[Godstud]

TIG, if you actually read what most people posted, it is anything BUT mysogynist and actually targets the MAN's behavior, and doing something, not the female.

Regarding man's behavior, women don't want men who lack self-confidence, have low self-esteem, etc. How do we know this? We know this because men who lack these things are not getting the attention from women that they'd like, simply put. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. Sometimes, when men are ambitious, agressive(not overly), confident, then women are willing to look over other flaws(like being a jerk), because the good out-weighs the bad. Again, this is a generalization, but often true.

Masculinity, as DE23 points out, is less of a physical thing, than a behavior.

No one is suggesting men put down women, disrespect them, etc. I guess you can, if you aren't a heterosexual male, who might want to get laid in this century...

I don't think SE23's and my conversation was mysogynist, to plainly put it, and I don't thin I've said anything here that Rei, MissTNT, Kaiserscharm, etc. would find offensive. I think women should be treated well, with respect, as intelligent, and as a different equals. "Viva la difference!", as they say! That, and if I was a mysogynist, my wife would kick my ass!

I can't imagine why women would not want to come to a political forum where they are told what they think about politics.

Who did this? Even so, as there are female posters here, it's quite obvious that women who are interested in politics, and enlightening others, as to their views, can change that.

[layman]

A criticism I hear repeated a lot is that women don't go for "nice guy" types and prefer over confidence to under-confidence etc.

To be fair, would any guys here go for a ‘virtuous’ women over one you are attracted to?

I doubt it. I think some men are wanting a double standard also in that they accept good looking, macho dudes should get sex but also want ugly, low confidence dudes to be able to earn high quality women through being nice, rich etc. At the same time they don't really expect ugly women to be able to do the same, even if they meet 1950’s standards of what of good women should be.

It seems to come down to something quite simple for me. Those primal instincts that are linked to attraction have very little meaning in the modern world but we cannot shake them - neither sex. It seems futile to try to get people to be attracted to the right types of people unless we want to get all fascist-crazy over it.

[SE23]

A criticism I hear repeated a lot is that women don't go for "nice guy" types and prefer over confidence to under-confidence etc.

To be fair, would any guys here go for a ‘virtuous’ women over one you are attracted to?

I doubt it. I think some men are wanting a double standard also in that they accept good looking, macho dudes should get sex but also want ugly, low confidence dudes to be able to earn high quality women through being nice, rich etc. At the same time they don't really expect ugly women to be able to do the same, even if they meet 1950’s standards of what of good women should be.

It seems to come down to something quite simple for me. Those primal instincts that are linked to attraction have very little meaning in the modern world but we cannot shake them - neither sex. It seems futile to try to get people to be attracted to the right types of people unless we want to get all fascist-crazy over it.

Concurred, whining about nice guys coming last is pathetic, however i am not too quick to judge these fellas, as they have been fed a lot of propaganda over the years; so when it finally dawns on them, that the Disney fantasy is in fact a fantasy; and despite popular feminist culture claiming that, the kind, considerate, nice guy is not really want they want; they then become bitter and angry. It creates a self fulfilling prophecy of actually creating women hating men.

Interestingly enough, I would say we have a culture that doesn't identify itself with masculine values anymore, so there is no clear path for males to become actual responsible men. Of course you have exceptions, but it seems to have created a false paradigm, of "nice guy versus the jerk". Both of which seem to seek their validation off the opposite gender's sexuality, because they can't begin to master their own.

So to summarize, feminism, popular culture and technology have domesticated a lot of males, rendering the "outlaws" becoming the popular choice for the ladies, because they are in fact men, although not the kind of men we want in a enhanced strong society.
The sexual market place so to speak, has been manipulated massively.

[layman]

rendering the "outlaws" becoming the popular choice for the ladies

This isnt the case where I come from.

The best quality women do not want some thug drug dealer type who shows primitive alpha characteristics. Those men may get the 'fittest burd on the estate" but that is only because in these run down areas, women tend to hold a more traditional position.

Ambition is actually highly regarded in my experience and I think polls on attractivness show this too.

This weak non-assertive male who is resented by his partner isnt really a victim of feminism. I would suggest he he is likely not to be assertive or as respected around males either or other areas of his life. If he is only like this in relationships then he has simply misjudged what a relationship is.

Anyways regarding the OP, I would be curious on what our female posters think. Are women who are interested in politics less likely to want to visit a site like po-fo due to its style, level of trolling etc? I dont even think I will get an answer as they are probably just bored of threads like this

[SE23]

Sure, she may seek financial security with the clever responsible fella or the dreaded nice guy, but only when her biological clock starts to loudly tick, and they see the thugs and other such degenerates are ending up as street cleaners. So how does on gain the security and safety with the nice guy but yet seeks the primal sexual satisfaction that one craves. Well they have developed a system of this; which is too cheat on the nice guy they are married to, with the brute. Sure there are exceptions plenty of them in fact, but with half of marriages ending up in divorce, it is good to arm yourself with cynicism before attempting to engage in one of these contracts.

Again the view that drug dealers, gangsters, thugs, frat lads are alpha and strong, is a poor example of how twisted are way of thinking is. They are Omegas, these runts would be expelled from the settlement in an agrarian society, and forced to fend off the baying wolves. Yet as this level of thinking shall remain, so will these guys be hitting the evolutionary jackpot so to speak; while the nerds and innovators of our civilization become impotent.

[layman]

gain the view that drug dealers, gangsters, thugs, frat lads are alpha and strong, is a poor example of how twisted are way of thinking is. They are Omegas, these runts would be expelled from the settlement in an agrarian society, and forced to fend off the baying wolves. Yet as this level of thinking shall remain, so will these guys be hitting the evolutionary jackpot so to speak; while the nerds and innovators of our civilization become impotent.

This is why I dont buy the whole alpha-beta thing in any serious way. It has limited use in casual conversation only.

Why can a criminal not be an alpha? Do alphas have to be high status within mainstream society?

There seems no serious scientific bases for these terms. Humans have trancended this to a large extent and are too complex.

[Pants-of-dog]

Who did this? Even so, as there are female posters here, it's quite obvious that women who are interested in politics, and enlightening others, as to their views, can change that.

Read the thread.

Here's a nice one where Alethei knows even better than the woman what she is really thinking, and can explain why she is to blame for being beaten:

A lot of women do not realize this either themselves, that their stupid shit was the cause of them getting beaten or getting divorced. Cause she just thinks of getting back and having her sweet vengeance, and does not think of circumstances that follow. So when consequences do catch up with her, she plays the traditional I'm a weak innocent women who is getting wrong done to her by men, card.

Here is one where someone specifically talks about how women think about politics:

Women care more about the neighbourhoods and cities where they live rather than distant places where themselves and their loved ones will never step foot in.
....
In fact, the more “local” is the online forum you go, the higher is the possibility of finding women interacting. As ThidTerm pointed out, they don’t like to waste their time on matters that are not directly related to them or to the ones they care about.

Here is one about how women think about sex:

Sure, she may seek financial security with the clever responsible fella or the dreaded nice guy, but only when her biological clock starts to loudly tick, and they see the thugs and other such degenerates are ending up as street cleaners. So how does on gain the security and safety with the nice guy but yet seeks the primal sexual satisfaction that one craves. Well they have developed a system of this; which is too cheat on the nice guy they are married to, with the brute. Sure there are exceptions plenty of them in fact, but with half of marriages ending up in divorce, it is good to arm yourself with cynicism before attempting to engage in one of these contracts.

There were probably more before Siberian Fox had to come in here and clean up.

[SE23]

This is why I dont buy the whole alpha-beta thing in any serious way. It has limited use in casual conversation only.

Why can a criminal not be an alpha? Do alphas have to be high status within mainstream society?

There seems no serious scientific bases for these terms. Humans have trancended this to a large extent and are too complex.

Interesting question, it has to be realised, that such definitions are given, because there haven't been extensive studies on masculinity, well at least in the recent years. A great deal of it comes from their preconceived value and worth in relation to the community they are living in.
Marriage in the past served as a incentive to at least try and aim for so called "alpha" characteristics, being strong, self dependent, self reliant, most of all being responsible. As no woman in her right mind would chose to have sex and kids with such a man who was going to leave her the next day. As referred to in previous posts, technology, cultural changes, government legislation, and movements such as feminism, have immensely changed the sexual market place, into what we perceive as Alpha characteristics and Beta characteristics.

I know that such classifications may cause some one here to repulse, but thats only if you deny the importance of social dynamics and social heirarchies. In school you had the jocks and nerds, pretty cheerleaders and ugly girls with braces (one of which grew up to be Andrew Dworkin lol). Although we have pleasantries, and an apathetic environment that has ceased to overtly challenge us; we still maintain such hierarchies. This ultimately determines the lives that we live, we may not challenge each other physically anymore, like during war time; but we certainly challenge each other mentally and socially.

I recall sitting through a droll lecture being given by a petite South American socialists who was rattling on about white male privilege. I zoned out but noticed, despite her constant lecturing on how we are all equal and the system seeks to tell us otherwise; she was maintaing the role as the leader of the group to such an extent; that whether she consciously knew it or not; she began to threaten another female student who was impeaching on her authority. I couldn't believe it; she even began using a bit of role-play as an example, by referring to herself as an IDF soldier, and the female student as the Palestinian, and telling her to shut up via this subtle means. This couldn't have been anymore unbelievable if it wasn't for the lesson actually being situated in Hebron and then female student being an actual Palestinian.

[Soulflytribe]

Here is one where someone specifically talks about how women think about politics:

It’s sad that ThirdTerm’s link to a good academic study that completely answers the Op’s question went completely unnoticed.

Some extracts for you POD:

http://www.american.edu/soc/communicati ... -Smith.pdf

Men are 33 percent more likely to consider themselves as potential political candidates, and they are 66 percent more likely than women to consider themselves qualified for serving in elected office (Fox & Lawless, 2008).

In late January 2011, Wikipedia, the free, collaborative online encyclopedia, released survey data showing that a mere 13 percent of contributors to the site were female (Glosh, Schmidt & Rishab, 2010). However, this disparity between gender participation online cannot be attributed to a gap in the Internet user population.

Women have made the case for many years that there were not enough female voices included in newspaper opinion pages (Tenore, 2011). The OpEd Project (2011) is a non-profit organization that tracks the number of women contributing to opinion forums and othermedia publications. According to its data, men regularly make up 80 to 90 percent of op-ed contributors.

In April 2011, The Washington Post revealed that of thirty columnists that it features, twenty-five are male (MediaBistro, 2011). Further, of its twelve political blogs, nine are written by males.

Some scholars have found that females are less attentive to political topics and spend less time trying to understand such news stories (Wolak & McDevitt, 2010). However, other scholars suggest that the gender gap in political knowledge is purely a product of different innate characteristics of the sexes (Nash & Hoffman, 2009).

Reporter Zafia Smardz (2005), the journalist who coined the phrase “Opiniongate,” draws several conclusions about why the journalism industry facilitates these gaps. She cites not a lack of well-credentialed women as contributors, but instead reluctance among them to contribute. When calling upon females to contribute to The Washington Post’s Outlook, it often takes more than one call to convince a woman that she has the time and the expertise to write the piece (Smardz, 2005). In her experience females are more demure and less forward in their pitches to the editorial board.

In addition to equal numbers of males and females accessing the Internet, the number of bloggers from both genders is equal as well (Fallows, 2005). (…) an in-depth study of the motivation of bloggers when broken down by gender. Males blog more often about technology and science, politics and politicians, as well as business (Li,2005; Russman, 2009). These are identified as external topics. Women blog more often about interests and hobbies, family and friends, creative work, and personal experience (Fox & Lenhart, 2005).

As previously mentioned, it is commonly held by communication scholars that men are more typically consumers of information surrounding politics, news, sports, finances, and technology (Herring,2003). When analyzing male dominated online conversations, “factual” topics were central themes, and included facts and figures as support instead of personal experiences (Russman, 2009, p. 9). Knowledge gap scholars touch on the idea that it is the nature of politics and political discussion that may deter females from talking and perhaps contributing to such discussions online.

Traditional knowledge gap studies show the importance of education levels in explaining why gaps in knowledge occur across high and low SES groups, but also suggest increasing levels of education are not enough to solve this phenomenon (Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970; Kwak, 1999). The answer perhaps lies in levels of behavioral motivation, which weakens the relationship between education levels and knowledge (Kwak, 1999).

Socialization and cultural norms are also possible explanations for the disparity in online political discussion. Moulthrop (2011) surmised that in his experience, males seemed to feel more entitled to their opinions, enough so to broadcast online and through other platforms. He argued that the Internet makes it easier for everyone to be a “broadcaster,” but noted that males may be more attracted to utilizing it as a tool because they feel their opinions should be shared with others.

In today’s society females continue to be primary caregivers. Women make up 59 percent to 75 percent of family caregivers, and spend up to 50 percent more time than men performing care giving duties (Arno, 2002). This connection to the family and community level makes them “neighborhood connectors” who may be more aware of the specific impact of certain issues on the populations for which they provide care (Moulthrop, 2011). Because women are traditionally very busy juggling other family and community related commitments, engaging in political discussion may not be top of mind, or even a priority (Groob, 2011; Moulthrop 2011).

[SE23]

They aren't actually addressing the root causes, rather than the effects, and some loosely based suggestions that are skimming over the surface. It's far easier to say that, all the big nasty, egotistical men are scaring the women off, but we know that isn't the sole reason lol.

[Pants-of-dog]

It’s sad that ThirdTerm’s link to a good academic study that completely answers the Op’s question went completely unnoticed.

There were no questions in the OP.

Some extracts for you POD:

http://www.american.edu/soc/communicati ... -Smith.pdf

You should have quoted some text that supports your claim that women think about local things.

[Oakwood]

I've been reading through this thread with interest and some of the things SE23 has said have sounded a bit like a self-righteous Jeremy Kyle outburst with his "you need to man up and sort your life out mate!" type of tone (maybe watch a couple of clips of Kyle on youtube if you're not from Britain). And the agrarian society thing he's repeated a few times is probably unnecessary.

But one thing he's said is pretty bang on and I'm glad someone's said it-

There are plenty of Zetas and Betas on this forum, as intellectually masturbating is what they do best, unfortunately a lot of smart people don't do well in the real world, because they simply think too much, not enough action. Where are the likes of Stalin and Tito who combined the both of a classical education and street fighting skills.

It's very rare that you'll meet someone who has both an intellectual capability and has the balls to actually take some kind of stand and act on their beliefs. Instead most people prefer the safety of debating on a forum or getting involved in local politics for some sell out mainstream party like the Liberal Democracts or even worse, Labour. These people aren't really ideological, they would prefer the benefit of a decent job with perks and the satisfaction you get from ranting and complaining about things (I'm not going to pretend I don't sometimes get satisfaction from doing the same thing). But the things they rant about won't prove much of a career risk for them. They champion those nice, safe and uncontroversial causes like helping minority groups against the "sickening discrimination" they suffer on a daily basis, bringing the evil bankers to justice etc.

Touchy subjects that people bitch about in their living rooms but keep quiet about in the street could result in unwanted attention for these servile people. I like the last sentence in the quote I've highlighted of SE23's, but asking where's the likes of Stalin? Haha that's a bit much. But clever people like those on this forum who have right wing/authoritarian views are literally nowhere to be seen in public life apart from when they're being made an example of how not to be by the liberal media.

I was speaking a while ago to someone in a thread on this forum and I think it might have been SE23 and we were saying that even the far right in Britain have become a complete bunch of pussies who seem to abide by all the rules of the game that have been designed to hold them down. No one respects that. It's actually really refreshing reading what some people on here write because it's rare that I find people who I can agree with. But I'm interested to know what some of you people actually do politically outside of PoFo.

[Potemkin]

but asking where's the likes of Stalin? Haha that's a bit much. But clever people like those on this forum who have right wing/authoritarian views are literally nowhere to be seen in public life apart from when they're being made an example of how not to be by the liberal media.

Actually, Stalin is the canonical example of someone who managed to combine the qualities of an educated intellectual with those of a brutal street thug. This is what made him so spectacularly effective and successful as a statesman (and also so dangerously brutal). He could think, and he could also act, decisively and brutally if need be. This, in fact, is why he was so offended when Eisenstein portrayed Ivan the Terrible as an introspective, brooding figure in Part II of his movie Ivan the Terrible. Stalin had explicitly and publicly identified himself with Ivan the Terrible, and he regarded Eisenstein's movie as a direct, personal insult. He denounced Eisenstein for portraying Ivan the Terrible as "a Hamlet-type figure", paralysed into inaction by thinking too much, and Eisenstein remained under a dangerous political cloud until his death (by natural causes) a few years later. The point is that Stalin saw himself as a man of action as well as a man of thought, and this was an essential part of his self-image as a human being.

[Oakwood]

@Potemkin

I don't doubt Stalin's combination of intellect and brutality. I've read about him- he's maybe the most interesting character I've ever come across in all seriousness

The point I was making about SE23's comment was that it sounded as though when he said "Where are the likes of Stalin and Tito" he was basically saying "we need a Stalin or a Tito". I'd say we certainly don't need a Stalin.

But I might have misinterpreted what he meant though

[Rei Murasame]

In today’s society females continue to be primary caregivers. Women make up 59 percent to 75 percent of family caregivers, and spend up to 50 percent more time than men performing care giving duties (Arno, 2002). This connection to the family and community level makes them “neighborhood connectors” who may be more aware of the specific impact of certain issues on the populations for which they provide care (Moulthrop, 2011). Because women are traditionally very busy juggling other family and community related commitments, engaging in political discussion may not be top of mind, or even a priority (Groob, 2011; Moulthrop 2011).

This could likely be the reason. It's structural. The behaviour will change as the next generation comes up, though. In the next thirty years, I think that the number of female participants will have increased dramatically.

My idea - which I cannot prove since there is no data - is that all the women on PoFo right now are like me, which is to say, not being a primary caregiver to anyone at all, but having a moderate level of community commitments.

[SE23]

@Potemkin

I don't doubt Stalin's combination of intellect and brutality. I've read about him- he's maybe the most interesting character I've ever come across in all seriousness

The point I was making about SE23's comment was that it sounded as though when he said "Where are the likes of Stalin and Tito" he was basically saying "we need a Stalin or a Tito". I'd say we certainly don't need a Stalin.

But I might have misinterpreted what he meant though

I am not a socialist, I was referring to dynamic individuals, strong leaders; none of these whimsical weak politicians who couldn't punch their way out of a paperbag. Its a sad state of affairs when we refer to Tony Blair as being a dynamic politician.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Anyways regarding the OP, I would be curious on what our female posters think. Are women who are interested in politics less likely to want to visit a site like po-fo due to its style, level of trolling etc? I dont even think I will get an answer as they are probably just bored of threads like this

I think it's mostly due to the confrontational nature of political debate in general. Contrary to the image of the rational, male debater, many men get quite emotional when they talk about politics. They even fall out over it, so it's no coincidence that politics is generally not considered suitable for polite conversation.

I have personally, in real life, greatly reduced getting involved in debates over Israel/Palestine with people I don't know well, for instance, partly because I happened to be present when two guys started getting violent over the subject. Of course, this is extreme and does not happen often, but political debates can get highly charged and can completely destroy a good night out. And, in my experience, it's most often men who are the culprits.

So I suspect, it's this experience and the fact that many women are still socialised to be non-confrontational that contributes to the low number of females. There are probably other factors, but I don't think specific instances of insults as has happened in this thread are very important. As we've seen, they are usually dealt with and there are luckily also men on this board who stand up to that type of behaviour.

[Ummon]

registration vs active use (?)

[SE23]

I think it's mostly due to the confrontational nature of political debate in general. Contrary to the image of the rational, male debater, many men get quite emotional when they talk about politics. They even fall out over it, so it's no coincidence that politics is generally not considered suitable for polite conversation.

I have personally, in real life, greatly reduced getting involved in debates over Israel/Palestine with people I don't know well, for instance, partly because I happened to be present when two guys started getting violent over the subject. Of course, this is extreme and does not happen often, but political debates can get highly charged and can completely destroy a good night out. And, in my experience, it's most often men who are the culprits.

So I suspect, it's this experience and the fact that many women are still socialised to be non-confrontational that contributes to the low number of females. There are probably other factors, but I don't think specific instances of insults as has happened in this thread are very important. As we've seen, they are usually dealt with and there are luckily also men on this board who stand up to that type of behaviour.

Yes this will tie in with men being more competitive, where as women like all things to be nice; again this difference can be seen with masculine overt aggression, and feminine passive aggression.
It should also be understood, that male identity is encompassed by what role/job/status/views that a man holds in life, its his own unique male identity, which he needs to create; in order to demonstrate masculinity. Female identity has always been based on her enhanced reproductive capabilities, even if she did take a job as a lawyer but became bankrupt, she would always have this to fall back, and so in the most part; society was ready to embrace her. Males don't have this, because they are reproductively useless, rendering them with a self dependent/self reliant attitude. The competitive nature of masculinity, leaves men only finding common grounds and their own spaces, with other men who are associated by the same career/role/sports team which they support or in this case political viewpoints.

A lot of this explains why status is inherently important for men whether they like to admit it or not, it also explains why there is a high level of male suicides after divorce cases, in comparison to the female other half; or bankruptcy. It should also be noted that traditionally men who were married with children, worked harder and were more productive; which ties into identity and role being a positive/negative social mechanism.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Ummon, the blog entry the chart was taken from is about active users. There are apparently about 1 bn active worldwide users. From the same website:


If you add up the bars in my first graph the sum will be roughly 1 bn.