sexism in music

[chopincat]

Some things that have been bothering me lately:

All the composer's whose works I've ever been assigned have been male, and all of the well-known composers - even of the 20th and 21st centuries - seem to be male. Same goes for concert pianists: there are very few successful and well-known ones who aren't male. And with instrumentalists in general. And I don't think I've ever even heard of a female conductor. This is all equally true in the jazz world. I remember the last time I went to see the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra I spent a good deal of the show thinking about how each and every one of their members is male. And even in the world of popular music, a vast majority of songwriters, producers and engineers are male. And of course all the famous rock guitarists, bassists, drummers, and even vocalists that come to our minds are male.

As a girl who loves all these areas of music, this is all really discouraging!!

Does anyone else notice these things?

[j_menz]

Historically, there is much truth in what you say - though there are notable exceptions.

The position nowadays is much better, and there are actually quite a number of women conductors, composers, pianists and other instrumentalists. Not parity, but getting there. 

I can't really speak  for the jazz world, which, aside from vocalists, does seem pretty blokey.

[brogers70]

Sure, I notice these things, too. There are more women in music now, but it's nothing like gender equality yet. People can give you lists of famous female musicians, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a field still largely run by men.

[cwjalex]

i think the differences in competition between men and women is a factor.  in virtually every sport and field that exists men dominate and i think it has a lot do with men having much more testosterone than women.  testosterone has been studied extensively and is known to fuel competition.  in non musical vocations the wage disparity is due partly because women are much more likely too choose humanitarian, teaching, and other low paying jobs than men are.  perhaps this is also a contributing factor in the world of music.  100 years ago gender discrimination was definitely prevalent but these days it's not nearly the same kind of barrier.  if you have skill and talent it doesn't matter whether you are male or female.

as far as most of the famous musicians and music related jobs are men it could also be that there are more men that participate so therefore naturally most of the best ones would be male.  it makes me think of professional chess: a game where gender means absolutely nothing yet the highest ranking woman is only around 70th in the world and the second highest ranking woman isn't even in the top 100.  i think in chess the gender differences has to do with intrinsic differences in levels of competition as well as there are far more men that participate in chess than women.  

[chopincat]

I think when we talk about the differences in the choices that men and women seem to make in general, we have to be careful about calling things natural differences in terms of biology when there could be things that have been so rooted in society for so long that they have become systemic factors in the way people behave. (i.e. there might be less women in chess because women are not nearly as encouraged to play chess as men are, and that's how it's been for most of history and still to this day. Not that you're wrong, but that's just something to keep in mind).

[outin]

In pianism there's also the fact that men generally have larger hands, so they have some advantage in playing the kind of stuff general public expect to hear from "virtuosos". Also the present standard of the piano was designed by men for men. Female pianists often need to do a lot of adapting to manage the instrument or specialize in less flashy music.

[cwjalex]

I think when we talk about the differences in the choices that men and women seem to make in general, we have to be careful about calling things natural differences in terms of biology when there could be things that have been so rooted in society for so long that they have become systemic factors in the way people behave. (i.e. there might be less women in chess because women are not nearly as encouraged to play chess as men are, and that's how it's been for most of history and still to this day. Not that you're wrong, but that's just something to keep in mind).

if you are referring to my post, the only natural differences i cited were the levels of testosterone between men and women.  i said, in chess, naturally men dominate because more men participate. 

when i said that women are more likely to choose humanitarian and other low paying jobs i was merely citing a fact and did not intend to hint at any reason for this choice.  i don't know or pretend to know the reason why this is so.

[mhhudson15]

there could be things that have been so rooted in society for so long that they have become systemic factors in the way people behave.

True! I don't think it is so much of actual sexism that influences the way men and women tend to behave, but their natural niches in society that have been embedded in our heads. Sure, it can sometimes be considered a problem in some issues, such as politics, but that's a completely different topic...  As previously mentioned, musical success, especially in piano, often comes from the physical sense as well:

In pianism there's also the fact that men generally have larger hands, so they have some advantage in playing the kind of stuff general public expect to hear from "virtuosos". Also the present standard of the piano was designed by men for men. Female pianists often need to do a lot of adapting to manage the instrument or specialize in less flashy music.

Naturally, if you often can't reach half the chords in a piece, you're not going to be able to play the same way as, say, a man with large hands.

[chopincat]

I don't think it is so much of actual sexism that influences the way men and women tend to behave, but their natural niches in society that have been embedded in our heads.

How could "natural niches in society embedded in our heads" not be sexist?? First of all, I really don't understand what you mean by the word "natural," because it seems that you are implying that it's "natural" for men and women to hold certain jobs and societal roles, which would be a sexist belief. That might not have been what you meant though (and I hope that it wasn't!) so please correct me if I am wrong. But as a woman, I do take offense with your statement, because it implies that telling me I shouldn't work in math, science, music, athletics, and countless other things because I am a woman is not sexist, yet this is one of the most common forms of sexism that I and countless other women face everyday!

if you are referring to my post, the only natural differences i cited were the levels of testosterone between men and women.  i said, in chess, naturally men dominate because more men participate. 

To me it seemed like you were saying that more men participate because it's a competitive game, and men would be more likely to do it because testosterone = competitiveness. Testosterone and other biological factors certainly make men physically stronger than women in general, but I don't know of any proven scientific link between testosterone and competitiveness. If you have seen scientific studies that prove this, feel free to point me to one of them. But this information might just be another example of systemic sexism that's been embedded into our minds.

[Bob]

*Bob's waiting to Thalbergmad to chime in with some level-headed views on women and equality.* 

[mikeowski]

To me it seemed like you were saying that more men participate because it's a competitive game, and men would be more likely to do it because testosterone = competitiveness. Testosterone and other biological factors certainly make men physically stronger than women in general, but I don't know of any proven scientific link between testosterone and competitiveness. If you have seen scientific studies that prove this, feel free to point me to one of them. But this information might just be another example of systemic sexism that's been embedded into our minds.

What, seriously?

https://www.utexas.edu/news/2006/11/30/psychology/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/testosterone-fuels-both-competition-and-protectiveness

One badly worded google is all it took.

[cwjalex]

When I typed this:

"i think in chess the gender differences has to do with intrinsic differences in levels of competition as well as there are far more men that participate in chess than women."

i actually meant to type "testosterone" instead of "competition" and i was referring to gender differences in results.  I don't know why more men participate than women.  

as far as scientific studies that link testosterone with competitiveness i will link a couple more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2606468

https://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/josephs/pdf_documents/EdwardsComment_MehtaJosephs.pdf

even before i read any scientific studies i held the belief that men are usually more competitive than women just from my own experience.  these scientific studies only reinforced my opinion.

the study that showed that levels of testosterone after a loss predicted whether they competed again was very interesting to me.  i am an extremely competitive person and although winning is very fun what really drives me to excel is that i absolutely hate losing.  it drives me nuts and is such a strong motivation for improvement.  

[outin]

Testosterone and other biological factors certainly make men physically stronger than women in general, but I don't know of any proven scientific link between testosterone and competitiveness.

There are a lot of studies about this as mentioned before. But one must understand that such studies on gender differences are always about statistics and generalizations. Women have testosterone as well while some men have rather low levels. So biology only partly explains the rigid gender roles in a society. When given the opportunities there will be women who succeed in fields traditionally dominated by men and also the other way round. But since only very few will reach the ultimate top in any competitive field, it is much more likely for those to come from the dominating sex among the candidates, purely based on their numbers.

So you should not be dicouraged about what you hear, you will need a lot of determination and work to break the glass ceiling, but it can be done as long as the laws of your country protect your right to try. This is unfortuntaely not the case all around the world.

[cwjalex]

when thinking about the lack of female representation in top fields you can let it bother and discourage you or you could use it as a source of strength and ambition. you can use that knowledge to give you greater resolve and determination to succeed and beat the odds.  when people tell you that you can't do things or something is too difficult it can make you try even harder to succeed and it will also make it even more satisfying when you finally do succeed and prove them wrong.  also, there is nothing sexier than an intelligent, talented woman 

[thalbergmad]

Women have small feet which allows them to get closer to the sink. Therefore, they are better at washing the dishes.

Men have large hands which allows them to play the piano better.

Thal

[j_menz]

Women have small feet which allows them to get closer to the sink. Therefore, they are better at washing the dishes.

Men have large hands which allows them to play the piano better.

Thal

D-
Predictable and hackneyed. Must do better.

[mhhudson15]

How could "natural niches in society embedded in our heads" not be sexist?? First of all, I really don't understand what you mean by the word "natural," because it seems that you are implying that it's "natural" for men and women to hold certain jobs and societal roles, which would be a sexist belief. That might not have been what you meant though (and I hope that it wasn't!) so please correct me if I am wrong. But as a woman, I do take offense with your statement, because it implies that telling me I shouldn't work in math, science, music, athletics, and countless other things because I am a woman is not sexist, yet this is one of the most common forms of sexism that I and countless other women face everyday!

I only meant that this is the way it has seemed to be for ages, not that it was right or wrong. And I definitely understand where you're coming from, because I'm female as well. I don't believe that societal roles are based on gender, and I was referring to music, specifically pianism, in which there are differences because of the biological differences between men and women. I plan on going on farther into music myself. It might me harder, because I do have small hands, but that definitely doesn't make it impossible. It just requires a different level of adaptation to it than it would for a man. That's not sexist. Of course, gender equality is nowhere where it needs to be either.

[ahinton]

Women have small feet which allows them to get closer to the sink. Therefore, they are better at washing the dishes.

Women - and men, for that matter - who have any sense will have a dishwasher to do that, irrespective of their respective shoe sizes.

Men have large hands which allows them to play the piano better.

That is no more always the case that it is that the greater the hand size the finer the pianist irrespective of gender.

j_menz's assessment "predictable and hackneyed...must do better" is therefore spot on.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I only meant that this is the way it has seemed to be for ages, not that it was right or wrong. And I definitely understand where you're coming from, because I'm female as well. I don't believe that societal roles are based on gender, and I was referring to music, specifically pianism, in which there are differences because of the biological differences between men and women. I plan on going on farther into music myself. It might me harder, because I do have small hands, but that definitely doesn't make it impossible. It just requires a different level of adaptation to it than it would for a man. That's not sexist. Of course, gender equality is nowhere where it needs to be either.

The societal issues and the physical ones are - and should accordingly be treated as - entirely separate; the former is less of a concern than once it was (although the number of male composers remains considerably higher than that of female ones) and, as far as the latter is concerned, there are some people of each gender who might not necessarily be best suited physically to playing and/or singing, for a variety of reasons.

There are limits to gender equality. The genders are not equal and I think that what you refer to here is treatment of each gender that is as equal as it can be, which is not quite the same thing as "gender equality" per se.

If you listen to recordings of sung and/or played music without knowing the performers' and composers' identities in advance, you will be able to tell the gender of the singer/s but not that of the instrumentalists or of the composers of the music on those recordings.

Best,

Alistair

[chopincat]

Women have small feet which allows them to get closer to the sink. Therefore, they are better at washing the dishes.

Men have large hands which allows them to play the piano better.

Thal

Not only predictable and hackneyed, but entirely based on generalizations and stereotypes and ridiculously sexist!!

also, there is nothing sexier than an intelligent, talented woman  Wink

I know that you mean well, but I don't find you reducing me to my sex appeal very complimentary. If I was a man and I became intelligent and talented, people would think of me as intelligent and talented. But as a woman, my intelligence and talent will just be treated as things that add to my sex appeal. That's not very respectful!

Also: I think we are all (myself included) using sex and gender interchangeably in these posts, which isn't good because they are very different. Gender expression, for example, doesn't have much to do with anatomical differences. So which one are we talking about?

[cwjalex]

I know that you mean well, but I don't find you reducing me to my sex appeal very complimentary. If I was a man and I became intelligent and talented, people would think of me as intelligent and talented. But as a woman, my intelligence and talent will just be treated as things that add to my sex appeal. That's not very respectful!

Also: I think we are all (myself included) using sex and gender interchangeably in these posts, which isn't good because they are very different. Gender expression, for example, doesn't have much to do with anatomical differences. So which one are we talking about?

i think you may have read a little too much in to my last sentence.  it was mainly just meant to add a little levity. i wasn't trying to reduce anything to sex appeal i was just saying that for me i find intelligence and talent to be very admirable qualities.  i've run into countless beautiful women in my life but i can probably count on one hand the women i have encountered who have impressed me with both intelligence and talent.  i'm not saying that women are inferior since for the most part i can say the same thing about men.   

I guess i should have said "more admirable" or "cooler" than "sexier" but i really meant no disrespect and now that i think about it "cooler" is much closer to the meaning that i was trying to convey than "sexier".  the problem is i type faster than i think and everything comes out and i send it without enough time to dwell on what i wrote. at the time i also didn't think it would offend or i obviously wouldn't have wrote it since i am constantly providing caveats to everything i say.  i was probably just thinking about women and the word sexier just came out naturally. like every other guy in his 20s when i think about women i can't help but think about sex at the same time.  im not saying that's all they are good for it is just an association that comes instantly to mind. socrates once said, "the male libido is like being chained to a madman".

[jknott]

I admire your bravery in starting this thread as I find sexism to be less rampant in life these days than it is on this forum.  Here you have to watch out that you aren't flamed when you raise issue of sexism let alone feminism.

[thalbergmad]

I know that you mean well, but I don't find you reducing me to my sex appeal very complimentary.

Many women pianists seem to use it to their advantage. Yuja Wang would not have a fraction of bookings or recording deals if she did not have a pretty face and nice bum.

Men have to rely on pure talent alone and have to gather up the scraps that are left by vastly inferior female pianists, who's dress sense is more suitable for the street corner outside the concert hall than it is for inside it.

Thal

[cwjalex]

Many women pianists seem to use it to their advantage. Yuja Wang would not have a fraction of bookings or recording deals if she did not have a pretty face and nice bum.

Men have to rely on pure talent alone and have to gather up the scraps that are left by vastly inferior female pianists, who's dress sense is more suitable for the street corner outside the concert hall than it is inside it.

Thal

this is discouraging to hear since as a man i was hoping that my nice face and pretty bum would compensate for my lack of talent.  grrrrr

[thalbergmad]

Then I suggest that at your next concert, you slap on some make up, find a short tight red dress that leaves little to the imagination with some 6 inch heels and walk onto the stage as if you have a cucumber up your ass.

This is how Miss Wang sells out.

Thal

[jknott]

See?

[cwjalex]

is yuja wang not really that good of a pianist?  she sounds good to me but i don't really have an educated opinion on this. 

[mikeowski]

See?

Backlash to feminism is not because of


It's because feminism is a batshit crazy ideology, which luckily more and more people start to realize.

[jknott]

Yet again, see?

The bigotry on this forum never ceases to amaze me.  Sad when it's supposed to be about piano.

[thalbergmad]

Indeed Wang is good and perhaps in 40 years time even great, but her current success exceeds her abilities and her looks and dress sense seems to have clouded the judgement of the concert going public.

Thal

[chopincat]

Many women pianists seem to use it to their advantage. Yuja Wang would not have a fraction of bookings or recording deals if she did not have a pretty face and nice bum.

Men have to rely on pure talent alone and have to gather up the scraps that are left by vastly inferior female pianists, who's dress sense is more suitable for the street corner outside the concert hall than it is for inside it.

Oh that's right, go on and slut shame Yuja Wang because she wears clothes that aren't conservative enough for your liking. I have a news flash for you: she doesn't dress for you. She can wear whatever she wants and telling her that it's "more suitable for the street corner" just makes you sound like a jerk.

This is what I mean about women being reduced to their sex appeal. Yuja Wang is a very talented young woman, but because she also happens to be attractive you assume that her success is entirely due to her "pretty face and nice bum." Men never face these kinds of accusations. Instead they whine about how they will never benefit from these non-existant forces, as you did so very predictably.

[jknott]

hear hear

[chopincat]

It's because feminism is a batshit crazy ideology

fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities (credit to Merriam-Webster)

Is that really some batshit crazy ideology??

[mikeowski]

fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities (credit to Merriam-Webster)

Why is it called feminism then?

[jknott]

er ... possibly to redress the historical hegemony of men?

[chopincat]

I guess i should have said "more admirable" or "cooler" than "sexier" but i really meant no disrespect and now that i think about it "cooler" is much closer to the meaning that i was trying to convey than "sexier".  

It's okay! Sorry if I came off as aggressive. I don't blame you for your word choice. I think that the idea that "sexy" is the best compliment a woman can get is something that has been engrained in society for a long time, so it's become the first thing that comes to mind in situations like this (which is a good example of systemic sexism). Not your fault at all, just something to be aware of.

The bigotry on this forum never ceases to amaze me.  Sad when it's supposed to be about piano.

I couldn't agree more. I've been here for about 4 days and it's already getting to me. Glad that someone else understands.

[chopincat]

er ... possibly to redress the historical hegemony of men?

Exactly!!!! Feminism is all about equality of the sexes. But since men have always held a lot more power than women (and still do), feminism in action usually has to do with elevating women. Not elevating women above men, but elevating them to the point of equality. It's really not as crazy as people make it out to be.

[mikeowski]

The only reason to call a movement for equality feminism instead of egalitarianism is to think that only women suffer from discrimination. It's a warped view on reality.

[mhhudson15]

I couldn't agree more. I've been here for about 4 days and it's already getting to me. Glad that someone else understands.

Right... and the jerkiness of some of the posts on this thread...

Backlash to feminism is not because of


It's because feminism is a batshit crazy ideology, which luckily more and more people start to realize.

I feel as if we are meshing together systematic inequality with purposeful inequality. Even though they both obviously exist, they are to be treated differently. I don't think systematic inequality should be something to get as angry over, since it is, in a way, much more subtle than direct and purposeful inequality. Take the atmosphere, for example. It exerts 14.7 pounds on you, per square inch, but you don't really recognize it until it's mentioned, because you were born into it. Now, if someone you didn't like were to shove you with that same amount of pressure, you'd notice it a lot more (and would be offended). It's the same way here. Both are wrong, but one would deal with a direct sexist insult much differently that they would, well, systematic inequality.

[jknott]

But there have been centuries of "systemic inequality" favouring men, and not of the kind that women would fail to notice.

As for the purposeful kind, there's plenty of that on this forum - you need to look no further than this thread. 

[chopincat]

The only reason to call a movement for equality feminism instead of egalitarianism is to think that only women suffer from discrimination. It's a warped view on reality.

It's not that women are the only people who suffer from discrimination. It's that in terms of sex, women have been systemically oppressed since the beginning of time, and men have not. One thing that's important to note is that the scholarly definition of sexism is the combination of discrimination AND systemic oppression against a group on the basis of sex. Same goes for racism (except on the basis of race instead of sex). This is why things like "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism" don't actually exist. Yes, anyone can be discriminated against, but only certain groups of people have been systemically oppressed throughout history (and in the present, even if it's less noticeable).

I really think you ought to do some reading up on what feminism and sexism are, because your uninformed comments show that you are rather uneducated on both.

[chopincat]

But there have been centuries of "systemic inequality" favouring men, and not of the kind that women would fail to notice.

+1

I actually think it's perfectly reasonable to be more angry about systemic sexism than purposeful sexism, because less men notice it and it's much harder to change, yet it's just as burningly obvious to us women.

[mhhudson15]

But there have been centuries of "systemic inequality" favouring men, and not of the kind that women would fail to notice.

I agree! I do think that it has gotten better, however. There are definitely more women in the workforce nowadays than there were years ago. And it was just a comparison; I didn't mean at all that you don't notice it. In fact, I had said that they're both there, you just handle them differently, and that it was nowhere where it should be. Not to mention, I do hate the both of them.

As for the purposeful kind, there's plenty of that on this forum - you need to look no further than this thread. 

Again, I agree. And it's quite sad that there is not only rudeness, but flat-out offensiveness in this discussion that is exactly what the thread is about!

Also...I love the boldness of chopincat for starting this thread, because it's a touchy topic that obviously needed to be addressed.

+1

I actually think it's perfectly reasonable to be more angry about systemic sexism than purposeful sexism, because less men notice it and it's much harder to change, yet it's just as burningly obvious to us women.

I see your point. For me, I wouldn't quite say angry, but moreso forceful in striving to change it. Like the women who have already gotten very successful, be bad! Break some political, economical, scientific, etc. rules, and smash that glass ceiling while you're at it! I'll be doing it right there with you. It isn't the anger, because many people can sit and smother themselves in anger, even though they're mad for the right reason. It's the passion to do something that makes the change

[jknott]

I think the anger cools with age ... and having a sympathetic man.  Best not to look at this forum too often  though!

[mikeowski]

It's not that women are the only people who suffer from discrimination. It's that in terms of sex, women have been systemically oppressed since the beginning of time, and men have not.

Well, and in terms of being forced to do hard work and dying, men have been systemically opressed since the beginning of time.

The problem with the feminist idea of equality is that it is an equality of outcome, not of chance. You can see it for example with things like gender quotas.
The thought process is always something like this:
A) Since men and women are completely equal (I've even heard it said that "women are at least as good as men at everything"), outcome (for example wages or hiring quotas) should be equal aswell.
B) Outcome is not equal, so
C) Women are being discriminated against. -> Muh Sojiny!/Sexism!

It's always the same, it's always nonsense and my point still stands: It's called feminism for a reason, and that is not equality.

[jknott]

Since when were there actually gender quotas in women's favour? The only ones I've ever encountered in real life were ones in the other direction.

Some people on this forum inhabit a very strange world.  Where it's OK to launch tirades of sexist abuse at women but claim that men are the ones who suffer discrimination. 

[mhhudson15]

Well, and in terms of being forced to do hard work and dying, men have been systemically opressed since the beginning of time.

The problem with the feminist idea of equality is that it is an equality of outcome, not of chance. You can see it for example with things like gender quotas.
The thought process is always something like this:
A) Since men and women are completely equal (I've even heard it said that "women are at least as good as men at everything"), outcome (for example wages or hiring quotas) should be equal aswell.
B) Outcome is not equal, so
C) Women are being discriminated against. -> Muh Sojiny!/Sexism!

It's always the same, it's always nonsense and my point still stands: It's called feminism for a reason, and that is not equality.

fem-i-nism  
[fem-uh-niz-uh m]
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

TWO total dictionary definitions for you now, from two different and credible sources, as if one wasn't enough.

And, FYI, dictionaries sum up the way the public uses words, not the other way around. If you can't even accept that, it comes to show the ignorance and offensiveness of your posts.

The negative reactions to the lack of outcome equality varies with different scenarios. Men and women should be paid equally for equal work. The lack thereof seems to be much more disputed than, say, the amount of women working in a certain field. This is because the former is much more blatantly obvious than the other. Understood?

[ahinton]

Many women pianists seem to use it to their advantage.

No. Very few do. Their managers might, but that's a different matter.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Indeed Wang is good and perhaps in 40 years time even great, but her current success exceeds her abilities and her looks and dress sense seems to have clouded the judgement of the concert going public.

Not that of most of those who've heard recordings of her but not actually seen her or pictures of her.

Best,

Alistair

[chopincat]

Well, and in terms of being forced to do hard work and dying, men have been systemically opressed since the beginning of time.

The problem with the feminist idea of equality is that it is an equality of outcome, not of chance.

I'm literally laughing out loud right now because you seem to think that natural death is a form of systemic oppression (it's oppressed, by the way, not opressed).

If you actually knew anything about feminism, you would know that it's based on the equality of chance AND outcome. And the fact of the matter is, neither exist in the present day. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to educate you about something that you clearly want to be ignorant about. If you want to be an uninformed bigot, go ahead.