Why are there no female Audiophiles?

[Pearljam5000]

Hardly!
I mostly embrace what @Pearljam5000 has got to say.
Does that make it "two" one-person debates?
Should we add that ["closed minded]" @antcollinet to the group, to round it out as a "three" one-person debate?
pfffft, I don't think either member plays tag-team sports, that you are trying to turn this into!

Thanks buddy

 

[Sal1950]

Oh boy, this is getting good! LOL

 

[Travis]

Genetics, Gender and Science.

Who discovered the Y chromosome and it's determination in gender?

Your location (UK) is close but wasn't liberalism practically invented directly across the channel?
Hasn't it had some biblical-size revolutions over it?
You have not been imbued in it.

Liberalism came out of the Great Enlightenment. England and Scotland produced some of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment, including Locke who is credited with inventing it.

The Glorious Revolution in England and the American Revolution were both steeped in liberalism. Liberalism was the justification for armed rebellion/overthrow of monarchy.

It’s simply individual freedom vs royal sovereignty.

Sort of lost me on the connection of the philosophy of liberalism and this thread.

 

[Dialectic]

I'm curious to see any hard data on the gender composition of the hobby.

I have met more trans women audiophiles than cis women audiophiles.

Some years ago I met through work an audiophile whose wife writes for The Atlantic. She opined that audio is the most male hobby in the world, bearing out pastimes such as cars, fishing, guns, power tools, etc. Her view is consistent with my observations.

 

[tmtomh]

Hardly!
I mostly embrace what @Pearljam5000 has got to say.
Does that make it "two" one-person debates?
Should we add that ["closed minded]" @antcollinet to the group, to round it out as a "three" one-person debate?
pfffft, I don't think either member plays tag-team sports, that you are trying to turn this into!

“What Pearljam has got to say” is that men and women’s varying interests are (a) entirely due to biology, (b) of unknown cause, (c) a little bit due to biology, and (d) “at least 50%” due to biology.

That’s not an opinion - that’s four different opinions, none of which is compatible with the other.

It’s not about being open-minded; it’s about being incoherent (not to mention, making assertions with not even a suggestion of evidence to back them up.)

 

[Pearljam5000]

It’s not about degree of sensitivity - it’s about how it feels different. Neither you nor i

“What Pearljam has got to say” is that men and women’s varying interests are (a) entirely due to biology, (b) of unknown cause, (c) a little bit due to biology, and (d) “at least 50%” due to biology.

That’s not an opinion - that’s four different opinions, none of which is compatible with the other.

It’s not about being open-minded; it’s about being incoherent.

That's your opinion not a fact
Also like I said the language barrier makes it harder for me to explain what I really mean, but you keep trying to make it look like it's incoherent
Yeah whatever .
Try arguing with me in my language ,we'll see who's more coherent

 

[Emlin]

Lashing insults seem fully to define you.
You don't want me to say how I define your behavior to keep on the PoliticallyCorrect side.
You are allowed more than one use of Ignore button.

Thanks for the suggestion. Ignore button deployed.

 

[Travis]

Nice resources - thanks!

It should be noted, though, that it's quite a leap from "why don't women participate in the audiophile hobby" to "what genes are responsible for certain diseases"? Not a leap because of the different subject matter, but rather a qualitative leap - they're two very different scenarios. I mention this only because I don't think the link you make between X and Y chromosome mapping and men's and women's behavior is nearly as direct and simple as your description makes it sound - which is exactly the issue that we started at when this thread took off in this direction.

I wasn’t clear on that. What I was in-artfully trying to point out is that genetics nor “evolution” can explain why “most” women are not interested in cars, mechanical devices, or tech as has been suggested by some in prior posts.

Genetics can explain some things on gender differences, but it’s primarily limited to why way more women have auto-immune disorders like lupus, not why women are not interested in (take your pick). Genetics doesn’t even address the “people vs. things” difference which is well recognized. I don’t know where people come up with the idea that saying that women and men are different when it comes to occupation interest, and that’s based on people vs. things. will be viewed as politically incorrect. Not one scientific study or paper that has pointed out the difference has been accused of being politically incorrect.

Genetics can’t even explain everything about a disease that is more prevalent in one geneder, there is nearly always external factors.

When you get to “women don’t like (take your pick), genetics or evolution play little to no role, and it’s nearly all external factors. That’s what the science says. It’s beyond question. That only gets stronger as we have mapped the human genome.

“It genetics” is a bullshit answer and not based in science. So is, it’s “simple evolution” on questions like interests, or preferences like we are talking about here.

Why a virus impacts men harder than women is something that genetics can sometimes answer.