Fun Stuff > BAND

women and music

<< < (29/29)

Nodaisho:

--- Quote from: Jeans on 05 Mar 2011, 03:40 ---That people should be regarded as equals regardless of sex/gender?

--- End quote ---
Tell that to the transwomen that get kicked out of feminist women-only gatherings.

nufan:
Some might disagree, but I think that has been an A+ thread so far. Good debating peeps. It has, however, moved away from talking about one of the two most important words in the title. While discussions of feminism/women equality issues are obviously very important, this was a thread to discuss it in the sphere of music.

In respect to that, I've been reading some interesting books on music which touch on its' evolutionary basis. One of the theories is that in caveman days, musical talent was indicative of spare time and a solid life foundation; if you could play an instrument well you had to have plenty of food and a good house so you could waste your hours learning an instrument and this made you more attractive to potential mates. Thus a culture arose where an evolutionary advantage was to be gained by men playing instruments well, and perhaps we are still used to this. I'm unsure as to how much I agree with the theory (particularly as it isn't the only theory on why we make music), and would like to think it should cease to matter in civilised society, but perhaps not.

KvP:
While evo psych is fun to think about, it's best to take it with a humongous grain of salt. Most if not all of the time it is generally used to explain and reinforce existing gender norms (cavemen being theorized as sexually aggressive hunters, for example, justifies views of women as sexless and weak and men as violent).

Anyway, the better theory is that appreciation for / ability to create music is a happy byproduct of being creatures that have the ability to process and use complex vocalizations to communicate. Animals that have the ability to communicate, however simply, with vocalizations have been shown to respond to music in ways other animals don't.

nufan:

--- Quote from: KvP on 05 Mar 2011, 14:53 ---Anyway, the better theory is that appreciation for / ability to create music is a happy byproduct of being creatures that have the ability to process and use complex vocalizations to communicate. Animals that have the ability to communicate, however simply, with vocalizations have been shown to respond to music in ways other animals don't.

--- End quote ---

I'd be interested to read where you got this from, as from what I've read it's not similar, as in humans are the only species to value music as an activity in-and-of itself with no obvious role outside of attracting mates. Songbirds etc seem to use it exclusively of attracting partners by creating the most complex lines they can, whereas humans use it to bond as a social group among other reasons.

Also, I agree with you that it is a potential minefield and can be used to reinforce stereotypes, I think it can also be used to avoid those same stereotypes. We're a civilised society, and as such should be rejecting cavemen-like behaviour such as the "role" (ugh) of women wrt (in this discussion) music. However, it could help explain how we arrived at the point we have.

KvP:

--- Quote ---I'd be interested to read where you got this from, as from what I've read it's not similar, as in humans are the only species to value music as an activity in-and-of itself with no obvious role outside of attracting mates
--- End quote ---
Traits don't need an obvious role or benefit to be selected, they only need not kill whatever they're exhibited in. It's one of the little annoying things about evo psych, that every little thing that people do has something directly to do with finding a mate or food or whatever. It doesn't really work that way.

Anyway here's some article. This is a derail so if you want to, you should start another thread.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page