the sapiens were more social
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07770-7


Just saw this after posting my post. We cover some of the same ground. But I don't understand your point in your first sentence. What do you mean when you say that "we" (presumably you mean "white people" and assume that only "white people" come here??) differ from the African population?


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> that might be some reason why we differ from the African population. There were at least 2 migration waves from Africa to Eurasia. First the Neanderthals and later the homo sapiens. The sapiens interbred with the Neanderthals and inherited some of their genes. Also, the cold climate in the Northern hemisphere exerted harder evolutionary pressures than the warm climate of Africa. I read that the Neanderthals were more autistic and had good mathematical abilities, while the sapiens were more social
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07770-7


"The sapiens interbred with the Neanderthals and inherited some of their genes."

We inherited some of their genetic advantages (or they were neutral). What they inherited from us wasn't enough for their continuing survival, there were other more powerful factors.

We still have feelings of ugliness towards Neanderthals (and other hominids). Should these natural feelings be talked about as being foundational to our natural history (not positive or negative)? Would it be helpful in the world today?


----------



## Enthusiast

Open Book said:


> It's important to use the correct recipe.
> 
> Note that we have people of opposing viewpoints calling for quotas. One ideology thinks there is absolutely no difference in women and men and they feel representation in anything should be proportional to population proportions, about 50/50.
> 
> The other calls for quotas because they believe women and men play music differently and the ideal sound calls for a certain proportion of each. This is the first time I have ever heard that reasoning for desiring quotas.


I think you paraphrase wrongly - or perhaps the thread has gone even more astray through no fault of yours. Most of the argument is not about our needing equal numbers but equality of opportunity.


----------



## philoctetes

Open Book said:


> True, but to a lesser degree. Fewer males have taken the Elton John route. Elvis is one.


There may be other factors here to consider, such as commercial honesty on the part of rock stars. Plant and Page didn't really write Whole Lotta Love, remember? Ane thing one has to learn in any profession is that your partners might take credit for your best work and throw you under the bus.

I can think of many male songwriting partnerships so I'm not sure how Elvis is just "one".


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> "The sapiens interbred with the Neanderthals and inherited some of their genes."
> 
> We inherited some of their genetic advantages (or they were neutral). What they inherited from us wasn't enough for their continuing survival, there were other more powerful factors.
> 
> We still have feelings of ugliness towards Neanderthals (and other hominids). Should these natural feelings be talked about as being foundational to our natural history (not positive or negative)? Would it be helpful in the world today?


The abilities and nature of Neanderthals is a live issue in anthropology and archaeology. We are learning that they were not the ugly brutes that we had previously thought.


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> The abilities and nature of Neanderthals is a live issue in anthropology and archaeology. We are learning that they were not the ugly brutes that we had previously thought.


All civilized people run away from this issue, that's why I bring it up as a question. Should it be better known as a subject that's been explored scientifically?

I don't know if it'll go back to the topic of misogyny. Are men naturally misogynist? Do they feel comfortable being misogynist if they recognize it in themselves? Are we comfortable with the feelings that we have about other hominids and great apes?


----------



## Open Book

Enthusiast said:


> I think you paraphrase wrongly - or perhaps the thread has gone even more astray through no fault of yours. Most of the argument is not about our needing equal numbers but equality of opportunity.


Yes, but there are a few extremists who demand equal numbers. Even immediately. Maybe there are none on this board, but they exist and exert political pressure.


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> OK but evolution is a slow (and often a very slow) process. It is mutation rather that creates the occasional advantage that then gets selected. Many of us have some Neanderthal genetic material, true, but we were never the same species. As I understand it, the Neanderthals spread out from Africa and established themselves in many places. Then our own species arrived on the scene, again spreading out from Africa. We lived side by side in many places and there must have been some interbreeding (hence the Neanderthal genetic material that many of us carry). But the Neanderthals dies out. It isn't clear why. They were stronger and had bigger brains. But evidently we had some telling advantages.


Why do you think Neanderthals died out? Perhaps it was a smaller population than sapiens and they were genetically absorbed through interbreeding? The smaller partner in a merger. "Dying out" isn't an all or nothing proposition. They're still here. In us. Some might even be contributing to this thread?


----------



## Open Book

philoctetes said:


> There may be other factors here to consider, such as commercial honesty on the part of rock stars. Plant and Page didn't really write Whole Lotta Love, remember? Ane thing one has to learn in any profession is that your partners might take credit for your best work and throw you under the bus.
> 
> I can think of many male songwriting partnerships so I'm not sure how Elvis is just "one".


Elvis was known as a performer and interpreter and not a composer of his own material. All great performers put their own stamp on things. But he didn't compose. This makes him like the women in pop music I call divas - I hope that's not seen as insulting, they see themselves that way.

That's different from a group where some or all members of the group compose their own material. They collaborate but at least they themselves write the material they perform.

Many great groups started out playing the music of others then switched to their own material. Beatles, Rolling Stones.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you think Neanderthals died out?


Same reason as the dinosaurs: smoking.


----------



## Open Book

Luchesi said:


> All civilized people run away from this issue, that's why I bring it up as a question. Should it be better known as a subject that's been explored scientifically?
> 
> I don't know if it'll go back to the topic of misogyny. Are men naturally misogynist? Do they feel comfortable being misogynist if they recognize it in themselves? Are we comfortable with the feelings that we have about other hominids and great apes?


I wish certain people would address these great questions instead of confining themselves to elaborate putdowns of the easiest targets on this thread. Watching someone shoot fish in a barrel gets boring.


----------



## philoctetes

KenOC said:


> Same reason as the dinosaurs: smoking.


Here's the evidence:


----------



## EdwardBast

Some of the nonsmoking species live on:


----------



## Jacck

Luchesi said:


> All civilized people run away from this issue, that's why I bring it up as a question. Should it be better known as a subject that's been explored scientifically?
> 
> I don't know if it'll go back to the topic of misogyny. Are men naturally misogynist? Do they feel comfortable being misogynist if they recognize it in themselves? Are we comfortable with the feelings that we have about other hominids and great apes?


I have no feelings of repulsion towards any hominids
I am also not sure if all men are naturally misogynistic. But many have a problem finding the right balance, they either are misogynist and see women as devils, or they idolize women and see them as utterly good and angels and incapable of evil, deception etc. The truth is of course in the middle. Both women and men are not a uniform mass, but composed of different individuals, which vary in their abilities, beliefs, morals. That is why I find claims such as "all women are opressed" and "all men are opressors" utterly false.


----------



## paulbest

Minor Sixthist said:


> I suppose all illiterate misogynists think the same way too. Some write worse than others, though, it's clear. But I guess its not difficult for one to reach anything worse when another has already reached literal illegibility.
> 
> You're wrong, too. You are fighting mostly with adults. You are in this argument diametrically opposed to other white men, I can name them. The same logic applies to younger people. Nobody said most of us weren't less read and mature and more annoying. As a whole we are. We don't all agree on the same things, how asinine. If we all 'thought' the same, more teenaged girls would populate this site. Basic variation in a population. Even if you think my beliefs represent those of all teenaged girls, you haven't even addressed what those thoughts comprise. What else am I supposed to address here?


No you have read me wrong,,which is none of your fault,,its my laziness and lack of time,,,,
I meant all teen girls have same concerns, dates, boys, makeup, clothes, friends, etc,,,,all girls have main themes that run through their daily life, This is what I mean.

Women are of earth, conservative, relational..take my wife, she is more married to her family than me, all Spanish girls are the same , family 1st, husband 2nd place, Italian girls I know are exactly the same. I assume this is true with most women.


----------



## Jacck

philoctetes said:


> Here's the evidence:
> 
> View attachment 119291


nice joint. I wonder what kind of horsetail is he/she smoking?


----------



## paulbest

Jacck said:


> I have no feelings of repulsion towards any hominids
> I am also not sure if all men are naturally misogynistic. But many have a problem finding the right balance, they either are misogynist and see women as devils, or they idolize women and see them as utterly good and angels and incapable of evil, deception etc. The truth is of course in the middle. Both women and men are not a uniform mass, but composed of different individuals, which vary in their abilities, beliefs, morals. That is why I find claims such as "all women are opressed" and "all men are opressors" utterly false.


so are you saying women are 
50% angelic and 
50% little devils...is this what you mean:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you think Neanderthals died out? Perhaps it was a smaller population than sapiens and they were genetically absorbed through interbreeding? The smaller partner in a merger. "Dying out" isn't an all or nothing proposition. They're still here. In us. Some might even be contributing to this thread?


I would not like to speculate about this and am certainly no expert. I don't think they were absorbed even though some of their genes have survived to the present (they make up a very small part of the genetic make up of many of us with no geographical concentration, as far as I understand). But they do seem to have lived in separate communities that became fewer and fewer. In Europe at least the climate was changing and that may have played a role. I think I heard somewhere that Neanderthals were better adapted to very cold conditions.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> ..take my wife, she is more married to her family than me, all Spanish girls are the same , family 1st, husband 2nd place, Italian girls I know are exactly the same.


Aha! The source of your resentments.


----------



## paulbest

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you think Neanderthals died out? Perhaps it was a smaller population than sapiens and they were genetically absorbed through interbreeding? The smaller partner in a merger. "Dying out" isn't an all or nothing proposition. They're still here. In us. Some might even be contributing to this thread?


It is the Neanderthal elements within me, which inspire me to make the comments and opinions I uphold.
Women can be The conqueror , Hahn, Uchida, and others,,, In the composition genre, they are out of place. 
Look, which male composer has yet to reach Elliott Carter's genius since his passing legacy?

If men can't reach other pinnacles, how are women going to do it?

Women in the past 20 yrs, have great achievements in the High Arts , more than any era previous.

I feel they will be the gender to carry forward the High Arts. Moreso than men will contribute in the future.


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> I have no feelings of repulsion towards any hominids
> I am also not sure if all men are naturally misogynistic. But many have a problem finding the right balance, they either are misogynist and see women as devils, or they idolize women and see them as utterly good and angels and incapable of evil, deception etc. The truth is of course in the middle. Both women and men are not a uniform mass, but composed of different individuals, which vary in their abilities, beliefs, morals. That is why I find claims such as "all women are opressed" and "all men are opressors" utterly false.


"I have no feelings of repulsion towards any hominids"

That's surprising to hear from you. How did this happen in your life? what were the experiences?


----------



## Enthusiast

Luchesi said:


> All civilized people run away from this issue, that's why I bring it up as a question. Should it be better known as a subject that's been explored scientifically?
> 
> I don't know if it'll go back to the topic of misogyny. Are men naturally misogynist? Do they feel comfortable being misogynist if they recognize it in themselves? Are we comfortable with the feelings that we have about other hominids and great apes?


I don't believe most men are misogynists. But they have believed themselves quite happy with the status quo and most people do not greatly like change. From my own experience of introducing greatly improved gender balance in several organisations, many men get to greatly enjoy working in an environment where there is a better balance between women and men at the higher levels.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Is the charisma of a conductor just stylistic , even necessary ? Style can be sexual , overtly psycho-dramatic . Oh , must the female conductor appear as Goddess ? Orchestral works could be composed so as to be conductor-less . Trios are .


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> that might be some reason why we differ from the African population. There were at least 2 migration waves from Africa to Eurasia. First the Neanderthals and later the homo sapiens. The sapiens interbred with the Neanderthals and inherited some of their genes. Also, the cold climate in the Northern hemisphere exerted harder evolutionary pressures than the warm climate of Africa. I read that the Neanderthals were more autistic and had good mathematical abilities, while the sapiens were more social
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07770-7


I'm sure there were various hard evolutionary pressures in Africa as well as Eurasia. Maybe some different ones.


----------



## Larkenfield

Open Book said:


> Yes, but there are a few extremists who demand equal numbers. Even immediately. Maybe there are none on this board, but they exist and exert political pressure.


Well, ignore them. Success in the arts doesn't work that way. It's likely in the arts that what women want is equal opportunity rather than expecting equal 50-50 membership in orchestras or on the podium where men tend to outnumber them anyway. Use your head. There aren't as many women compared to men who want to conduct in the first place compared to men, but there doesn't have to be if they are granted equal opportunity and the exceptions to the rule can rise to the surface of their profession through merit. Such a 50-50 ratio is highly unlikely in orchestras because of blind auditions where membership is based on ability and women are being accepted and not based on roster quotas. The same with conducting. There will never be quotas that can effectively work - any group would resent it - unless there's proven ability, and that means that the women have the same opportunity to fail as well as succeed when the opportunity to prove themselves is there. Please stop basing an argument on quotas by a fringe element who don't understand the lay of the land in music and how orchestras and conductorships work.

Nathalie Stutzmann conducting Bach:


----------



## paulbest

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Is the charisma of a conductor just stylistic , even necessary ? Style can be sexual , overtly psycho-dramatic . Oh , must the female conductor appear as Goddess ? Orchestral works could be composed so as to be conductor-less . Trios are .


haha
Women should don new uniforms,,,instead of the long black cape tux usual for male conductors,,,, women could take up a long flowing black V back, sheer velvet dress.
Nice,,,but may be distracting at times....*what was that piece we just heard last night,,,all I recall is the V back black velvet sheer dress*


----------



## paulbest

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Is the charisma of a conductor just stylistic , even necessary ? Style can be sexual , overtly psycho-dramatic . Oh , must the female conductor appear as Goddess ? Orchestral works could be composed so as to be conductor-less . Trios are .


Yeah, new orchestra works should be scored for *Conductor not needed* 
like driverless cars techno gizmos


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> I don't believe most men are misogynists. But they have believed themselves quite happy with the status quo and most people do not greatly like change. From my own experience of introducing greatly improved gender balance in several organisations, many men get to greatly enjoy working in an environment where there is a better balance between women and men at the higher levels.


Men overhear it from when women get together. It's a mild form of misandry. It's cathartic for them.

You have more experience with this than me in formal settings. It occurred to me this is analogous to the mild misogyny that men feel.


----------



## Open Book

Larkenfield said:


> Well, ignore them. Success in the arts doesn't work that way. It's likely in the arts that what women want is equal opportunity rather than expecting equal 50-50 membership in orchestras or on the podium where men tend to outnumber them anyway. Use your head. There aren't as many women compared to men who want to conduct in the first place compared to men, but there doesn't have to be if they are granted equal opportunity and the exceptions to the rule can rise to the surface of their profession through merit. Such a 50-50 ratio is highly unlikely in orchestras because of blind auditions where membership is based on ability and women are being accepted and not based on roster quotas. The same with conducting. There will never be quotas that can effectively work - any group would resent it - unless there's proven ability, and that means that the women have the same opportunity to fail as well as succeed when the opportunity to prove themselves is there. Please stop basing an argument on quotas by a fringe element who don't understand the lay of the land in music and how orchestras and conductorships work.


What do you mean, use my head? Quotas _are_ being implemented in college admissions and in job hiring. What figures do you think are being used a goal? The proportion of the disadvantaged group in the total population, of course.

How else do you think people decide that there are "not enough" of one type of person in a certain field or endeavor? By comparing their numbers in that field to their numbers in the general population.

Even if that result is not strictly applied, it is seen as the eventual goal. To achieve proportionate ethnic and gender representation in all fields.

Quotas are actively being applied, and yes, they _are_ causing resentment.

I'm not saying this is happening in classical music, I have no idea. But it is happening elsewhere and it is a political goal of some. I don't see why they wouldn't try to apply it to the arts.


----------



## paulbest

I think some of the piano contests are rigged, awards given to young women, just because they are women,,and they decided to program one work vs another. 
Both factors are suspect in the judgements rendered.
I've seen it with my own ears.
and I also believe this bias is more rampant now than ever before. Shame on the judges Conductor Wit, pianist Zimerman, both guilty.

Xu Zi should have won with his Gaspard and even more spectacular his Jeux
Instead all 3 awards were given to 2 2nd rates, and 1 exceptional, but not as great as Xu Zi.

The judges were unfair, biased and mafiaoso, 
They shamed Xu Zi out of his Gold prize

2 of the winners were women.
SCAMED/Fraud/Mafia


----------



## EdwardBast

Open Book said:


> What do you mean, use my head? Quotas _are_ being implemented in college admissions and in job hiring. What figures do you think are being used a goal? The proportion of the disadvantaged group in the total population, of course.
> 
> How else do you think people decide that there are "not enough" of one type of person in a certain field or endeavor? By comparing their numbers in that field to their numbers in the general population.
> 
> Even if that result is not strictly applied, it is seen as the eventual goal. To achieve proportionate ethnic and gender representation in all fields.
> 
> Quotas are actively being applied, and yes, they _are_ causing resentment.
> 
> I'm not saying this is happening in classical music, I have no idea. But it is happening elsewhere and it is a political goal of some. I don't see why *they* wouldn't try to apply it to the arts.


Ah yes, the infamous they, who haunt the fever dreams of paranoids and conspiracy theorists everywhere.


----------



## Open Book

What part of my post do you find to be untrue?


----------



## Larkenfield

Emmanuelle Haïm conducts Händel:






Triumphant and Glorious...


----------



## Botschaft

Open Book said:


> What part of my post do you find to be untrue?


_They_ don't care about truth.


----------



## Larkenfield

Susanna Mälkki conducts Strauss with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra:


----------



## Larkenfield

Mirga Gražinytė-Tila conducts the LA Philharmonic:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Partita said:


> On this matter, it has been pointed out the achievement of equality of opportunity is not as easy as it may seem. Simply legislating against discrimination may be an essential requirement in some areas, but it may not be sufficient. There could be, and there probably are, adverse societal hindrances in some occupations that are impossible to eradicate in the short term. Various longer-term measures may be required to change negative attitudes against women that are not justified by objective assessments.
> 
> To tell people who think differently from you that they are "... _cattle, a member of a controllable mob incapable of clear thought"_ is a bit strong, isn't it? I am sure that I do not think in that way, but have worked it for for myself that discrimination in any walk of life is not justified. I'm happy to see any measures introduced that may be expected succeed in eradicating the discrimination, provided of course they are done in a cost-effective manner and their success reviewed periodically..


So you would support discrimination against men to help women?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

paulbest said:


> haha
> ...*what was that piece we just heard last night,,,all I recall is the V back black velvet sheer dress*


The orchestra and audience quiet as a Goddess walks to the dais , presented in spot-light , posed , gesturing to all graciously .

Then she sits facing the audience . In this moment the music begins as with a prayer transcendent . The next thing you know she is playing in the stringed bass section in the rear . Surely , The Goddess . And her one true appointed duty is to initiate a very important lead-in phrase (of barely notate-able timing) midst the 2nd movement .


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Mirga Gražinytė-Tila conducts the LA Philharmonic:


Haim is excellent, Malkki is also a very talented conductor.

Your 3rd vid, shows a allegro young lady who has talent for some certain composers.
But in the darker, dense composers such as Schnittke and Pettersson, I am not sure she is ready nor capable as yet. 
She will need maturity for those 2.

Glad you posted these 3 young women conductors , which shows women will be the new impetus and voice of the rebirth in the High Arts.

Considering the materialism/money/wealth factor has been shown to be a fraud, a fake, a demon from the pits of hell......the one thi9ng which is resilient and victorious through all this slime pit of materialism, is ,,,The High Art..
It is the only thing redeemable about this entire social structure.
Materialims/mod society is a death trap,
The High Arts represent the one major antidote to this baneful disease which the soul is suffering.

Its only a matter of time.

Amazing, the High Arts was suffering decay and death, , and now with the power of women, a New Rebirth is taking shape in her womb.
Just amazing.


----------



## Larkenfield

Paulbest: “But in the darker, dense composers such as Schnittke and Pettersson, I am not sure she is ready nor capable as yet. She will need maturity for those.”

Yes, maturity counts for a lot and maturity comes with the opportunity of experience. That’s assuming that she would even be interested in conducting anyone as dark and dense as these two in the first place, and not even all male conductors would probably be interested. In the meantime, one can only speculate and I’m not sure if it’s fair to speculate that a female conductor wouldn’t be up to the complex and intense demands. They would have to feel up to the task and like the music, and there are so many other composers worth conducting who can also be quite intense, dark or challenging. I could easily imagine a female conductor coping with Schoenberg, Webern or Berg quite well, if it hasn’t already been done.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Paulbest: "But in the darker, dense composers such as Schnittke and Pettersson, I am not sure she is ready nor capable as yet. She will need maturity for those."
> 
> Yes, maturity counts for a lot and maturity comes from experience. That's assuming that she would even be interested in conducting anyone as occasionally dark and dense as them, and not even all male conductors would probably be interested. In the meantime, one can only speculate and I'm not sure if it's fair to speculate that a female conductor wouldn't be up to the demands. They would have to feel up to the task and like the music, and there are so many other composers worth conducting who can also be quite intense, dark or challenging. I could easily imagine a female conductor coping with Schoenberg, Webern or Berg quite well, if it hasn't already been done.


Agree, good post.

I am hoping that women step back, take a look at what the men have chosen to conduct/record and decide for THEMSELVES, which composers they wish to approach.
There are over 200+ recordings of the LvB 9 sym cycle,,,Brahms has 100 records, and so on so forth.

Women need to step outside the box and think for themselves which composers they CHOOSE , independently of staus quo.

Who here on TC is looking forward to YET another Dvorak sym Cycle?
Tchaikovsky has been well covered.

Schoenberg, Webern are tough going, but I'd love to see more records on either.

The one US orch which I feel is up to the task of intro The New High Arts, (late 20th C Modern)composers, is the Los Angeles , who I feel takes top prize in quality of performance. 
maybe the Chicago is a distant 2nd place. 
Which is another topic which I will post soon
*name your country's finest orch, one only please, perhaps a 2nd runner up...*.


----------



## philoctetes

Yesterday I posted, on this thread, a new DG CD with a woman conducting an out-of-the-box composer. I guess it wasn't noticed.


----------



## MJSeka

Well said, Edward.


----------



## haydnguy

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So you would support discrimination against men to help women?


This is an old question in the U.S. back in the early '70's called Affirmative Action. The answer is yes. The reason being is that the overwhelming bias of those who were making the decisions to hire were white males who mostly had bias against minorities. It took Affirmative Action to level the playing field. In classical music/orchestras it's a bit different but I think that if a male and female have equal talent that the female should get the job to level the playing field. It's the price we pay for unfair biases.


----------



## Oortone

haydnguy said:


> This is an old question in the U.S. back in the early '70's called Affirmative Action. The answer is yes. The reason being is that the overwhelming bias of those who were making the decisions to hire were white males who mostly had bias against minorities. It took Affirmative Action to level the playing field. In classical music/orchestras it's a bit different but *I think that if a male and female have equal talent that the female should get the job to level the playing field. It's the price we pay for unfair biases*.


I disagree. I believe randomisation is the right way to do this. Because in the long run that's the only fair way to settle a decision between two persons of equal talent regardless of all their "physical attributes". Otherwise, sooner or later, you will replicate the old discrimination in a new fashion. Also, since there's no way to be certain the "talent quota" is precicely 50/50 (when it comes to gender) randomisation is superior to affirmative action. This is of course also true when it comes to origin or other things like that.

It might be that it's "slower" but better to do things slow and proper than to rush things.

But the big problem here is of course how to determine who are equally talented. Especially in the case of conductors it's quite hard to make anonymized auditions.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ The problem is greater than merely being able to quantify and compare talent. If the panel (maybe all men) have preconceptions about women as conductors they may not recognise the greater talent of a very gifted woman. There is a lot of evidence that selection panels are influenced by factors without recognising that those factors are influencing them. They can give rational and apparently unbiased reasons which have been shown to be rationalisations. The effect is so strong that they may not even be conscious of the factor (although obviously they would be conscious of the sex of the candidates).


----------



## 1996D

All the videos in this thread are examples of horrible conducting and interpretation:lol:. You can write whatever you want and hold any fantastical views you wish, but in the end your ears will punish you, forcing you to go deeper and deeper into delusion.

It's fun to be right.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ OK, you don't like them. But even it that were an objectively correct judgment (and who could think that would be possible?) it still wouldn't prove your point. I'm fairly sure we could come up with plenty of clips of men conducting that would would also hate. 

I think I am 100% right in what I am saying here but I'm not sure it is fun. Your command of logic (as well as your dinosaur views) are a little irritating!

By the by I am watching a recording of a recent BBC documentary about Indian classical music and it seems Carnatic music has the same problem that we have here with a belief that women can't play a certain percussion instrument. The programme featured on one woman who had broken through but had faced much discrimination despite her evident ability. But I have to warn you: the world is changing. And not before time.


----------



## paulbest

Oortone and Enthusiast both offer enlightening perspectives on this issue of , deciding who makes the cut,,and the factors influencing, whether good/or biased.

I disagree with 1996D,,somewhat,,as I do not have reference records in the Handel nor the Strauss,,,I found all 3 women conductors more than capable, if not excellent. 


Take a flutist spot audition for a major orch.
We have 3 contestants, 2 women, I man. 
Its not too difficult to seek out the best player,,as we give each, 3 principle flute sections of 3 major , well known works. The artist have no idea which 3 will be offered. But its easy to guess on at least 1. Debussy's Prelude is a must. 
If the artist has carefully studied how the flutist in the Martinon/Paris orch has taken that section,,all will be well , Next up is one of Mozart's flute concertos,,,next would be ,,say a Carter piece.


It should be blind testing,,the conductor and his associates have no idea of gender on the play back. 
Move on to the next position. 
Now gender has lost all significance.
Again , I do not wish a conductor take the helms as say a Reiner who craks the whip,,nor worse like the old Koussevitzky , who skipped the whip and used his baton, a BIG BATON,,,ouchhh
No , those old methods are history. 
Yet I do not wish to see a conductor as easy going as say, Estrada over at the Frankfurt nor Malkki's sweetness approach. 


Bruno Walter seems to have been easy going,,yet that Columbia Orch he had, was stellar, and all virtuoso.




A woman conductor can not be judged solely on her conducting,,,the level of orch performance has to be taken into consideration.

As Horowitz mentioned,,,*The orch is (much, my addition) more important than the conductor.*,,yet he did go on to say he hand picked Giulini, who to me, is a above average conductor. 


Choosing a artist has to be a blind test, now all are on level playing field. 
If they have studied closely the greats from the past,,,they will be ahead of the game.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Getting Started with this Career Choice

Conductors can work for large professional and amateur orchestras and choirs, in cathedrals and churches, for musical shows in the theatre, on TV and film productions and for music colleges. Permanent jobs for conductors are very limited, and most work on a freelance basis.

Accomplished musical ability is vital and competition for conductor jobs is very strong. Many vacancies and opportunities are not advertised, so it is essential to network and make good contacts with other people in the music industry.

The majority of conductors train first in an instrument, usually the piano. Many then work for a while as répétiteurs or as assistants to conductors. This involves providing musical accompaniment through rehearsals, and coaching the singers, whilst also observing the established conductor at work. Entrants, even for these posts, would usually work on a voluntary basis initially, to demonstrate their capabilities.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> ^ OK, you don't like them. But even it that were an objectively correct judgment (and who could think that would be possible?) it still wouldn't prove your point. I'm fairly sure we could come up with plenty of clips of men conducting that would would also hate.
> 
> I think I am 100% right in what I am saying here but I'm not sure it is fun. Your command of logic (as well as your dinosaur views) are a little irritating!
> 
> By the by I am watching a recording of a recent BBC documentary about Indian classical music and it seems Carnatic music has the same problem that we have here with a belief that women can't play a certain percussion instrument. The programme featured on one woman who had broken through but had faced much discrimination despite her evident ability. But I have to warn you: the world is changing. And not before time.


Why do you want things to change so bad? This goes for @Minor Sixth as well. Do you you think that if the world changes you'll suddenly be worth more? Hate to break it to you but value is value in any society, in any system.

Karajan would've been great in both the 1800s and the 2000s. Greatness doesn't depend on society; it can't be stifled; bought; or corrupted: it simply is.

All these excuses made for women are just that, excuses, and as you all should know truthful excuses don't exist.

"He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." -Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Barbebleu

About sixty years ago my grandmother told me that I would find out as I went through life that it wasn't what you know, but rather, who you know. Sadly, in the intervening years, nothing seems to have changed. I doubt we will ever live in a meritocracy so long as class and privilege hold sway. Quotas, affirmative action etc. do nothing at all to improve quality. The only way to progress is to ensure that the best person for any job is actually the best person regardless of gender or creed or race.

I have worked with and for men, women and some who were tricky to pin down and some were great and some were dross. At the end of the day I can't see how this will ever change.


----------



## philoctetes

This obsession over conductors just makes it all the worse. How many concert-goers know the name of their orchestra's concertmaster?


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> Why do you want things to change so bad? This goes for @Minor Sixth as well. Do you you think that if the world changes you'll suddenly be worth more? Hate to break it to you but value is value in any society, in any system.
> 
> Karajan would've been great in both the 1800s and the 2000s. Greatness doesn't depend on society; it can't be stifled; bought; or corrupted: it simply is.
> 
> All these excuses made for women are just that, excuses, and as you all should know truthful excuses don't exist.
> 
> "He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else." -Benjamin Franklin


You are so perceptive! I want a fairer world and one where talent is recognised. It isn't about my personal ambition. I'm a man in my mid-60s! You have wasted another post with stuff of no relevance and precious little learning instead of answering the many questions put to you (so we now know you have no answers to them).


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

I suspect misogyny is not the most useful truth . Try the exclusive absurdity of charisma . Charismatics can be so dominatingly scary , even sexy , and would rule over the rehearsal pianist . Oh , but then the rehearsal pianist is a woman also of charisma . Now what ? How can this play out ? God help them . It's a passion play .


----------



## Oortone

Enthusiast said:


> ^ The problem is greater than merely being able to quantify and compare talent. If the panel (maybe all men) have preconceptions about women as conductors they may not recognise the greater talent of a very gifted woman. There is a lot of evidence that selection panels are influenced by factors without recognising that those factors are influencing them. They can give rational and apparently unbiased reasons which have been shown to be rationalisations. The effect is so strong that they may not even be conscious of the factor (although obviously they would be conscious of the sex of the candidates).


The post I replied to was discussing what to do when it's already settled that the two talents where equal and in that case randomisation is the only true justice.


----------



## Oortone

philoctetes said:


> This obsession over conductors just makes it all the worse. How many concert-goers know the name of their orchestra's concertmaster?


Sometimes I do, mostly I don't but I listen a lot to the same two orchestras and it's the conductor that really makes a difference in interpretation, not the concertmaster. Of course in solo passages section leaders will make a noticeable difference but not in comparison to who's conducting.

I don't mind female conductors but I have only experienced it on a few occations.


----------



## KenOC

Let's not forget that "talent" in conducting may not be the whole story. Concerts are show biz -- not very profitable show biz but show biz nonetheless. And they've gotta put bums in seats to stay alive (just ask Baltimore right now).

Speaking ONLY for myself, I'd likely be more willing to plunk down my dollars to see a concert conducted by Yuja Wang in one of her notorious outfits, even if her conducting talent wasn't 110%, than a concert conducted by some boring old guy who looks like he should have retired 20 years ago, waving his arms around.


----------



## Larkenfield

If it were a choice between two equal conductors, look for a third where the choice is clear.


----------



## MJSeka

I wanted to address only from a personal perspective a comment about the complexities of a "pretty" female conductor and how it would make it difficult for the male orchestral members to concentrate, and that women don't have that problem because they're supposedly wired differently when it comes to sexual drive or something (sorry I don't have the quote). This, of course, is a complete fallacy and an antiquated excuse that has lost all virility.

If we can hop out of the 19th century for just a moment…

As a woman, I have had both male and female conductors. Both bad and good. I've had male conductors who were sexual predators, including one who made unwanted advances and around whom I didn't feel safe. But, when I was playing, and because he was a great conductor, I could actually put that aside for the task at hand, although I was always supportive of those who could/would not compartmentalize (it's an unhealthy practice I was engaging in as a coping mechanism).

I've also experienced intense attraction to a conductor or two. But again, when playing, synchronous focus on one goal takes precedence. I have had both male and female colleagues who found a conductor compellingly attractive, yet--when playing or rehearsing—that attraction was not a hindrance.

I don’t know anyone who’s ever thought, “Well, I can’t do my job if he/she’s going to be all good looking and stuff. How am I supposed to concentrate on giving the best performance I can with that pretty/handsome facing taunting me?” But I’m not a mind reader. I do, however, know good cartoon material when I see it.

I do not believe that the majority of men consider themselves to be such helpless victims of their own libidos that they could not concentrate if a sexually attractive conductor were on the podium. That kind of adolescent, reverse victim thinking is the exact same thought process sexual predators use, so I'm strongly inclined to believe and assert that the majority of men I've sat next to--all of whom were fully able to focus on the music--didn't have that same total lack of will or focus.

It’s an insult to the majority of emotionally healthy, balanced men in the world.

Bottom line: attraction challenges are not limited to male or female conductors or male or female performers. To suggest otherwise is to engage in limited, inflexible thinking. That does NOT describe anyone here.

…right?


----------



## KenOC

MJSeka said:


> I wanted to address only from a personal perspective a comment about the complexities of a "pretty" female conductor and how it would make it difficult for the male orchestral members to concentrate...


I think you have Vasily Petrenko in mind. Yeah, so I'm gonna get distracted by that pretty lady conductor? But not by that absolutely stunning flautist sitting right next to me? Get real, Vasily!

The real issue isn't what the players, or even the conductors, think. It what the audience thinks. My generation, whose idea of a conductor was formed by the image-makers for the likes of Stokowski and Toscanini, is often unwilling to accept a female as a serious player in what it sees as a masculine game of domination. But we'll all be gone in a very few years, and things will change. Maybe.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The great orchestras will pass . The musical evening will be more a family affair .


----------



## Woodduck

MJSeka said:


> I wanted to address only from a personal perspective a comment about the complexities of a "pretty" female conductor and how it would make it difficult for the male orchestral members to concentrate, and that women don't have that problem because they're supposedly wired differently when it comes to sexual drive or something (sorry I don't have the quote). This, of course, is a complete fallacy and an antiquated excuse that has lost all virility.
> 
> If we can hop out of the 19th century for just a moment…
> 
> As a woman, I have had both male and female conductors. Both bad and good. I've had male conductors who were sexual predators, including one who made unwanted advances and around whom I didn't feel safe. But, when I was playing, and because he was a great conductor, I could actually put that aside for the task at hand, although I was always supportive of those who could/would not compartmentalize (it's an unhealthy practice I was engaging in as a coping mechanism).
> 
> I've also experienced intense attraction to a conductor or two. But again, when playing, synchronous focus on one goal takes precedence. I have had both male and female colleagues who found a conductor compellingly attractive, yet--when playing or rehearsing-that attraction was not a hindrance.
> 
> I don't know anyone who's ever thought, "Well, I can't do my job if he/she's going to be all good looking and stuff. How am I supposed to concentrate on giving the best performance I can with that pretty/handsome facing taunting me?" But I'm not a mind reader. I do, however, know good cartoon material when I see it.
> 
> I do not believe that the majority of men consider themselves to be such helpless victims of their own libidos that they could not concentrate if a sexually attractive conductor were on the podium. That kind of adolescent, reverse victim thinking is the exact same thought process sexual predators use, so I'm strongly inclined to believe and assert that the majority of men I've sat next to--all of whom were fully able to focus on the music--didn't have that same total lack of will or focus.
> 
> It's an insult to the majority of emotionally healthy, balanced men in the world.
> 
> Bottom line: attraction challenges are not limited to male or female conductors or male or female performers. To suggest otherwise is to engage in limited, inflexible thinking. That does NOT describe anyone here.
> 
> …right?


Let me just add to this nice takedown the unfortunate position of the gay male orchestral musician, who by the "female conductors would be a sexual distraction" theory would have been thoroughly incapable of doing their jobs for centuries.


----------



## MarkW

I _think _things may be different today (or at least changing in the right direction), but in my youth (and young adulthood) knowledgeable critics pretty much agreed that the most compelling operatic productions in the U.S. were produced and conducted under horrendous conditions by Sarah Caldwell and the semi-pro Opera Company of Boston. She held the company together with bailing wire, managed to feature singers like Donald Graham and the young Beverly Sills, tried ambitious programs (like Sessions' Montezuma), and her conducting, considering the forces, was deemed extraordinarily telling and insightful. As I remember, the Met brought her in once in the mid-'70s as a sop to being PC, but then she was relegated back to Boston, practically bankrupted the company purchasing and try to refurbish the old Boston Opera House, negotiated an ill-advised agreement with President Marcos to bring opera to the Phillipines, and eventually died -- an extraordinary talent wasted. I can't imagine that it had nothing to do with her sex (or that she wasn't the least bit attractive).


----------



## Larkenfield

Being physically attractive with certain features and having personal magnetism are not necessarily the same thing. There can be one without the other. Reputedly, Furtwangler could walk into a rehearsal hall and the orchestra on stage would start playing differently. That's not personality, that's magnetism. Later in his life, he was not a particularly attractive-looking man, nor are most conductors when they're older, but he had magnetism… So my feeling is that magnetism conquers all, which can be developed through knowledge and experience, not physical attractiveness. Magnetism means you're willing to follow them because you believe they know where they're going and you are focused on that. Of the women conductors I've seen, they are so vital and alive, not without depth or wisdom or understanding, that it would be a joy to be in the same orchestra under their baton, not because they are attractive, but because they are magnetic... and personal magnetism is not gender specific, in my opinion.

Yes, Mirga Gražinytė-Tila is attractive but I would rate her as being even more magnetic, if you can get your mind around that (and I agree with her idea of letting the music take you over because that's what the great conductors do, imo):






How would anyone like to be conducted by this particular gentleman? (and I couldn't disagree more with the commentator on his ability):


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Woodduck said:


> Let me just add to this nice takedown the unfortunate position of the gay male orchestral musician, who by the "female conductors would be a sexual distraction" theory would have been thoroughly incapable of doing their jobs for centuries.


 But a good handful of our opposition here live in the 1870's. Please, gay people didn't exist back then.


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> But a good handful of our opposition here live in the 1870's. Please, gay people didn't exist back then.


Gay men have existed since antiquity, most likely since prehistoric times ... You really need to brush up on your history.

There are also many instances where women have had prominent roles in societies. Nothing is socially happening today that hasn't already happened at some point in history.


----------



## Open Book

MarkW said:


> I _think _things may be different today (or at least changing in the right direction), but in my youth (and young adulthood) knowledgeable critics pretty much agreed that the most compelling operatic productions in the U.S. were produced and conducted under horrendous conditions by Sarah Caldwell and the semi-pro Opera Company of Boston. She held the company together with bailing wire, managed to feature singers like Donald Graham and the young Beverly Sills, tried ambitious programs (like Sessions' Montezuma), and her conducting, considering the forces, was deemed extraordinarily telling and insightful. As I remember, the Met brought her in once in the mid-'70s as a sop to being PC, but then she was relegated back to Boston, practically bankrupted the company purchasing and try to refurbish the old Boston Opera House, negotiated an ill-advised agreement with President Marcos to bring opera to the Phillipines, and eventually died -- an extraordinary talent wasted. I can't imagine that it had nothing to do with her sex (or that she wasn't the least bit attractive).


I wasn't an opera-goer then, but a woman conductor was something to sit up and take notice about and I enjoyed following reviews of Caldwell's work in the Boston Globe. The critics loved her work. Who's to say if she should have gone "further", i.e. elsewhere. There's nothing wrong with heading a smaller local opera company (especially in a big city) where there might be more artistic freedom. What I find a shame is that there aren't many recordings by her today.


----------



## Open Book

I have absolutely no problem with a woman conducting. I don't think you'll see women wanting to do it in the numbers men do, but I could be wrong. Because of this I am against enforcing quotas. Otherwise I'm not the terrible narrow-minded conservative some people might think I am.

A woman might have more problems with authority, some men can be resistant to a woman's authority. But musicians are not exactly alpha macho men in general. They are used to excellence from women in other aspects of music, why shouldn't they respect a woman who shows capability as a conductor?

I find it insulting that there are headlines here like "Wow! Beautiful woman conductor". I find it annoying that people here are dictating what music a woman conductor should and should not attempt. Any full time music director will have to learn the basic repertoire that her audience expects, unless she's going to confine herself to making niche recordings. So yes, she should learn the Beethoven symphonies. 

I don't understand the predictions about what kind of music women are and are not good at. Women have already shown themselves to be good at all kinds of music as singers and instrumentalists. Why not wait and see what they can do as conductors? The empirical approach, as someone called it.


----------



## Larkenfield

MarkW said:


> I _think _things may be different today (or at least changing in the right direction), but in my youth (and young adulthood) knowledgeable critics pretty much agreed that the most compelling operatic productions in the U.S. were produced and conducted under horrendous conditions by Sarah Caldwell and the semi-pro Opera Company of Boston. She held the company together with bailing wire, managed to feature singers like Donald Graham and the young Beverly Sills, tried ambitious programs (like Sessions' Montezuma), and her conducting, considering the forces, was deemed extraordinarily telling and insightful. As I remember, the Met brought her in once in the mid-'70s as a sop to being PC, but then she was relegated back to Boston, practically bankrupted the company purchasing and try to refurbish the old Boston Opera House, negotiated an ill-advised agreement with President Marcos to bring opera to the Phillipines, and eventually died -- an extraordinary talent wasted. I can't imagine that it had nothing to do with her sex (or that she wasn't the least bit attractive).


More background on Sarah Caldwell:



> The Opera Company of Boston was an American opera company located in Boston, Massachusetts, that was active from the late 1950s through the 1980s. The company was founded by American conductor Sarah Caldwell in 1958 under the name Boston Opera Group.
> 
> At one time, the touring arm of the company was called Opera New England. Caldwell served as both director and conductor for most of the company's productions throughout its more than three decade-long history. Under her leadership, the company presented a repertoire of more than 75 operas that came from a wide array of musical periods and styles, including a large number of works previously unheard in the United States, and a significant number of contemporary operas. [unquote]


----------



## philoctetes

Petrenko's comments are less insulting to women than to men, when you think about it. He's saying that men are too weak to do their jobs around women. Wonder what he would say to that.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ His views are pure chauvinism. I'll have to boycott him. I can't give up Jansons, though!


----------



## Oortone

KenOC said:


> Let's not forget that "talent" in conducting may not be the whole story. Concerts are show biz -- not very profitable show biz but show biz nonetheless. And they've gotta put bums in seats to stay alive (just ask Baltimore right now).
> 
> *Speaking ONLY for myself, I'd likely be more willing to plunk down my dollars to see a concert conducted by Yuja Wang in one of her notorious outfits, even if her conducting talent wasn't 110%, than a concert conducted by some boring old guy who looks like he should have retired 20 years ago, waving his arms around.*


But I think you're on to something here. In my country, Sweden, there's definitely a demand for female conductors in parts of the audience and from concert arrangers too. Not primarily for musical reasons but for various other.

Personally I don't care much how the person conducting looks or moves, I often don't even have my eyes open. But I'm pretty sure there are people like you who really enjoys the performance aspect.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Gay men have existed since antiquity, most likely since prehistoric times ... You really need to brush up on your history.
> 
> There are also many instances where women have had prominent roles in societies. Nothing is socially happening today that hasn't already happened at some point in history.


Well, you completely missed my sarcastic joke mocking your arguments. Over at Reddit we might say r/wooosh: the joke "whooshed" right over your head. You might need to brush up on your irony.


----------



## Larkenfield

Irony is best used on wrinkled shirts. —PDQ Bach


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> Well, you completely missed my sarcastic joke mocking your arguments. Over at Reddit we might say r/wooosh: the joke "whooshed" right over your head. You might need to brush up on your irony.


Living by the trends and whims is what people like yourself do, your 1870s joke simply doesn't apply.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Living by the trends and whims is what people like yourself do, your 1870s joke simply doesn't apply.


Your comment is primarily incomprehensible. But most older people regret that they can't adapt to the new trends. I'm hesitant to believe this isn't just yet another reaction formation - in reality you would love to better understand the "trends and whims." Who would reject new information, and rather know less than learn more?

Oh wait..


----------



## 1996D

Understanding and living by them are two different things. You can understand how people thought at different periods in history, even immerse yourself in countries where they think vastly different, but in the end your mind is yours alone to mould, unless you give up your creative will and give in to whatever the sheep are doing at the moment in the society you live.


----------



## haydnguy

Minor Sixthist said:


> Your comment is primarily incomprehensible. But most older people regret that they can't adapt to the new trends. I'm hesitant to believe this isn't just yet another reaction formation - in reality you would love to better understand the "trends and whims." Who would reject new information, and rather know less than learn more?
> 
> Oh wait..


I'm an old person that regrets I can't adapt to new trends. :lol:


----------



## fluteman

Luchesi said:


> "Sadly, the profound ethnocentrism, if not outright racism, reflected in some TC posts (I'm not referring specifically to the above discussion about Murray, an author whose work I have not read) is all too prevalent in our culture."
> 
> Our culture? Every group of humans does it. If non-white cultures had majority power would it surprise you that they did it even more viciously? (Aren't they currently doing it from their own cultural standpoint?) Every animal group develops animosities and discriminating attitudes towards groups that are slightly different. This allows the eventual divergences which are the mother's milk of evolution.
> 
> It's natural. It's not PC. It's not what would we would ideally like to see. But it's why we're here.


The thing is, there is only one human race, not separate races evolving away from each other until they eventually "diverge". Remote tribes that continue to live completely apart from modern civilization are fast disappearing despite attempts in some cases to preserve them. And among the children of every remote jungle, island, mountain or desert village is a potential virtuoso violinist, microbiologist, theoretical physicist and/or billionaire entrepreneur waiting for his or her opportunity to shine. Not long ago I read the story of one such individual, born in a remote African village but able to obtain and education and become a prominent scientist.

The most surprising thing about this thread is how quickly some are willing attribute disproportionate lack of representation in the classical music field of women or non-white non-Europeans to biological or evolutionary causes, when classical music is perhaps the ultimate example of an elite, aristocratic European cultural tradition. Rather than continue with this discussion, perhaps my time will be better spent listening to the Bach Collegium Japan.


----------



## Jacck

fluteman said:


> The thing is, there is only one human race, not separate races evolving away from each other until they eventually "diverge". Remote tribes that continue to live completely apart from modern civilization are fast disappearing despite attempts in some cases to preserve them. And among the children of every remote jungle, island, mountain or desert village is a potential virtuoso violinist, microbiologist, theoretical physicist and/or billionaire entrepreneur waiting for his or her opportunity to shine. Not long ago I read the story of one such individual, born in a remote African village but able to obtain and education and become a prominent scientist.
> 
> The most surprising thing about this thread is how quickly some are willing attribute disproportionate lack of representation in the classical music field of women or non-white non-Europeans to biological or evolutionary causes, when classical music is perhaps the ultimate example of an elite, aristocratic European cultural tradition. Rather than continue with this discussion, perhaps my time will be better spent listening to the Bach Collegium Japan.


the most intelligent race are Ashkenazy Jews, they have average IQ 114 or something like that. The second most intelligent race are East Asians (Japanese, Chinese) with average IQ 104. Europeans have about 100. IQ is hereditary. We have 2 major minorities in Czech Republic - the Vietnamese and the Gypsies. The Vietnamese are intelligent, hard-working, value education higly, study universities. The Gypsies are the exact opposite.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> ...
> The most surprising thing about this thread is how quickly some are willing attribute disproportionate lack of representation in the classical music field of women or non-white non-Europeans to biological or evolutionary causes, when classical music is perhaps the ultimate example of an elite, aristocratic European cultural tradition.


I agree strongly with this view. Given the recent evidence for serious bias against women in orchestras from the move toward blind auditions, why would anyone assume such bias is not a major factor in conductor selection? The appeal to biological or evolutionary causes is pure speculation since there are still far too many societal factors to correct for those effects.

In the US women make up roughly 33% of lawyers today compared to 4% in 1960. Women comprised 36% of the doctor workforce in 2015 compared to 6% in 2050. I'm guessing evolution (and biology) had little affect on the change in those statistics.

We don't know what percentage of conductors, composers, or performers would be women in a society with no bias during both the developmental stages of women musicians and the selection for those positions. We know there are biological differences between the sexes. Aside from specific areas such as giving birth and weight lifting, the sex differences appear rather minimal compared to the effect of known biases (both individual and systemic ones).

Why is it so important to assume bias is not the major factor in the selection of musical positions?


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> the most intelligent race are Ashkenazy Jews, they have average IQ 114 or something like that. The second most intelligent race are East Asians (Japanese, Chinese) with average IQ 104. Europeans have about 100. IQ is hereditary. We have 2 major minorities in Czech Republic - the Vietnamese and the Gypsies. The Vietnamese are intelligent, hard-working, value education higly, study universities. The Gypsies are the exact opposite.


Ashkenazy Jews are not a "race." East Asians are not a "race." Europeans are not a "race."

Read less Murray.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Irony is best used on wrinkled shirts. -PDQ Bach


And not on stuffed shirts.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> *the most intelligent race are *Ashkenazy Jews, they have average IQ 114 or something like that. The second most intelligent race are East Asians (Japanese, Chinese) with average IQ 104. Europeans have about 100. *IQ is hereditary*. We have 2 major minorities in Czech Republic - the Vietnamese and the Gypsies. The Vietnamese are intelligent, hard-working, value education higly, study universities. The Gypsies are the exact opposite.


What a simplistic analysis. Intelligence is measured in more ways than IQ, and IQ is not "hereditary", though heritability is a component.

What has this to do with misogyny on the podium?


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> the most intelligent race are Ashkenazy Jews, they have average IQ 114 or something like that. The second most intelligent race are East Asians (Japanese, Chinese) with average IQ 104. Europeans have about 100. IQ is hereditary. We have 2 major minorities in Czech Republic - the Vietnamese and the Gypsies. The Vietnamese are intelligent, hard-working, value education higly, study universities. The Gypsies are the exact opposite.


Others have responded to this but I don't think I have ever seen a post on this forum that is as objectionable. Aside from your usual obvious errors in interpreting data that is often dodgy anyway (while ignoring data that doesn't fit your extraordinary world view), you end with a purely racist (every member of a whole group is condemned with a nasty stereotype sketch of them) attack on gypsies. Nasty. Offensive. Unpleasant. Next you'll be advocating concentration camps for Gypsies. And your post was not even relevant to the thread. In one way I am glad you have shown yourself as you actually are. In another way I really wish I hadn't read the post.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> Others have responded to this but I don't think I have ever seen a post on this forum that is as objectionable. Aside from your usual obvious errors in interpreting data that is often dodgy anyway (while ignoring data that doesn't fit your extraordinary world view), you end with a purely racist (every member of a whole group is condemned with a nasty stereotype sketch of them) attack on gypsies. Nasty. Offensive. Unpleasant. Next you'll be advocating concentration camps for Gypsies. And your post was not even relevant to the thread. In one way I am glad you have shown yourself as you actually are. In another way I really wish I hadn't read the post.


In your mind, it is always the majority who is responsible for the degraded cultural state of those minorities. Have the minorities no responsibillity themselves? Gypsies are spread all over Europe. Is there any country where they have built a city, planted gardens and started to take care of their environment? I doubt it. The communists build houses for them. Look how they took care of the houses




If you want to experience a shock, read some peoples experiences on reddit

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1f3bok
Stereotypes are not necessarily bad. They generalize our experiences with some group and help us categorize new people that we meet. I had so many negative experiences with gypsy aggression as a kid, that I walk to the opposite sidewalk if I see a group of them. And who are you to lecture me on whom I have the right to like or dislike? I have a right to have as many stereotypes as I want.

this whole debate about race and genetics is one huge taboo. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html


----------



## mmsbls

Jacck said:


> In your mind, it is always the majority who is responsible for the degraded cultural state of those minorities. Have the minorities no responsibillity themselves? Gypsies are spread all over Europe. Is there any country where they have built a city, planted gardens and started to take care of their environment? I doubt it. The communists build houses for them. Look how they took care of the houses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to experience a shock, read some peoples experiences on reddit
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1f3bok
> Stereotypes are not necessarily bad. They generalize our experiences with some group and help us categorize new people that we meet. I had so many negative experiences with gypsy aggression as a kid, that I walk to the opposite sidewalk if I see a group of them. And who are you to lecture me on whom I have the right to like or dislike? I have a right to have as many stereotypes as I want.
> 
> this whole debate about race and genetics is one huge taboo.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html


I'll just reiterate what MacLeod asked. What does all this have to do with misogyny on the podium?


----------



## 1996D

What Jack says is true. That's why it's important to accept people as they are, and accept the diversity of the world. 

That's easier said than done--a great example is the virtue signallers in this thread--who want to see themselves as good people yet certainly have no gypsies living next door, which is understandable and shouldn't be a shame to openly admit.

You can accept others while keeping common sense and living among those who think and act like you, while of course immersing yourself in other cultures as much as possible while travelling.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> this whole debate about race and genetics is one huge taboo.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html


Off topic perhaps, but I feel some counter is necessary.

We can all search the internet.

http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/h...s-of-the-middle-class-face-ethnic-intolerance


----------



## fluteman

Jacck said:


> In your mind, it is always the majority who is responsible for the degraded cultural state of those minorities. Have the minorities no responsibillity themselves? Gypsies are spread all over Europe. Is there any country where they have built a city, planted gardens and started to take care of their environment? I doubt it. The communists build houses for them. Look how they took care of the houses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to experience a shock, read some peoples experiences on reddit
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1f3bok
> Stereotypes are not necessarily bad. They generalize our experiences with some group and help us categorize new people that we meet. I had so many negative experiences with gypsy aggression as a kid, that I walk to the opposite sidewalk if I see a group of them. And who are you to lecture me on whom I have the right to like or dislike? I have a right to have as many stereotypes as I want.
> 
> this whole debate about race and genetics is one huge taboo.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html


The wife of a long-time friend of mine is an ethnic gypsy, though native-born American. She is also a prominent lawyer, and in her spare time a successful, published science fiction novelist. I'll be sure not to mention your post to her.


----------



## Larkenfield

To bring the subject back to topic... The question is: should there be a ban on female gypsy conductors and should they be encouraged just to wander freely?


----------



## Enthusiast

..........................................


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> To bring the subject back to topic... The question is: should there be a ban on female gypsy conductors and should they be encouraged just to wander freely?


But the interesting thing is that it is the same people who cannot imagine a woman shining on the podium are also those who spout (or cheer on from the sidelines) pure racism. They pretend that there is a legitimate debate in these things, that it is OK to distort or ignore scientific findings and evident facts, that what may be true of a large group obviously applies to every single member of that group, that discrimination from birth doesn't have an effect on people's expectations, aims and opportunities, and that it is OK to use ugly caricature to in some way define the group they wish to slander.


----------



## Jacck

MacLeod said:


> Off topic perhaps, but I feel some counter is necessary.
> 
> We can all search the internet.
> 
> http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/h...s-of-the-middle-class-face-ethnic-intolerance


yes, internet is fun. 
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/03/roma-tire-shouldering-blame-boiling-pot-communities
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7706034/roma-children-slovakian-migrants-sheffield-shock/
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/romanian-immigrants-park-lane-investigation
Many Slovak or Czech Romani fled the terrible discrimination and low wellfare system and emigrated to UK with a richer wellfare system to escape the persecution. But even the Pakistani seem to dislike their behavior 
"In many rapidly changing neighbourhoods, tensions over noise, antisocial behaviour and litter quickly surfaced with the more established residents, usually of immigrant background themselves"
so good luck with their integration :lol: We in Czech Republic have failed. Maybe you can do better

I am not a racist. I know there are a few normal Roma people and I have no problem with those. But I have travelled all over the world, and I have never seen such uncultured people as the Roma.

also, I stop, so that mms does not have to delete it here


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> But the interesting thing is that it is the same people who cannot imagine a woman shining on the podium are also those who spout (or cheer on from the sidelines) pure racism. They pretend that there is a legitimate debate in these things, that it is OK to distort or ignore scientific findings and evident facts, that what may be true of a large group obviously applies to every single member of that group, that discrimination from birth doesn't have an effect on people's expectations, aims and opportunities, and that it is OK to use ugly caricature to in some way define the group they wish to slander.


Of course it doesn't apply to every member, that's the point. Even if Cannelakis is a horrible conductor she still performed from beginning to end--she should've been conducting at a much lower level--but still conducting if that's what she wishes.

Everyone should get an opportunity no doubt about that, but as a generalization the statistics are what they are, and no reverse discrimination should take place to supposedly even out the difference.

People should be judged individually and treated equally, but nothing can be done that is reasonable to change statistics.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Of course it doesn't apply to every member, that's the point. Even if Cannelakis is a horrible conductor she still performed from beginning to end--she should've been conducting at a much lower level--but still conducting if that's what she wishes.
> 
> Everyone should get an opportunity no doubt about that, but as a generalization the statistics are what they are, *and no reverse discrimination should take place to supposedly even out the difference.*
> 
> People should be judged individually and treated equally, but nothing can be done that is reasonable to change statistics.


Nobody suggested "reverse discrimination" should take place to "even out the difference." I think I've been following this thread pretty diligently and nobody suggested anything remotely close to "reverse discrimination" as a solution to any problem in the conducting sphere we've lain out. One general consensus here has merely been "What if being more mindful about the message we send to women in the music world might encourage more women to pursue a field they haven't traditionally been welcome to crack?" followed by, "What if sending a less negative message makes the music world better for everyone?" It's a "what if". Maybe the conducting world _could_ benefit from the gender diversity. How could we know? It is all dialectical and hypothetical discussion, there's no need to get so far ahead of yourself so to suggest our propositions get even close to discriminating against men. The only men I'm starting to hate here are the straw men, of which there's no dearth in your lineage of posts.


----------



## Larkenfield

I believe the greatest impetus for more women conducting is for the young to see women conducting. Look at the lives of the great artists: how did they get started? By seeing somebody else performing on an instrument they fell in love with and ending up playing themselves. You could be a potential genius but unless you know what’s possible and some experience lights the fire, it may never be awakened within you. Something must happen so you start dreaming and wanting to do it, and it helps to see somebody else already doing it and being successful at it. Are there successful women conductors? Of course, there are at least twenty of their names that have already been brought up more than once in online articles. But you see, one has to read history, one has to read about their lives, their struggles and triumphs, to see how the lives of gifted artists and conductors develop and evolve, and few people seem interested in that, so there’s so much speculation about how something is supposed to happen.


----------



## Woodduck

Minor Sixthist said:


> The only men I'm starting to hate here are the straw men, of which there's no dearth in your lineage of posts.


Elegantly put. And to think that a mere female could turn such a phrase! What is the world coming to?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Woodduck said:


> Elegantly put. And to think that a mere female could turn such a phrase! What is the world coming to?


I've been sneaking books into my sewing lately and illicitly teaching myself to build sentences. Don't tell!


----------



## Becca

Minor Sixthist said:


> I've been sneaking books into my sewing lately and illicitly teaching myself to build sentences. Don't tell!


It is pathetically tragic (or is it tragically pathetic?)


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> that's the point.


What's the point? I don't get it.



1996D said:


> as a generalization the statistics are what they are,


I don't get this either. It makes no sense to me. How can statistics be "a generalisation"?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Becca said:


> It is pathetically tragic (or is it tragically pathetic?)


Tragically pathetic in all its pathetic tragedy.

You've hit the nail on the head. (Three times, with a hammer.)


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> the most intelligent race are Ashkenazy Jews, they have average IQ 114 or something like that. The second most intelligent race are East Asians (Japanese, Chinese) with average IQ 104. Europeans have about 100. IQ is hereditary. We have 2 major minorities in Czech Republic - the Vietnamese and the Gypsies. The Vietnamese are intelligent, hard-working, value education higly, study universities. The Gypsies are the exact opposite.


I thought of you and your posts like the above when I saw this book -

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Superior-Return-Science-Angela-Saini/dp/0008341001

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Superior-The-Fatal-Return-of-Race-Science-Audiobook/0008293856?source_code=M2M14DFT1BkSH082015011R&ds_rl=1235779


----------



## MarkW

Jacck said:


> the most intelligent race are Ashkenazy Jews, they have average IQ 114 or something like that. The second most intelligent race are East Asians (Japanese, Chinese) with average IQ 104. Europeans have about 100. IQ is hereditary. We have 2 major minorities in Czech Republic - the Vietnamese and the Gypsies. The Vietnamese are intelligent, hard-working, value education higly, study universities. The Gypsies are the exact opposite.


I won't get in the middle of this discussion, but strongly recommend that those who thnk IQ means anything important read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man."


----------



## Jacck

MarkW said:


> I won't get in the middle of this discussion, but strongly recommend that those who thnk IQ means anything important read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man."


Whatever the limitations of IQ test, IQ is the strongest correlator of success in life
https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/iq-scores-as-predictors-of-future-success/

and this links with the book by Enthusiast. Intelligence is 50-80% heritable. This is the only information you need to logically arrive at the conclusion that intelligence in different communities will necessarily diverge, if the communities breed mostly among themselves. The concept of race is problematic, so we can use the word population instead. The average IQ of the Roma population is 74 based on a meta-analysis of some 29 studies. Combine it with the information about the heritability and draw the conclusions yourselves. Now imaging the crazy fantasy, that you need to have diversity and equal representation on every university and in every company.


----------



## sharkeysnight

This thread is taking me back to when I was in high school and I was told homosexuals shouldn't have families or hold public office because we fundamentally lack morals.



Jacck said:


> Whatever the limitations of IQ test, IQ is the strongest correlator of success in life
> https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/iq-scores-as-predictors-of-future-success/
> 
> and this links with the book by Enthusiast. Intelligence is 50-80% heritable. This is the only information you need to logically arrive at the conclusion that intelligence in different communities will necessarily diverge, if the communities breed mostly among themselves. The concept of race is problematic, so we can use the word population instead. The average IQ of the Roma population is 74 based on a meta-analysis of some 29 studies. Combine it with the information about the heritability and draw the conclusions yourselves. Now imaging the crazy fantasy, that you need to have diversity and equal representation on every university and in every company.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> Whatever the limitations of IQ test, IQ is the strongest correlator of success in life
> https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/iq-scores-as-predictors-of-future-success/
> 
> and this links with the book by Enthusiast. Intelligence is 50-80% heritable. This is the only information you need to logically arrive at the conclusion that intelligence in different communities will necessarily diverge, if the communities breed mostly among themselves. The concept of race is problematic, so we can use the word population instead. The average IQ of the Roma population is 74 based on a meta-analysis of some 29 studies. Combine it with the information about the heritability and draw the conclusions yourselves.


The concept of "population" is also problematic, as it has no explanatory value. If there are differences in the average IQ (or any other measure of intellectual achievement) among populations, the concept of "culture" is the only one that's of any use. It's obvious that when human beings move from an environment that doesn't value intellectual accomplishment to one that does, intellectual accomplishment increases. When those human beings are young children, the difference in outcome can be dramatic.

This is the only discussion of intelligence worth having in a sociological context.


----------



## Guest

I for one feel that to continue to engage in this controversial and off topic discussion could be a fruitless waste of time, not least because I don't want to waste my effort when posts may be moderated, no matter how much I want to challenge the rubbish being posted!

Can we stick to women and conducting?


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> Nobody suggested "reverse discrimination" should take place to "even out the difference." I think I've been following this thread pretty diligently and nobody suggested anything remotely close to "reverse discrimination" as a solution to any problem in the conducting sphere we've lain out. One general consensus here has merely been "What if being more mindful about the message we send to women in the music world might encourage more women to pursue a field they haven't traditionally been welcome to crack?" followed by, "What if sending a less negative message makes the music world better for everyone?" It's a "what if". Maybe the conducting world _could_ benefit from the gender diversity. How could we know? It is all dialectical and hypothetical discussion, there's no need to get so far ahead of yourself so to suggest our propositions get even close to discriminating against men. The only men I'm starting to hate here are the straw men, of which there's no dearth in your lineage of posts.


How do you suppose Cannelakis got the position? Quotas are reverse discrimination.

I've said this before, in an engineering company it can fine because we're so wealthy it doesn't matter, but when it comes to art...

As the force responsible for bringing us to a higher level of being, high art should be exempt of politics.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> The concept of "population" is also problematic, as it has no explanatory value. If there are differences in the average IQ (or any other measure of intellectual achievement) among populations, the concept of "culture" is the only one that's of any use. It's obvious that when human beings move from an environment that doesn't value intellectual accomplishment to one that does, intellectual accomplishment increases. When those human beings are young children, the difference in outcome can be dramatic.
> This is the only discussion of intelligence worth having in a sociological context.


this is nothing but ideological wish-belief (Wunschdenken)
If IQ is 70% heritable, then translocation into a better environment can change only the 30%, the 70% stay put. I read somewhere that the culture can influnce something like +-10 points. 
https://www.foxnews.com/health/genetics-not-upbringing-main-influencer-in-a-childs-iq-study-says
http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-their-non-adopted-siblings
the second link shows what you were saying, but the the effect is very small, some 4 IQ points.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I for one feel that to continue to engage in this controversial and off topic discussion could be a fruitless waste of time, not least because I don't want to waste my effort when posts may be moderated, no matter how much I want to challenge the rubbish being posted!
> 
> Can we stick to women and conducting?


That would be a good idea if "women and conducting" were actually the subject. Sadly, the subject is not women but misogyny, and the misogynists must protect their interest in "traditional values" and in making sure that the rest of us don't lose sight of those all-important "innate" and "natural" differences between "the sexes." Inevitably someone will turn to the "science" of statistics, and off we go into Charles Murrayland.

It is certainly tiresome. Diversity of opinion is fine, but some people just don't know when worn-out ideas have worn out their welcome.


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> this is nothing but ideological wish-belief (Wunschdenken)
> If IQ is 70% heritable, then translocation into a better environment can change only the 30%, the 70% stay put. I read somewhere that the culture can influnce something like +-10 points.
> https://www.foxnews.com/health/genetics-not-upbringing-main-influencer-in-a-childs-iq-study-says
> http://sciencenordic.com/adopted-children-have-higher-iqs-their-non-adopted-siblings
> the second link shows what you were saying, but the the effect is very small, some 4 IQ points.


Yeah, you "read somewhere."

Intelligence is very far from being fixed at birth. A change of 30% - for whatever that statistic is worth (probably not much) - is quite substantial.

Your fixation on "races," "populations" and percentages is pretentious and pernicious pseudoscience, used - as it always is - to justify your personal prejudices. Don't you have anything better to do than argue the inferiority of other people? It doesn't make you look better by contrast.

I agree with Macleod that your harping on this is a distraction from the topic. From any topic worth discussing, actually.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, you "read somewhere."
> 
> Intelligence is very far from being fixed at birth. A change of 30% - for whatever that statistic is worth (probably not much) - is quite substantial.
> 
> Your fixation on "races," "populations" and percentages is pretentious and pernicious pseudoscience, used - as it always is - to justify your personal prejudices. Don't you have anything better to do than argue the inferiority of other people? It doesn't make you look better by contrast.
> 
> I agree with Macleod that your harping on this is a distraction from the topic. From any topic worth discussing, actually.


I care about truth, however uncomfortable it might be, ie to see the world as it is, not as I wish it to be. And one such uncomfortable truth is, that not all people were created equal and thus not all people have equal chances and opportunities in life. But some truths are simply too uncomfortable to be said aloud, or even to be thought about. You don't know me, so you don't know how tolerant or intolerant I am in reality. I assure you that I am no misogynist, racist, homophobe etc. That would imply that I hate or disrespect or discriminate against those groups, which is not truth. I am just realist, who dislikes ideologies that try to cover truth. But I will leave this topic. It was already yesterday that I did not want to contribute further, but since other people reacted to me, I let myself be drawn into the topic again. So do not react to me and I will also not react.

just one last book recommendation
https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks-ebook/dp/B003L77VY2


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> So do not react to me and I will also not react.
> 
> *just one last book recommendation*
> https://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks-ebook/dp/B003L77VY2


"...but I would just like to have the last word."



Jacck said:


> The average IQ of the Roma population is 74


Source is Metapedia...



> *Metapedia* is an online wiki-based encyclopedia which contains authoritarian far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and neo-Nazi points of view.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapedia


----------



## mmsbls

I wonder to what extent the bias against women in music is conscious? My assumption is that the vast majority of those who behave in a biased manner likely do not believe they are prejudiced. I assume they honestly believe their behavior is justified. When women constituted a very small percentage of orchestral performers, those who overwhelmingly selected male over female new members likely thought they were making the correct decision (i.e. the women were not as good). I'm not sure how those people felt when blind auditions showed the extent of the bias. Maybe some or even many knew they were biased and had ulterior motives for their selections. Conductors fall into a different category. It's much harder, if not impossible, to have blind auditions. I suspect that a significant part of the selection has to do with recommendations which can't easily be blind. 

Does anyone know if composition competitions are ever blind? I was rather unhappy to hear from my daughter that essentially all the female composition students felt a strong anti-women bias towards them. Perhaps they were aware of such bias from some faculty, but other faculty were perfectly fine or even especially supportive. Unfortunately, prejudice takes so long to eliminate or even reduce to manageable levels. Standing up against such bias is critical, but the problem certainly feels rather daunting.


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> I care about truth, however uncomfortable it might be, ie to see the world as it is, not as I wish it to be... But some truths are simply too uncomfortable to be said aloud, or even to be thought about.


In our age, it is almost impossible to speak truths. They will generally outrage the ideologs of right or left, whose fervid beliefs often ignore the findings of science or, in many cases, the evidences of their own plain experience.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> In our age, it is almost impossible to speak truths.


If only because "truth" is such an elusive commodity. Never mind left and right ideologs, I'm quite sure that we two liberals  will still speak different truths, outraging each other and everyone else.


----------



## Jacck

mmsbls said:


> I wonder to what extent the bias against women in music is conscious? My assumption is that the vast majority of those who behave in a biased manner likely do not believe they are prejudiced. I assume they honestly believe their behavior is justified. When women constituted a very small percentage of orchestral performers, those who overwhelmingly selected male over female new members likely thought they were making the correct decision (i.e. the women were not as good). I'm not sure how those people felt when blind auditions showed the extent of the bias. Maybe some or even many knew they were biased and had ulterior motives for their selections. Conductors fall into a different category. It's much harder, if not impossible, to have blind auditions. I suspect that a significant part of the selection has to do with recommendations which can't easily be blind.
> 
> Does anyone know if composition competitions are ever blind? I was rather unhappy to hear from my daughter that essentially all the female composition students felt a strong anti-women bias towards them. Perhaps they were aware of such bias from some faculty, but other faculty were perfectly fine or even especially supportive. Unfortunately, prejudice takes so long to eliminate or even reduce to manageable levels. Standing up against such bias is critical, but the problem certainly feels rather daunting.


I am sure most of the bias is unconscious. It is possibly even given biologically in part. I read somewhere that women evolved without beard and with high-pitched voices to resemble children and so evoke protector instincts in men. But if that is true, then men possibly even unconsciously perceive women as weaker, softer, not as strong, quick. And these instinctual uncounsciou perceptions might color their consious decisions without them even realizing it


----------



## mmsbls

MacLeod said:


> I for one feel that to continue to engage in this controversial and off topic discussion could be a fruitless waste of time, not least because I don't want to waste my effort when posts may be moderated, no matter how much I want to challenge the rubbish being posted!
> 
> Can we stick to women and conducting?


It's possible that the thread seems to go off-topic all the time because through the many pages people have said pretty much what can be said. There's a history of prejudice against women in music. That prejudice can be seen in a variety of ways in the field of conducting. Making progress would be wonderful, but it's a long, difficult project.

I would love to hear more from women who aspire to become, have tried to become, or currently are conductors, but I think there are likely very few on TC.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Most conductors are secretive .


----------



## Jacck

ah, here is something
The Ways Woman Provokes Man To Be Protective
http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/the-ways-woman-provokes-man-to-be-protective/
_"As famous biologist Dr. Desmond Morris has mentioned, women retain juvenile features throughout their reproductive age, and this is exactly opposite to men. Across the board - women have more juvenile faces, hair, skin, vocal tone (soft and sweet), expressions, body movements, and affect displays. Women themselves might not realize it consciously, but they highlight and accentuate their juvenile physical and psychological features to attract desirable men. After observing a woman giving away such signals, a man unconsciously feels an urge to protect her - the 'childlike' lady. Man, on the other hand, engages himself in complementary displays that portray him as a tradition hero, or even virtual father, who tries to protect and save her."_

I believe that this very evolutionary scenario might be responsible for the bias of men against women. Men simply unconsciously perceive women as weeker and requiring protection, but the flip side is that they also do not trust them with any real responsibility, because they do not believe that they are tough enough to handle the challenges.


----------



## paulbest

MacLeod said:


> If only because "truth" is such an elusive commodity. Never mind left and right ideologs, I'm quite sure that we two liberals  will still speak different truths, outraging each other and everyone else.


Exactly, The labels *liberal vs conservative* is not ligit any longer,,,=those 2 ideas fit sucha braod general mentality,,,making them obsolete. 
Now its about The Fake vs The Real,. Truth vs the Lie...I attempt to follow truth as often as I can,,as the Lie is out to get us, everytime.

Then again, someones truth, may be a lie for me, and vice versa.


----------



## paulbest

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Most conductors are secretive .


Not good. 
A reticent conductor, who hides things,,,is not what we want.


----------



## paulbest

MacLeod said:


> If only because "truth" is such an elusive commodity. Never mind left and right ideologs, I'm quite sure that we two liberals  will still speak different truths, outraging each other and everyone else.


also remember the less the mass man knows,,the more to the advantage for The Illuminati Agenda. 
~~Ignorance is bliss~~~


----------



## KenOC

paulbest said:


> Exactly, The labels *liberal vs conservative* is not ligit any longer,,,=those 2 ideas fit sucha braod general mentality,,,making them obsolete.


"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." --Ambrose Bierce


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> ah, here is something
> The Ways Woman Provokes Man To Be Protective
> http://bodylanguageproject.com/articles/the-ways-woman-provokes-man-to-be-protective/
> _"As famous biologist Dr. Desmond Morris has mentioned, women retain juvenile features throughout their reproductive age, and this is exactly opposite to men. Across the board - women have more juvenile faces, hair, skin, vocal tone (soft and sweet), expressions, body movements, and affect displays. Women themselves might not realize it consciously, but they highlight and accentuate their juvenile physical and psychological features to attract desirable men. After observing a woman giving away such signals, a man unconsciously feels an urge to protect her - the 'childlike' lady. Man, on the other hand, engages himself in complementary displays that portray him as a tradition hero, or even virtual father, who tries to protect and save her."_
> 
> I believe that this very evolutionary scenario might be responsible for the bias of men against women. Men simply unconsciously perceive women as weeker and requiring protection, but the flip side is that they also do not trust them with any real responsibility, because they do not believe that they are tough enough to handle the challenges.


It's not only plausible but obvious that gender stereotyping and traditional sex roles are partly rooted in the perception of biological differences. Much human behavior can be seen as inherited from our pre-human ancestry. Until recently in human history, biology - or, more correctly, people's observation of biological traits - has tended to dictate destiny, and opposition to attempts to set people free from the socially imposed limits of stereotyping is still commonly justified on grounds of biology or "nature": it's "unnatural" for women to outrank or command men, and "unnatural" for homosexuals to marry. But it's also the distinction of the human species to realize that biology is _not_ destiny, that individual diversity is constantly shattering stereotypes, and that stereotypes in any case have no concrete existence, little predictive value, and no moral force.

The fact that women have, on average, higher voices may have been useful to our remote ancestors recently descended from the trees. For the purposes of life in modern society its only value is in choral singing.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> That would be a good idea if "women and conducting" were actually the subject. Sadly, the subject is not women but misogyny, and the misogynists must protect their interest in "traditional values" and in making sure that the rest of us don't lose sight of those all-important "innate" and "natural" differences between "the sexes." Inevitably someone will turn to the "science" of statistics, and off we go into Charles Murrayland.
> 
> It is certainly tiresome. Diversity of opinion is fine, but some people just don't know when worn-out ideas have worn out their welcome.


That comment perfectly summarizes why I am generally allergic to such topics as "women and conducting", "women and composing", "women and theoretical physics", "women and industrial engineering", "women and professional basketball coaching", etc., etc. Any society that doesn't allow all of its children and young people the opportunity to pursue any field their desire and talent lead them is not going to be as healthy and successful a society as it could be.

Rather than worry about what the potential capabilities might be of girls and young women, Romanis, Maoris, Samoans, Ashkenazi Jews, Inuits, or any other group you might name, worry about lack of opportunity and discrimination. Women have already shown that given the opportunity they can be great musicians, if that needed showing.


----------



## Open Book

fluteman said:


> That comment perfectly summarizes why I am generally allergic to such topics as "women and conducting", "women and composing", "women and theoretical physics", "women and industrial engineering", "women and professional basketball coaching", etc., etc. Any society that doesn't allow all of its children and young people the opportunity to pursue any field their desire and talent lead them is not going to be as healthy and successful a society as it could be.
> 
> Rather than worry about what the potential capabilities might be of girls and young women, Romanis, Maoris, Samoans, Ashkenazi Jews, Inuits, or any other group you might name, worry about lack of opportunity and discrimination. Women have already shown that given the opportunity they can be great musicians, if that needed showing.


Few people here disagree that people shouldn't have barriers to their achievement placed on them due to their gender, nationality, race, whatever. Even the ones who think women won't make good conductors (which I disagree with) aren't saying they shouldn't be allowed to try.

The problem is what to do when it is perceived that there is a lack of representation of a certain group of people in any field or endeavor. Is the lack of so-and-sos in such-and-such really due to lack of opportunity or even discrimination? Some of us feel it may not always be discrimination and that it shouldn't be "fixed" by favoring members of the underrepresented group.

Why is that so hard to fathom?


----------



## paulbest

Exactly,,,if a woman can conduct like Furtwangler , give her the job


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> It's not only plausible but obvious that gender stereotyping and traditional sex roles are partly rooted in the perception of biological differences. Much human behavior can be seen as inherited from our pre-human ancestry. Until recently in human history, biology - or, more correctly, people's observation of biological traits - has tended to dictate destiny, and opposition to attempts to set people free from the socially imposed limits of stereotyping is still commonly justified on grounds of biology or "nature": it's "unnatural" for women to outrank or command men, and "unnatural" for homosexuals to marry. But it's also the distinction of the human species to realize that biology is _not_ destiny, that individual diversity is constantly shattering stereotypes, and that stereotypes in any case have no concrete existence, little predictive value, and no moral force.
> 
> The fact that women have, on average, higher voices may have been useful to our remote ancestors recently descended from the trees. For the purposes of life in modern society its only value is in choral singing.


You seem to be denying that people's behavior has itself been shaped by biological evolution. It isn't just our _perception_ of biological traits that has dictated destiny, it's the biological traits themselves because our behaviors are rooted in the brain, which is a biological organ, and subject to influence by evolutionary forces.

When men act protective of women (which may have the undesirable flip side of seeing women as weaker than they are and not taking them seriously) it may be that this behavior is rooted in the male brain because it was a trait nature selected as desirable for the overall survival of the species.

The fact that it makes women unhappy when they are not seen as equals, well nature doesn't care. Nature only works to make the species best survive, not to make members of the species happy. Men probably aren't happy with the burdens and responsibilities that come with being protectors, either.

There is likely a natural tendency to certain behaviors, they are not a totally free choice. Counteracting them may not be easy.


----------



## KenOC

Women can be (and obviously are) world-class insstrumental performers, at no seeming disadvantage due to their sex. And of course a conductor is a performer as well. We would naturally expect to see women represented among conductors in proportion to their representation in other types of performance. Of course, we don't.

The typical reaction among some is to cry "Discrimination!" though it seems to me that there may be persuasive arguments involving other factors, both social and biological (if there is a real difference between the two). I will only observe that Dr. Desmond Morris was mentioned earlier, who was of the opinion that most important bases of human behavior are those shared with the other branches of the family Hominidae.


----------



## mmsbls

Open Book said:


> Few people here disagree that people shouldn't have barriers to their achievement placed on them due to their gender, nationality, race, whatever. Even the ones who think women won't make good conductors (which I disagree with) aren't saying they shouldn't be allowed to try.
> 
> The problem is what to do when it is perceived that there is a lack of representation of a certain group of people in any field or endeavor. Is the lack of so-and-sos in such-and-such really due to lack of opportunity or even discrimination? Some of us feel it may not always be discrimination and that it shouldn't be "fixed" by favoring members of the underrepresented group.
> 
> Why is that so hard to fathom?


We know that enormous prejudice and bias created very unequal representation in orchestra members. We don't know exactly what is responsible for the unequal representation of women among conductors. Some of us are wondering why anyone would point toward evolution and biological differences between men and women as an explanation of the sex differential in conducting when a) none of us have the slightest idea whether or how biological differences in sex account for variation in conducting skill and b) significant bias in orchestral member selection _was clearly demonstrated recently_.

It's hard to imagine that such bias in orchestral member selection would exist without similar bias in conductor selection. Given the strong evidence for bias, we are trying to think of ways to mitigate that bias. I don't have a problem with preferentially selecting qualified women, but I'd prefer to install programs that increase the number of women who choose conducting as a career and to educate all people associated with orchestras about the widespread effects of bias and ways to overcome it.

I'm assuming not all unequal representations in all areas of society is due to discrimination, but I also believe that discrimination has caused vastly more unequal outcomes than biology in the vast majority of fields.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> We know that enormous prejudice and bias created very unequal representation in orchestra members.


I would love to see some historical numbers and time series on this. It seems to me that (in my memory at least) women have been well-represented in orchestras that I've seen for a lot of years. Is it possible that the situation has been different in different places? My experience is primarily on the US West Coast since 1960.


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> I would love to see some historical numbers and time series on this. It seems to me that (in my memory at least) women have been well-represented in orchestras that I've seen for a lot of years. Is it possible that the situation has been different in different places? My experience is primarily on the US West Coast since 1960.


Here are 2 sources - The Guardian and The American Economic Review.

In a simple search I found several other sources, but they all referenced the paper by Goldin and Rouse.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Most conductors are secretive .


Baton raised , easy-chair at the ready ... engage stereo now !


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Here are 2 sources - The Guardian and The American Economic Review.
> 
> In a simple search I found several other sources, but they all referenced the paper by Goldin and Rouse.


Thanks! It certainly does appear that representation of females in the largest US orchestras increased during the time span I mentioned. It's also suggestive that female representation increased coincidental with the increasing use of blind auditions.

I was kind of hoping that it was a European thing...


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> You seem to be denying that people's behavior has itself been shaped by biological evolution. It isn't just our _perception_ of biological traits that has dictated destiny, it's the biological traits themselves because our behaviors are rooted in the brain, which is a biological organ, and subject to influence by evolutionary forces.


Anyone claiming that an actual behavior - as opposed to an aptitude - is "subject to evolutionary forces" needs to show evidence of it and offer an explanation of how it happens. The sucking reflex of an infant is one thing; sexual role playing is quite another, more complex thing.



> When men act protective of women (which may have the undesirable flip side of seeing women as weaker than they are and not taking them seriously) it may be that this behavior is rooted in the male brain because it was a trait nature selected as desirable for the overall survival of the species.


Do _you_ see women, _qua_ women, as weaker, feel protective of them, and fail to take them seriously? Do you feel some sort of primal biological force urging you toward these beliefs and behaviors which you have to suppress? Well, _I_ don't, and neither, judging by their actions, do a great many other men. Moreover, there are plenty of women, some of them physically small, who have felt protective of men and/or have not taken them seriously. Is there something "unnatural" about that?



> The fact that it makes women unhappy when they are not seen as equals, well nature doesn't care.


"Nature" doesn't care about us one way or another. We have a brain to reason with and choose the behaviors that best serve our needs. We can choose, as individuals or as a society, to treat people of all gender and sexual identities as equals.



> Nature only works to make the species best survive, not to make members of the species happy.


Right.



> Men probably aren't happy with the burdens and responsibilities that come with being protectors, either.


Well, they are not compelled by "evolution" to protect anyone. If they feel resentful, their argument is not with their biology but with a society that tells them what they're expected to do.



> There is likely a natural tendency to certain behaviors, they are not a totally free choice. Counteracting them may not be easy.


Which behaviors? Whose behaviors? What, concretely, are you contending?

Nature does not compel any psychologically normal person to enact the stereotypical gender roles characteristic of male-dominated cultures. We see enough "exceptions" visible in public life, and we probably know enough personally, to realize that an individual's sense of what it means to be male or female is quite variable and malleable. There are innumerable examples of "masculine" women and "feminine" men who demonstrate the uselessness of those classifications. We are coming to understand and accept this and to realize how freeing it is. I, like many, many others, can speak from personal experience about the kinds of prejudices that pressure boys to behave in socially approved "masculine" ways, and about the difficulty of overcoming the internalized self-rejection this creates to claim one's true - one's _natural,_ _biological_ - identity.

The sooner we can drop this notion that sex roles are forced upon us by "nature," the healthier we will be.


----------



## Open Book

"Anyone claiming that an actual behavior - as opposed to an aptitude - is "subject to evolutionary forces" needs to show evidence of it and offer an explanation of how it happens. The sucking reflex of an infant is one thing; sexual role playing is quite another, more complex thing."

The brain is a physical organ and all physical entities are subject to change by evolution. What makes the brain special that it is impervious to change by natural selection? We know our brains have changed over the millennia. In fact, at one time there was no such thing as a brain. The organ itself evolved.

We may not be able to understand the brain and how its states and composition determine behavior, if that's the kind of proof you're asking for, but that's because we know very little about the brain so far.


----------



## KenOC

You don't need to know anything about the brain to study behavior. It should be obvious that humans, being of the same family as the other species of great apes, are shaped by the same forces and share behaviors. Sexual dimorphism is an example -- all the great apes share this characteristic, and it both springs from a supports their mating behavior. For example, humans demonstrate the complete range of mating behavior of other species of great apes, ranging from (somewhat) defective monogamy to polygamy.

There is a fascinating if now somewhat outmoded book on this, which was quite a sensation in its time and still worth reading:


----------



## Larkenfield

Apes and humans. Somehow I'm reminded of this:


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> "Anyone claiming that an actual behavior - as opposed to an aptitude - is "subject to evolutionary forces" needs to show evidence of it and offer an explanation of how it happens. The sucking reflex of an infant is one thing; sexual role playing is quite another, more complex thing."
> 
> The brain is a physical organ and all physical entities are subject to change by evolution. What makes the brain special that it is impervious to change by natural selection? We know our brains have changed over the millennia. In fact, at one time there was no such thing as a brain. The organ itself evolved.
> 
> We may not be able to understand the brain and how its states and composition determine behavior, if that's the kind of proof you're asking for, but that's because we know very little about the brain so far.


We're not talking about the evolution of the brain. We're talking about specific attitudes and behaviors. You're just evading the question which you need to answer before you can claim that particular behaviors - in this case certain behaviors of the sexes toward each other - are "determined" by evolution.

The fact that so many people don't conform to those sex roles is at the very least proof that your "evolutionary" tendencies don't apply across the board, and excellent evidence that they are the products of changeable cultural value systems rather than physiological necessity.


----------



## Larkenfield

Assuming that there are different sexes for a reason, this would suggest that they were designed to be complementary with different strengths and weaknesses, though this could also suggest competition. But despite any natural tendencies, it does not mean that each sex cannot take on some of the strengths and attributes of the other, and this has been true at least since Joan of Arc though of course there were others before her who even fought in the Roman Colosseum. It was Joan who had the bravery and the vision and she was martyred for it by being turned into a pillar of fire at the stake because her visions were misunderstood by her judges and executioners. For some, gender proclivities are only a starting point and it's not where they end up.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> We're not talking about the evolution of the brain. We're talking about specific attitudes and behaviors. You're just evading the question which you need to answer before you can claim that particular behaviors - in this case certain behaviors of the sexes toward each other - are "determined" by evolution.
> 
> The fact that so many people don't conform to those sex roles is at the very least proof that your "evolutionary" tendencies don't apply across the board, and excellent evidence that they are the products of changeable cultural value systems rather than physiological necessity.


I'm not evading anything.

Behaviors originate in and are controlled by what part of the body? The brain. Brains evolve to favor behaviors that promote survival of the species. It's possible for a male brain to take on a different path from a female brain, there is sexual dimorphism. Just because I or anyone else hasn't proven the exact path of evolution to a certain behavior doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

Yes, some people don't conform to sex roles. I never said sex roles should apply across the board, but there is still a tendency for people to stick with them. Most nurses are women. I have never met a female electrician or auto mechanic. There was reportedly a woman-run auto repair shop in my state but it folded years later. Either all those misogynists put it out of business or it didn't work out for some other reason, we can only speculate why.

The exceptions are intriguing. There are women who become MMA fighters and enjoy kicking other women all over the ring, something most men don't even want to do. There aren't that many women like this. They might have something very unusual or exceptional in their background which contributes to this kind of behavior. Maybe a lot of anger from some negative early experience. Or they are just exceptional women.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> We're not talking about the evolution of the brain. We're talking about specific attitudes and behaviors. You're just evading the question which you need to answer before you can claim that particular behaviors - in this case certain behaviors of the sexes toward each other - are "determined" by evolution.
> 
> The fact that so many people don't conform to those sex roles is at the very least proof that your "evolutionary" tendencies don't apply across the board, and excellent evidence that they are the products of changeable cultural value systems rather than physiological necessity.


I'm not evading anything.

Behaviors originate in and are controlled by what part of the body? The brain. Brains evolve to favor behaviors that promote survival of the species. It's possible for the male brain to take on a slightly different evolutionary path from the female brain, there is sexual dimorphism. Just because I or anyone else hasn't proven the exact path of evolution to a certain behavior doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

Yes, some people don't conform to sex roles. I never said sex roles should apply across the board, but there is still a tendency for people to stick with them. Most nurses are women. I have never met a female electrician or auto mechanic. There was reportedly a woman-run auto repair shop in my state but it folded years later. Either all those misogynists put it out of business or it didn't work out for some other reason, we can only speculate why.

The exceptions are intriguing. There are women who become MMA fighters and enjoy kicking other women all over the ring, something most men don't even want to do. There aren't that many women like this. They might have something very unusual or exceptional in their background which contributes to this kind of behavior. Maybe a lot of anger from some negative early experience. Or they are just exceptional women.


----------



## Open Book

"Do you see women, qua women, as weaker, feel protective of them, and fail to take them seriously? Do you feel some sort of primal biological force urging you toward these beliefs and behaviors which you have to suppress? Well, I don't, and neither, judging by their actions, do a great many other men. "

You certainly feel the need to ardently defend women from being seen as at all different from men. That seems protective to me.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Assuming that there are different sexes for a reason, this would suggest that they were designed to be complementary with different strengths and weaknesses, though this could also suggest competition.


All it suggests to me is that for a human to reproduce by mitosis would be complicated and not much fun.


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> "Do you see women, qua women, as weaker, feel protective of them, and fail to take them seriously? Do you feel some sort of primal biological force urging you toward these beliefs and behaviors which you have to suppress? Well, I don't, and neither, judging by their actions, do a great many other men. "
> 
> You certainly feel the need to ardently defend women from being seen as at all different from men. That seems protective to me.


Don't say silly things. _Vive la difference!_ It just ain't _la difference_ you claim it is.

You make two mistakes: generalizing about men's and women's sexual identities, and claiming your generalized sex roles are biologically inherent in maleness and femaleness as such. How many exceptions to your generalizations do you need to demonstrate their artificiality?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Woodduck said:


> Which behaviors? Whose behaviors? What, concretely, are you contending?


Indeed the most important question arising from recent posts. If the only point we're able to boil our posts down to is "biology can play a role in how we act," there is nothing meaningful left here to talk about. We are all aware that humans are animals and have id needs like any animal. But there just plain isn't any specific point being made in the posts Wd quotes - would a woman's sex appeal make it hard for men to focus on her conducting? Is the contention that biology makes women inherently worse conductors? I see this other vein about men wanting to feel like protectors, men selecting neotenous features in women... all this branching off in so many different directions that any focus in these discussions - whatsoever, let alone related to conducting - is hard to realize.

I doubt it would be held against anybody if they chose to convey their thoughts in even just one terse sentence, rather than _necessarily_ by teetering over a wide swath of loosely related notions about "biology."

_"The fact that it makes women unhappy when they are not seen as equals, well nature doesn't care."_

Yes. Precisely, you got it, you make the point of your apparent opposition: nature does not care. Conveniently, humans have chosen to impose 'morals' on the id like no other animal has, decidedly as a way to make our existence more 'civilized.' Broad terms, of course, but to match a broad contention. It's great we've had so much time to figure out, in light of nature not caring, how to impose the checks and balances on our id that allow us to live in the civilized way we've decided to pursue.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> Don't say silly things. _Vive la difference!_ It just ain't _la difference_ you claim it is.
> 
> You make two mistakes: generalizing about men's and women's sexual identities, and claiming your generalized sex roles are biologically inherent in maleness and femaleness as such. How many exceptions to your generalizations do you need to demonstrate their artificiality?


Exceptions are often just exceptions.

I have never met a single female electrician, even heard of one, and I am related to an electrician who worked in a union for 30 years and knew many electricians.

But according to you if you can produce one female electrician, one exception, you have smashed the idea that women tend not to be interested in that kind of work, and proved that women are equally interested in that kind of work.

All I'm saying is we don't know for sure, but given that they're not fighting to enter the field, they are probably not equally interested in it.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> You make two mistakes: generalizing about men's and women's sexual identities, and claiming your generalized sex roles are biologically inherent in maleness and femaleness as such. How many exceptions to your generalizations do you need to demonstrate their artificiality?


It seems obvious that the differences between the sexes lies in statistical distributions. The differences between the sexes can be expressed and in fact are widely studied. That they are statistical doesn't make them artificial.

I doubt that anybody who has had both male and female children (as I have) can consider the differences between the sexes to be due solely to "nurture" versus nature.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

> You certainly feel the need to ardently defend women from being seen as at all different from men. That seems protective to me.


I can't accept this. We don't condone under normal circumstances that anyone outline any positive traits in Woodduck. Our general mission is to prod and bully him. Please hold true to this cause.



Open Book said:


> But according to you if you can produce one female electrician, one exception, you have smashed the idea that women tend not to be interested in that kind of work, and proved that women are equally interested in that kind of work.


The conclusion "The lack of women in conducting is solely caused by their lack of interest," may have only been soundly reached if the attitudes commonplace among the most influential figures in the field did not exist to confound that conclusion.

I deem the repellent attitudes, Ie in the OP, "confounding variables." They make it, at least as empirical observation goes, impossible to isolate the exact effect of the "independent variable" (women's innate, untainted, own personal interest in conducting as a field.) In the current state of the women/conducting discussion, it would be hard to isolate women's own interests when projected over them are the repellent attitudes voiced by the biggest stakeholders in the conducting world.


----------



## KenOC

Minor Sixthist said:


> I can't accept this. We don't condone under normal circumstances that anyone outline any positive traits in Woodduck. Our general mission is to prod and bully him. Please hold true to our cause.


As I have said before, we must struggle against Woodduckism and those taking the Woodduck road. We must sweep Woodduckism onto the ashheap of history!

Those who have spoken for Woodduck in the past may be forgiven, but only after heartfelt self-criticism sessions. They will be subject to physical persuasion as required.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

KenOC said:


> It seems obvious that the differences between the sexes lies in statistical distributions. The differences between the sexes can be expressed and in fact are widely studied. That they are statistical doesn't make them artificial.





> How many exceptions to *your generalizations* do you need to demonstrate *their* artificiality?


Only here to point out: he stated that Book's _generalizations_ about gender roles may prove artificial. Emphatically, not at all the differences between the sexes, per se. Ken, I told you it was okay to bully him, not to get confused over his anaphora.


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> Exceptions are often just exceptions.


True. But I asked you how many exceptions you'd be convinced by.



> I have never met a single female electrician, even heard of one, and I am related to an electrician who worked in a union for 30 years and knew many electricians.


So now we're back to occupations being sexual? Back to the various reasons why more women don't try to enter, or why they leave, certain male-dominated fields?



> But according to you if you can produce one female electrician, one exception, you have smashed the idea that women tend not to be interested in that kind of work, and proved that women are equally interested in that kind of work.


I never claimed any of those things.



> All I'm saying is we don't know for sure, but given that they're not fighting to enter the field, they are probably not equally interested in it.


Of course they aren't "equally" interested. Who said they were, or ought to be?

Forgetting the talk about men preferring women with cute little button noses, the question of why more women don't enter, or why they leave, certain occupations which have long been considered men's territory, needs no phony evolutionary explanations. Try being a woman serving with men in the military or on a construction site and see how long you last - or, failing that possibility, talk to women who left such positions and ask them why they left. If the percentage of women in "male" jobs is increasing - and it is - it isn't because women are "evolving biologically." It's because society is gradually coming to understand and deal with the attitudes, behaviors and conditions that have made such jobs hostile environments which only the most determined or thick-skinned women will tolerate.


----------



## Woodduck

Minor Sixthist said:


> Only here to point out: he stated that Book's _generalizations_ about gender roles may prove artificial. Emphatically, not at all the differences between the sexes, per se. Ken, I told you it was okay to bully him, not to get confused over his anaphora.


I just knew you'd understand. :kiss:


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> So now we're back to occupations being sexual? Back to the various reasons why more women don't try to enter, or why they leave, certain male-dominated fields?


Odd that there are no women on professional football teams. Clear evidence of discrimination, eh?


----------



## 1996D

KenOC said:


> Odd that there are no women on professional football teams. Clear evidence of discrimination, eh?


Exactly.

Do you guys actually think that there has been a female Karajan prevented from reaching the podium because of discrimination? Or that it will ever happen?

You talk as though the individual will to succeed counts as nothing and all is dependant on others... In my experience it's the exact opposite.

What a weak mindset, a victim's mindset really, ready to make excuses. It's as if you want to lose and then blame the world.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Do you guys actually think that there has been a female Karajan prevented from reaching the podium because of discrimination? Or that it will ever happen?


Do you want another Karajan? I don't. One was more than enough.



> You talk as though the individual will to succeed counts as nothing and all is dependant on others... In my experience it's the exact opposite.


You talk as though you can't read what people have written.



> What a weak mindset, a victim's mindset really, ready to make excuses. It's as if you want to lose and then blame the world.


What a readiness to attribute motives to others. The typical resort of those who don't have an argument.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Odd that there are no women on professional football teams. Clear evidence of discrimination, eh?


What's odd about it?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> What's odd about it?


I think you're being a bit obtuse here. Certainly females are not equal to males in all aspects of their physical capabilities. But you seem to hold that they are equal in all aspects of their mental and emotional capabilities. I can't help feeling that is more an expression of faith than a reasoned observation.

BTW in my view, unequal may mean more than equal or less...


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I think you're being a bit obtuse here. Certainly females are not equal to males in all aspects of their physical capabilities. But you seem to hold that they are equal in all aspects of their mental and emotional capabilities. I can't help feeling that is more an expression of faith than a reasoned observation.


"Seem to hold"? People are always telling me what I seem to hold. I do try hard not to "seem to say" things.

Mental and emotional capabilities? Which ones do you mean? People are coming up with speculative and ill-defined "innate" traits to excuse clear social prejudices and the conditions those prejudices create and sustain. Those exist, and are not speculative.

I tend to trust what women say about their experiences rather than (mostly) men who tell me what women are "like."


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> "Seem to hold"? People are always telling me what I seem to hold. I do try hard not to "seem to say" things.
> 
> Mental and emotional capabilities? Which ones do you mean? People are coming up with speculative and ill-defined "innate" traits to excuse clear social prejudices and the conditions those prejudices create and sustain. Those exist, and are not speculative.
> 
> I tend to trust what women say about their experiences rather than (mostly) men who tell me what women are "like."


Ah, then you do _not _hold that men and women "are equal in all aspects of their mental and emotional capabilities"? Can you be, perhaps, a bit more specific?


----------



## 1996D

I see it as clear as ever now: weak minded individuals discussing why people like themselves can't achieve.

The strong minded don't care if something is popular or unpopular, male dominated, or whatever excuses you're spouting. If you have a goal you go and achieve it--end of story.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Ah, then you do _not _hold that men and women "are equal in all aspects of their mental and emotional capabilities"? Can you be, perhaps, a bit more specific?


You want me to be specific about beliefs I don't possess?  That's another version of asking for proof of a negative. It's up to those who are claiming gender differences they consider explanatory to specify what those differences are.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I see it as clear as ever now: weak minded individuals discussing why people like themselves can't achieve.
> 
> The strong minded don't care if something is popular or unpopular, male dominated, or whatever excuses you're spouting. If you have a goal you go and achieve it--end of story.


You used up that spurious argument days ago. It was horsepucky then and it's horsepucky now.


----------



## 1996D

Epiphany--no one will ever convince you otherwise because it's not only your ideology but at the very core of your being--just as I argue what's at the core of my being. Because my will to power allows me to get what I want, I assumed everyone has it in them to do the same--very mistakenly so.

You see the world as depending on others because your world depends on others, you don't have the mental strength to will yourself to where you want or lead others to do what you want, and so depend on their generosity.

What we believe reflects what we are. Yet I believe I'm in the right when I say that people who succeed in significant human accomplishment are those than can make things happen on their own, regardless of circumstances. Women seem to be bad at that.


----------



## Larkenfield

1996D said:


> Epiphany--no one will ever convince you otherwise because it's not only your ideology but at the very core of your being--just as I argue what's at the core of my being. Because my will to power allows me to get what I want, I assumed everyone has it in them to do the same--very mistakenly so.
> 
> You see the world as depending on others because your world depends on others, you don't have the mental strength to will yourself to where you want or lead others to do what you want, and so depend on their generosity.
> 
> What we believe reflects what we are. Yet I believe I'm in the right when I say that people who succeed in significant human accomplishment are those that can make things happen on their own, regardless of circumstances. Women seem to be bad at that.


No one ever makes it completely and totally on their own, and it's a mistake to think so. Everything in life is connected, and no one gets ahead in life being an ingrate and not appreciating the opportunities that others may have helped create, though it's easy and convenient to imagine that that never happened. No one is asking for a handout in the arts. It doesn't work that way. It has to be earned and it's hard enough already without having to confront those steeped in blind prejudice and unreasonable misogynistic attitudes.


----------



## KenOC

Well, we all have our image of what a conductor does. For many of us, it was formed in the days of cartoons and Fantasia. To the extent that women have different personas than men, how can they compete with this? Will they be putting those bums in those seats?


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Epiphany--no one will ever convince you otherwise because it's not only your ideology but at the very core of your being--just as *I argue what's at the core of my being.*..people who succeed in significant human accomplishment are those than can make things happen on their own, regardless of circumstances. *Women seem to be bad at that.*


At the "core of your being" is a self-important little misogynist stuck on infinite loop.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> I have never met a single female electrician, even heard of one, and I am related to an electrician who worked in a union for 30 years and knew many electricians.
> 
> But according to you if you can produce one female electrician, one exception, you have smashed the idea that women tend not to be interested in that kind of work, and proved that women are equally interested in that kind of work.
> 
> All I'm saying is we don't know for sure, but given that they're not fighting to enter the field, they are probably not equally interested in it.


Well, it's obvious that there's more than one female electrician in the industry

There's been a female electrician working on the house next door to mine.

https://www.jib.org.uk/new-network-launched-for-female-electricians

https://womensenews.org/2011/04/female-electricians-burn-out-male-dominance/

etc etc

Do your own research.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Odd that there are no women on professional football teams.


You mean in mixed teams? And are you referring only to American Football, and not soccer? There have been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Professional_Football_League

As for soccer...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Women%27s_World_CupAnd rugby...

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ru...team-first-in-world-to-go-fully-pro-1.3632404

I should add that when I was a school football coach (primary, not secondary age) I had girls on my team, and mixed teams were permitted in the school leagues. This isn't permitted now in England.


----------



## Zhdanov

the attempts to make a woman equal to a man are in fact aimed to obliterate a woman as such in order there would be only a man left or a manlike person for that matter.


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> the attempts *to make a woman equal to a man* are in fact aimed to obliterate a woman as such in order there would be only a man left or a manlike person for that matter.


No-one here is talking about compulsion - if that's what you mean by 'make'. Yet another straw woman.


----------



## Zhdanov

MacLeod said:


> No-one here is talking about compulsion


no one here but someone out there and they do use compulsion.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

1996D said:


> Epiphany--no one will ever convince you otherwise because it's not only your ideology but at the very core of your being--just as I argue what's at the core of my being. Because my will to power allows me to get what I want, I assumed everyone has it in them to do the same--very mistakenly so.
> 
> You see the world as depending on others because your world depends on others, you don't have the mental strength to will yourself to where you want or lead others to do what you want, and so depend on their generosity.
> 
> What we believe reflects what we are. Yet I believe I'm in the right when I say that people who succeed in significant human accomplishment are those than can make things happen on their own, regardless of circumstances. Women seem to be bad at that.


What have you achieved in the field of significant human accomplishment?

Save telling us what significant accomplishment requires when we have no reason to believe you have any special knowledge on what it takes. Is there something special we don't know that makes you particularly qualified to talk about great accomplishments and how any given person might attain them?

We're just as able to make sweeping generalizations about people who have achieved things as you are. Maybe that we haven't suggests...hear me out... that it's not a core for a real tenable argument.


----------



## fluteman

Open Book said:


> Few people here disagree that people shouldn't have barriers to their achievement placed on them due to their gender, nationality, race, whatever. Even the ones who think women won't make good conductors (which I disagree with) aren't saying they shouldn't be allowed to try.
> 
> The problem is what to do when it is perceived that there is a lack of representation of a certain group of people in any field or endeavor. Is the lack of so-and-sos in such-and-such really due to lack of opportunity or even discrimination? Some of us feel it may not always be discrimination and that it shouldn't be "fixed" by favoring members of the underrepresented group.
> 
> Why is that so hard to fathom?


Because, factually, it is discrimination, almost invariably. And fixing it doesn't mean favoring anyone, but rather removing barriers and providing opportunity to all. And in the case of women and classical music, it has happened very slowly and gradually. In the late 19th and early 20th century, all-female orchestras were created. Then, gradually, women were hired into top professional orchestras.

The case of Elizabeth Rowe, current principal flutist of the Boston Symphony, is discussed in another thread here. Apparently, she sued the BSO because, though well-paid by most standards, she was being paid somewhat less than some other male BSO principal players, such as the principal oboist. I said, and not everyone here was happy with my comment, that she was not necessarily entitled to equal pay with some other BSO player. She has made it to the big time, now she needs to do solo concerts to rave reviews (or continue to do so -- the BSO has featured her as soloist with impressive results, imo) until she becomes a famous, major star. Then, if the BSO doesn't pay her what she is worth, she can leave.

Anthony McGill, the extraordinary principal clarinetist of the NY Philharmonic (and its first African American principal player), started out in the Cincinnati Symphony, then was principal clarinetist in the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra for 10 years, famously playing at the first Obama inauguration with Itzhak Perlman, Gabriela Montero and Yo-Yo Ma, before getting the NY Philharmonic position.

I heard him in recital many years ago, before he played at the inauguration, and he was simply stunning. If there was a better clarinetist in the world, I hadn't heard one. But that was a minor recital in a minor venue, tickets were all but free, and I don't think it was reviewed in the NY Times or anywhere else. He wasn't even the headliner in that recital, playing in only one of the pieces -- Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time. The other musicians in that recital, though capable professionals, were not remotely of his caliber. Unfair? Perhaps, but he was patiently working his way to stardom.


----------



## Enthusiast

So where have we got to? It is clear that evolution is not relevant here (apart from anything else we did not evolve in a world that needed conductors - we evolved as hunter-gatherers). It is clear that there have been few successful or notable women conductors *until very recently* (and they are mostly still young). That they are beginning to appear at a time when humanity has finally gotten around to being more open to women doing things that were traditionally male occupations seems to come close to proving that it was broadly discrimination that kept women down in this field.

We have also heard that women are different to men (something most of us will have noticed) but no-one has yet been able - in this thread or in the world - to demonstrate or even to produce a convincing hypothesis that these differences somehow mean that women can't conduct. So far we should be clear (if guided in this discussion by logic) that there is no reason to doubt that women are just as able to conduct as men.

But, even if this were not the case, and even if there were reasons for women being somehow less capable than men in this field this would still not mean that all women can't conduct. So, some women (the ones who can conduct) would be suffering from discrimination. Even the hard line "male supremacists" here have now acknowledged that a general unsuitability among women can still leave some cases of women who have what it takes. As we are ultimately talking about social (including employment) policy the question of discrimination would still apply.

Finally, we have also explored some aspects of the parallel case of racial differences. We have been assured that there is science to support this but it remains the case that a person's DNA cannot enable us to identify (or even guess) their race - so any differences apparently measured must be conditioned socially. All aspects of this debate arrive at that conclusion. Hence the need for policies that give members of the discriminated equal opportunities.


----------



## Jacck

but there are musical taste differences between men and women
https://joyruffen.com/musical-taste-differences-men-women/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00379.x

and this is an interesting thesis
Gender and music: can we hear a difference between female and male composers and performers?
https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1273&context=hpt


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> We have also heard that women are different to men (something most of us will have noticed) but no-one has yet been able - in this thread or in the world - to demonstrate or even to produce a convincing hypothesis that these differences somehow mean that women can't conduct. So far we should be clear (if guided in this discussion by logic) that there is no reason to doubt that women are just as able to conduct as men. .


even a trained macaque can conduct, don't they just wave their arms about and pull faces?


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> It is clear that there have been few successful or notable women conductors *until very recently* (and they are mostly still young).


I think that whilst this is true compared to the long list of men conductors, there have been more than you might think. I posted this earleir, but it's worth reposting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_classical_conductors

For example



> Boulanger was the first woman to conduct many major orchestras in America and Europe, including the BBC Symphony, Boston Symphony, Hallé, New York Philharmonic and Philadelphia orchestras. She conducted several world premieres, including works by Copland and Stravinsky.


----------



## Barbebleu

fluteman said:


> The case of Elizabeth Rowe, current principal flutist of the Boston Symphony, is discussed in another thread here. Apparently, she sued the BSO because, though well-paid by most standards, she was being paid somewhat less than some other male BSO principal players, such as the principal oboist. I said, and not everyone here was happy with my comment, that she was not necessarily entitled to equal pay with some other BSO player. She has made it to the big time, now she needs to do solo concerts to rave reviews (or continue to do so -- the BSO has featured her as soloist with impressive results, imo) until she becomes a famous, major star. Then, if the BSO doesn't pay her what she is worth, she can leave.


You can bet your bippy that if the principal oboist had been getting less that Elizabeth Rowe that situation wouldn't have lasted for long!


----------



## Woodduck

Zhdanov said:


> the attempts to make a woman equal to a man are in fact aimed to obliterate a woman as such in order there would be only a man left or a manlike person for that matter.


There's only one essential thing a man can do that a woman can't. If we ever figure out how to create sperm in the lab it will be men who are unnecessary. The women, heaving a collective sigh of relief, will deport us to Antarctica (which will be warm enough for habitation by then) and send us periodic shipments of beer, ammo and back issues of Sports Illustrated with extra copies of the swimsuit issue to reduce the chances of civil war.


----------



## KenOC

Parthogenesis would indeed be the last shot fired in the until-now interminable war of the sexes.


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> There's only one essential thing a man can do that a woman can't. If we ever figure out how to create sperm in the lab it will be men who are unnecessary. The women, heaving a collective sigh of relief, will deport us to Antarctica (which will be warm enough for habitation by then) and send us periodic shipments of beer, ammo and back issues of Sports Illustrated with extra copies of the swimsuit issue to reduce the chances of civil war.


this is absurd. If men disapeared from society, the society would simply stop working, since men do most of the grunt work and most of the ugly and dangerous jobs. Men form a buffer between women and children and the harsh world out there. But you are right that men are the more dispensable gender. In the past, genetic analyses have shown, that only fraction of the powerful men had offspring, while most women had offspring.
https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success 
but your sexist stereotyping of men requiring shipments of beer, ammo and sports is funny


----------



## millionrainbows

paulbest said:


> w/o suffering , set backs, disappointments , tragedies , frailties , , there is no such thing as great living art.
> These 2 events are sides of 1 coin.
> When a composer has created unreal, great living art, be assured this creative imagination has been fired in the kilns of harshness, deprivations, great loss.


I agree; this should be OBVIOUS to all.


----------



## Bulldog

Jacck said:


> this is absurd. If men disapeared from society, the society would simply stop working, since men do most of the grunt work and most of the ugly and dangerous jobs.


Not to worry. Women would adapt to the new situation.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; this should be OBVIOUS to all.


I don't believe you or paulbest are correct.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Hong Kong Sinfonietta
Music Director

Hong Kong Sinfonietta's current Music Director Yip Wing-sie will step down 
in April 2020 after leading the orchestra for 18 years. From May 2020, she 
will become Music Director Emeritus of the orchestra.

Hong Kong Sinfonietta is therefore seeking internationally - a new Music 
Director to lead the orchestra into its next stage of development.

Closing date: 31 Jul 2019


----------



## Jacck

Bulldog said:


> Not to worry. Women would adapt to the new situation.


yes, there is this cult Polish scifi movie called the Sex mission. A virus wipes out all the male population, and only women survive and multiply by artificial insemination. And then 2 guys wake up from hibernation ...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/
The female archeologist who digs them up hypothesises she has found the missing link between women and apes 

if women were to take up all the jobs and responsibilites of men, they would become like men. They would also have armies, wars, exploitation etc.


----------



## KenOC

Not to press the obvious, but without men professional football would be less entertaining. Imagine if you can...

And the firearms industry would be greatly changed. Women prefer dainty pieces like .25s with mother-of-pearl grips, and similar fashion accessories. There'd be little demand for honest, manly weapons like AK-47s.


----------



## Open Book

"Try being a woman serving with men in the military or on a construction site and see how long you last - or, failing that possibility, talk to women who left such positions and ask them why they left. If the percentage of women in "male" jobs is increasing - and it is - it isn't because women are "evolving biologically." It's because society is gradually coming to understand and deal with the attitudes, behaviors and conditions that have made such jobs hostile environments which only the most determined or thick-skinned women will tolerate."

I am a woman and I was in a male-dominated white collar field for many, many years. Is that good enough? 

'I tend to trust what women say about their experiences rather than (mostly) men who tell me what women are "like."'

Any questions for me?


----------



## Open Book

KenOC said:


> It seems obvious that the differences between the sexes lies in statistical distributions. The differences between the sexes can be expressed and in fact are widely studied. That they are statistical doesn't make them artificial.
> 
> I doubt that anybody who has had both male and female children (as I have) can consider the differences between the sexes to be due solely to "nurture" versus nature.


I agree with al this. Of course it's incorrect to say "all women this..." or "all men that...", from observation it's obvious that there are exceptions. Sometimes many exceptions.

But statistically there are certain behaviors, certain tendencies, aptitudes, choices made, I could go on, that differ between the two genders. We don't have to know the underlying mechanism (different ways the brain functions or different brain structure or relative size of parts of the brain, anatomical differences which we know exist) or prove anything to to be able to read the statistics.

This is just an average, it says nothing about individuals.

I agree about children's behavior, too. Even at a very young age boys tend to be more aggressive, impulsive, daring, and fixated. And less social. _On the average._


----------



## Open Book

"We have been assured that there is science to support this but it remains the case that a person's DNA cannot enable us to identify (or even guess) their race "

Really? Then millions of people who paid for ancestry.com or other DNA analysis should demand their money back. They've been told what nationalities are in their background. The tests aren't absolutely certain and they are always being revised, but people wouldn't pay for something that is totally fraudulent and useless.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> Not to press the obvious, but without men professional football would be less entertaining. Imagine if you can...


Without men there wouldn't be any professional football.


----------



## BachIsBest

Open Book said:


> "We have been assured that there is science to support this but it remains the case that a person's DNA cannot enable us to identify (or even guess) their race "
> 
> Really? Then millions of people who paid for ancestry.com or other DNA analysis should demand their money back. They've been told what nationalities are in their background. The tests aren't absolutely certain and they are always being revised, *but people wouldn't pay for something that is totally fraudulent and useless*.


Have you seen the sales numbers of pop music?


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> Have you seen the sales numbers of pop music?


Fraudulent and useless? I could say the same of Schoenberg. But of course, I won't! :angel:


----------



## paulbest

Open Book said:


> This is just an average, it says nothing about individuals.
> 
> l. _On the average._


 At this present time, it is only the individual choice that really matters. 
The more I live on this planet,,,the more I reject the popular vote.

Take Stravinsky,,do you know how often I've been told,,,*so what, you don't care for his music,,,WE the majority do,,and that's that*,,,Yet when it comes to suggesting one of my favs,,now they (the collective majority) shut off their hearing aids.
= majority votes means zero to the individual in this day of collective mass mindlessness. 
60 yrs later and folks are still saying,,*man Stravinsky is so innovative, so great, so modern,,,* .


----------



## Minor Sixthist

paulbest said:


> At this present time, it is only the individual choice that really matters.
> The more I live on this planet,,,the more I reject the popular vote.
> 
> Take Stravinsky,,do you know how often I've been told,,,*so what, you don't care for his music,,,WE the majority do,,and that's that*,,,Yet when it comes to suggesting one of my favs,,now they (the collective majority) shut off their hearing aids.
> = majority votes means zero to the individual in this day of collective mass mindlessness.
> 60 yrs later and folks are still saying,,*man Stravinsky is so innovative, so great, so modern,,,* . He may have BEEN at one time, this world has moved on since then and his music bores me to death.


Ahh, the old "I only conform to non-conformism."


----------



## paulbest

Minor Sixthist said:


> Ahh, the old "I only conform to non-conformism."


 This is the cry in the Parisian streets today. 
If Ravel listened to his elders at the conservatoire , we might have another Ravel with us today. 
can you imagine your world w/o this music?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

paulbest said:


> This is the cry in the Parisian streets today.
> If Ravel listened to his elders at the conservatoire , we might have another Ravel with us today.
> can you imagine your world w/o this music?


There's nothing all to be gained here from discussions about our personal tastes in music. I'm not even sure what this has to do with the bit you quoted about the Individual versus the "masses."


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> But statistically there are certain behaviors, certain tendencies, aptitudes, choices made, I could go on, that differ between the two genders.


So...what? If what you say is true, where does that lead us on the matter of whether male prejudice (specific or systemic) is keeping women from conducting?


----------



## Zhdanov

MacLeod said:


> whether male prejudice (specific or systemic) is keeping women from conducting?


that is a false issue, same as "why no black conductors" would have been, meanwhile it is a matter of who pulls the strings behind creating such a fake agenda, thus demonstarting their immense power and offering it on the market as a tool for teh elites to purchase and use for this or that purpose.


----------



## paulbest

MacLeod said:


> So...what? If what you say is true, where does that lead us on the matter of whether male prejudice (specific or systemic) is keeping women from conducting?


who knows, there may have been instances in the past 50 yrs, whena female orch member said to herself *I can do at the very least as good as he,,,if not better*,,,perhaps in Szell, Reiner or even the famous Ormandy's orchestra.

I doubt if any woman would want to challenge a conductor on the level of say,,,,Bruno Walter's, Karl Bohm,,or even ,,Furtwangler's position at the helm. 
There has been bias in the CC, , walls which block woman's passages to the podium,,,now all that is breaking down,,,except perhaps in old Berlin, older more stringent Vienna. 
There have been many instances where a male conductor never knew how/when to call it quits,,,,Dutoit for one.


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> that is a false issue, [etc]





paulbest said:


> who knows, [etc]


Thanks for the response chaps, but neither of you has answered the question I put to Open Book.


----------



## Zhdanov

MacLeod said:


> neither of you has answered the question


it is not 'male prejudice' or any other prejudice that keeps anyone from doing anything.

*politics* and its lasting effect is what affects the change from one policy to another.


----------



## Zhdanov

for example, back in the good old Soviet days, nobody made a fuss about Veronika Dudarova conducting the orchestra - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronika_Dudarova, same about Nadia Boulanger who came earlier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Boulanger - because there was no politics involved in this at the time.


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> it is not 'male prejudice' or any other prejudice that keeps anyone from doing anything.
> 
> *politics* and its lasting effect is what affects the change from one policy to another.


I get that's your point - but it still doesn't answer my question.


----------



## Larkenfield

Zhdanov said:


> it is not 'male prejudice' or any other prejudice that keeps anyone from doing anything.
> 
> *politics* and its lasting effect is what affects the change from one policy to another.


Some men believe that women have no business conducting an orchestra based solely on their being a woman: they are a distraction, they don't have the ability, they don't have this, they don't have that. It's a gender bias or prejudice that is not necessarily political. It's more of a moral, social, or artistic judgment that needs to be looked at on that level.

If a male conductor, for instance, holds that point of view and there are already accomplished women conductors in the field who have been successful and shown that they are not without outstanding ability, then I would view that as gender and not political misogyny that's seeks to limit their opportunities because, of course, men are superior in all things though many of the greatest instrumental soloists in the world are women who undoubtedly have insight into the music, and in some instances, may also have outstanding leadership abilities. They wouldn't be given the chance to conduct in the first place if others didn't already believe in them or they hadn't proven themselves in some way.

So I do believe that there can be a strong, deeply ingrained and conditioned gender bias that is not related to politics, including by some women who might also hold those same views about what's best for women, and I think that's the issue here.

Lifting up that heavy heavy baton is not exactly as physically demanding as playing linebacker for the New York Jets in American football and risk getting brain injuries from the senselessness (apologies to those who love the game) of the violence.

An historical example of gender bias? Mozart talented sister, Nannerl, no longer being permitted to play in public because she became of marital age. It was something that women just did not do at the time, or were permitted to do at the time because marriage and childbirth were the priorities. And of course, there's Mendelssohn's sister, Fanny, another talented musician and composer lost to time because she was a woman and marriage was the priority. Men saw them a certain way and were in a position to control what they did. Well, that's no longer true and yet there there are still some of those old attitudes to overcome because not all women choose marriage as their first or only priority. Plus, they are no longer dependent on men for their livelihood as women and women are now in the same position of having to earn their livelihood just like a man has always been expected to. I say: take talent where you find it and know that it can sometimes be found in unexpected and surprising places.

Fanny Mendelssohn's Hiob Cantata: http://americansymphony.org/fanny-mendelssohn/


----------



## Open Book

MacLeod said:


> So...what? If what you say is true, where does that lead us on the matter of whether male prejudice (specific or systemic) is keeping women from conducting?


Sigh. We've been over this again and again. This has already been answered.

I agree that there has been some male prejudice and that it has been probably been a factor in hindering some women from becoming conductors. The question is, *how much* has it hindered them and how much is the apparent lack of women conductors simply because women may not favor it as a field as much as men do, because women may tend to have different interests than men.

Women's interest could shift over time but it may be that right now there aren't as big a proportion of female musicians who are interested in conducting compared to male musicians and the dearth of female conductors isn't entirely due to prejudice.


----------



## Luchesi

Boys and girls have different initial approaches while learning music theory. It's interesting to observe. So, how would this affect how they would conduct a Mahler symphony?


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Sigh. We've been over this again and again. This has already been answered.
> 
> I agree that there has been some male prejudice and that it has been probably been a factor in hindering some women from becoming conductors. The question is, *how much* has it hindered them and how much is the apparent lack of women conductors simply because women may not favor it as a field as much as men do, because women may tend to have different interests than men.
> 
> Women's interest could shift over time but it may be that right now there aren't as big a proportion of female musicians who are interested in conducting compared to male musicians and the dearth of female conductors isn't entirely due to prejudice.


Clearly, this line of argument doesn't address the possibility that some women may be put off seeking a career in conducting because they fear that they will run into harmful prejudice at some stage. If instead they adopt a risk-reducing strategy of pursuing other careers where they fear the risks of encountering prejudice are less or non-existent, then this would be a rational choice by individuals but sub-optimal for society as a whole, since talent is diverted away from areas where it could potentially be more highly valued. The only way I can think of to find out more about this is to carry out surveys of potential female conductors. I can well appreciate that this poses difficulties all of its own.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ And indeed it presumably starts in their childhood when many girls must surely feel that conducting is another career they cannot aim for. I wonder if classically inclined boys play at "air conducting" but not girls?


----------



## Jacck

Partita said:


> Clearly, this line of argument doesn't address the possibility that some women may be put off seeking a career in conducting because they fear that they will run into harmful prejudice at some stage. If instead they adopt a risk-reducing strategy of pursuing other careers where they fear the risks of encountering prejudice are less or non-existent, then this would be a rational choice by individuals but sub-optimal for society as a whole, since talent is diverted away from areas where it could potentially be more highly valued. The only way I can think of to find out more about this is to carry out surveys of potential female conductors. I can well appreciate that this poses difficulties all of its own.


and without such a survey, ie without knowing how many wanted to become condutresses, but found other careers instead for fear of prejudice, all this talk is speculation.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Read my post above. Discrimination can squash aspirations before they have even formed.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And indeed it presumably starts in their childhood when many girls must surely feel that conducting is another career they cannot aim for. I wonder if classically inclined boys play at "air conducting" but not girls?


What i should have added is that, even if there was clear survey evidence indicating that young females are put off pursuing conducting careers due to the fear of prejudice, it's not clear what can be done about it.

Unlike standard musician jobs, it's not that "blind-tests" could provide a complete solution, since the prejudice against women conductors, if it exists, could be partly or even mainly by the audiences, rather than by the selectors. Possibly the selectors themselves may be perfectly non-discriminatory in their choices, but fear that their audiences may react adversely to the appointment of female conductors.

My apologies if this point, or similar, has been made before but I haven't read all of the posts since i last looked at this marathon thread.


----------



## Open Book

"Clearly, this line of argument doesn't address the possibility that some women may be put off seeking a career in conducting because they fear that they will run into harmful prejudice at some stage."

Yes, I have addressed that. I admitted there has been some male prejudice that has probably prevented some women from seeking the job of conductor or even thinking about it. It's sad, but you can't fix everything right away. Some of you want this fixed immediately, today.

What is to be done? Push women who aren't ready for it into conducting jobs ahead of men who are ready for it, just so there are more women conductors? All we can do is improve conditions from now on, try to eliminate prejudice, try to discover, encourage, and mentor women with potential.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> and without such a survey, ie without knowing how many wanted to become condutresses, but found other careers instead for fear of prejudice, all this talk is speculation.


I would have thought that the size of the imbalance between male and female conductors on the world stage is so large that it's most unlikely to have occurred as a result of chance alone in the type of jobs that women might seek, in the absence of either discrimination or some kind of strong preference for other careers. I do not know what is the relative size of each of these factors, and that is why I mentioned survey evidence as possibly providing useful information. I can't think of any other way to shed further light on this. I definitely do not see any prospect of the kind of arguments and statistics that you have been peddling as being of any use at all.


----------



## Open Book

Partita said:


> Unlike standard musician jobs, it's not that "blind-tests" could provide a complete solution, since the prejudice against women conductors, if it exists, could be partly or even mainly by the audiences, rather than by the selectors. Possibly the selectors themselves may be perfectly non-discriminatory in their choices, but fear that their audiences may react adversely to the appointment of female conductors.


Never mind audiences, how are blind tests going to work for something that is visual in large part? Is it sufficient to hear the music played without seeing anything about how the conductor works to get those sounds? I would think the selectors would also want to see and hear how the candidate conductor interacts with the musicians as a whole and individually during rehearsals. Do they have patience, is there rapport, a vision, palpable charisma that inspires musicians? I would think you can't escape knowing the gender and appearance of the candidate in conducting.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Open Book said:


> Never mind audiences, how are blind tests going to work for something that is visual in large part? Is it sufficient to hear the music played without seeing anything about how the conductor works to get those sounds? I would think the selectors would also want to see and hear how the candidate conductor interacts with the musicians as a whole and individually during rehearsals. Do they have patience, is there rapport, a vision, palpable charisma that inspires musicians? I would think you can't escape knowing the gender and appearance of the candidate in conducting.


Never mind the people who pay money to sit and listen to the music.


----------



## Open Book

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Never mind the people who pay money to sit and listen to the music.


I didn't mean disregard the audience. I meant in addition to the audience, there are other reasons why blind auditions won't work for conductors.

Oy, what a waste of space.


----------



## paulbest

man or woman 
Lets make Conducting Great Again.


for those outside America, Trump loves to lead the battle cry with a shout. ,,,Make America great again....


----------



## EdwardBast

Open Book said:


> Never mind audiences, how are blind tests going to work for something that is visual in large part? Is it sufficient to hear the music played without seeing anything about how the conductor works to get those sounds? I would think the selectors would also want to see and hear how the candidate conductor interacts with the musicians as a whole and individually during rehearsals. Do they have patience, is there rapport, a vision, palpable charisma that inspires musicians? I would think you can't escape knowing the gender and appearance of the candidate in conducting.


Blind auditions/interviews for conductors are impossible, for reasons I would think obvious. One can't follow conductors' directions without seeing them. Usually a new conductor will have already conducted guest performances with the orchestra.


----------



## Jacck

maybe it has something to do with testosterone. Testosteron makes you aggressive, dominant, self-centered, driven. You need to bully the orchestra to impose your will upon them, you need to be an exhibionist etc. It is an aggressive profession. Maybe women lack this kind of aggression. 

there were some Czech female conductors in the past - Vitězslava Kaprálová, Sylvie Bodorová, Miriam Němcová


----------



## Open Book

Jacck said:


> this is absurd. If men disapeared from society, the society would simply stop working, since men do most of the grunt work and most of the ugly and dangerous jobs. Men form a buffer between women and children and the harsh world out there. But you are right that men are the more dispensable gender. In the past, genetic analyses have shown, that only fraction of the powerful men had offspring, while most women had offspring.
> https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
> but your sexist stereotyping of men requiring shipments of beer, ammo and sports is funny


This is true that men by and large perform our most dangerous jobs. I don't think enough people appreciate the scope of what men do to keep society running, at great risk to themselves.

I was watching a documentary on the building of 1 World Trade Center, a 104-story building that had to get done on schedule regardless of wind and other bad weather. The whole process of building it was fraught with danger. I was thinking how special the men were who worked on it and wondered how many women would want to do such a job. Yes, admittedly women would probably be mistrusted and rejected for this kind of work. But I can't picture very many wanting to do it.

I think if all men disappeared we'd have a few daring women to do things like this, but not enough of them to get everything done. Things would slide and we'd turn into Cuba, infrastructure slowly decaying.

On a positive note, the telephone worker who visited my house for an upgrade yesterday was a woman, first one I've personally ever seen. She had no fear of climbing a telephone pole by herself but it wasn't 104 stories up. So maybe I am wrong.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Open Book said:


> ... try to discover, encourage, and mentor women with potential.


How is potential discovered ? Music Aptitude Tests seem stupid . I just discovered a test-result sent home to my parents in 1965 .

Looks as though I scored fairly well , but I don't believe the school music programs ever wanted me . I guess it was forbidden to institutionalize me . Or maybe I'd been covertly probed for potential and I the child silently gave them the eye of destiny .

In honor of I the child , it's easy enough to gather 7 neighborhood little kids 7 years of age to be the Shattertone Orchestra and , in turn , each may serve as the fantastical conductor of 6 . These conductors can jump .


----------



## 1996D

Minor Sixthist said:


> What have you achieved in the field of significant human accomplishment?
> 
> Save telling us what significant accomplishment requires when we have no reason to believe you have any special knowledge on what it takes. Is there something special we don't know that makes you particularly qualified to talk about great accomplishments and how any given person might attain them?
> 
> We're just as able to make sweeping generalizations about people who have achieved things as you are. Maybe that we haven't suggests...hear me out... that it's not a core for a real tenable argument.


This being an anonymous forum, there's no way to answer your question. But it's no only me saying these things, Nietzsche basically dedicated his life to explaining it.

Almost everything about anything is already written, it's up to you to understand it.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Almost everything about anything is already written, it's up to you to understand it.


I take from this that you've read "almost everything about anything." No wonder you talk like someone who's never actually DONE anything.


----------



## Larkenfield

So this thread has now become a referendum on men? Geez, I can understand a referendum on the human race, but not just on men or women because most of the time they’re working together in some way, whether they want to or not. They both live on the same planet, and each gender has something to offer that the other one doesn’t in addition to what they both may have an aptitude for, and both have an aptitude for performing great music.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Open Book said:


> Yes, I have addressed that. I admitted there has been some male prejudice that has probably prevented some women from seeking the job of conductor or even thinking about it. *It's sad, but you can't fix everything right away. Some of you want this fixed immediately, today.*


When should we start trying to fix it, next Wednesday? When Godot comes? The implication of "We shouldn't bother trying to fix it today" is "I don't care if it's fixed at all." And it surprises me you seem to feel so passively about it, as a woman yourself.

Q: Do you think it is good that women enter the profession and become conductors? 
Pannula: No! What the hell, we have men already.

I don't know. I don't see why we should just sit and sigh "nothing to be done." It just sounds pardoning of those attitudes.


----------



## mmsbls

There seem to be two general arguments - the disparity between male and female conductors is due to a) societal and/or personal bias/prejudice or b) innate differences between men and women. Obviously it could be a mixture.

People have given evidence for societal and personal bias in orchestral hiring. We also know of clear societal bias in other fields (doctors, lawyers, etc.). Some have suggested factors such as genetics/biology or developmental differences. I don't remember seeing any evidence for genetics/biology or developmental differences as it applies to conducting or orchestral hiring. _Is there any? _

The non-bias arguments seem to be along the lines of:

It _could be the case_ that there is a sex-linked gene inherited solely by males that allows men to better understand how sounds can mix and effect people.

We all know that women are more fluid and less rigid/linear. _Perhaps_ the many repeated staff lines on conductors scores are less friendly to women than men.

Does anyone believe that the genetics/biology or developmental differences arguments account for the majority of the disparity between male and female conductors? Or are those arguing for factors aside from societal and/or personal bias simply suggesting that other factors _could play a role_?


----------



## EdwardBast

Jacck said:


> maybe it has something to do with testosterone. Testosteron makes you aggressive, dominant, self-centered, driven. You need to bully the orchestra to impose your will upon them, you need to be an exhibionist etc. It is an aggressive profession. Maybe women lack this kind of aggression.
> 
> there were some Czech female conductors in the past - Vitězslava Kaprálová, Sylvie Bodorová, Miriam Němcová


Thinking that bullying is the most productive way of leading an orchestra is ridiculous. No one likes bullies. And no one really respects them either. Being followed out of fear is way beneath what one should expect of a real leader. A real leader will convince the players of their artistic vision and enlist their cooperation through intelligent persuasion. This isn't the military. We are dealing with artists who all want to produce great art.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> ...No one likes bullies. And no one really respects them either. Being followed out of fear is way beneath what one should expect of a real leader. A real leader will convince the players of their artistic vision and enlist their cooperation through intelligent persuasion.


"...whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way." --Machievelli


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> "...whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way." --Machievelli


And as we all know, Machiavelli was a celebrated leader of musical ensembles. (Or am I thinking of Mantovani...?)


----------



## Larkenfield

Blast from the past: good riddance to such conductors who were like unexpectedly explosive 
time bombs or loose cannons:






In mixed orchestras, I doubt if any conductor could get away with such mad furry and personal insults today.


----------



## Guest

Open Book said:


> Sigh. We've been over this again and again. This has already been answered.


Well, you might think so, but I can't see where the case was evidenced plainly. I can see where wholly unsupported claims were made that women, being the fairer sex, are inherently unsuited to conducting; and that men do all the tough jobs and...and...no, can't think of any reason why that was offered by anyone.



Open Book said:


> *Some of you *want this fixed immediately, today.
> 
> What is to be done? [...] *All we can do *is improve conditions from now on, try to eliminate prejudice, try to discover, encourage, and mentor women with potential.


Which of us? Please cite the post where anyone has suggested that it be 'fixed immediately'?

As for "All we can do"...that's actually quite a substantial suggestion - try to eliminate prejudice, and that's what 'some of us' want to start today, by combating it here, on this Forum.


----------



## BachIsBest

mmsbls said:


> There seem to be two general arguments - the disparity between male and female conductors is due to a) societal and/or personal bias/prejudice or b) innate differences between men and women. Obviously it could be a mixture.
> 
> People have given evidence for societal and personal bias in orchestral hiring. We also know of clear societal bias in other fields (doctors, lawyers, etc.). Some have suggested factors such as genetics/biology or developmental differences. I don't remember seeing any evidence for genetics/biology or developmental differences as it applies to conducting or orchestral hiring. _Is there any? _
> 
> The non-bias arguments seem to be along the lines of:
> 
> It _could be the case_ that there is a sex-linked gene inherited solely by males that allows men to better understand how sounds can mix and effect people.
> 
> We all know that women are more fluid and less rigid/linear. _Perhaps_ the many repeated staff lines on conductors scores are less friendly to women than men.
> 
> Does anyone believe that the genetics/biology or developmental differences arguments account for the majority of the disparity between male and female conductors? Or are those arguing for factors aside from societal and/or personal bias simply suggesting that other factors _could play a role_?


As far as I can tell no one has given evidence for societal bias in orchestra hirings. As society does not hire orchestra members it would be exceedingly difficult to establish this connection. Certainly, the number of Women in orchestras before and after blind auditions are implemented is good evidence for the presence of bias in hiring decisions by the persons that do orchestral hiring. Generally speaking, it is difficult to establish connections between hiring practices and bias and people are very quick to bring in 'solutions' to bias problems that may or may not exist.

I don't know whether biological factors are the main source of disparity in conductor numbers but recognise it as a possibility. The problem with trying to establish statistical differences in conductor aptitude is there is no objective measure (I presume, at least) of conductor aptitude. However, we can establish general differences between male and female 'abilities' for more objectively measurable things and cautiously postulate that there may be general statistical differences in male and female aptitudes for many things which we can not objectively measure.

This got very wordy: I apologise. In short, my answer would be, I don't know with any reasonable degree of certainty and I suspect anyone who claims to know does so far more to adhere to their own ideology than to adhere to actual evidence.


----------



## Larkenfield

I don't see it as a matter of aptitude between men and women, because there have been successful conductors of both sexes, but I see it more as a matter of interest - that not as many women may simply be interested in conducting and leadership with all the headaches and the responsibilities of running a full orchestra. But they can certainly be found as conductors of many different kinds of ensembles, but there's the focus on trying to equate numbers and statistics when it's more a matter of what misogyny or gender prejudice might be standing in the way of those women who obviously do have genuine talent and leadership ability. Too often some will use statistics to imply that women are inherently incapable of being successful conductors, and that has been demonstrated over and over that it's simply not the case, even if women are fewer in number.


----------



## Zhdanov

Larkenfield said:


> each gender has something to offer that the other one doesn't


duality is the word.

someone wants it obliterated.

singularity is what's being forced on peoples.


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> duality is the word.
> 
> someone wants it obliterated.
> 
> singularity is what's being forced on peoples.


Where? By whom? Can we stick to evidence-based reports and not just ill-founded assertions. Better still, stick to the point of what TC members are claiming in this Forum, and not some unspecified 'they'. And since we all agree that there will be "exceptions" to any generalisation, perhaps pointing to research might be a good idea, than to Janson's and Petrenko's personal views about women, or this example of how women are not being treated by men in a protective way.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-attack-fifth-arrest-after-homophobic-assault


----------



## Zhdanov

MacLeod said:


> Where?


in the west obviously.



MacLeod said:


> By whom?


i don't know.


----------



## Enthusiast

Surely, surely this thread has played out. Or, at least, it needs to move on.

Biological explanations and biological determinism have been dismissed as being without evidence of relevance to the OP. You can summarise it as "yes, women and men are different but there is no evidence, not even slightly suggestive evidence, that points towards this making a difference to women's ability to conduct an orchestra".

So we are left with the cultural/social where there are plenty of reasons to suspect that it is discrimination that has been keeping women out of the profession and no evidence that is even slightly indicative to the contrary.

All that is left to discuss is what to do about it. It will take real effort and a long time as there is a need to ensure that musical girls see conducting as a viable ambition, as audiences (possibly filled by people who believe that it is not a job for women) need to see and hear examples of women conducting well and as the change probably needs a few senior women conductors to carry the torch. All the more reason to be very pleased (we are all enriched by it) that a start has been made. One way of accelerating this (and there need to be many more strategies) would be for orchestras adopting clear policies about their determination to avoid gender discrimination in their choice of conductors. The bizarre views of eminent conductors quoted in the OP need to be challenged. They should not be granted posts as principal or lead conductors with orchestras if they are not willing to consider women for official conducting positions as deputies and guests. They may be great musicians but they should not today be in charge of an orchestra if they cannot actively support female as well as male juniors.

Meanwhile, the following story might polarise us all further. 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/8148791/Orchestral-fireworks-conductor-is-sacked-after-walkout.html


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Zhdanov said:


> duality is the word.
> 
> someone wants it obliterated.
> 
> singularity is what's being forced on peoples.


It is psychological manipulation of a witchy sort , a diabolical play with words as delivered by the media . I heard it this morning on the radio . It is hypnotizing , literally , and the wizards of psychology are at war . Must the choir of castratos return ? What a strange and frightening desire . Women in the media are the voice of the message .


----------



## Barbebleu

Eh?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Becca

Enthusiast said:


> Surely, surely this thread has played out. Or, at least, it needs to move on.


That's what I thought ... 30 pages ago!


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I know ..... and I'm not holding my breath now. You started it, though. A very "successful" thread.


----------



## KenOC

It might be wise to not overestimate the value of blind auditions to the selection of musicians. An orchestra is of course a team, and there are things that tend to make for a well-functioning team: social skills, helpfulness, ability to listen to and respect others, avoidance of factionalism and backbiting, and so forth. The “externals” are important too: just showing up reliably, on time, and prepared count for a lot.

The audition (blind or otherwise) tells us nothing of these other things.

Thinking back, I’ve never worked in an environment where technical prowess was the only (or even the primary) determiner of a person’s value to the team.


----------



## Becca

But even with that, most orchestras then have a probationary period before the person becomes a full member of the orchestra.


----------



## Luchesi

Becca said:


> That's what I thought ... 30 pages ago!


People will blather on with their PC views. They'll say oh give 'em a chance! It's only fair.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Professional propagandists have weaponized the word misogyny . When applied politically it is hate-speech . Commoners will play with the word like children with guns . Misogyny On The Podium .


----------



## mmsbls

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Professional propagandists have weaponized the word misogyny . When applied politically it is hate-speech . Commoners will play with the word like children with guns . Misogyny On The Podium .


I may not understand your post, but it appears you are suggesting that this thread's title is inappropriate (like children with guns). Personally, I think the title is perfectly appropriate and describes the OP's content quite well.


----------



## Becca

.....................


----------



## haydnguy

3-4 years ago I was involved with an Innovation Hub/Maker Spaces. (Becca will know what they are). The girls involved in the activities were doing just fine but I told the leaders of these things (who were in their 30's, that it wouldn't be enough). It wouldn't be enough that girls perform. Why? Because of attitudes that they have their "place". Their performance has no relevance to these people. Unfortunately, the younger girls who were participating in these events didn't know that. They were looking forward to what they thought would be a bright future. Maybe a few of them would have a bright future. But many won't because of gender bias.

You don't think women don't have the capability? Try to go through nursing school. Better yet, try to get your masters. If you get that then you'll understand the potential capabilities of women. /rant


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I may not understand your post, but it appears you are suggesting that this thread's title is inappropriate (like children with guns). Personally, I think the title is perfectly appropriate and describes the OP's content quite well.


A small cavil -- The original meaning of "misogyny" is as Merriam-Webster has it: "a hatred of women". It has (or had) nothing to do with views of the relative characteristics or capabilities of men and women.

Lately, the term often seems to mean, "entrenched prejudice against women", or "the belief that men are much better than women". The use of the term in this thread carries only this newer, secondary meaning.


----------



## Open Book

Minor Sixthist said:


> When should we start trying to fix it, next Wednesday? When Godot comes? The implication of "We shouldn't bother trying to fix it today" is "I don't care if it's fixed at all." And it surprises me you seem to feel so passively about it, as a woman yourself.
> 
> Q: Do you think it is good that women enter the profession and become conductors?
> Pannula: No! What the hell, we have men already.
> 
> I don't know. I don't see why we should just sit and sigh "nothing to be done." It just sounds pardoning of those attitudes.


Where are you getting that I said "Nothing to be done"?

One thing I have left out is that organizations should not put bigoted people in positions of power. Anyone who says "No woman should ever be a conductor, physicist", whatever, should not be given tenure or a management position. This sounds trivial, but my company at first had trouble keeping minorities they hired because they kept the same old intolerant idiots in management positions. It's not enough to hire diversity, you've got to keep it by treating everyone well. Some of their managers didn't. The company finally learned and hired a new kind of manager. They used to stick exclusively to the alpha male go-getters, many of whom were bullies and even bigots. But they learned to diversify management as well as the work force. Some beta males that they would never have considered in the past made excellent managers because they were good people as well as good engineers.

Now why don't you tell me what you want done? You want things fixed immediately. How can things be fixed immediately? You want to see women in the top jobs right this minute? If women have shied away from conducting because of bigotry then it's unfortunate but there may not be a large number of suitable women candidates right now for top jobs. It might take a few more years for them to emerge. Would you hire a less qualified woman candidate today over a better male candidate just to have more women in the profession?

You know what? If a woman is so timid that a little opposition from a couple of bigots puts her off even thinking about a career in conducting, she hasn't got what it takes to be conductor anyway.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

mmsbls said:


> I may not understand your post, but it appears you are suggesting that this thread's title is inappropriate (like children with guns). Personally, I think the title is perfectly appropriate and describes the OP's content quite well.


Yes , like children with guns . The title is both titillating and beyond inappropriate . We are to have a respectful , peaceful balance of mind . Or not ? Misogyny is hateful given or received or abstracted . I personally have been hated by a crowd that was in a theatrical fit of hysteria - itsa no fun .

Anyway , no shots fired in this music hall . Surrender .


----------



## paulbest

a lot of good posts lately. 
I'd like to say,,when we see a woman at the Vienna and/or Berlin SO podium,,,even if a visiting conductor, better assistant conductor,,,then we will know woman have gained their place in The High Arts.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

paulbest said:


> a lot of good posts lately.
> I'd like to say,,when we see a woman at the Vienna and/or Berlin SO podium,,,even if a visiting conductor, better assistant conductor,,,then we will know woman have gained their place in The High Arts.


Then there is Higher Art ... of the courage to be beautiful . Applause not requested , striving unacknowledged .


----------



## Becca

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Yes , like children with guns . The title is both titillating and beyond inappropriate . We are to have a respectful , peaceful balance of mind . Or not ? Misogyny is hateful given or received or abstracted . I personally have been hated by a crowd that was in a theatrical fit of hysteria - itsa no fun .
> 
> Anyway , no shots fired in this music hall . Surrender .


And that is totally offensive.


----------



## Open Book

MacLeod said:


> Well, you might think so, but I can't see where the case was evidenced plainly. I can see where wholly unsupported claims were made that women, being the fairer sex, are inherently unsuited to conducting; and that men do all the tough jobs and...and...no, can't think of any reason why that was offered by anyone.
> 
> Which of us? Please cite the post where anyone has suggested that it be 'fixed immediately'?
> 
> As for "All we can do"...that's actually quite a substantial suggestion - try to eliminate prejudice, and that's what 'some of us' want to start today, by combating it here, on this Forum.


[Women] inherently unsuited, like _totally_ unsuited to conducting? Why do I have to prove that, which I don't believe? I'm saying women may not have as much of an interest in it as men do. And yes, they might be slightly less suited in ways we don't yet know. Or not. Maybe they are more suited.

I pointed out other examples of jobs that are very lopsided by gender to show that people's choices and capabilities often fall along gender lines. Why isn't this possible with conducting?

Do you think all women are pushed into jobs against their will by prejudice? That's not very flattering to women if you think they let themselves be pushed around that much. I think that they often make free choices and show clear preferences, like they choose to be nurses and grade school teachers in much greater numbers than men do because they want to be. They overwhelmingly choose not to be auto mechanics and electricians. They tend to choose the biological sciences over the physical sciences when they go into a STEM career.

The same could be true of conducting. You can't prove it's not true.


----------



## philoctetes

haydnguy said:


> 3-4 years ago I was involved with an Innovation Hub/Maker Spaces. (Becca will know what they are). The girls involved in the activities were doing just fine but I told the leaders of these things (who were in their 30's, that it wouldn't be enough). It wouldn't be enough that girls perform. Why? Because of attitudes that they have their "place". Their performance has no relevance to these people. Unfortunately, the younger girls who were participating in these events didn't know that. They were looking forward to what they thought would be a bright future. Maybe a few of them would have a bright future. But many won't because of gender bias.
> 
> You don't think women don't have the capability? Try to go through nursing school. Better yet, try to get your masters. If you get that then you'll understand the potential capabilities of women. /rant


The publisher of Maker Magazine is just down the road in Sebastopol, O'Reilly (the critter computer books) as well. I can't say they've had a great impact on the community's intelligence. Most people cite Amy's Pizza and and Guyaka Mate as the town's best business. I like the mate but can't stand the other...

It's a town with a strong feminist culture, not about technology though...


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Becca said:


> And that is totally offensive.


You are not being articulate . Should you have the last word in this this string and it comes to rest , that'd be fine with mee .


----------



## mmsbls

The thread may well have run its course. It's time to close it.


----------

