Happy gender issues day! I've already done a post on wage discrepancies at El Dipudado etc.
In these days of gender equality, it might be surprising to you to find that there is still one occupation that has is still dominated by men for non-physical reasons. This occupation does not require its members to be men, like the priesthood does, nor does it require physical strength. This occupation is the field of music composition. The men/women ratio of composers at UNL is approximately 20/1. Why?
One of the first things antifeminists learn is that men and women have differing brains. To put it simply, the male brain is better suited to the activity of music composition. Here's why:
1. The male brain generally tends to have a stronger right hemisphere compared to the female brain. The right brain controls melody, while the left brain (stronger in women than in men) controls pitch and rhythm. Composers, however, do not need to be especially adept in pitch because they do not perform or sing. If they did perform or sing, they would have to be sensitive to tuning issues, and get pitch very precisely. They do not have to do this; an out of tune instrument can be quite sufficient for the composers purposes. Also, although women's brains may be more sensitive to rhythm, women's brains are also less sensitive to their sensual passions (have you ever met a woman more enthusiastic about eating than a man?). The sensual passions are what rhythm effects. Hence, though women are better at rhythm, men enjoy it more.
2. The two halves of the male brain are very divided from each other compared to the female brain. This makes men more singleminded, systematic, and fit for specialization, but less intelligent. When composers compose, they usually do it by themselves because the process of composition is not appreciated by anybody except the composer, although everyone enjoys the results. This setting permits a massive amout of single-minded activity.
3. I don't know why, but the male brain is more suited for abstract concepts than the female brain. This would seem to make men better than women at music theory because music theory is filled with abstract symbols and vocabulary.
4. Finally, an important part of being a composer is getting over the preconception that composers are special sorts of musicians, that not just any musician (especially one's self) can be a composer. Being more aggressive, men are more likely to view this false but popular idea as a challenge and thus take up composition.
Now for the killer question: should we encourage women to become composers? Should we encourage them to work outside the home, for that matter? Are the two questions even related?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Women are clearly superior: men may compose, but the women dance! =)
What about chocolate?? I always
hear that women are CRAZY about
chocolate. In fact, I do know one
myself who loves chocolate. And
not only do women like chocolate,
they are said to love all kinds of
sweets (but who cares what they
say :-) ).
What's wrong with women composing?
As long as they are not mothers
and doing it as a job (or selling
it if you want to get picky), I
don't see any problem with it.
After all, Clara Schumann composed,
as well as St. Hildegard of Bigen
for that matter.
Is there anything else in this
article I can attack? :-) Sorry.
I just hate comparing the sexes.
However, I will say that women are
programmed to stay at home and
raise the children more than men
are, and that men are programmed to
support the family.
I don't think I've ever commented
on a post this many times (or at
least all at once)! By the way, I
like the polls!!!
I'll comment again just for fun.
:-)
Interesting information!
I don't think we should rule whether or not a specific gender should be involved in certain activities...even for the sake of discussion.
The thought reminds me of WWII. : P
Frankly, women are amazing, and they somehow think the same of us men (something which never ceases to befuddle me), so can't we all just stop worrying about who's getting discriminated against or whatever and do what we do best. (ok, that sounded really wrong) Not to mention, women seem to have a generally greater appreciation for the arts than most men (you're excluded Old Fashioned Liberal, you'd skew the curve way to much). =)
and I like the polls too =)
and let's make them in Spanish! =P
and btw, it's Diputado, not Dipudado, but don't worry, at least you didn't spell it like my econ teacher, who did it disputado which roughly translates to "challenged" though without the connotations that is has in English
Hey, what about me?!?!?!? Don't I
"skew the curve" too?????
I think that one can go against
one's original programing (like
with the temperaments. Shall I
start a discussion on that too?
:-) ), so I'm in favor of
observing how one responds to their
tendancies (does that make sense?).
I think you have a popular post
here Old Fashioned Liberal!!
Of course it's a popular post - it's about women after all. What more do we need to go totally insane?
And I don't really know you, Ancient Greek (Spartan ;-) Philosopher, whereas I have met Old Fashioned Liberal, so that's why I only commented on his "skewedness" though I'm not denying yours either (this is a totally awkward post) =)
Yeah, I know. I just had to say
that. :-) However, if I wasn't
into the arts, what would I be
doing on this blog??
Haha. Very funny. I don't think I'm
going insane though. :-)
Aren't there any women on this
blog anyway? Maybe they should
voice their opinions (as long as
they're not femminist opinions :-)
).
This is an awkward post. Maybe I
should upstage it with one about
the temperaments.
Don't get nervous Old Fashioned
Liberal, I won't really do that.
:-)
I'll make it an uneven twenty-three.
I posted my comment twice. It
wasn't co-operating!!! I should
sue the Chinese manufactorer.
I'll try to answer as many questions as possible.
1. I admit that chocolate is an exception.
2. I never said that there was anyhting wrong with women composing. I said let's have a discussion about it. I think we will all agree that it would be ideal if women did not and did not have to work outside the home. But composition is not work in the same sense as work work.
3. You need to stop hating comparing the sexes. If people actually did some intelligent comparing of the sexes, they would recognize that radical feminism is all wrong. They would also recognize that the sexes are "different but equal" (alright, maybe women are superior) in abilities/responsibilites, but equal in human dignity.
4. I have to disagree with you, P. The question of "whether women should..." is a question of what I would call social pre-morality, not morality. This means that whether society answers the question with a yes or a no will effect the moral condition of the society, but both answers are permitted insofar as neither answer is wrong in itself. For example, it is going to effect the morality of society if women work outside the home even though neither permitting nor discouraging such a practice is wrong. If we do not discuss the question, how can we answer it? If we do not answer it, how can we be sure that society (that automatically has to answer it one way or the other) will give the right answer? By the way, the infallibility of the pope wouldn't help here because he is only infallible in matters of faith and morals, not pre-morality.
5. P, what reminds you of WWII and how so? I didn't understand that statement.
6. I quite agree that women are amazing (Chesterton calls them the superior sex), and I need to write a poem on the virtues and beauties of women some time. The fact that they seem to think the same thing about men points to the different-but-equal doctrine and seems to imply that the increase of the characteristic abilities of one's own sex, not the adoption of the abilities of the other, is the faster way to perfection. I also have to point out that appreciation for the arts is different from talent in them. I also have noticed that in the area of music, appreciation levels are about equal for both men and women.
7. Pulchritudo Musicae is a woman.
Sorry "P", I just noticed your
comment (I don't know about anyone
else). I partially agree with you
(only partially however). I don't
really enjoy discussions on this
subject. But I think it would be
much more useful if we applied
it to the roles in the family as
opposed to gender roles in general.
Who says and why are women superior?
I agree when you say the sexes
are different but equal (and I
say equal).
So why don't we hear from Pulchritudo Musicae? Pulchritudo Musicae, if your out there, I think
we need some comments from you!!!!
And just to make it an even
thirty. (hee hee hee)
I will admit though, it is kind of
fun getting to actually fight
about something on here. It's been
kind of quite recently!
I meant quiet.
I think this is the most comments
on any post here (thanks to me.
There wouldn't be any if I just
stopped writing these ridiculous
bits. Hee hee hee).
It is quite unnatural, Ancient Greek Philosopher, for you to not subscribe to the ideas of your contemporaries about gender, that one gender was stronger than the other. Here's the evidence in favor of women (soon to be poetized, I hope):
1. Women use twice as much of their brain at a time as men.
2. Women know things without being taught or thinking about them.
3. Women are organized, efficient, industrious (which makes them dangerous voters and politicians, which is why Chesterton says they shouldn't be able to vote), but men are sloppy and lazy.
4. Women have common sense, men invented metaphysics because they felt like they needed to learn common sense.
5. Women are not usually baseball fanatics.
6. Women are holier (at least, St. Therese and Dr. Carnazzo thought so).
7. Women work in the home, making persons. Men only make things and ideas.
8. Can you win an arguement with your mother? (NO!). Can you win an argument with your father? (VERY RARELY!).
9. Women defeat men. It's called marriage. Men could defeat women (it would be called killing) but because they've already lost by marriage, they are powerless.
10. Gossip doesn't kill. Muscular people kill.
Yeah. First of all, I would like
to see your proof of this. Is this
popular opinion? Is this what
woment think of themselves? Are
all the women you know CHOLERICS??
I have to admit though, if they're
not baseball fans that's a plus in
their favor. :-) But I think that's
really an erronous statement. Even
if there are not a lot of women
baseball fans, there are LOTS of
women who play SOFTBALL, which
might as well be the same thing.
And I do know a woman who played
softball in her "younger" years.
Who says you can't win a argument
with your mother? If she's phlegmatic, you'll win all the
time!!! And if your father is
choleric, you'll NEVER win!!!!
Apparently Google doesn't like
my comment. :-)
Thinking you know something without
finding out about it is choleric.
Oh, by the way, you contradicted
yourself. You can't do that while
debating (I'm sure you could tell
us more about that "P"). You said
that men were lazy, and yet they
were assertive enough to break the
assumption that composers were a
special breed. That's why
phlegmatics and cholerics are
opposites. And while I'm at it,
I've noticed that phlegmatics guys
seem to have a tendancy of putting
down men, and choleric girls have
a tendancy of putting down men
also. I have yet to figure out what
phlegmatic girls and choleric guys
do though. Probably the same thing.
You are definitely a phlegmatic,
Old Fashioned Liberal. Nothing
against you though. :-) The world
need phlegmatics just as much as
it needs sanguines (you labeled
this post as "physcology/ temperaments", remember?
I suppose I'm phlegmatic as well, even though I'm overly vivacious and extraverted. And I'd say choleric men and phlegmatic women put down women. I know a phlegmatic girl who claims men are better and I have a feeling that choleric men tend to be more aggresive, which tends to morph into women-putting-down.
and dang it! all of this talk about women makes we want to salsa NOW! and there's no way. No one here can salsa, dang it!
Thank you for agreeing with me,
Don Pedro. I think you saved Old
Fashioned Liberal from one of my
long lectures about the
temperaments. :-) And no, I can't
salsa. But I do like salsa the
food (hee hee hee).
First of all, lazyness and agressiveness are not contradictory even when in the same person. The reason is because agressiveness/assertiveness and lazyness are associated with two different things. A man who does housework non-lazily is not said to be agressive, he is said to be helpful. A man who behaves non-agressively as a composer, athlete, businessman, inventor, etc, will probably be labeled non-competitive, not lazy. Think about it. If a man has reason to be agressive about what he's doing, he can be, but what could be classified as "women's work" (and this is the area where men are lazy) has no occasion for agressiveness, hence lazy men is the result.
Second, it doesn't matter whether women view themselves as having all the characteristic virtues I gave them in that one comment. One can never judge their own virtues and vices well, it takes an outsider. If you haven't noticed this virtues you:
1. Haven't been around enough women,
2. Haven't read enough Chesterton,
3. Haven't read enough literature period.
4. Have so many of these virtues yourself that you don't notice them as special in others.
Here's how I would prove all of these statements.
1. I read it in a brain book.
2. Common knowledge.
3-6+8 Personal experience
7+9 Chesterton
10 That was more a joke than anything else.
Third, even women's softball is not as popular among women as baseball is among men. Have you ever been to the Saltdogs complex that has a baseball field and a softball field adjacent to each other.
Fourth, by argument with my mother/father, I meant rational discussion, not battle-of-wills. Maybe you don't have those with your parents. I do.
Fifth, what did I think I know without finding out? How do you know I didn't find it out?
Sixth, I'm not putting down men. I'm just putting up women (not in the same way the feminists do, mind you).
we all have WAY too much time on our hands. 43 comments isn't only despicable, it's obscene!
Thank you Don Pedro!!! It's time we
stopped this madness!!!! I have
many objections to the comment
before yours, but I will refrain
from listing them. I think I will
endeavor to post something new.
I find it funny that no women have commented on this yet!! This discussion reminds me of the time in my biology class when the girls were claiming that women are superior because men are missing part of their 23nd chromosome.
Anyway, I agree with Ancient Greek Philosopher. Men are Women are equal but different.
For your information, I never actually said that women are the superior sex, just that Chesterton says so. I am going to post a poem that contains my own views on the matter very soon.
THANK YOU SOOOOO MUCH CARMEN!!!!!
And I'm glad you don't believe
Chesterton to the letter, Old
Fashioned Liberal. But anyway, this
debate is OVER as far as I'm
concerned.
But I would like to make it an
even fifty. :-) (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA)
Post a Comment