I just think that it's the subject matter, can't do much to inspire interest and engagement when it just isn't there.

I think we had interest, given that there were private discussions of issues raised on the forum between lurker-women and some of the staff. I suppose the distinguishing feature is the trust they had for their friend, but no trust in the general environment.

You said you had only 10% women, if you look at a creative writing poetry, music, or romantic fiction forum (not because those are the go to girl topics, but because of my own experiences with them), you will find a far greater balance, the latter most one being like 70% women. When only 10% are women, that means little interest, in my eyes.

Men act differently in a group of 90% women, and women act differently in a group of 90% men, than they do given other balances, of say 50/50, or majority of their own gender, or even exclusivity of the other gender, which is why girls and boys clubs exist, and exclude the other gender in the first place.

No, it wasn't you. It was somebody whose name I forget. I could look it up, but I don't care quite enough to do that. This person was rather humorless and I had been making fun of his dour humorlessness. He complained. I desisted because he was clearly too tedious to throw an amusing tantrum.

Makes sense. Doesn't it feel disappointing to you that 'the odds were in our favour', so to speak, but we still failed to have many active woman posters?

This is familiar territory. I was a member of a socialist group for many years. We held face-to-face meetings and discussion groups. This was before the Internet, for the most part. Except for Lila and Jane, two senior citizen socialists who had been card carriers for a long time, we were an all male group, and we were all white. A few women and fewer blacks visited the discussion group, but rarely stayed around to become part of the group.

What were we doing wrong?

We weren't doing anything wrong.

Women and blacks didn't want to spend a lot of time in a group where they are always outnumbered by white men. Fact is, most people found us rather dull. There are some, but not very many people who are interested in socialism. One woman characterized the group as "a bunch of heady males". True enough.

Socialist groups in the US are on the fringe. All sorts of groups on the left fringe (maybe the right fringe too) have similar experiences of not being highly successful in recruiting a broad demographic. The fringe feminist groups in Minneapolis had similar experiences with women.

A more or less serious philosophy forum on the internet is also a fringe group, and only some kinds of people are going to be attracted. Most people who visit this site (male or female, gay or straight, theist or atheist, liberal or conservative) are not going to stay on and become active participants. Our deficiency here is that we are a philosophy forum, My socialist discussion group's deficiency was that we were a socialist discussion group.

Ideologically focussed women, or ideologically focussed conservative theists, are probably going to find a lack of like-minded posters disheartening. It can't be helped.

What were we doing wrong?

We weren't doing anything wrong. — Bitter Crank

As long as you can objectively assess your own behavior and label it benign, then nothing is wrong.
Right?

Ideologically focussed women, or ideologically focussed conservative theists, are probably going to find a lack of like-minded posters disheartening. It can't be helped. — Bitter Crank

BC, with all due respect, what you said here sure does sound like 'it happens and it cannot be helped'. And maybe that is true SOME of the time but there are cases in which it could have been helped.

Regardless, we had a group of informed women who could've provided us invaluable insights into the reality of their treatment, but we couldn't get them to come forward even privately to suggest anything we could do as admins to get the number of active woman posters up. — fdrake

I have invited five ladies here to TPF. Three of the five had accepted invites and joined our old place but they were overwhelmed with what looked like the infinite number of threads that were active. They said hello in the Lounge and were warmly welcomed by myself and The Mayor Of Simpleton welcomed them because we both tried to keep up on that thread. The sudden lack of the Mayors presence here should have been an indicator that things were 'off' but that is just my read.

My suggestion is simple and can be achieved which is to be able to say:

"Relax, this is a safe place."

And before someone says that I am asking for that motto to be applicable here because of any female fragility, it is not. I am talking about safety in the expression and respect of that persons position, that allows and encourages the inclusion of 'emotional vulnerability' which is vital to the pursuit of wisdom regardless of gender.

Being protected from harm, a safe space is the precise opposite of vulnerability. Just like a bomb shelter does the opposite of making one vulnerable to bombs.

Thinking that one has to remove the possibility of harm in order to make vulnerability possible is to vastly misunderstand something.

Not only is this rude but I think it is completely uncalled for. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't think that it's completely uncalled for. I think that one of the benefits of this place is the freedom to point out home truths and not have to sugarcoat everything that we say.

I value this quality of frankness, evident in members such as Thorongil, and do not approve of what appears to be an attempt to guilt trip him into changing his ways to suit your liking - not that I believe it has any real chance of success, which again is something I find admirable, as it shows courage to stand one's ground, on principle, in the face of such condemnation.

As long as you can objectively assess your own behavior and label it benign, then nothing is wrong.
Right? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your probing search light piercing the shadows is always so... revealing. Damn it.

Well, we did try very hard to figure out if we were doing something offensive. We weren't, we maintained, being offensive, and I think that was correct. What we were doing, however, was behaving the way somewhat (maybe not so 'somewhat') competitive males behave: We were eager to lay out our political views before each other, and CONVINCE everyone else. Maybe many women find that sort of discussion a bit too... rough, or not collegial enough, or something. There are, though, plenty of women who engage in political debate with as much gusto as men, and they do just fine. They can pull out a vorpal sword and cut across neat theory with the best of the guys.

BC, with all due respect, what you said here sure does sound like 'it happens and it cannot be helped'. And maybe that is true SOME of the time but there are cases in which it could have been helped. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well... some of the time yes, some of the time no. In the tradition of socialist organizations, we weren't trying to reach a collegial consensus, we were engaging in "speech to persuade" or "speech to get everyone to conform to the principles of the party". I suppose there was a feeling that this kind of discussion leads one to conform to the party line, or the gulag is next. Who would not like to send Donald Trump to a gulag in the Aleutian Islands or a political reeducation camp in a Northern Minnesota Swamp or a Louisiana Swamp, for that matter--one with lots of alligators, clouds of mosquitos, and just crawling with venomous snakes?

Political parties are supposed to have specified platforms, and we did--actually humane, democratic DeLeonist socialist principles. These had been developed over a century and a half by the Socialist Labor Party and the New Union Party.

A famous poem celebrating laissez faire interaction:

I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.

(Fritz Perls, 1969)

Apologies to Fritz Perls (source long since forgotten) less laissez faire:

I did my thing and you did your thing.
I was not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you were not in this world to live up to mine.
And IF, because I was busy doing my thing
and you were equally busy doing your thing,
the world went to hell,
It could not be helped?

In terms of how we treat one and other, I'm in favour of gender equality. I think that it'd be interesting, and perhaps preferable or even ideal, if we could somehow make it impossible to reveal or present at any time any gender relating to any member here.

I don't know quite how your idea could be implemented, but in theory it is a very good idea.

I suppose we could require gender-neutral language, a la Sweden, which is trying to replace gendered pronouns. Gender neutrality might help, but I find such practice repellent. We could use gender neutral language: refer to one's self as a person, not a man or a woman; refer to interactions of persons, rather than interactions of males and females, and so on.

But de-gendered language flies in the face of a highly impertinent reality: Humans, like all other animals, (many plants, for that matter) are gendered, and gender is a central part of a person's being. I don't believe gender can be waived by dismissing it as socially constructed. Sex, gender, erotic activity, reproductive behavior, physiognomy, language, -- our bodies our selves -- and so on are all intrinsically gendered.

I agree with gender-neutral language to some extent, and put it into practice to some extent. To give a real example, at work, we have a "1 man" and a "2 man" delivery charge, but I find that offensive, so when I mention the charges, I speak in terms of persons.

But I still say "he" and "she" when I think that it's appropriate, which is very often, and have no intention of changing my ways.

Thinking that one has to remove the possibility of harm in order to make vulnerability possible is to vastly misunderstand something. — Wosret

It is not removal of harm as it is a degree of respect of one another's positions without fear of personal attack.

Which is probably why women aren't going to be as interested in philosophy, the hard sciences, or political groups, because they're all about brutal attacks of ideology. They're intellectual blood sports.

I don't think that it says anything negative about women for not being interested in them, and I think that women should definitely be encouraged and welcomed in them, but to fundamentally alter their very natures, destroy them, transform them into something else entirely in order to market better to female sensibilities over male ones, as if there is no difference at all, or female sensibilities are always superior, in every single imaginable context is not valuable, nor desirable.

...as if there is no difference at all... — Wosret

Yes, that's exactly how we should operate. If you're unsuited, then you're unsuited, regardless of your gender. In the case that you're unsuited, you could either work on that or find another hobby.

I'm definitely all for welcoming women, and would like to see more of them as much as anyone else does, I in no way think that they can't be as good, or offer differing perspectives and experiences that are fundamental, and requisites to a fuller deeper view, but I just don't like the explanation that the reason there already isn't a 50/50 split ratio is because there is something wrong with anyone or anything necessarily.

I'm all for welcoming suitable new members, whether male or female, human or avian.

I just don't like the explanation that the reason there already isn't a 50/50 split ratio is because there is anything wrong with anyone or anything necessarily. — Wosret

Yes, that explanation would be bogus.

I'm all for welcoming suitable new members, whether male or female, human or avian — Sapientia

Indeed, it's alls about the content, and not the form.

Indeed, it's alls about the content, and not the form. — Wosret

Time will flesh that out, it always does.

Yes, that's exactly how we should operate. If you're unsuited, then you're unsuited, regardless of your gender. In the case that you're unsuited, you could either work on that or find another hobby. — Sapientia

I am so glad I have found my lifelong hobby and interest in Philosophy~ (L)

Which is probably why women aren't going to be as interested in philosophy, the hard sciences, or political groups, because they're all about brutal attacks of ideology. They're intellectual blood sports. — Wosret

What nonsense. Women are interested in these things but they're not interested in discussing them in the format that testosterone fuelled apes like you dominate and equate rational arguments with "brutal attacks" and "blood sports". Bloody hell.

What nonsense. Women are interested in these things but they're not interested in discussing them in a format that tends towards aggression. The fact that you equate rational arguments with "brutal attacks" and "blood sports" is an indication to how you approach discussions as a fundamentally adversarial process, which isn't a necessity.

Which approach do you prefer?

Take care not to overrate it.

>:O I have to say that I disagree with Wosrest's extreme right-wing views, but they're interesting to read >:O

Notice how you've actually called me names? Attacked me personally, while supposedly being all for the precise opposite of that?

When people start getting accusatory, and saying that a victimization is taking place, and start to go on a witch hunt for the oppressors, then maybe they really need some damn good evidence of witches, and their evil deeds? Not just self-righteousness, and a deep need to be the good one, that puts pitch forks firmly into their hands?

You can disagree with my characterization, as you exaggerate it to a point I rarely attain in every exchange.

Take care not to overrate it. — Sapientia

My dear Sapientia, I will consider your unsolicited advice, Thank you.
My unsolicited advice to you is to: take care not to overate your own advice.

Why not just ask me to leave Sapientia?

My unsolicited advice to you is to: take care not to overate your own advice. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh but that's quite impossible, my dear Tiff.

Oh but that's quite impossible, my dear Tiff. — Sapientia

I imagine it is. What a burden in life, eh?

Why not just ask me to leave, Sapientia? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why would I do that? I do not want you to leave. I will ask you instead not to read things into what I say and then jump to conclusions based upon your own imaginings. If my comments were intended to be about you, then I would have mentioned you by name. A little less paranoia wouldn't go amiss, my dear Tiff.

I have been quite open, for quite a long time now, about my lowered estimation of the value of philosophy. Hence my unsolicited advice. It's nothing personal at all.