Huh where did this thread pop up from all of a sudden? /rhetorical

Anyways, check out this all-female awesomeness: http://youtu.be/rQmtali9avc

Civil, if anyone is dealing with this thread immaturely, it is you. Several posters have asked you, repeatedly I might add, to back up your so-called facts. Your own observations are not fact. Do you want to know why? Because people, shockingly, observe different behaviours than you do. Perception is one hell of a bitch.

Furthermore, no one is distorting your arguments. Refuting? Yes. Perhaps a good tip for you to keep in mind for future debates is to quit playing the persecution complex - isn't it funny how the individuals who try so hard to pigeonhole a marginalised group(yes, you may be shocked to find that women are still marginalised. Why? Look at nearly everything you've posted), are often the ones with the largest persecution complex?

Have you ever thought to question why there aren't many women "Hendrixes"? Why women are underrepresented in many, if not all, traditional "male" fields, subgenres, whatever, regardless of their knowledge, skills, etc.? Just a tip for you, because it might come in handy a little later in life, perhaps when you have to actually communicate with a woman, in person, without being a condescending besserwisser, it's a little bit more complicated that "sensibilities". Women are, I'm sorry to inform you, not the hysterically emotional beings you seem to think they are. I'd suggest studying a little bit more post-Victorian psychology.

So Civil. Adding to what kapala just wrote, let's talk about classical music. Obviously, in classical times (or baroque/classical/romantic if you want to split them up in their subdivisions) girls did not have remotely the same access to education than boys. Are you saying that if girls had the exact same level of access to an education in the field of music, there still wouldn't have been a single female composer that is considered as one of the greats in today's times? Just curious.

Wow, that's pretty solid man!

Sexism isn't a matter of how much people are liked, but how they're seen in an overall framework, and just because they aren't explicitly declared inferior human beings they can still be associated with inferior and restricted functions. A feudal lord appreciating a peasant for 'being a good peasant,' or for escaping from their general nature as peasants, isn't really any further from accepting the hierarchical class structure than one who hates the lot.



Things that I have learnt from this thread:

I am a female.
Society does not exist.

This has been enlightening.

I've heard a couple of interviews with female singers from the 1980s, metal or not, and they said it was really tough back then for women in bands.

Anyways, I know of several female metal lead singers which have only appeared on an album or two, then completely disappeared from the music scene. Top singers too, not average or poor singers.

I'm specifically talking about bands that are billed or advertised as "female fronted" as to attract attention to people who care more about image then the music itself. And I'm also specifically talking about metal. There are some great female musicians/singers that I prefer to a lot of other male musicians like Wata from Boris, Dana Duffey, Runhild from Thor's Hammer, The band Flagitious Idiosyncrasy in the Dilapidation, as well as non metal musicians/singers like Exene Cervenka, Kim Gordan, Kim Deal, Kira Roessler, etc.

It's the fact that bands see it as a gimmick is annoying. Why can't a band have a female singer and not be listed as female fronted? It's stupid.

as a genre of individuals with a bunch of individual opinions, if a strong or shitty opinion turns someone away then they were never a fan to begin with and Metal be damned if it ever collectively panders too lame-ass individuals as such

OP: women are fucked up, they're crazy, they're out to kill us all, they never wanna fuck me and i'll never fuckin understand how a single one thinks.....but at the end of the day they're humans too. they like music and they like taking care of their appearance-like all of us do really. the fact they're more appearance minded and that there's less of them is a societal/culture thing, just like the fact that on the whole Metal is more a blue-collar-to-suburban white guy thing than anything but as Bob Dylan said "The times, they are a changin'" the fakes will fade away in their shallow craters and the maniacs will trudge ever onward in the underground trenches, as always

and if this is something that actually bothers you, drop your cock and grab your socks cause you need a good long look in the mirror and time to reevaluate your priorities. Handrietta and Palmela are terrible substitutes for the real thing and too much time with them will inevitably rot your mind (as seen here).

now too more important questions: where all da black people at?

Women in metal have it really tough indeed, up to this day.

There are all kinds of crazy people in the scene. I know a female metal musician who came close to being sexually assaulted during an audition. This left her really scared and she basically quit being involved in the scene. This was also after enduring really mean comments at every gig she was doing.

Several male musicians express discomfort at welcoming a female musician in their band. This is a fact I have observed time and time again for more than 20 years. Many of these people are not "women haters". Like Civil, they'll tell you they have women friends. Some have girlfriends or wives or even daughters. But they just can't fathom a girl can play. Or they think she won't have the attitude, or they're afraid she won't "look badass enough" and then like Civil, will tell you how women are just obsessed with fashion and painting their nails without realizing they're the ones who just made an esthetic judgment.

Speaking of which, even when females get involved, their looks plays a vital part in the industry and fandom. I have been involved in A&R during the 90s. I KNOW this. You can't just scout for female talent. They are held to different standards than the guys and must "look" the part. Otherwise, record companies shut you down most of the time. Fans can also be mean as hell. If you're doing intimate gigs close to the audience, expect people who find you pretty to throw sexual innuendos at you. If they don't find you pretty enough, expect them to say nasty shit about how ugly they find you.

Industry people understand this very much, BTW. They know where the money is and will pick prettier girls because they sell more. They also pressure them into looking as pretty and sexy as possible. A lot of guys in bands who want to make it tune in to what the industry wants, so they reinforce this. Which means women sometimes even have to compose with bandmates who pressure them because they are sucking up to the industry. All of this snowballs until a lot of what you see in band pictures are a bunch of male dweebs with a vapid-looking chick. She may or may not want to look that way. What matters is that she would probably not have made it if she *couldn't* look like that because most of those who can't look like this are most often condemned to terribly amateurish careers. Of course, this whole image on the surface reinforces the stereotype that it's exclusively females who are obsessed with looks.

Whenever one of my bands has decided to welcome a female member, it's ALWAYS been the same thing. About 50% of the guys who learn the news immediately ask me: is she hot? Is she fuck material? That's usually their first and only question. Contrary to Civil's assertion that guys are "all about technical details and not about esthetics", they're not talking about what brand of amps or guitars she favors, her musical background, what music she's into. They want to know what she LOOKS LIKE. Most of the time, that's pretty much they're only question too.

So, that's pretty much the shitty life if rock and roll for women. But then, there are also biological concerns. If you're a musician and are gonna make it, chances are you're gonna eat a lot of shit, travel and a lot and break into the industry in your 20s. It's not gonna be a comfortable lifestyle, there won't be much stability. Unfortunately, this also happens to be the golden years for women to carry a healthy pregnancy and care about an infant. When you factor in that the number of singles family is still on the rise and in that in a crushing proportion, it is women who end up being the main or even sole provider and caregiver for children, women tend to abandon careers and pursuits that require them to travel or create instability. It doesn't mean they can't do such pursuits or are more interested in painting their nails. They just can't do those interesting things because they have other obligations.

On the same track, I think a lot of male musicians have some sort of "sex, drugs, & rock and roll" ideal and let absurd dreams take over bands in a way. A lot of guys I know seem to have some idea about how being in a band should lead to having groupies, people who love you, and basically using it as a big demonstration of being an alpha male, which seems to be idealized even by people who are nothing like it. To some, it seems like having a band is one step away from getting a break and ending up on tour, where legendary things happen with groupies like you alluded to and talked about in documentaries. I've heard more than one guy - who would comment about the attractiveness of a woman at a bar, but wouldn't even try to start a conversation with her - talk about "going on tour" like a regional string of sixth-slot opening dates would instantly have women flocking to "be with the band". It's really pathetic when it shows that someone's idealization of music is a far-fetched fantasy that isn't even focused on the music, despite having an interest in it.

Two things that I have picked up on why some men are apprehensive about having a woman in their band. First, even if she is one of their comrades in the band and a good friend, it interrupts their idealized dick-waving dynamic of what they think being a rock star is about. People say it an dance around this idea in different ways, and it usually seems to be a consideration of a distant "what-if", which makes it even more pathetic. The other reason/excuse is that by adding a female to a metal band, she becomes the center of attention regardless of the significance of her role in the band, which is how some people will see it because they're idiots of what we're talking about in this conversation. It seems that a woman in a metal band can be noticed if she or her record label/promoter wants her to be noticed, an unfortunately common marketing trend, or some talented women can blend into the whole of the band, for example Jeanne Sagan from All That Remains.

First of all, you're not born a fan. That means toxic attitudes can turn people off before they've begin to truly appreciate a hobby, sport, pursuit or musical scene. Seriously, that's basic stuff and it happens all the time.

Secondly, even once you appreciate (or a "fan") we each have limits that can make us drop things we would otherwise appreciate or at the very least, lower our involvement. I discovered wine through cool friends who work in the wine industry. A bunch of formed a group and held an evening of wine tasting once a month. It was really cool but eventually the group dissolved due to everybody going their way in life. I joined a second group but this time, it was comprised of fucking assholes. Yeah, I'm really into wine but not enough to suffer through bigoted remarks just to taste a good bottle. The idea that I'm not "worthy enough" because I won't go through shit is idiotic.

Read some biographies on some of the most kickass scientists, athletes and artists and you will be surprised to find out how even for the most dedicated, strong-willed of them, it wasn't always that way to begin with and they are very much a product of their network.

Regardless, I don't subscribe to any notion that people have to go through shit, nor do I care if they are the most dedicated fans or just people looking for a fun evening. I think the scene shouldn't turn people away period.

I don't know maybe it's because they don't want them in the band because they won't be able to contribute to anything (not because they are women but because they aren't good!) I'd have a women in my band if she can contribute something to the band. Whether it be lyrics, riffs, melodies, equipment, promotion, shows, etc. If a person can't do a single thing why have them in your band (besides filling the role that is needed) if someone can provide you with more? It's not because she is a women it's because she would not be very helpful to have her in the band if someone can provide me with that.

not born a fan? bullshit. i don't put any stock in fate but i know, deep deep down in my heart, that i was always was a fan of this Heavy racket-whether we would find each other was a different story, but we did and here i am so...i resent that fuckin argument, right off the bat.

"toxic attitudes" be damned, adapt and overcome! sticks and stones! all that jazz!.....you sound entitled and defeatist cause ionno about your altar, but mine is original Sabbath and in their beginning a lot people had nothing but strong opinions and toxic attitudes towards them and if they had given up because "going through shit is idiotic" than Metal as we know would be a whole different, shitty, beast, and probably one i wouldn't like or least not love as much. and this goes for the fans also, if they had put stock in those shitty opinions like fools, than they wouldn't have been as popular and we probably wouldn't gotten as much out of them, and fuck that alternate reality too.

not everyone accepts this music, so why should we accept everyone? if you truly love this shit, if it's in your heart, strong opinions won't matter for shit so keep em strong! in fact, be stronger damnit! too much wish-washy shit these days

I had the chance to pull together a band, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I asked my band if we could find some women, and we looked for members with backgrounds that could be part of the band, and we asked a lot of women if they knew any musicians and they brought us whole binders full of women.

This is probably the stupidest thing I've read. Riffs is trying to say lets ease off these people who aren't super into metal becasue they aren't like you were they are "destinied" to like metal so that maybe they can grow to appreciate it rather then be put off. Acting like that makes you look like some socially inept mahfucker.

The saying goes "don't knock it until you try it". So when a person is "trying it" don't shoot them down for it. Introduce yourself, talk about bands, show them something, invite them to your band rehearsals. Going around saying "YOU DON'T BELONG HERE!" makes you look like nothing but an ass and just creates a bad experience.

I had surgery two days ago and I'm nowhere near coherent enough to form a decent contribution to this thread but thank you all for the laugh.

1. You have no idea of what my relationship with women is like. None.

2. I never said women are "histerically emotional", you are, like others, distorting what I said so I can sound like the villain you would like me to be.

Funny how selective you are about what you read. There have been a lot of very insightful new posts in response to your previous posts, yet you choose to cherry pick out the one bit of one post that is a personal attack. Good job.

All the negative generalizations/attitudes towards women can easily be applied to men as well. It doesn't particularly take much effort to acquire a vast knowledge music or to acquire merchandise when you have the Internet. I would be glad there are people still going to shows regardless of their image. I personally look down upon people for being extremely concerned with their image. I am disgusted by how much shirts sell for on eBay relative to the actual music. For example, Bolt Thrower shirts sell for absurd amounts of money relative to the music...and I sold an Exhorder longsleeve shirt for $100, when the LP goes for less than half. My point is that the it's not just women concerned with their image, but men as well. In fact, the majority of metal fans are men and thus, I could say that all metalheads are heavily image conscious poseurs with the ops logic.

Civil, it's ok, man. I know the girl at the show is intimidating. Just nut up and go talk to her.

I think sexism plays a big role, or better, played a big role in keeping some - not all - female talent down. But in the last 200 years things changed for women worldwide. Far from perfect, but they changed, and women have a lot of freedom in western societies, which is great.

One of the problems of cultural marxism and the "feminist" approach is that it denies that men and women have different abilities and capabilities. We are not equal. Of course we all deserve to be treated with respect, above all, but my perception is that the extreme radical movements of the 60s and the such have intoxicated people to the point that we have this status quo that absolutely denies difference and assumes that if you don't see men and women as exactly equal human beings, capable of exactly the same things, you are a bigot and a women-hater, which is, to my view, absurd.

Women are better in certain things. Men are better in others. There is a massive difference between males and females, of all species.

Concerning your specific question, I think it's good to look at empirical evidence: In the last 100 years a number of excellent female musicians have appeared in classical/erudite music, as much as there have been really good female musicians in jazz, blues, rock, soul, rap, metal, etc. Lots of good singers in jazz and soul, specially.

But they still have always been a minority.

Like I have been insisting, in all cultures, in all moments of the world, women are a minority when it comes to create groundbreaking art. Be it in China or in Europe, in India or in America, this is a consistent fact of human development and history all through the saga of the species.

Saying that "there wouldn't be a single female composer" amongst the greats of baroque/romantic music (Bach/Beethoven, etc) if they had more chance in Europe at the time is maybe a bit too much. There are talented women who are excpetions to the rule everywhere, and possibly if given the chance they would have had a more expressive role. Not the driving force, but, like we have in rock, some good exceptions and talented females would possibly have risen and been acknowledged for their work.

I don't follow contemporary erudite music to know how it stands, and I am sure some of the important composers and maestros of the 20th century are female. But I am also sure that the vast majority of game-changers and players in this field is still male.

It has always been like this, and it always will be.

I am not saying that there is no sexism in the world, and that women haven't been subjected to prejudice and inferior conditions. Of course they have. In most cultures and most places and most moments of history in the world, unfortunately.

But the history of our species is vast, there's really nothing really new about mankind under the sun, as the saying goes, and these conditions change in currents, from time to time, culture to culture, place to place. Females had more and less power in other moments of history, in other places. We tend to think of "now" as the most advanced in moral and ethical terms that mankind has ever been, and probably we are... But there were other moments in which women had freedom and were able to use their full abilities as well, and they did it, and the results are recorded historically. It's thousands of years of human history. We are a young species, but our characteristics are clear. The legacy, the data, the patterns are here for us to look at.

We all acknowledge that females are less interested in non-mainstream environments and are also very less-present in these environments. Regarding our discussion: There are very few women in rock. Why is that? It's interesting to try and understand why this fact (women not being - predominently - ground breakers in artistic movements) occurs and has always occured in human history in all different cultures.

Some interesting articles noticing the differences between men and women, written by a woman:

http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Fe ... ideRelated

http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Di ... ideRelated

From the articles:

So what can we deduce form these structural differences?

• The male brain is highly specialized, using specific parts of one hemisphere or the other to accomplish specific tasks. The female brain is more diffused and utilizes significant portions of both hemispheres for a variety of tasks.

• Men can focus their brains on particular tasks or activities for long periods of time without getting tired whereas women are capable of multi-tasking.

• Men are able to focus on narrow issues and block out unrelated information and distractions. Women generally see everyday things from a broader perspective or tend to se the "big-picture".

• Men are able to separate information, stimulus, emotions, relationships, etc. into separate compartments in their brains, while women tend to link everything together.

• Men see individual issues with parts of their brain, while women use their entire brain (i.e. both hemispheres) to look at the holistic or multiple issues.

• In men, the dominant perceptual sense is vision, which is typically not the case with women. All of a woman's senses are, in some respects, more finely tuned than those of a man.

Even though the facts clearly bring out the structural differences in male and female brains it is not a basis of description of every man and every woman. Every person is different and unique.

These subtle brain differences can help us gauge a better understanding and appreciation for the unique strengths and qualities we possess. The more men and women understand about these differences, the easier it is to understand each other!

Sorry Drone, I don't have the time/inclination to respond to everything. I work/have life commitments etc.

Also, I had plenty of what I wrote distorted and/or selected and ignored as well - people only discuss one aspect of what I brought up, take it out of context, distort it to make me seem "racist", a "woman hater", make silly jokes about what they think my private life is, etc, etc. I won't keep responding to that type of comment, because it is useless and I'm not interested in it.

So I try to address what I think is more important/hasn't been addressed. I also try to address what I believe what are legitimate responses and not emotionally/ideologically charged hate towards me. For instance, see my last reply to an interesting, reasonable question. Thanks.

Again, something I never, ever said anywhere. More distortion of what I wrote.

Of course men are about aesthetics as well. Specially in youth culture.

I agree with most of what you have posted about how audiences perceive women and treat them in bands, by the way.

Civil, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reasons there are so few well-known and celebrated female artists and musicians are rampant misogyny and sexism? It's not just structural differences between the brains--the creative output of women has and still is consistently undervalued compared to the work of men. You've basically stated this yourself a few times but you still don't seem to get it.

Also, as a card-carrying female, let me tell you that getting groped and catcalled at shows by big intimidating dudes is an easy way to scare away any girl from getting into metal or other fringe sub-cultures.

This may be a somewhat pedantic point, but it's not like I'm interrupting a constitutional convention here.

Re: women in western classical music: Hildegard von Bingen is perhaps one of the most influential composers of the pre-Baroque eras this side of Palestrina, and Clara Schumann was a more-than-solid composer in her own right. In terms of performers, all of Vivaldi's music was written for a girls' school, and Hildegard's music was written for her convent. Then, of course, are the MANY female students of the "great" composers. As hinted at previously, rampant misogyny has attempted to erase them from history, but even so the female influence on music can not be denied.

...And then shall we discuss 20th century music, with its increased feminine visibility? Or how about Indian classical or contemporary music, which is even more egalitarian?

I'll restate what I said earlier on this page to try to make it clearer:

A lot of musicians have certain antiquated fantasies associated with rock music, and many people who are tolerant, socially progressive, and not misogynistic often end up following an idealized path of musical confidence as an outlet of sexual virility. The idea of being a rock star is removed from reality, and people are often very disconnected and misinformed about what is actually achieved through professional success as a musician. The idea of being in a metal band is a lot like being in a fraternity in college combined with a road trip - get drunk, get laid, be bros. Mentally, people know that their idealized vision is removed from reality, and they remove a lot of social concepts from the idea that, if they're in a band, they can somehow become Van Halen. There's also the reality that touring and working your ass off for next to nothing, living not much better than a homeless person, is somehow redeemable by crazy fun like getting laid in a van while you're eating for $10 per day, and adding a female band member to that equation excludes you from making your lifestyle marginally more objectionable from traditional perspectives.

In short, a lot of people mentally construct the idea of having a female in a band to removing the "sex" from "sex, drugs, and rock n roll" because they understand that these ideals are already sort of delusional.

I think non-metalhead males don't go to metal pubs because they fear being spanked, or something like that. On the other hand, who would evict a lady?

I am glad that you do, Civil.

As for distorting things, I'm sorry but I try my best to interpret statements that you have posted throughout this thread and they often suggest you see guys as more inclined to be really into the music and its deeper aspects than women, which are portrayed as more inclined to be into superficial aspects of the scene. At least, that's what your overall message suggests when we piece all the information you've thrown here. Consider these two quotes, for instance:

This is a piece on PJ Harvey written by British critic Simon Reynolds. It addresses some of the aspects we discussed here:

Civil, what's the title of this book or these books you have cited on a few occasions?

This I agree. Whenever labels (or bands for that matter) promote bands on their roster as "female-fronted", I tend not to bother checking them out. Why? If your music is good, it speaks for itself, no need to have to use "female-fronted" as a means of attracting the male-dominated metal fanbase. I'm not saying that these women cannot sing, but the fact that the label or the band has to use gender as a marketing strategy just puts me off.

E.g.:
1. Cerebral Bore. Never knew that the band was fronted by Som until I went to check out their video.
2. Funebre. Never knew that Jill McEntee was in the band until I checked the lineup over here.

My point is that capable musicians are capable musicians regardless of their gender and I don't think their gender affects their playing whatsoever.

(some things are quoted twice, for emphasis)

No one is distorting anything you say, Civil. It's interesting how you only pull the "YOU'RE JUST BEING AN EMOTIONAL FEMALE," card, to the females who've posted in this thread.
Just an observation.



He'll brush it off as "feminism" or "cultural marxism".

The book whose pages I posted above is by, like I said, Simon Reynolds. It's called "Bring the noise" and it is a collection of essays and interviews Reynolds has made with/about many different musicians (Husker Du, Dinosaur Jr, Public Enemy, LL Cool J, Stone Roses, The Pixies, many others).

The quote I posted is from an essay/paper named "Children of the Grave: The Construction of Community and Personal Identity Among Adult Fans of Heavy Metal Music in London".

Kapala: No, I didn't say "You are just being an emotional female" to every female on this post. I didn't say that at all.

What I said is that women are predominently more emotion (true) and that it if you read something you do not want to accept about a group/gender/culture/etc you belong to it is/can be understandable you will try to deny it, to yourself and others, instead of trying to accept it/understand it.

Again, distortions.

Yes, I have addressed this as an explanation in some posts, the above one talking about classical music makes some observations on the likelyhood that the "victim" explanation accounts for all the thousands of years of human history where the pattern is of a majority of men doing more groundbraking work than women. This possibly can indicate something about gender more than the victimization of sexism and misogyny.

Both of which yes, do exist and have had very negative consequences upon women.

Also the links about the empirical evidence which display diferences between the workings of the female and the male brain, which show that they operate quite differently. Although every person is unique. Check the links out.

And like I said, I very much agree with riffs regarding the objectivation of women in metal. It's clear that agents and labels ask for women in bands to be "pretty", many men only follow bands because they have women in them and women have to deal with a lot of sexism and aggressive sexual behavior from men at gigs and other social spaces. Metal being much more sexist than other youth culture groups (punk and hardcore are remarkably "feminist friendlly" and feminine friendly, comparatively, even if punk is STILL, like all rock, male dominated).

Sure, a lot of girls tend to be very impressionable of what the men around her are like. If she was raised by metalheads or dated metalheads, she'll probably adapt whatever interests they had. Some women will think wrestling and motocross is the dumbest shit in the world, and the next day find them selves screaming audience members for these sort of things when they find out their boyfriend is a part of those scenes. But then again, there are just as many impressionable young men that listen to dubstep or whatever because their friends do. I know that many women do make a conscious choice to be metal, because they like metal, but if that's the case more often than not, it begs the question, where are all the women in the metal scene? Even in just the music scene alone? That's a mystery that has eluded metal and rock and shred enthusiasts for decades now and I don't think it has to be aimed at being a poser really. It more has to do with typical male and female roles in society. But I wont pretend I know much about the subject.

Who is distorting things now? I didn't say that, cowboy. I said, "It is interesting how you only pull the "YOU'RE JUST BEING AN EMOTIONAL FEMALE," card, to the females who've posted in this thread. Where did I say "every female"?

What have you said that women should accept/understand? Enlighten me, pilgrim, because all I'm seeing is backpedaling, broken "logic", and things no one has refuted.



Did you seriously just type this? Seriously? You do realise racists use these kinds of arguments to point out why they think people with lighter complexions are superior, right? (NOTE: I AM NOT CALLING YOU A RACIST, BEFORE YOU PLAY THE PERSECUTION CARD. AGAIN.)

I think women, and men, should accept that they are different, Kapala. That's what I have been saying. With different characteristics, abilities, tendencies, traits, skils, and so on. Again, refering to the links I provided on the differences on female and male brains helps to understand this.

I don't believe I have accused "every female of this thread" of being "just an emotional female" when they contest what I bring up. I responded to the points I thought importanto to respond to. If someone got personal or abusive then I did mention "please don't become emotional", I don't think gender is that relevant regarding this specific issue.

Fine, you are not calling me a racist. I can't really comnent on if racists use "these kinds of arguments" because I don't follow racists or racists debates much. But I believe that whatever they do, the points I have made are still valid and I do not feel I am affiliated with them on any level.

The problem here is that you have the theory that male art is inherently superior (more groundbreaking or more lasting) to female art, and while you do cite a lot of undeniable facts about the difference between the male and the female brain, none of those facts relate to your theory or reinforce it in any way. Yes, the male brain and the female brain differ greatly from one another, and therefore their approach to art is obviously different, but I don't see how those differences relate to one being superior to the other and how they reinforce the theory that if given a fair chance (which many in this thread have pointed out is far from a given for a female artist) female art could not be as groundbreaking or lasting as male art. I urge you to make a stronger connection between the facts you cite and how they relate to your theory of male artistic superiority.

First of all, your "facts" (i.e. the study you posted) do not back up your "theory" very well. How are you able to argue that women, across the board, are less inclined to be musicians, or involved in music in some way, because they're women? Wouldn't that have more to do with personal desire, and perhaps, ability?
Have men and women not accepted that they're different somewhere? As I said before, all I'm seeing is backpedaling, broken "logic", and, I'll bold this for you since you missed it, things no one is refuting. While I'm not going to jump to conclusions, judging by what you have posted thus far, you're not familiar with feminist theory at all. Gender theory and feminism, for the most part, do not refute that there are differences between males and females; "equality" doesn't refute this, rather, states that men and women should be treated equally, for example, in legal and social situations, wage parity for performing the same work, etc. That females and males receive the same opportunities, rights, protections, resources, etc. I'm not sure where you've made the leap to assume that anyone is refuting this point? Theory behind gender equality doesn't argue that males and females are exactly the same, nor does it often argue that they should even be treated exactly the same.
On the other hand, studies such as the one you've posted, that highlight the differences between males and females, are often used together with social constructions to promote gender inequality, and are seen as "proof" of a clear gender binary. By saying that the limited visibility of women in classical music, or music in general, is a potential indicator of something more than sexism and misogyny, you're falling into that pitfall. (and yes, you did say that - no, I am not distorting your words).

Again, I haven't said you've accused "every female in this thread". Please read what I've said again.

Yes Kapala, I am aware feminism doesn't - at least not always - attempt to say that men and women are absolutely equal. But that they should be treated equally.

Drone and Kapala:

As I have been saying, I think it's worth to look at the evidence to reach conclusions. Generally speaking it's much, much more likely for men to create pioneering art than it is for women, all through all the years of human history and all cultures of the world. This is probably a biological condition, otherwise, women would have also consistently produced, in the case of the subject discussed, artwork that moved things forward.

It hasn't consistently happened.

Of course there are incredible female artists in all areas of human knowledge. Many of them pioneers and groundbreakers. Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf in literature, for example. It just happens that the vast majority of the ones who produce meaningful artwork - in any field - painting, literature, film directing, music, and so on, are male.

This is a consistent pattern which can be seen all through different cultures in human history, in different times.

That, with our knowledge of the differences between males and females, indicates that males are generally superior when producing art.

This is what I have been saying. Based on empirical evidence, reality, which is around us and how men and women have behaved and produced historically. Please read PJ Harvey and Simon Reynolds above to get their take on it. I don't see what's so hard to understand and why does it have to cause so much bitterness.

Like I said before, the "victims" paradigm pointed out earlier is not an argument I consider strong enough to explain the thousands of years of male superiority in the arts, for instance.

If women WERE to produce more groundbreaking art than they already did, we would HAVE it, for sure. There's no ghost of history stopping them ALL the time in ALL the places, as much as cultural marxism would like us to believe.

You are, of course, welcome to completely disagree with me and to think mankind is moving towards an utopia in which women will produce as important art as men have produced, in the same quantity, and with the same quality, if not more, and that all we had in terms of male art-production being consistently superior to women both in quality and quantity is only due to social constrictions of all societies of all the times of all places in the world through human development.

I just personally don't agree with that view, and I think that it denies evidence, and is incredibly naive.

Maybe, because of that, you will think I am prejudiced, sexist, and so on. I disagree. I am not. Like I said, I believe women are different, not to be treated worse than men, but you are entitled to have your views.