John G. Deacon wrote:

>I dared to suggest - and Schwartzo became greatly enraged over it - that
>it was a lack of spirituality that had meant that the western world had
>seen comparatively little achievement from women in conducting, composing
>and painting.  More recently they have also been unwelcomed by many on
>entering the priesthood whereas women have excelled in science, medicine,
>literature, playing instruments and acting (and so on and so forth...).

In other words, conducting, composing, and painting require more
"spirituality" than women unfortunately possess, but science, medicine,
literature, playing instruments, and acting need less, so women are up to
these professions? I can't begin to think of any way that this proposition
could be supported by evidence.

>The medical theory put forward was that it is down to *testosterone*.

Again, conducting requires more testosterone than science? Surely,
the explanation for the small number of women conductors up to now is
clear as day, and requires no strange medical theories.  Conducting was
traditionally though to be a matter of dominating orchestras, and the
musical world, like the political world, was for many generations unwilling
to submit to the "domination" of women, regarding this as some sort of
kinky perversion, I suppose.  Now that we are becoming more able to
disentangle questions like this from irrelevant sexual symbolism, we can
see that both sexes are basically equally talented in any field of art or
learning.

>Anyway, I've nothing more to add on this - we been here before and dealing
>with today's PC 'across the pond' means it would be best to "shut up" now
>before the storm breaks!

I don't think it has anything to do with which side of the Atlantic one is
on, and it doesn't concern political correctness.  It's just a matter of
reason and common sense.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]