Really?! @stlyankeefan and @thoughtful, do you agree with Rod? Because that certainly has not been my impression.
4 Likes
Props to CrisprCAS9 for the inspiring my comment.
3 Likes
Thank you. That is a very thoughtful response. I didnât feel slighted by the lack of comments, particularly because my comment received so many likes. However, I did think it was a little surprising from a crowd of scientists. Anyone who has attended at least one academic conference has witnessed the âcomment in the form of a questionâ during the Q&A. Itâs what we do.
I also know there could be reasons other than sex that Rodâs post received so many replies- such as the fact that it was his first post and people wanted to make him feel welcome.
That said, I was thinking about how a friend of mine who teaches Womenâs Studies would have responded. She sees sex bias in everything. (I think sheâs wrong about that, but I love her anyway.) She would say something about how this is just another example of men discounting womenâs voices and the reason women donât speak is because men donât listen. And I can see how a woman might come to that conclusion if this were not an isolated event. Anyone, male or female, who repeatedly posts to a site and receives little or no response, would start to wonder if it was worth it and give up. I wonder if thatâs part of the reason that fewer women participate in online discussions.
4 Likes
No, I donât agree. It hasnât been my experience and that was not what I found in my admittedly flawed study.
3 Likes
I thought perhaps I had been treated harshly here because I was a woman, then I saw how others responded to other creationists. And decided it was because I was a creationist, and not because I was female. 
And not a scientistâŚ
Yes. Interestingly I spent a few days recently with the females in my family - something I was really looking forward to. I enjoyed being with them, but realized I didnât enjoy their conversation around advice they were giving to each other. Iâd rather read what people are thinking about and analyze facts, bias, or events and research and decide for myself.
I enjoy that part of the site, but not necessarily the interest in demolishing arguments.
IMO, this means you have their respect, and the most PC thing for men to do when you make a post that men should be agreeable to is to like and not to comment. 
5 Likes
Same here. I know I have been rude to @thoughtful several times on different threads. I think I am changing though.
2 Likes
ISTM that there are 2 ways women might be treated differently than men. Some men might think women are intellectual inferiors and not suitable to such discussions. I cant imagine there are very many men under the age of 75 who still think this way. The other is that men might think of women as delicate flowers that need to be protected. I think thatâs the impression of men who post under female pseudonyms They assume more people will engage with them
Of all the topics on the internet where the gender of the person expressing an opinion should be irrelevant the ones discussed here should be at the top of the list! Maybe youâre right that women are just less interested. There definitely seem to be proportionately fewer women on the sites that are pointless free-for-alls.
You should point her to this thread.
Well, but thatâs here. I was asking about online in general. This website is different from most others.
3 Likes
Oh how I wish that were true
4 Likes
I donât think itâs any of those things. You are treated harshly because of what you say, not who you are.
5 Likes
The thought crossed my mind. Weâve had many conversations about how not every man who acts like a jerk is a sexist. I know more than a few male scientists who are equal opportunity jerks. But Iâm afraid this thread wouldnât help my case.
1 Like
Exactly, even though we should strive to eschew harshness in our conversations.
1 Like
Perhaps @thoughtful confuses blunt honesty with harshness.
1 Like
Iâm anonymous on Twitter and donât interact with others much there. Facebook is family and friends mostly. I havenât had bad experiences except for getting in conversations about racism with others on Facebook last year. I think it was the topic though and not because I was female. Men were annoyed I was challenging their narrative - tried to make fun of me, and I was happy to prove I was smarter than they thought by showing their comments were ridiculous.
I knew you would say this. Mostly true, except for the spate of people for a while, one particular person especially, trying to ridicule me with emojis. If you donât like my use of them, then mute me instead. That wasnât cool. Iâve also had to mute someone who admitted his comments to me were for other people (basically to show my comments had no credibility or were stupid) and werenât actually interacting with me honestly. To me, that is obviously because I am a creationist, not always because of what I actually wrote.
Sometimes, I guess. I do know I have been unnecessarily harsh on her on a few occasions. I think one can be bluntly honest without being harsh.
Yes, thatâs my experience as well. Some male academics (and not just academics but âintellectualâ people in general, since not all intellectuals have academic positions) feel they have to be 100% right all the time, and that if they ever admit being wrong even once, they will âlose faceâ â become lower in professional or public esteem. Such people tend to be as aggressive toward other men as toward women, because their deep-seated problem isnât sexism, but intellectual or social insecurity.
My impression regarding âoriginsâ sites is that sexism is only a secondary factor, that the main things that make the males who dominate these sites so aggressive and intransigent are: (1) âalpha maleâ behavior â the desire to be deemed a big cheese within the particular internet âcommunityâ (whether thatâs PS or BioLogos or Skeptical Zone or Sandwalk or anywhere else); (2) ideological commitment to atheism/materialism that is so fierce that âthe ends justify the meansâ, and aggression against people on the other side (whether male or female) is the result.
Nonetheless, even if the intent, 90% of the time, is not sexist, the effect might be to make many female posters uncomfortable. People here have lamented âsystemic racism,â in which racist effects sometimes are produced by a society even where no one is consciously racist. My point here was analogous: even if no one here is knowingly sexist, many may be acting in a way that has the tendency to cause female contributors to shy away.
My suggestion (tone down the aggression, occasionally grant a point to others, etc.), if heeded, may have beneficial effects beyond merely causing more females to post here. It could well lead to a more civilized and friendly tone generally, since a conscious resolve to be less aggressive, less put-downish, less go-for-the-throat, would make the place more pleasant for many male readers as well. And we mustnât think that only females find showdowns unappealing. Many males do as well. While the Machiavellian male personality relishes assertion of a position, conflict, and victory, the Socratic male personality enjoys exploration and the exchange of insights, open to the possibility of modifying his original position in the light of calm, rational discussion.
3 Likes
Julie Thomas was a nom de plume for Mike Gene.
It depends. Remember I am married to someone with high-functioning autism. It requires adaptation to not reacting to blunt honesty as if it is harshness. I suppose I generally assume others can filter their comments out of social politeness, so then I tend to view instances where it seems they donât as harshness.
4 Likes
Which itself was a nom de plume for an unknown person, who might possibly be a woman.
Well said! I really appreciate Peaceful Scienceâs commitment to keeping the conversation civil. I have no problem with academic rough-and-tumble and I appreciate passionate defense of oneâs viewpoint, even when I donât agree with that viewpoint. But as you said previously, the anonymity of the internet and lack of non-verbal cues can cause things to escalate quickly.
I also appreciate your interest in increasing participation by women. You make a good point about systemic sexism. I grew up iduring the 70s and went to college in the 80s - the period defined as second wave feminism. I never experienced the outright hostility that the first wave feminiats endured, but I did experience a lot of less overt sexism and general clueless behavior. Using a gender neutral screen name allows me to avoid this kind of stuff. So there are some advantages to the anonymity of the internet. I wonder if there are other posters here who do the same thing.
1 Like