Women in the music industry...

[chk071]

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.

Wow, what a bullshit is that? Actually, saying that a woman decides alone about children is pretty much the most anti male thing i ever heard. Always thought that man and woman decide together whether to have children or not (they are both part of the process, right?). I mean, it's not the middle age anymore you know... apart from that, saying that is "statistically proven" is completely nonsense too. What if i "statistically prove" now that the decrease of women deciding to have children (again, thought both partners decide that...) is due to wealth? Basically, i could even "statistically prove" that it comes from the earths magnetic field, if i wanted to.

Well i'm out of this too. This getting too stupid tbh. Also interesting what some women's take on this seems to be btw: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5950766

[Tricky-Loops]

What if i "statistically prove" now that the decrease of women deciding to have children (again, thought both partners decide that...) is due to wealth?

Then I'd seriously doubt that. In most countries poor women have more children than wealthy women. Simply because those kind of women don't think about having a big business career. They want to get some children as soon as possible to enjoy their lives as house wive! (And at least in Germany, the state pays the livelihood, not the partner.)

And I've seen some of those women whose only interest is to get some children, they don't care about a big career at all.

[deastman]

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.

Wow, what a bullshit is that? Actually, saying that a woman decides alone about children is pretty much the most anti male thing i ever heard. Always thought that man and woman decide together whether to have children or not (they are both part of the process, right?). I mean, it's not the middle age anymore you know... apart from that, saying that is "statistically proven" is completely nonsense too. What if i "statistically prove" now that the decrease of women deciding to have children (again, thought both partners decide that...) is due to wealth? Basically, i could even "statistically prove" that it comes from the earths magnetic field, if i wanted to.

Well i'm out of this too. This getting too stupid tbh. Also interesting what some women's take on this seems to be btw: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5950766

What has actually been statistically found is that as income increases, birthrate decreases. Presumably due to increased access to birth control. That is a general statement about populations, not something specific to women. Or women in the music industry.

[whyterabbyt]

It's not the body mass that makes some men aggressive, it's their too much testosterone (as well as other hormones)...

Exactly. The hormones make the difference between the genders.

Well, they make 'a' difference. There's more than one set of differences, some of which hormones are irrelevant to. There's also a large set of similarities.
And each of those sets of differences and similarities sits on a dynamic spectrum, varying from one individual to the next over time.

So its pretty misleading to leverage the reductionism of 'this gender are like X' especially when its done as a means of leveraging 'this gender should behave in manner Y'.

No matter how much you want to twist it around with things like social norms or anything. Social norms don't come from nowhere. There is a reason for everything in our world.

Again this is reductionism. There are many sets of social norms, they're not actually static. And there are multiple reasons for everything in our world; very little of our behaviour, as an individual or on the societal or cultural level has merely one reason.

That doesn't mean we have to have conditions like in the middle age, because what distinguishes a human being from an animal is its ability to adapt, and think over its position. But denying ourselves isn't right either.

Im curious as to who is supposed to be denying themselves, in this thread's context? There are people arguing that individuals of a particular gender don't have to deny their individual dispositions, and those who appear to be arguing that 'social norms' should trump that. Who is denying what, exactly?

[chk071]

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.

Wow, what a bullshit is that? Actually, saying that a woman decides alone about children is pretty much the most anti male thing i ever heard. Always thought that man and woman decide together whether to have children or not (they are both part of the process, right?). I mean, it's not the middle age anymore you know... apart from that, saying that is "statistically proven" is completely nonsense too. What if i "statistically prove" now that the decrease of women deciding to have children (again, thought both partners decide that...) is due to wealth? Basically, i could even "statistically prove" that it comes from the earths magnetic field, if i wanted to.

Well i'm out of this too. This getting too stupid tbh. Also interesting what some women's take on this seems to be btw: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5950766

What has actually been statistically found is that as income increases, birthrate decreases. Presumably due to increased access to birth control. That is a general statement about populations, not something specific to women. Or women in the music industry.

I have no doubt about that. But read what Jace-BeOS claimed to be statistically proven. Quite a different thing.

[chk071]

Im curious as to who is supposed to be denying themselves, in this thread's context? There are people arguing that individuals of a particular gender don't have to deny their individual dispositions, and those who appear to be arguing that 'social norms' should trump that. Who is denying what, exactly?

I always hear equality here, equality there. We are not equal. None of us. And especially not if from a different gender. I have yet to hear the definition of "equality" in this context either. If it means equal rights and equal chances, then welcome to the 21st century. It's already here, more or less.

[Tricky-Loops]

Im curious as to who is supposed to be denying themselves, in this thread's context? There are people arguing that individuals of a particular gender don't have to deny their individual dispositions, and those who appear to be arguing that 'social norms' should trump that. Who is denying what, exactly?

I always hear equality here, equality there. We are not equal. None of us. And especially not if from a different gender. I have yet to hear the definition of "equality" in this context either. If it means equal rights and equal chances, then welcome to the 21st century. It's already here, more or less.

But please don't visit Saudi-Arabia!

[whyterabbyt]

I always hear equality here, equality there. We are not equal. None of us.

So are you arguing that people shouldn't have equality, then?

And has it never occurred to you that if people were all equal, then equality wouldn't be a desired thing because it would already be intrinsic? That equality is the thing which compensates for people not being equal, for not being treated equally.

And especially not if from a different gender.I have yet to hear the definition of "equality" in this context either.

Seriously? You've been completely unable to find any definition of equality anywhere?

And you obviously put so much work into it as well.

If it means equal rights and equal chances, then welcome to the 21st century. It's already here, more or less.

Or, more accurately, less or very much less.

[whyterabbyt]

[
What has actually been statistically found is that as income increases, birthrate decreases. Presumably due to increased access to birth control. That is a general statement about populations, not something specific to women. Or women in the music industry.

I have no doubt about that. But read what Jace-BeOS claimed to be statistically proven. Quite a different thing.

No, his exact words were that it had been statistically demonstrated. Which it has, as I already pointed out.

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

I kinda find it strange that both you and fmr have decided to misrepresent what he said rather than provide some sort of evidence which repudiates it. Attack the messenger so no-one checks the message?

[chk071]

If you want to quote my posts, please quote and respond to them as a whole. They are meant as a whole, not a bunch of sentences, put together. Apart from that, i don't see a reason arguing with you anyway. Because i know you will pick on every word that i post, and make your own meaning of it. Don't get me wrong, i think you're right in many cases, but arguing with you on the internet is not something i want to do. Already posted more than i wanted to do anyway... i usually stay out of HPC, or any political threads anyway.

[lotus2035]

Interesting documentary from Norway about gender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

Amazing how those that want to maintain, against all evidences, that men and women are equal, can be so deaf and stubborn as to deny concrete proofs of biological difference as in newborn children and month aged children, and yet don't show any proof of their beliefs. They don't act like scientists, they act like priests of a belief.

This is a very interesting and enlightening documentary.

I think it's amusing that "progressives" like to insist that being homosexual/transgender is genetic but when it comes to traditional male/female attributes that have been around for centuries suddenly it's all about artificial social conditioning and the evil patriarchy. Some will say that both can be a mix of conditioning and genetics and I would agree with that 100% but try telling that to the rabid feminist extremists here in Sweden. It's like you suggested, these people have built a religion although I would describe it more like a dangerous cult. A cult that's promotes a kind of ignorance tantamount to believing in a flat earth or creationism. The pendulum has definitely swung too far to the left and into the realm of "belief" in certain sectors of society but it's interesting the surge in right wing votes here in Sweden and all over Europe, people are getting tired of the extreme left and their irrationality. And branding everyone that doesn't tow the line as Nazis, racists and misogynists is just going to piss people off and increase the number of right votes.

It would be easier for us all if everyone was honest about this gender issue and admitted that in general terms, the majority of men throughout history have always naturally had certain basic attributes and the majority of women have had certain other basic attributes. The distinctions between us are not just down to our floppy bits or functions in reproduction. We are men and women for more reasons than that, and today we don't need to tip-toe around or feel like criminals for saying that which has been f**king obvious since the dawn of humanity just become some grumpy middle-class white women (the most privileged group in the history of humanity) have brainwashed the masses into denying the noses on their collective faces.

I wouldn't include superficial things like dresses and make-up, shoes, toys etc in this argument, these things change over time, the clothes men wore 300 years ago would be considered very feminine by today's standards which proves that these things are not the yardsticks by which we should measure what constitutes a boy/man or girl/woman or the differences between them. They are artificial things and distract from what really matters, biology.

We have to be honest and not ignore the fact that in today's world, modern social conditioning particularly in built-up areas can just as easily create a homosexual/transsexual as it can a stereotypical macho asshole male or a woman who has a wardrobe full of shoes. Or are we to believe that all those transsexuals in Brazil and Thailand are a result of some genetic predisposition? Or that children/teenagers with a high exposure to gay lifestyles couldn't possibly be influenced by their surroundings the same way children/teenagers raised in a straight environment are right?

Bullshit!

For some it's genetic and for others it's mimicry. People mimic each others behaviour and even though there are those who are so naturally inclined to go one way or the other we cannot be hypocritical and say that there is one rule for "us" and another rule for "them".

If it's ok to suggest that a girl wears a pink dress and plays with dolls because of social influence then the same can be said for a male who puts on a dress and make-up and decides he wants to be called Nora.

You can't have it both ways and say that "nuture" only applies to that which the "progressives" oppose and "nature" only applies to that which it promotes. It is hypocritical to do so.

As for the idea of "progression" itself, something I keep hearing, this underlying idea that there is some kind of natural forward movement happening here leading us to some kind of progressive paradise where we all hold hands in a big circle listening to R.E.M. singing 'shiny happy people', it's an illusion. The year 2014 is just some random point in time in the history of this ancient planet, there is nothing "written in the stars", no coming kingdom of heaven or progressive utopia, there is only cause and effect. We are where we are because decisions were made by certain people and consequences followed their "natural" course.

The"useful idiots" of the feminist movement in the 60's and beyond kick-started an insidious campaign to de-construct the traditional family unit in pursuit of some marxist wet-dream. They clearly stated they wanted to remove power from men and by golly have they succeeded and as a result the western world is in a right mess similar to the one it was in 80 years ago, only back then it was the ideals of the extreme right that were f**king things up. The pendulum has swung completely from one side to the other. Will it take another 40-50 years for it to swing back to the middle perhaps?

What a rant, jesus I'm going to bed.

[Jace-BeOS]

If you want to quote my posts, please quote and respond to them as a whole. They are meant as a whole, not a bunch of sentences, put together. Apart from that, i don't see a reason arguing with you anyway. Because i know you will pick on every word that i post, and make your own meaning of it. Don't get me wrong, i think you're right in many cases, but arguing with you on the internet is not something i want to do. Already posted more than i wanted to do anyway... i usually stay out of HPC, or any political threads anyway.

You're being taken to task with your statements. Specific statements were quoted, so as to respond to them in brief. They weren't removed from their context to be manipulated. Your words aren't being picked on, your claims and your mischaracterization of my statements are being called out.

It's understandable to feel that arguing on the Internet is useless and a waste of time, because indeed we cannot change people's beliefs through words alone... but you should consider that you might not be positioned with a strong argument in the first place. You're responding with aggression, dismissal, and creating straw men to argue against, rather than responding to what's really there in the content or providing your own argument. Calling my statements bullshit and then running away without validating your reactionary response isn't winning, nor is it dismissal of the validity of the argument against you "because teh Internets".

Facts are facts. One of those facts is that women are still facing discriminator pay for the same work, social pressure to breed, and (perhaps less "validated by research and statistics" than the prior two) are conditioned to have interest in, or show disinterest in, subjects based on what is considered "normal" for their gender in their culture/society (men face a similar problem in childhood, with different end results).

The fact that you think equality is here already shows that you don't really understand what women actually have to face in the real world. Equality might be given lip service, but notice how many women are here speaking for themselves? Blowing it off as "they're just not interested in tech stuff" isn't an explanation for why women are not here on this forum speaking for themselves. It's convenient though. The same dismissal of equality is given by many white people in the USA when the topic of racial injustice comes up. They wish to dismiss the topic as "old" or "frivolous" ("there are bigger problems than the little details of political correctness" or some such), usually because they feel threatened by the idea that they are seen as privileged (when they don't feel as such), or worried about being seen as racist when they believe they aren't (the more dismissive of racial issues existing, the more likely to be racist)... Dismissal out of hand is not a technique to win an argument and change minds. It's a refusal to engage in argument with a position that one is ill-prepared to defend.

Any way, have a nice night. Nothing personal against you here, though these are personal issues to people and therefore worth argument. I've contributed all I can stand to without actually doing the due diligence to defend my comments with citations, which you might reject out of hand or interpret as benefits your world view. Being called out for bullshit, without proof was pretty annoying. Frankly, I don't enjoy doing the legwork for others, and my claims aren't unreasonable, outlandish, nor demanding justification/validation. The info is out there and that's what formed my views. It's merely that my views are less popular among men (especially in the tech field). I'm also not an expert on statistics and research, but I have my blinders removed about what is and is not a fair and just society, and am awake to the uncomfortable facts of the attitudes about women and gender.

Not directed to you specifically, but... It's especially annoying and exhausting to interact with people in this topic that conflate extremists with feminism on the whole, who complain that things have "swung to the opposite extreme" when that isn't true outside their own cherry picking of select anecdotes, such as uncited "many divorce court cases" where men get screwed (which does indeed happen but isn't default, as I can cite anecdotes where the men got the kids and the lifestyle and the women are left floundering aimlessly in loss, nor is it the end all proof that men are under the heels of a crazy liberal conspiracy to destroy male rights with evil godless political correctness or some such thing...).

I'm taking liberties there at the end of that parenthetical, going off into hyperbole, because I'm frustrated with this repetitious scenario of defending women in a room full of men that mostly think everything is fine , that the status quo is great, and that there's no need to talk about women's rights... It's a boy's club because boys don't want to admit to there being anything unfair going on. Again I say: any wonder there aren't more women in that club...???

[Tricky-Loops]

...there is some kind of natural forward movement happening here leading us to some kind of progressive paradise where we all hold hands in a big circle listening to R.E.M. singing 'shiny happy people'...

Much worse, in future all boys will play with ponies and all girls with cars, and there will be a huge chaos on the roads...

[Tricky-Loops]

any wonder there aren't more women in that club...???

BTW, what happened with 4lbkitty? I haven't seen her here for many months...

[Jace-BeOS]

Re: the chaos on the roads joke... More stereotyping of women? It's not actually funny. :-/

Men are pretty vile on the roads, from my observation. Aggressive, dominant, intolerant, and even violent. I get screamed at by men for stopping at red lights before turning right on red, and at stop signs (not hyperbole).

The auto insurance statistics show that, among early drivers, males are more likely to be in accidents than females (I don't know about later in life). Still, people poke at women drivers far more than men drivers. I wonder if it's another case where, having been a boy's club for longer than it was an "open to both sexes" club, the institution of male drivers started a running gag to disparage their "competition", and it never stopped running. Did it start with horse carriages or ownership of horses? I really don't know. I'd look into the etymology or whatever, but I really don't feel up to the disgust that leg work will engender in me in the process of exposing myself to the content and associated garbage.

Yes it's a simple little joke comment... which may or may not make the room feel hostile to an entire half of humanity.