Journal 6 – Jazz and Gender
After reading the section on All-Girl bands during the Swing Era in your textbook, read the following article “Jazz and Gender During the War Years” from Keeping Time, edited by Robert Walser. Write a very healthy paragraph (10 sentences) about your reactions/reflections. Feel free to comment on other people’s posts.
The belief that women couldn’t play jazz as well as males was common in the past. They thought women lacked the technical proficiency and emotional depth of men. The numerous gifted female musicians who made important contributions to jazz were disregarded by this unjust viewpoint.
For instance, early jazz was influenced by the talented pianist and composer Lil Hardin Armstrong. Women were able to thrive in jazz, as seen by singers like Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday, who sang with great emotion and skill. While the impact that the war and gender equal rights had on jazz and these performers, it was still prevalent the impact these women had on jazz.
Even with these achievements, men continue to dominate jazz. To address this, groups like the Berklee Institute of Jazz and Gender Justice are bringing attention to women’s responsibilities in jazz and advocating for justice. While it was difficult to change the public’s mind, none of the time and effort went to waste.
In the past, many people believed that women couldn’t play jazz as well as men. They thought women lacked the technical skill and emotional depth needed for jazz. This unfair view ignored the many talented female musicians who made important contributions to jazz. To change this, organizations like the Berklee Institute of Jazz and Gender Justice are highlighting women’s roles in jazz and promoting fairness. They aim to correct past biases and ensure that the future of jazz is more inclusive. The importantce to recognize that women have unique strengths in jazz. As one Rita Rio noted, “girls, because of their feminine tendency, cooperate to make a rhythm section a united unit dependent on each other, rather than the masculine tendency to lead on his own instrument.” This means that women often work together more harmoniously, creating a cohesive sound in jazz performances. Changing people’s minds about women in jazz has been challenging, but the efforts are worthwhile. Recognizing and celebrating the contributions of female musicians leads to a richer and more accurate understanding of jazz history.
I thought the whole argument over whether or not women should play in jazz bands was useless. The arguments made and points brought up were even worse. Someone arguing that women have less drive doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when there are in fact women in specific disciplines with “a whole lot of drive.” On the other side, arguing that women are actually better players because they are intrinsically more aesthetic is an insult to good musicianship. I really don’t understand either of their perspectives and why they are considered reliable opinions on the subject. I am glad that there were some women who had enough drive and were given an opportunity to play in jazz bands as discussed in the chapter. I do think it was unfortunate, even if it makes sense, that the women’s standards for being in a band were more geared toward how nice they looked instead of their musical ability. Overall, acting like one sex is inherently better or worse at jazz is ridiculous. It takes dedication, passion, and talent to be great at something. Ignoring or preferring someone because of their sex is not how we should progress music.
I saw the fact that news outlets and magazines would use the situation of the time to their advantage. Since the near beginning of our country, news outlets and the like have been using either their reputation, little-known “news”, or popular topics to increase their popularity. Before I say anything on gender exclusion, I will say that I have never experienced these situations, and can only use the examples of others as proof. What must be remembered, is that the idea of women working were against tradition, and seemed to most as strange and unusual, nor unlike other cultures may seem to us. I am not in any way saying the exclusion was okay, rather, what I am saying is I do not understand their train of thought. I believe that what was written in the example news page was not ok, and was created by those who were attempting to capitalize on the feelings of certain groups of thought, and gain popularity through them. Though it is ok to present your ideas through newspapers and publishing, it is part of our laws after all, you should be respectful, and these in no way are. Through these newspapers articles, we can see part of their thought process. A great deal of their thoughts are age old, traditional ideas.
In my honest opinion, I heavily dislike arguments like this one. The argument was interesting to read but I couldn’t fully agree with any of it. The arguments were all one-sided and they either generalized an opinion/matter as a whole or had an anomaly backing their claim. Sure, there are exceptions to what makes a person an “x” of/at “y” but trying to translate one’s experience to the predominant is illogical. And that’s exactly what both sides are doing in each article. It’s like the saying “comparing apples to oranges”. Yes, we’re comparing fruits to fruits (human to human) but the latter half is finding out which demographic is better at an individually evaluated skill (tangy to tartness). The properties can apply to one another but it’s too vague of a trait to consider reliably comparable. I can agree with what Jake said above, that I don’t understand why their perspectives would be considered reliable opinions on the subject. Either way, I don’t agree with these arguments considering they are referring to music which is heavily expressed through individuality.
All of the arguments in this article were hard to read as they just kept regurgitating the same information over and over again. take for example that women need to have proper social roles, like men don’t have too as well? One of the reasons stated was that women are as a whole, emotionally unstable and it’s wild to think that one would find a women playing music unstable, but not John Coltrane performing while taking heroin. The idea that women also hold their music to a lower standard or that you have to be attractive to perform is just another example of gender inequality and sexism. All of these arguments by various authors are very telling of the type of people they are themselves. I’d like to say it’s hard to believe that these articles were published but it’s not surprising as there are always morons in any facet of existence that love to go on a tirade of why they are right, and it could never be any other way. It’s crazy to think that gender has anything to do with how well you can play an instrument. I’m glad that this narrative has been challenged over history and that numerous books have been written to show all of the immense talent that women carry in the musical sphere. Being a lover of music has nothing to do with who is performing it either. If you never pulled aside the curtain on stage no one could say “oh that’s definitely an all-male band” as you can’t hear gender. I do not agree with anything written as it is all just a bunch of ramblings by people whose opinions are based on false information and findings.
My first reaction was that it was truly astonishing how people could even hold onto such predigest. This is because if you played what little recordings we have of the all girl bands to someone without telling them that it was an all girl band there would be no way for them to tell. The sample song “Blue Lou” by the International Sweethearts of Rhythm is a genuinely amazing song and it astonishes me that people were able to gain the mind set that songs of that nature were of a lower quality merely because of the gender of the players. The other interesting observation was the opposition would refer to this unchangle nature that female players had that made them worse at being a musician. I was extremely confused by this given that music by nature is available to everyone regardless of their nature because given enough time and practice you can obtain your goals. It doesn’t depend on who you are.
It’s very interesting reading the different perspectives on “Jazz and Gender”, more interesting as they focus on the reason why women weren’t as “hip” in the musical performance than men. Some blamed it on the fact that they were too busy to play or perform. “If women as a whole were compelled to support themselves, there would doubtless be more capable musicians in the female ranks but where careers are unnecessary except for personal gratification there is little incentive to work for perfection.” Some even admitted that women couldn’t do it and tried to redirect the focus of the reader on the cause, saying “Ha! We admit it, you say. You’re absolutely right, but your line is as old as time. You think you have put women on the pan…” It’s hard to come to a conclusion on the right and wrong opinions on an argument that was years ago and we only have these magazine articles to reflect off of. Bottom line, with enough opinions, the world sways its culture into what it wasn’t before, slowly but surely. There were probably multiple contributions to why women didn’t perform as much, such as cultural opinion, lack of time of mothers tending to their families, more important things on everyone’s minds during The Depression, etc. You notice in our world that as more “life-threatening” conflict decreases throughout history, the opinions of subjects like this become more public. That’s just how the world is: our nature is always finding things that are wrong with the world.
It is very saddening to read these historical articles and realize just how deep and pervasive sexist ideology was during this time. However, I think that it is important that we expose ourselves to documents like this to gain a better perspective of what women and women musicians fought for during this the social reconstruction of the post Great Depression era. Within these articles, you can see that the criticism of female jazz musicians was far beyond superficial; it was pure visceral prejudice. Many people and male jazz musicians believed that women simply do not have the physical capabilities to succeed within the art of jazz. The quote, “The mind may be willing but the flesh is weak!” shows how some believed that women are completely incapable of jazz performance. Beyond their playing, female jazz musicians were judged unfairly by other arbitrary measures that their male counterparts were immune to. Women artists were also judged by their physical attractiveness. These articles also fail to recognize the systemic issues and biases that could keep women from having access to musical instruments, musical education, and musical opportunity. The whole system was constructed to prevent women from contributing to the art of jazz by disallowing them opportunity and instilling the belief that they are incapable of contributing to the art. I strongly admire Peggy Gilbert’s response to this blatant sexism. She takes a very witty and and intellectual approach to combating this sexism. She also points out many of the hypocritical beliefs of these critics, along with acknowledging the social barriers that prevent women from succeeding within the art of jazz. These articles strongly portray the strength and resilience of the female voice both in society and in jazz.
My first reaction to this article is how it highlights the important, yet often overlooked role of women in jazz. Specifically during the war years, showcasing how gender expectations shaped the music industry. I also found it interesting learning how female musicians stepped into roles traditionally held by men while also facing discrimination and limitations because of their gender. Despite their talent, they struggled for any recognition and were often pushed aside when men would return from war. It reflects social issues at the time, where women were expected to return to traditional roles. The article makes it clear that these women were significant in their time, even through it was barely talked about, its important to acknowledge their impact on the jazz genre history.
It’s so strange to me that people who were actively fighting for racial equality in their field, were at the same time decrying the prospect of gender equality. It’s not the first time I’ve seen this behavior of closing the door behind you; it still happens in the modern day, but you’d still think they would feel a certain level of empathy, or at least guilt.
‘Why Women Musicians Are Inferior’ was a nasty read, as the title implies. The weird hybrid of ‘medical’ tone, mixed with baseless jabs at women is extremely gross to read, but it’s good at demonstrating just how deeply rooted misogyny was/is in American culture. In turn, Rito Rio’s rebuttal aged a little poorly. Outside of saying women often have to work harder than men, pretty much all that was being said was espousals of stereotypes about women, but spun in a way that argued they were good at music. Their heart seemed to be in the right place.
‘The Gal Yippers Have No Place in Our Jazz Bands’ is again extremely misogynistic, but also kinda funny because they’re using so much 1930’s slang. I wish modern misogynists had to talk like this guy, nobody would take people like Andrew Tate seriously. The postulation that women aren’t or can’t be friends with black people because they spend too much time knitting and sewing is so unhinged and ridiculous that it comes back around to being peak comedy. There’s also a little sprinkle of some ‘White Man’s Burden’ type logic towards the end of the text, which is a great racist cherry on top of this misogyny sundae.
Peggy Gilbert’s ‘How Can You Blow a Horn With a Brassiere?’ is great. It rides that line that I cannot find. It’s a good argument, very funny, and scalding, while still maintaining a respectful tone. There’s not much to it outside of saying ‘That’s wrong, you just made it up.” over and over again, which she manages to make pretty funny.
‘Here’s the Lowdown on ‘Two Kinds of Women’’ was another article that postulated women’s inability to even appreciate jazz music, but also delved into this weird neurotic section where he says women control the entertainment industry, and demands men get equal representation… in 1941. Dude is nuts.
This article had quite the variety of perspectives and arguments, and was fascinating to read through. You can definitely tell that some of these arguments are based in outdated positions: talent being genetic but only through males, women not having any interest in “rougher” music, etc. I think that there are slivers of reality in some of the anti-female-artist articles: for example, women do tend to gravitate towards “softer” music, but not to such an extent that women fundamentally cannot enjoy jazz or play it well.
Both responses to “Why Women Musicians Are Inferior” concede that some of the concepts are correct (some female performers were chosen for attractiveness rather than skill, etc), but they counter the reasoning behind them: while the unsigned author of the article above assumed that the vast majority of female musicians were essentially gorgeous idiots that were novelty hires, Rito Rio and Peggy Gilbert responded that the image hires were for the male audience and neither outnumbered nor correctly represented the majority of female musicians, who were capable, talented, and expressive musicians. The unsigned author claimed that female wind musicians lacked depth and power in their playing because women were afraid to look unattractive, while Rio and Gilbert explained that female wind musicians were less likely to get hired or shown if they did look unattractive while playing properly, due to the male audience.
I especially found the article “Here’s The Lowdown on ‘Two Kinds of Women'” by Marvin Freedman to be fascinating: I didn’t realize that was a perspective held back in 1941. This was after World War I and only around a year before American involvement in World War II. Heavy military involvement meant fewer men at home, and these events were driving women to the workforce to compensate. In a world where women were rapidly expanding influence in daily life, is it really surprising that they now have a stronger influence in what media is produced and marketed? In a world that, within the last 30 years, has seen the most horrific evolution in warfare so far, as well as their whole economy collapse, leaving an entire nation of people hungry and desperate, is it that surprising that movies and music and dance halls have turned to escapism? It makes more sense to run away and watch rags-to-riches and love stories rather than bathe in the same gore and violence that scarred your parents’ generation. While it may not cater to classically masculine interests, they were simply part of the penduluum swing in cultural interests and could have been easily anticipated through that lens, rather than assuming women as a whole are conniving, controlling, and tasteless.
(Not to stray too far from the conversation, but that article had such incel-coded rhetoric that I laughed)
After reading about All-Girl bands and the article Jazz and Gender During the War Years, I’m honestly appalled — though I can’t quite put my finger on why it hit me so hard. It’s no secret that women have constantly been underestimated and dismissed, but seeing it laid out so plainly in the context of jazz history really drives it home. Women in jazz were not just talented, they were groundbreaking, yet their contributions are consistently downplayed or overshadowed. It’s frustrating that the first thing people often mention about Lil Hardin Armstrong isn’t her incredible talent as a composer and pianist, but the fact that she was married to Louis Armstrong. It makes me wonder how many other women were equally talented or even better, but their stories were lost because they didn’t have a famous husband to attach their names to. The article also highlights how World War II opened doors for women in jazz, only to have those doors slammed shut when men returned. It’s infuriating that women were seen as temporary placeholders instead of respected musicians in their own right. These all-girl bands weren’t gimmicks — they were full of talented musicians who deserved recognition, not condescension. Reading this really makes me rethink how much of jazz history we’ve been taught through a male-dominated lens. It’s clear that the women of jazz deserve far more space in the conversation, not just as a footnote to the men, but as vital contributors to the music itself.
Women faced a lot of challenges in the early days of jazz. People believed back then that woment were not nearly as good of music artists and that women weren’t able to have the emotions or guts to play jazz well. Another glaring issue to me was that people were much more quick to fight against racial injustice then they were gender injustice. People were fighting for equal musical rights for people of color, but couldn’t seem to care less about women’s rights to musical opportunities. Female musicians were also seen more for their looks then their actual musical skills. It was a norm to treat them more as entertainers then serious artists. Peggy Gilbert was one of many women to speak up about these unfair ideas and pointed out that women had to be much much more skilled than a man if she wanted to receive the same level of respect as him. This was extremely unfair, and has improved by today, however there is still a lot of work that needs to be done for true fairness to be seen between men and women.
The article Jazz and Gender During the War Years did not surprise me because, in that era, almost any job women did was judged from a male perspective, with the assumption that men could do it better. The criticisms of female jazz musicians reflected a broader societal belief that women were naturally less capable, not just in music but in almost every profession. Men had a built-in advantage, not necessarily because they were more talented, but because they controlled the opportunities, the industry, and the narrative around success. I found it frustrating but predictable that women in jazz were judged more on their appearance than their skills, with all-girl bands often being seen as entertainment gimmicks rather than serious musicians. That kind of thinking still exists today, as female performers in many industries are expected to look a certain way to succeed. Despite the challenges, women in jazz persisted, proving that talent and dedication matter more than outdated gender roles, even if society has been slow to recognize it.
Due to the Great Depression and World War 2, women were brought into the workforce. Jazz was included in that workforce. The article has this whole section on why women are inferior in Jazz, but that is simply not true. It gives “psychological” reasons that just seem like plain sexism, which is seen in the “The Gal Yippers Have No Place in Our Jazz Bands” section as well when it mentions that women are too busy in the kitchen or knitting to involve themselves in Jazz. The article also includes a rebuttal to the first part that has some points. These points include that women make a rhythm section come together. The article also goes on to talk about how jazz is not meant to be sung by women. However, I do like how the article gives two viewpoints, even if one is inherently sexist. The argument against women in jazz states that women do not like jazz but doesn’t give any evidence towards that, which is unpleasant. Even through all of the criticism against them, women today have made names for themselves in Jazz, which I think is pretty awesome.
Although this was normal back in the day, I find it very joyous that we can have such baffled reactions as a woman. It means we have come very far. The most shocking notion for me was when women were described to me emotionally immature which is why they couldn’t play consistently while performing. Another was how we were described as not being able to play wind instruments because our face would make us look silly in front of men and that is nothing a woman wants. I think the rebuttal on why women are superior in bands is more on proof than just off of looks or assumptions on emotional stability. Rather, the examples given are on how women can work together to make a united sound or how long of days they work, travel, play and dance which shows the level of fortitude that a woman band has. These female bands also NEEDED to play constantly and to be improving their sound in order to make their mark in such a male-dominated field at the time. I think how women began to take the stage in jazz needed to be on all magazines, not just in the “Down Beat” magazine.
The shift in gender roles that came with war affected many aspects of daily American life. The absence of men (who were off at war) made a need, not a want, for women to join the workforce. They had to adapt to survive, creating figures like Rosie the Riveter to exemplify this. Why wouldn’t this affect music and jazz as well? In all honesty, I don’t believe that musicians in general really fit into the gender roles that were set at this time. Yes, being a musician was work, but it was not necessarily masculine or feminine in nature. I also got a little peeved that they used emotional instability as a reason why women should not be musicians. Music is all about emotion, the push and pull and complexity that being human is. Jazz, in particular, is very emotional, so why wouldn’t women be good at it? The supposed ’emotional instability’ should contribute to this rather than take away, shouldn’t it? Women, in general, are much better at expressing their emotions, so why then would this be a negative quality? I truly do not understand how people believed this.
Reading through the subjects presented to us, it shines a light many people dont talk about in terms of jazz music. While women in jazz were incredibly talented they still faced constant discrimination and were often viewed as novelty acts. It is interesting to note, that even during world war 2 when most men were drafted into service, female musicians still struggled to gain respect in the industry. Bands like “International Sweethearts of Rythem” were exceptionally talented, yet they still did not receive the same fame. The article highlights the plight of female musicians at the time, and the severity of the economic and cultural challenges they faced. It also focuses on post WW2 women were expected to leave the industry when men returned from abroad. Racial barriers also appeared when it came to black female artists who were faced with even more severe difficulties. Even though women showed that they can play just as good as men at the time, it mattered little. In the end, this reading highlighted the how gender and racial biases shaped jazz history as we know it today.
people thought that women weren’t made to preform in Jazz. They believed that they weren’t skilled enough or that they didn’t have the emotions that were required to play music. The thing that doesn’t make sense to me or frustrates me in the music industry at the time is that unless someone is singing you can’t tell what gender or race is playing the song. so if you’re driving your car listening to the jazz station you have no way of knowing wether this band is a black band or a female band all you would be able to tell is wether you liked the songs or not. its sad to see that many women were kicked to the road or the sidelines just because of their gender and it makes me even wonder how much amazing music was lost just because of these barriers and how music might have changed for today if these things never happened
It’s clear that the star point made through all of this is the gender inequality in society during this era. Obviously jazz is what’s at topic but it all started with the Great Depression and World War II, driving women into the work force where the gender war begun. It’s interesting to begin with because this was all just tension built on the stereotype of house wives and typical mother figures at the time, women being capable of everything that a man was and is even physically. It’s also mind exploding to think how Louis Armstrong’s wife Lil Harden didn’t get as much recognition when she was the one that pushed Louis Armstrong to perform more and dress differently, basically the driving force behind the scenes with no credit given until eons later. I’d never heard of her and when I did, I was so shocked I basically turned into a pile of ashes. Not to mention, women performing in Jazz were one of the first forms of music that women performed in making this era a stepping stone for them, despite the rigorous conditions.
The gender ideologies that were placed on women back in the day is almost very sickening to me. Women back then were almost treated as a nothing to help the men out. I know this was the norm for them but its still very hard for me to think about. Reading the journal entries that have already been written I find a sense of feeling that we all feel the same way about how these women were treated. The thing that was the most shocking to me was when they tried saying women were not able to play consistent because of their emotions. Even just the thought of people telling anyone they can’t not do anything because they are emotionally unstable is mind blowing to me. One more thing that shocked me was how women need to have proper social roles. In my eyes though cant they have the same as men and men have the same as women? Reading all of these arguments made about how women could not be good at jazz music, or they needed to stay with what society was telling them to do made me sad for the women during that time, but happy to see how far we have come. Now we have many different women who have empowered the music community and not just jazz. They have proved all of these things wrong, and still keep trying to strive for the best. To me this just shows me that once you tell someone they can’t achieve something they will try to achieve it but at an even higher rate then you expected.
I am not surprised at all that women during the Swing Era and the early eras of Jazz that women were not recognized. It is not a secret of the lack of respect and rights women received back then and sometimes even now. I am happy to know now we are writing about these amazing women who contributed to Jazz. I always say everything happens for a reason. If it wasn’t for the World War women bands wouldn’t have been able to shine and showcase their talent. However, women are constantly criticized for their looks, how they act and what they do. How come they never so harsh on the male musicians? Although, it is frustrating of the struggles jazz women musicians had to endure. It was good to learn about the women in jazz and their impact.
I enjoyed reading this, not because I love what happened but the history and the “goings on” back then fascinate me. I feel like the danger with articles like this are 2-fold. Yes, there was a wrong done, yes it was vile and uncalled for. However, as Americans we want to “protect the little guy” sometimes too hard. By writing these mysogonistic articles it hurt women musicians. After the fact though it could hurt both men and women musicians. Back to the protect the little guy, we could slingshot the other direction and ONLY listen to women’s music to make up for it to “punish” the people who said men were inherently better. Even this could hurt the women making music because by taking half of the “competition away you lose your ability to shine above everyone. All that to say, the writers of these articles were uninformed, bigoted, meenies and we should fix our mistake but not overcompensate.
I find it interesting how the ideals of women were so extreme. I can’t even imagine what more it was like for African American artist because if I know anything what has been shared is nothing but the tip of the iceberg. Objectifying women by treating them as they were just, “cute and adorable decoration” and totally ignoring their skills and musicianship was just plain disrespectful. I commend the women who were fierce enough to endure so that I and other women do not have it as bad. Women can certainly play instruments, sing, and perform just as well as any man. I can’t help but wonder if the idea that women performing was of concern of how the significant others would dare to have a desire to do something outside of the home or start a career? Any influence or encouragement to have more independent ideas more than likely caused some problems. The baseless claims were pretty obnoxious. The one that made me laugh out loud was, “Nor do they make good percussionist” well one of my favorite artists of all time is a bad mama jamma on drums, Sheila E! I wonder what she’d think of that claim?.
After reading through the material this week, I found myself both interested and irritated. The discussions about women in jazz during the 1930s-40s easily show biases that were not just cultural, but also actively shaped by things like the media. The way that critics from that time just dismissed female musicians, not even based on their skill but their gender, was ridiculous. And then the idea that women could not play certain instruments well and that they were there for their “looks” and not talent, shows how unfair gender roles were. Even with that though, I was inspired when learning about some of the resilience that these women musicians had, with the push back they gave against these stereotypes. Peggy Gilbert and Rita Rio, for example, showed not only great talent, but strength and humor. It really makes you appreciate how far people have come today in terms of gender equality in music.
Hi Everyone – Remember that these articles are illuminating a slice of history. However far we have come, there still is a long way to go as regards gender equality. Also, as regards jazz, women still face hardships in a mostly male field, hence the work being done at Berklee College of Music by Terri Lyne Carrington. The first all female composer jazz fake book was just published. So many women in other fields of music have struggles, and it wasn’t until the 1970s that women in classical music were re-discovered and entered into the history of music.
In the 1930 gender norms made it difficult for women to succeed in jazz. Men believed that a woman’s emotional stability and physical limitations would not allow women to excel in jazz. Critics would say that a woman were too “soft” to play brass or wind instruments. Riot Rio came to women’s defense stating that women aren’t just appealing to an audience, but also are not inferior to men. She noted that women in her band have endured many performances and long travel times. Men encouraged the hardships women faced in the jazz industry. Marvin Freedman mentioned that jazz could never succeed commercially unless it catered to men. Men would often dismiss women’s talent and question their place in jazz. Peggy Gilbert took the opportunity to highlight women facing social prejudice. She spoke out about how men often undermined their abilities and opportunities. Peggy argued that women are capable and had to work harder than men to prove their musical talent. Female artists like Rio and Gilbert continued to push for women’s equality and recognition despite the bias.
I found it pretty interesting how women in jazz bands were viewed during the Swing Era. The article shows there was a lot of sexism in the music industry back then. Reading those quotes from Down Beat magazine where they called women musicians “inferior” was kind of shocking. It’s weird how World War II created opportunities for “all-girl” bands since men were drafted, but these women still faced huge prejudice. They were expected to look good while playing perfectly, and critics would blame their supposed failure on things like being “emotionally unstable” or too concerned with their appearance. Peggy Gilbert’s response really exposed the double standards – women had to deal with restrictive clothing while playing and were often hired more for looks than talent. I thought it was hypocritical how some critics claimed women couldn’t play “authentic” jazz because they hadn’t been in the right environments, when those same environments purposely excluded women. The fact that even progressive people in jazz who advocated for racial integration still held sexist views about women musicians shows how deeply ingrained gender bias was.