Why is this place like 99% male?

[Vepres]

A vicious cycle, perhaps? The forum was made up of predominately young males from the start (or so I assume), which drives off females and attracts more young males, which drives off females even more, etc.

[phk]

A vicious cycle, perhaps? The forum was made up of predominately young males from the start (or so I assume), which drives off females and attracts more young males, which drives off females even more, etc.

The older Atlas forum pre-Nov 2003 was mostly older males.

[Vepres]

A vicious cycle, perhaps? The forum was made up of predominately young males from the start (or so I assume), which drives off females and attracts more young males, which drives off females even more, etc.

The older Atlas forum pre-Nov 2003 was mostly older males.

Well, strike the young, then.

[phk]

A vicious cycle, perhaps? The forum was made up of predominately young males from the start (or so I assume), which drives off females and attracts more young males, which drives off females even more, etc.

The older Atlas forum pre-Nov 2003 was mostly older males.

Well, strike the young, then.

1) Become more like a social network.  A good way to weed out awkwards, fats and uglies.
2) Drop the prominence of political cartography
3) Strong focus on individual issues, i.e. Abortion, Gay Rights, etc.

Girls will come then come.

[Mr. Morden]

A vicious cycle, perhaps? The forum was made up of predominately young males from the start (or so I assume), which drives off females and attracts more young males, which drives off females even more, etc.

Yes, this point has been already been made in this thread.  As has the fact that there are other internet forums out there (including other forums about politics) for which that hasn't happened, at least not to the extent that it has here.  Which is why one must ask whether it's pure chance that it happened here, in a forum that discusses the particular topics discussed here, or if there's something more intrinsic about this place or the range of topics that's discussed, that made it more male-heavy.

As has been speculated, it's possible that the fact that this place discusses "politics as sports", rather than just sticking to discussion of political issues, could be part of it.  As could the fact that, for most of the history of Atlas, moderation was extremely lax, and there've been quite a few obnoxious trolls.  My anecdotal experience on the interwebs has been stricter moderation --> women are more likely to post.

Regarding the fact that the average age of users here has declined....I wonder if it's declined significantly more than the rest of the web.  Certainly, the average internet user 15 years ago was a lot older than the average user today.  Has it changed a lot just since 2003, or is it just this place?

[Mr. Morden]

1) Become more like a social network.  A good way to weed out awkwards, fats and uglies.
2) Drop the prominence of political cartography
3) Strong focus on individual issues, i.e. Abortion, Gay Rights, etc.

Girls will come then come.

Dropping the prominence of political cartography seems rather silly, given what this site is all about.

There's no reason for us to do any of the above, unless we really want to.  This thread was merely intended to ponder the curiosity of the fact that the sex ratio here is so incredibly skewed.  Didn't really mean for it to be about "solutions".  Though if people think that balancing the sex ratio here is important, you're welcome to try these.

[Beet]

Well, places usually grow by word of mouth or by advertising. In first person shooter forums for example, the advertising is the game, which men and women both see in stores, and is played by so many men that some women are bound to come into contact with it, try it, and like it enough to post in a forum. With other political sites that I go to, they tend to be well known, or the people in them started out drawn together as a group in real life that expanded into a online group, kind of like phknrocket1k was saying. Groups in real life tend to be mixed gender, so when translated online, it became that way as well.

This site is a place where you aren't going to find it unless you go searching. We're not tied to any particular famous events or personalities. Dave doesn't have a blog that attracts many links or hits to this site. We get a traffic surge around election day just for people looking for information, IIRC, but it mostly hangs beneath the surface. People have made friends here but it's relatively rare for existing members to bring in their friends or family. Statesrights is one of the exceptions and the result that was one of our few female members.

In other words, this site is designed very much as a social networking island. It's unusually disconnected. I'm not sure that answers the OP's question but I think it has something to do with it.

[phk]

1) Become more like a social network.  A good way to weed out awkwards, fats and uglies.
2) Drop the prominence of political cartography
3) Strong focus on individual issues, i.e. Abortion, Gay Rights, etc.

Girls will come then come.

Dropping the prominence of political cartography seems rather silly, given what this site is all about.

There's no reason for us to do any of the above, unless we really want to.  This thread was merely intended to ponder the curiosity of the fact that the sex ratio here is so incredibly skewed.  Didn't really mean for it to be about "solutions".  Though if people think that balancing the sex ratio here is important, you're welcome to try these.

More or less. Its just a case by comparison. I'v been to political forums where there have been plenty of females.

I'm not saying "drop" political cartography all together but make it more as a side dish than the main course.

Typically the biggest differentials between here and there were those 3.

[The Mikado]

A vicious cycle, perhaps? The forum was made up of predominately young males from the start (or so I assume), which drives off females and attracts more young males, which drives off females even more, etc.

The older Atlas forum pre-Nov 2003 was mostly older males.

Well, strike the young, then.

1) Become more like a social network.  A good way to weed out awkwards, fats and uglies.
2) Drop the prominence of political cartography
3) Strong focus on individual issues, i.e. Abortion, Gay Rights, etc.

Girls will come then come.

All of which are, of course, anathema to what this site is.  I'm frankly sick of Web 2.0.  I like the Web 1.0 feel of this site.  And, once again, it's the forum of a site about maps.  Talk about what TV Tropes would call Network Creep.

[Hash]

We already dropped electoral geography as a main facet of this site. Hackish politics, day-to-day uneventual politics and other stuff are the main attraction.

[Torie]

Can someone bring me up to speed about web 1.0 and web 2.0? This is really an interesting discussion! And I don't have much to add. Others have insights that I did not. It might be something of an accident. Most of the few olds here like chatting with youngs, and are young at heart really, or just are deeply in love with political cartography. Oh, that is about age, rather than gender. Whatever; the age thing I guess is also interesting. Normally, a site such as this would have youngs and retireds or not working, with less inbetween. But no AARP's have shown up here, so no whole bar bell, just a severed  half thereof.

[The Mikado]

Can someone bring me up to speed about web 1.0 and web 2.0? This is really an interesting discussion! And I don't have much to add. Others have insights that I did not. It might be something of an accident. Most of the few olds here like chatting with youngs, and are young at heart really, or just are deeply in love with political cartography. Oh, that is about age, rather than gender. Whatever; the age thing I guess is also interesting. Normally, a site such as this would have youngs and retireds or not working, with less inbetween. But no AARP's have shown up here, so no whole bar bell, just a severed  half thereof.

Web 2.0 refers to sites with interactive content, social networking, video, profiles, lots of Flash everywhere.  Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. are Web 2.0.  Web 1.0 is reliant on good old html, with lots of text, few images and next to no moving images, etc.

[Frodo]

It would be nice if we could get some actual women out there lurking watching this discussion care to share their thoughts on how to make our site more welcoming towards them.  As of now, we're just shooting in the dark.  

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Can someone bring me up to speed about web 1.0 and web 2.0? This is really an interesting discussion! And I don't have much to add. Others have insights that I did not. It might be something of an accident. Most of the few olds here like chatting with youngs, and are young at heart really, or just are deeply in love with political cartography. Oh, that is about age, rather than gender. Whatever; the age thing I guess is also interesting. Normally, a site such as this would have youngs and retireds or not working, with less inbetween. But no AARP's have shown up here, so no whole bar bell, just a severed  half thereof.

Web 2.0 refers to sites with interactive content, social networking, video, profiles, lots of Flash everywhere.  Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. are Web 2.0.  Web 1.0 is reliant on good old html, with lots of text, few images and next to no moving images, etc.

So this is a Web 1.0 site then.

I agree with you then--I like the Web 1.0 feel of this site.

[phk]

Can someone bring me up to speed about web 1.0 and web 2.0? This is really an interesting discussion! And I don't have much to add. Others have insights that I did not. It might be something of an accident. Most of the few olds here like chatting with youngs, and are young at heart really, or just are deeply in love with political cartography. Oh, that is about age, rather than gender. Whatever; the age thing I guess is also interesting. Normally, a site such as this would have youngs and retireds or not working, with less inbetween. But no AARP's have shown up here, so no whole bar bell, just a severed  half thereof.

Web 2.0 refers to sites with interactive content, social networking, video, profiles, lots of Flash everywhere.  Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. are Web 2.0.  Web 1.0 is reliant on good old html, with lots of text, few images and next to no moving images, etc.

So this is a Web 1.0 site then.

I agree with you then--I like the Web 1.0 feel of this site.

This site is very Web 1.0.

Web 2.0 was essembly while it existed.

[phk]

Can someone bring me up to speed about web 1.0 and web 2.0? This is really an interesting discussion! And I don't have much to add. Others have insights that I did not. It might be something of an accident. Most of the few olds here like chatting with youngs, and are young at heart really, or just are deeply in love with political cartography. Oh, that is about age, rather than gender. Whatever; the age thing I guess is also interesting. Normally, a site such as this would have youngs and retireds or not working, with less inbetween. But no AARP's have shown up here, so no whole bar bell, just a severed  half thereof.

Web 2.0 refers to sites with interactive content, social networking, video, profiles, lots of Flash everywhere.  Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. are Web 2.0.  Web 1.0 is reliant on good old html, with lots of text, few images and next to no moving images, etc.

In short Web 2.0 is anything where broadband is required to maximize your utility.

[Badger]

Without rechecking all 8 pages of posts, have any of the <gasp> actual women on the forum posted their opinions on this question?

[MaxQue]

Without rechecking all 8 pages of posts, have any of the <gasp> actual women on the forum posted their opinions on this question?

No

[Mr. Morden]

actual women on the forum

There aren't any*.

*Annie is under 18, so she's a girl, not a woman.   I guess Texasgurl would count, but she didn't post in this thread.  Is there anyone else?

[Bacon King]

actual women on the forum

There aren't any*.

*Annie is under 18, so she's a girl, not a woman.   I guess Texasgurl would count, but she didn't post in this thread.  Is there anyone else?

Everett doesn't still post does she? BeccaM? texaslefty (lol)?

[Middle-aged Europe]

While I happen to know several women who are either very much interested in politics or use the Internet regularly, I never managed to get one of them in participating in a political forum for very long. And it's not just this forum, but political forums on general. They think it's stupid and a waste of time. Also, style and tone of the debates are often considered too aggressive and downright rude (doesn't really apply to the Atlas forum that often, but to a lot of other political message boards I've come to know).

I guess this one sums it up pretty well:


Women couldn't care less when someone they don't even know in person happens to have a different political opinion. I have also gotten the impression that women are more common on non-political Internet forums (they're still mostly the minority there too, but sometimes it's a sizable minority).

[Free Palestine]

While I happen to know several women who are either very much interested in politics or use the Internet regularly, I never managed to get one of them in participating in a political forum for very long. And it's not just this forum, but political forums on general. They think it's stupid and a waste of time. Also, style and tone of the debates are often considered too aggressive and downright rude (doesn't really apply to the Atlas forum that often, but to a lot of other political message boards I've come to know).

I guess this one sums it up pretty well:


Women couldn't care less when someone they don't even know in person happens to have a different political opinion. I have also gotten the impression that women are more common on non-political Internet forums (they're still mostly the minority there too, but sometimes it's a sizable minority).

And that's because boys are socialized to be competitive and aggressive, while girls are typically not.  This is why there aren't very many girls who play first-person shooters or post on political forums.  It goes against what our society defines as being "feminine."

[phk]

actual women on the forum

There aren't any*.

*Annie is under 18, so she's a girl, not a woman.   I guess Texasgurl would count, but she didn't post in this thread.  Is there anyone else?

Everett doesn't still post does she? BeccaM? texaslefty (lol)?

Everett's studying to be a quant.

[dead0man]

And that's because boys are socialized to be competitive and aggressive, while girls are typically not.  This is why there aren't very many girls who play first-person shooters or post on political forums.  It goes against what our society defines as being "feminine."

Well that and genetics.

[Free Palestine]

And that's because boys are socialized to be competitive and aggressive, while girls are typically not.  This is why there aren't very many girls who play first-person shooters or post on political forums.  It goes against what our society defines as being "feminine."

Well that and genetics.

Genetics only makes men physically stronger than women, on average.  There's nothing genetic that makes women less inclined to be competitive with others, or aggressive.