Re: And why. . .? (long)

mpresley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> 
> Still, I suspect that most Wagner listeners are men--especially when it
> comes to the Ring.   

I've only attended one full cycle in 1999 but to my recollection the
crowd was about 50/50.

> 
> And I think it attributable to putative content.  Not the philosophical
> stuff; but rather the trappings: killing, thievery, banishment, wild sex,
> etc.  Think about the difference in gender between those that might want to
> watch a Meryl Streep movie and those who enjoy the Terminator.

And in addition to the above mentioned trappings, also to be found are
familial love, betrayal,
appreciation of the beauty of nature, etc. Oh wait. I saw that stuff
as well as what you mentioned
in a bunch of Meryl Streep movies.
> 
> Finally, Newsgroups are historically male propagated.  The technology began
> as an offshoot of arpanet (the male dominated military) and was built by
> unix geeks for unix geeks--99.9% men.  It was only recently...umm...let's
> see...probably the ubiquitous rise of MS Outlook Express with it's
> dedicated newsreader that the masses were first able to easily navigate
> Usenet. 
Now, are women part of the masses or not? For the purposes of your
analysis, I mean.
> 
> So, here we have a topic (Wagner) that may appeal mainly to men, discussed
> on a medium that, until recently, was used mainly by men.  If my analysis
> is correct then it's not surprising to me why there are few women on this
> group.
There may be few women posting, but there may be many reasons why.