Why are the men successful?

Post Reply New Topic

Historically, there have been fewer female artists for the same reason that there have been fewer female doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. What is so hard to understand?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/17/37964450.pdf

If you want more sources check just about every single statistic done on hours worked in paid labour between the genders. Unless you include work within the home reported based on estimations, which is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Women as a whole work less than men, period, even counting those women who work just as much or more than men.

I think hyperlexian makes a good point and that's part of the reason there are less female professionals in general.

As for art specifically, I'm not really tuned in enough to know what the current 'art scene' is like but are there really still more men? Historically, I imagine the reason why there were more male artists were because it just wasn't an avenue open to most women. You'd become an apprentice or go off to some school. A lot of artists back then were pretty fringe characters I believe so it probably wasn't very socially acceptable for women of the time to associate with them. As for now, I'm not so sure. Women's creativity is certainly much more encouraged for what I can see.

I remember MP or someone like that one here lamenting about how the ratio of atheists(at least ones that attend conventions or something of the sort) so heavily skewed male.

Maybe it just comes down to biology. Men in general are more individualist while women are more collectivist and unwilling to upset the natural order of things.

Barron interviewed the art students and found what the tests did not indicate: the degree of intensity with which the students pursued their chosen careers. In asking the students the question. Do you think of yourself as an artist? 67% of the women said no and 60% of the men said yes. When asked the question, In comparison to the work of others at the Institute, is your work particularly unique or good? 40% of the men and 17% of the women answered yes. And when asked In comparison to the work of others at the Institute, is your work inferior? the percentages were reversed: 40% of the women felt their work was inferior and 14% of the men agreed.

Barron pointed out that this revealed a difference in self-image in the women, and that these differences were not indications of the real quality of the men's and women's art work, indicating that "the quality of the women's art work was equally high." The main difference came in the intensity of the commitment of the young artists to their work. Almost all of the men said their art work was their life, was necessary for life, and was their main reason for living: "Without painting I couldn't function." Only one woman indicated that her work was essential, and the others made comments such as this: "It's half my life, the other half is my future family." The necessity for passion and commitment for one's work is essential. The young women artists did not seem to demonstrate this pricking by the "thorn" of passion, as mentioned in the discussion of the Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development.

The men viewed their work with passion, the women with detachment. But when asked whether they would still paint if they had no results or success, only half the men said they would continue to paint, but all of the women did. Barron said, "Maybe the women are more interested in 'art for art's sake' or maybe men are more practical. But then he 'went on to make another interesting comment: "The psycho dynamic interpretation might be that for the man the works of art are his children, whereas women can have their own real children."

Barron pointed out that this revealed a difference in self-image in the women, and that these differences were not indications of the real quality of the men's and women's art work, indicating that "the quality of the women's art work was equally high." The main difference came in the intensity of the commitment of the young artists to their work. Almost all of the men said their art work was their life, was necessary for life, and was their main reason for living: "Without painting I couldn't function." Only one woman indicated that her work was essential, and the others made comments such as this: "It's half my life, the other half is my future family." The necessity for passion and commitment for one's work is essential. The young women artists did not seem to demonstrate this pricking by the "thorn" of passion, as mentioned in the discussion of the Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development.

The men viewed their work with passion, the women with detachment. But when asked whether they would still paint if they had no results or success, only half the men said they would continue to paint, but all of the women did. Barron said, "Maybe the women are more interested in 'art for art's sake' or maybe men are more practical. But then he 'went on to make another interesting comment: "The psycho dynamic interpretation might be that for the man the works of art are his children, whereas women can have their own real children."

not really, vexcaliber. art has historically been a male pursuit. it's not been until the twentieth century that female artists have come to any prominence at all.

So do I, yet the bias seems to be toward the notion that men and women are mentally identical, which is clearly a load of nonsense.

i have trimmed the thread and moved the off-topic discussion about IQ and intelligence to here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt197272.html

Men are bigger risk takers than women. It's no more complicated than this. This is also why 80% of all homeless Americans are men.

What about those men that think Bud Light is an actual beer....

Bud Light is awesome.

To me it's piss water, when I drink beer I want a real beer.....Black IPA is where it's at man