Women in the music industry...

[fmr]

And, what's worse, this is creating some serious social and demographic problems, to the point that some studies predict that, for example in my country, population will decrease by as much as 20% in the next generation. This is not because of more opportunities, this is because of lack of them.

That's what the media is telling you! But will the human race be extincted because of it? I don't think so! If there are less women with children, the world can heal itself. Nature doesn't need humans, humans need nature

Don't believe everything what the media is telling you!

I don't, and I ultimately agree with you that nature always finds its way (as long as men allow it). But in the process, many will get hurt. These kind of changes (or adjustments) are not peaceful, they are usually painful.

Anyway, the earth (and/or mankind) is facing much more serious menaces in the next generation, unfortunately.

[Jace-BeOS]

It's not the body mass that makes some men aggressive, it's their too much testosterone (as well as other hormones)... Sex crimes are mainly committed by men, not by women (yeah, I know that some female US teachers love under-aged boys ). That said, there are cruel mothers, too - but it's not the majority (fortunately)...

Even without the testosterone, there's a considerable social pressure for males to present themselves as dominant and powerful. To not do it presents risk to the image of dominance they're told they must posses. It's everywhere. Look at car stereo adverts such as "as a matter of fact I do own the road", with photos of women as sex objects to make the males think that an appearance of dominance will win them more sex. It's so animalistic, yet human beings are the only species that refuses to accept it is an animal.

And yes, women are attracted to confidence. Who isn't?

(Well, men that think women should be submissive, I guess)

Then we get on the Internet and see all the impotent rage flowing from every orifice, because those who cannot present as tough guys in real life are able to compensate online. There's a sort of culture on the Internet that worships biting sarcasm and cruelty, so that just reinforces the aggression.

Testosterone levels high or not, women fall into this social pressure too, especially online where no one can beat up, rape, or murder you. In some ways, it's a boon for women to practice asserting themselves... but also an easy way for angry males to compensate for their real-world issues with images of toughness online. And then we have the pick up artist "communities" that suck in these impotent rage men and tell them "exactly how to win with women", and it's largely all the same crap: objectify, dominate, play the numbers. When that fails, they then move on to blaming women for not putting out the sex that these males are lead to believe they deserve.

Come to the tech industry and you find a HUGE population of alpha-wannabes who are using tech interests and careers to compensate for their "masculine failures" and social awkwardness. It becomes an even worse boy's club, because even the socially awkward (or defective) males are treating women like shit (and possibly doing it worse, because they lack social graces and may believe themselves superior to other men and therefore exempt from being seen as bad guys... enter the Nice Guy™ syndrome), getting away with it (because the groups are often moderated by more of the same kinds of males), and then everyone wonders why women don't flock to technical jobs and communities. The men pushing them out respond by saying "women aren't interested". Well WTF should they be interested when they have to be objectified by the majority, tolerate being the target of discriminatory/bigoted jokes and attitudes (even if you're not being directly addressed by name, if a guy tells an offensive sex joke, you're a target just by being female and are likely to get told off as being "too PC" or "too sensitive" if you object), and treated like inferiors by the club members? It's an unwelcome environment. It takes a person with uncommonly high motivation, and willingness to suffer other people, to willingly walk into a hostile environment and stay there. Those are activists, not average people.

I'm not targeting anyone in this thread, btw. I know there are many of us here that are probably somewhat social outcasts. That doesn't make you bad to women. I'm attempting to illustrate what I see as the common social process, mechanics, and problems.

[chk071]

Btw, the last 10 times someone took my right of way in road traffic, it were women, and the last 10 trolleys i had to remove from the middle of the way in the supermarket were from women. So male domination my ass.

[Tricky-Loops]

Equality doesn't mean to make everything equal with a road roller. It means trying to give equal chances to everyone to live the life he/she/he-she/she-he wants to live. There is no better or worse. The business woman isn't better than the house wive! In the end you won't get a better place in heaven if you're a successful business woman in the music biz!

[Tricky-Loops]

Btw, the last 10 times someone took my right of way in road traffic, it were women, and the last 10 trolleys i had to remove from the middle of the way in the supermarket were from women. So male domination my ass.

Are you still believing in male domination? If your wive/partner/girl-friend is saying to you: "Make this and that, or I'll leave you!", of course you'll do it in most cases (as long as you don't have to kill the neighbors) only because you don't want to lose her. This world is dominated by males but run by females!

[chk071]

The funny thing is, people say that it used to be even worse in the past, but when i take a look at my neighbours for example, it is totally clear that the women wear the breeches in the household. One neighbour, a man who fought in world war 2, and sometimes told stories about it, was always mothered by his wife like "Hey, look at how you look again, pull your pants up", or "Look, you dropped your food again", and he was like "Yes... yes... whatever you say...". Don't think he ever even got in a discussion with here, because he was so good natured that he never could have gotten into an argument with anyone really.

[jancivil]

It's statistically demonstrated that, as a society's education and employment opportunities for women improve, the number of women choosing NOT to have children increases. Where they're "allowed" to reject motherhood as an expectation, they're free to do more elsewhere. Men aren't similarly handicapped, and therefore have always had the benefit of putting "bread winning" before parenting (as an explicit expectation in some ways).

Nonsense. Do you really believe that the majority of women are willing to NOT have children? Did you made any enquirer on the subject? Are you based on ANY enquirer on the subject?

I'm not seeing the part when Jace stated 'majority of'.

Norway is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and one that has the best quality of life. Government encourages, supports and secures gender equality like nowhere else. So, when 90% of the nurses are women, and 90% of the engineers are men, would you say that's because of "lack of opportunities"? Prejudice? Think again.

I'm not sure who would say that, but your strawman just did. I don't know. 90 seems high to me, but I don't know. I think there is a lot of conditioning at work.
I'm going to check what percentage in my area are nurses if I can.

Acc'ding to California Health Care
http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIB ... es2010.pdf

per registered nurses: as of 1993, 94-6; as of 2008, 86-14. So it's changing. I think that should tell you something.

[Tricky-Loops]

It's so animalistic, yet human beings are the only species that refuses to accept it is an animal.

Maybe that's the problem?

Before you can change yourself, you have to accept what you are. Even if we don't call ourselves "animals", we are a part of the same nature... If we would kill all animals (including worms, bees etc.), we couldn't live on this planet anymore...

[Jace-BeOS]

Nonsense. Do you really believe that the majority of women are willing to NOT have children? Did you made any enquirer on the subject? Are you based on ANY enquirer on the subject?

I know quite a few women that absolutely, under no circumstance, want to ever have children. That's anecdotal, so you can dismiss it. However, the numbers are out there and the studies exist. Look them up yourself. If you're only interested in validating your perspective, it won't help my argument to present you with the data.

When women are given more options, and less consequences for making choices, they tend to choose things that aren't based on pressure. Women are pressured to breed from childhood-onward.

What has been demonstrated is that many women delay (and ultimately sacrifice) their opportunity to be mothers because they want to first earn a position and a career which will grant their child all the best economically.

I don't think that is demonstrated. Worse, your statement has essentially characterized women as having only one motive for their existence: breeding.

It's true that the only real purpose we have, biologically, is to perpetuate ourselves. But since we have chosen to attempt the pursuit of the intellectual, to pursue an existence not driven by biochemistry, we must adapt our thinking on what a person's role is. Socially, women are no more intended to be breeders than men are... ideally. Unfortunately, and for a very long time, women have been remanded to that sole role in life. It serves a society that wishes to keep women in that place that the society convinces them of the rightness and "nature" of that role, while not similarly trapping men (who are the ones ruling most societies that expect women to breed and do nothing else).

And economical organization of the society (read: greediness) exploits that up to the maximum, encouraging that ambition (and ultimately greediness also), to the point of sacrifice their future.

By that statement, to my eyes, you're continuing to enforce that the only reason women would pursue anything other than motherhood is because they've been mislead by evil/greed. Women have their own agency. What changes in a society where women have more freedom is that they are allowed to EXERCISE agency, rather than comply with the presumption that their only use is breeding and mothering.

And, what's worse, this is creating some serious social and demographic problems, to the point that some studies predict that, for example in my country, population will decrease by as much as 20% in the next generation. This is not because of more opportunities, this is because of lack of them.

Ah yes... FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt, presented when things change and the status quo is threatened. Sigh.

Norway is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and one that has the best quality of life. Government encourages, supports and secures gender equality like nowhere else. So, when 90% of the nurses are women, and 90% of the engineers are men, would you say that's because of "lack of opportunities"? Prejudice? Think again.

No, YOU think again. Overt prejudice isn't required. All that's needed is social pressure/nurture that defines a woman's role vs a man's role. And we ARE in a thread about why women don't pursue technical positions. The core reason is that they're guided away from them. It is not conscious bigotry or prejudice. It is a cultural feature. If it was easily seen as prejudice, people would find it easier to object to it. It's hard to change such a deeply entrenched cultural norm. You live your entire life with a mindset you don't know you have, whether male or female. When someone presents argument against it, the automatic reaction is to defend "normality".

Geesh. This is like discussing religion. A deaf conversation. So long guys. See you in some other thread.

As you like. Since you brought religion to mind, I'm an atheist. I'm not likely to give ANYthing a pass just because it's a cultural norm or a historical constant. Challenge your perceptions or just defend them. I can't do anything about it beyond making comments. As I said, do as you like, leave or stay. But in terms of the conversation, I'm firmly of the position that the true delineation between men and women socially is almost entirely nurture and social, not inherent.

I'd really rather have a bunch of women to discuss music tech with than just the sausage fest it most often turns out to be. I'm not very masculine, so I'm more comfortable in a group that is more balanced. Without a healthy representation of women, there's no balance (I know there are other guys like me, but we are pressured to hide, and some of them turn out to be pretty misogynist -see earlier comments about the PUA community embracing male social misfits-, and I'm not cool with that at all).

We've had a total of how many females present themselves here? One?

[Jace-BeOS]

Btw, the last 10 times someone took my right of way in road traffic, it were women, and the last 10 trolleys i had to remove from the middle of the way in the supermarket were from women. So male domination my ass.

Are you still believing in male domination? If your wive/partner/girl-friend is saying to you: "Make this and that, or I'll leave you!", of course you'll do it in most cases (as long as you don't have to kill the neighbors) only because you don't want to lose her. This world is dominated by males but run by females!

I think you have actually pointed out one of the reasons males have so historically dominated women: they KNOW women control sex. This lack of control can drive men to do bad things, including shape a society that takes that power away as much as possible.

You're right that applying equality with a steam roller is not equality. But until equality is natural to people, it takes active institutional changes and initiatives to make equality even just merely available. In history of my country, when blacks and women were given the right to vote, there were many occasions where whites and men told them "you have the legal right, but it's your skin you risk by exercising that legal right... (hint hint)".

[jancivil]

Me, I think 20% decrease in population is simply great, I'm hard pressed to come up with a downside to that, unless Portugal just has too much material sitting around collecting dust.
I seriously doubt it, so for me that's really odd to see an alarm sounded behind. Catholic and pro-birth?

While you know me as not coddling up in here, I'm actually really good with babies and have a strong maternal drive (or had. getting pretty dry in my dotage...). As a life choice or 'lifestyle', I have never wanted children, neither has my best girlfriend since we were kids.
I hope it isn't equally a shock that some women prefer women as sexual partners or even 'wives'.

[Jace-BeOS]

It's so animalistic, yet human beings are the only species that refuses to accept it is an animal.

Maybe that's the problem?

Before you can change yourself, you have to accept what you are. Even if we don't call ourselves "animals", we are a part of the same nature... If we would kill all animals (including worms, bees etc.), we couldn't live on this planet anymore...

Excluding humanity from the animal category is a social tool to enable the treatment of animals as they are treated. Religious books tell humans that they have a right to enslave and use animals. Same for what they say about women. In the case of animals, it's maybe reasonable to assume some of this "we're above animals" attitude was necessary to get people to do terrible things to animals for survival sake. First world nations have no further use for that mentality, but holds on to it with a death grip because it is what they were raised with and what they consider "normal and natural". I'm vegetarian, to openly admit my bias, btw.

I'm risking really derailing this thread at this point. :-/

[Jace-BeOS]

Me, I think 20% decrease in population is simply great, I'm hard pressed to come up with a downside to that, [...]

Same here. The state of human population is a serious issue. Anyone scared of reduced birth rates is missing major facts about humanity, our state of existence on the planet, and how we are killing it, and eventually killing ourselves.

Now I've just outed myself as a tree humping environmentalist hippy, on top of being feminist, atheist, vegetarian... Might as well just come out and say I'm a socialist and an ethical non-monogamist too while I'm at it.

But once again, where are all the women that should be contributing to this thread?

[whyterabbyt]

It's statistically demonstrated that, as a society's education and employment opportunities for women improve, the number of women choosing NOT to have children increases. Where they're "allowed" to reject motherhood as an expectation, they're free to do more elsewhere. Men aren't similarly handicapped, and therefore have always had the benefit of putting "bread winning" before parenting (as an explicit expectation in some ways).

Nonsense. Do you really believe that the majority of women are willing to NOT have children?

Its not nonsense that more and more women are deciding not to have children. Its bloody easy to prove, in fact. The nonsense is in moving the goalposts and pretending that anyone said it was a majority. That's a strawman.

Did you made any enquirer on the subject? Are you based on ANY enquirer on the subject?

Im can only assume 'make an enquirer' means 'made some research' or somesuch. And Ive got to ask, did you? Because its not hard to find studies that say this very thing.

https://www.aat.org.uk/news/article/wom ... -on-career

What has been demonstrated is that many women delay (and ultimately sacrifice) their opportunity to be mothers because they want to first earn a position and a career which will grant their child all the best economically.

'Sacrifice' eh? As in, give up on.
So your argument is that he's wrong because they're not choosing to, they're 'sacrificing' the opportunity?
That's a great to manipulate the semantics.

And economical organization of the society (read: greediness) exploits that up to the maximum, encouraging that ambition (and ultimately greediness also), to the point of sacrifice their future.

No loaded language there then, just a good cogent, scientifically backed argument, eh?

And, what's worse, this is creating some serious social and demographic problems, to the point that some studies predict that, for example in my country, population will decrease by as much as 20% in the next generation.

Oh dearie me. Because checking the growth of populations is obviously a bad thing, because, like demographics.

And that's a 20% drop in your population in one generation you're claiming, eh? You're basically claiming a drop of two million people. In a country of ten million. That's a lot less people within a single generation, to be honest. I mean, a f**king lot less.

I mean the difference between your current death rate (10 per 1000 population per annum), and the birth rate (8 per 1000 per annum) means in a generation (20 years), I'd expect to see a population drop of 400,000 out of ten million if that were consistent (2/1000 * 20 * 10 million)

For it to drop by five times that number of people, at the same level of mortality, you'd basically need to have 1.6 million less births in 20 years, ie 80,000 less births per annum, ie 8 births less per 1000 population than the current rate of 8 births per 1000 population.
ie no births for 20 years. Are you claiming all your country's women were going to stop having children or something?
Doesnt sound likely. So lets assume the birth rate halves for the next 20 years, on account of the nearly as dubious proposition that half of all your country's women stop having chldren.
That would mean 800,000 births in 20 years, and thus you'd have to have 2.8 million people dying in that period for your figures to work out.
At your current mortality rate, 1 million people would be expected to die in that time. So you'd be positing that the mortality rate would nearly triple in the same period of time as your birth rate halved.

That really sound unlikely. Is the higher mortality rate supposed to be the fault of those women who arent having kids, btw?

Yet even if it werent highly unlikely, you'd merely be at the same population level as you had in the 1960s. And that would clearly be a nightmare, eh?

Norway is one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and one that has the best quality of life. Government encourages, supports and secures gender equality like nowhere else. So, when 90% of the nurses are women, and 90% of the engineers are men, would you say that's because of "lack of opportunities"? Prejudice? Think again.

Well, since its actually 80% of engineers are men Im not sure what to think except for the phrase 'dishonest with the facts'

Geesh. This is like discussing religion. A deaf conversation.

Says the guy who misrepresents the arguments of others, misrepresents the facts, uses loaded terms to fuel arbitrary semantics and comes away with 'oh noes, teh women will make my country run out of people' as an argument.

[Tricky-Loops]

It's so animalistic, yet human beings are the only species that refuses to accept it is an animal.

Maybe that's the problem?

Before you can change yourself, you have to accept what you are. Even if we don't call ourselves "animals", we are a part of the same nature... If we would kill all animals (including worms, bees etc.), we couldn't live on this planet anymore...

Excluding humanity from the animal category is a social tool to enable the treatment of animals as they are treated. Religious books tell humans that they have a right to enslave and use animals. Same for what they say about women. In the case of animals, it's maybe reasonable to assume some of this "we're above animals" attitude was necessary to get people to do terrible things to animals for survival sake. First world nations have no further use for that mentality, but holds on to it with a death grip because it is what they were raised with and what they consider "normal and natural". I'm vegetarian, to openly admit my bias, btw.

I'm risking really derailing this thread at this point. :-/

We've created a society where you can go to the next supermarket and buy conveniently a piece of packed meat without the experience of personally killing the animal, and then - while eating it - you can say: "Oh, it's only a pig, it's raised to be eaten!" But is it morally better? Raising animals just to kill them? What's better compared to a lion catching an antelope?