Something beet said prompted me to recall this brialliant art installation by Lyn Malcolm titled "Why do we have so few great women artists?" It demonstrates how women's creativity was quashed and had to be expressed by domestic arts. Each item in the installation spells out one of the words of the title, using only those arts women were permitted..

As I've mentioned on another thread Alexa I've been analysing stuff from the perspective of Taoist philosophy for quite a while now and also have been putting together a "systems model to this" that "bridges the gap between biological physics, cognitive science, and information design" and I have maybe an interesting "spin" to share w/r/to the male/female aspects of society and the sort of repression that this art might reasonably be worked out to represent and maybe where it comes from too.

The problem with "why do we have so few women artists" is not that the artists aren't there - very clearly (hehe I'm married to one so i should know) the issue is one of what might be called "system constraints" - the opportunity to express the arts in full and to have them recognised in full being suppressed by a societal linear drive to match a social model.

I think that the image you share is of beautiful works of artistry - I'm not exactly sure that I see a distinction between art and craft myself.

As to where that comes from - I'm drawn to explore this in terms of "power dynamics" on a another thread i replied to ArchaeC that very interestingly in Sepic culture in Papua New guinea the men had a lodge where only men could go - but ironically that male society acknowledged that the origin story for where power and creativity actually comes from is from women  (the name for the lodge and the female sculpture in it).

So being the sort of person that i am I have got into exploring these "social dynamics" - 1 because I'm pee-ed off at women not getting a fair expression of self in society (well I'm married to one and between us we've made a couple more) and also because 2 I regularly get quite a bit of collateral damage as being a male as a consequence of them ( reference point 1.... :-)  )  and 3 because I kind of think of myself as aspiring to embody principles that are both "male" and "female"

A really interesting "spin" on this (hehe for me anyway) is that when both male and females begin the underlying "spin" for all of us is (pretty much) universally right handed (this is confirmed by what our cells do and look like in a 15 day old embyo) so- the entire human framework is structurally built upon a primary, clockwise fluid torque event that happens at the very beginning of life.

So given that we all strat spinning the same way where the bit where we get into "women and men from mars"  (I remember that as being a book title from a while ago) doesn't seem to be so obvious there - we're all as it where spinning the same way to start with - so why the "oppression" socially that is very clear (at least as I see it).

Well (again being the sort of person i am ) i'm drawn to look at what "structural" differences there are in the biology between men and women.  In that respect from the "wiring" of the brain - women have much stronger wiring across left to right hemispheres whilst men have much stronger wiring front to back in the hemisphere - to me that's almost as if the "female brain" is more wired up to "see" (by which I mean able to analyse and represent) both sides of a situation) whereas the male brain not.  ---- hmm.. that unfortunately can lead to a natural "power imbalance" as (if like me) one is inclined to see both sides of an argument one is perhaps more likely to cede to someone who isn't (mentioning no genders - but I think one might see where this is going...)

Moving on - and this is picking up a conversation that I had on another thread with The CatWoman on another thread biological changes take place anatomically that alter puberty

Here I'm relying on Ai' spiel of what I want to say as hopefully it explains it better than me

Phased said:

The problem with "why do we have so few women artists" is not that the artists aren't there - very clearly (hehe I'm married to one so i should know) the issue is one of what might be called "system constraints" - the opportunity to express the arts in full and to have them recognised in full being suppressed by a societal linear drive to match a social model.

Indeed. The arts module of my degree course in womens' studies went into the disadvantaes women have traditionally suffered in artistic expression, especially (although not limited to) Western European/American societies. Some female expressions of art in other countries are fascinating, such as the Ndbele external house decorations, where long straight lines are drawn across entirely freehand and with great precision.

Phased said:

Well (again being the sort of person i am ) i'm drawn to look at what "structural" differences there are in the biology between men and women. 

I sort of gave up on that because whatever is said in one scientific paper is so often challenged in another, which cannot replicate the same results. 

A personal observation of my own strengths in various mental tests or work is that I seem to be strong in "typically" male areas, but that might be my autism. If it is, it raises the question of how far any results in this field are affected by autism, for both men and women. Of course, as autism in women is a recent and developing fireld, I very much doubt it's taken into account in any studies of "difference".

Phased said:

social dynamics of having enough time and energy to devote to the arts maybe? 

Indeed. Women tended to be forced into childbirth and care. If working-class, housework as well, of course. Wollstonecraft and others demonstrated what women could achieve if they were largely free of such constraints. And if their art didn't have to fly under the names of their husbands (thinking of current theories about Wordsworth).

Phased said:

"neurodiverse" ironically lumps a whole bunch of people into it - rather than seeing each and every one as being independently neurodivergent

Agreed. When writing my latest book, the first main character in it is neurodiverse but not subject to a simplistic classification.

Phased said:

W/r/to being more "male" in your autism tests

No, not in autism tests. More intelligence tests and the way I approached work. It wasn't the way i viewed myself but more the social expectations of others. I didn't grow up with sexist ideas and so the sexist stuff that came my way always baffled me.

Phased said:

i'm angling for each and every person and other living creature, network of trees and fungi, colonies of ants and stuff (and maybe even other "intelligences") to be acknowledged as all uniquely neuro divergent - recognising that of oneself and recognising that in the other "neurodivergent beings".  

I'm not sure I'd use neurodivergent in that context, although I see what you're reaching for. 

Alexa said:

I sort of gave up on that because whatever is said in one scientific paper is so often challenged in another, which cannot replicate the same results.

yep - people tend to see what they look for and science is full of that - hehe but to quote the X-files: "The truth is out there"!

And whilst I personally do my best to resolve personal biases... :-)

And that kinof brings us back to the male female thing?

hmmmmm.... social dynamics of having enough time and energy to devote to the arts maybe?  And yep I am hanging that in the context of gender "hierachies" socially in this respect - I can't see society having any "excuse" for this to be ongoing these days.

The move you make in the discussion with respect to analysis of this from being autistic?

Where I'm going over my past few days of thinking on that it not that the concept on neurodivergence vs neurodiverse is "wrong" maybe that the way sees "neurodiverse" ironically lumps a whole bunch of people into it - rather than seeing each and every one as being independently neurodivergent... and then "sorting" them into people who share similar traits or biology etc etc that are broadly social constructs with biology doing what it can/is with the tides of society bashing it around.

Yep, from what I understand of it there are characteristic differences in how "male" and "female" autism expresses itself to an observer at least and maybe in the minds of those people too.

W/r/to being more "male" in your autism tests - is that according to the sort of models you've seen describing it w/r/to the studies that you mention?   The idea that there is a male brain and a female brain does perhaps change a bit in context of the autistic brain according to the cuurent scientific "explanations" of it yes - and yes maybe you're "on the money with it".  The studies I've referenced will be their nature be of a selection of people which (if randomised w/r/to autistic/non-autistic)  would show the more "neurotypical" gender differences in brains.  You're right to call me to order on that.  :-)  (hehe - oh look at me being all receptive - just took me 10 minutes of pondering to get there!)

Like you say there are studies that one can find that "prove or disprove" a whole lot of stuff and often it can take generations before society eventually settles down to accept the "reality".  (only for the tide to turn and it all gets thrown around again) How does your experience and thinking relate to that?  Personally I think that it can be a bit like trying to hold onto a fistful of sand...

Where my modelling is taking me these days is how "unmasking" post diagnosis correlates for autistic people in respect of removing the drive for social conformity - including how society demands a certain performative aspect w/r/to for example one's engagement with the arts etc (and yes there are studies that look at gender "conformity" too of course...) in the context maybe of how one is excluded or ignored in the main or as the rare example venerated as being a trail blazer for wider change...  (god how hard is it to hold onto that fistful of sand...)

Alexa said:

I very much doubt it's taken into account in any studies of "difference".

No it probably wasn't - because the statistics and analyses aren't necessarily that subtle or looking for it.   Now, don't get me wrong I'm not going down the route of "we're all a bit autistic here" in what I'm about to share with you next -  I am not throwing stones and believe me i don't want people throwing them at me (hehe to reference Monty Python Life of Brain - of any sex!)  i'm angling for each and every person and other living creature, network of trees and fungi, colonies of ants and stuff (and maybe even other "intelligences") to be acknowledged as all uniquely neuro divergent - recognising that of oneself and recognising that in the other "neurodivergent beings".  

hehe Om :-)

Alexa said:

I sort of gave up on that because whatever is said in one scientific paper is so often challenged in another, which cannot replicate the same results.

yep - people tend to see what they look for and science is full of that - hehe but to quote the X-files: "The truth is out there"!

And whilst I personally do my best to resolve personal biases... :-)

And that kinof brings us back to the male female thing?

hmmmmm.... social dynamics of having enough time and energy to devote to the arts maybe?  And yep I am hanging that in the context of gender "hierachies" socially in this respect - I can't see society having any "excuse" for this to be ongoing these days.

The move you make in the discussion with respect to analysis of this from being autistic?

Where I'm going over my past few days of thinking on that it not that the concept on neurodivergence vs neurodiverse is "wrong" maybe that the way sees "neurodiverse" ironically lumps a whole bunch of people into it - rather than seeing each and every one as being independently neurodivergent... and then "sorting" them into people who share similar traits or biology etc etc that are broadly social constructs with biology doing what it can/is with the tides of society bashing it around.

Yep, from what I understand of it there are characteristic differences in how "male" and "female" autism expresses itself to an observer at least and maybe in the minds of those people too.

W/r/to being more "male" in your autism tests - is that according to the sort of models you've seen describing it w/r/to the studies that you mention?   The idea that there is a male brain and a female brain does perhaps change a bit in context of the autistic brain according to the cuurent scientific "explanations" of it yes - and yes maybe you're "on the money with it".  The studies I've referenced will be their nature be of a selection of people which (if randomised w/r/to autistic/non-autistic)  would show the more "neurotypical" gender differences in brains.  You're right to call me to order on that.  :-)  (hehe - oh look at me being all receptive - just took me 10 minutes of pondering to get there!)

Like you say there are studies that one can find that "prove or disprove" a whole lot of stuff and often it can take generations before society eventually settles down to accept the "reality".  (only for the tide to turn and it all gets thrown around again) How does your experience and thinking relate to that?  Personally I think that it can be a bit like trying to hold onto a fistful of sand...

Where my modelling is taking me these days is how "unmasking" post diagnosis correlates for autistic people in respect of removing the drive for social conformity - including how society demands a certain performative aspect w/r/to for example one's engagement with the arts etc (and yes there are studies that look at gender "conformity" too of course...) in the context maybe of how one is excluded or ignored in the main or as the rare example venerated as being a trail blazer for wider change...  (god how hard is it to hold onto that fistful of sand...)

Alexa said:

I very much doubt it's taken into account in any studies of "difference".

No it probably wasn't - because the statistics and analyses aren't necessarily that subtle or looking for it.   Now, don't get me wrong I'm not going down the route of "we're all a bit autistic here" in what I'm about to share with you next -  I am not throwing stones and believe me i don't want people throwing them at me (hehe to reference Monty Python Life of Brain - of any sex!)  i'm angling for each and every person and other living creature, network of trees and fungi, colonies of ants and stuff (and maybe even other "intelligences") to be acknowledged as all uniquely neuro divergent - recognising that of oneself and recognising that in the other "neurodivergent beings".  

hehe Om :-)

Phased said:

social dynamics of having enough time and energy to devote to the arts maybe? 

Indeed. Women tended to be forced into childbirth and care. If working-class, housework as well, of course. Wollstonecraft and others demonstrated what women could achieve if they were largely free of such constraints. And if their art didn't have to fly under the names of their husbands (thinking of current theories about Wordsworth).

Phased said:

"neurodiverse" ironically lumps a whole bunch of people into it - rather than seeing each and every one as being independently neurodivergent

Agreed. When writing my latest book, the first main character in it is neurodiverse but not subject to a simplistic classification.

Phased said:

W/r/to being more "male" in your autism tests

No, not in autism tests. More intelligence tests and the way I approached work. It wasn't the way i viewed myself but more the social expectations of others. I didn't grow up with sexist ideas and so the sexist stuff that came my way always baffled me.

Phased said:

i'm angling for each and every person and other living creature, network of trees and fungi, colonies of ants and stuff (and maybe even other "intelligences") to be acknowledged as all uniquely neuro divergent - recognising that of oneself and recognising that in the other "neurodivergent beings".  

I'm not sure I'd use neurodivergent in that context, although I see what you're reaching for.