Why Aren't There Female Audiophiles?

[Robin L]

I can think of few fields of enterprise more likely to induce "Mansplaining" than an audiophile of the male gender justifying their neuroses and obsessions.

Just sayin'.

I am fortunate in that my significant other is obsessed with rocks and crystals, a form of collection/hoarding that resonates with the behaviors of other compulsive collectors of beautiful things. So she is understanding of my habits while never being seduced by the charms and snares of high-performance audio gear.

 

[Colonel7]

Chances of meeting single male audiophiles?

The odds are good, but the goods are odd.

Sounds like someone's been to Alaska

 

[izeek]

That.

Wet-ass fidelity?

roflmaooo

 

[Wes]

Cultural and societal norms? Leading to differing priorities and obviously different habitual propensities toward different things.

I expect it can be traced back to a million or two years of hunter-gatherer life and attendant genetic modifications.

 

[Blaspheme]

I expect it can be traced back to a million or two years of hunter-gatherer life and attendant genetic modifications.

A lot of natural science and anthropological constructs are myths, and reflect the patriarchy dominating those fields (in terms of theory building and historical lines of inquiry). Women not hunting, all birds being monogamous, that sort of thing.

 

[Enchy]

A lot of natural science and anthropological constructs are myths, and reflect the patriarchy dominating those fields (in terms of theory building and historical lines of inquiry). Women not hunting, all birds being monogamous, that sort of thing.

Anthropology is the helium-filled pure silver speaker cables of the social sciences

 

[amper42]

JMHO,

Being an Audiophile requires a pretty large investment of free time. Women just don’t have that luxury. They are too busy Working full time then coming home to make dinner, do the laundry, care for and feed the Children, monitor homework and clean the house.

On weekends when they do have some free time. They would much rather be out in nature walking, paddling, gardening or hanging out with GF’s and being Social or out with the Children creating memories and teaching them about the world.

Being an Audiophile for the most part is a very isolated and secluded activity. Women are far more Social in general than Men.

I don't think we can rationalize why an entire gender may not be interested in being an audiophile? The main element is "interest". If you don't enjoy searching for that ultimate combination of music, speakers and gear that make your EARS say, "YES", then you probably won't be a good candidate for the audio journey.

My wife can knit anything and rarely watches TV without knitting something at the same time. We both have the same amount of free time. She has three closets full of yarn of every color shape and size. All stuffed away and labeled in exact boxes. Our grandson asks her to knit him a turtle and she has it done in a day. It's a passion for her. It's her crafty creative outlet.

She likes watching movies with me in 7.2.4 ATMOS but is not interested in how the system works or what a sub-woofer is. She thinks I have a disease that makes me bring too many speakers into the house. If my audiophile journey is as dedicated and precise as her knitted patterns I will have an amazing audio system.

 

[AdamG]

Yeah I knew I would get pushback on my opinion. But it is nothing more than that. An opinion. I am a product of my generation, as we all are.

 

[MrPeabody]

Anthropology is the helium-filled pure silver speaker cables of the social sciences

Yeah, but the phrase "social science" itself is borderline disingenuous. There's hardly any real science in any of it. Including psychology, and of course sociology. Sociologists and psychologists will defend their disciplines and insist that what they do is science, but if you ever engage a psychologist or a sociologist in a dialog on this question, you will most likely discover in short order that they don't really understand the first thing about scientific principles, and that when they were in school they never took any quantitative courses beyond maybe a statistics-for-dummies course to fulfill a general requirement. And as concerns logic, forget about it. Few of them seem to understand that in order to demonstrate that phenomenon A is the cause of phenomenon B, that it is necessary to have a good reason to believe that B wouldn't have happened if A hadn't happened. On a couple of occasions in the remote past I've asked this type of question, i.e., "How do you know that the thing that you say is caused by this other thing would not have happened if that other thing hadn't happened?" Psychology is fundamentally about why people behave the way they do, and as such it is fundamentally about causality, but if you ask a typical psychologist this kind of question, all you're likely to get is a puzzled look.

 

[Fregly]

A lot of natural science and anthropological constructs are myths, and reflect the patriarchy dominating those fields (in terms of theory building and historical lines of inquiry). Women not hunting, all birds being monogamous, that sort of thing.

Constructs, patriarchy, historical lines of inquiry, are idealogue words and phrases, and rather quaint ones at that. So much of this pure social constructionist stuff has been out of date in the literature for two generations, but gets confirmed and regurgitated to cynically capture policitical constituencies, the usual pandering. My goodness the social sciences are garbage.

 

[Blaspheme]

Constructs, patriarchy, historical lines of inquiry, are idealogue words and phrases, and rather quaint ones at that. So much of this pure social constructionist stuff has been out of date in the literature for two generations, but gets confirmed and regurgitated to cynically capture policitical constituencies, the usual pandering. My goodness the social sciences are garbage.

Ideologue, I assume? But feel free to update my terminology

 

[Wes]

A lot of natural science and anthropological constructs are myths, and reflect the patriarchy dominating those fields (in terms of theory building and historical lines of inquiry). Women not hunting, all birds being monogamous, that sort of thing.

I am curious what scientists have made either of those claims.

 

[izeek]

Perfect examples.

 

[RickSanchez]

Until then, we have to encourage more young people to be nerds - especially women - because it's really cool and being into audio is really not much different practically than being into any other hobby.

Agreed! Before Covid I used to volunteer for UT's Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day, along with some other STEM volunteer work I did at the high school level. It was a great way to introduce girls to electronics and other engineering disciplines in fun ways, giving them perspective at an early age about things they might be interested in pursuing in college and/or as careers.

 

[Maki]

Is this supposed to be a problem? I have no interest in many hobbies preferred by women, and its okay for women to have no interest in hobbies preferred by men. Who cares. If you want to talk about problems with audio - there's so much more heinous crap going on than "not enough ovaries".

 

[blueone]

Female can't audiophile because of a lack of an equivalent for "WAF".

Uh… I know several women who have wives. We’ve been in the 21st century for a while now…

 

[Blaspheme]

Uh… I know several women who have wives. We’ve been in the 21st century for a while now…

Yes. Acronyms can be updated: SAS (spouse acceptance factor). As in "don't give me SAS".

I know a couple (both women) with a pair of B&W floor-standers in the closet, clearly suffering from insufficient SAS.

 

[David Harper]

Maybe because they just enjoy the music. The gear is completely unimportant. In the same way they love a good movie but don't seem to be as enamored as we are of big HD flat screens. And they dislike Pink Floyd and the three stooges. Go figure.

 

[Blaspheme]

Yes. Acronyms can be updated: SAS (spouse acceptance factor). As in "don't give me SAS".

I know a couple (both women) with a pair of B&W floor-standers in the closet, clearly suffering from insufficient SAS.

Damn, I’m dyslexic ... F not S ... now to think up something for S ... syndrome? Synergy? Satisfaction?

 

[Enchy]

Yeah, but the phrase "social science" itself is borderline disingenuous. There's hardly any real science in any of it. Including psychology, and of course sociology. Sociologists and psychologists will defend their disciplines and insist that what they do is science, but if you ever engage a psychologist or a sociologist in a dialog on this question, you will most likely discover in short order that they don't really understand the first thing about scientific principles, and that when they were in school they never took any quantitative courses beyond maybe a statistics-for-dummies course to fulfill a general requirement. And as concerns logic, forget about it. Few of them seem to understand that in order to demonstrate that phenomenon A is the cause of phenomenon B, that it is necessary to have a good reason to believe that B wouldn't have happened if A hadn't happened. On a couple of occasions in the remote past I've asked this type of question, i.e., "How do you know that the thing that you say is caused by this other thing would not have happened if that other thing hadn't happened?" Psychology is fundamentally about why people behave the way they do, and as such it is fundamentally about causality, but if you ask a typical psychologist this kind of question, all you're likely to get is a puzzled look.

Oh I 100% am on board with this. I just especially dislike anthropology because it's (arguably) the one most shaped by patriarchal and colonial biases.