Is revleft mostly male

[Louise Michel]

This may not be the place to start this thread because it's more a question and not a claim that there's discrimination practised here. But are most of the posters/members male?

If so, why is this do you think? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm just curious. I suppose most leftist organizations are majority male but given their opposition to the cultural norm shouldn't this be reflected in a higher number of women than, say, you'll find in the boardroom?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yeah it is but most political forums i have beien on seem to have more men then women.

[BobKKKindle$]

Not sure why leftist organizations don't have more women

They do - mine certainly does, anyway, at both a local and national level. It's a problem with Revleft, and not (most) leftist organizations.

[Killfacer]

Yeah it definatly is.

Bobkindles is correct.

[Louise Michel]

Liberals of today seem to have appropriated the socialist movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that really started feminism.

Or maybe feminists (middle-class feminists) are more comfortable with liberalism. Historically working class women have often come to the front lines of the struggle, during the Paris Commune or the Russian Revolution for example, but middle class women despite the feminism never seem to escape the gender roles except at the level of ideas.

[brigadista]

Or maybe feminists (middle-class feminists) are more comfortable with liberalism. Historically working class women have often come to the front lines of the struggle, during the Paris Commune or the Russian Revolution for example, but middle class women despite the feminism never seem to escape the gender roles except at the level of ideas.

maybe because women have children and therefore less time?

[Louise Michel]

maybe because women have children and therefore less time?


I don't think working class women have less children than middle class women (probably the opposite is true).

[Dimentio]

This may not be the place to start this thread because it's more a question and not a claim that there's discrimination practised here. But are most of the posters/members male?

If so, why is this do you think? I'm not trying to imply anything, I'm just curious. I suppose most leftist organizations are majority male but given their opposition to the cultural norm shouldn't this be reflected in a higher number of women than, say, you'll find in the boardroom?

I think it is a general trend on the internet, even though more females have started to use it. Studies show that males use the web more for socialising/organising. Probably, the entire design and system tend to attract males more, for cultural reasons.

[Bitter Ashes]

There was a few polls put up in chit chat. They did have a fairly bit response and it was something like a 80/20 split in the genders.

[Louise Michel]

I think it is a general trend on the internet, even though more females have started to use it. Studies show that males use the web more for socialising/organising. Probably, the entire design and system tend to attract males more, for cultural reasons.

Is this because the internet is less personal? I think young women use a lot of text messaging but this is always to a specific person. Here it's much more impersonal and you never know who will reply or what sort of response you'll get.

[Sam_b]

Surveys have shown that the majority of internet users are white, male, and aged under thirty. This question, I think, could equally be about RevLeft being mostly white (i'm almost certain that this is true).

As Bob says, I don't think our party has this problem, and other left groups. I think its just the nature of the internet and the demgraphies that use it more than others, especially for entertainment purposes.

[Jazzratt]

There was a few polls put up in chit chat. They did have a fairly bit response and it was something like a 80/20 split in the genders.

The sad thing is that 20/80 is an improvement. Read into that what you will.

[Dimentio]

Is this because the internet is less personal? I think young women use a lot of text messaging but this is always to a specific person. Here it's much more impersonal and you never know who will reply or what sort of response you'll get.

I think that could very well be the reason. Some communities, like Facebook, are actually quite much more gender-equal.

[Glenn Beck]

Yes the problem is cultural. Almost all organizations and actions I've taken part in outside of the internets have been either actively led or largely composed of women. That actually points to another cultural problem because the average male where I am from is far more likely to be apolitical or right-wing and radical politics is viewed as feminizing (dirty long haired hippies and sensitive tree huggers and all those nice stereotypes).

[brigadista]

I don't think working class women have less children than middle class women (probably the opposite is true).

i didnt say they did... i was talking about less time

[TC]

We've had this conversation about a million times. It always goes like this (and before you read yourself into these roles, I'm not thinking of anyone and I haven't even read this thread this is just from memory):

-Random Person 0: "Anyone notice revleft is a sausage fest? whats up with that"

-Sexist "leftist" dude 1: "Thats cause most leftists are men! I know this for a FACT cause its reflected in my little local "leftist organization" composed of me and my school buddies: the Committee to Oppose Capitalist Krimes has only one female member, and its surely representative of the left in general. This is just reflected in revleft"

-Sexist, yet more nuanced dude 2: "Thats cause most people in politics are men because men have more time because we love baybees less...oh and patriarchy...this is a problem of society not revleft"

-Sexist Super Nerdy boy 3: "Actually its because, in a non-random survey of my super-nerdy message boards populated by other super nerdy boys, I've found that the overwhelming majority of people on the internet are male. In fact most people I know are male, although I met a girl once so i know how they use the internet differently and what not...its nothing to do with revleft!"

-Angry Girl 4: "Actually 1. women are underrepresented in bourgeois political leadership because of the social structure, but any real activist will know women are equally represented in the mainstream left and overrepresented in the left-of-center 2. women are also present in equal numbers in successful community sites like myspace, facebook, twitter, bloggers, university student webforums, etc 3. this points to a problem with revleft 4. revleft is populated by a bunch of asshole guys and has reached a critical point where it has an overwhelmingly male culture!

-Sexist Sensitive Guy 5: "Aww but that can't be right, this is the internet where gender doesn't have any relevant social affects because as soon as someones writing instead of talking their social relations are somehow magically decontextualized from their real life experience..."

-Angry Girl 4:"How about 1. all of these threads in chit chat that you can only really participate in if you're a guy given the way the culture is gendered 2. the disproportional tolerance on the part of a sizeable minority on this forum to reactionary views of abortion and 3. the prevelance of casual views towards the de-prioritization of issues that disproportionately affect female workers? 4. the hyper competitive, hyper egotystical, constant one up-manship between people who want to show how big their metaphorical phallus is on a web discussion forum creating an environment where like many male dominated environments esteem is sought through the degredation of others... Don't you think those problems might have some kind of affect on the male to female ratio here? Because I do...i've just posted too much here for way too long to feel like cutting my losses...

-Sexist Dudes 1, 2, 3,: "Shut up *****!"

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

There was an article, I forget by whom, that said Marxism is "sex-blind" and presents the notion that gender inequalities will suddenly disappear if class differences disappear. Most women realize this isn't true. Marxist dialectic sometimes is interpreted as class problems fixed = all the world's problems are fixed. It probably sucks to hear that gender inequalities are only a subcategory of class inequalities and aren't really something we need to address directly. It must suck even more to hear that knowing it isn't true.

[TC]

There was an article, I forget by whom, that said Marxism is "sex-blind" and presents the notion that gender inequalities will suddenly disappear if class differences disappear.

Marxism (the social scientific method and resulting political ideology developed Marx and Engels) isn't sex blind, at all, but it also doesn't follow from this that gender inequalities wont disappear if class differences disappear.


Most women realize this isn't true.
Most women like most men don't understand the political economy in a scientific way because the bourgeois ruling class has ensured that its philosophical and analytical framework for viewing it is totally pervasive.


Marxist dialectic sometimes is interpreted as class problems fixed = all the world's problems are fixed It probably sucks to hear that gender inequalities are only a subcategory of class inequalities and aren't really something we need to address directly. It must suck even more to hear that knowing it isn't true.

I totally disagree. Gender problems are only subcategories of class inequalities. The problem is that vulgar economistic 'marxists' reduce the class character of any individual or group to simply 'proletariat or bourgeois.' While marxist polemical writing might have been similarly reductionistic in parts, a more complete understanding of the Marxist cocept of class, as the totality of an individuals power relations mediated through economic production (the production of new people being one of the principle ways people expand or consume capital).

First world office workers and third world peasents, skilled labor aristocrats and day laborers, industrial bourgeois and finance capitalists, despite being in parallel relationships to control or non-control of the means of production, interact with the economy differently and those differences produce different interests. Similarly there is a strong tendency for male workers and female workers despite working in similar or identical fields to have very different relationships to the political economy due to differences in the distribution of domestic vs capital and/or profit expanding labor, and these similarly produce different interests. The conflicts between the husband/father and wife/mother/daughter social interests with regard to each other, even where both their interests conflict with those of their employers, are none the less still class issues and can be successfully addressed as such within a Marxian framework. Its only from the presumptive of the male-worker's perspective that gender is not a class/economic issue.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well, gender problems are a subcategory of class inequalities in a sense. They are both a type of class inequality. However, communism is a stateless, classless society. Most people view the classless in economic terms. Couldn't we have a stateless, classless society where women we socially obligated to perform a gender role? That is what I am getting at, anyway.

[Elect Marx]

-Angry Girl 4:"How about 1. all of these threads in chit chat that you can only really participate in if you're a guy given the way the culture is gendered 2. the disproportional tolerance on the part of a sizeable minority on this forum to reactionary views of abortion and 3. the prevelance of casual views towards the de-prioritization of issues that disproportionately affect female workers? 4. the hyper competitive, hyper egotystical, constant one up-manship between people who want to show how big their metaphorical phallus is on a web discussion forum creating an environment where like many male dominated environments esteem is sought through the degredation of others... Don't you think those problems might have some kind of affect on the male to female ratio here? Because I do...i've just posted too much here for way too long to feel like cutting my losses...

I would agree, I expect those are the main reasons. Also, women are treated differently here... sorry to say, they are. Your a girll11!? Shit, if I was female, I might not want to come out here... this is the fucking internet people, words on a screen.
Women get preached at and talked down to enough. If someone comes here and gets more of the same, she might not stay long enough to meet less vocal, less privilege wielding, less intolerable people.
As you said, this is basically a male space, and male spaces function to keep women out.

[LOLseph Stalin]

As others have said, it has alot to do with the nature of the internet. There's more female leftists in real life than the internet reflects. Like for example, i'm female. :)

[Sean]

I don't think its a case of revleft chasing away all the girls etc. Lacking a vagina myself my armchair psychoanalisis might be askewed somewhat. Regardless, as mentioned in a post earlier on, I think that the functionality and anonymity of the site draws more men than women. I've heard people refer to the site of late as too much like MySpace (and heard myself say it ;) ) but really I think that the more that it evolves from just a forum to a social networking and organising centre you'll find that lots more women lefties will find the appeal of it. As it stands, the Discrimination Forum seems to be the girls major treehouse, leaving the other forums lacking input.

The problem is that although forums like politics and history seem to be gender neutral, with a near total post count oozing testosterone every marx quote inevitably reeks of macho posing.

The balance is between a site where you can actually talk to people and make contacts and a secure one that employers or fash can't use against the individuals.

[Louise Michel]

Angry Girl 4:"How about 1. all of these threads in chit chat that you can only really participate in if you're a guy given the way the culture is gendered 2. the disproportional tolerance on the part of a sizeable minority on this forum to reactionary views of abortion and 3. the prevelance of casual views towards the de-prioritization of issues that disproportionately affect female workers? 4. the hyper competitive, hyper egotystical, constant one up-manship between people who want to show how big their metaphorical phallus is on a web discussion forum creating an environment where like many male dominated environments esteem is sought through the degredation of others... Don't you think those problems might have some kind of affect on the male to female ratio here? Because I do...i've just posted too much here for way too long to feel like cutting my losses...


Sorry if I've started a discussion that's been had a million times. I was asking because in my brief time here I haven't found it too bad at all (haven't tried chit chat). Internet forums are generally pretty aggresive places - it's a bit like road rage, people feel anonymous and protected so they can vent their anger. I've mainly posted in philosophy and there's a lot of DM/anti-DM sniping going on but nothing really heavy or nasty. Discrimination has been fine and History also.

So maybe the problems are more imagined than real or maybe things have changed. I've been here less than two months. I can't say I've felt attacked at all apart from maybe one post early on and that was more misunderstanding than anything else.

Or is my personality just too balanced :lol: (I need to find more of an edge!)

[Dimentio]

I would agree, I expect those are the main reasons. Also, women are treated differently here... sorry to say, they are. Your a girll11!? Shit, if I was female, I might not want to come out here... this is the fucking internet people, words on a screen.
Women get preached at and talked down to enough. If someone comes here and gets more of the same, she might not stay long enough to meet less vocal, less privilege wielding, less intolerable people.
As you said, this is basically a male space, and male spaces function to keep women out.

I don't know. In places where I have impersonated being a girl, I have been so cuddly and sweet that I often get what I want in no time. I find it much easier to be a female than a male. :lol:

[Bitter Ashes]

I don't know. In places where I have impersonated being a girl, I have been so cuddly and sweet that I often get what I want in no time. I find it much easier to be a female than a male. :lol:
This is not World of Warcraft though! :lol:
Trust me on this, but after you've spent a bit of time bieng talked down to you'll soon discover that the only things that you get are pitifully trivial, while a lot of important things are disregarded with stuff like "You wouldnt understand", or "You shouldnt be worrying about stuff like that", or otherwise just a dismissive snort.
So, yeah. You may stand a better chance at getting that sword in your MMO, or a free drink at the bar, but with that comes a real battle to be taken seriously about pretty much anything that requires you to use your brain.

[Dimentio]

This is not World of Warcraft though! :lol:
Trust me on this, but after you've spent a bit of time bieng talked down to you'll soon discover that the only things that you get are pitifully trivial, while a lot of important things are disregarded with stuff like "You wouldnt understand", or "You shouldnt be worrying about stuff like that", or otherwise just a dismissive snort.
So, yeah. You may stand a better chance at getting that sword in your MMO, or a free drink at the bar, but with that comes a real battle to be taken seriously about pretty much anything that requires you to use your brain.

That depends on how you present your ideas. When I am impersonating a female and attempting to convince a male of my arguments, I generally make it appear as it is my own arguments. And I'm generally active in Second Life.

[Pawn Power]

Its kind of strange actually. Not sure why leftist organizations don't have more women. Maybe its because of the idea prevalent in today's bourgeois society that liberalism is more favorable to women's emancipation than socialism. Liberals of today seem to have appropriated the socialist movements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that really started feminism.



A lot leftists organizations are mostly women. I don't think a web forum is the best indicator the state of the left.

This issues has come up a number of times and from my experience I would say one of the reasons there arn't as many lefty women here is because they are doing most of the work in our organizations! Have at it boys, get your act together.

[Elect Marx]

And I'm generally active in Second Life.

My friend who uses Second Life told me about you :lol: We agreed that impersonating women, to hook-up, makes no sense.
Why do you do that anyway?

[Cumannach]

the hyper competitive, hyper egotystical, constant one up-manship between people who want to show how big their metaphorical phallus is on a web discussion forum creating an environment where like many male dominated environments esteem is sought through the degredation of others



Sexism only works one way I see.

And aren't pro-lifers restricted here?

[LOLseph Stalin]

And aren't pro-lifers restricted here?

I believe so which is kinda funny because as far as I know, many of the Communist leaders such as Hoxha were against abortion.

[Jazzratt]

Revleft is one of the only forums where I will actually admit my gender. I generally try not to, in order not to have any unfair dis/advantages in terms of arguments and the like. Of course for some reason when I make this clear people assume I'm female :confused:

[Louise Michel]

Revleft is one of the only forums where I will actually admit my gender. I generally try not to, in order not to have any unfair dis/advantages in terms of arguments and the like. Of course for some reason when I make this clear people assume I'm female


That's quite a compliment don't you think?:thumbup1:

[Dimentio]

My friend who uses Second Life told me about you :lol: We agreed that impersonating women, to hook-up, makes no sense.
Why do you do that anyway?

Haha... I don't use it to hook up. Merely as relaxation. I like to explore in SL.

I don't even need to have sex. I get free gifts anyway.

[Louise Michel]

I don't even need to have sex. I get free gifts anyway.

Free gifts are better than sex? Hmmm ...

[Jazzratt]

That's quite a compliment don't you think?:thumbup1:

:lol: Well it damn sure isn't an insult.

[Glenn Beck]

Sexism only works one way I see.

:cursing::cursing: Not AGAIN

[TC]

I believe so which is kinda funny because as far as I know, many of the Communist leaders such as Hoxha were against abortion.

Proudhon was against women in politics and public life in general (and like his comrades Prince Kropotkin and Bakunin, against Jews and black people)...is it kind of funny that people who share his views now are also restricted?

[Wanted Man]

There are lots of women both in revolutionary organisations and on the internet. So the fact that RevLeft is a political website is a poor excuse, as is the fact that it is on the internet in the first place.

There seems to me no doubt that the actual nature of RevLeft, the composure of its users, is much more relevant. If the majority of the membership consists of relatively socially insecure young males, whose main interest in using the forum is to prove their worth by shouting down and competing with other such people, then that also defines the character of the site itself.

From that, we can also see how its political character develops. For instance, the fact that there will always be a considerable amount of CC members who will resist any attempts to restrict people who believe that women should be forced to give birth. Or people who support harassment and bigotry against immigrant minorities in Europe. Or those who think that imperialist intervention is fine as long as the invaded country is "expansionist" or "dictatorial"...

These are all examples of reactionary politics which are justified with chauvinistic claims. That they are common even on a space that is "revolutionary" is because most of these "revolutionaries" are chauvinists themselves.

[black magick hustla]

in all honestly, i can see how the aggressive atmosphere and the whole dumb school locker room culture surrounding this website can be appalling (and i am somewhat responsible for part of this). however i really really really doubt that it has to do with people being against restricting people for pro-life views. if anything, there are just slightly less female pro-lifers than males i think.

[Louise Michel]

There seems to me no doubt that the actual nature of RevLeft, the composure of its users, is much more relevant. If the majority of the membership consists of relatively socially insecure young males, whose main interest in using the forum is to prove their worth by shouting down and competing with other such people, then that also defines the character of the site itself.

From that, we can also see how its political character develops. For instance, the fact that there will always be a considerable amount of CC members who will resist any attempts to restrict people who believe that women should be forced to give birth. Or people who support harassment and bigotry against immigrant minorities in Europe. Or those who think that imperialist intervention is fine as long as the invaded country is "expansionist" or "dictatorial"...

Could you give a few examples? I have only been here about 6 weeks and haven't seen anything as extreme as this. I'm not saying you're wrong but are there really members who think women should be forced to give birth? I have come across a couple of people who obviously have no idea about women's oppression (not too surprising) but nothing like this. And on what grounds do people support harassment and bigotry against immigrant minorities and why aren't they kicked out?

[Sean]

Perhaps this should be moved to Revleft Members forum. We could turn this into a brainstorming session for improvements to the site which might make it more appealing to both genders. Lets actually do something about it instead of turning this into a pointless *****ing convention. I've been lambasted for suggesting what were considered politically immature improvements, but I don't hear any other proposals. So I'll continue to be politically immature until I get drowned out by better ideas.

[Louise Michel]

Perhaps this should be moved to Revleft Members forum. We could turn this into a brainstorming session for improvements to the site which might make it more appealing to both genders. Lets actually do something about it instead of turning this into a pointless *****ing convention. I've been lambasted for suggesting what were considered politically immature improvements, but I don't hear any other proposals. So I'll continue to be politically immature until I get drowned out by better ideas.

Sounds like an interesting idea. But in the meantime why not spill the beans on your 'politically immature' proposals right here :)

[Blackscare]

We've had this conversation about a million times. It always goes like this (and before you read yourself into these roles, I'm not thinking of anyone and I haven't even read this thread this is just from memory):

-Random Person 0: "Anyone notice revleft is a sausage fest? whats up with that"

-Sexist "leftist" dude 1: "Thats cause most leftists are men! I know this for a FACT cause its reflected in my little local "leftist organization" composed of me and my school buddies: the Committee to Oppose Capitalist Krimes has only one female member, and its surely representative of the left in general. This is just reflected in revleft"

-Sexist, yet more nuanced dude 2: "Thats cause most people in politics are men because men have more time because we love baybees less...oh and patriarchy...this is a problem of society not revleft"

-Sexist Super Nerdy boy 3: "Actually its because, in a non-random survey of my super-nerdy message boards populated by other super nerdy boys, I've found that the overwhelming majority of people on the internet are male. In fact most people I know are male, although I met a girl once so i know how they use the internet differently and what not...its nothing to do with revleft!"

-Angry Girl 4: "Actually 1. women are underrepresented in bourgeois political leadership because of the social structure, but any real activist will know women are equally represented in the mainstream left and overrepresented in the left-of-center 2. women are also present in equal numbers in successful community sites like myspace, facebook, twitter, bloggers, university student webforums, etc 3. this points to a problem with revleft 4. revleft is populated by a bunch of asshole guys and has reached a critical point where it has an overwhelmingly male culture!

-Sexist Sensitive Guy 5: "Aww but that can't be right, this is the internet where gender doesn't have any relevant social affects because as soon as someones writing instead of talking their social relations are somehow magically decontextualized from their real life experience..."

-Angry Girl 4:"How about 1. all of these threads in chit chat that you can only really participate in if you're a guy given the way the culture is gendered 2. the disproportional tolerance on the part of a sizeable minority on this forum to reactionary views of abortion and 3. the prevelance of casual views towards the de-prioritization of issues that disproportionately affect female workers? 4. the hyper competitive, hyper egotystical, constant one up-manship between people who want to show how big their metaphorical phallus is on a web discussion forum creating an environment where like many male dominated environments esteem is sought through the degredation of others... Don't you think those problems might have some kind of affect on the male to female ratio here? Because I do...i've just posted too much here for way too long to feel like cutting my losses...

-Sexist Dudes 1, 2, 3,: "Shut up *****!"


And your generic archetype is "annoying dick that turns every discussion about gender into an attack on the supposedly neanderthal males, all of whom must be sexist in some way, while the totally enlightened women watch as we grunt and knapp flint with rocks".



:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Os Cangaceiros]

The majority of Internet users are male, but not by very much...most surveys I've looked at put the number of Internet users at around 52% male. So saying that the Internet is overwhelmingly made up of guys is silly.

[TC]

The majority of Internet users are male, but not by very much...most surveys I've looked at put the number of Internet users at around 52% male. So saying that the Internet is overwhelmingly made up of guys is silly.

While i'm going to assume that your 52% statistic is half-remembered-from-somewhere/someone to the point that like all statistics without sources may as well really be made up on the spot...if thats true, I wonder if that isn't partially just a product of the demographics of the elderly (i.e. senior citizens are both disproportionately non-internet users and disproportionately female) and of children (who are disproportionately internet users and disproportioantely male). (edit: i suppose that what i've described was also basically making up statistics on the spot, however i don't think any of those four claims is seriously in dispute)

[Os Cangaceiros]

While i'm going to assume that your 52% statistic is half-remembered-from-somewhere/someone to the point that like all statistics without sources may as well really be made up on the spot...if thats true, I wonder if that isn't partially just a product of the demographics of the elderly (i.e. senior citizens are both disproportionately non-internet users and disproportionately female) and of children (who are disproportionately internet users and disproportioantely male). (edit: i suppose that what i've described was also basically making up statistics on the spot, however i don't think any of those four claims is seriously in dispute)

:rolleyes:

Maybe this will tickle your fancy, then: http://www.pewinternet.org/Data-Tools/Download-Data/~/media/Infographics/Trend%20Data/January%202009%20updates/Demographics%20of%20Internet%20Users%201%206%2009. jpg

[Blackscare]

Teh injustice! Let's kick some males of the internet to make it more fair.


Seriously, I hate that in every situation some feminists will paint females as helpless victims on the INTERNET. Topics of discussion are all male oriented? Well, I think that's a stupid assertion, but even if it were actually true there is nothing stopping females from creating topics.

Revleft may have more males than females, but to assert that it's because of some sort of internet-oppression is intellectually lazy (because you'd rather just use patriarchy to explain everything in gender issues, rather than a bit of critical thinking) and insulting to any female with a keyboard who actually makes her thoughts heard.


OOOH teh males are scaring off women by talking about macho antifa stuff! Give me a break, I have no respect for anyone who would run away from an internet forum that provided a chance for stimulating discussion because of a few threads, and that includes these imaginary frightened females being described. I'm not sexist, because I like or dislike people based on their individual qualities, so if I heard someone say they were run off of revleft because the "machoness" or some other stupid quality was too much I would think they were weak and pathetic, no matter their sex. If someone is willing to turn away from something like revleft, with all it's potential for serious learning and debate, over some stupid posts that can be easily ignored (whatever your area of sensitivity may be, not just feminist, queer, or racial issues), fuck them! They obviously aren't models of strong minded people who are willing to change things through their own participation! Fortunetly, I've never ran into a women that actually fits that description.


The internet is not, of course, indicitave of real life and what I'm saying about oppression is not a reflection of my attitudes on real life oppression. But to chalk up something like varying ratios of gender on a particular site on the internet to patriarchy asserts that women can't compete with or hold their own against men in purely intellectual situations, or that they're sensative little flowers that wilt in the presence of male boisterosness (sp?), because women have just as much chance to start/contribute to threads on topics they are interested in as men.


It's sort of like the chicken or the egg problem; does revleft have mostly male oriented discussion because it lacks women (for whatever reasons that are no doubt complicated and constitute a difficult and interesting topic), or does it lack women because the topics are male oriented and uninviting to women? IMO, the former is the correct and more interesting of the two, while the latter insists that women somehow are unable to/prevented from expressing themselves equally, and that they are somehow unable to resist intellectual bullying, which in this context is stupid and again, insulting.

The solution to this ratio problem is not complaining that the males express themselves too much, it's in the women becoming more vocal! So much easier to complain that males are the problem in EVERY situation. :/

What are guys supposed to do, stop talking about things that interest them? I don't see what the point is in complaining about male characteristics or supposed values, as if women are unable to express their own!

[TC]

Thanks BlackScare for doing an excellent job of serving as an example with your rant to prove my point!

[TC]

:rolleyes:

Maybe this will tickle your fancy, then: http://www.pewinternet.org/Data-Tools/Download-Data/~/media/Infographics/Trend%20Data/January%202009%20updates/Demographics%20of%20Internet%20Users%201%206%2009. jpg (http://www.pewinternet.org/Data-Tools/Download-Data/%7E/media/Infographics/Trend%20Data/January%202009%20updates/Demographics%20of%20Internet%20Users%201%206%2009. jpg)

Well...the fact that (apparently according to the pew research council) most internet users are female just further undermines the absurdity of the sexist assumptions of this thread.

No, we needn't kick males off the internet: we should kick assholes whose missions seem only to degrade others, like BlackScare, off revleft.

[Blackscare]

Because my little rant would scare off anyone :rolleyes:

You have no faith in people.

I may be too aggressive, but if someone is seriously driven from discussion because I get a little too passionate, they don't deserve to be heard.

Why on earth would we celebrate timidness? Sure, over-aggressiveness is bad in cases, but by no means is it a factor that should deter people who having something that they believe in from expressing themselves. The first time I logged on I went into the chat room and Bobkindles (who is now a friend of mine) totally flamed and destroyed me for being an anarchist. I didn't pout and run away with my tail between my legs from this site, and I refuse to believe that that is what women would do in the same situation (because that would be demeaning).

The real world is much more complicated, but the internet is divided between those who are forceful and want to express themselves and those who aren't and don't, and I have no pity for the latter. I also don't believe that those who are easily bullied online are predominantly females, because there are plenty of online communities that are much more evenly distributed than revleft, where women are not at all at a disadvantage.


Didn't feminism used to be about demonstrating that women weren't timid and could compete with men in any field? Since when is it about complaining that men are too aggressive for women to deal with (on the internet, i mean)? It's gone from empowerment to.... idk what. I don't like to assume that women can't compete/put up with heated debate and discussion.

Not that I support mindless flaming by any means, but I'm not going to totally restrain myself from expressing any anger I may have in a discussion because I may be scaring the lady folk off.




No, we needn't kick males off the internet: we should kick assholes whose missions seem only to degrade others, like BlackScare, off revleft.



Actually, the thrust of my argument is that you're the one doing the degrading, because you assume that women are unable to handle the machismo floating around revleft.

I'm the one defending women as competent, intelligent people who can fend for themselves on an internet message board without people like you explaining away their smaller presence (i'm not offering an alternative explanation, just saying that I think yours in incorrect) as the result of male aggressiveness.

[TC]

I don't know. In places where I have impersonated being a girl, I have been so cuddly and sweet that I often get what I want in no time. I find it much easier to be a female than a male. :lol:


How delightful for you.

Now think about what kindof potential impact that might have on female internet users experience of the same space.

Of course its easier to be "female" than "male", if when you're pretending to be "female" online you're creating a male-fantasy-fulfilling seeking-to-please object to attract positive attention, and when you're presenting yourself as male, you act like a real person.


When you pull the flirty cuddly sweet routine you contribute to the expectation that women exist to amuse men.

That creates a hostile environment for women who use the same space: they don't get what they want as easily as men unless they play by the expected role for women you've helped to construct.

Of course men treat sweet flirty male-attention-seeking "girls" better than they treat real people. They treat puppies better than the average person too. When you create an environment that tells women that they can get better treatment if they act more like puppies and less like people you've created a hostile institutionally sexist environment.

[TC]

Because my little rant would scare off anyone :rolleyes:

You have no faith in people.

I may be too aggressive, but if someone is seriously driven from discussion because I get a little too passionate, they don't deserve to be heard.

Why on earth would we celebrate timidness? Sure, over-aggressiveness is bad in cases, but by no means is it a factor that should deter people who having something that they believe in from expressing themselves. The first time I logged on I went into the chat room and Bobkindles (who is now a friend of mine) totally flamed and destroyed me for being an anarchist. I didn't pout and run away with my tail between my legs from this site, and I refuse to believe that that is what women would do in the same situation (because that would be demeaning).

The real world is much more complicated, but the internet is divided between those who are forceful and want to express themselves and those who aren't and don't, and I have no pity for the latter. I also don't believe that those who are easily bullied online are predominantly females, because there are plenty of online communities that are much more evenly distributed than revleft, where women are not at all at a disadvantage.


Didn't feminism used to be about demonstrating that women weren't timid and could compete with men in any field? Since when is it about complaining that men are too aggressive for women to deal with (on the internet, i mean)? It's gone from empowerment to.... idk what. I don't like to assume that women can't compete/put up with heated debate and discussion.

When people make life more aggravating, unnerving, annoying, tense, or otherwise unpleasent, I try to avoid them when I have no reason to engage with them. This has nothing to do with being timid, it has to do with valuing my time. I've invested enough time in revleft already that, i actually have a reason not to avoid it despite the fact that people like you are here. If I was just starting off here though, posts like yours would actually disuade me from investing time in this forum as opposed to finding another, less irritating, more pleasent venue for political expression.

And i'm sorry, but men are really, often, too aggressive to deal with, and the reality is that most women modify their daily behavior to avoid aggressive men. I'm doing work in a dorky frozen yogurt place right now for instance, in part because most of the other non-library public-space options at night would involve dealing with obnoxious drunk guys on my own. This is not to say that I can't competently and if necessary, aggressively deal with obnoxious guys, but that if i don't have a reason for it I'll avoid putting myself in situations that I'd feel uncomfortable in, if for no other reason then the common propensity for avoiding unnecessary hassle. When revleft becomes the online-equivolent of such a situation, obviously the gender balance will be affected, and the affect is cumulative because the culture is self-reinforcing. You don't see this as a problem because you experience it from a privileged male perspective.



Actually, the thrust of my argument is that you're the one doing the degrading, because you assume that women are unable to handle the machismo floating around revleft.You're confusing ability to handle machismo with desire to handle machismo. I can handle machismo just fine, but I'd rather not have to! When you create an environment where people have to deal with attitudes they'd prefer to avoid, then they'll prefer to avoid that environment. Now some people (like you) don't prefer avoiding confrontation, they prefer seeking confrontation. The reality is most of those people are men. It doesn't take a genius to see how this could affect the gender balance.

[RedAnarchist]

BlackScare, learn how to use quote tags please. I've merged your triple post on this page.

[A_Ciarra]

Bingo Charming.


There seems to me no doubt that the actual nature of RevLeft, the composure of its users, is much more relevant. If the majority of the membership consists of relatively socially insecure young males, whose main interest in using the forum is to prove their worth by shouting down and competing with other such people, then that also defines the character of the site itself. I think the lack of females around is about the average age of the males on the board being quite young still.

The younger a male, the less time they have had to realize that when women are not busy with children, or getting a man etc., they are just as interested as the men in what goes on in "the big world" as they are. Generally speaking boys do have more of a natural head start into politics (looking outward), where girls are more tuned into landing a man for security and protection (personal issues) ---that's just the way we evolved and tick. It's somewhat natural (though non productive) for the young guy's to come off as very condescending to females and end up creating a hostile environment chasing them off to more friendly places. They need to change this if they want to create a more productive environment.

Then there is the radical leftist site issue. I DO think this is a factor. Whenever something is still rather "underground", or just less domesticated and organized... people are just more "primal". The total values of the group have had less time to work out a good balance and develop norms like other groups that have been up and running in the mainstream a bit more. I think leftist groups have stronger feminist values, but on the downside, it's just the simple lack of IMPRINTING firm ideals within the group that, "females can (and do) focus on politics just as hard core as men, and fight just as hard core, so grow up and show some respect". For the most part the young guys haven't developed this awareness yet. In my experience it generally takes them till they are about thirty to catch up and realize this.


Blackscare, I think you are missing a basic issue... it's not that females are fragile and victims, it's that it's just rude to be an ass to anyone. And I hardly think women are running off because of some brutal talk in ANTIFA, they can avoid that section if they wish - the topic issue is the ENTIRE board. I don't know about others but, I happen to like ANTIFA myself. *By the way, please don't bother typing out some long hostile spin post for me OK! I might get rude back, but chances are I will just completely ignore you (not as some perceived punishment as you might like to think - but just because it's boring).

[Blackscare]

Alright.... I definitely lost this one :crying:
Can't really defend my earlier points, it was just a poorly thought out rant.

Sorry I came off like a real dick, I was in a really bad/combative mood :(

[TC]

Bingo Charming.
Generally speaking boys do have more of a natural head start into politics (looking outward), where girls are more tuned into landing a man for security and protection (personal issues)


---that's just the way we evolved and tick. It's somewhat natural (though non productive) for the young guy's to come off as very condescending to females and end up creating a hostile environment chasing them off to more friendly places.

Isn't it funny how we live in a society where our lives from morning to night, in every interaction, are mediated by technology, economics, social status dynamics, cultural expectations, and so on, and human behavior has varied according to how these conditions have varied throughout history...and yet our current behavior at this particular historical moment is coincidentally actually the natural product of evolution! :rolleyes:

Either that or appealing to nature or evolution to explain social phenomenon located in particular geographic, historical, and class contexts is nothing more than grounding just-so stories in psudo-science instead of overt myths. :bored:

I don't say that to be hostile simply to suggest a more critical approach might be needed here.

I don't think the fact that guys are often dicks means that guys are naturally dicks anymore then the fact that the rich are dicks means that they're genetically predisposed to dickish behavior: maybe the way our society is structured just encourages it among males/rich more than females and poor people.

[Elect Marx]

Alright.... I definitely lost this one :crying:
Can't really defend my earlier points, it was just a poorly thought out rant.

Sorry I came off like a real dick, I was in a really bad/combative mood :(

There went my chance to lay into you :lol:

You seen to make a great many assumptions. Not only do women not want to be involved in a hyper-competitive, insensitive and disrespectful environment, neither do many men; I know I don't. Women not being present, is an important indicator; but attracting women aside, we all need to examine the culture we create here through our interactions.

What kind of radical change are we really seeking to promote, if we recreate the same reactionary attitudes we see in our real lives? Expecting women to play a man's game is not respectful and I understand why women might avoid many of the situations that were previously discussed. Perhaps women see the hypocrisy in calling for equality in a forum where they are not treated fairly. So I don't blame women for not being here. In fact, we should not be playing any games here, and we must all learn to leave our egos at the doorstep if we want to truly connect with others.

Essentially, a few loud male voices can make this a hostile and unproductive learning environment. This is indeed our responsibility as men, to recognize privilege where we have it and speak out against this sort of cultural degradation (unfortunately, I suspect I must disclaim, that individual men are not responsible for all male actions). We many not be able to remove the macho overtones from the site, but it is the least we can do: to be thoughtful, compassionate and supportive.

[NecroCommie]

Before you guys/gals read my post, I want you notice that this post is written on my personal experience and not based on any factual knowledge or statistics.

Now then, my personal experience is that most active internet browsers are males. I know, I know... Most girls are using the internet too, but when I say "using the internet" I mean using the internet, and not just checking your e-mail, myspace account and the latest news. I am sure there are many girls and women actively using the internet, but not even nearly enough to form a majority.

Then there is the modern raising of a child. A lot of people, especially conservatists, raise their girl children to be "nice", "consending" and "friendly". These qualities rarely come in terms with rebellious and straightforwardly hostile ideology to upper classes. Damn... If I ever raise a girl child (or a boy for that matter) I will raise her to be proud and independent damn it!

[Dimentio]

While i'm going to assume that your 52% statistic is half-remembered-from-somewhere/someone to the point that like all statistics without sources may as well really be made up on the spot...if thats true, I wonder if that isn't partially just a product of the demographics of the elderly (i.e. senior citizens are both disproportionately non-internet users and disproportionately female) and of children (who are disproportionately internet users and disproportioantely male). (edit: i suppose that what i've described was also basically making up statistics on the spot, however i don't think any of those four claims is seriously in dispute)

http://dn.se/sthlm/tydliga-konsroller-i-surfande-1.838964

Use a Swedish to English translator for this one.

It shows that girls and boys use internet about as much, but that boys are visiting different sites in general, and focused on doing things, while girls are more focused on building relationships.

Conclusion: If Revleft was like Facebook, we would get more female users.

[Elect Marx]

It shows that girls and boys use internet about as much, but that boys are visiting different sites in general, and focused on doing things, while girls are more focused on building relationships.

Isn't building a relationship, doing something? If you've ever been in a relationship for any period of time, you know it takes work to maintain. I take issue with the assertion that building interpersonal relationships is not "doing something." I find it dismissive of women to categorize their roles as non-labor or less productive. Are our efforts here not about social networking and building leftist relations? If not, I am in the wrong place.

[Dimentio]

Isn't building a relationship, doing something? If you've ever been in a relationship for any period of time, you know it takes work to maintain. I take issue with the assertion that building interpersonal relationships is not "doing something." I find it dismissive of women to categorize their roles as non-labor or less productive. Are our efforts here not about social networking and building leftist relations? If not, I am in the wrong place.

I did not mean that women are not doing something. I actually think that women are more essential than men in building such organisations like these. My experience from IRL organisations is that we males tend to discuss, while women are those who actually try to organise up everything.

[Louise Michel]

You seen to make a great many assumptions. Not only do women not want to be involved in a hyper-competitive, insensitive and disrespectful environment, neither do many men; I know I don't. Women not being present, is an important indicator; but attracting women aside, we all need to examine the culture we create here through our interactions.


I think this is the main point (although my knowledge of the culture here is limited). We can try to learn or we can try to be right all the time. The world is a complicated place particularly for people like us so recognizing that we know next to nothing is probably the beginning of wisdom.

A mainly male forum is not necessarily worse than a mainly female one. But a forum where people are competing to win arguments is definitely worse than one where arguments are worked through with reason and patience.

I suspect, as the above quote implies, that if women are absent then there are probably also a lot of men who have decided not to register so the forum is not drawing in what should be its natural audience. I mean, for sure, shouldn't there be more posters here over the age of 25? Maybe that's something else to consider.


I did not mean that women are not doing something. I actually think that women are more essential than men in building such organisations like these. My experience from IRL organisations is that we males tend to discuss, while women are those who actually try to organise up everything.

Yes, this happens, but it's one of those gender defined divisions of labor. Theory is for the boys and the girls can get things organized (I know you're not advocating this!) Also I'm not sure it's true in general that women are more interested in relationships than men - though the relationships are different for sure.

[Dimentio]

I think this is the main point (although my knowledge of the culture here is limited). We can try to learn or we can try to be right all the time. The world is a complicated place particularly for people like us so recognizing that we know next to nothing is probably the beginning of wisdom.

A mainly male forum is not necessarily worse than a mainly female one. But a forum where people are competing to win arguments is definitely worse than one where arguments are worked through with reason and patience.

I suspect, as the above quote implies, that if women are absent then there are probably also a lot of men who have decided not to register so the forum is not drawing in what should be its natural audience. I mean, for sure, shouldn't there be more posters here over the age of 25? Maybe that's something else to consider.



Yes, this happens, but it's one of those gender defined divisions of labor. Theory is for the boys and the girls can get things organized (I know you're not advocating this!) Also I'm not sure it's true in general that women are more interested in relationships than men - though the relationships are different for sure.

I think it is caused by upbringing rather than by genetics to be honest. But there is evidence which supports that men prefer discussions forums while
women prefer communities.

[apathy maybe]

To be perfectly honest, for the vast majority of posters I don't know, nor do I care, their specific gender.

For those people for whom I do know (or think I know) their gender, it is generally because I have seen other people comment on it, or they have been around for a long time.

But it certainly doesn't influence how I perceive their posts. (Or, at least, I don't think it does.)

Why are there more males than females? I don't know, none of us really know, and as pointed out, this has been discussed many times before.

Some previous threads (did these get posted before?) which, for some stupid reason, are in the trash (regarding how many are each, rather than why, but still):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/female-male-t62837
http://www.revleft.com/vb/genderi-t78679/
http://www.revleft.com/vb/male-femalei-t20407 - I miss some of these folks.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/forum-patriarchyi-t31245 - and these folks, though Elect Marx did come back!