An observation [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : An observation



nightflier
10-29-2004, 09:04 AM
I know this is probably going to open up a whole new can of worms, but it seems to me like almost every poster here is male. Of course, I can't be sure from the sign-on names, but from the discussions it certainly seems so.

I guess what I'm wondering is why women are not as interested in these discussions. When I tell my wife about some new piece of electronic gear I'm considering, her eyes glaze over. What surprises me most is that she has a much finer ear than I do. She can pick out nuances between different speakers that I completely miss. But getting her to listen to equipment is like pulling teeth. I wish I had her hearing ability.

I realize that there is a directed socialization that we all undergo in youth, but I wonder if we are not perpetuating the segregation in these very discussions. Terms like "WAF" certainly aren't flattering and I can list a whole littany of comments from these lists that my wife would just love to tear into.

I am trying to do my part, though. I've been actively introducing my daughter to the appreciation of music and ironically she's taking more of an interest than my son (who's also a little younger). We also strictly monitor their TV viewing, so I suppose we also create more 'time' for music. But I wonder how it is in other homes....

Anyhow, it's just an observation...

Bill L
10-30-2004, 08:04 AM
Well, here's a guess. Women listen to the music. "perpetuating the segregation"? UHmmm . . . it IS a guy thing. We're going to talk like guys, political correctness be darned all to heck!

Lensman
10-30-2004, 10:20 AM
... but it seems to me like almost every poster here is male...I guess what I'm wondering is why women are not as interested in these discussions. When I tell my wife about some new piece of electronic gear I'm considering, her eyes glaze over. What surprises me most is that she has a much finer ear than I do. She can pick out nuances between different speakers that I completely miss. But getting her to listen to equipment is like pulling teeth. I wish I had her hearing ability.

I concur with your assessment. It does appear these forums are almost exclusively populated by males.

In asking why women aren't more interested the nuances of audio/video, you've posed a fascinating question. So I made it the topic of conversation with my wife during dinner last night. She's quite understanding of my hobby and admits to enjoying my system, but like many women, has little interest in the whole affair.

It became obvious that the lack of interest in A/V is not due to a lack of interest in consumer electronics as a whole. Many women take great interest in things like cell phones, digital cameras and computers. My wife currently lusts after a laptop, and the bigger the screen/HD/memory, the better. She states that she'd probably at least buy some HTIB system. But it'd be something cheap. She says she'd never buy a giant TV or sophisticated audio gear even though, like a good laptop, she can tell it's clearly better. Her reason? "It's just not worth the effort. It's not that I can't appreciate when a sound system or TV is better. I'm just happy with less. I can't stand static, but I can listen to cheap speakers, and watching a smaller TV doesn't bother me."

Why is my wife happy to settle for less in audio/video, but wants the very best in other things? We covered various aspects of the question until my wife stopped in mid-sentence and said, "I know exactly what it is!"

She believes it's not something that's a social issue; it's something that's a result of our basic survival instincts. From the early days of the human race, men were the hunter/gatherers while women were the child bearers and food preparers. As a result, she contends men and women place different levels of importance on the five senses. To survive as hunter/gatherers, men required keenly developed hearing and eyesight. For women, these were also necessary, but not as important as having highly refined senses of taste, smell and touch.

So while basic physiology allows the eyes and ears in women to be just as good or better then those in men, their brains simply don't focus on the information from them to the same degree they do on information received from the mouth, nose and skin.

Fast forwarding to today, she feels this is why men can obsess over the last bit of extension in a tweeter or a video screen that's just the tiniest bit sharper, while women typically ignore such trivialities but may obsess over perfume fragrances, gourmet foods or satin sheets.

Geoffcin
10-30-2004, 11:54 AM
Fast forwarding to today, she feels this is why men can obsess over the last bit of extension in a tweeter or a video screen that's just the tiniest bit sharper, while women typically ignore such trivialities but may obsess over perfume fragrances, gourmet foods or satin sheets.

Now can someone tell me why my wife obsesses over wallpaper and tile colors/patterns, while I could give a rats ass about it? Or that we both love to go to concerts, and I've spent a lot of money to make a system that can approximate a real concert performance but when I play concert DVD's she's totally nonplused?

You would think that more acute hearing would be a mans birthright because we were hunter-gatherers, but most WOMEN have better hearing. Same with reflexes. Women have a faster reaction time (in general). Doesn't make sense if you count men as the ones out hunting prey, but there it is.

Humans above all other animals have the most acquired behaviour . Our culture shapes a lot of what we do and think, even more than anyone even knows. I would be very careful about ascribing any gender attribute on genetics.

Lensman
10-31-2004, 01:31 PM
Now can someone tell me why my wife obsesses over wallpaper and tile colors/patterns, while I could give a rats ass about it? Or that we both love to go to concerts, and I've spent a lot of money to make a system that can approximate a real concert performance but when I play concert DVD's she's totally nonplused?

You would think that more acute hearing would be a mans birthright because we were hunter-gatherers, but most WOMEN have better hearing. Same with reflexes. Women have a faster reaction time (in general). Doesn't make sense if you count men as the ones out hunting prey, but there it is.

Humans above all other animals have the most acquired behaviour . Our culture shapes a lot of what we do and think, even more than anyone even knows. I would be very careful about ascribing any gender attribute on genetics.

Well, as I said, this is my wife's take on it. I claim to be no expert in this area and could not say whether it's correct or completely false. But I'm the one that said survival "instinct" in my post. I think her exact words were, "It's a survival thing."

But I didn't mean this to imply it's exclusively a genetic thing. As you point out, it could certainly be something learned. But psychologists and paleontologists do debate whether there is "instinct" of any kind in humans as it exists in animals. So we can view my wife's opinion two ways.

Assume genetic. Not a few scientists believe all human behavior patterns are instinctive at their core. Take, for example, children preferring sweet foods, like candy. Some scientists argue this is because sweetness is a sign of carbohydrates (calories/energy) in food, and believe that for increased evolutionary survival, the desire for sweet foods may be "instinctive" or "evolutionary." Having said that, it's by no means a statement that humans have set behaviors that must be followed regardless of conditioning or circumstance. For example, Inuit Indians of the Artic live almost exclusively on a diet of meat for the obvious reasons. But even though a desire for sweets wasn't passed through their society's generations, they do enjoy candy bars to such a level that visitors to their area often use it as a form of currency. As I said and you reiterated, men and women, with few exceptions, have equivalent physical capabilities. So this would indicate operating brain patterns are different. This is a possibility. Previous studies have indicated that women tend to rely on landmarks and other environmental information when attempting to reach a particular location. Men, however, tend to use Euclidean or orientation strategies such as specific north and south directions and exact distances, which is thought to give them the advantage of correctly assessing their position and changing direction after making a wrong turn.

Assume learned. Since men and women have equivalent physical capabilities, why do we assume early men had to be the hunters? After all arrowheads made by females can't be distinguished from those made, used, or abandoned by males. The reason is too much other evidence from archeological digs indicate this wasn't the norm. I don't believe any prehistorians would claim there were never female hunters as occasional hunting by women would be almost impossible to identify in communities. But they do say that even if there were, it doesn't change their views on the roles of men and women because there's insufficient evidence to indicate it was ever a routine type of women's activity.

Going forward, there's no denying that historic records and evidence have shown that men and women have assumed different and even traditional roles in society throughout the ages. I think what my wife was saying is that these long-standing patterns initially could be shown to extend from the learned roles early males and females adopted and passed from generation to generation in order to survive. As cultures grew and survival became less of an issue, other patterns of behavior became necessary and were learned. But they were more evolutionary progressions from the origins of our species than radically different behaviors resulting from casting off all behavioral patterns learned from previous generations.

That isn't to say that whether learned or genetic, there aren't deviant behavior patterns in people. Almost all communities tolerate low levels of many kinds of idiosyncratic behavior on the part of a few individuals. One need only look at the fragrance counters at any department store to realize women in general like perfume. My wife detests it. Likewise, you are probably not atypical of men in stating you couldn't care less about such things as making artistic color and pattern selections. I, on the other hand, make it part of my business as an advertising Creative Director. But again, these are not considered to be the norms in society. Physically there's no reason for women not to obsess over audio/video as many men do. But it may not be the norm.

Whichever view you take, both could be said to lead back to the earliest days of man and indicate that despite our ability to reason and despite similar physical capabilities in men and women, there may be deeply rooted behavioral patterns (be it hard-wired or learned) extending back through time that affect how we ultimately perceive our world. Our physical capabilities may be identical, but men and women may determine differently which types of information we collect are important and which aren't based on factors that have no significant bearing in current society. As a result your eyes are quite capable of telling the difference in colors between different wallpapers, and you can discern different variations in pattern in different types of tile. But mentally you don't care, and you are typical of many men. My wife can discern the differences in sound in different types of audio gear, and she can tell when one TV has a better picture than another. But mentally she doesn't care, and she is typical of many women. And the reasons may have nothing whatsoever to do with either home decor or consumer electronics.

Feanor
10-31-2004, 02:17 PM
have much to do with audiophilia. Neither women, nor the larger majority of musicians and music lovers of either gender, are audiophiles. They just don't care about those subtle nuiances.

Of course, that doesn't explain why there are is such a preponderance male audiophiles. But I don't think it has anything at all do with "exclusionary" practices of us men.

Geoffcin
10-31-2004, 02:39 PM
And the reasons may have nothing whatsoever to do with either home decor or consumer electronics.

Truly, one could do a dissertation on this subject. It will have to be someone else though, as right now I'm too busy obsessing over my new amp, and my website redesign. For some reason I'm a lot more concerned about my website wallpaper than my dining room. The wife's really happy about that!

Lensman
10-31-2004, 05:30 PM
Truly, one could do a dissertation on this subject. It will have to be someone else though, as right now I'm too busy obsessing over my new amp, and my website redesign. For some reason I'm a lot more concerned about my website wallpaper than my dining room. The wife's really happy about that!

Agreed. One which I'd like to think would disprove my wife's opinion as it's a somewhat depressing one. Among other things, it indicates Nightflier is fighting an almost insurmountable battle by attempting to interest his daughter in the hobby. And who among us married guys doesn't hold out hope that one day we'll put together that perfect setup that'll make the wife stop in her tracks and say, "Wow, that's incredible! Now I understand why you've spent all those years and all that money on this stuff." :)

Lensman
10-31-2004, 07:06 PM
Neither hearing nor music appreciation ability have much to do with audiophilia. Neither women, nor the larger majority of musicians and music lovers of either gender, are audiophiles. They just don't care about those subtle nuiances.

Of course, that doesn't explain why there are is such a preponderance male audiophiles. But I don't think it has anything at all do with "exclusionary" practices of us men.

I know of many men who have bent over backwards to accomodate the slightest percieved interest in the hobby by a woman. But I've also seen a lot of guys who think their bazillion watt car stereos are just the thing to "pick up chicks." And the first time I ever heard the term WAF was when a salesman in a high-end audio store was recommending a set of speakers to me. On the whole, I don't believe men work to consciously exclude women from the hobby. But I do think there's a bit of natural bias of the kind of that develops anytime men get together to "talk shop" and this provides a subtle cue to women that Audio is a "guy thing."

That said, I can't help but wonder how much of it might be the result of the equipment itself. There's no denying women enjoy music and have hearing ability at least the equal of men. But on the whole, high-end audio equipment has always been bulky, unattractive and unforgiving in it's demands for prominent, inconvenient placement. As men, we've often taken pride in equipment racks that fill up an entire wall and speakers that consume acres of floorspace. I realize the laws of Physics and current technology prevent some things from being a reality (like tiny bookshelf speakers with bass). However, I think high-end equipment manufacturers, realizing the majority of their current market are men and designing accordingly, may be as responsible as anyone in perpetuating the disparity between men and women in the hobby. For example, how many women have you ever met that liked the look of McIntosh?

Most women I know are much more impressed by svelte minsystems from mainstream mass-market companies like Sony or Panasonic that have a more vested interest in reaching out to the female demographic. And I know many who absolutely lust for the Bose Wave Radio.

That isn't to say there aren't high-end companies whose products are more attractive to females. I suspect many women would love offerings from the likes of Anthony Gallo and Orb if they knew about them and could buy them at Target. But I suspect companies like this are simply incapable of fielding marketing campaigns of the magnitude required to overcome the tide of preconcieved conceptions women have about high-end audio to make them travel to some eclectic out-of-the-way audio dealer to buy them.

If high-end manufacturers would like to attract more female buyers, they should design accordingly and band together with dealers the way other groups such as Dairy farmers have to develop an advertising campaign (Got Milk?) to change women's perceptions. I might even know someone who could work on such a product. :)

nightflier
11-01-2004, 02:26 PM
I don't want to throw another curve ball, but the hunter-gatherer-male theory is no longer the accepted norm. The current literature suggests that male & female roles were largely interchangeable. Furthermore, early humans really didn't do much hunting. They were more scavengers and, unfortunately, the hunted.

If I could throw in my 2c opinion, I believe that the preponderance of males in audio equipment is a much more modern development that is rooted in a more recent emphasis on 'mechanics' for boys and 'environment' in girls when they were growing up. By recent I am talking about the last 50 years. Anything before that is tainted by the overwhelming domination of males in western society that has had a tremendous impact on access to music and musical equipment for girls as well as women.

I have also been including my wife in this discussion and I do hope my daughter will join the forums when she is a little older. In that vein, I also wanted to touch on how these forums are progressing. Much of the stereotypically female attributes (shoes/wallpaper/clothing) we ascribe to our female partners and children, are also perpetuated by our continued use of them. They may very well be true, but can we really say that we are not creating, contributing to, and maintaining an artificial truth?

Now some may think that this thread is an attempt at destroying what before was a great stomping grownd for us grunting and sports-watching men. My response however, is that these forums would actually benefit from a larger audience, many of whom appear to be better able to discern the quality of the very equipment we are spending thousands on. And of course, I would like these forums to be open to my children so that they too can learn from and contribute to these discussions.

Lensman
11-02-2004, 11:09 PM
The view of early man as scavengers has been around since it was first presented by Southern Methodist University archeologist Lewis Binford in the 1980s. But this theory centers around the means of food gathering of protohumans based on bones showing both cut marks and predator teeth marks. It indicates hunting skills may not have triggered the tremendous burst of human evolution at the beginning of the ice ages nearly two million years ago. But it does not, to my knowledge conjecture that men and women had interchangeable roles.

This isn't an area I can say I've stayed on top of, so I've looked into it a little. A few recent studies by scientists, such as University of Utah anthropologist James O'Connell, have begun to present views based on the implications of Binford's research. These studies really focus more on such things as determining how important the consumption of meat was in man's rise to dominance as a species then they do on the roles men and women played as a result. While they indicate the idea of "nuclear families" is probably unrealistic, they still appear to support men and women having different roles. From O'Connell's study recently published in the Journal of Human Evolution:

"Meat consumption cannot account for the significant changes in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. Our argument relies on a combination of life history theory, data on modern humans and primates, and the archaeological record,"

"Large carcasses were taken not for purposes of provisioning, but in the contest of competitive male displays."

"And so, while men were busy trying to increase their personal prestige � the bigger the carcass, the higher their status among other men � women provided the daily bread by feeding children with starchy roots. Indeed, tubers, with their high caloric value, would have been quite abundant on the plains of Africa 2 million years, offering a food source rich enough to feed the group."

Does this weaken my wife's initial view that interpreting signals from the eyes and ears was more important to early men then women? Perhaps. Was keen hearing and eyesight as crucial to women foraging for plants as it was to men chasing predators from their kills? Who knows? But it may help explain why guys like big, bulky audio equipment with lots and lots of flashy lights, lights and buttons.

Still, the studies focus on protohumans such as Homo ergaster, the first Homo erectus to posses several humanlike traits. To my knowledge, the idea of men as hunters appears to remain intact beyond this point when humans learned to develop their first weapon system, the atlatl. So the idea men's preference for audio over women's might be genetic is probably somewhat untenable as it's probably not a survival instinct. But the idea it's preference based on long-standing learned social interaction may still possible. If you have additional literature that refutes this, I'd loved to read it. As I stated earlier, I personally don't like the idea.

But neither my wife nor I feel it's a result of 1950s culture. When radios and phonographs were introduced, they were considered pieces of fine furniture as much instrumentation for sound reproduction. More importantly, they were seen as devices the family gathered around to enjoy a shared experience (as you are encouraging). This perception and the marketing that helped perpetuate it extended well into the sixties. Though my father appreciates music and dazzled me in my youth with occasional turns at the piano playing Chopin, etc. (which he learned from his concert pianist mother), it was my mother who bought me my first radio, record player and tape player. It was also my mother who spent the time setting up and playing music on the family stereo for my brother and I. My father had little interest in such devices. If this schism in interest is a modern development, I'm more inclined to think it happened after this period when higher-end components came into being. As stated previously, I feel manufacturers have some role in this. As you progress farther into the high-end, the target of companies seems more to be men. One can see this most pointedly in product advertising.

As for destroying a traditional stomping ground, that's not what audio should be about. I, for one, would welcome the input of more women in the hobby. And we could all do well to focus more on the topic at hand and less on making judgments about people. This is one reason I prefer posting on the moderated forums here.

I must say I've found this thread stimulating and my wife is following it with interest as well. Our discussions have been the most my wife has ever involved herself in the world of audio, and for that, I thank you for posing the question.

nightflier
11-03-2004, 04:58 PM
Lens,

I appreciate your thorough analysis of this topic and the archeological evidence you present. It is refreshing to read. Of course, we are discussing this without the input of women who are actually the topic of this discussion.

I wonder if we could open this up to women members of AR out there (aside from our own families)? Anyone?

Quagmire
11-04-2004, 08:21 AM
I think we're all overlooking something that I call the "Tinkering Factor". I believe men just love to tinker with stuff and, generally speaking, women don't. Think for a moment... your wife or girlfriend may love her automobile, she may even appreciate certain performance aspects of her car if applicable. But how many women really enjoy tinkering with the thing on the weekend? No, I'd say that most are completely happy if they turn the ingnition key, it starts and runs without problems. The same can be said of electronic gear too. Women may really like items like cell phones, digital cameras, and computers. But I'd wager that most aren't that interested in tearing one of these items appart or rebuilding a computer. There are of course, going to be exceptions, but generally speaking, most women are happy if these items power up and work properly -- no deeper knowledge or "tinkering" required.

As this relates to Audio/Video gear, I think the same logic applies. I know my wife likes being able to sit down to enjoy a movie in our home theater, and she appreciates how much time, energy and effort I've put into making the system the quality that it is. But for her, the payoff comes simply from the end product... push the "PLAY" button and you have picture and sound. For me, I have to admit that much of the reward I get from the system comes from tinkering with it. I think I enjoy the end product more, partly because of the time and energy I've put into the system. I know it sounds very "sexist" to say, but I think men and women are just wired differently with respect to this "tinkering factor". I believe that men and women are "equal" but that doesn't mean that we're "equivalent".

Q

nightflier
11-04-2004, 10:03 AM
Yes, but is the tinkering factor a product of socialization? And if so, are we not perpetuating the socialization by suggesting that women are satisfied with simpler things: "most women are happy if these items power up and work properly -- no deeper knowledge or tinkering required." By suggesting this as fact, or at least as an observation, are we not reinforcing the belief through repetition?

My wife has been reading this thread for last few days and she wanted me to include her impression: "I commend the efforts to evolve the discussion but the chest-pounding majority may not be ready for it. Sometimes, men need their space to be men, but that space does need a reality check once in a while - and no, that would not be considered political correctness, but airing out the place. Inbreeding is bad, no matter where it happens."

Quagmire
11-04-2004, 02:02 PM
"Yes, but is the tinkering factor a product of socialization? And if so, are we not perpetuating the socialization by suggesting that women are satisfied with simpler things:"

First of all... I didn't suggest that women are satisfied with "simpler things". You made that leap all by yourself. My suggestion is that perhaps women are inspired by "different things" than men are, and that it is possible that there is a natural reason why this might be true. My statements were not meant to carry a negative connotation as you seem to imply. Different tastes for different folks. What causes one person to like stawberry ice cream and another to like chocolate? Must we all be made to like chocolate even if it's not in our nature? As I ended my previous post; I believe that men and women are "equal" but that doesn't mean that we're "equivalent"; which is to say that we don't have to be exactly alike in order to be of equal value.

Isn't it funny that YOU are the one posting here and your wife is not. Exactly what does that mean, and what might SHE be perpetuating by her lack of envolvment? Should she feel obliged to participate even if she really doesn't care to? Should she feel guilty that she is not participating? I'm sure you're not preventing her from posting, so what's her excuse? No one here is preventing her from posting. Perhaps it is permissible that she not post simply because she doesn't want to; that this "hobby" doesn't hold the same appeal for her that it does for others. And maybe... just maybe... there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes inbreeding is bad... but by definition, it takes place "in the home" so to speak, and not between strangers.

Q

nightflier
11-12-2004, 03:55 PM
OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask: Are there any women members, here at AR? Is that really true?

nightflier
02-23-2005, 05:53 PM
OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask: Are there any women members, here at AR? Is that really true?

I posed this question months ago and there was no reply, so I presumed that there were no women out there. I stand corrected: Malibushirl, a.k.a. Speakergirl, joined the club in May 2002. With only 13 posts in three years, she must have been laughing at all the sillyness we guys have been talking about in this thread and others.

Anyhow, welcome, Malibushirl !