Can women compose as well as men?

[contrapunctus]

I have had the urge to do a controversial topic, so here it is. I am just trying to start a philosophical debate. Do women have the faculties to compose as well as men? I am asking this because, as you know no major composer is woman and there are only a few minor ones.
I can only think of four reasons as to why this could be:
1) Women do not have the faculties to compose as well as men
2) women were supressed by the male-dominated society at the time
3) women rarely if never got formal musical education at the time
4) Combination of the aformentioned

I do not think number 2 could be a possibility because many women authors and poets were extremly succesful during those times. They always found a way to get there work published ( nom de plume).
I do not think number 3 could could be a possibility either because look at the Big Five Russian nationalists: they composed some great music without a formal conservatoire education. Therefore, only number 1 could be the answer.

I am not trying to be a chauvanist; I am just trying to start a philosophical debate.

[Fugue]

Well, Clara Schumman and Fanny Mendelson (not spelled right, I know. I can't spell at all) were both composers who wrote some splendid music, but both of them stopped composing after their husband's death in the case of the former, and the behest of her brother in the latter. Personally, I feel that it is a comination of 2 and 3, for although women did recieve some musical education in the past centuries, very, very few ever got any serious musical education. And since, excluding prodigies such as Mozart, composition is a discipline that requires extensive training, very few women composers were to be found. Hope that made sense (literally, I just had some new medication my doctor prescribed me, and I feel abit drowsy.)

[thalbergmad]

i see no reason why a woman cannot compose as well as a man.

Perhaps they know that it will be several times harder for them to succeed, so they don't bother.

[lostinidlewonder]

I agree that it was because there was no system for furthering education for women. An intelligent woman wasn't regarded as highly as they are today, in fact it was better that the woman looked after the family, brought up the children and satisfied their husbands rather than get distracted in their own interests. That was the patriarchal system in its heyday.

Cecile Chaminade is another woman who wrote brilliant music from someone who was denied education in the male dominated society of her time.

[musicsdarkangel]

I bet that there were a few great female composers that we never will know about.

[ted]

Amy Beach and Mary Lou Williams also spring to mind along with quite a few others. I think the answer to the original poster's question is clearly yes. Therefore the reasons for the general lack of prominence of female composers are probably social.

[pianonut]

you can read about some women composers that are not freqently discussed, but known in their day. 

history of women composers:
www.ambache.co.uk/women.htm

and current nyc women composers:
www.ibiblio.org/nywc/

you're right that there are less of them.  and, i don't have a clue why.  i often feel inspired to write down things that come to me (just like poetry).  just never seem to have enough time to finish them completely and get them corrected by a professional composer.

[ted]

"just never seem to have enough time to finish them completely and get them corrected by a professional composer."

Why would you do that, Pianonut ? Either the work is what you meant to say or it is not, and the only person who can judge that is you.

[pianonut]

thanks Ted!  you boost my confidence.  my pieces are always on the short side.  this keeps me from feeling like a full-fleged composer.

[contrapunctus]

I agree that it was because there was no system for furthering education for women.

The Big Five Russian nationalists which included rimsy-korsakov and mussorgsky wrote some very good music, but they were not formally educated in music

[dmk]

There are many good Australian composers I can think of who are female:

    -   the late MIRIAM HYDE: https://www.amcoz.com.au/comp/h/mhyde.htm.  

    -   ELENA KATS-CHERNIN: https://www.amcoz.com.au/comp/k/ekatsc.htm

    -   MARGARET SUTHERLAND: https://www.amcoz.com.au/comp/s/msutland.htm

    -   ANN CARR-BOYD: https://www.amcoz.com.au/comp/c/acarboyd.htm

The list goes on.....

[contrapunctus]

This is supposed to be a philosophical debate on whether men are superior to women in the issue of composing, not a "name as many female composers as you can" contest.

[Nana_Ama]

Of course they can!  We all have brains don't we?  I don't see why women can't compose just as well as men simply because they are not as famous as men.  I think it's more that they don't have to opportunity to compose that would hold them back, however this does not make it impossible

[mikeyg]

the average woman can compose just as well as the average male, just like the average  woman has the same IQ as an average male.  However, men have much greater extremes.  This is partly why there are more "great" male thinkers.  this may also be why there are more great male composers.  So few people who try to compose become great composers, and so that upper eschelon is probably 90 percent male.

But women can still do great things.  What I said wasn't trying to be sexist.

Don't hurt me.

[m1469]

Well, first of all, Contrapunctus, I understand that you are simply trying to take a position of extreme for the sake of "trying to start a philosophical debate."  So you say, this thread is not about who can name the most women composers, however within your initial argument you state :

I am asking this because I do not know of a prominent women composer in the Baroque, classical, romantic, or early twentieth century eras, and I have read extensive biographies of most major and semi-major composers from those eras.

So is this thread about knowing the women who compose or not ?  If it is,  then people pointing out women who have composed/do compose seems entirely appropriate and should sufficiently satisfy the argument.  There are many women who compose, and not knowing about them can be very related to social issues.  But this is not really your point, is it...(?)  So I would be inclined to throw out entirely that sentence which I have quoted above because for that matter, there are also many men composers whom people do not know about.

Your real question is about whether women have the faculties to compose or not, and I assume that you mean, as do men.  There are a few things wrong with this also in that, you are still using known men composers as a basis for comparison (who's got it, who hasn't ?) when it is not really about whether the composer is known or not.  And if there were not any known composers (including our own self), we would not know anything of composition.  So yes, who did what is important afterall. I would say that the very fact that women can be listed as "prominent" (which means what in this context exactly?  Popularity?  Fame? ) composers is enough to prove that they do have the faculties to compose... but this will not satisfy the debate, obviously.

To take it further, what exactly are those "faculties" that you speak of then ?  Intelligence?  Are you saying this is solely a quality of the male?  If so, then this thread is not really about composition at all (which is more likely the case) but about man vs woman (not a recommended battle... but bring it on .. just joking... but seriously... bring it on... no really, let's not... he he).  So is the faculty for composition that of inventiveness?  Is this a solely masculine quality then?  ETC.

Without using accomplished men as examples to prove your point or without using unaccomplished women, please prove it to me anyway.  What exactly is the point here, by the way?

m1469

[Siberian Husky]

Dear m1469,

Aint nothin better than a strong opinionated woman,

Sencirely Your Gardener
Luis The Mexican

[contrapunctus]

Well, first of all, Contrapunctus, I understand that you are simply trying to take a position of extreme for the sake of "trying to start a philosophical debate."  So you say, this thread is not about who can name the most women composers, however within your initial argument you state :

So is this thread about knowing the women who compose or not ?  If it is,  then people pointing out women who have composed/do compose seems entirely appropriate and should sufficiently satisfy the argument.  There are many women who compose, and not knowing about them can be very related to social issues.  But this is not really your point, is it...(?)  So I would be inclined to throw out entirely that sentence which I have quoted above because for that matter, there are also many men composers whom people do not know about.

Your real question is about whether women have the faculties to compose or not, and I assume that you mean, as do men.  There are a few things wrong with this also in that, you are still using known men composers as a basis for comparison (who's got it, who hasn't ?) when it is not really about whether the composer is known or not.  And if there were not any known composers (including our own self), we would not know anything of composition.  So yes, who did what is important afterall. I would say that the very fact that women can be listed as "prominent" (which means what in this context exactly?  Popularity?  Fame? ) composers is enough to prove that they do have the faculties to compose... but this will not satisfy the debate, obviously.

To take it further, what exactly are those "faculties" that you speak of then ?  Intelligence?  Are you saying this is solely a quality of the male?  If so, then this thread is not really about composition at all (which is more likely the case) but about man vs woman (not a recommended battle... but bring it on .. just joking... but seriously... bring it on... no really, let's not... he he).  So is the faculty for composition that of inventiveness?  Is this a solely masculine quality then?  ETC.

Without using accomplished men as examples to prove your point or without using unaccomplished women, please prove it to me anyway.  What exactly is the point here, by the way?

m1469

You obviously want me to bring it on, so I will. Females have many innate diferences compared to males such as childberth, etc. So, it is possible that females could have innate intellegence diferences too. The fact that human beings evolved in the way where males must hunt, and females stay home and raise children makes it even more likely that there is a fundamental innate defference in the intellegence of the sexes. Hunting involves bigger brain capacity than does nursing for obvious reasons. This difference of intellegence may have found its way to modern times. I admit that there are many many females who are smarter than myself, but as mikeyg said earlier there are many more males considered great in all fields than females, and I believe that this ability to exceed far far beyond the average which is much more common in men in today's society shows that men are more capable of extreme intellegence than women.  

[Siberian Husky]

OMG dude..your doing the stupidest thing in the world..your facts are subjectively driven emulettes of verbal diarrhea..i mean..hey..im a manly kinda guy..but i havea great deal of respect for women and i do not doubt their capacties nor do i favor a man's capacity over a womans...to do so is to attribute an uneducated over opinionated subjective fixation on miniscule "facts" that are reenforced by vague data that characteristics ambiguity to a magnitude that couldnt concretely solidify ANYTHING for the sake of holding an argument like this..in other words..just give up

[contrapunctus]

OMG dude..your doing the stupidest thing in the world..your facts are subjectively driven emulettes of verbal diarrhea..i mean..hey..im a manly kinda guy..but i havea great deal of respect for women and i do not doubt their capacties nor do i favor a man's capacity over a womans...to do so is to attribute an uneducated over opinionated subjective fixation on miniscule "facts" that are reenforced by vague data that characteristics ambiguity to a magnitude that couldnt concretely solidify ANYTHING for the sake of holding an argument like this..in other words..just give up

You are just B. S. ing. I think that there is a need for this kind of study. Every body seems to think it is horrible when somebody suggests that there is any defference between the sexes at all. I agree with Harvard's president that this needs to be investigated. I said earlier that there are many many women smarter than me. But I think it is insane that you politically correct liberals are inhibiting the progress on this subject which most definately needs to be investigated. Oh, and I have great respect for women's abilities also, and you said "stupidest." Funny.

[Rach3]

Why is this in the "Repertoire" forum?

[apion]

Historically, the male-to-female ratio of great composers is SO ONESIDED (like 250 to 1) that it seems quite reasonable to conclude that females are not as inclined to compose masterpieces as males.

[m1469]

Contrapunctus and viewers,

Have you ever heard of Jane Elliot (I think she is brilliant, by the way)?  Our topic here reminded me of a documentry I once saw about a program Jane Elliot ran with her grade-schoolers and then later with adult teachers; "a Class Divided" the program is titled.  You can watch the entire program here as well as read more about it if you wish (I would STRONGLY urge anybody in the world to watch this entire program more than once), but I will explain the gist of it.  While this program was initiated primarily because of racial prejudices, there are some strong similarities and some very interesting occurances that are worth the relation with our subject here.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html

She divided her class into two groups; brown eyed individuals and blue-eyed individuals.  The first day, she told the class that the blue-eyed people are better than the brown eyed; they are smarter, they are better behaved, etc.  What is so interesting is that after a brief disbelief by a couple of class members, the entire class started to believe it was true.  The brown-eyed children thought they were less intelligent and the blue-eyed believed that they themselves were superior in the land of intelligence.  She went on to point out behaviors that are "typical" of the group of inferiority and used whatever she could against them.  In essence, the group began to witness the exact traits that seemed to prove there to be a genuine difference in the level of intelligence between brown-eyed people and blue-eyed people.  You would have to watch the document to really get what goes on in the dynamics of the group.

The next day, Jane tells her class that she lied the day before.  It is really the brown-eyed individuals who are smarter and more capable.  Funny enough, the dynamics of the class change and the children all start to believe it even though the day before they believed the complete opposite and witnessed the behavior to back up the belief. 

To continue, there are tests run each day that reveal shocking results about what can happen to a group of smart individuals when they are told they are not so.  This is shown within the second frame.

Now, I would like to ask, do you see that for years upon years women have been told they are not as intelligent as men?  What do you suppose the result of this would be?  Given the simple program run by Jane Elliot in her class of grade-schoolers, I would think it to be shocking what effect this kind of mental manipulation can have on not only and individual, but a group of individuals. 

Try standing in a room were everybody is laughing and pointing at you and only you, something must be wrong with you, right?  Our Earth is just a "large" room, but many people don't think of it that way.  We tend to think we are the center of the universe and because of that, we turn on each other out of sheer ignorance and perhaps even boredom.

Jane Elliot carried this program over into a group of well-educated, mature and intelligent adults (teachers), funny enough, with similar results.

At the end of the day I would like to think I will be strong enough to know who I am despite the people whom try to say differently.  Sometimes, even when you know you're right, it's tough to stand in that knowing in the face of many who would happily exclaim that you are wrong.

Ratios, historical "facts", percentages and so forth will never measure the breadth of my essence and I hope I will never let them give a final word on who I am, who I can be, and who I am not or will never be.  This is not really even my personal journey, it is everyone's, individually and collectively.

m1469

[Siberian Husky]

You are just B. S. ing. I think that there is a need for this kind of study. Every body seems to think it is horrible when somebody suggests that there is any defference between the sexes at all. I agree with Harvard's president that this needs to be investigated. I said earlier that there are many many women smarter than me, including most on the forum. But I think it is insane that you politically correct liberals are inhibiting the progress on this subject ehich most definately needs to be investigated. Oh, and I have great respect for women's abilities also, and you said "stupidest." Funny.

making fun of me?..

OoO Oo Ooo lemme guess..you play piano better than me too...


look bro..from what it sounds like..you already have an established theory of mind or set of strong opinions on the matter...why shake things up?...and whats your motive for starting this thread with such detailed intention?

[Torp]

Ratios, historical "facts", percentages and so forth will never measure the breadth of my essence and I hope I will never let them give a final word on who I am, who I can be, and who I am not or will never be.  This is not really even my personal journey, it is everyone's, individually and collectively.

m1469

You go girl!!

Jef

[abell88]

Now, I would like to ask, do you see that for years upon years women have been told they are not as intelligent as men?  What do you suppose the result of this would be?  Given the simple program run by Jane Elliot in her class of grade-schoolers, I would think it to be shocking what effect this kind of mental manipulation can have on not only and individual, but a group of individuals.

I remember reading, when I was a teenager, that women could not become great composers, because their creative energies went into child-rearing. I was saddened...fortunately my piano teacher (male) got me started on composing and never suggested I was anything less than competent and talented. Although I have not had the opportunity to continue with formal composition studies, I have continued for my own pleasure and have had some of my work evaluated by a very well-published professional (male) composer, who told me that I had talent, my works were publishable, and encouraged me to continue.  If I hadn't had this encouragement -- if I'd only encountered people like Contrapunctus -- I suppose I would be sadly dreaming, wishing I'd been born the right sex to compose, not doomed to express myself solely through my children.

Alice

[rachmaninoff_969]

GO ALEXINA LOUIE!!!  She's amazing, and she's Canadian!!!

[mikeyg]

m1469,

Believe me, I am not sexist.  I respect a woman just as much as anyone else.  However, people do have to recognize that there are physical diferences in the brain between men and women.  Men have larger brains.  Men have more grey matter.  So, to completely dismiss the possibility that there may be different in thought capabilities between men and women on the grounds that it is "sexist" is unnacceptable. 

Men, naturally, have better spacial capacity then women.  Eomen, in turn, have better communication skills then men.  We are different.  They question then becomes does our being different make us better than one another, and I believe it doesn't.  Is it possible that men can just naturally compose better than women, absolutely.  But that doesn't stop the fact that some women can create beautiful things.  It's all a matter of extremes.  Like I said, the to 99.9 percent of the population in regards to intellegence may be composed of 90% men, but the same goes for the bottom 99.9%.

[m1469]

Well thank heavens for those stats.  I was not sure for many years now why I kept missing my free throws in high school basketball.  But now I think I understand, I am bad at spatial relationships and there is nothing I can do about it because I am a woman.. but then again, Shaquille O' Neil was known for missing his free throws also and he is male and a professional athlete at that.  It must be a fluke.  But he is much bigger than I all around, surely his brain is bigger and surely he has more grey matter, so that would make him smarter and better it would seem... but I can't really put this together in my feeble little girl brain.

I am grateful now that I don't have to bother trying to compose anything, I mean what would be the point exactly being as I am only a woman with no potential to compose because I am not a man.  Finally, I can do something useful with my little feeble brain.  Well, perhaps I should just turn my entire head into an aquarium for tropical fish... or a haven for endangered spiders.   By the way, all you small men, you are not smart enough to compose either because you have smaller brains than do large men.  But what if my brain is larger than a small man's?  Oh... I can't do the math, I am far too feeble a brain.

Scratch at my surface and you'll get fire.  The bottom line is that what we are depends on who we are individually.  So if I as a woman compose "better" than a man, that doesn't count, right?  Because I am not the whole of womanhood... so how many women does it take to tip the scales?  Anyway, my life goal is not to prove my womanhood, it's not to prove my intelligence and I am not a musician to try to prove that women stand a chance in this field.   I do what I do as I am called to do it, as an idividual.

m1469

[mikeyg]

Way to overreact 

FEMINAZI.

so you deny that men are women are differen't.  My god, I wonder what people are like in Australia...

[m1469]

Way to overreact 

FEMINAZI.

Yeah, he he... I thought you would enjoy that 

[mikeyg]

Yeah, he he... I thought you would enjoy that 

I love you too 

I just don't see why you over reacted so much.  What I said wasn't offensive.  Ididn't lie   said i think men and women are equals.

[Torp]

This question really comes down to the raging debate between Nature vs. Nurture, i.e. we are what we are because of genetics, or we are what we are because of how we were raised.

I personally don't think the answer is black and white, either/or.  I've never quite understood the whole brain size argument.  Regardless, if we assume that brain size is directly related to compositional ability we'd be left with a fairly untenable position of trying to defend why the largest, tallest people in history are not overrepresented in the population of composers, regardless of whether those people were male or female.

Assuming that brain size leads to higher intelligence, and assuming that higher intelligence is necessary for compositional prowess, we should have a plethora of composers of phenomenal ability coming out of places like MIT or Caltech.  Why don't we?

Yes, there are biological differences among men and women.  However, there is sufficient genetic diversity among the human population and among men and women that there are men and women of vastly varying sizes and even more varying levels of intelligence and accomplishment.

In 200+ years the US has never had a femal president.  However, other countries have had numerous female leaders.  The fact that the US has not reached an appropriate level of social awareness to elect a female does not 'prove' that women are somehow inferior; it only indicates that the social structure is not ready for it.

There are many, many professions where women are underrepresented vs their representation in the population as a whole.  For years women were not allowed to enter the military, etc.  In each instance it is social policy that often uses supposed genetic feebleness/inferiority to justify its position.  The same arguments were used for years in this country to segregate and discriminate against minorities.

There are genetic and biological differences.  It is important to acknowledge these differences.  However, I have yet to see any credible evidence that even remotely suggests that those differences have any real affect on a persons abilities.  The greatest single barrier that anyone will ever face in this world is not their genetics, but rather people's perceptions and behaviors regarding those genetics.

Just a few thoughts...

Jef

[m1469]

This question really comes down to the raging debate between Nature vs. Nurture, i.e. we are what we are because of genetics, or we are what we are because of how we were raised.

I personally don't think the answer is black and white, either/or.  I've never quite understood the whole brain size argument.  Regardless, if we assume that brain size is directly related to compositional ability we'd be left with a fairly untenable position of trying to defend why the largest, tallest people in history are not overrepresented in the population of composers, regardless of whether those people were male or female.

Assuming that brain size leads to higher intelligence, and assuming that higher intelligence is necessary for compositional prowess, we should have a plethora of composers of phenomenal ability coming out of places like MIT or Caltech.  Why don't we?

Yes, there are biological differences among men and women.  However, there is sufficient genetic diversity among the human population and among men and women that there are men and women of vastly varying sizes and even more varying levels of intelligence and accomplishment.

In 200+ years the US has never had a femal president.  However, other countries have had numerous female leaders.  The fact that the US has not reached an appropriate level of social awareness to elect a female does not 'prove' that women are somehow inferior; it only indicates that the social structure is not ready for it.

There are many, many professions where women are underrepresented vs their representation in the population as a whole.  For years women were not allowed to enter the military, etc.  In each instance it is social policy that often uses supposed genetic feebleness/inferiority to justify its position.  The same arguments were used for years in this country to segregate and discriminate against minorities.

There are genetic and biological differences.  It is important to acknowledge these differences.  However, I have yet to see any credible evidence that even remotely suggests that those differences have any real affect on a persons abilities.  The greatest single barrier that anyone will ever face in this world is not their genetics, but rather people's perceptions and behaviors regarding those genetics.

Just a few thoughts...

Jef

he he... Torp has communicated much better than I.  Appreciate your comments.

m1469

[contrapunctus]

Where are you getting the idea that body size translates into brain size? m1469, you are basically saying that you think there are no differences in men and women, which is a feminist thought and is totally untrue. You are being blinded from rational thinking by these feminist thoughts, and its people like you who are inhibiting progress in this area. And by the way, Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor and in a debate it would only be used by the clear loser who has nothing else to say to prove himself.

[mikeyg]

Where are you getting the idea that body size translates into brain size? Half the people at MIT are almost midgets. m1469, you are basically saying that you think there are no differences in men and women, which is a feminist thought and is totally untrue. You are being blinded from rational thinking by thesxe feminist thoughts, and its people like you who are inhibiting progress in this area. And by the way, Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor and in an educated argument it would only be used by the clear loser who has nothing else to say to prove himself.

*mikeyg gets the rope*

[m1469]

Where are you getting the idea that body size translates into brain size? Half the people at MIT are almost midgets. m1469, you are basically saying that you think there are no differences in men and women, which is a feminist thought and is totally untrue. You are being blinded from rational thinking by thesxe feminist thoughts, and its people like you who are inhibiting progress in this area. And by the way, Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor and in an educated argument it would only be used by the clear loser who has nothing else to say to prove himself.

LOL, this is getting ridiculous.  I have never said that I don't think there are differences between men and women, now you are just putting words in my mouth.  I happen to think there are differences between all individuals.  I am not convinced that "progress" in this area is your motive here.  You really have no idea what kinds of things I have done in my life and you clearly do not know who I am, so please refrain from commenting as though you know me.  If you are failing to recognize that I have given you intelligent responses (at least for the most part) then that is not my problem.

I am not speaking on behalf of feminine power, it's not my place.  I have never had such a desire.  I am speaking on behalf of myself and that is my place.  I will not be swayed by what the world says I should be.. it's as simple as that.  So what is there to argue about?  The world says "yes you are" and I say "no I am not" (or vice versa).. where does that get anybody? 

People have picked and chosen places to argue with me and have not even addressed the questions I have brought up.  Do you think I have not noticed? 

m1469

[Torp]

Where are you getting the idea that body size translates into brain size?

Within human beings the body size correlates quite well with brain size, i.e. our brains grow proportionally to the rest of our body.  I believe someone else has started the argument that brain size equated to enhanced intelligence and made a broad leap to then state that enhanced intelligence leads to better compositional skill.

What type of "progress" is it that's being inhibited exactly?  There seems to be plenty of researched books out there that deal with the differences between men and women.  If I can put words into m1469's mouth for a moment, I believe the point being made is that there are differences between men and women.  However, those differences don't make one better or worse than the other.

It would appear that you have already made up your mind that men are somehow genetically smarter (on what scale that could ever be acurately measured I have no idea) and your looking for someone to perform some sort of research to "verify" this.

Historically, men may have scored higher in many types of exams.  However, once women were afforded the same educational opportunities this disparity stopped.  I can't think of one intellectual pursuit where women have not achieved the same levels as men.  If you simply make the argument that more men have achieved that same level that has nothing to do with the intelligence capabilities of the people involved, rather with the choices they have made with their intelligence.

There is also an extreme underrepresentation of almost every "minority" (put in parenthesis because in many parts of the world they are not minorities) in the "famous" composer world.  Are you prepared to make the argument that virtually every other race besides basic, white Europeans are too lacking in intelligence to be accomplished composers?

Jef

[Rach3]

m1469, you are basically saying that you think there are no differences in men and women, which is a feminist thought and is totally untrue. You are being blinded from rational thinking by thesxe feminist thoughts, and its people like you who are inhibiting progress in this area.

No! You are the one who is not thinking rationally - because you decided on your conclusion (men and women think very differently, women are biologically less apt to compose, etc.) and then made up your own justification to support it. It is true that studies suggest differences in how men and women in the real world think - statistically women favor the "left" mode of thinking (artistic, intuitive...) vs. men slightly favoring the "right" mode (mathematical, spatial). These studies mean very little by themselves - they reflect how a real population sample differs in the 100th person. This does not reflect at all on potential or ability of individuals - averages are really meaningless there (esp. when the correlations I mentioned are quite weak to begin with).
The point - what really matters is how you interpret these correlations. You think the big difference is biological. But the conventional interpretation (note I say "interpretation" - these things are not well understood) is that sociological pressure is the overwhelming factor in how different people choose to think! For a researcher trying to form a hypothesis - this is the most obvious first choice; just look at the incredible social stigma in 19th century society on women composers or scientists or mathematicians (many of which used false, male names to hide their gender). m1469's example with the experiment done on students shows a slightly different example of how social ideas affect psychology. The debate (not unique to gender differences) of biology vs. society, or nature vs. nurture, may or may not be somewhat valid both ways; it's almost impossible to distinguish between the two, because no study can exclude societal pressures or bias - just as no study can exclude eons of evolutionary preference.
On the other hand, Contrapunctus prefers to think of this as a "philosophical discussion" (his words) - where you can simply start talking and reason your way to the answer - without examining the real world at all. In fact that's exactly what he does:

...The fact that human beings evolved in the way where males must hunt, and females stay home and raise children makes it even more likely that there is a fundamental innate defference in the intellegence of the sexes. Hunting involves bigger brain capacity than does nursing for obvious reasons...

Note that he starts with the reasoning and ends up with categorical facts about society! This is the key fallacy here (not unique to contrapunctus) - the fallacy that the explanation of a theory proves the theory.

I'm taking a break, I hope this makes some sense...

-Rach3

[Torp]

I'm taking a break, I hope this makes some sense...

-Rach3

Made perfect sense to me.  Nicely said.

Jef

[contrapunctus]

a

[m1469]

Actually, though I was a bit on the furious side for a little bit I appreciate the discussion anyway from the standpoint of it having clarified some important things for me.  I suppose we could not really ask for much more, especially from such a large and admittedly touchy subject as this can be.  Yes, we all make mistakes and I have made plenty.  No worries eh? 
 
m1469

[contrapunctus]

Actually, though I was a bit on the furious side for a little bit I appreciate the discussion anyway from the standpoint of it having clarified some important things for me.  I suppose we could not really ask for much more, especially from such a large and admittedly touchy subject as this can be.  Yes, we all make mistakes and I have made plenty.  No worries eh? 
 
m1469

No worries, but, may I ask, what things were clarified to you in the discussion. Sorry for making you so furious.

[lostinidlewonder]

The Big Five Russian nationalists which included rimsy-korsakov and mussorgsky wrote some very good music, but they were not formally educated in music

Yeah but they are unique and rare, and MEN. The fact that you are Man meant that you could socialise with "greater" male composers and thus learn a lot from them. Holst was even an amature at composition, but really these guys who didn't have education had a freaky amount of natural ability, a lot of peoples compositional ability is way below their potential because they never unlock it with education.

The Mighty Five would have recieved a great amont of musical education, if it was not during their childhood most definatly when they where older. Women on the other hand where not allowed education even when they where adults.

[i_m_robot]

 :ocompose!?

what're they doin out the kitchen 


jk


chopin could have been a woman  in disguise and no one would ever know

[m1469]

No worries, but, may I ask, what things were clarified to you in the discussion. Sorry for making you so furious.

Well, that I will take on the world if I have to (preferably in a beautiful, silk, form fitting gown... diamond-sapphire earings, and the perfect pedalling shoes... he he) ....LOL.  But that this is not my goal; Music is.  I realized that music and piano are deeply embedded in me, actually, and that I have something to say... and that I cannot let ignorance bring me down.   I also realized that I can compose... he he.


m1469

[Siberian Husky]

Please forgive me for bringing up this discussion; It was a lack of rational thinking on my part. I am sorry, and for all of you who hate me now please forgive me and note the one think that is common in both men and women: that we are all capable of making mistakes. Pkease forgive me. Thankyou.

hey man...its alright...i love you with all my body..even my peepee..

*hip hop hug*

[mikeyg]

hey man...its alright...i love you with all my body..even my peepee..

*hip hop hug*

Good God, zip your pants!!!

[contrapunctus]

a

[mikeyg]

Excuse me?


And, I know that you are a better pianist than me because I am just fifteen.

Husky just started though...

[contrapunctus]

a