Page 2 of 4 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,379
Location: Scandinavia

01 May 2012, 12:14 pm

Men are bigger risk takers than women. It's no more complicated than this. This is also why 80% of all homeless Americans are men.



Last edited by Kurgan on 01 May 2012, 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

foxfield
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 281
Location: UK

01 May 2012, 12:14 pm

It is a common stereotype that men are capable of more intellectual depth than women. For this reason I believe that cultural works produced by men are more likely to be viewed as serious and important and those produced by women are more likely to be dismissed as enjoyable yet trivial.

If you want an example of how deeply predjudiced people are about gender, I remember reading about a study in which people graded an exam. They found that the same exam tended to be graded lower when it had a girls name at the top rather than a boys name.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,128

01 May 2012, 12:52 pm

Historically, there have been fewer female artists for the same reason that there have been fewer female doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. What is so hard to understand?



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

01 May 2012, 12:56 pm

YippySkippy wrote:
Historically, there have been fewer female artists for the same reason that there have been fewer female doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. What is so hard to understand?


That we're not really speaking historically, but why this is still the case in a post-feminist world if I read the OPs post correctly.



YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,128

01 May 2012, 1:03 pm

Actually, much of the discussion here has been about the past.
Today, there are many female artists. As sexism still exists, however, there are still not as many as men.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,437
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 May 2012, 1:03 pm

TM wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
TM wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:

Are we trying to say here that even women can paint, but only men can become great artists? Just like they say that even women can cook, but only men can become greats chefs?


I think what is being alluded to is that women and men have equal capacity for art, but women are less likely to go 100% for their art, just like women are less likely to go 100% in any profession.


This one I would like to see some actual evidence for.....as I am pretty sure how much effort one puts into things depends on the person, not the gender. So since this seems like more of a generalization than a fact I'd like to see a source.


http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/17/37964450.pdf

If you want more sources check just about every single statistic done on hours worked in paid labour between the genders. Unless you include work within the home reported based on estimations, which is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Women as a whole work less than men, period, even counting those women who work just as much or more than men.


Work less as in less hours? less of them have professional careeres? and how do you figure a woman who works just as much or more than a man still works less than men? that does not even make sense.

But I was thinking you meant women as a whole put less effort into things....maybe you more meant they statistically work at jobs less in which case my disagreement was irrelevent. If that was your implication though your source doesn't even prove it...all it proves is on average there are more males with full time jobs than females.


_________________
Who started the fire?...well, it certainly wasn't the millenials.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 01 May 2012, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

01 May 2012, 1:13 pm

I could reword the question and ask what makes a great artist? I am not talking about the proportion of men to women who are professional artists. After all Gentileschi was a complete rarity in her own time. Of course women have much greater freedom now. Some artists like Bridget Riley have very good intellects. I am actually talking about men and women who all have an ability to draw and paint equally well. I am assuming they all have equal chances. The great artist is the one who stands above these people, with that quality which is sometimes hard to define. Great art comes from an artist who is great. You may look at men like the late Francis Bacon and wonder how that can be true of a train wreck, but the fact is he still had something tremendously powerful going on in his psyche.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2012, 2:24 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I think hyperlexian makes a good point and that's part of the reason there are less female professionals in general.

As for art specifically, I'm not really tuned in enough to know what the current 'art scene' is like but are there really still more men? Historically, I imagine the reason why there were more male artists were because it just wasn't an avenue open to most women. You'd become an apprentice or go off to some school. A lot of artists back then were pretty fringe characters I believe so it probably wasn't very socially acceptable for women of the time to associate with them. As for now, I'm not so sure. Women's creativity is certainly much more encouraged for what I can see.

I remember MP or someone like that one here lamenting about how the ratio of atheists(at least ones that attend conventions or something of the sort) so heavily skewed male.

Maybe it just comes down to biology. Men in general are more individualist while women are more collectivist and unwilling to upset the natural order of things.

i saw an article that speculated on some aspects of this based on bits of research. one interesting quote:

Quote:
Barron interviewed the art students and found what the tests did not indicate: the degree of intensity with which the students pursued their chosen careers. In asking the students the question. Do you think of yourself as an artist? 67% of the women said no and 60% of the men said yes. When asked the question, In comparison to the work of others at the Institute, is your work particularly unique or good? 40% of the men and 17% of the women answered yes. And when asked In comparison to the work of others at the Institute, is your work inferior? the percentages were reversed: 40% of the women felt their work was inferior and 14% of the men agreed.

Barron pointed out that this revealed a difference in self-image in the women, and that these differences were not indications of the real quality of the men's and women's art work, indicating that "the quality of the women's art work was equally high." The main difference came in the intensity of the commitment of the young artists to their work. Almost all of the men said their art work was their life, was necessary for life, and was their main reason for living: "Without painting I couldn't function." Only one woman indicated that her work was essential, and the others made comments such as this: "It's half my life, the other half is my future family." The necessity for passion and commitment for one's work is essential. The young women artists did not seem to demonstrate this pricking by the "thorn" of passion, as mentioned in the discussion of the Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development.

The men viewed their work with passion, the women with detachment. But when asked whether they would still paint if they had no results or success, only half the men said they would continue to paint, but all of the women did. Barron said, "Maybe the women are more interested in 'art for art's sake' or maybe men are more practical. But then he 'went on to make another interesting comment: "The psycho dynamic interpretation might be that for the man the works of art are his children, whereas women can have their own real children."

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10067.aspx


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

01 May 2012, 3:12 pm

Quote:
Barron pointed out that this revealed a difference in self-image in the women, and that these differences were not indications of the real quality of the men's and women's art work, indicating that "the quality of the women's art work was equally high." The main difference came in the intensity of the commitment of the young artists to their work. Almost all of the men said their art work was their life, was necessary for life, and was their main reason for living: "Without painting I couldn't function." Only one woman indicated that her work was essential, and the others made comments such as this: "It's half my life, the other half is my future family." The necessity for passion and commitment for one's work is essential. The young women artists did not seem to demonstrate this pricking by the "thorn" of passion, as mentioned in the discussion of the Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development.

The men viewed their work with passion, the women with detachment. But when asked whether they would still paint if they had no results or success, only half the men said they would continue to paint, but all of the women did. Barron said, "Maybe the women are more interested in 'art for art's sake' or maybe men are more practical. But then he 'went on to make another interesting comment: "The psycho dynamic interpretation might be that for the man the works of art are his children, whereas women can have their own real children."


Many thanks for the good quote Hyperlexian.



Last edited by Grebels on 01 May 2012, 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

01 May 2012, 3:57 pm

I think IQ tests have uses, but character is the most important thing. I high IQ without character to match is not good.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

01 May 2012, 5:46 pm

peebo wrote:
not really, vexcaliber. art has historically been a male pursuit. it's not been until the twentieth century that female artists have come to any prominence at all.

So, does it really take more than half a neuron to explain why the reason is not biological at all?

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
I see a vast amount of bias confirmation going on here.
So do I, yet the bias seems to be toward the notion that men and women are mentally identical, which is clearly a load of nonsense.


Nobody is mentally identical. Mentality is incredibly varied and it is non-sense to think otherwise.

So to expect gender to be so important that we can split the population in two different sets of kinds of mentalities is really what utter non-sense is about.

Specially when the side pushing for this assumption-based method to explain things are just assuming a lot of things instead of even explaining what evidence they have on that regards.


_________________
.


hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2012, 9:21 pm

i have trimmed the thread and moved the off-topic discussion about IQ and intelligence to here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt197272.html


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 May 2012, 9:26 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
i have trimmed the thread and moved the off-topic discussion about IQ and intelligence to here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt197272.html


You will love this link http://statevoices.salsalabs.com/o/509/ ... on_KEY=295



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 30,437
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 May 2012, 9:29 pm

Kurgan wrote:
Men are bigger risk takers than women. It's no more complicated than this. This is also why 80% of all homeless Americans are men.


What about those men that think Bud Light is an actual beer.... :lmao:


_________________
Who started the fire?...well, it certainly wasn't the millenials.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

01 May 2012, 9:29 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Men are bigger risk takers than women. It's no more complicated than this. This is also why 80% of all homeless Americans are men.


What about those men that think Bud Light is an actual beer.... :lmao:


Bud Light is awesome.