I think your stats are a bit skewed, it’s likely more than 1% of the entire population (internet or otherwise) that are women, trans women, or NB. (I know you’re speaking entirely too hyperbolically rather than literally, but)
I mean, just in the US alone:
The total population of United States is estimated to be 332.39 million with 164.55 million males (49.50%) and 167.84 million females (50.50%). There are 3.3 million more females than males in United States.
I find it hard to say that 3.3mil more women than men is “99% men all the time,” sounds like it’s closer to 50.5%.
As for them having their own community, idgaf really, have fun, but also:
It’s definitely a double standard, and fraternal organizations are often met with just as much hostility and discrimination suits (ex: Boy Scouts were pressured to allow girls, while Girl Scouts not only never faced the same pressure, those leaning on Boy Scouts to br inclusive actively defend Girl Scouts as a male exclusionary space, and I cannot grasp the cognitive dissonance that takes). Personally I think we need to pick a lane as a whole either direction, it’s either fine or not to have exclusionary orgs and comms like that, no double standard, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also I think it’s somewhat of an invitation for problems to have your exclusionary non-public community in public. Should prrooooobably just have something more secure that people won’t constantly stumble into, but if one has fun with constant moderation I suppose it’s a good way to feed one’s addiction. Seems like it’d get old, personally.
It’s especially ridiculous to me to make someone’s demographic the subject of a post, while barring that demographic from participation (at least on that post.) I guess I get it, it’s like talking shit behind someone’s back instead of to their face, which is a lot easier, but it is telling that if you replace the demographic in question with any other of your choosing, the problems with the practice would become glaringly obvious.
That said if they want to be exclusionary, reactionary, and complain about an entire demographic without them there to speak their side? Well I’m used to it, you should hear the shit my uncle says, so I say have fun, fuck it.
Online communities don’t have to have the same demographics as physical locations. Why does it seem weird to you that either gender would want to vent about the opposite one without reading 100 replies by the group being vented about.
That’s not the weird part (beyond being by nature exclusionary so if you think that is weird then I guess there’s that) but rather the semi-public-but-not-really aspect, personally were I to have a woman exclusionary forum, it wouldn’t be out in the open but something more controllable like a discord server (preferably without the privacy nightmare but I have no will to create this space and prefer places where all are welcome so I haven’t done much research on where I’d create that.)
Just seems like inviting unnecessary conflict and work for the mods, unless that’s the goal I suppose.
I think your stats are a bit skewed, it’s likely more than 1% of the entire population (internet or otherwise) that are women, trans women, or NB. (I know you’re speaking entirely too hyperbolically rather than literally, but)
I mean, just in the US alone:
I find it hard to say that 3.3mil more women than men is “99% men all the time,” sounds like it’s closer to 50.5%.
As for them having their own community, idgaf really, have fun, but also:
It’s definitely a double standard, and fraternal organizations are often met with just as much hostility and discrimination suits (ex: Boy Scouts were pressured to allow girls, while Girl Scouts not only never faced the same pressure, those leaning on Boy Scouts to br inclusive actively defend Girl Scouts as a male exclusionary space, and I cannot grasp the cognitive dissonance that takes). Personally I think we need to pick a lane as a whole either direction, it’s either fine or not to have exclusionary orgs and comms like that, no double standard, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Also I think it’s somewhat of an invitation for problems to have your exclusionary non-public community in public. Should prrooooobably just have something more secure that people won’t constantly stumble into, but if one has fun with constant moderation I suppose it’s a good way to feed one’s addiction. Seems like it’d get old, personally.
It’s especially ridiculous to me to make someone’s demographic the subject of a post, while barring that demographic from participation (at least on that post.) I guess I get it, it’s like talking shit behind someone’s back instead of to their face, which is a lot easier, but it is telling that if you replace the demographic in question with any other of your choosing, the problems with the practice would become glaringly obvious.
That said if they want to be exclusionary, reactionary, and complain about an entire demographic without them there to speak their side? Well I’m used to it, you should hear the shit my uncle says, so I say have fun, fuck it.
Online communities don’t have to have the same demographics as physical locations. Why does it seem weird to you that either gender would want to vent about the opposite one without reading 100 replies by the group being vented about.
That’s not the weird part (beyond being by nature exclusionary so if you think that is weird then I guess there’s that) but rather the semi-public-but-not-really aspect, personally were I to have a woman exclusionary forum, it wouldn’t be out in the open but something more controllable like a discord server (preferably without the privacy nightmare but I have no will to create this space and prefer places where all are welcome so I haven’t done much research on where I’d create that.)
Just seems like inviting unnecessary conflict and work for the mods, unless that’s the goal I suppose.