I'm still of the mind that it came down to marketing and societal expectations. Namely people didn't expect women to be fans of loud rock music, so they didn't market it to them. OK, but if Rush was marketed in such a way as to appeal to males more than females, that suggests that there is something about Rush that could be marketed in such a way, which then suggests that gender does play a role. Sure, so with Rush that thing is that they were a loud heavy progressive rock band in the 70s, and people tended to expect that men would enjoy those qualities in music more than women. Probably correctly so, generally speaking. That assumption was (and may still be) likely generally true, particularly if you're talking about young men who are awash in testosterone. The "in your face" quality of early Rush and the themes of rebellion against authority certainly hit me in the right spot when I was awash with testosterone. My girlfriend in HS certainly tolerated my love of Rush, but I know she didn't share it. The music was too aggressive for her and she couldn't really relate to the lyrical themes -- she didn't find "herself" in those sorts of Rush songs, whereas I did. Was she an anomalous female? I don't think she was. I think she was very representative of her gender at that age. So you're saying you think it's linked to biology. That testosterone drives men to like more aggressive music and estrogen drives women to like less aggressive music. I'm not going to discount this possibility, but I do think it's still possible (even likely) that societal expectations cause people to decide they don't or do like certain things at a young age not because they naturally feel any way about them, but because they're told they're supposed to feel certain ways about them. Let's assume it's 1976 and you're an advertising exec for Mercury. How would you market Rush to appeal to females? To males? No no I'm seeing your point about the marketing thing not being a great answer. If all I have is the source material and the job to market it to different demographics, I'm going to see different results based on what aspects I highlight. I not really with this advertising reason so much any more. Certainly there are ways where marketing could help try to even things out, but short of placing the same ads in magazines already heavily marketed towards female and male stereotypes (which doesn't really solve the larger problem as much as tries to work around it) there's not a good way to be both unbiased and to get the music to both men and women. The problem is with social expectations. As a guy, I shouldn't be expected not to like Katy Perry, but I am. Girls shouldn't be expected not to like Rush, but they are. These expectations come from peers, friends, parents, and yeah to some extent advertising (though advertising isn't trying to influence people not to like things as much as to like things. You can bet if Barbie could find a way to successfully cross over to the boys' demographic it would). But a lot of those societal expectations are changing, and that's probably part of the reason why many more women could be found at rush shows late in their career than earlier on. More and more people started getting wise to the fact that expectations do not have to be reality, and they started deciding what they liked on more unbiased grounds. Just like usual we can look to This Is Spinal Tap for the answer lol Marty DiBergi: "Let's talk about your music today, uh... one thing that puzzles me, ummm... is the makeup of your audience. It seems to be, uh, predominantly, young boys." David St. Hubbins: "Well, it's a sexual thing, really. Aside from the identifying that the boys do with us, there's also a reaction to the, of the female to our music." Nigel Tufnel: "Yeah, really they're quite fearful. That's my theory. They see us on stage, with tight trousers... We've got, you know -- armadillos in our trousers. I mean, it's really quite frightening -- the size. And, and they, they run screaming."