Lower share of female regulars. What to do?

About This Message Board
21

While this might be true to a certain extent, it is worth considering why women choose other web spaces over this one. The mere presence of another option isn’t enough; someone must find that other option better. As awareness of harassment and male privilege has risen, I can see plenty of women deciding they’re tired of putting up with this shit when there’s an option that doesn’t include it.

We have plenty of women telling us that they don’t post as much any more or are considering quitting for this exact reason. Why are so many people here denying this might be the reason?

22

Yes, I agree with all of this, and meant to convey that in the final sentence of the post you quoted.

23

So, not every sub forum or every thread should be specially tailored for each member or potential member and we should just participate and read what we personally enjoy and just live with the existence of potentially offensive and hostile content?

Ok. I agree.

24

I’m curious, what do you think Richard Parker meant by “It is no coincidence, I suspect, that those spaces also allow users some control over the misogyny content in their feeds.”?

25

Or comments about “butt fucking cactuses”

26

Perhaps a relevant question is how the SDMB is doing compared to other boards.

For instance, the Giraffe Boards are a spin-off of this one. Do they have significantly more female regulars? IIUC they are less moderated than the Dope.

The topic has been the subject of discussion for a while. From that thread -

Those seem fairly straightforward, and IIRC they were meant to address the “show us your boobs” posts in threads about bras and so forth. So far, so good.

The issue from my POV was that it arose from some Mod Notes (I don’t recall if anyone was Warned) about jokes about some woman who was wandering around with no pants on, having shaved a cross into her pubic hair, and was handing out condoms while wearing a Pope hat.

[ol][li]The jokes were not aimed at any other Doper, so no problem there.[/li][li]The topic was pretty obviously a sexual one. However[/li][li]The discussion that followed seemed to me to be an attempt to say that this was a serious topic and thus could not be joked about.[/ol]I did not believe then and do not believe now that a half-naked woman, in public, who has shaved her crotch to draw attention thereto, who is wearing a funny hat, and is handing out condoms, can really be considered as inviting the world to a serious thoughtful discussion of sexual policies and attitudes in the Roman Church and the wider world in general. And the notion that she was? Come on - res ipsa loquitur. [/li]
So, is that an example of something that needs to be changed in order to attract more women? Some things need to be laughed at, especially when they are crying out to the heavens to be laughed at.

Or take another of the examples of things that offend women - the “Ginger vs. Mary Ann: Who’s Hotter?” The suggestion that these be labeled so that the susceptible can be warned and not open the thread was largely rejected with scorn. So, do we say “women shouldn’t be judged by their physical appearance” and ban them? Women, especially women in TV and movies, are judged by their physical appearance. That is, really and truly, a thing, and everybody knows it. Men are much more influenced by women’s physical appearance than women are of men’s. That is not going to go away, not now, not ever. If we try to shame that, we are going to lose a great deal more men than we gain women. Men cannot be shamed out of finding women physically attractive. That is not being adolescent, it’s being a man.

It’s like being gay - you can drive it underground, you can condemn it, but you cannot shame it away.

So what else is there - surprise porn references in hypotheticals? Already dealt with.

You know what might help, IMO? Not having these struggle sessions every damn time someone sets a toe outside anything defined as Correct Thought by some purple-haired college professor who wants to get on the tenure track in the Grievance Studies Department at Wearebetterthan U.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Shodan

27

Yes, there appear to be more women because the women feel safe to talk and share their opinions without guys licking the windows while they watch the women talk.

Moderation. Actually, it’s 2 pronged. Same bigoted stuff over there will get you smacked by the mod monster. Same as here.
Otherwise, #2. the arbitrary and capricious moderation. It works wonders. He has a quota to make and if it gets late in the day, and he hasn’t boxed anyone, yeah, don’t be the next to post. You’d be surprised how effective that is.

28

Some years ago GQ threads over the past 2 days hovered around 150. At this moment it is at 51, up from 37 in the middle of last month.

Complaints about hostility to women have centered on Cafe Society and IMHO, which are not core to fighting ignorance (IMHO).

I’m just setting some context. Gratuitous hostility, indifference to decency and fairness, and inappropriate manners are undesirable in any setting.

IMHO:
That said, best practice posting among male posters could be improved upon. This SWM recommends that all IMHO and Cafe OP writers visualize an audience that is predominantly the opposite of your gender, and frame your question accordingly. That may not go far enough for many. Take it with a grain of salt as I’m less than active in those forums.

29

I should do a better job of being clear when I’m quoting someone in support versus quoting someone to argue their point. :smack: Sorry about that, my disagreement is with some of the posters in the Pit thread using tortured logic to argue that the decrease in female posters can’t possibly be related to sexist content.

30

Not a problem for this woman, either.

31

Are women that weak that they can’t go to through thread titles without feeling threatened or something? Really?
How to these hypothetical women live in the real world? There is a level of “women are inferior, we’ve got to help them” condescendence that is amazing.

32

Of course not. Some areas to heap direct abuse on posters creates a far more inviting atmosphere than a Betty vs. Wilma poll. :rolleyes:

33

I’m not entirely sure what your point is.

You post here, despite the Pit, so are you arguing that its a generic female thing to not like the pit? That the cussing and acrimony found in the pit are a problem for women, (but not men), as opposed to more specific sexism that could be found across the board?

Can you explain your point a bit more directly? Don’t doubt that your wife feels this way, but are you asserting her attitude is generally found in women?

34

No, the issue is not women’s weakness or inability to survive in the real world.

35

I read for years and finally joined simply because I hated having to save a page url just to keep track of where I was reading. What was I reading all those years? The Pit… and occasionally following a link to the other child boards to get the backstory on a pitting.
Almost all the fora I read have slowly dried up. I blame the fact more people surf with a phone than a desktop so rather than being able to comfortably read a 2-4 paragraph message it’s easier to read a one or two liner.

I’m not sure there is anything that can be done to increase female members but the discussions of late regarding tone might help keep those of us that are still here reading if not actually always participating.

36

No.

Yes.

No. I’m not making a generalization based on sex or gender.

To clarify my point concerning board culture and the feelings of welcome and hostility. It seems to me from my subjective point of view, that a forum in which direct, profane, dishonest, personal attacks is allowed and to some extent encouraged with apparently a disregard to sub forum rules is more of a turn off for any random lurker or would be board participant than a poll asking about the relative merits of cartoon characters. Or even a salacious question involving fictitious entities.

Obviously, offense is subjective. Discomfort is subjective. I agree with all of that. My assertion is unprovable and admittedly anecdotal. It just seems that the level of vitriol and the target being directed at actual posters would put a wild west forum at a slightly higher level of off-puttedness than hypothetical threads concerning third parties. Now, we do have a survivor bias with the responses here. Of course, the people posting here in the current are going to have a different distribution of traits than people who would have posted but were turned off by offensive content or sub-forums.

This isn’t a man or woman or man vs woman thing. This is a how should posters be treated thing. And asking for respect and protection from cartoon polls on one hand and participating with vile language in direct personal attacks on the other hand strikes me as inconsistent.

If you want to improve traffic, participation, and membership why not strive to be welcoming to all members who are willing to post in a civil manner? Ultimately it comes down to economics. Perhaps the survivor bias skews the calculation enough for the conclusion to be a bird in hand is better than a bird out of hand and 5 lurking in the bush.

37

I guess, then, we have multiple issues. A generalized board culture (perhaps undermined by the Pit or the way newbies are treated) and one that affects women more directly or specifically.

Since many of the women participating in this discussion are citing sexism and related issues as a more proximal cause for them, we should take them at their word. The generalized issue is a good conversation, but a separate one. If you feel strongly about it, perhaps you can start that conversation and let this more specific one about the possible impact of sexism (etc) be the focus here.

38

Not to speak for octopus or Mrs. octopus, but perhaps a poster might not want to join a board with a forum devoted to insults, even if she didn’t read it, for the same reason she might not want to join a board that has threads comparing Betty to Veronica, even if she didn’t read them.

Regards,
Shodan

39

Well, the easy way to tone that down is to stop allowing a small number of people to spend their days on the board doing nothing but insulting other posters. When legitimate threads get overwhelmed by the number of insult posts by less than a handful of people, who otherwine contribute nothing to the conversation, it tends to make people less interested in reading them.

40

The Pit is not the problem.