But a system that makes it harder for a certain group of people to become successful will create more successful people of the favoured group.

There may be other factors at play here, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that men have a higher likelyness of being extremely talented with the possible underlying implication that talent is dependent on sex.

As an artist myself I might add, talent is a misconception in itself. Arts are a craft that can be learned.

What seems to be lacking is women’s ability to recognize and appreciate [extreme talent] in men, and that’s the point I believe anon was trying to make.

The whole bear/man in the woods thing was about feeling safe, not men’s artistic talent.

Would I feel uneasy or insecure about it if I was a guy? Probably. But anon fails to ask the important question. Why do women choose the bear, despite the dedicated, artistic, violent deeds of men for love?

I’ll leave this open, because I believe we won’t see eye to eye on this one.

So why do most of them seem to need help from men to write successful songs?

Patricarchy.

I find it so interesting, that you seem to be under the impression that men are framed as evil by supposed feminists, yet denounce the work of a women if they worked with a man, as if the man being in the picture delegitemises the women’s sincerity and work. Isn’t cooperation regardless of gender what brings equality? Isn’t it unrealistic to expect anyone from never interacting with someone of the male gender in their career? I don’t think we should denounce the work of women for doing that, especially when looking at music from the past century, when women didn’t have the right to choose a career without a man’s permission