But power is not like pie: just because you gove power to an unequal partner does not mean it is taken from you.

@Spinliesel It does, practically by definition.

So what is so wrong about sharing the power though? And there are more differences within a gender than there are between the genders. Particularily if you look beyond genitalia and reproductive organs/functions.

@demifeministgal - Who said there is anything wrong with sharing power? Certainly not I. But look at the logic - sharing power means someone gives up some of his power. That means he had power to give. How'd he get it in the first place? Shall he chop off his own testicles to spite his face? He'd hardly want to.

Yes, yes, there are more differences within a gender than between them, yadda yadda unrelated thing. Perhaps you missed the part where I was trying to make a farkin' point about differences being a thing worth celebrating, eh.

@demifeministgal I'm not speaking about what ought to be, I'm speaking about what is. One person who has an edge over another person does not generally by his/her own volition give it up - not in any kind of system you can name. This is particularly true when it comes to competence. We don't do our societies any favors by leveling the playing field. It may sound good on paper, but unless every other country out there is also doing it, it would be disastrous for any one country to attempt it. Might doesn't make right, but it does help guarantee us the safety to have inane discussions such as this.

@Shawno1972 Except competence is not measured by what is between one's legs or which chromosomes a person has. And unconscious biases STILL favour less qualified men to this day. :/

@demifeministgal I'm at a disadvantage in this argument you seem to want to have with me. I don't have an agenda. Good day.

@Shawno1972 I did not have an agenda either... just wanted to let you know the facts,

@demifeministgal Whatever facts you've presented (dubious) have been wholly off topic and stated with the express purpose of challenging my opinion on the differences between men and women. "Feminist" is part of your username. Run that part about not having any agenda by me again?

And yes, for the record I do find it ironic and humorous that any level 9 people would have the nerve to complain about other people being overly chatty. That the person I joked about would see fit to create a whole post soliciting one-sided feedback on the matter only serves to illustrate the point. Fun!

@Shawno1972 That is not a signal to any agenda... that is to just let people know, since I was in the closet about it for some time and then I saw women being vocal or open about it and decided to do so myself.

Well if it were off topic it was just in reply to your original point and subsequent points. You lead us down said rabbit hole

@demifeministgal Interesting! In what universe does "being vocal or open about it" not mean signaling?

Example of off topic statement: "And there are more differences within a gender than there are between the genders."

That is irrelevant to the point I made. I'm suggesting differences between men and women should be celebrated. I also admitted things aren't as egalitarian as they should be. Nor do I believe competence has anything to do with what is between one's legs. It's like you wanted to steer the conversation in that direction, though. AKA agenda.

@Shawno1972 does signalling or indicating a particular label for oneself, indicate an agenda all of a sudden?

@demifeministgal It rather depends on the label. If the label is appended with "-ism," then almost by definition, yes. Or "-ist," as in your case.

@Shawno1972 seems like a subjective opinion of yours. Agree to disagree. Otherwise ALL my comments or posts would be feminist related, which many/most are not.

@demifeministgal Hint: opinions are by their very nature subjective.

@Shawno1972 some can be objective and based on evidence/data
There are informed opinions and non-informed opinions.

@demifeministgal Well, nice try. It's the word that matters. I didn't make up the definition of "opinion."

We do run high to feminist women here. Granted there are a few who aren't who stand out but that's okay too - it makes the cookie far more interesting to have some nuts in it too!

That is something I have noticed also. What women are on here tend to be a little older, very few young members, whilst there seems to be a fair amount youngish male members ( under 40? Under 35?).

Unofficial but my observations. Perhaps church and mothering ( therefore age also) are more likely to be intertwined. I mean really, how many young mom's have the energy and mind space to contemplate the bigger picture?

@twill Except that young women are statistically putting off or not having kid(s) at all AND have higher rates of atheism/agnosticism than men. So I would say the picture is more complex than just kids.

@demifeministgal Except ....
"Probably because it is women that were raised to raise their kid(s) under religion and it is their duty to raise kids in the faith, so that coming out will take longer. Also, my generation is using other social media, not this forum so much-- the site tends to skew in the 40+ range-- and we do have higher numbers of atheists and non-believers than boomers and Gen X'ers do"

@twill Well it is both. There are age/generational trends after all. And since this site skews older, it will be representative of mothers/grandmothers and such. It is a complex and nuanced thing.

I Googled it:
Men make up 52.4 % of online dating users compared to 47.6% who are women.
Of course, in my experience, not all women are very serious about dating either. Just try getting a response from one on a dating site......So IDK if they should all count if they are not serious. The women on here seem serious and truly wanting to connect, dating,social or otherwise

@twill Add to that on regular dating sites they artificially inflate their member numbers keeping known scammers - this site doesn't. I think that messes with the numbers too.

Here the numbers are (at least) two men to every woman. That's going by a simple search for male and female members.
When I have a really bored day I'll do some math and get more numbers. Anyone can do it with a member search though.

Yes; Western philosophy is pretty much the writings of "dead white men."

Also to a degree philosophy is a done deal, with most of the big ideas being delt with already in the past, before women had any equal rights.

Yeah, and then you get Ayn Rand, an embarrassment in any gender

OK, I did a general search of members using age and level 2 and above and everything else was “any” and came Up with over 15,000 members.

@CS60 You also need to widen to 'all countries' - here for 'anything' (unless you only want the dating figures) and then narrow by male and then a second time for female.
We have near 100K plus members currently.
I use that interface daily for scammer hunting... It likes to reset itself too.

I got 110 pages of women, 353 pages of men. At 40 per page, that comes out to 18,520. But site stats show over 100,000 members, so this method clearly does not work.

For one thing, the photo option isn't working. It appears to default to being checked and the results reflect that. I was able to add "&has_photo=0" to the results URL, but results still fall short at around 59,000, about 4 times more men. But those are results for men and women combined. Adjusting gender to any results in around 99,000, close to the total. We have a lot not claiming either of those two genders. So maybe the premise of the original post is a bit off in the first place.

@CS60

@Admin Any thoughts on the search function? Particularly the has_photo parameter. Are any other params being processed incorrectly?

@RavenCT I did widen to all countries, but didn’t have time search by gender.

@RavenCT, @bingst My best scientific wild-assed guess is somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 members. The 100,000 seems too high. I could be wrong

@CS60 The 100,000 stat is from the homepage. Where it says "Recent Member Posts," to the right is an icon for categories, then members currently online, then settings. If you click on the members currently online, it expands to site stats, including total members.

@CS60 I click on the Agnostic A next to Post - than the stats can be found over to the right on that page - you have to click them open:

Online Now: 183
Total Members: 101,926
New This Week: 656
Posts This Week: 2,445
In Groups: 1,655
Comments This Week: 16,274
Messages This Week: 13,301
Photos This Week: 2,657

@RavenCT @bingst I see the stats, but 100,000 doesn’t make sense. Hard to believe there are that many Level 1s, maybe. IKD especially when two of came up with similar numbers (15,000 and 19,000).

@CS60 Including the Level Ones the numbers are still incredibly off - hopefully Admin will look into it - something has got to be up with the search interface. I've thought that for a long time now.

@RavenCT I got within a few thousand with one of my searches.

@RavenCT it could be correct if you figure a large percentage who joined but did not stay, or never returned after a few visits. That's what happens on Meetup sites all the time, I administer one.

You are exactly right. I was just giving the worst possible examples of where this ignorance is still tolerated.

I can't speak for other women, but absolutely nothing about the assumptions you've made here apply to me.

Jacar, really? And you were doing so well......

No we don't! Homer fading voice

@demifeministgal Do the research. Really!

@demifeministgal, @AnneWimsey Anne, you know i do not post something i have not researched.

This is NOT derogatory. Women are more interested in working in groups. Women are more nurturing.That is why women are the majority of nurses, teachers, and now, general medical practitioners. Women are genetically designed to take care of the tribe. This is a good thing. Cuz men are not designed to do so.

Agriculture is most likely an invention of women: survival of the tribe,...

This is a good thing. But, it also means, women are more likely to be involved with religious/church/community activities, even when they disagree with the stupid parts.

@Jacar you knowi might have to yield a smidgen on this. As much as I Hate generalizations, I have always noticed that whether it is a bowling league or any other gathering, it is the women who make plans to celebrate whatever holiday is at hand, if an all-Male gathering, zip, zilch, nada.....

@Jacar There is research that shows atheist women are more likely to continue to participate in church activities? Like, outside of bible belt areas? Care to point one in the direction of that peer-reviewed research? o.O

Nope. I have all kinds of ways to satisfy my interests in community without ever entering a church. Also, I know as many men who demonstrate an interest in community as I do women. That's not a gender thing.

@Deb57 Good for you . . BUUTTT "The differences between the genders is clear and consistent."

[psychologytoday.com]

@AnneWimsey . . .PEW research: why-are-women-generally-more-religious-than-men/

[pewresearch.org]

@demifeministgal "The differences between the genders is clear and consistent."
[psychologytoday.com]

@pasha-one-nine Good for you.
"The differences between the genders is clear and consistent."
[psychologytoday.com]

@Jacar Butr that biological difference does not warrant a difference in the rights men and women should enjoy.

@Deb57 BINGO!

@Jacar Nice try. But you literally did not answer my question. Your research shows women are more religious than men, NOT IF ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC WOMEN ATTEND CHURCHES MORE THAN MEN. Good luck finding research to support that wild hypothesis.

@demifeministgal . . . It's called extrapolation. A real mathematical concept.

To suggest that women as a group are completely different because of one variable is just plain stupid.

@demifeministgal, @Deb57 . ,. . NEVER::::: Men and women are EQUAL under the law. BUT they are NOT THE SAME. The lefties repeatedly demand that both words have the same definition.

@Jacar Biologically we are not the same. Obviously. We are also not equal under the law, and conservative America is doing their damndest to worsen that situation. There are many ways in which the way women and men have been conditioned, by generations of tradition, that have rendered women in intellectually and emotionally superior to men. The more traditions are shifting, the more evident this has become.

@Jacar That's a fancy way of saying you assumed. Your research did not support your hypothesis or conclusion. You should retract it or admit it is just a fanciful thought you have about atheist/agnostic women that has no basis in reality or facts.

@demifeministgal It is so amazing that the lefters refuse to understand any science that contridicts their wishful thinkings. Time to buy a vowel.

@demifeministgal, @Deb57 We are all equal under the law. It just does not always get decided appropriately. But to insist that women and men want the same things and are capable of the same things is just plain stupid. Don't you agree?

@Jacar Well, I do have a little difficulty trying to pee standing up, but other than that, I haven't found anything physical that I can't do as well or better than my fairly athletic former husband, and goodness knows my IQ would wrap around his six or seven times.

@jacar you did not provide any scientific evidence or data supporting your claim that agnostic/atheist women flock to religious institutions. Stop lying

@demifeministgal I did provide links to those who do the science and research.
That you are ignorant of these things is a reflection of the crap you were told.
Men and women are different. Women like to work in groups. Men, less so.
Opposing reality is clearly a mark of the science-deniers who reside at the left-pole.

@Jacar cool strawman. IT is quite reflective of your lack of reading comprehension skills. You are like a religious preacher. You think if you repeat a false claim over and over that will make it true. So we will conclude you are incapable of substantiating your claim and are full of BS or hot air.

Basically this is BULLSHIT: "even atheist women continue to participate in church activities."

Oh yes, my father beat me into submission as I child, I was timid and flinched when people touched me as a teen. Thank goodness for good friends and time. I’m much better now, but like many people have to make a conscious effort not to dwell on those times.

They come for dating but they stay for all the rest... The ones who bother to look around.
That or we hook them with adorable cats or memes.... ?

I never saw it as such, it was the name that drew me in

True, that. The only free transportation service for cancer patients that will cross the township lines to take me to my hospital appointments is a Catholic Charity. I suddenly feel a great deal friendlier toward Catholics.

I never mention I'm an agnostic nonbinary person, in case they have a problem with it, but the paperwork I filled out to qualify for the rides only stipulated need.

Also this is the Browse member interface: "Browse Members

Here's the link: [agnostic."

Will be interesting to see how this pans out with the influx of immigrants from the top 10 countries and their offspring (China, India, Latin America, etc.).

Or social conditioning has taught them that in social groups they won't be taken as seriously/won't be as respected.