Why are there no female Audiophiles?

[Travis]

I think the answer to the OP's question, and that others previous to that is:

We are just playing it way too loud.

At audio shows, in our listening rooms, in the car. wherever.

As previously pointed out in this thread, women process sound, vision (color) and smell (it's much less of a difference) differently than men.

On sound perception and processing, the average comfort level of women is a full 8 dB lower than men. This is thought to be at least one reason why woman have historically avoided jobs with louder sound environments.

From : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003682X21006964

"In general, females and males indicated responses of significant and different during noise exposure. The women are more sensitive to noise; thus, they experience more noise-induced annoyance and fatigue. The females had a better cognitive performance at levels of ≤65 dBA with a low and medium mental workload, while the males had a better cognitive performance at levels ≥65 dB and high workload. It seems that the noise-induced stress effect in women was more than in men because the LF/HF ratio"

Maybe if we just turned it down?

 

[Axo1989]

Would it not be an over-simplification to assume that anyone .... male or female, old or young, of any religion, education or ethnicity ..... has an opportunity to end up in the job that they want to do in all fields?

Jim

Yes, there are other categories of discrimination, obviously. And you have some more detailed responses immediately above. I assume you aren’t veering into whataboutism.

 

[pseudoid]

We speak of STEM, yet we do not include the "HEAL" fields, in our discussions.
Unfortunately, what we seem to ignore most is that many of the current social scientists do agree that the contemporary "American Men" are truly mired in malaise, even as they bicker about the causes.

TL&DR version is that women are just doing fine everywhere, but if you are truly interested in what has happened to American Boys in the last few decades, here are some factoids to chew on:

There has been some reviews of the book of "Of Boys and Men" by Richard V. Reeves (Sr.Fellow, Econ@BrookingsInst.), where he states that whereas he used to worry about his three young sons, he is now worried about millions.

*Today, near one in nine prime-age men is unemployed and does not seek to be, which is a similar rate as in 1940!
*In 1979, only 13% of women earned more than the average man. In 2021, 40% of women earn more than the average man.
*About 27% of STEM workers are women now, which is not enough, but it's risen from 8% in the 1980s.
*40% of U.S. households have a female breadwinner, quadruple the number a few decades ago. It's been an extraordinary success.

Such economic, social and cultural shifts that have forced men to the sidelines of the economy, including the loss of jobs in male-dominated fields such as manufacturing and the influx of women into the workforce, diminishing the need for men to serve as providers for their families.

In one interview with NPR, Reeves adds 'we've had decades of scholarships to get women into STEM. I think that's been great, but I think we now need scholarships to get men into HEAL [Health/Education/Administration/Literacy fields].' Beyond employment, there are societal benefits to having men in these roles. Teachers for example. Fifty percent of our students are male. I think the fact that they see so few male teachers — that's a problem.
Go back to 1980, and 40% of elementary and middle school teachers were male. Now it's down to one in 10 in elementary schools.

But when societal change happens as quickly, it's very hard for our culture to keep up. It's very hard for our ideas of fatherhood, motherhood, masculinity, femininity, family life to adapt as quickly as the fundamental economics have changed. Failure to adjust and adapt masculinity — it doesn't happen on its own. I think our collective cultural failure to do that is one of the root causes of some of the problems that we now see men and boys having. During the interview, Reeves warns if nothing is done to help struggling men, families will become poorer and economic inequality will only worsen.

There are, in fact, some shortages in some of these [HEAL] professions, in areas like teaching and nursing. These are actually sectors that are looking for workers, but if anything, they have become more female-dominated in the last few decades.But in HEAL jobs, there are fewer and fewer men. There are fewer men in classrooms, there are fewer male social workers, and there's been a cratering of the number of men in areas like psychology. Among psychologists under the age of 30, only 5% are male. That's a profession that was actually slightly male in the 1980s.

I attempted to keep the politics, woke, and racial demographics out of this snippet of what we have done to a whole generation of boys so as to keep it relevant and highlighted.

 

[Travis]

I think that must be a big factor. Certain hobbies and types of gadgets are "for men" and certain things are "for women". Not that they ought to be or even that many people would actually assert they should be, but as a practical matter, they are.

I'm familiar, generally, with the studies/science (especially with my generation) that starting from childhood, boys have been much more into gadgets. My personal view, based on the limited observation of female family, friends, and colleagues, is that all went out the window with the iPhone, and tablets. It used to be my colleagues would be the ones bragging that they went from a brick to the slim line brick, and then a flip phone, StarTac. Then boom, smartphones hit, especially the iPhone, and now there doesn't seem to be any difference in the "gadget-loving" propensities between genders.

Admittedly, women may be interested in different features, or aesthetics (color options, shape), but they equal men in wanting the latest greatest version of iPhone. This is probably one key aspect of Apple that I never considered before, they are probably looking into features that appeal to women equally, if not more so to maintain, if not grown market share. Kids in middle school, boys and girls, know what the latest version of the iPhone is, when the new one is coming out, what the bugs are with the latest version, and why you should wait to get the next one (the camera is way better).

I think the iPhone in many ways has replaced the purse/wallet (the functional variety), or at least reduced their significance.

 

[tmtomh]

Would it not be an over-simplification to assume that anyone .... male or female, old or young, of any religion, education or ethnicity ..... has an opportunity to end up in the job that they want to do in all fields?

Jim

Of course - but it’s also an oversimplification - not to mention an obfuscation - to assume that all barriers to free choice are equally acceptable, equally necessary for a competitive, complex society, and equally immune to change.

 

[tmtomh]

We speak of STEM, yet we do not include the "HEAL" fields, in our discussions.
Unfortunately, what we seem to ignore most is that many of the current social scientists do agree that the contemporary "American Men" are truly mired in malaise, even as they bicker about the causes.

There has been some reviews of the book of "Of Boys and Men" by Richard V. Reeves (Sr.Fellow, Econ@BrookingsInst.), where he states that whereas he used to worry about his three young sons, he is now worried about millions.

*Today, near one in nine prime-age men is unemployed and does not seek to be, which is a similar rate as in 1940!
*In 1979, only 13% of women earned more than the average man. In 2021, 40% of women earn more than the average man.
*About 27% of STEM workers are women now, which is not enough, but it's risen from 8% in the 1980s.
*40% of U.S. households have a female breadwinner, quadruple the number a few decades ago. It's been an extraordinary success.

Such economic, social and cultural shifts that have forced men to the sidelines of the economy, including the loss of jobs in male-dominated fields such as manufacturing and the influx of women into the workforce, diminishing the need for men to serve as providers for their families.

In one interview with NPR, Reeves adds 'we've had decades of scholarships to get women into STEM. I think that's been great, but I think we now need scholarships to get men into HEAL [Health/Education/Administration/Literacy fields].' Beyond employment, there are societal benefits to having men in these roles. Teachers for example. Fifty percent of our students are male. I think the fact that they see so few male teachers — that's a problem.
Go back to 1980, and 40% of elementary and middle school teachers were male. Now it's down to one in 10 in elementary schools.

But when societal change happens as quickly, it's very hard for our culture to keep up. It's very hard for our ideas of fatherhood, motherhood, masculinity, femininity, family life to adapt as quickly as the fundamental economics have changed. Failure to adjust and adapt masculinity — it doesn't happen on its own. I think our collective cultural failure to do that is one of the root causes of some of the problems that we now see men and boys having. During the interview, Reeves warns if nothing is done to help struggling men, families will become poorer and economic inequality will only worsen.

There are, in fact, some shortages in some of these [HEAL] professions, in areas like teaching and nursing. These are actually sectors that are looking for workers, but if anything, they have become more female-dominated in the last few decades.But in HEAL jobs, there are fewer and fewer men. There are fewer men in classrooms, there are fewer male social workers, and there's been a cratering of the number of men in areas like psychology. Among psychologists under the age of 30, only 5% are male. That's a profession that was actually slightly male in the 1980s.

I attempted to keep the politics, woke, and racial demographics out of this snippet of what we have done to a whole generation of boys so as to keep it relevant and highlighted.

That’s some first-rate whatsboutism you pulled there.

 

[theREALdotnet]

it would be an over-simplification to assume all women have opportunities to end up in the jobs they want to do in all fields.

Quite right, so that‘s the kind of question we need to ask, and the kind of statistics we need to have. Instead of saying “only 15-20% of engineering students at Berkeley are women” while waving the finger ominously, we should ask, how many women did apply and how many were knocked back? And does that compare with the male applicants?

I’m quite clear that women do not, by and large, have equal opportunities in all areas. Sometimes for egregious reasons (“we don’t want women because they get pregnant or married and have to be replaced”) and sometimes because of a more complex web of tradition and prejudice. Not to mention the scandalous pay gap for same work and performance.

But simply stating that there are fewer women in engineering classes, as if that meant anything, is hollow nonsense.

 

[theREALdotnet]

It's totally fine if 100% of a given occupation are men, or women. What's not fine is if a gender imbalance in a profession can be traced to institutionalized practices or barriers that tend to discourage members of one group who are otherwise interested.

What do you think the situation is in audiophilia? Are fewer women interested in the field or hobby, or are women being barred from participating?

 

[EJ3]

As usual, has to be related to basic anthropological phenomena of "Hunting and gathering" , for males hunting a rabbit not as exciting as hunting a deer......

If it is to fill your freezer, it takes less deer. Which is the only reason that people I know hunt. (Both men & women, by the way). Because it's more enjoyable to be out in nature & to get better meat than spending any time in the grocery store & getting cruddy meat for lots of money.
& we go to the "you pick'em" Farms & can what we pick for the same reason.
And it is an all a family thing.
Granted, that's not the way everyone that does it that way.
But the majority do.
& fishing, too. Not something I care to do, but I get involved in it with the rest of the family, too.

 

[Killingbeans]

Are fewer women interested in the field or hobby, or are women being barred from participating?

Maybe both. A huge mess of sociological, psychological and biological codependency.

Another good argument:

Most beautiful speakers in the world ?

The XTZs look like clones of the Sony ss-ar line. Not exactly an original design either :)

www.audiosciencereview.com

They simply have too good taste

 

[krabapple]

I'm thrilled at all the female input here on the question.

Oh wait.

 

[Digby]

But in the wider internet we are talking about repeated threats of sexual violence and death - directed at women just because they are in the public eye. I've seen many similar directed at women simply because they participate in male dominated spaces.

OK, fine (well, not fine, but I see your point), but these are happening at audiophile type events populated by men mostly in their 40s and older. I just don't believe it is, at least not to anything near the level you're describing. That people can say horrible things, somewhat anonymously, online to each is one of the 'features' of the internet.

What can I or anyone else do about that we don't witness personally? If we see something untoward, we can say something, but if I see a woman walking round at a Hi-Fi event and some random man has a go at her and gives sexual or death threats, then I (and many others I imagine) will have something to say about it and it will very quickly be addressed.

About ASR in particular ? None. About what's happening out there ? The fact that I had and have to deal all day with domestic violences, treats, sexual and psychological harassment, rapes, or sometimes, hopefully very rarely, suicides and actual murders. For the record, because I'm not sure that many people realised it: I'm a social worker.

I'm sure you do, but perhaps you have a somewhat unpleasantly skewed perspective, because of your job. You have to see people, on a daily basis, who have significant difficulties, a number of which will be the way they treat each other and the way men treat women (and sometimes vice versa?). I think if I had that job, I'd have to be careful about not having to negative a view of human (or male) nature, because of the concentrated way in which you are involved with people that have 'gone off the rails', so to speak.

I think that's a reasonable point of view supported by analogy to broader studies, e.g. this one, which concludes women are more likely to receive negative comments based on their gender, as well as to be more cautious about future participation due to those negative comments.

What can I or anyone do about what happens elsewhere? We are discussing here or at some audio event - if we want to branch out much further, we could discuss women sold into sex slavery in the Congo or arranged marriages in Pakistan or what have you, but 1) what can I (or you) do about these things? 2) do they really pertain to the topic of discussion here?

Talk about extreme harassment/unpleasantness that happens elsewhere doesn't seem relevant to the issue in hand. I don't doubt it happens, but I have never seen it happen here or at a show filled with mostly aged men.

 

[Digby]

The proper question is, given the prevalence of such behavior online - sufficiently frequent that even several of us dudes here have seen it happening all the time in the public areas of various online forums - where is your evidence that it hasn't happened here, or that it would be somehow unusually unlikely to happen here?

How does one provide evidence for a negative? I can't provide it that fairies don't live at the bottom of the garden either...It is impossible to prove that something never happens.

It is unusually unlikely to happen here because:

A) the tone of this forum is not like that (no swearing and very little male banter)
B) the age of the forum rules out (most) young men behaving that way (who knows, some of them may go elsewhere and behave like that)
C) if it had, I imagine it would be reported to a moderator and dealt with incredibly quickly

As for what percentage of men would be small enough for it to no longer be a problem ("indistinguishable from noise"), the answer is either (a) zero percent or (b) whatever the person on the receiving end of such behavior thinks.

So, given that zero percent is an impossibility, what do you suggest? Lobotomies or medication for sexists (whatever the person on the receiving end decides is sexist)? What about for someone who made a clumsy approach on an uninterested woman in a setting (like a bar or club) where people expect that kind of thing. How could you possibly get to zero percent? Do you have a solution for zero percent murder too?

We live in an imperfect world, populated by imperfect people with differing opinions on what is and is not OK behaviour (though most of us have similar views). I don't think anything human centred can be perfected in the way you envisage.

Last week (post-work dinner with three male colleagues). One offered a disparaging assessment of Gerwig's Barbie and the others agreed (but none had seen it iirc). I said "that's because you're males, right?" So, a more polite version.

Did they laugh at your retort? I'd find that really funny, but then i can laugh at myself and whatever behaviour I may engage in as a male that might be stereotypical like that.

 

[Snarfie]

Funny, when I searched there are several links to comments about her at the top of the search list. She was a sometimes writer for The Absolute Sound in the early days.

Who was Enid Lumley?

RIP. 1938-2008. Posters in the hi-fi forums have fond memories of Enid Lumley’s entertaining writing in The Absolute Sound and International Audio Review. Some consider her an eccentric, and …

hifiauditions.wordpress.com

Enid Lumley's cable tunnels - geoffkait - Tweakers' Asylum

Enid Lumley's cable tunnels - geoffkait - Tweakers' Asylum

www.audioasylum.com

Basically she had some extreme irrational ideas about audio tweaking. Surpassed only by Peter Belt.

I just noticed you mispelled the last name from Krabapple's post. Lumley which is why you didn't find anything.

I know Joanna Lumley but she must be (almost) deff after here Absolutely Fabulouse Sixty lifestyle https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley

 

[Digby]

I think the answer to the OP's question, and that others previous to that is:

We are just playing it way too loud.

That could be a good point. I often find others play music louder than I like and I don't want to be in that environment for long either.

 

[VintageFlanker]

perhaps you have a somewhat unpleasantly skewed perspective, because of your job

I think if I had that job, I'd have to be careful about not having to negative a view of human (or male) nature

Well, in fact, that is not optional at all. You just cannot work in that field if you wouldn't.

the way men treat women (and sometimes vice versa?)

It does also exist, indeed. But it still is extremely minimal in proportion.

 

[Vacceo]

Perhaps this is for another thread, but to me the divide has a lot more to do with class and geography.

 

[tmtomh]

Quite right, so that‘s the kind of question we need to ask, and the kind of statistics we need to have. Instead of saying “only 15-20% of engineering students at Berkeley are women” while waving the finger ominously, we should ask, how many women did apply and how many were knocked back? And does that compare with the male applicants?

I’m quite clear that women do not, by and large, have equal opportunities in all areas. Sometimes for egregious reasons (“we don’t want women because they get pregnant or married and have to be replaced”) and sometimes because of a more complex web of tradition and prejudice. Not to mention the scandalous pay gap for same work and performance.

But simply stating that there are fewer women in engineering classes, as if that meant anything, is hollow nonsense.

Yes, and approaching the question through the simplistic lens that in the two scenarios of "didn't apply" and "got knocked back," the latter is the only one that includes or reflects societal problems that need to be addressed, is also hollow nonsense.

 

[tmtomh]

What do you think the situation is in audiophilia? Are fewer women interested in the field or hobby, or are women being barred from participating?

No sale. Your question ignores the entire part of my comment in which I talked about persistence and thriving, apart from the question of initially entry.

 

[tmtomh]

How does one provide evidence for a negative? I can't provide it that fairies don't live at the bottom of the garden either...It is impossible to prove that something never happens.

It is unusually unlikely to happen here because:

A) the tone of this forum is not like that (no swearing and very little male banter)
B) the age of the forum rules out (most) young men behaving that way (who knows, some of them may go elsewhere and behave like that)
C) if it had, I imagine it would be reported to a moderator and dealt with incredibly quickly


So, given that zero percent is an impossibility, what do you suggest? Lobotomies or medication for sexists (whatever the person on the receiving end decides is sexist)? What about for someone who made a clumsy approach on an uninterested woman in a setting (like a bar or club) where people expect that kind of thing. How could you possibly get to zero percent? Do you have a solution for zero percent murder too?

We live in an imperfect world, populated by imperfect people with differing opinions on what is and is not OK behaviour (though most of us have similar views). I don't think anything human centred can be perfected in the way you envisage.

Did they laugh at your retort? I'd find that really funny, but then i can laugh at myself and whatever behaviour I may engage in as a male that might be stereotypical like that.

Your A, B, and C reasons for why women are allegedly "unusually unlikely" to experience such treatment here reflect a simplistic understanding that appears to be sadly widespread in this thread. "Swearing"? Really? We're not talking about pearl-clutching Victorian stereotypes here. Most audiophile and music and tech forums don't have a lot of younger guys - and yet those are the very forums I (and others) have used as examples of this kind of behavior occurring. Hence my references to "politely worded but still creepy" PMs, and to guys falling over themselves in the threads to be super-nice to women members in order to try to get their attention. As for being reported to a moderator, maybe, maybe not.

And of course zero percent is impossible. My point was not that we can achieve perfection. My point was that if someone is on the receiving end of this kind of behavior, all it takes is one or two forum members engaging in such behavior to potentially make someone check out (or a lurker not register or a member not post) - my point was that trying to find the level at which this behavior "blends into the noise" doesn't make much sense since this is a different kind of "noise."