Why don't girls like techno?

[chava]

But look at house music, it has a shit load more women in the game.

Female house producers? Hmm, I can't come to think of any. Shanti Celeste maybe, but not exactly a household name.

[chava]

Basically gender differences emerge from two things: biological sex (organs and hormones) and social conditioning. Pretty much everyone in the relevant physical and social sciences agree on this, they just disagree on where to draw the line between them. However, nearly everyone agrees that gender roles are broadly shaped by social conditioning and not just testosterone/estrogen levels. A lot of the stuff that's generally assumed to be "natural" for men and women is anything but. .

You'd be surprised of some of the claims coming out of Gender Studies in regards to how little, if anything, biological factors have.

[The_G]

The social conditioning bit in particular can't be overstated IMO - I've seen a few people raise points in this thread about things like lack of vocals, interest in gadgets/nerdy things etc. These are all down to social conditioning more than, say, biology. Those reducing it to saying that's just the way things are, that women are inherently less likely to be interested in technical pursuits, etc. are ignoring the fact that society is still generally quite sexist and that these things can be changed to the benefit of everyone...

The why aren't there more women in engineering jobs in the least sexist places in the world (Western Europe)? It's not like these fields doesn't need extra hands as that's where the jobs are. And vice versa. Where are all the male nurses?

You bet the social conditioning bit is overstated.

Nurse is probably the worst example I can think of for your argument. There is zero basis for the gendering of doctor/nurse in biology. That is literally all conditioning and institutional power imbalances, in Europe as elsewhere.

(In the US, the main reason you don't see more male nurses is lingering stigma about doing traditional "women's work.)

Music taste, especially when it comes to aggressive music, is harder to disentangle--since men are both hardwired and conditioned to be aggressive.

[rmac]

For me this is a strong bit of evidence that bilogical factors play a decent part of the equation?

This was written in 2012 though so perhaps things have changed, but from as young as 3months there is a trend to be drawn in male and female preferences? Am I reading that right?

https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls ... rucks.html

[chava]

For me this is a strong bit of evidence that bilogical factors play a decent part of the equation?

This was written in 2012 though so perhaps things have changed, but from as young as 3months there is a trend to be drawn in male and female preferences? Am I reading that right?

https://www.livescience.com/22677-girls ... rucks.html

1 day as investigated by top researcher Simon Baron-Cohen (cousin of Ali G):

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... reducation

[Lost to the Void]

But look at house music, it has a shit load more women in the game.

Female house producers? Hmm, I can't come to think of any. Shanti Celeste maybe, but not exactly a household name.

DJs. I have no idea about producers.

[Hades]

haven't had a chance to read through most of this topic up till now,
will love to do so later,
but in the mean time, I can certainly think of a few other parts of our society who are not represented much in techno country.

[chava]

Nurse is probably the worst example I can think of for your argument. There is zero basis for the gendering of doctor/nurse in biology. That is literally all conditioning and institutional power imbalances, in Europe as elsewhere.

(In the US, the main reason you don't see more male nurses is lingering stigma about doing traditional "women's work.)

Do you really believe that the primary reason why there only are 3-4% male nurses in Sweden is because of institutional power politics that hold men back, no matter how strong their desire is? You can say a lot about swedish men, but I doubt that they are that submissive.

In Saudi Arabia the number of male nurses exceeds 30%, by the way.

[The_G]

Nurse is probably the worst example I can think of for your argument. There is zero basis for the gendering of doctor/nurse in biology. That is literally all conditioning and institutional power imbalances, in Europe as elsewhere.

(In the US, the main reason you don't see more male nurses is lingering stigma about doing traditional "women's work.)

Do you really believe that the primary reason why there only are 3-4% male nurses in Sweden is because of institutional power politics that hold men back, no matter how strong their desire is? You can say a lot about swedish men, but I doubt that they are that submissive.

In Saudi Arabia the number of male nurses exceeds 30%, by the way

Er, no. Institutional power imbalances funnel women into the lower prestige work (nursing)--yes, even in Sweden. Men are conditioned to think "doctor or bust," since conditioning has placed a stigma against men doing work coded as female (over many generations)--yes, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden. That's very basic, 101 level example of social gendering.

Pretty much the worst possible example for an argument about biological determinism.

[disparate]

Er, no. Institutional power imbalances funnel women into the lower prestige work (nursing)--yes, even in Sweden. Men are conditioned to think "doctor or bust," since conditioning has placed a stigma against men doing work coded as female (over many generations)--yes, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden. That's very basic, 101 level example of social gendering.

Pretty the worst possible example for an argument about biological determinism.

Indeed. Kinda reminds me of guys complaining that men tend to disproportionately do 'dirty' jobs and manual labour etc. as if that's some kind of reverse sexism at play - again it all simply goes back to cultural factors borne out of a patriarchal society.

And I didn't think most women even worked in Saudi

[The_G]

Er, no. Institutional power imbalances funnel women into the lower prestige work (nursing)--yes, even in Sweden. Men are conditioned to think "doctor or bust," since conditioning has placed a stigma against men doing work coded as female (over many generations)--yes, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden. That's very basic, 101 level example of social gendering.

Pretty the worst possible example for an argument about biological determinism.

Indeed. Kinda reminds me of guys complaining that men tend to disproportionately do 'dirty' jobs and manual labour etc. as if that's some kind of reverse sexism at play - again it all simply goes back to cultural factors borne out of a patriarchal society.

And I didn't think most women even worked in Saudi

Yup, and you can historically trace it in the case of nursing. Actually, the word "nurse" comes from "wet nurse," i.e. a woman paid to breastfeed so that noble and wealthy women did not have to do it themselves--so that's a bit of a hint.

In any event, during the Middle Ages, hospitals and clinics were run by either monasteries or convents (more often monasteries), and the caregivers either all male or all female. After the French Revolution, when the size of standing armies grew tremendously, European states (and the US during the Civil War) began running hospitals to treat the unprecedented number of wounded and dying. Since men were earmarked for conscription, and only men could pursue becoming doctor, the role of caregiver and physician's assistant went to women. That gendering has been institutionalized now for almost 200 years.

[chava]

Nurse is probably the worst example I can think of for your argument. There is zero basis for the gendering of doctor/nurse in biology. That is literally all conditioning and institutional power imbalances, in Europe as elsewhere.

(In the US, the main reason you don't see more male nurses is lingering stigma about doing traditional "women's work.)

Do you really believe that the primary reason why there only are 3-4% male nurses in Sweden is because of institutional power politics that hold men back, no matter how strong their desire is? You can say a lot about swedish men, but I doubt that they are that submissive.

In Saudi Arabia the number of male nurses exceeds 30%, by the way

Er, no. Institutional power imbalances funnel women into the lower prestige work (nursing)--yes, even in Sweden. Men are conditioned to think "doctor or bust," since conditioning has placed a stigma against men doing work coded as female (over many generations)--yes, even in relatively egalitarian Sweden. That's very basic, 101 level example of social gendering.

Pretty much the worst possible example for an argument about biological determinism.

I guess Sweden must be the most patriarchical society in the world, then.

I can only repeat this: When you do what you can to eliminate social, economical and (yes, over time also) cultural barriers for education and work, the instinctive result would be that the labor market should reflect that in a 50/50 gender distribution. The countries where this has been tried to the most extreme, namely Scandinavia for more than 40 years, the exact opposite has happened. The conclusion must be that there's something else that determine this, and it wouldn't be so crazy to think that women and men do have different interest in general.

Obviously there's a factor of gendering stereotypes, always, but to think this is the main reason is wrong, or deluded even. It is also very hard to determine without resorting to bias.

[Stace]

So, in parts of Africa it is believed if you have HIV the way to cure yourself is to go and rape someone who is a virgin, by doing that it will totally rid you of the disease.
Is that down to race? I mean, the majority of Africa is inhabited by people of a different race to the UK/ Europe.
The other thing to note here is that white men that are of the same belief and they do the same thing to rid themselves of HIV. This makes it a CULTURAL issue, NOT a race issue.

Very much in the same way that predisposition to techno/ hard music/ technology whatever is cultural and has little to nothing to do with biology or the way that we are constructed as humans, it is culture. It isn't Oestrogen and Testosterone. It is what we are shown and told. Women can get just as mad about shit as men do. I mean, have you any idea how it feels to have to keep a lid on all those hormones, all the time?

Why is it that when you see a little girl, in most cases most of the compliments that she will get are about being pretty, your dress looks nice, your hair looks cute in bunches where are with little boys the emphasis is mainly on how clever they are. Look at them play with their jigsaw, look at them use their digger in the sand. They get told how smart and capable they are.
I feel INCREDIBLY lucky that I had a dad who encouraged me to go to his shed and help him build a glider or do some woodwork with him. I wasn't a little girl who had dolls and liked to play dress up.
I directly attribute this to the fact I got into computers at such a young age - I got an Atari ST when I was somewhere around 8 years old and have really never looked back.

Why don't to the best of your knowledge more women post on here? Well, maybe they do but you don't know they are female.
Don't forget I come from a time where by message boards were a big deal and widely used, that isn't the case as much these days.
You would really need to look at all the resources that females (specifically) use to make music to see what they are actually using, just as they are not here it don't mean that there are not plenty of people doing it, using other services and sites.
Also, do you really think topics like "Why don't girls like techno?" is conducive to attracting females to post on here?? I know most of you well enough that posts like this don't put me off coming on here and posting but other people might not feel the same. I don't give a shit about getting into a lively debate with any of you but I have been round these parts for a while now and if I had just started posting on here I wouldn't have felt anywhere near as comfortable, seeing a post that seemingly singled me out based on my gender and my gender alone.

Anyways, I am done. I am not adding anymore to this, I don't have the energy to get into this whole thing again. I'll just find the previous thread and link that as I am not down with repeating myself all over again.

[chava]

Women can get just as mad about shit as men do. I mean, have you any idea how it feels to have to keep a lid on all those hormones, all the time?

That is correct and well-documented, women are more aggressive in relationships.

[Hades]

And I didn't think most women even worked in Saudi

but they do, all the time,
it's just that they don't get paid to do it.

[Lost to the Void]

The point is that culture did not arrive out of the ether.
It wasn`t some biblical thing. "And god said let there be culture, and there was culture"

Culture arrived out of us, out of our physiology.
Male dominance wasn`t something decided upon.
There wasn`t some pre civilisation get together of proto humans who said "Right lads, sexism for the next few millenia ey?"
The male dominant society arose out of physiology, and can still be seen in some mostly untouched tribes in the south americas.

The men go out and hunt and kill, the women nurture the young etc. (yes yes, vastly simplified)
This wasn`t a sexist decision, nor am I arguing for sexism (though I am arguing against the dumb denial that has turned feminism from something serious to something of a parody of itself), but this arose from us.
Go look at, well, the entirety of history. Wars, killing aggression, all done by men (with a few very isolated exeptions).
If you look at our closest relatives, the intelligent apes, the males fight for dominance over the females, the right to fuck. It`s not that much different with us.
We have invented all these rules, but if men could fight to fuck, they would, in fact they do still, just go out in romford on a friday to see this, nothing like alcohol to reduce the brain the base thinking, fight, fuck, food. (Alcohol actually shits down the brain, so the more drunk we get, literally the more devolved we get).

We are more prone to violence, it`s a part of our make up. We can of course overcome physiology, but it is always within us. Men will always want to fuck everything they can as nature wants us to spread our seed.
Testosterone is a facilitator of violence. Regardless of gender, studies have show that the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers.
Now men have more testosterone than women anyway, so we have this facilitator that makes us more prone to violence. I don`t know how it can be said any more simply than that.

No doubt extreme feminists would point to a Silverback dominant male in a mountain gorilla troop and declare "sexist" as he grabs another female and fucks the shit out of her, but.... biology.

The whole fight for equality comes out of this. A lot of culture is against our base nature and we battle against out base nature all the time.

Rape, for example (again, not arguing for it) biologically is pretty normal. Grab female, fuck female. All, well... most, men, have that in them, it`s in their nuts pulsing at their brains, "look at that....fuck it fuck it fuck it" of course the majority of us don`t do it, because we are conditioned away from it, but it`s a natural urge. In the same way it is natural to fuck a fertile girl, but in some societies the legal age is 16, some 18, some 14 etc. In biological terms, as soon as they are fertile they are fair game (and again I`m not arguing for kiddy fiddling).

So of course we are different, the whole of history is a testament to that.
Yes women should get equality, in all things, if that is what they want, whatever you want as long as you do no harm should pretty much be a universal law, but to deny our differences is literally to deny biology and reality.
Estrogen is not Testosterone.
XX and XY are not the name.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am not you, you are not me. I haven`t been with my missus for....erm.. 20 years.....fuck..... because she is just like me, I mean I could just lube up and wank in the mirror if I wanted that, she`s different than me, she is my other half, we compliment each other (every day I say "nice tits love" before sending her to the kitchen to make me a sandwich, what better compliment than that is there?), she also happens to like really heavy music, metal, techno, industrial (though none of the really extreme stuff) which is awesome, I mean I met her at an industrial fetish club so we both weren`t looking for norms anyway.

there are always exceptions to everything, but embrace our differences and celebrate them, or fall down the path into homogeneity, which is as much horror as any dystopian orwellian future.

[chava]

That testosterone causes aggressive behaviour is not clear, the jury is still out on that. Is might cause dominant behaviour, but that is another thing.

If you look at our closest relatives, the intelligent apes, the males fight for dominance over the females, the right to fuck. It`s not that much different with us.

It does not take many encounters with women to understand who it is that decides when sex is okay. Also the big difference between chimpanzees (who aren't that antisocial in fact) and man is that women are picky and let men fight it out and then pick the best from the top. Chimpanzees do not need that because, well basically you can visually detect whether a female chimpanzee is in heat or not. Not so with us. Women decide.

Another way to put it is that any one of us has twice as many female ancetors as male. Which is a fucking mad evolutionary fact to consider if you ask me.

[Lost to the Void]

I think it has been close to proven that testosterone is what they call a facilitator to violence and aggressive behaviour, but not a cause.
It's like that asshole geezer egging his mate on "go on Darren smack him".
I always think of it as a violent monkey on your back.

[Lost to the Void]

Sort of off topic

Here’s how Barbara Smuts, a professor at the University of Michigan and a longtime observer of social relations in several primates—including hamadryas baboons, chimpanzees and orangutans—describes, in a seminal popular-science article in Discover magazine in 1995, masculine coercion of the female.
“…Sometimes, as I saw in Gombe (a wildlife reserve in Tanzania), a male chimpanzee even attacks an estrous female days before he tries to mate with her. Goodall (Jane, a pioneering ethologist) thinks that a male uses such aggression to train a female to fear him so that she will be more likely to surrender to his subsequent sexual advances. Similarly, male hamadryas baboons, who form small harems by kidnapping child brides, maintain a tight rein over their females through threats and intimidation. If, when another male is nearby, a hamadryas female strays even a few feet from her mate, he shoots her a threatening stare and raises his brows. She usually responds by rushing to his side; if not, he bites the back of her neck. The neck bite is ritualized—the male does not actually sink his razor-sharp canines into her flesh—but the threat of injury is clear. By repeating this behaviour hundreds of times, the male lays claim to particular females months or even years before mating with them. When a female comes into estrus, she solicits sex only from her harem master, and other males rarely challenge his sexual rights to her.”
The full article is a brilliant exposition of the fascinating evidence of social control in non-human primates and concludes with the intriguing hypothesis that there is a marked difference of violence in primates where females form defensive alliances of their own, and in primate species where such a defensive coterie is absent.
Among the big outstanding questions in research endeavours that aim to explain behaviour in biological terms—as the extremely intriguing but divisive science of sociobiology tries to do—is whether the capacity for calculated violence that exists in humans is an inextricable flipside of our ability for selflessness.
After all, no other species plots genocides as well as consciously and routinely adopts unrelated infants as their own, or are able to sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice of their life for even abstract ideals such as nation or unrelated communities (think freedom fighters). The only other class of species that would happily die for their own are ants and wasps, as has been brilliantly documented by Harvard biologist Edward O Wilson.
It would, of course, be of immense relief if our capacity for evil existed separately, like an elusive tumour that could be traced and excised. If evil were a clearly definable, aberrant state of mind, it could be changed or manipulated by psychiatric intervention of psychological counselling, but it is immensely more difficult if prescriptions on how women in a society must be treated stem from a view that sees women as an essentially separate and distinct kind of human and only therefore deserving of a special kind of attention and protection.
The noble and pragmatic policy that encourages companies to have a certain proportion of women represented on their boards (even if they are equally and no more and no less qualified than their male counterparts) to promote gender sensitivity for its own sake, still follows from the perception that women are a different category of humans. The same essential idea, in its atavistic, polar extreme has men treating women as tradable objects.
That rape in its avatar as a psychological bludgeon is found in unhuman species shows that the patriarchal mindset that is often blamed for breeding a society that begets rape is then too deeply ingrained and cannot be easily addressed purely by the exercise of rational thinking, which, as of now, is still believed to be the preserve of human beings. It might then probably explain the tragic fact that NO country—however egalitarian, aware and wealthy—has been able to eliminate rape and violence against women.

Though it does go on to say that we can overcome this probably, by also eliminating violence in our behaviour as a species.
Which is a wonderful dream, one that I fear will probably only be eliminated completely through genetics/eugenics

[TimBuys]

What I would like to add to that is generally speaking people LOVE to find someone from the opposite sex that has similar passions/interests. I doubt you will find a single guy on this forum that doesn't want more female producers in techno.