WMN: t3_1n6b29_t1_ccfynhy

[TITLE]

I think there are probably artistic and/or philosophical flaws in any activity, belief or work of art which is not equally attractive to men and women. CMV.

[Biomancer]

I'm referring to activities, beliefs and works of art which are not fundamentally associated with a certain biological sex. So obviously this would not apply to a book about what to eat during pregnancy or how to avoid prostate cancer. However, if an economy theory or sport or TV show or whatever has 90% male advocates or 90% female advocates, I think this is probably a good indication that it has fundamental flaws compared to a program with an equal number of viewers who like it an equal amount but who have a more even demographic ratio. (The same probably holds true for age groups in a lesser way, since cultural accessibility changes over time.) If such an idea can be relatively well-known but can only retain fans of predominantly one gender, this is probably an indication that it appeals to those sharing a certain experience of life but cannot be rationally or aesthetically justified in an abstract or academic context. I think activities, beliefs and works of art that are not fundamentally limited to a certain segment of society but which fail to transcend that demographic are flawed compared to those that can.

[polychaos]

This, to me, is a neuropsychology vs. sociology issue. I've debated this same topic with friends of mine many times. It comes down to which of the two major theories for development you ascribe to: Nature or Nurture. If Nature (i.e. neurochemicals, androgenic compounds, and sex are responsible for the disparity of male/female cognitive and social development): * You would acknowledge that men and women are biologically distinct, and therefore more likely to enjoy certain activities based on what activates reward. * You acknowledge that no matter what the social norms of raising children and exposing them to the world there are tendencies that are fully male and fully female (and graded based on dosage, of course). If Nurture (i.e. upbringing is solely responsible etc.): * You acknowledge that the problem is sociological rather than with the work of art, activity, or belief. * You also acknowledge that the problem is inseparable from the social norms of the time, and that the artist, viewer, critic, and you are all products of that same culture. Either way, your view doesn't work in this context. Either there is an inherent gender bias, or the gender bias is with the society that created it. Neither of those represent a flaw of the activity, art or philosophy; which are inherently reflections of sociological norms/expectations. edit: I forgot to mention that my personal belief is that the answer HAS to be somewhere in the middle. OF COURSE people are impressionable from a young age and OF COURSE its easier to be an aggressive male with high testosterone levels. The differences are inherent, but mutual respect can be learned.

[grlthng]

I don't know if you are including "industry" in this discussion, but the computer that you are typing on and the internet that you sent the packet through are invented by scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and physicists that are predominantly male.

[KingTommenBaratheon]

All persons are the subjects of their own perspective on the world. Many people share aspects of their perspectives because they share important traits. Many children share a 'child's perspective' on the world because of their youth, inexperience, and biological constitution. The same is also true of gender. The average person of the male gender will likely have a different attitude to some activities than the statistically average female person. This is because, in our culture, 'maleness' and 'femaleness' are constituted largely by people adopting these attitudes (consciously or not). Most men, for example, are raised to respect the physical strength of men, while most women are raised to respect the physical beauty of other women. These are the easy and paradigmatic cases of gender-specific cultural attitudes. Given this, it makes sense that there are some works of art that appeal to the attitudes common to one gender perspective rather than another. That other's don't share this perspective is closely analogous to how a colour-blind person will not have the same appreciation of the colour-palette in a Caravaggio painting as a person who can see colour. The reason for these different attitudes is real, predictable, and is a natural implication of the limitations of human perspective.

[Biomancer]

Your name had better not be a Game of Thrones spoiler.

[KingTommenBaratheon]

No, I'm just an advocate for gavelkind succession laws, even in fantasy worlds. ;)

[da_ballz]

I'm confused at to why you think the object/art piece/idea is flawed. I'm a dude and I don't find purses particularly attractive but does that mean the purse is flawed? No. Does that mean I'm flawed? No. I have no use for it because I can put my things in my pockets. Girls often don't wear things with pockets so they need something to carry their belongings in. Nothing/Nobody is flawed in this case, there is a need and a lack of need for a product. If the product/art/idea serves the purpose it was designed for I don't see how it can be flawed.

[Biomancer]

A purse or a pocket is not an "activity, belief or work of art". Collecting designer handbags would arguably be a flawed *hobby*, though.

[EvilNalu]

I'd bet plenty of purse designers and consumers would call at least some of their purses works of art, and there is really no objective basis on which one could disagree.

[Biomancer]

I'd bet those individual purses which are actually considered significant artistic accomplishments would be appreciated by both men and women.

[da_ballz]

Alright lets go with activity. I enjoy working on my car. For the sake of argument let's say you do not enjoy working on cars. Does that make this activity flawed? And if so, in what way?

[Biomancer]

My individual tastes have no bearing on whether that is a flawed activity. I'm saying that if (for example) 15% of men do it but only 0.15% of women, that is a good *indicator* that many women are exposed to the arguments in favour of the hobby but have rational reasons for disliking it anyways.

[da_ballz]

[STA-CITE]>that is a good indicator that many women are exposed to the arguments in favour of the hobby but have rational reasons for disliking it anyways. [END-CITE]I don't necessarily agree with this but why can't this logic be applied to any activity, philosophical belief or work of art? By your title it seems that this activity should be flawed. A percentage of men 10 times larger than women enjoy an activity and somehow your rule doesn't apply. I'm not seeing how the gender ratio of liking/disliking something can determine whether or not something it is flawed.

[Biomancer]

I *am* saying this logic can be applied to any activity, belief, or work of art with a significant gender gap, including your example of working on cars. According to this theory, if working on cars was a rationally or artistically defensible activity then women would be doing it just as much as men.

[AnxiousPolitics]

[STA-CITE]> I am saying this logic can be applied to any activity, belief, or work of art with a significant gender gap, including your example of working on cars. According to this theory, if working on cars was a rationally or artistically defensible activity then women would be doing it just as much as men. [END-CITE]This is an interesting view. Where did you come by it? As I see it, it accomplishes two things: It cements relationships as the ultimate goal of life, meaning that if people were serious about love and the quality of life of all their days then the only accepted activities would be things both partners were actually interested in. Instead of finding one thing a day or week they both like, being distracted by ads and products, doing things that appeal to gender stereotypes, and so on. This leads to the second thing, which is it indicts every activity that you could easily find a problem in normally, like football for being dangerous, and the unnecessarily complex design of combustion engines when electric ones work well. It appears to be an interesting way to correlate all the things that might normally be said should be a waste of time in a better world. I find all of this interesting because people don't often do either of those two things, let alone put them together into one thought.

[da_ballz]

Except I can rationally defend the activity. Things break, components need maintenance, and it is cheaper and faster to fix/maintain the car myself. I also know the job is being done correctly. (I also enjoy it more but in for the sake of being "rational" I left it out) So how is this activity flawed?

[Biomancer]

Oh, I thought you meant "working on my car" as in polishing it and keeping it in super condition as a hobby, not as in "occasional repairs".

[keflexxx]

it's probably not occasional repairs, he probably tools around with it even when there's no real problem. but he's pointed out the utility of this, and he enjoys it. what's the flaw?

[monkyyy]

Toy cars are philosophically flawed?

[cahpahkah]

[STA-CITE]>flawed compared to those that can. [END-CITE]And what would be an example of activities, beliefs, or works of art that appeal equally to all people of the world?

[MageZero]

People seem to be pretty positive about breathing.

[Biomancer]

I don't think there is a skewed gender ratio in people's appreciation of swimming, Kant's categorical imperative, or Beethoven's 9th symphony. I don't think they "appeal equally to all people of the world", but that wasn't my premise.

[EvilNalu]

Has it occurred to you that in many cases it is probably society that has flaws, and not the activity? Take [go](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game\)) for example: it is a game (or competitive activity) that appears to be much more attractive to men than women. The vast majority of go players are men, and almost all of the top players in the world are men. However, there is no biological or philosophical reason why this is the case. It is simply a facet of many societies worldwide that girls are discouraged from playing such games, while boys are not. It seems likely to me that the philosophical problem is not with the game, which is objectively totally gender-neutral, but with society, which encourages and discourages certain activities in gendered ways.

[Biomancer]

I think there is a very good argument to be made (hypothetically) against board games as a recreational activity - they're competitive and most do not encourage cooperation, they are static and repetitive with a limited amount of development over time, and mastery of a board game usually does not provide many useful skills in other areas of life.

[EvilNalu]

Does every single activity have to be cooperative, such that any competitive one is fundamentally flawed? That's absurd. You pointed out Beethoven's 9th as a shining example of a non-flawed piece, and it certainly is not developed over time. Playing board games can help to improve cognitive function, memory, and motor skills. In fact they are often used in [occupational therapy](http://ajot.aotapress.net/content/47/2/154.full.pdf) to help build these skills.

[Biomancer]

I make no claims that board games are actually fundamentally flawed; I'm just saying that the presence of a gender gap probably correlates with the presence of rational counterarguments. Beethoven's 9th is a work of art, not an activity. Therefore it makes to sense to compare it using the same criteria as other potential activities like bicycling or volunteering at a soup kitchen or learning to play the piano.

[EvilNalu]

Well, you have to admit either 1) that they are flawed or 2) that an activity not equally attractive to men and women is not flawed. OK, let's compare to an activity such as playing the piano. Is that fundamentally flawed? Keep in mind that there are [significant gender differences](http://www.textroad.com/pdf/JBASR/J.%20Basic.%20Appl.%20Sci.%20Res.,%203(3\)221-225,%202013.pdf) in piano playing.

[Biomancer]

Then let's say I do consider the choice to spend countless hours getting slowly better at the same board game to be an irrational life decision. Prize winners at an international level of piano competition is not an accurate metric of the gender demographics of people interested in playing the piano.

[EvilNalu]

[STA-CITE]>Then let's say I do consider the choice to spend countless hours getting slowly better at the same board game to be an irrational life decision. [END-CITE]This has nothing to do with whether the activity is philosophically flawed. [STA-CITE]>Prize winners at an international level of piano competition is not an accurate metric of the gender demographics of people interested in playing the piano. [END-CITE]Unless you think there are biological differences that cause men to progress faster, it means either more men play piano or men that play the piano play it more. Both seem to indicate men have more interest in playing the piano. Do you propose any other metric of interest in piano playing or are you just being difficult?

[Biomancer]

[STA-CITE]>This has nothing to do with whether the activity is philosophically flawed. [END-CITE]Most mainstream ethical philosophies posit that people should try to avoid making irrational decisions... [STA-CITE]>Unless you think there are biological differences that cause men to progress faster, it means either more men play piano or men that play the piano play it more. Both seem to indicate men have more interest in playing the piano. Do you propose any other metric of interest in piano playing or are you just being difficult? [END-CITE]I read an interesting article once (admittedly a long time ago) about how many highly-esteemed orchestras resisted the use of blind auditions. It was later shown that after they were instituted in many locations, the hiring of female musicians increased significantly. So I think there might be a culture of male superiority in the highest echelons of classical music which discourages women from pursuing it to the same degree. Also keep in mind that the stats in that paper go back as far as 1928, which was before many countries even gave women the right to vote... I suggest that a better metric of interest would be something reflecting amateur interest as well, such as gender ratios of people who download sheet music or piano or participate on piano forums. A census form including hobbies (or piano ownership?) would obviously be the better, but I don't know whether that exists or not.

[EvilNalu]

[STA-CITE]>So I think there might be a culture of male superiority in the highest echelons of classical music which discourages women from pursuing it to the same degree. [END-CITE]Oh my god. You finally saw my initial point. Now I assume you agree with me that an activity can be unequally attractive to different genders for social reasons, not just ones intrinsic to the activity itself. And if you have any statistics for the metrics you proposed, please introduce them. Otherwise I will assume my stance is correct.

[Biomancer]

I never disagreed with your point about society discouraging female Go players! I just pointed out that there might also be philosophical reasons justifying some women's distaste for ritualized board games. If that was your stance from the beginning then why did you start talking about men having more inherent interest in piano?

[BrawndoTTM]

There is nothing equally attractive to any group of people. Tastes are incredibly subjective.

[hacksoncode]

"Art" porn is an interesting test case, but in a more serious vein... Your statement is probably way over-generalized. I think, for example, that there is art whose *purpose* is to shed light on the gender roles that cause one or the other gender to be attracted to it, and that it would indeed be *failing* in its primary purpose in its time and place if it did what you are saying it "should" do. Of course, in the larger sense, it would be wildly successful art if some day gender roles changed such that this were no longer the case...But it would no longer be serving its purpose. But as to your main point... if a topic area is, for social reasons unrelated to art, attractive to one gender, you seem to be saying that it's impossible to have "good" art about that topic. For example, that it's impossible to have a stunning picture of a football play, or a fantastically good floral arrangement (but only outside of Japan, oddly). In a sense, you're saying that art about a gender biased topic can't be good unless it's really, fundamentally, not about that gender biased topic. I would argue, that if it "transcends" its category, it's failed in its mission to be about that category. It might be interesting art in its own way, but it's no longer speaking about what the artist was trying to speak about. And what's so special about gender bias? Is it impossible for there to be "good rap music" because (hypothetically) that appeals, statistically, more to black people? Or any good classical music if, hypothetically, it appealed less to them? Can there be no good "genre" art? Does it have to stop being its genre to do so?

[Biomancer]

[STA-CITE]>I think, for example, that there is art whose purpose is to shed light on the gender roles that cause one or the other gender to be attracted to it, and that it would indeed be failing in its primary purpose in its time and place if it did what you are saying it "should" do. [END-CITE]Can you give an example of a work of art whose effect relies on not being enjoyed by men or by women? [STA-CITE]>you're saying that art about a gender biased topic can't be good unless it's really, fundamentally, not about that gender biased topic. I would argue, that if it "transcends" its category, it's failed in its mission to be about that category. [END-CITE]Did Van Gogh's sunflowers fail in their mission to be about "floral arrangement"? I think you will find that most acclaimed works of art are not reducible to their subject matter. Plenty of authors and artists depict narrow interests in a widely relevant way because they are able to give their works meaning on multiple levels. If you were required to have an active interest and knowledge of ballet to appreciate Degas, he wouldn't be such an acclaimed painter. But that doesn't mean his works aren't "about" ballerinas (and of course ballet is a highly-regarded art in its own right). In fact, one might even define art as creations which have meaning greater than the sum of their parts - if it doesn't transcend, it's not art in the first place. [STA-CITE]>And what's so special about gender bias? Is it impossible for there to be "good rap music" because (hypothetically) that appeals, statistically, more to black people? Or any good classical music if, hypothetically, it appealed less to them? [END-CITE]As I mentioned in the intro, you could make a similar argument about age demographics. I think ethnicity might also work in certain cases, but there's much less potential for ideas to spread among groups with different geographical and socioeconomic backgrounds. [STA-CITE]>Can there be no good "genre" art? Does it have to stop being its genre to do so? [END-CITE]Which genres do you claim appeal mainly to men or to women? If a genre as whole has a significant gender skew, that's probably a good indication that there are some limiting trends embedded in the history of the field - but you can't really apply that to individual authors or works of art.

[hacksoncode]

Forgot to answer the question about art that is intentionally designed to appeal to e.g. men in order to make a statement about gender roles... though my question was primarily about whether such art would be considered "flawed" if it existed... However, I have observed one performance art project at Burning Man that I think fits this description. It is a bike ride by topless women called "critical tits". It may, at first seem like a puerile attention seeking activity, but the goal of the organizers originally was specifically to desensitize men to the sexualization/objectification of women. And it's incredibly effective at its purpose. Like many men, I approached it initially from a prurient interest, but after you see your 5000th breast in half an hour, you start to question what it is that you were so interested in at the start. Of course at this point it has become a tradition...though it still seems to accomplish its purpose, judging from the people I've talked to.

[hacksoncode]

I think I'm primarily objecting to the notion that this is a "flaw". Something can be perfect genre art, and there's nothing wrong with that. And it is a fact that some genres currently appeal primarily to various subsets of people, some of which are along gender lines. I think it's possible, for example, for a sports photograph to perfectly capture something about that sport, without any "flaw" either technically or artistically. But if that sport primarily appeals to one gender, the popular appeal of it will inevitably be skewed. And there's nothing wrong with that. Does "great" art always transcend genre? Maybe, though I think that's a somewhat limited view. But does that mean art that doesn't transcend its genre is "flawed"? No, it's just means it's purpose is more limited. It may fulfill its goals flawlessly.

[Biomancer]

Can you explain what exactly you mean by "genre"? I thought at first you were referring to literary genres (like fantasy, crime etc.) but I guess you're using it in a more general sense. I would argue that the rational criteria used by to determine whether a sports photo is of high quality have very little to do with the rational criteria used to determine whether the subject is a high-quality player. Furthermore, I think the photographer and the sports fan have very different goals. On that basis, I dispute the existence of an inherent connection between the photo's "genre" and its actual artistic value.

[hacksoncode]

I don't think there's an *inherent* connection between a photo's genre and it's value either. Let's take a hypothetical example. Let's say there's an artistically perfect picture of some play in football that poignantly shows some feature of the game, and thus would likely appeal far more to those who are fans of the game. And by artistically perfect, I mean technically perfect, in that it has perfect timing, perfect lighting, perfect shutter speed, and emotionally perfect, in that it has great emotional appeal to fans of the game, makes some powerful statement about the game, or something else that gives it merit (perhaps something as simple as being a great example of tragedy or comedy within the scope of the game). I.e. it doesn't have any "flaws" within the scope of what it was trying to accomplish. Now, yes, it's "perfection" might be limited to being perfectly appropriate to it's limited topic. I would argue that, for reasons unrelated to the art itself, men might statistically find it more appealing, simply because they are more commonly interested in the sport, enabling more of them to have an emotional connection to the subject matter. Now... one might argue that football itself is flawed due to its appeal to men... I think that's kind of a stretch... you'd really have to say society is flawed for raising men and women differently if you wanted to make that argument, and even then there are some pretty good reasons to believe that male and female brains are wired differently with respect to how they process spatial information (statistically speaking). But regardless, the *art* of that photo is very likely to only appeal to men, and the quality or "perfection" of the art qua art seems unrelated to me to whether the game, or society, has flaws that make football more relevant to men. When I say "is there such a thing as good genre art?", I'm basically asking if it's necessary that all art have universal scope beyond its topic? Does it have to be poignant to people that don't understand the genre in order to not have "flaws"? Or can it be perfect, or even just artistically valuable, though in a limited scope?

[Biomancer]

Well, there's a lot of discussion in some circles about whether collision sports are really worth all the concussions... but that's irrelevant to our main area of discussion. I think the problem with your conclusion from that example is that it presupposes people can't identify with aesthetic interpretations of things they don't care about. But the Sistine Chapel gets thousands and thousands of visits a year from people who aren't even Catholic, and you don't have believe in God or Adam to appreciate that iconic scene with the nearly-touching fingers... I don't think art has to be universally appreciated, because that would be impossible. It would also disqualify a lot of highly-respected stuff like Finnegan's wake. But I do think art can be respected on the basis of aesthetic achievement alone, whether or not you agree (or have even heard of) the subject matter.

[hacksoncode]

I totally agree that it's entirely possible to appreciate art without understanding/agreeing with the subject matter, but there are still always going to be subject matters that are better understood by some groups vs. others. While this doesn't *prevent* the "others" from appreciating the art, I think that statistically it will appeal *more* to the group that *does* understand the subject matter better. Indeed, if it doesn't that's a flaw, if the intent of the artist was to make a statement about the subject matter. As a result you can have art that appeals to a higher number of men than women (for example), but which isn't "flawed", it's just relevant to a particular topic they typically understand better, for societal reasons external to the art itself.

[Biomancer]

More, yes, but as far as the 90%-10% figure I suggested in the OP? I also tend to think much of the skew would come from men or women sharing the idea more often with friends of the same gender, creating a sort of snowball effect... But you make a strong argument, and even though I'm not totally convinced, think you deserve the ∆.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hacksoncode. ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]