QUOTE (flute_gurl @ Apr 14 2005, 08:33 PM)

in my opinion, there are mental differences between people not between men & women. I don't think we should split the human race in half and assume that 1 half is better at certain things than others, because it just isn't true. We're all humans, and all have different strengths and weaknesses, therefore any generalisations are bound to be wrong.

Hear hear.

People are just people and all have different strengths and weaknesses.

It is completely wrong, unfair and unjust to generalise (and therefore to discriminate).

Unfortunately it happens, so we have to have laws to try and give people an equal opportunity. The fact that these laws are so recent (and the fact that we need them) means that it is still happening. I mean anti-age discrimination will not be law until October next year in the UK!!! So until then it is still legal for an organisation to refuse to employ me or not give me the same training as younger colleagues etc, simply because I am over 50 (surely I'm never that old )

The really scarey thing about this thread is that I would have hoped that we were now working towards a more diverse society where everyone is accepted as an individual on their own merits and not pre-judged on account of their gender (or whatever else), but it seems that the same old generalisations are still well held beliefs in the young.

Until the culture change happens then there will always be more men in positions of influence and power than women, and it just feels like this is a self perpetuating thing, because until women get to that position nothing seems able to change.

But I guess until then we (the women) can all sit at home cooking, cleaning, looking after the husband and kids, and feeling fulfilled by designing fancy frocks that the men will find us attractive in.

Sorry....rant over

Jane

QUOTE (Helen VJ @ Apr 14 2005, 09:38 PM)

While we're on the subject, has anyone else noticed the inherent egocentricity and arrogance in DGA's signature? There's nothing wrong with ambition; but why not aim to write great music, rather than to be 'The greatest composer and performer of all time' ? !! I think all the truly great performers ( such as Menuhin, to take a random MALE example) and composers possessed a considerable degree of humility. Also I'm wondering how this supreme arrogance sits with DGA's religious beliefs? Didn't Christ say 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth'? I don't think Christ ever said he was the greatest prophet ever, did he? Wel, perhaps we shouild be kinder to DGA, as he's a bloke, after all (See, we can do sweeping generalisations too!)

Ahhh....an arrow to the depths of my heart. This is really offensive content if you know exactly WHAT that line means to me.

I spend a portion of my days thinking of my ambitions, what I want to be now and when I am grown up. It is my ambition to become the greatest performer and composer of all time...but is it possible??? NO. Nobody can be considered like that, because music is very subjective.

I said "I want to become the greatest performer of all time..." does that mean that I am a great performer now??? NO. It is simply a dream...a dream I have carried on for 3 years now. I'm not even sure of achieving it! Now someone calls it arrogance...

Let's take a look into it. But I am completely sure that even IF I can become a famous musician, I won't be arrogant. When I wrote that line, there was NO intention of arrogance. So i will not change it.

"It has been my dream to become equivalent with the famous and great composers..."

This is not meant to sound morbid,but usually great composers,and this applies to artists aswell eg Van Gogh,are dead before they receive this recognition.When they are still alive and achieve a modium of success they are subject to extreme criticism....especially if they "shine" when young.

We all have dreams.I sincerely hope you realise yours. If we are all around in 30 to 40 years time,it would be interesting to read this thread again?

I agree it's not perhaps arrogance,given your age,but you are very stubborn. This can work to your advantage if you project yourself the right way,but,on the other hand, be prepared to experience adversity if people don't necessarily agree with your views. Look at this thread,for example.

Your mother's attitude and beliefs made me raise my eyebrows,but you are from a different culture to ours and this should be taken into consideration.

Don't lose your stubbornness,but be "discreet" and nurture it.

AmandaL - Your posting - Apr 14 2005, 01:39 PM

Appreciate what you are saying,but you are addressing an 13 year old boy here. He really has no idea what you are talking about,because he has no experience.Unlike you and I. I can guarantee I have a more broader experience of life than you-as have others here too.Please don't be too hard on him.

The only way to succeed in this life to make men think they are superior.You understand the saying " Behind every powerful man..." The thing is with me,I can't be bothered with men at all. I just carry on in my own way and don't answer to anyone. As for religion and dare I say,politics, I twist the disadvantages there to my own advantage. It just needs patience and perserverance...Men, if they see this in a woman,become uncomfortable! But over the years I have learnt to rely on myself.

I don't like ALW,but Tim Rice's...I can see why they parted company.. lyrics for Evita ...have you read her biography(ies) ? just about sum it up.Things haven't really changed...Parker-Bowles is another prime example!

Invest in a poetry book entitled " The World`s Wife" by Carol Ann Duffy. I think you might like it.The more you read it,the more you see it in.

I've always found it difficult to understand the idea of God as either male or female. As the Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe, God is beyond concepts of gender. Although the historical figure of Jesus Christ was a man, God is a spiritual being unhampered by human traits. The custom of referring to God as "He" sprang from the social and cultural practices of the centuries during which the Bible was written and translated.

If DGA wants to become a great composer, why not? I wanted to play football for West Bromwich Albion when I was thirteen, which is a much sadder ambition!

QUOTE (kenm @ Apr 11 2005, 05:45 PM)

the main observable is a larger proportion among men of outstanding talents, balanced by a larger proportion of inferior ones.

I'm not sure if this is an easy conclusion to pin on chromosomes, when the individuals being observed for their "outstanding talents" cannot be viewed in a control setting away from the society we live in. If the research you refer to is accepted, it would seem to support DGA's hypothesis that more men are natural geniuses, whilst fobbing women off with the consolation that more men are also idiots.

For my part, I find it difficult to believe that someone like Anne Sophie Mutter is just a freak female result which happens to land alongside the top male violinists on the scattergraph. I am not sure whether DGA's assertion that there are more top male musicians and composers than female at this moment in time is correct, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that he is right. What I do feel fairly confident of is that if one looks over time, the proportion of top female performers and composers is changing at a rate which is more compatible with changes in society than with changes in our chromosomes. This is a pattern which (as numerous examples given on this thread already show) can be seen across society, not just in the field of music.

I sometimes wonder whether the music of great male composers, and the writings of great male writers, limit us to 50% of what might have been if women composers and writers had been on an equal footing at the time. I much preferred, for instance, "The Scapegoat" by Daphne DuMaurier to "Trilby" by her father George DuMaurier. I wonder if Wagner had a daughter with the same composing opportunities that he had, whether she might have found an equal ability to match her father's overall talent, but from a totally different perspective and approach to create a totally different type of music. I hope that the fact that we have passed through classical and romantic periods of composition will not prevent women now and in the future from producing works which might have been produced in a more equal society at the time.


On a separate point I don't agree that the oppression of women can be blamed on the advent of Christianity. Isn't Jesus the one who jumped in to save that woman from being stoned to death for adultery - standing up to the pre-existing laws of Moses which were a lot less favourable to women than the changes Jesus brought about.

The starkest example of bad attitudes to women before Jesus that I can think of is in Genesis (chapter 19): God has bargained with Abraham that if Abraham could find ten righteous people in the whole of Sodom, he would not wipe it off the face of the earth (by raining down burning sulphur). Accordingly two angels were sent for a civic tour of the two cities, courtesy of Lot, at whose gaffe they gratefully crashed. Lot realised what an uphill task he had when the entire population of Sodom arrived and surrounded the house demanding that Lot sacrifice his two male guests to the will of the mob. Lot's answer? "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

I just don't think it's fair to suggest that being a woman was hunky dory until Jesus came along.

QUOTE (zoda @ Apr 16 2005, 12:15 AM)

QUOTE (kenm @ Apr 11 2005, 05:45 PM) the main observable is a larger proportion among men of outstanding talents, balanced by a larger proportion of inferior ones. I'm not sure if this is an easy conclusion to pin on chromosomes, when the individuals being observed for their "outstanding talents" cannot be viewed in a control setting away from the society we live in. I sometimes wonder whether the music of great male composers, and the writings of great male writers, limit us to 50% of what might have been if women composers and writers had been on an equal footing at the time. I much preferred, for instance, "The Scapegoat" by Daphne DuMaurier to "Trilby" by her father George DuMaurier.

Yes, and I should modify the generalisation by noting that there do seem to be genuine differences between men and women in their approaches to certain tasks. For instance, some studies have shown that men have a greater tendency to navigate by dead reckoning, whereas women use landmarks. Novel writing is a field in which women's inherently better understanding of others' thought processes and relationships gives them an advantage, and easily balances the 17th to 19th century prejudice against their writing. One merely has to think of Jane Austen, the Brontes, George Eliot (= Mary Ann Evans), Antonia Byatt and Margaret Drabble to realise that they can work in this field at the highest level. The 20th century has shown that the same is true in composition (Elisabeth Lutyens, Elizabeth Maconchy, Judith Weir, and look out for Tansy Davies). However, if you look for women in mathematics, theoretical physics and chess, you will find a very much smaller proportion (though the figures in physics may have been distorted by some unfortunate incidents in which their high level achievements have been appropriated by their male colleagues). It will be interesting to see whether changing social attitudes allow more women to work at the highest level in these fields. One interesting piece of work has shown that a developmental event that causes higher than normal testosterone secretion in infant girls is positively correlated with mathematical ability. Female observational astronomers have made many important contributions.

QUOTE

On a separate point I don't agree that the oppression of women can be blamed on the advent of Christianity.   Isn't Jesus the one who jumped in to save that woman from being stoned to death for adultery - standing up to the pre-existing laws of Moses which were a lot less favourable to women than the changes Jesus brought about.   The starkest example of bad attitudes to women before Jesus that I can think of is in Genesis (chapter 19):  God has bargained with Abraham that if Abraham could find ten righteous people in the whole of Sodom,  he would not wipe it off the face of the earth (by raining down burning sulphur).   Accordingly two angels were sent for a civic tour of the two cities,  courtesy of Lot,  at whose gaffe they gratefully crashed.   Lot realised what an uphill task he had when the entire population of Sodom arrived and surrounded the house demanding that Lot sacrifice his two male guests to the will of the mob.  Lot's answer?  "Look,  I have two daughters who have never slept with a man.  Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.  But don't do anything to these men,  for they have come under the protection of my roof." I just don't think it's fair to suggest that being a woman was hunky dory until Jesus came along.

I share your view that women were subservient in many pre-Christian societies. However, despite Jesus' example, not all the Christian churches are yet giving women equal opportunities. This may be partly because their theology is still influenced to a greater or lesser extent by some of the primitive moral precepts in the Old Testament, like the one you have just illustrated.

Heavy stuff. Can I just mention Evelyn Glennie please?

QUOTE (DGA @ Apr 15 2005, 12:24 PM)

I spend a portion of my days thinking of my ambitions, what I want to be now and when I am grown up. It is my ambition to become the greatest performer and composer of all time...but is it possible??? NO. Nobody can be considered like that, because music is very subjective. I said "I want to become the greatest performer of all time..." does that mean that I am a great performer now??? NO. It is simply a dream...a dream I have carried on for 3 years now. I'm not even sure of achieving it!

DGA

Please please continue to follow your dreams, and keep on writing down your goals.

The first step to becoming what you dream to be is to believe that you can, the subconscious will process the dream, and the opportunities will arrive for you. Just be sure you are open to recognise them and act on them when they arrive

There is nothing wrong in having totally unrealistic goals, don't limit your subconscious by limiting your goals. GO FOR IT

Jane

I'd like to mention another female composer - Maria Theresa von Paradis... who wrote some things for the violin.

I'm female, and I want to be a composer. But at the moment I'm writing all my stuff under a pseudonym, which is a male name (Bronte sister style). My pseudonym is an anagram of my real name... it's not that I think pretending to be a bloke will get me any more recognition, it's just that I want to stay anonymous.

QUOTE (cheeble @ Apr 16 2005, 07:14 PM)

My pseudonym is an anagram of my real name...

I was wondering about that honky tonk piano rag by H. Beecle that I heard on Classic FM the other day

Hehe! Cheebs, you need to spread your name when you write compositions, they are so fab!!

Semele

There is something about most of your replies on this thread:

You consider me as a 13-year old idiot with no knowledge at all to understand stuff like, well, Amandal's post for instance.

QUOTE

Appreciate what you are saying,but you are addressing an 13 year old boy here.

Up to now you have used my age in most of your writings. Now everyone here knows I'm 13. I really regret giving that little piece of information.
On the positive side, you're more soft on me, but...it's like you're saying that I'm just a piece of litter trying to interfere.

QUOTE

He really has no idea what you are talking about,because he has no experience.

Experience isn't the only thing that ensures you're smart enough. I understand what that post meant, but even if I don't understand it perfectly at least I know what she's talking about.

QUOTE (DGA @ Apr 17 2005, 04:38 AM)

You consider me as a 13-year old idiot with no knowledge at all to understand stuff like, well, Amandal's post for instance. Up to now you have used my age in most of your writings. Now everyone here knows I'm 13. I really regret giving that little piece of information. On the positive side, you're more soft on me, but...it's like you're saying that I'm just a piece of litter trying to interfere. QUOTE He really has no idea what you are talking about,because he has no experience. Experience isn't the only thing that ensures you're smart enough. I understand what that post meant, but even if I don't understand it perfectly at least I know what she's talking about.

DGA

One of the problems with discussions over the internet are the misinterpretations that can occur.I'm guilty of this myself and have misconstrued replies that people have posted,not just on this forum,but a few others I post on,both past and present. I think the majority of people here,of all age groups,can identify with this.

However, DGA, I was NOT suggesting for one minute ( How you can even think I think of you as a "piece of litter" amazes and appalls me...) you are a 13 year old idiot. What I was explaining - obviously,badly - is that you may have all the theoretical knowledge and evidence in front of you,but you cannot fully comprehend that knowledge until you have some experience to back it up.

To explain in a different way. As a comparsion - Someone may pass their driving test. Does this mean, because the examiner has deemed them capable to drive without an instructor beside them because they have satisfied the test requirements,they as experienced as someone who passed their test,say,20 years ago?

The answer is No!

You have also contradicted yourself in the last quote above.

Talking pure on the basis of getting through this Life, second hand knowledge gleened through books or listening to experience of others is only partial understanding.

Yes, I'm softer on you because of your age. It wasn't a mistake to post your age on here.In fact it would be helpful if we knew people as Over 21, 18-21, 14-18, 13 and under.

QUOTE (Semele @ Apr 17 2005, 10:04 AM)

It wasn't a mistake to post your age on here.In fact it would be helpful if we knew people as Over 21, 18-21, 14-18, 13 and under.

For the record I'm "Over 40" and proud of it!