Ying Liu wrote:

>Aristocrat women never have chance and intention to be composers although
>most of them could play one or more instruments.  The target of education
>for women is how to find a good husband.  Playing instruments were regarded
>as one important part of women education but not composing (who cares).

This is quite true, but I think another factor may have been involved in
the discrimination against women in the performing arts, such as music and
the theater, in those days.  The recent film "Shakespeare in Love," which
has been mentioned on this list, reminds us that, for a period, women were
not allowed to appear as actors in London, and this was also true for a
while in opera in many parts (or all?) of Europe; thus the use of castrati.
I have a feeling that part of the reason for this was that women performing
on the stage as professionals in the business of entertaining the public
tended to be considered almost on the level of another kind of professional
female "entertainer," but one who worked in private in this case.

Even as late as the 19th century, of course, this association of ideas
continued to be rather strong, and in fact both male and female musicians
and actors had to go through a long period before their professions were
considered fully respectable.  In such places as Hollywood, a certain
atmosphere of sin and decadence seems to be deliberately cultivated even
today, as a way of boosting ticket sales, I guess.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]