Sexism in music: how it bias the way some people judge music.

[fmr]

So are you actually affirming that you do believe there is no problem at all of sexism in music. IF SO what you do not do is show me why there is so little representation. I have now indicated that solid research has been done showing SEVERE sexism in music. Telling me about this particular false dichotomy, or the fallacy of the excluded middle is a non sequitur and kind of absurd.

We were talking about women presence in music composition (or so I thought we were). Now you came to me with a study regarding the gender balance in symphonic orchestras? I must say I am not able to discuss that topic. Is it a sexist environment? I don't know.

But I know that women have been discriminated anywhere, by many reasons, one of which (and very important) has to do with motherhood (it's a problem, and people have to face it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist). There was a bank here in Portugal that, unassumedly (because it would be illegal) did not hire women. Also unassumedly, the main reason was because, as soon as women, in the end of their twenties and early thirties, feel safe regarding their economical status, they start to make plans to become moms. And that would lead to an absence of at least four months (sometimes more) and at least an equal period with reduced labour time. And the bank wasn't willing to hold that responsibility.

The whole society have to deal with this. I defend that women should have the liberty to make an option. But I understand that, in a time where economics rule the world, from a cold strict business POV, hiring women may be costly. How would you argue to a CEO that simply says to you that he ordered not to hire women because they get pregnant? You have to think: Where is the line for freedom? I defend that he is free to rule his company the way he wants, but i also defend that not hiring women because they get pregnant is illegal. Of course, he can workaround that illegality by inventing lots of reasons not to hire women, none of them is illegal, although none of them is the true reason.

This is complex, and is not sexism, at least not in the simplistic way you put it. It's a consequence of the way we built our society, and to where western civilization is going in the 50 years. And the way things are going, this will become worst, not better. many women are giving up their motherhood because they want to preserve their careers, and are conscious that taking a license for motherhood will hurt that. How do you feel about that?

Back to the studies you pointed me. I will read them and will get back to you with a comment after that. One thing already. There is this in page 91: "After the data in this essay concerning orchestra personnel was collected in the summer of 2009, Amanda Davidson was hired as Associate Principal Trombone of the New York Philharmonic.
Davidson’s success demonstrates that as musicians retire from America’s top orchestras, blind auditions can help more women become employed in solo positions of what were previously considered “male” sections. Future generations will be encouraged by role models such as Cherian, Landsman, Ordmann, and Slaughter, to name only a few. As gender constructions are gradually addressed in the general educational curriculum, the music education paradigm will also come under scrutiny and become more inclusive of women."

Is it my lack of understanding, or this conclusion states that things are changing? (which, in the end, states back my statement that talking about "sexism" in 2015 is absurd). Of course, you may state that a balance is still to be reached, but unless you will start to kill all the current male symphonic orchestra players, it will take some time to reach that.

[fmr]

This is amazing. Fernando hasn't really quite read it, but he's sure the real deal there is "an article by a feminist, attacking a man.".

You should read more carefully. When I said "an article by a feminist, attacking a man" I was talking about the article I linked, regarding the Tymothy Hunt affair. Please read better before attacking, OK? (That's what the other gal did regarding Timothy Hunt, BTW, but I think that, giving your positions, this would make you uncomfortable).

[Numanoid]

So when Jean Michel Jarre for the most part only work with caucasian males in his new project, what does that make him?

Male, European/American: Moby, 3D, Vince Clarke, Pete Townshend, Armin Van Buuren, Edgar Froese (RIP), Air, John Carpenter, Boys Noize, M83, f**k Buttons, Gesaffelstein

Male, but not European/American: Lang Lang

Not male, but European/American: Little Boots, Laurie Anderson

[SampleScience]

No really. Real problem is that she is right but could be wrong. Right because in the light of history women have been oppressed and their possibilites limited compared to men, just as the case is with race or sexual orientation, thus you can find traces of racist or sexist culture and context in almost every corner of man's existence. She could be wrong in so far as it does not follow from this premise that every difference between men and woman have to be explained with reference to sexism. I know too little about it to conclude anything, but the article was surely funny and entertaining, if not enlightening.

It pretty much sums up what I think about the article. I have an academic background in feminist studies so maybe it makes me more sympathetic about her text.

[Nokenoku]

Modern Feminism ... the mother-of-all of first world problems and entitlement.

[NystagmusE]

I think it's a worthwhile topic, but the writing style was too annoying for me to finish the article.
She writes in the same style as how my late father talked at dinner parties--always trying to be clever and be the center of attention.
I've heard a lifetime of that style. Enough is enough.

It's too bad because it's otherwise a topic worthy of serious discussion without the smarmy jokes.

[jancivil]

So are you actually affirming that you do believe there is no problem at all of sexism in music. IF SO what you do not do is show me why there is so little representation. I have now indicated that solid research has been done showing SEVERE sexism in music. Telling me about this particular false dichotomy, or the fallacy of the excluded middle is a non sequitur and kind of absurd.

We were talking about women presence in music composition (or so I thought we were). Now you came to me with a study regarding the gender balance in symphonic orchestras? I must say I am not able to discuss that topic. Is it a sexist environment? I don't know.

It looks to me like you are tactically parsing eg., women composers vs women in professional music like that makes a difference, since you have plainly said that you believe there was never a problem with the former. Tfhen you provide other qualifying factors to push the argument into a shape that's suitable to you, thinking I'm moved off the point.* So women were not even allowed anywhere near a job at a professional orchestra, but things had to have been equal when they thought to compose and publish and get played? Clara was fairly privileged to have been conducted by Felix, no doubt. But we're talking in general, you somehow believe that there was no sexism in terms of women going into composing/publishing/performance. So no, that tack doesn't deflect the point at all. I think holding onto that belief in the face of the fact of no_women_in_the_orchestra (and in Vienna, until Nineteen Ninety Seven) is patently ridiculous.

But I know that women have been discriminated anywhere, by many reasons, one of which (and very important) has to do with *motherhood (it's a problem, and people have to face it, instead of pretending it doesn't exist). ... (snipped pointless anecdote re: another whole field of endeavor)
But I understand that, in a time where economics rule the world, from a cold strict business POV, hiring women may be costly. How would you argue to a CEO that simply says to you that he ordered not to hire women because they get pregnant? You have to think: Where is the line for freedom? I defend that he is free to rule his company the way he wants, but i also defend that not hiring women because they get pregnant is illegal. Of course, he can workaround that illegality by inventing lots of reasons not to hire women, none of them is illegal, although none of them is the true reason.

So since a woman can become pregnant, it is a reasonable argument that she's going to and decisions stemming from that are to be expected. If it's illegal, society apparently disagrees. "Where is the line for freedom" is purely political so let's do take this to HPC. Should have started there. In any case, you would like to have it both ways. I agree that it should be illegal because the argument is poor, and that there are things going on with men that f**k them up in the workplace - they may end up having to take care of children, imagine that - but we're only talking about 'women's problems'. You would not like to be seen as sexist, but your argumentation is sexist. I can't ignore it and you aren't disguising it for me:

This is complex, and is not sexism, at least not in the simplistic way you put it. It's a consequence of the way we built our society, and to where western civilization is going in the 50 years. And the way things are going, this will become worst, not better. many women are giving up their motherhood because they want to preserve their careers, and are conscious that taking a license for motherhood will hurt that. How do you feel about that?

Parsing 'sexism' away from 'the way we build our society' doesn't work for me in the least. I think people breed far too thoughtlessly, and I think women that are not cowed by breeders to feel bad about it is progress. I believe the human species as it stands now is utterly unsustainable. 50 years, well my projection should I have to make it is that civilized society is an historical matter.

Back to the studies you pointed me. I will read them and will get back to you with a comment after that. One thing already. There is this in page 91: "After the data in this essay concerning orchestra personnel was collected in the summer of 2009, Amanda Davidson was hired as Associate Principal Trombone of the New York Philharmonic.
Davidson’s success demonstrates that as musicians retire from America’s top orchestras, blind auditions can help more women become employed in solo positions of what were previously considered “male” sections. Future generations will be encouraged by role models such as Cherian, Landsman, Ordmann, and Slaughter, to name only a few. As gender constructions are gradually addressed in the general educational curriculum, the music education paradigm will also come under scrutiny and become more inclusive of women."

Is it my lack of understanding, or this conclusion states that things are changing? (which, in the end, states back my statement that talking about "sexism" in 2015 is absurd). Of course, you may state that a balance is still to be reached, but unless you will start to kill all the current male symphonic orchestra players, it will take some time to reach that.

I'm aware of what I posted, so I have evidence things are changing. If you are granting there is change, surely you realize the problem. Again, you self-contradict inside a paragraph: we'd have to kill off males to reach "a balance" but it's absurd to even talk about sexism. I think you probably understand the difference between the term "things are changing" and 'Obviously there is no need for change, absurd to even talk of it.' Cognitive Dissonance rules ok.

[jancivil]

This is amazing. Fernando hasn't really quite read it, but he's sure the real deal there is "an article by a feminist, attacking a man.".

You should read more carefully. When I said "an article by a feminist, attacking a man" I was talking about the article I linked, regarding the Tymothy Hunt affair. Please read better before attacking, OK? (That's what the other gal did regarding Timothy Hunt, BTW, but I think that, giving your positions, this would make you uncomfortable).

Here's how you presented it: "It's about an idiot that destroyed a man's career and reputation (not any man, he happens to be a Nobel Prize and a very important scientist). But this article is of opposite sign" - you want to not say "but"; this makes the distinction between the two articles you are mixing in the paragraph too difficult. It's not me failing to be careful, it's you failing to be careful. Also, 'attacking'? good for the goose, good for the gander. Don't be a pussy. You signaled to us that you couldn't be arsed to read it, that isn't me attacking in any way shape or form.

What you 'think' about my thoughts is of no moment to me. That one is just insulting.

[D.H. Miltz]

Locked by OP, not by a moderator. So should anyone wish to continue it, go ahead, only maybe put it in HPC (this one would have ended up there eventually anyway).