All I can say about the thread is that it's at least nice we remain so predictable, myself included.
When Schopenhauer was writing his misogynist tracts, women were still quite limited in terms of how they could express themselves culturally. Even if a woman at that time could be tutored in music privately, she'd still have a hard time being accepted publicly as a composer unless she hid behind a male identity. To that end, there's really no telling how many works of art were carried out by women under the guise of a husband or brother. I just find the argument incredibly asinine, as it ignores the limits placed on an entire half of society, only to turn around the call that half inferior because its constituents were never able to publicly flourish due to said limitations. At which point the argument proceeds: well women have had enough time living freely now, and yet we still don't have great female artists. Keeping in mind that we're talking about a span of time that constitutes the last 60 years or so versus the majority of Western history up until 60 years or so ago, there actually have been quite a lot of talented female artists in the 20th and 21st century thus far. Authors, poets, philosophers, musicians, painters, and so on and so forth. "Well, okay, but no truly great artists" they then say. How many artists of the last century could be considered truly great? And how does one separate true greatness from acknowledged greatness? Why don't we give it another 100 years and see how many truly great (read: great, but also well known) female artists arise now that we're really just starting to enter into a state of cruise control with regard to women being considered not entirely inferior societally.
I think what irritates me about threads like that is the attempt to apply research whose significance is still not entirely clear to explain something like a partner's "inability" to like your hobby. My girlfriend doesn't care about my headphone obsession, so perhaps she can't appreciate sound itself like I can! First off, just because someone doesn't gush about your audio rig doesn't mean they're hearing something entirely different. It takes training to hear nuances and a particular mindset (not a "male" one, but an "audiophile" one) to care about those nuances even if heard. It also takes a certain vocabulary to articulate it. For instance I know plenty of guys who just shrug when I let them hear some $1k headphones. That's in the context of friendship too and not an intimate relationship where the dynamics between two people can get complicated. Also you'd be surprised just how little effort some audiophiles (not all, but some I've known) put into involving their partners in this stuff. They expect them to suddenly "get it" when headphones are thrown onto their heads, and when they don't immediately offer validation or seem disinterested, they get exasperated. Not everyone responds to music the same way, and again, this isn't a gender thing so much as a personal thing in my experience. Some folks (plenty of men) can't sit down and attentively listen to something; they have to be moving or doing something else kinetic or visual to go along with the auditory experience, otherwise they get fidgety. It's better to come to people on their terms and try to integrate better quality audio into their lifestyle, using music they like and maybe some better earphones rather than a big set of wooden earmuffs.
Anyway, I've mostly been working on diary entry related stuff for the last two months, off and on, so this nonsense is just the excremental leftover. I'd rather talk about videogames and movies and music (assuming I can even hear as well as you guys!). Most of that stuff will be in coming posts.
Edited by MuppetFace - 12/11/13 at 6:22pm