Alan Dudley replies to me:

>>Do you think anybody knows enough about the brain and how it creates art
>>or DNA leads to works of art to make a meaningful statement one way or the
>>other?
>
>The answer to this Steve's question is, of course, no. But while the
>question of why women are under-represented as well-known composers is
>being discussed, do you really believe that one real possibility, that a
>biological difference  in the brain or elsewhere is involved, should be
>forbidden territory.

Well, I believe that if you promote a hypothesis, you ought to argue to
support it.  Nobody does the latter, mostly because, given the current
state of physiological knowledge, nobody can.

>Personally I believe it is likely that the traditional discrimination
>against women is to blame, but I do not believe the possibility of some
>innate inability can be dismissed as easily as, I am sure, most polite
>people will to-day dismiss it.

It may very well turn out to be true.  I have no idea.  Consequently, I'm
not that confident about such speculation.  I'd feel like a fool talking
about something I had no idea about.

>I believe that all possibilities should be considered and that no
>possibilities should be considered impolite.  After all, it is not so very
>long since the idea of women having a political say was the subject of
>ridicule, and by women as well as men.

It's not a question of politesse, but of argumentative support.  A position
that can't be supported by anything other than this syllogism:

1.  Women are a different gender from men.
2.  There aren't as many (or, in its extreme form, no) great women composers
as men composers.
3.  Therefore, great composition is marked by gender.

really can't survive scrutiny as it stands.

So, before we hanging up the "Sorry, Gals!" signs on the CD Library of
Great Masterpieces, let's at least figure out why.

Steve Schwartz