guitar and looks ..some connection ?

more ha ha ha ha ha ha..[rolls her eyes]...
ROFL...

 

excuse me?..talking to me?
why am i being given this precious advice can i know?

 

Well, there are 2 phases to the hormonal cycle, the follicular phase and the luteal phase. The follicular phase is dominated by high levels of oestrogen and Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH). Complex feedback mechanisms cause a peak in FSH 7 days before ovulation. The luteal phase is dominated by high levels of progesterone and Luteinizing Hormone (LH). The LH surge is a poorly understood phenomenon that refers to the sudden peaking of LH levels almost exactly 24 hours prior to ovulation. Each phase is of roughly 14 days, in a normal 28 day cycle.

Now FSH LH and oestrogen are present in the male blood stream as well but they serve a different purpose, and the oestrogen level is almost
insignificant in normal physiology.

Also note that testosterone is present in females as well, but only a fraction of the levels seen in males. However it does have a definite physiological role.

In summary, I think wylder is referring to progesterone which is more or less the only (significant) different hormone running through females' veins. (I say significant because relaxin etc. don't count for much) Too literal?

Women have faced/do face/will continue to face a plethora of problems in all fields, and that's part of the reason why they aren't as prominent in traditionally male dominated fields (in this case, guitar). That along with perhaps an inherent difference in thought process and reasoning (with regard to making a career out of something like guitar - not music in general), as well as perhaps neurobiological differences in comprehending music (no citations sorry) is why we don't see as many women guitarists. And by extension, as many successful or 'talented' or 'original' or 'innnovative' women guitarists. You have to know how many useless male guitarists there are to get an idea of what a tiny fraction the <insert adjective from previous sentence here> male guitarists make up.

N.B: I don't know why I'm posting all this.

 

i am a happy female!!
you've really got to keep your opinions to urself..sometimes!!

 

thanks for the plethora of knowledge

 

is it..? glad to know
thanks madam/sister for the precious advice

 

Thank you thehundrethone for the enlightenment, you know your biology real well. I intended it to be just figurative actually.

But the point being why can't women really be at the same elite level as men? I'm talking about gender neutral fields. That does not include most sports where men and women compete separately. Nor things like acting/singing where a female part is distinctly different from a male part and cannot be compared.

Its not just about playing guitar... For instance, in cooking - the top ten/most renowned chefs are all males. Similar story for architecture. The only such field I can really think of is nursing where womenfolk are the unquestioned leaders.

 

For the same reasons as mentioned in my post. The most important one being the reluctance of men to allow women into "the corridors of power". Women have, in 'civilised' society, largely had little to no role in prominent fields, and the tide of change is always decidedly slow. The irony of womenfolk being leaders in nursing is that men view nursing as a subordinate role in health care. To most men it's like saying women are unquestioned leaders at housekeeping - it's a field they universally disregard.

 

Well said.

To make any comparison between genders in any field, you have to present them with equal opportunity and this is not the case...and probably never will be. Claiming equal opportunity and meaning it are two very different things.

 

So how exactly do we give them equal opportunity? I am talking with respect to our current society.

I know that reservation is thought to be an option. In fact many Indian companies currently strive to attain a certain gender ratio and actually push towards employing more females. But does that really solve the issue?

Are we currently keeping women from taking up prominent roles in society or is it their lack of interest that is keeping them from it?

 

In my opinion, you can't. You can push all you want but to present equal opportunity would require a change of mindset over a large section of population of the world...something I don't believe possible. Alpha would explain this as a law of the jungle, probably correctly. The blacks in the US face similar problems when looking for employment. You have management boards around the world dominated by middle-aged white men (statistically true, from what I heard in a lecture). They weren't accepted as athletes or musicians for a long time either. Muhammed Ali faced racist abuse in America even after winning his medals, George Foreman (was it him or someone else?) was asked to come out of retirement to beat Ali so the boxing world would have a champion they could look up to. No black artist was on MTV till Michael Jackson and Billie Jean at which point they just couldn't turn away from all that money anymore. That changed in fields where raw talent could overcome biases. Large corporations do not require that talent, thankfully or otherwise. Maybe you make a little less profit, maybe you don't...who can tell?

I don't think blanket reservation solves too much and the reservation for women that we've been talking about recently will do much more harm than good. Besides, anytime you try to delibrately tip scales in favour of any side, there is no guarantee that you won't tip them all the way over. And then, would the other side be as magnanimous?


Not very related but I was just reading an article on cricinfo written by Sharda Ugra. I quite liked what she said and tend to agree. These are the first two comments that I read:

clearly meant as an insult.

I think this was meant as a compliment but both seem equally insulting to me. One says "haha little lady" and the other "not bad for a little lady". It's not badly meant.

this is the article:

Sharda Ugra: India's road rage masks their inadequacy | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

About the mindset - I must admit that I too have at times thought of women to be inferior for no other reason than being a woman.

Good comparison with the African origin community. The thing is they came out with heroes who nobody could deny. These guys were worshiped by the white folks too. Just like Muhammed Ali and MJ there was Mike Tyson, Michael Jordan, Jesse Owens, Michael Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr and musicians like Jimi Hendrix, BB/Albert/Freddy King, Chuck Berry, Wes Montgomery etc who nobody can deny were/are the elite in the world.

I don't know how it is within the US but I don't think that today they can be looked down upon anymore in fields like music and sport. In other words, they have claimed their right to equality.

Would it be wrong to expect the same from women? In no way am I supporting men who disrespect women here btw.

 

By not killing them before they are born, just after they are born, when they're adolescents, or grown women, for one. Our great nation doesn't even promote equal opportunity to life.

Not really. It's symptomatic treatment. The change has to be ground up. It is effective though, because the bias can creep in at any stage pre-employment.

It's a chicken and egg story here. Keep them out of the equation for long enough, and some of them stop caring about being part of it.

This is largely true. In a population of 7 billion, at least 6 billion are lemmings.

This is the crux of the issue. The capitalist machine does not discriminate - if it can make money then it's an asset. However, the people running the corporate money bring in their human bias, and they try to hold off on such changes until it's no longer possible to.

Who's doing the tipping? Men. Do you think they'd ever let it get to a point where it was in danger of tipping over? At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the more powerful people don't have to compromise their principles. If they're ultraconservative-neocolonist-racist-fascist-rapist, then rest assured that you will never change that.

The reason most men say it's not badly meant is because they don't see the belittlement in the statement. For them it's culturally acceptable. Just like it was okay to call a black man a nigger in the 20s and 30s.

Because that's how we've all grown up, and almost all of us will never question this mindset. It just makes sense. We laugh at how people could believe the world was flat, but only a few centuries ago it was not even questioned. Our brilliant reasoning brains are best at rationalising our inherent irrationality.

Hardly. Black people are still thought of as violent uncultured leeches by most. Not every black person is B.B King or Michael Jackson, and if you're not up there with them, then you're the "cause of all of America's violent crime".

Would it be wrong to expect you to join the army and go to the frontlines and fight for your country?

 

Relax and see this
Joe Satriani - "Satchurated" Promotional Trailer - YouTube

Joe satriani's concert in 3D and 2D, Coming to theatres all over...

 

I saw him live in Calcutta and wouldn't want to do it again. Definitely not in a theatre.

 

and why would that be?

 

because he doesn't do it differently from how he plays on a CD. The visual appeal is nice the first time but it's like going to watch the same movie twice.

 

Yeah, as a live act Steve Vai might be a little more entertaining than JS or Petrucci simply because of the improvised acrobatics involved.
The latter just play everything note perfect as on record.

 

Not specifically with the issue we're talking about but I've often wondered...it is all very well to be liberal and promote equal opportunity but reservations/concessions is essentially about tipping scales over more than they otherwise would. Eventually, this should lead to a situation where the other side is equally or more powerful...would they be as liberal as the people who let them have power? I think my view sounds naive though but the idea isn't rubbish...take Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe for example. That is my idea of scales tipping over though in this case, power was taken rather than given away so maybe it's not a great example.

Yeah, I should add here that I don't stand outside the peopel I'm talking about. I am considered rather the chauvinist

This. There was an infamous article on Yahoo about the Hurricane in New Orleans and they had 2 almost identical photos of people going into stores to search for food/other useful items....in one of the photos the people were white and the caption was about how people were looking for supplies and in the other, the people were black and the caption was about how people were taking advantage of the hurricane and looting stores. They took it down later and apologized but it is, pretty much, how a large section of people see it.

Again, very well put.