# Why do you think furries are predominantly male?



## Ginza (Oct 1, 2017)

For the longest time now, the demographics of the furry fandom have fascinated me. In particular, gender. I think it's fairly well known that males make up a good majority of this fandom (obviously not all, heck I'm not a dude), but why do you think that is? Is there something more attractive about "furriness" with males? Is there perhaps psychology behind it? Thoughts and opinions appreciated 

An older survey regarding gender and other demographics 

www.adjectivespecies.com: Furry Demographics


----------



## Pipistrele (Oct 1, 2017)

Welp, I was always skeptical about various furry surveys due to questionable and often non-transparent sampling pools - it's less that fandom is predominantly male (which it certainly isn't, according to more than a decade of personal experience within the fandom) and more that people who attend such surveys are predominantly male.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 1, 2017)

Every server I am on Discord have the vast majority being male. (In some cases it's pretty much ONLY guys)
The majority of people active on the forum is male.

Men are dominant almost everywhere. Women tend to be more passive/non-interactive.

As for why the Furry fandom is predominantly male: I can't really say. It just is. It's one of life's mysteries.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 1, 2017)

On social media like YouTube there does seem to be a better representation of women in the fandom


----------



## Ginza (Oct 1, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> Welp, I was always skeptical about various furry surveys due to questionable and often non-transparent sampling pools - it's less that fandom is predominantly male (which it certainly isn't, according to more than a decade of personal experience within the fandom) and more that people who attend such surveys are predominantly male.



I suppose that could be true, but theoretically, if males are the only ones doing such active community participation (like helping with a survey) couldn't one say that the most activity tends to be primarily male? I suppose we've had very different experiences in the fandom. I feel like I've not seen quite so many female furs, but maybe it's just me *shrug*



Yakamaru said:


> Every server I am on Discord have the vast majority being male. (In some cases it's pretty much ONLY guys)
> The majority of people active on the forum is male.
> 
> Men are dominant almost everywhere. Women tend to be more passive/non-interactive.
> ...



That makes sense, I would agree that most women tend to be more passive, or just more casual. I think I've noticed the same as you, mostly males. I'm very curious though as to why it could be. I guess we'll never really know



Water Draco said:


> On social media like YouTube there does seem to be a better representation of women in the fandom



I've actually noticed that as well. On the very rare occasion I'll watch a video on furries, I've noted some of the bigger names are in fact female!

It's just so intriguing to me as most fandoms tend to be fairly evenly split gender-wise, so it makes me wonder what would make this fandom more male than female? All in all, I don't give a shit, but it does beg the question...


----------



## JesterKatz (Oct 1, 2017)

Ginza said:


> I've actually noticed that as well. On the very rare occasion I'll watch a video on furries, I've noted some of the bigger names are in fact female!



I wonder if it has something to do with the fandom being...how to put this...highly perverted.

I mean, there are all sorts of art featuring female anthromorophic animals, many with rather unrealistic porportions. That may give people, even inside the fandom, some rather unhealthy judgement against female furries.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 1, 2017)

JesterKatz said:


> I wonder if it has something to do with the fandom being...how to put this...highly perverted.
> 
> I mean, there are all sorts of art featuring female anthromorophic animals, many with rather unrealistic porportions. That may give people, even inside the fandom, some rather unhealthy judgement against female furries.



I can see some validity in this honestly. Now I don't want to make it out to seem as though all males are perverted, because they're clearly not, but I do personally think that males do have more of an affinity with these things than females might. I just wonder why, outside of sexual aspects, there's so much attraction from males. It's hard to believe it's solely the sexual side of the fandom. Your point does make sense though...


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 1, 2017)

Girls tend to mature faster.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 1, 2017)

jtrekkie said:


> Girls tend to mature faster.


Gods I hope that's not the issue.. I cant imagine being a furry is a lack of maturity thing


----------



## Ki3thrz (Oct 1, 2017)

There may be some connection between an affinity for not only being a furry, but video games and role playing in general. Much more guys than girls tend toward video games (in my experience).


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 1, 2017)

Ki3thrz said:


> There may be some connection between an affinity for not only being a furry, but video games and role playing in general. Much more guys than girls tend toward video games (in my experience).



Maybe with younger furs, but the furry lifestyle has been around much longer than video games.


----------



## Pipistrele (Oct 1, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> Maybe with younger furs, but the furry lifestyle has been around much longer than video games.


eeeeh, was it? Videogames became prominent much earlier than furry fandom - there were videogame geeks since early 1980s, while furries didn't really took off until 1989 (the first proper convention and solidifying the term)


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 1, 2017)

True but prior to the 90's video games really weren't like anything like today's games, I just can't imagine they would be tied together


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 2, 2017)

I think in terms of other influencing fandoms, comic books were way more of a trigger towards furriness. I know that's what got me over the edge


----------



## Ki3thrz (Oct 2, 2017)

I was thinking along the lines of escaping into a fictional world. Guys, generally speaking, have a tendency for these things.  Video games, comic books, card games, action movies, and even role play worlds. Maybe it's just me, but I've this trend with guys much more than girls. Often it's the guy trying to con his girlfriend into playing a round of magic, or going head to head in Halo. Unless, of course, the girlfriend is already interested.


----------



## Pipistrele (Oct 2, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> True but prior to the 90's video games really weren't like anything like today's games, I just can't imagine they would be tied together


But kinda same story with furries - pre-internet and post-internet furry fandoms are two completely different communities entirely, thinking about it. Though I agree that comic books (and sci-fi novels for that matter) influenced the fandom a lot more. Not that it makes that much difference, though, since there aren't that many girls who are into comic books or sci-fi novels.


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 2, 2017)

Ki3thrz said:


> I was thinking along the lines of escaping into a fictional world. Guys, generally speaking, have a tendency for these things.  Video games, comic books, card games, action movies, and even role play worlds. Maybe it's just me, but I've this trend with guys much more than girls. Often it's the guy trying to con his girlfriend into playing a round of magic, or going head to head in Halo. Unless, of course, the girlfriend is already interested.


You're assuming that because there aren't many females participating in geeky activities they just aren't interested. The thing is you're oversimplifying the problem. Maybe the women YOU'VE met dislike video games or comics or things we normally consider kind of geeky but truth be told there are a lot of males who will discourage females from participating in these spaces. There are plenty of women and LGBQT folks in the furry community who have been harassed or sent sexual messages simply because they belong to those groups. Not to say that no male has ever been harassed or received unwanted attention but the more often than not, these people experience it the most.

That's what I assume Jersterkatz meant, not that women don't enjoy drawing fetish/ kink or NSFW art or that they don't enjoy when others draw it. Just that the perversion tends to be geared toward those individuals.

My work is mainly NSFW and fetish art ( I have no problem with it, but I'm also in a gay relationship with a guy so idk how much that opinion matters) But it has introduced me to a bunch of kink artists who are female and really enjoy being able to produce that sort of art. The main concerns I've heard these artists express is 1) Not being able to find a decent amount of NSFW art they're interested in or 2) They receive unwanted sexual advances from strangers who think it's ok since since their art has sexual themes

Edit: Here's an interview that explains what I'm talking about http://bust.com/living/15480-venus-in-fur.html


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 2, 2017)

Well if you think about it, there are only two sexes, so I mean...one is bound to outrank the other, I dont even think the majority is that startling, it's only significant if it's maybe 80%-90%+ of the fandumb. A percentage of 40/60 or even 30/70 isnt that big of a deal, you can still count it as fairly mixed. Its not like furriness is more or less attractive to any sex anyways, its just a hobby anyone can have.


If I had to guess why "males are more dominant". Maybe the porn, since males have a higher sex drive and lots of furries do come into the fandom through the sexual parts. Not that its always the case


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2017)

Based on my extremely unscientific observations, people seem to get into furry fandom primarily by word of mouth. Since there's this idea that "guys and girls can't be just friends" permeating much of western society, that in itself could introduce some skew. It'd skew poll results even more, too, since all the online furry surveys I've seen were definitely spread almost exclusively by word of mouth; people completed the poll then linked their friends to it.

Also, while it wouldn't so much impact poll results, there seems to be a default assumption that someone whose gender you do not know is male lurking about; even plainly stating one's gender on one's profile doesn't always manage to ward that one off.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 2, 2017)

Because the fandom is gay as fuck.


Spoiler



Serious answer... I don't really know. I guess it might have something to do with it being more open and accepting to groups that are discriminated against in the broader public. Kind of like a safe space, I guess.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 2, 2017)

As a broader question, isn't there a gender gap on the internet in general? Perhaps the fandom's gap is an extension of that.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 2, 2017)

From what I found by being stupid on my own time and making fake furry personal ads on Craigslist, is if you post woman seeking men you will get over 50 guys who are into the porn looking to get with you. but doing the opposite as men seeking woman you will get only 1 reply of a person more instrested on why you are being a openly furry on Craigslist rather then trying to get with you. The end result of this was I had way to many dick pics on my phone I really didn't want (im straight guy), now I have been traumatized by seeing other dudes dicks lmao

I did find that alot of the art side is more female, arts and character design is my background rather the  getting into the fandom beacuse of porn


----------



## Sagt (Oct 2, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> I dont know... but it saddens me... from the aspect of a male, as well as a straight male... its quite disheartening, I was open about my furry-ness through college, but that was over 10 years ago, so I have sadly missed opportunities for dating within the furry community, which seems way way harder then it should be thanks to the majority of the fandom being either male or gay/bi. Added to the fact that now trying to find a mate within the fandom is even harder because of the reputation males within the fandom have given us.


You could always date a non-furry and then convert her. 



WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Well if you think about it, there are only two sexes, so I mean...one is bound to outrank the other, I dont even think the majority is that startling, it's only significant if it's maybe 80%-90%+ of the fandumb. A percentage of 40/60 or even 30/70 isnt that big of a deal, you can still count it as fairly mixed. Its not like furriness is more or less attractive to any sex anyways, its just a hobby anyone can have.
> 
> 
> If I had to guess why "males are more dominant". Maybe the porn, since males have a higher sex drive and lots of furries do come into the fandom through the sexual parts. Not that its always the case


It was an 80/20 split though, according to the link provided by the OP.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 2, 2017)

Ginza said:


> It's just so intriguing to me as most fandoms tend to be fairly evenly split gender-wise, so it makes me wonder what would make this fandom more male than female? All in all, I don't give a shit, but it does beg the question...


Are they really, though? More mainstream things like the Marvel movies or HBO series might have fandoms that are evenly split, but more niche things, like the furry fandom, likely don't due to the barrier to entry being higher. Anyone and their dog can watch GoT and enjoy it. But not everyone is just going to stumble across the new Voltron and join that fandom. There's a sampling bias for people actually looking for that kind of thing. For example, the fanfiction community is largely female and the Warhammer 40k fandom is largely male. This isn't a unique thing for furs, and I think looking at why these other fandoms are so split can help us understand the divide in this one.



Fuzzylumkin said:


> or gay/bi.


I understand gay...but why is bi a problem?
(this is a tangent, I know, but as a bi girl in a m/f relationship, I'm curious as to why bisexuality is an issue)



Ki3thrz said:


> There may be some connection between an affinity for not only being a furry, but video games and role playing in general. Much more guys than girls tend toward video games (in my experience).


Actually, the split is pretty even. At least it was a few years ago when that article ran. I doubt female gamers dropped off in that time.



Ki3thrz said:


> I was thinking along the lines of escaping into a fictional world


... one word: FANFICTION. another one: NOVELS. and another: SHOWS
Ladies love escapism as much as the next person.
whatever your data might suggest, your causation reasoning is wrong.



impendingsenseofdoom said:


> You're assuming that because there aren't many females participating in geeky activities they just aren't interested. [...]


^this
gatekeeping and sexism can be a real bitch



quoting_mungo said:


> Based on my extremely unscientific observations, people seem to get into furry fandom primarily by word of mouth. Since there's this idea that "guys and girls can't be just friends" permeating much of western society, that in itself could introduce some skew. It'd skew poll results even more, too, since all the online furry surveys I've seen were definitely spread almost exclusively by word of mouth; people completed the poll then linked their friends to it.
> 
> Also, while it wouldn't so much impact poll results, there seems to be a default assumption that someone whose gender you do not know is male lurking about; even plainly stating one's gender on one's profile doesn't always manage to ward that one off.


^also this
Boo for sampling bias and self-selection



Mr. Fox said:


> Because the fandom is gay as fuck.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


How does it being a safe space explain the lack of women? Women can be a part of as many discriminated groups as men can. 
I'm just curious on your reasoning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly everyone on this thread is speaking from personal experience, which is fine since sometimes that's all we have to go on, but it's not the most accurate tool when discussing things like this. For instance, in _my_ personal experience, women- particularly myself- are into way more kinky/sex shit, spend way more time online, are way geekier, and are willing to sink more time into playing games of all types than men. In my rl friend group alone, lady furs outnumber the male ones. Though that's probably because I'm the only one.

We each have a sampling bias. The people we interact with are not going to be indicative of the larger population because we chose them specifically for certain traits. Maybe you bond with guys more easily, so you end up hanging out with more of them, so your view of the fandom is the predominantly male. Maybe you really like girl/girl art, so you spend more time in those art circles, so you think that the fandom is predominantly gay women and straight men. There's a bunch of possibilities. And as mungo stated, that can affect how these demographic surveys get spread. 

A better indicator of gender distribution would be for furry sites to release their user demographics. It wouldn't be perfect, of course. There would be character accounts that list the gender of the character and not the creator. One person can have multiple accounts. Not everyone is going to be truthful, let alone give that information on their accounts. However, we'd be getting closer to real data than self-report and word-of-mouth shared surveys.


----------



## Furaphoric (Oct 2, 2017)

I wonder if FA and FAF have data on user gender. Granted it could be potentially skewed by males claiming to be female and vise-versa.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 2, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Are they really, though? More mainstream things like the Marvel movies or HBO series might have fandoms that are evenly split, but more niche things, like the furry fandom, likely don't due to the barrier to entry being higher. Anyone and their dog can watch GoT and enjoy it. But not everyone is just going to stumble across the new Voltron and join that fandom. There's a sampling bias for people actually looking for that kind of thing. For example, the fanfiction community is largely female and the Warhammer 40k fandom is largely male. This isn't a unique thing for furs, and I think looking at why these other fandoms are so split can help us understand the divide in this one.
> 
> 
> I understand gay...but why is bi a problem?
> ...




I have to both agree and disagree with you here. While observations aren't exactly the most scientific ways of collecting data, I would say they are fairly accurate. Especially if most furs (male and female) report the fandom to be mostly male. Yes there are others who feel the opposite, but these people do seem to actually be the outliers.

I'll address some of your responses via points

Regarding whether most fandoms are evenly split. I would say yes actually. While I don't have solid data on each (and yes this is mostly from personal experience), the many fandoms I've been part of, all seem to have a fairly even split on either side. While no I don't think such obscure fandoms are easy to stumble upon, I don't necessarily see why a male would be more likely to do so? Besides that, I'd hardly call the furry fandom obscure, furries are the laughing stock of the first world, and I'm fairly sure BOTH genders would be getting enough exposure to say it's pretty fair they would be equally aware

2. I completely agree with mungo there. Yes, it's true that in western culture, people tend to affiliate with their gender rather than the opposite, thus sending it to friends of the same gender a majority of the time. This is why it tends to be flawed.

I think though that taking a sample of FAF's General demographics wouldn't be of much help. It would honestly be almost as inaccurate, if not more so than experience. There is no way to tell how many accounts someone has, not to mention whether or not they even mention their gender in the first place. At least with personal experience, you'll generally know whether or not someone has an old and unused account, and could always get to know what gender people of unmarked genders actually are

Perhaps a poll would be nice?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

Unless we ask literally every Furry, we only have surveys to go on. And I'd rather go by surveys than theoretical numbers.

Quite frankly, if 100-200k Furries does a survey, IMO, that's enough to represent the fandom. With a couple %'es room for error.



ellaerna said:


> Actually, the split is pretty even. At least it was a few years ago when that article ran. I doubt female gamers dropped off in that time.


As for women gamers:
www.wired.com: Study Reveals Gamer Age, Gender Surprises

U.S. video gamer gender statistics 2017 | Statista
About 40% are women, according to statistics. Whether those statistics are 100% accurate remains to be seen. Why these people even bother to include the age range I find puzzling. These are also numbers from the US only. Whether Europe actually bother with such statistics I don't even know.

If you play League and sit in Bronze III or if you sit in Diamond II it doesn't matter: You're a gamer. Male or female. Pro or casual. Statistics outside that is 100% optional, but fun to read.
And here comes the separation between pro and casual. The vast majority of professionals are male. It would also depend on what games you play.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

You guys are glossing over some really good points in this post. Namely being that gatekeeping is one major issue, and the other being the experience of another user masquerading as a woman in the furry fandom.

A lot of men in the furry fandom are overly sexual, overly aggressive, and very outspoken, though being around a lot of communities (that make a point of keeping gatekeeping out), the fandom is a lot more diverse than a lot of you simplify it down to in this thread. It does seem like there are more male furries than female furries, but that's mostly because of *negativity bias*. We see male furries making and consuming porn, which has become more or less a mainstay of the public perception of the fandom. We see male furries harassing other members of the community, or putting weird and creepy comments on people's profiles (looking at you, Furry Amino). We see male furry convention heads because gatekeeping keeps women out. Women are there, and there are a lot of them, but our brains focus in less on what's statistically correct, and more in on what is* immediately visible*.

FurAffinity, it seems, is also one of the only predominantly male furry spaces. Conventions seem to be more or less even. But other spaces? Furry Amino (while geared more towards younger furs) seems to be very predominantly female or nonbinary. Tumblr's furry fandom seems to be an even split, with maybe a lean into the female and nonbinary side of things again. 
(I'm actually very interested in this statistic, and am now considering running 3 different surveys -- one for FurAffinity, one for Amino, and one for Tumblr, and maybe an additional survey over all three spaces...)

Furry art does have a tendency also to reduce women to boobs and butts, and make hypermasculinity a central point. The artwork and environment (especially on FurAffinity) is very polarizing. The same is true for other "nerdy" things, like Marvel comics, or playing MTG, or whatever else you want to tuck under that neat umbrella. The polarizing and masculine/objectifying environment both excludes women, and makes the environment unfriendly for them. That's also part of the reason why other environments that bar NSFW furry content flourish, and attract a wider variety of furs, in age and gender.

For example, the Weirdfur discord server explicitly bans NSFW content, from artwork to discussion, and the users seem to be an even split between m/f, with some nonbinary users thrown in. The server itself has *224* members -- the Weirdfur blog at this time reaches 15,700 furries (at least).
The server itself has the ability so allow users to self-assign roles that indicate their preferred pronouns. Not every user has taken the opportunity, but of the users who have...
*29% *identify as male. 
*29%* identify as female.
*40% *identify as nonbinary or other.

That's right! Male and female pronoun roles were exactly even, whereas a little less than half the server identified as nonbinary, and preferred they/them pronouns.
Now, this is only a small percentage of furries as a whole, but it's good food for thought, at the least.


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 2, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> I never said it is a problem, there is nothing wrong with being gay or bi in the fandom.


"...so I have sadly missed opportunities for dating within the furry community, which seems way way harder then it should be thanks to the majority of the fandom being either male or gay/bi." I think ellaerna was referring to this statement. It doesn't make sense that you would be referring to bi males (since you're straight) so I'm assuming you were talking about bi women. I know this is off topic but I'm curious too, why would bi women be off limits?


----------



## Ginza (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> You guys are glossing over some really good points in this post. Namely being that gatekeeping is one major issue, and the other being the experience of another user masquerading as a woman in the furry fandom.
> 
> A lot of men in the furry fandom are overly sexual, overly aggressive, and very outspoken, though being around a lot of communities (that make a point of keeping gatekeeping out), the fandom is a lot more diverse than a lot of you simplify it down to in this thread. It does seem like there are more male furries than female furries, but that's mostly because of *negativity bias*. We see male furries making and consuming porn, which has become more or less a mainstay of the public perception of the fandom. We see male furries harassing other members of the community, or putting weird and creepy comments on people's profiles (looking at you, Furry Amino). We see male furry convention heads because gatekeeping keeps women out. Women are there, and there are a lot of them, but our brains focus in less on what's statistically correct, and more in on what is* immediately visible*.
> 
> ...



I'm just going to address your statistics here. Now I don't wish to necessarily offend anyone here, but I personally only see the two sexes here. I was speaking more so about biological sex, and whether there's something that draws biological males into this fandom. 

How do I word this without starting a war on political correctness and avoid offending people....



Spoiler



The problem with this survey, is that it doesn't specifically list their biological sex. So it doesn't state whether they are in fact male or female. Which, in itself, makes these results very inconclusive. Especially considering the fact that my aim with this is to figure out what it is about the male brain that makes this so attractive





I've also added a little poll out of curiosity as to how many of each sex there is represented on FAF


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

If you'd like, then, I could point out that every single furry I know face to face is a trans male, Ginza.

The furry fandom's diversity and propensity to attract nonbinary and transgender individuals is so inherent in the fandom, and so prevalent, that it's impossible to take a demographic survey without accounting for them. The furry fandom is, among many groups, a* safe space* -- it attracts nonbinary and trans individuals en masse, especially in the environments that cater specifically to the SFW side of the fandom.

I highly doubt that it's -- as you seem to be intent on proving -- a "brain thing". It's consistently proven again and again by credible sources that there is no significant difference between the biological male brain and the biological female brain. 

If you're searching for a reason for the furry demographic to attract more men than women, I suggest looking from a psychological standpoint. What environment were they raised in? What was their first experience in the furry fandom? How do other members of the fandom react to finding out their gender? How do they feel about the sexism inherent in furry artwork? Step 1 would be recognizing that the main issue at hand is gatekeeping by elitist men, who are determined to keep women out, or unintentionally harass women out once they see them as a walking pair of boobs.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 2, 2017)

It would have also been interesting to know if there primary sona was male, female or nonbinary.

For example but not definitive:

Male male sona
Male female sona
Male nonbinary sona

Female male sona
Female female sona
Female nonbinary sona

Transgender male sona
Transgender female sona
Transgender nonbinary sona

But then that all does get quite complicated.


----------



## Sarachaga (Oct 2, 2017)

It's interesting -also I'm speaking in terms of personal experience- but a lot of furry meet-up groups I'm in have a wide majority of guys (I'd say something like 85%), whereas gaming furry groups have a more even repartition. 
There was an user making a survey or some sort of study on here at some point, but I don't know if they're still around


----------



## Ginza (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> If you'd like, then, I could point out that every single furry I know face to face is a trans male, Ginza.
> 
> The furry fandom's diversity and propensity to attract nonbinary and transgender individuals is so inherent in the fandom, and so prevalent, that it's impossible to take a demographic survey without accounting for them. The furry fandom is, among many groups, a* safe space* -- it attracts nonbinary and trans individuals en masse, especially in the environments that cater specifically to the SFW side of the fandom.
> 
> ...




It does help a bit to know that- and I suppose our experiences really are quite different.
See the thing is however, though of course I really don't mean this in a bad way, non-binary isn't a sex. You're born with a penis or a vagina (sometimes both I've heard) and thus you're either male or female. Your identity is a whole other ballgame really. I guess just to better explain, while that survey had an even M to F ratio, the issue was the other 40% which was undefined. Now I know this once again stresses the idea of there being a particular sexual dimorphism between male and female brains, I think there definitely are very key differences as shown in many studies, and simply by watching typical behavior- here's just one of a few examples of such. Focusing specifically on homosexual men having FEMALE brain regions and tendencies...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: Sexual dimorphism of the human brain: myth and reality. - PubMed - NCBI

You make a very good point on home life, and it's one that's important, although incredibly hard to study. I wonder just what type of home life most furries have had. Just as with many being gay (or at least a higher percentage than you'd find in most other groups and fandoms) it perhaps has a lot to do with upbringing. Perhaps that of what a stereotypical male is meant to do sort of fits in with furries?

While I'm sure there are some men keeping women away, I have never seen nor heard of said "elitist men" whose only goals are to keep women out of a fandom. Almost every man I've ever talked to (furry of course) has been kind and overall a decent human being. Anyone who has been a dick, I've never quite chalked up to gender, as many females have been that way as well. All in all, I think this has less to do with a male monopolized fandom, and more to do with the fact that men appear to have more of an affinity with it. Surely the pornography can be a bit much, and certainly not something I enjoy, there are many women in the fandom that I've spoken to, who enjoy such porn just as much as men. It's really quite complicated and I think that the pornography appearing the way it does, once again solidifies the idea that it's mainly a fandom made up of men.




Water Draco said:


> It would have also been interesting to know if there primary sona was male, female or nonbinary.
> 
> For example but not definitive:
> 
> ...



That would be interesting too, but I don't exactly see how it would be relevant tbh. Maybe I'm missing something?



Spoiler



I'm  a female and my sona is male btw!


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

I think that a lot of the behavioral tendencies you're looking at are just a result of upbringing. Socialization, which is (if you don't want to read the link) the process starting from birth and continuing through our entire lives, teaches us who we are, our place in society, and how it is and isn't acceptable to act. Including gender roles that are subconsciously handed to us in the media we consume every day. 

The brain differences usually observed when scientists say "eureka! males and females DO act differently!"... are the result of physical changes in the brain and its workings caused by one's upbringing and childhood environment. 

Socialization starts early, and so does the development of the brain and one's personal character. The two can easily go hand in hand, and masquerade as a "biological" difference in male and female brains. But when you get down to the science of it, only 6% of people studied have these gendered differences in their brain, and it's not uncommon for one's social environment to change the way the brain works altogether -- gendered experiences heavily coinciding with the way people are treated in our current society. "Male behavior" and "female behavior" are both *learned, not inherent*.

So again, I would observe that biological sex really has very little to do with the culture of men predominating spaces like the furry fandom, and just general nerd-dom, and more the environment that our society has created based around gender stereotypes. Male "nerds" -- very likely including the furry fandom, because there is undeniably a lot of overlap -- are very inherently sexist. There's actually a lot of research on the subject, and it's all very interesting the culture we've created and perpetuated. One thing that mirrors the general sexism of nerds culture in the furry fandom is the oversexualization of the female body. Big boobs, big butts, little waits, and sexy porn are a staple of furrydom, and a lot of dfab (designated female at birth) individuals are uncomfortable with the idea. So that is part of the reason why women are driven away from the NSFW spaces.

Again, there's heavy correlation between SFW/NSFW furry spaces, and the balance of men and women in the fandom. Where NSFW is unallowed, like in Furry Amino and Weirdfur, diverse communities thrive, and this so-called "male domination" simply doesn't exist.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> We see male furries making and consuming porn, which has become more or less a mainstay of the public perception of the fandom.


I really question whether there's any significant sex or gender difference in production of NSFW artwork. Or, what that matters, in how depraved that work is. My hard kink art "role model" is female, and I'd guesstimate that there's a pretty even split based on what I've seen. I do some art that my poor husband and boyfriend would rather not see.



Ginza said:


> See the thing is however, though of course I really don't mean this in a bad way, non-binary isn't a sex. You're born with a penis or a vagina (sometimes both I've heard) and thus you're either male or female. Your identity is a whole other ballgame really.


Gender identity is at least as important to the subject at hand, however. Generally speaking, transgenderism tend to involve some (varying) degree of "opposite sex" brain morphology. If, hypothetically, there is something that makes furry fandom more attractive to the male brain, chances are that would also apply to the transmale brain, and birth sex be damned.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Oct 2, 2017)

I don't know why, I guess because guys are weird.


----------



## shapeless0ne (Oct 2, 2017)

"We see male furries making and consuming porn, which has become more or less a mainstay of the public perception of the fandom" this could just be me, but I feel a little bit like a few posts on this thread is indirectly placing a good amount of blame for the pubic's bad perception of the fandom on male furries. why mention this? because it bothered me a little and I'd like to know if that's really the case


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> I think that a lot of the behavioral tendencies you're looking at are just a result of upbringing. Socialization, which is (if you don't want to read the link) the process starting from birth and continuing through our entire lives, teaches us who we are, our place in society, and how it is and isn't acceptable to act. Including gender roles that are subconsciously handed to us in the media we consume every day.
> 
> The brain differences usually observed when scientists say "eureka! males and females DO act differently!"... are the result of physical changes in the brain and its workings caused by one's upbringing and childhood environment.
> 
> Socialization starts early, and so does the development of the brain and one's personal character. The two can easily go hand in hand, and masquerade as a "biological" difference in male and female brains. But when you get down to the science of it, only 6% of people studied have these gendered differences in their brain, and it's not uncommon for one's social environment to change the way the brain works altogether -- gendered experiences heavily coinciding with the way people are treated in our current society. "Male behavior" and "female behavior" are both *learned, not inherent*.


www.reddit.com: The documentary that made Scandinavians cut all funds to its gender studies institute • r/TheRedPill
Feel free to read and watch.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> www.reddit.com: The documentary that made Scandinavians cut all funds to its gender studies institute • r/TheRedPill
> Feel free to read and watch.



That's also one documentary. On reddit. By a comedian. Over three years out of date, and in Norway.

Nice try.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> That's also one documentary. On reddit. By a comedian. Over three years out of date, and in Norway.
> 
> Nice try.


Yes, it's a documentary by a comedian in Norway 3 years ago. Your point is? Doesn't make it less relevant.

We don't have gender studies over here, and it's all thanks to that one comedian who actually asked proper questions.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Yes, it's a documentary by a comedian in Norway 3 years ago. Your point is? Doesn't make it less relevant.
> 
> We don't have gender studies over here, and it's all thanks to that one comedian who actually asked proper questions.



What makes it less relevant are the criticisms against it -- and the fact that while the one program was defunded, the field still lives.
Wanna get into sources? You seem to like reddit. 
Here's another.

Hjernevask is also *7 years *out of date, and when your best source for a rebuttal is from r/TheRedPill (versus several medical sites and other credible sources), you need a better argument.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> That's also one documentary. On reddit. By a comedian. Over three years out of date, and in Norway.
> 
> Nice try.



I'd actually like to note that this is a really good documentary. I've seen it and it really did make me think. Just a little note though, that just because something was made by a comedian, doesn't necessarily make it any less valid!


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> What makes it less relevant are the criticisms against it -- and the fact that while the one program was defunded, the field still lives.
> Wanna get into sources? You seem to like reddit.
> Here's another.
> 
> Hjernevask is also *7 years *out of date, and when your best source for a rebuttal is from r/TheRedPill (versus several medical sites and other credible sources), you need a better argument.


I only used Reddit because it has all the videos from the series. I could link Youtube instead. You've not even watched it, mate. Don't dismiss it just because it's a bit old and made by a comedian.

It's still 100% relevant today. Go watch the series.

This is biology/science vs gender studies. Never involve identity politics into science. Let science do what science does best: Find answers.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

Ginza said:


> I'd actually like to note that this is a really good documentary. I've seen it and it really did make me think. Just a little note though, that just because something was made by a comedian, doesn't necessarily make it any less valid!



Some people think End of Evangelion is a good movie. Is it? Probably not.

And again, this_ isn't_ a gender studies debate-- this is a neuroscience debate. And neuroscience says more times than this decade-old comedian's take that there's no difference between the "male brain" and the "female brain".
In fact, by more credible sources than Hjernevask. Don't believe me?
Take a look.


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 2, 2017)

shapeless0ne said:


> "We see male furries making and consuming porn, which has become more or less a mainstay of the public perception of the fandom" this could just be me, but I feel a little bit like a few posts on this thread is indirectly placing a good amount of blame for the pubic's bad perception of the fandom on male furries. why mention this? because it bothered me a little and I'd like to know if that's really the case


Honestly, I totally support sex positivity. It's not like anyone's saying that because male furries make and enjoy porn that it's necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when they can't differentiate between porn and real women. It's like that argument people make about video games desensitizing kids. Of course not every person who consumes porn is going to go around objectifying women but if you have that notion or upbringing that tells you it's ok then porn is likely to encourage those beliefs.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> From what I found by being stupid on my own time and making fake furry personal ads on Craigslist, is if you post woman seeking men you will get over 50 guys who are into the porn looking to get with you. but doing the opposite as men seeking woman you will get only 1 reply of a person more instrested on why you are being a openly furry on Craigslist rather then trying to get with you. The end result of this was I had way to many dick pics on my phone I really didn't want (im straight guy), now I have been traumatized by seeing other dudes dicks lmao



I want to bring this up, also. No one acknowledged it, and it's a VERY good illustration of why a lot of women feel uncomfortable in the furry fandom. 

Sorry for the double post.


----------



## shapeless0ne (Oct 2, 2017)

but what happens when the fur in question is gay like me? also, isn't there a good number of gays in the fandom?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> Some people think End of Evangelion is a good movie. Is it? Probably not.
> 
> And again, this_ isn't_ a gender studies debate-- this is a neuroscience debate. And neuroscience says more times than this decade-old comedian's take that there's no difference between the "male brain" and the "female brain".
> In fact, by more credible sources than Hjernevask. Don't believe me?
> Take a look.


On the topic of neuroscience:
www.cbc.ca: Male and female brains are different, but researchers still exploring what that means
science.howstuffworks.com: Do men and women have different brains?

I can provide sources that counters yours. What now?

Men and women are different, and it's not a social construct nor is it nurtured. You can nurture shit to a small degree, but ultimately, hormones, genetics, instincts and DNA will often guide your choices and what you end up with.



impendingsenseofdoom said:


> Honestly, I totally support sex positivity. It's not like anyone's saying that because male furries make and enjoy porn that it's necessarily a bad thing. The problem is when they can't differentiate between porn and real women. It's like that argument people make about video games desensitizing kids. Of course not every person who consumes porn is going to go around objectifying women but if you have that notion or upbringing that tells you it's ok then porn is likely to encourage those beliefs.


Even if you objectify women or men, it's not hurting anyone but you. It's pretty much killing your chances of finding someone. Anyone with half a working braincell know that objectifying anyone is counterproductive.

There are those.. Special people who just don't have the mental capacity/ability to differentiate between reality and fiction. We had this kid a couple of years back who went around doing somersaults 'n shit like Lara Croft with two guns in his hands, shooting people at his school. Hell, Anders Behring Breivik's shooting was attempted blamed on fucking World of Warcraft. Go figure why I don't take people seriously.

It's people like these that ruin the image of everyone else. That, and ignorance.



nekhromancy said:


> I want to bring this up, also. No one acknowledged it, and it's a VERY good illustration of why a lot of women feel uncomfortable in the furry fandom.
> 
> Sorry for the double post.


By being this "tolerant", "open" and "non-discriminatory", we end up pulling in the more.. Unique people.

The people who have no fucking clue on social cues. The people who just don't understand social let alone personal boundaries. The people whose social skills are questionable at best.

Also: "A lot of women"? Do you have any statistics to support those claims? I know a decent amount of women in the fandom, and they are neither treated badly nor are they uncomfortable.



shapeless0ne said:


> but what happens when the fur in question is gay like me? also, isn't there a good number of gays in the fandom?


Then you will simply get hit on by other guys. It's simple as that.

Believe me, it's no better or worse no matter what gender you are, or what sexuality you have. You will still have people hit on you.

And yes, there are a LOT of gays/bi's in the fandom. A server I help run have like 90% sausages.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 2, 2017)

I can't take seriously anyone who refers to people as "special" and clearly holds distaste for "tolerance" and "diversity".


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> I can't take seriously anyone who refers to people as "special" and clearly holds distaste for "tolerance" and "diversity".


Congrats on jumping to conclusions on what I said, mate. No one is special. It's satire.

Question is, what would YOU do with people who are socially inept in the fandom? Those who have zero social skills? Those who come off as creeps? Those who alienate others for not having the ability to socialize properly?

I never said I have a distaste for tolerance and diversity. Thanks for completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding what I wrote.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 2, 2017)

This is starting to turn into a shitshow....


----------



## Wolveon (Oct 2, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Thanks for completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding what I wrote.


Guess it's just easier for some people to do it that way..


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 2, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Congrats on jumping to conclusions on what I said, mate. No one is special. It's satire.
> 
> Question is, what would YOU do with people who are socially inept in the fandom? Those who have zero social skills? Those who come off as creeps? Those who alienate others for not having the ability to socialize properly?
> 
> I never said I have a distaste for tolerance and diversity. Thanks for completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding what I wrote.


"By being this "tolerant", "open" and "non-discriminatory", we end up pulling in the more.. Unique people"
What did you mean by this comment? Please be as explicit as possible, no more sugar coating


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 2, 2017)

impendingsenseofdoom said:


> "By being this "tolerant", "open" and "non-discriminatory", we end up pulling in the more.. Unique people"
> What did you mean by this comment? Please be as explicit as possible, no more sugar coating


Very well.

By advocating for being very tolerant, open-minded and non-discriminatory we are unintentionally attracting everything from sexual predators and deviants to zoophiles to literal creeps. We also attract those who are not good at social interaction, into the fandom. Those who have a very hard time understanding let alone comprehend social cues, social and personal boundaries. 

Now, those who have problems with social cues, social boundaries and personal boundaries are excused up until a point, i.e., have Autism and/or just really fucking suck at socializing. The rest however, I am not fond of having in the fandom, creating a bad image and reputation for everyone else who just want to enjoy their shit. 

And I gotta tell you, I've met some of the weirdest and kinkiest people on the fucking planet inside this fandom. In one year alone. We are talking some 15-20 people who I'd consider "special", so to speak: Social deviants. People with no moral compass. People who are literally advocating for pedophilia. People who want to fuck my mom's dog. Being a total creep, ending up in his server on Discord completely dying in activity because he can't stand being disagreed with let alone being said no to when he's making a move on someone one. And a lot more. Now, these people are a minority inside a minority, but they are often those we see in the media and other people talking about.

There is such a thing as too much tolerance and open-mindedness. I like diversity(and most importantly that of opinion) the same I like tolerance. But I will set my foot down at some levels and say "no, not interested in interacting with you". 

I have no say in who comes and goes in the fandom. I only have a say in who I interact with and who I avoid interacting with.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 2, 2017)

Ok it is the Mail but maybe worth a read. 

Furries fandom could boost mental health, expert says | Daily Mail Online


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 2, 2017)

Sorry for the nauseatingly long post. A lot of shit went down while I was at work, it seems.



Ginza said:


> While no I don't think such obscure fandoms are easy to stumble upon, I don't necessarily see why a male would be more likely to do so? Besides that, I'd hardly call the furry fandom obscure, furries are the laughing stock of the first world, and I'm fairly sure BOTH genders would be getting enough exposure to say it's pretty fair they would be equally aware


Not to be a semantic asshole, but I said "niche" not obscure. While most people have at least a peripheral knowledge of furries, it is definitely not mainstream. You might have many people making jokes about furries, but actual, real exposure to the fandom is rarer. Someone could turn on HBO one day and decide to try GoT on a whim, but it's less likely that someone would similarly pull up FAF just for funsies. Fandoms like ours are typically sought out, not stumbled up. Same with fanfiction and 40k, as I mentioned. While I don't have a solid answer as to why men would be more likely to seek out the niches they do, we can still look to other fandoms for clues. That's all I was getting at.



Ginza said:


> I think though that taking a sample of FAF's General demographics wouldn't be of much help. It would honestly be almost as inaccurate, if not more so than experience. There is no way to tell how many accounts someone has, not to mention whether or not they even mention their gender in the first place. At least with personal experience, you'll generally know whether or not someone has an old and unused account, and could always get to know what gender people of unmarked genders actually are


All fair criticisms that I also mentioned. There are some ways to get around that- excluding based on dates of activity, profile markers that state it's a character profile vs a personal profile, searching for pronoun use in posts- but nothing is going to be perfect. Stupid confounding variables.



impendingsenseofdoom said:


> "...so I have sadly missed opportunities for dating within the furry community, which seems way way harder then it should be thanks to the majority of the fandom being either male or gay/bi." I think ellaerna was referring to this statement. It doesn't make sense that you would be referring to bi males (since you're straight) so I'm assuming you were talking about bi women. I know this is off topic but I'm curious too, why would bi women be off limits?


That's exactly what I was referring to. @Fuzzylumkin I read your statement as "dating is harder since most of the fandom is male and the women are either gay or bi", implying that it's hard for you, a man, to date a bi woman. Which I was just curious about since I, myself, am a bi woman in a long-term relationship with a man. I didn't mean anything negative, just wondering.



Ginza said:


> See the thing is however, though of course I really don't mean this in a bad way, non-binary isn't a sex. You're born with a penis or a vagina (sometimes both I've heard) and thus you're either male or female. Your identity is a whole other ballgame really. I guess just to better explain, while that survey had an even M to F ratio, the issue was the other 40% which was undefined. Now I know this once again stresses the idea of there being a particular sexual dimorphism between male and female brains, I think there definitely are very key differences as shown in many studies, and simply by watching typical behavior- here's just one of a few examples of such. Focusing specifically on homosexual men having FEMALE brain regions and tendencies...


Ehhhh...It's true that sex and gender are different. Sex is biological and gender is a social construct.
And there are biologically intersex people, who have both sets of genitalia, however, it feels weird to boil things down to whether you've got a dick or a vag. First of all, it raises the question of whether castrated men or women who get their ovaries removed still "count" as their gender despite lacking the prerequisite parts. Secondly, sex is a lot more than just bits. Chromosomes matter. Secondary sex characteristics matter. Hormones matter. And they don't always line up neatly.

Also your article is from 1991. Much science has been done since then, as nekhromancy cited. Right now, there's too many competing theories to really say one is the right one. For every source you cite, someone else could cite two more negating it. We just don't have enough consistent information to say that males and females have biologically different brains.

I may be biased, since I work in the psychology field, but I do think that looking at this from a less biological and more behavioral standpoint could be interesting. It's not what you wanted to study, but there's a lot of interesting hypotheses you could make by looking at this from a psych standpoint. 



shapeless0ne said:


> "We see male furries making and consuming porn, which has become more or less a mainstay of the public perception of the fandom" this could just be me, but I feel a little bit like a few posts on this thread is indirectly placing a good amount of blame for the pubic's bad perception of the fandom on male furries. why mention this? because it bothered me a little and I'd like to know if that's really the case


#notallmen :V
But seriously, while male furries writ large are not the issue, the perception of the fandom is usually male. You don't see a lot of talk, positive or negative, about female furs outside of the fandom. The average person's schema for furs is likely middle aged fat men who have never gotten laid. And part of that is because a lot of the more visible "bad apples" in the fandom are male.



Crimcyan said:


> This is starting to turn into a shitshow....


It always does. You'll get used to it.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 2, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> This is starting to turn into a shitshow....



I wouldn't necessarily say that. There's definitely a difference of opinions, but at least we're not completely going off-topic


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 2, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Sorry for the nauseatingly long post. A lot of shit went down while I was at work, it seems.
> 
> 
> Not to be a semantic asshole, but I said "niche" not obscure. While most people have at least a peripheral knowledge of furries, it is definitely not mainstream. You might have many people making jokes about furries, but actual, real exposure to the fandom is rarer. Someone could turn on HBO one day and decide to try GoT on a whim, but it's less likely that someone would similarly pull up FAF just for funsies. Fandoms like ours are typically sought out, not stumbled up. Same with fanfiction and 40k, as I mentioned. While I don't have a solid answer as to why men would be more likely to seek out the niches they do, we can still look to other fandoms for clues. That's all I was getting at.
> ...


No  worries.. I'm just saddened by the situation


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 2, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> www.reddit.com: The documentary that made Scandinavians cut all funds to its gender studies institute • r/TheRedPill
> Feel free to read and watch.


So I watched the first part of the series where they asked different researchers for their opinions. Let's say these findings are 100% true. What most of findings suggest is that women are better at making social connections and that even newborns seem to be more inclined to look at people rather than toys/objects. And that males on the other hand seem to be inclined to build and construct things especially if they have a higher level of testosterone.

So wouldn't it make more sense to see women being more active in the furry community? That's to say forums (a social platform) as well as organizing and attending conventions and meet ups? If what the data suggests is true, then the findings from that first survey should actually be switched. More women should be involved in the social aspect of the community with males creating and occasionally sharing their work.

I'm trying to make the connection between the research that shows brain dymorphism and what is being stated about the furry community

Also this is only slightly related but I just think  it was funny how being a nurse was mentioned multiple times as the typical occupation for women. My bf has been a nurse for years and I've worked on loading docks and setting up stores where the men are always outnumbered by women. But it's like we were discussing before, your personal experiences might be different than what the data shows


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 3, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> But seriously, while male furries writ large are not the issue, the perception of the fandom is usually male. You don't see a lot of talk, positive or negative, about female furs outside of the fandom. The average person's schema for furs is likely middle aged fat men who have never gotten laid. And part of that is because a lot of the more visible "bad apples" in the fandom are male.


It's also because "male, middle aged, fat, lives in Mom's basement, most action he's ever gotten is Mommy's good-night kisses" is basically how many people, especially online, code "loser nerd". Furries are at the bottom of the geek hierarchy, ergo furries inherit a good chunk of the negative geek/nerd stereotypes. It was previously mentioned that gamers have a pretty even gender distribution, yet I suspect the average person's schema for gamers is pretty similar.



ellaerna said:


> Someone could turn on HBO one day and decide to try GoT on a whim, but it's less likely that someone would similarly pull up FAF just for funsies. Fandoms like ours are typically sought out, not stumbled up. Same with fanfiction and 40k, as I mentioned.


I just want to note that you're comparing source material with fandom. A relatively small portion of people watching any given media, even if they enjoy it, will get into its fandom, and if they do, it's generally something they need to seek out. Hell, I'm a huge fan of _Criminal Minds_, but I don't interact with its fandom at all save for geeking about it with _one_ specific friend. While furry fandom is a bit oddball in that our source material originates within the fandom itself, there's plenty of "gateway drug" mainstream media to be had, and much of it (from Disney's _Robin Hood_ to _The Lion King_ to _Zootopia_, to take a few examples) probably more people are aware of than GoT.



Crimcyan said:


> From what I found by being stupid on my own time and making fake furry personal ads on Craigslist, is if you post woman seeking men you will get over 50 guys who are into the porn looking to get with you. but doing the opposite as men seeking woman you will get only 1 reply of a person more instrested on why you are being a openly furry on Craigslist rather then trying to get with you. The end result of this was I had way to many dick pics on my phone I really didn't want (im straight guy), now I have been traumatized by seeing other dudes dicks lmao


Eh. That's mostly showing men and women use personals differently; there's plenty of studies done on dating sites showing similar results - men have a tendency to respond to a large number of ads hoping one or two will pan out, while women tend to do more pre-selection before writing any responses at all. 

Also shame on you for writing fake personals. That shit ain't better than prank phone calls.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 3, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Also shame on you for writing fake personals. That shit ain't better than prank phone calls.


Also do that too  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, but I also receive a ton beacuse of working at a call center. I get bored very easily


----------



## Inkblooded (Oct 3, 2017)

Because the fandom caters to males, and the more males join, the more it becomes that way.

Most of the porn, both straight and gay, is aimed at the average men's erotic interests. (Something that I do not approve of.) Straight furry porn emulates real life straight porn, male domination fantasies, small petite women paired with large muscular men. And gay porn is well, gay. And not the kind that some nasty straight women love, furry gay porn has usually one of the characters big and masculine, if not both.

Obviously a porn dominated community is going to be full of males. 

And men are more likely to have power fantasies and associate themselves with "powerful beast" animals like wolves, bears, big cats, etc.

I think women are furry/anthro fans for different reasons. Most female furries I know aren't in it for porn, and don't even care about it at all. They seem to be in it for artistic purposes. That's the same reason I'm in.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 3, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> It's also because "male, middle aged, fat, lives in Mom's basement, most action he's ever gotten is Mommy's good-night kisses" is basically how many people, especially online, code "loser nerd". Furries are at the bottom of the geek hierarchy, ergo furries inherit a good chunk of the negative geek/nerd stereotypes. It was previously mentioned that gamers have a pretty even gender distribution, yet I suspect the average person's schema for gamers is pretty similar.


True. While girl gamers are starting to emerge on to the stage, gaming is still coded as being a guy thing. Or at least console and pc games. Mobile is where girls get more acknowledgement. 
Small tangent, but I never really considered furry as pay off nerd/ geek culture. Sure, there's shared otherness, but I never really thought of furs as being huge nerds or geeks. You can be both, but it's not guaranteed. 



quoting_mungo said:


> I just want to note that you're comparing source material with fandom. A relatively small portion of people watching any given media, even if they enjoy it, will get into its fandom, and if they do, it's generally something they need to seek out. Hell, I'm a huge fan of _Criminal Minds_, but I don't interact with its fandom at all save for geeking about it with _one_ specific friend. While furry fandom is a bit oddball in that our source material originates within the fandom itself, there's plenty of "gateway drug" mainstream media to be had, and much of it (from Disney's _Robin Hood_ to _The Lion King_ to _Zootopia_, to take a few examples) probably more people are aware of than


Fair, though I do think this begins to beg the question of how we define Fandom. Is the only prerequisite being a fan, or must one join communities of other fans, and if so, what constitutes a community? Do you have to actively contribute some material to the Fandom, or can you lurk?

Furry does represent a weird space. While the movies you listed can all be gateway drugs, they also aren't actively a part of the genre. GoT Fandom is explicitly tied to GoT and GoT its tied to its fans.  You can't have one without the other. However, lion King and Robin hood aren't tied to furries. Furries can enjoy them, sure, but so can non furry Disney fans or cartoon buffs or small children with no concept of furry. Furry Fandom is more like fanfiction, with a strong core concept based around creation as opposed to preexisting works. 

You can't throw a dead cat without hitting some GoT fan theory, but you can chuck a decomposing kitten pretty far without seeing someone's sona, let alone making your own.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 3, 2017)

I think the ultimate solution to this us to recruit more girls in the fandom!! *Looks for tranquilizer darts*


----------



## nitroglycerinewaffles (Oct 3, 2017)

I think the set of anyone who has any specific thing unusual about them is predominantly male. This is because females have a lower standard deviation of all their characteristics (the measure of the average difference between the mean and the outcome), they're all basically cut from the same cloth, so there are fewer female geniuses, fewer female autistic people, fewer female homosexuals, fewer female gambling addicts, fewer female thrill seekers, etcetera.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 3, 2017)

nitroglycerinewaffles said:


> I think the set of anyone who has any specific thing unusual about them is predominantly male. This is because females have a lower standard deviation of all their characteristics (the measure of the average difference between the mean and the outcome), they're all basically cut from the same cloth, so there are fewer female geniuses, fewer female autistic people, fewer female homosexuals, fewer female gambling addicts, fewer female thrill seekers, etcetera.



Cites?

Interesting point. Although, it doesn't quite explain why other fandoms have more even splits.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 3, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Small tangent, but I never really considered furry as pay off nerd/ geek culture. Sure, there's shared otherness, but I never really thought of furs as being huge nerds or geeks. You can be both, but it's not guaranteed.


I both agree and disagree; historically, furry fandom grew out of science fiction fandom. So while not every member of current-day furry fandom crossed through nerd territory to get here, we metaphorically share a property line, and a certain subset of the folks next door like to throw their dog's crap over the fence. (Which is just flowery talk for "furries sit pretty solidly at the bottom of the geek hierarchy" really.) Furries also tend towards being pretty well-versed with computers, which often comes with being into gaming and/or other nerdery. Lots of cross-pollination.



ellaerna said:


> Fair, though I do think this begins to beg the question of how we define Fandom. Is the only prerequisite being a fan, or must one join communities of other fans, and if so, what constitutes a community? Do you have to actively contribute some material to the Fandom, or can you lurk?


I would say sitting in your hypothetical hermit's cottage watching a show over and over in isolation may make you a die-hard fan, but it wouldn't make you part of fandom; the phrase "part of fandom" itself implies a prerequisite involvement in a larger whole. Doesn't mean there needs to be active contribution, but things like following the Twitter accounts of the actors from your favorite show, reading up on fan theories, consuming fan media, that sort of stuff in my view marks the (blurry) line between enjoying content and being part of its fandom. 



ellaerna said:


> Furry Fandom is more like fanfiction, with a strong core concept based around creation as opposed to preexisting works.


I find it interesting that you consider the fanfiction community a discrete thing. To me, it's always seemed more of a common-interest coming-together of people who use the same space and realize that more people together sometimes have better power to change things. AO3, for instance. Few if any people will read fanfic for it being fanfic, more likely that people will be willing to give content a chance because it relates to their favored fandom(s). 

And to some degree, I suppose that does describe furry fandom; there's definitely at least portions of fandom that have little interest in furry content outside of their more narrow scope of interest. But there's also a good chunk of people who'll try most things that fall under "furry", probably more than will read fanfic because it's fanfic.


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 3, 2017)

nitroglycerinewaffles said:


> I think the set of anyone who has any specific thing unusual about them is predominantly male. This is because females have a lower standard deviation of all their characteristics (the measure of the average difference between the mean and the outcome), they're all basically cut from the same cloth, so there are fewer female geniuses, fewer female autistic people, fewer female homosexuals, fewer female gambling addicts, fewer female thrill seekers, etcetera.


Haha wow. So you guys remember when we were talking about some people who would be easily influenced by things like porn or video games. This is who I'm talking about. I don't even want to start to tackle this... honestly I don't even know where to begin with how misogynistic this is...


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 3, 2017)

impendingsenseofdoom said:


> Haha wow. So you guys remember when we were talking about some people who would be easily influenced by things like porn or video games. This is who I'm talking about. I don't even want to start to tackle this... honestly I don't even know where to begin with how misogynistic this is...


It's not misogynistic. It's a fact that women are more clustered around the middle/center when it comes to everything from IQ to social status.

There is nothing misogynistic in pointing out these statistics/facts. In fact, it's counterproductive to leave out biological facts let alone psychological factors based on gender.

Here's a thing I will ask of you: Name me one woman on the level of Elon Musk in today's society.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 3, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> It's not misogynistic. It's a fact that women are more clustered around the middle/center when it comes to everything from IQ to social status.
> 
> There is nothing misogynistic in pointing out these statistics/facts. In fact, it's counterproductive to leave out biological facts let alone psychological factors based on gender.


Matter of degree; smaller standard deviation (in some areas, at least) does not equal "all basically cut from the same cloth". Also exact results depend a lot on what characteristics you decide to measure. Say Waffles is right and there are fewer homosexual women. There are also, to the best of my knowledge, vastly more bisexual women than men.

Besides, you don't believe in gender studies, so why would you speak about psychological differences between genders?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 3, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Matter of degree; smaller standard deviation (in some areas, at least) does not equal "all basically cut from the same cloth". Also exact results depend a lot on what characteristics you decide to measure. Say Waffles is right and there are fewer homosexual women. There are also, to the best of my knowledge, vastly more bisexual women than men.


And there is nothing wrong with bringing up these statistics/facts. The same way there is nothing wrong with social/medical jobs being dominated by women there is nothing wrong with men dominating jobs like working on an oil platform, construction, etc.

And with that, there is nothing wrong with the fandom being "dominated" by males, either.






www.answers.com: Does autism affect more females or males
Male to female ratio of Autism: 4:1.

Not to mention workplace fatalities. Men are on average 90% of the deaths in the workplace.
Occupational fatality - Wikipedia

Or how about funding for diseases, illnesses and cancer 'n shit? Prostate cancer gets half the funding of that of breast cancer.
www.bbc.co.uk: Prostate cancer research 'lagging'
And yes, that's BBC, believe it or not.



quoting_mungo said:


> Besides, you don't believe in gender studies, so why would you speak about psychological differences between genders?


I don't. It's a load of crap made up by John Money who was pushing an agenda, an ideal/ideology. Gender studies aren't limited to psychology. I don't believe in pseudo-science turned into what's basically an ideology.

www.theguardian.com: Male and female brains: the REAL differences
And yes, I am quoting The Guardian. However, they did a good piece on the topic.

Gender differences aren't only biological. Men and women think, feel, react and act differently. If the two genders weren't different psychologically we'd be seeing a lot more women becoming CEO's on their merits, not to mention holding a lot more jobs in STEM fields. We'd see a lot more men working in kindergartens, as nurses and masseurs.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 3, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> And there is nothing wrong with bringing up these statistics/facts.


You're missing the point. There's a difference between citing studies or bringing up statistics, and drawing conclusions that basically take those statistics and dial them up to eleven. Saying women are all more or less the same because they _on average_ differ less from the median than men do is still kind of offensive.



Yakamaru said:


> www.answers.com: Does autism affect more females or males
> Male to female ratio of Autism: 4:1.


Note that that's diagnosis ratio. There is some data that suggests autism spectrum disorders are significantly more underdiagnosed in females. Since it's not something you can e.g. run a genetic screening for, it's pretty much impossible to say whether those claims are accurate.



Yakamaru said:


> I don't. It's a load of crap made up by John Money who was pushing an agenda, an ideal/ideology. Gender studies aren't limited to psychology. I don't believe in pseudo-science turned into what's basically an ideology.


I have no idea what the hell is up with people ascribing all this importance to Dr. Money. Medicine started out as a load of crap about balancing humors and driving out evil spirits, but that doesn't mean all medical research is therefore crap and will be crap forevermore. Money wasn't the only one doing studies in his field at the time, wasn't even first with a lot of the things he got into, he was just very good at, well, shouting down his dissenters. Sometimes literally.

That aside, you are literally discussing research into gender differences. You are ascribing validity to this research. Surely you can see the irony in you doing this while denouncing the validity of gender studies as an academic field?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 3, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> You're missing the point. There's a difference between citing studies or bringing up statistics, and drawing conclusions that basically take those statistics and dial them up to eleven. Saying women are all more or less the same because they _on average_ differ less from the median than men do is still kind of offensive.


I agree. Shit could've been written differently. How would you put it then?

Women are statistically showing up clustered a lot more in the middle/center on a lot of studies, surveys and questionnaires all over compared to that of men, who seem to have everything from an extreme low to an extreme high.



quoting_mungo said:


> Note that that's diagnosis ratio. There is some data that suggests autism spectrum disorders are significantly more underdiagnosed in females. Since it's not something you can e.g. run a genetic screening for, it's pretty much impossible to say whether those claims are accurate.


Yes, there are some data that suggest that. There are also some data that suggest 1 in 5 women on campus will experience rape. Doesn't mean it's true.

Official diagnosis data is far more reliable than theoretical numbers, not to mention questionable at best data.



quoting_mungo said:


> I have no idea what the hell is up with people ascribing all this importance to Dr. Money. Medicine started out as a load of crap about balancing humors and driving out evil spirits, but that doesn't mean all medical research is therefore crap and will be crap forevermore. Money wasn't the only one doing studies in his field at the time, wasn't even first with a lot of the things he got into, he was just very good at, well, shouting down his dissenters. Sometimes literally.
> 
> That aside, you are literally discussing research into gender differences. You are ascribing validity to this research. Surely you can see the irony in you doing this while denouncing the validity of gender studies as an academic field?


Middle-Age science did what they did back in the day with the knowledge they had(and dare I say, a looot of superstitions). If they had the knowledge we had today, do you think they'd do the shit they did back then? The answer is no. Comparing the dogmas of the past with the dogmas of the present is not really relevant.

Yes, medicine started out as a joke compared to today's medicine. They didn't have the knowledge let alone the tools to do so.

If you know your history, John Money is a name that should ring a bell for anyone who actually study gender. The same way science gets shit right, we also often get shit wrong/take the wrong road. Gender studies is one of them.





David Reimer - Wikipedia

We already know there are differences between the two genders: Genetics, instincts, DNA, chromosomes, hormones, brain chemistry, brain activity, psychology, thought patterns, physical and physiological traits that define what a male and what a female is, and other traits that are associated with that gender. Gender studies from what I can see, ignores completely the biological, physiological and physical factors. Which is one of the reasons I am not going to accept it as a form of study.

Also, I highly recommend watching every video linked in this thread so far(especially the Hjernevask series), including this one, if you haven't already.





P.S: It's nice having a more normal conversation than the usual shouting match. Thanks for that, love. I appreciate it.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 3, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I both agree and disagree; historically, furry fandom grew out of science fiction fandom. So while not every member of current-day furry fandom crossed through nerd territory to get here, we metaphorically share a property line, and a certain subset of the folks next door like to throw their dog's crap over the fence. (Which is just flowery talk for "furries sit pretty solidly at the bottom of the geek hierarchy" really.) Furries also tend towards being pretty well-versed with computers, which often comes with being into gaming and/or other nerdery. Lots of cross-pollination.


Huh. Learn something new everyday.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 4, 2017)

@Yakamaru

Get your head outta your ass lmao


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 4, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> @Yakamaru
> 
> Get your head outta your ass lmao








Local salt mine indeed.

>Doesn't check out any sources provided by the opposition
>Someone doesn't buy what they are selling
>Tell them to get their head out of their ass

A like for the effort of actually bothering to type it, though. <3

You won't convince ANYONE through insults.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 4, 2017)

Males are typically more apt to taking bigger risks, and generally not caring what anyone thinks of their choices.

Females are typically more "stable" in decision making, and usually stay within a tighter comfort zone. 

If you took 100 of each, and asked everyone if they would do something society as a whole considers "out there", I would bet that the numbers would be similar.


----------



## impendingsenseofdoom (Oct 5, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Males are typically more apt to taking bigger risks, and generally not caring what anyone thinks of their choices.
> 
> Females are typically more "stable" in decision making, and usually stay within a tighter comfort zone.
> 
> If you took 100 of each, and asked everyone if they would do something society as a whole considers "out there", I would bet that the numbers would be similar.


I love how you regard furries as "risk takers". Especially when one of the most appealing aspects of being a furry is being able to hide your actual face behind a costume or fursona. Also males are generally risk takers because they have higher levels of testosterone and they are more dispensable than women (when looking at our species from a biological standpoint). It's been noted that females have to carry and raise young and form strong bonds with others. Males on the other hand show up for a good time and that's the extent of their usefulness. I just assumed that while we are spouting off information without sources I might as well do the same 

Anyway, I feel like we are definitely getting off topic. Why all the discussion about dymorphism when none of it seems to have a direct correlation with being in the furry fandom? Like I said, the only useful information presented so far was that  Scandinavian documentary. They claim testosterone makes you less empathetic and that's very obvious from the posts I've seen here. There are women on this forum posting very articulate arguments and quite a few males jumping in and adding that it must simply be the small, unintellectual  female brain. It simply cannot understand the complex world of furries!


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

I'll preface my answer by saying I'm an AFAB nonbinary/genderqueer person, and identified as female when I first entered the fandom. 

And honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if the "furries are mostly men" think keeps women away. Women tend to avoid predominantly male spaces for a variety of reasons, including safety and comfort as well as differing social circles. 
Besides that, I know a lot more female and nonbinary furries than male furries, personally. On the other hand, I follow more male furries/have heard of more male "popufurs." That's probably also a factor - male furries are louder and more present due to popularity and personality, while female furries tend to stick to their/our own social circles.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

impendingsenseofdoom said:


> You're assuming that because there aren't many females participating in geeky activities they just aren't interested. The thing is you're oversimplifying the problem. Maybe the women YOU'VE met dislike video games or comics or things we normally consider kind of geeky but truth be told there are a lot of males who will discourage females from participating in these spaces. There are plenty of women and LGBQT folks in the furry community who have been harassed or sent sexual messages simply because they belong to those groups. Not to say that no male has ever been harassed or received unwanted attention but the more often than not, these people experience it the most.



^^^ THIS. Marginalized people, in this case women (and nonbinary people, as they are often marginalized in the same way), are pushed away from subcultures that they fit perfectly into due to misogyny and other gross stuff. The culture *pushes* women away and because of that, it seems like there aren't any.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Unless we ask literally every Furry, we only have surveys to go on. And I'd rather go by surveys than theoretical numbers.
> 
> Quite frankly, if 100-200k Furries does a survey, IMO, that's enough to represent the fandom. With a couple %'es room for error.



Surveys are a lot more complex than that. Unless these surveys divulge their methods, have been regularly repeated, and have a sufficiently randomized sample group and are properly analyzed, they can't be accepted as "fact." (Surveys really never should be). Don't take a survey at face value.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 5, 2017)

impendingsenseofdoom said:


> I love how you regard furries as "risk takers". Especially when one of the most appealing aspects of being a furry is being able to hide your actual face behind a costume or fursona.



This was more defined to the literal aspect of doing something, that doesn't uphold a given accepted widespread status quo.  When an individual has to contemplate about perception or outcome, it's a risk of some sort.  Sure most are hidden, but that still keeps individuals from freely being open about it. 





impendingsenseofdoom said:


> There are women on this forum posting very articulate arguments and quite a few males jumping in and adding that it must simply be the small, unintellectual  female brain. It simply cannot understand the complex world of furries!



My angle was actually counter to this.  All of the possible outcomes of countering a generally accepted status quo requires an intelligent thought process. 

I'll be the first to say we do a lot of dumb stuff, without thinking about it beforehand.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

impendingsenseofdoom said:


> I love how you regard furries as "risk takers". Especially when one of the most appealing aspects of being a furry is being able to hide your actual face behind a costume or fursona. Also males are generally risk takers because they have higher levels of testosterone and they are more dispensable than women (when looking at our species from a biological standpoint). It's been noted that females have to carry and raise young and form strong bonds with others. Males on the other hand show up for a good time and that's the extent of their usefulness. I just assumed that while we are spouting off information without sources I might as well do the same
> 
> Anyway, I feel like we are definitely getting off topic. Why all the discussion about dymorphism when none of it seems to have a direct correlation with being in the furry fandom? Like I said, the only useful information presented so far was that  Scandinavian documentary. They claim testosterone makes you less empathetic and that's very obvious from the posts I've seen here. There are women on this forum posting very articulate arguments and quite a few males jumping in and adding that it must simply be the small, unintellectual  female brain. It simply cannot understand the complex world of furries!




I have to point out that you saying men's usefulness stops at them offering sperm is not only false, but just as bad as what you claim men do. Aside from that, where did anyone, of any gender, once mention the female brain to be small and unintelligent? Am I completely missing something? Because almost everyone who has answered on here, acted incredibly respectful, and stated legitimate facts. Not once did I see anyone make this statement. I also do not think any men were offering answers without empathy. Besides that, when it comes to an argument, facts and logic are what should always dominate, not your emotions or sensitivity. To say all females created a good argument here, is false too. There have been few females to answer here period, and those who did, had some posts with points that were false, not backed up, or just comeplete shitposts. So to claim that the women here were having "educated and intellectual discussion", while men were just wrong, sexist, and shallow, is completely false to me.



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> I'll preface my answer by saying I'm an AFAB nonbinary/genderqueer person, and identified as female when I first entered the fandom.
> 
> And honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if the "furries are mostly men" think keeps women away. Women tend to avoid predominantly male spaces for a variety of reasons, including safety and comfort as well as differing social circles.
> Besides that, I know a lot more female and nonbinary furries than male furries, personally. On the other hand, I follow more male furries/have heard of more male "popufurs." That's probably also a factor - male furries are louder and more present due to popularity and personality, while female furries tend to stick to their/our own social circles.



But where is any evidence that females actively avoid males? I know I don't, and I know that most men I've met aren't assholes. I feel like something keeping you away because it's mostly the other gender, is kind of petty and shallow to me. Just me?


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 5, 2017)

If any females not actively avoiding males, feel free to Pm me


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> Surveys are a lot more complex than that. Unless these surveys divulge their methods, have been regularly repeated, and have a sufficiently randomized sample group and are properly analyzed, they can't be accepted as "fact." (Surveys really never should be). Don't take a survey at face value.


I never take a survey at face value. Only if that survey's result keeps getting repeated over and over again in different locations and with similar but slightly different terms and with different groups/communities.

The same way data can easily be falsified, so can surveys. Selective sampling is a thing, and #FakeNews is notorious for that shit. I never trust anything or anyone at face value. I check sources first, and if they are credible, I will still carry a decent amount of cynicism about it.



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> ^^^ THIS. Marginalized people, in this case women (and nonbinary people, as they are often marginalized in the same way), are pushed away from subcultures that they fit perfectly into due to misogyny and other gross stuff. The culture *pushes* women away and because of that, it seems like there aren't any.


And where is this misogyny and "other gross stuff" you speak of? The off-hand comment from some moron on Twitter?

The culture are pushing women away? What? I know plenty of women in the fandom. They are neither being pushed away nor are they seeing this misogyny you speak of.

I have not seen anyone on this forum push the other gender away because of what's between their legs either. Not with everyone I've seen let alone interacted with either.

We going to complain that women are being pushed out of STEM fields too? How about the lack of female CEO's? Or lack of women working on an oil rig, getting all dirty in oil?



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> Women tend to avoid predominantly male spaces for a variety of reasons, including safety and comfort as well as differing social circles.
> Besides that, I know a lot more female and nonbinary furries than male furries, personally. On the other hand, I follow more male furries/have heard of more male "popufurs." That's probably also a factor - *male furries are louder and more present due to popularity and personality, while female furries tend to stick to their/our own social circles*.


Congrats, you answered yourself with that statement.



impendingsenseofdoom said:


> I love how you regard furries as "risk takers". Especially when one of the most appealing aspects of being a furry is being able to hide your actual face behind a costume or fursona. Also males are generally risk takers because they have higher levels of testosterone and they are more dispensable than women (when looking at our species from a biological standpoint). It's been noted that females have to carry and raise young and form strong bonds with others. Males on the other hand show up for a good time and that's the extent of their usefulness. I just assumed that while we are spouting off information without sources I might as well do the same
> 
> Anyway, I feel like we are definitely getting off topic. Why all the discussion about dymorphism when none of it seems to have a direct correlation with being in the furry fandom? Like I said, the only useful information presented so far was that  Scandinavian documentary. They claim testosterone makes you less empathetic and that's very obvious from the posts I've seen here. There are women on this forum posting very articulate arguments and quite a few males jumping in and adding that it must simply be the small, unintellectual  female brain. It simply cannot understand the complex world of furries!


And here I thought you were here to have a civilized discussion. Instead, you call men "more dispensable" and "Males on the other hand show up for a good time and that's the extent of their usefulness".

I am rather disappointed in you.



> There are women on this forum posting very articulate arguments and quite a few males jumping in and adding that it must simply be the *small, unintellectual female brain.*


Articulate arguments? Arguments based on emotions. Arguments based on emotions aren't arguments.

And literally NO ONE said the female brain was small let alone unintellectual. I would recommend you stop with putting words in people's mouths. 



Ginza said:


> I have to point out that you saying men's usefulness stops at them offering sperm is not only false, but just as bad as what you claim men do. Aside from that, where did anyone, of any gender, once mention the female brain to be small and unintelligent? Am I completely missing something? Because almost everyone who has answered on here, acted incredibly respectful, and stated legitimate facts. Not once did I see anyone make this statement. I also do not think any men were offering answers without empathy. Besides that, when it comes to an argument, facts and logic are what should always dominate, not your emotions or sensitivity. To say all females created a good argument here, is false too. There have been few females to answer here period, and those who did, had some posts with points that were false, not backed up, or just comeplete shitposts. So to claim that the women here were having "educated and intellectual discussion", while men were just wrong, sexist, and shallow, is completely false to me.
> 
> 
> 
> But where is any evidence that females actively avoid males? I know I don't, and I know that most men I've met aren't assholes. I feel like something keeping you away because it's mostly the other gender, is kind of petty and shallow to me. Just me?








I absolutely love you now.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Ginza said:


> But where is any evidence that females actively avoid males? I know I don't, and I know that most men I've met aren't assholes. I feel like something keeping you away because it's mostly the other gender, is kind of petty and shallow to me. Just me?


Maybe you and your friends don't, but I know several women personally who tend to avoid men/male-dominated groups because of bad experiences, fear from past misogyny/abuse/etc, all that stuff. I was raised in a rather conservative and patriarchal culture, where men tend to have a lot of social power over women and use that to treat them poorly, take advantage of them, etc. 
I have seen what a lot of male-dominated groups have done to hurt women and to hurt my friends, and the backlash from that. 
I'm sure there are studies that support my point, but I'm mostly speaking from experience.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> Surveys are a lot more complex than that. Unless these surveys divulge their methods, have been regularly repeated, and have a sufficiently randomized sample group and are properly analyzed, they can't be accepted as "fact." (Surveys really never should be). Don't take a survey at face value.


The furry survey has been repeated yearly, so at least it has that going for it. But the sample is anything but randomized, given that, as previously noted in this thread, it's mostly been spread around by word of mouth. Back in ye olde LiveJournal days, I know their little "I participated; Stand up and be counted" banners would pop up in my friends list during a month or two a year as the survey made its march through the LJ furry circles, and I've no clue how the changes in the social media landscape have altered its spreading pattern since. _I've_ not really seen any viral "hey I took this survey you go do it too!" posts the last few years, so I've probably missed a few iterations. I doubt I'm the only one. Either way, the survey results can be a first step, but shouldn't be interpreted as representative for fandom at large beyond the survey participants (and even that is slightly iffy; the biggest data set the survey seems to have accumulated was just over 7k respondents in 2009, and after that the number dropped off pretty sharply until 2012 - I can't find figures for the number of respondents past that point - and around 4k respondents is a low enough number that people being shitbags and sending in trash data to troll could conceivably manage to push percentages at least a few points).

--------------------------------------------------

Anecdotally, I seem to recall the Swedish and Danish furry communities (IRC channel and forums) were a fairly even gender split back when I was actively participating in them. Given that this was something like a decade ago, I keep running into ikkle new Swedish furs and going "but where did they come from?" on a semi-regular basis, though. Before I know it I'll be chasing kiddies off my lawn with my cane. 

And, I mean, I know at least one furry organization that has (marginally) more women than men in positions of power...  Don't take this remark too seriously; it's intended as incredibly tongue in cheek.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> And where is this misogyny and "other gross stuff" you speak of? The off-hand comment from some moron on Twitter?
> 
> The culture are pushing women away? What? I know plenty of women in the fandom. They are neither being pushed away nor are they seeing this misogyny you speak of.
> 
> ...



Ooooh dear. Ok. I was not talking just about the furry fandom, first of all, I'm talking in general. People are pushed out of gaming communities, fandoms, sports, etc. for being female or even just feminine. It's an institutionalized misogyny that tends to manifest in any male dominated group or even a group with loud men. As I've said before, I'm talking from my experience and the experiences of my friends. Perhaps your friends don't experience this, but mine do, and I do, and it's still there whether you believe it or not. 
(Also, gender =/= sex. Just. to clarify that. In a discussion about gender it's an important point.)


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> The furry survey has been repeated yearly, so at least it has that going for it. But the sample is anything but randomized, given that, as previously noted in this thread, it's mostly been spread around by word of mouth. Back in ye olde LiveJournal days, I know their little "I participated; Stand up and be counted" banners would pop up in my friends list during a month or two a year as the survey made its march through the LJ furry circles, and I've no clue how the changes in the social media landscape have altered its spreading pattern since. _I've_ not really seen any viral "hey I took this survey you go do it too!" posts the last few years, so I've probably missed a few iterations. I doubt I'm the only one. Either way, the survey results can be a first step, but shouldn't be interpreted as representative for fandom at large beyond the survey participants (and even that is slightly iffy; the biggest data set the survey seems to have accumulated was just over 7k respondents in 2009, and after that the number dropped off pretty sharply until 2012 - I can't find figures for the number of respondents past that point - and around 4k respondents is a low enough number that people being shitbags and sending in trash data to troll could conceivably manage to push percentages at least a few points).



Thanks for clarifying that! I've only been in the fandom for a few years, so I don't know these things ;; 
So, yeah, the size of the survey is nice but it only represents the people who took it. rip


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> Ooooh dear. Ok. I was not talking just about the furry fandom, first of all, I'm talking in general. People are pushed out of gaming communities, fandoms, sports, etc. for being female or even just feminine. It's an institutionalized misogyny that tends to manifest in any male dominated group or even a group with loud men. As I've said before, I'm talking from my experience and the experiences of my friends. Perhaps your friends don't experience this, but mine do, and I do, and it's still there whether you believe it or not.
> (Also, gender =/= sex. Just. to clarify that. In a discussion about gender it's an important point.)


Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Your personal experiences have little to no bearing on what's actually going on.

Loud men = Women are pushed away
^ Is basically what I am getting out of your reply.

How are they pushed away? By men being men? I am asking for specifically how it happens. Where it happens. How often it happens. I want specifics. Details. Who does it. Who doesn't.

Misogyny is present the same way misandry is.

The problem isn't men. It's cunts.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Your personal experiences have little to no bearing on what's actually going on.
> 
> Loud men = Women are pushed away
> ^ Is basically what I am getting out of your reply.
> ...



oh boy
i get the feeling ur not gonna believe any evidence i give to you
there isn't institutionalized misandry in the us my dude idk where u live but i dont know of any countries where there is anywho

also, saying "my friends don't experience this" and then saying "anecdotal evidence isn't evidence" is kind of hypocritical my dude

look. what i'm saying is that overbearing men and men making themselves the majority push women away, but also in other communities i have *personally experienced* misogyny - people throwing competitive matches in video games because they think there's a girl on their team (sometimes me, sometimes someone else); people directly saying that women don't belong in a group or a space; rape threats and sexual harassment - i could go on and on. and if that's still not evidence to you, because my experiences don't matter and nor do the experiences of my friends, i guess, then i'll get studies and sources for you. i dont want to bother if you're not going to take anything i say seriously, though, because that shit's exhausting my man

edit: sorry, just scrolled back up and saw someone ELSE was saying "my friends dont experience this" so sorry about that accusation there but i'd argue that anecdotal evidence does matter still because experiences are great evidence tbh

edit 2.0:




some sources:
LMGTFY
LMGTFY
LMGTFY


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> The problem isn't men. It's cunts.


ah nice edit there. saying the problem isnt men and then using a sexist slur. sweet moves my dude (i'd give you a pass if i knew you were from somewhere outside the us where that's not as bad of a word, but like i said, i'm from the us where it is a pretty bad slur friendo. idk where u live tho)


----------



## lyar (Oct 5, 2017)

What does the gender-composition of the fandom matter? If the fandom is "lacking" in female representatives what are we gunna do indoctrinate women in order to offset of the "lack" of them in the fandom?


Yakamaru said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Your personal experiences have little to no bearing on what's actually going on.
> 
> Loud men = Women are pushed away
> ^ Is basically what I am getting out of your reply.
> ...


Anecdotal evidence is not completely invalid. The idea of Loud men = Women are pushed away is not out of the realm of possiblity. Although I would not equate it to that, personally, I see how that can be a possibility.


ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> ah nice edit there. saying the problem isnt men and then using a sexist slur. sweet moves my dude (i'd give you a pass if i knew you were from somewhere outside the us where that's not as bad of a word, but like i said, i'm from the us where it is a pretty bad slur friendo. idk where u live tho)


I don't think he meant it in reference to females, a lot of people use it as a harsher version of "asshole". Also I don't know why "cunt" is such a horrible sexist slur if  "dick" isn't. Not attacking anyone just saying there's a discrepancy there.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

lyar said:


> I don't think he meant it in reference to females, a lot of people use it as a harsher version of "asshole". Also I don't know why "cunt" is such a horrible sexist slur if  "dick" isn't. Not attacking anyone just saying there's a discrepancy there.



i know he wasn't referring to women but that doesn't make it not a slur. just like calling something "gay" in a derogatory manner doesn't make it not rude to gay ppl. (i am a gay people and a "female" so i can make that comparison, i think. lol)


----------



## Saylor (Oct 5, 2017)

Do we really have to argue about this? Is it necessary to take offense to what someone says? Yaka made a very good argument earlier and it seems like you took a vow of ignorance and would not listen to his word. Maybe that’s why you believe you don’t encounter women? Maybe it’s the fact you like to take offense to what others say and a discussion evolves into an argument?

 Sure, there are mean words, but the keyword is context in which they are used. Was Yaka calling _all_ women c*nts? No. Does it make him sexist for just saying the word? No. I get his context. He uses it in context of people who take offense too easily and are very hostile and not pleasant to be around because of their ways of approaching a discussion. 

They are the problem because nobody likes to be around someone if they are likely not going to listen to what someone says and instead jump down your throat whenever you say something slightly cross. 

You seem to have proven yourself to be this type of person who only focuses on looking for something to offend you, just so you can get upset and try getting into an argument. Which in my opinion is truly pathetic and tells me that you have nothing better to do.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> Maybe you and your friends don't, but I know several women personally who tend to avoid men/male-dominated groups because of bad experiences, fear from past misogyny/abuse/etc, all that stuff. I was raised in a rather conservative and patriarchal culture, where men tend to have a lot of social power over women and use that to treat them poorly, take advantage of them, etc.
> I have seen what a lot of male-dominated groups have done to hurt women and to hurt my friends, and the backlash from that.
> I'm sure there are studies that support my point, but I'm mostly speaking from experience.



I don't want to put your experience down, but I do need to note that what happens in the past, often should stay there. I grew up in an incredibly conservative, and small town. It was filled with people who were so closed minded to the point of it being sickening. If you were gay, you were beaten up. However, instead of me calling myself a victim of society and blaming all men/white people, I grew and learned from the experience. So again, to reiterate, I grew up in a similar situation. However, I've learned to look at the facts and understand that what a small handful of people do, doesn't reflect upon the entirety of them. People shouldn't be scared of men, they're not monsters, not terrifying and hateful things. No disrespect, just felt it should be said


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Saylor said:


> Do we really have to argue about this? Is it necessary to take offense to what someone says? Yaka made a very good argument earlier and it seems like you took a vow of ignorance and would not listen to his word. Maybe that’s why you believe you don’t encounter women? Maybe it’s the fact you like to take offense to what others say and a discussion evolves into an argument?
> 
> Sure, there are mean words, but the keyword is context in which they are used. Was Yaka calling _all_ women c*nts? No. Does it make him sexist for just saying the word? No. I get his context. He uses it in context of people who take offense too easily and are very hostile and not pleasant to be around because of their ways of approaching a discussion.
> 
> ...



i mean writing a big thing on how pathetic i am seems pretty pathetic to me but i digress. i'm not gonna apologize for getting a little snarky at somebody. 
i dont care what words someone uses usually but slurs aren't acceptable outside of reclamation. using slurs suggests an ignorance or apathy regarding their language which isn't very appropriate when discussing subjects like this. if you really want "good arguments" than you shouldn't accept weakly worded arguments like that.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Ginza said:


> I don't want to put your experience down, but I do need to note that what happens in the past, often should stay there. I grew up in an incredibly conservative, and small town. It was filled with people who were so closed minded to the point of it being sickening. If you were gay, you were beaten up. However, instead of me calling myself a victim of society and blaming all men/white people, I grew and learned from the experience. So again, to reiterate, I grew up in a similar situation. However, I've learned to look at the facts and understand that what a small handful of people do, doesn't reflect upon the entirety of them. People shouldn't be scared of men, they're not monsters, not terrifying and hateful things. No disrespect, just felt it should be said


the past is this week my dude. hard to ignore that. i'm not calling myself a victim here, i'm saying that the behavior of many men in these communities drives women away, today. not years ago. today. 
and if we're going to be using gay as an example, trust me. i face shit for that, too. today.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> i mean writing a big thing on how pathetic i am seems pretty pathetic to me but i digress. i'm not gonna apologize for getting a little snarky at somebody.
> i dont care what words someone uses usually but slurs aren't acceptable outside of reclamation. using slurs suggests an ignorance or apathy regarding their language which isn't very appropriate when discussing subjects like this. if you really want "good arguments" than you shouldn't accept weakly worded arguments like that.



Although, to be honest, I didn't think the argument was worded weakly. Slurs are just words, and don't necessarily reflect upon the person's intelligence nor morals. I personally feel you can make an intelligent argument with slurs, as long as you have evidence (which these arguments did)


----------



## Simo (Oct 5, 2017)

Well, butter my butt and call me toast, but damn, reading all this crap about how frail, inferior and unsuccessful women are sure would drive me away from a fandom, if I were female. Reading some of this shit about women would be enough to drive most anyone away.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

Simo said:


> Well, butter my butt and call me toast, but damn, reading all this crap about how frail, inferior and unsuccessful women are sure would drive me away from a fandom, if I were female. Reading some of this crap about wowen would be enough to drive most anyone away.



I myself am a woman, but I don't at all feel anyone has called women inferior or unseccesful. I suppose it could just be me, but I feel that all that was stated was that calling men evil is wrong, and that _people_ not specifically women, need to toughen up. Overall you choose what offends you. Living a life of being offended by everything, isn't a good life to live. Again, it could just be me, but I don't feel anyone attacked women at all.


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Ginza said:


> Although, to be honest, I didn't think the argument was worded weakly. Slurs are just words, and don't necessarily reflect upon the person's intelligence nor morals. I personally feel you can make an intelligent argument with slurs, as long as you have evidence (which these arguments did)


I don't think you get what a slur is. Slurs dehumanize marginalized groups and are a tool of oppression. Carelessly using them like that is inappropriate. It doesn't necessarily reflect the intelligence - or lack thereof - of the user, but it does give a pretty good idea of whether they care about marginalized people - i.e. if they use slurs, they don't. Or they don't know. I didn't accuse him of knowingly using slurs, i just said it wasn't ok


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Simo said:


> Well, butter my butt and call me toast, but damn, reading all this crap about how frail, inferior and unsuccessful women are sure would drive me away from a fandom, if I were female. Reading some of this shit about women would be enough to drive most anyone away.


yeah man if you're talking about my arguments, i'm saying the same stuff feminists have been saying for years.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> I don't think you get what a slur is. Slurs dehumanize marginalized groups and are a tool of oppression. Carelessly using them like that is inappropriate. It doesn't necessarily reflect the intelligence - or lack thereof - of the user, but it does give a pretty good idea of whether they care about marginalized people - i.e. if they use slurs, they don't. Or they don't know. I didn't accuse him of knowingly using slurs, i just said it wasn't ok



What group exactly are you referring to? Women? Women definitely aren't marginalized, and since when is "cunt" a derogatory term to describe women?


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Ginza said:


> What group exactly are you referring to? Women? Women definitely aren't marginalized, and since when is "cunt" a derogatory term to describe women?


Oh dear 
you
you're kidding right 
LMGTFY
LMGTFY
LMGTFY


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> oh boy
> i get the feeling ur not gonna believe any evidence i give to you
> there isn't institutionalized misandry in the us my dude idk where u live but i dont know of any countries where there is anywho
> 
> ...


"Institutionalized sexism".
www.answers.com: What is institutional sexism

And yet:
nordic.businessinsider.com: A man reported the sexual harassment he witnessed at his job — and got fired
BBC sacked me for being a white man: Radio 4 comic was told you have to go. We need more women and minorities  | Daily Mail Online
www.employmentattorneyla.com: Male Gender Discrimination in California: Fired Yahoo Employee Sues Company for Sexism | Hennig Ruiz Law Firm
^ Men fired. For being men. I have a plethora more articles and reports.

Sexism = prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Institutional sexism = Institutional sexism is the discrimination against one gender by means of actual rules, such as a rule stating that a particular job can only be filled by a man.
Sexism = Based on sex. It does not say specifically "only against women"

What rules/laws are we imposing on women? Again, I want evidence.

I am sorry that that shit happens to you and your friends. It does not however in any way, shape or form equate to it being widespread let alone happen a lot.

Yes, sexism happens. Yes, racism happens. Yes, homophobia happens.



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> ah nice edit there. saying the problem isnt men and then using a sexist slur. sweet moves my dude (i'd give you a pass if i knew you were from somewhere outside the us where that's not as bad of a word, but like i said, i'm from the us where it is a pretty bad slur friendo. idk where u live tho)


You tempting me to list all the words I can use to describe an individual who acts like human trash? I have way more than "cunt" in my vocabulary, though it's my favorite word to use.



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> yeah man if you're talking about my arguments, i'm saying the same stuff feminists have been saying for years.


Yeah, I could smell the same talking points from Mars. No wonder I felt such nostalgia.


----------



## Simo (Oct 5, 2017)

Ginza said:


> What group exactly are you referring to? Women? Women definitely aren't marginalized, and since when is "cunt" a derogatory term to describe women?



Are you even serious? I mean, really. *Cunt *isn't derogatory? I can't think of a single job I've had where I could call my female co-workers 'cunts', or, say a situation where I was in a restaurant, and said to the waitress, "Hey, Cunt, I need a coke", and it would be just fine and dandy.

Since when has it been a social accepted norm to describe women this way? Maybe the communities I live in and the places I've worked are different, or you live in a different country, but geez, Louise, get a grip on the English language.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 5, 2017)

Simo said:


> Are you even serious? I mean, really. *Cunt *isn't derogatory? I can't think of a single job I've had where I could call my female co-workers 'cunts', or, say a situation where I was in a restaurant, and said to the waitress, "Hey, Cunt, I need a coke", and it would be just fine and dandy.
> 
> Since when has it been a social accepted norm to describe women this way? Maybe the communities I live in and the places I've worked are different, or you live in a different country, but geez, Louise, get a grip on the English language.


So "dick" is fine to use then?

www.thefreedictionary.com: cunt

*cunt*
(kʌnt)
_n_
*1. *the female genitals
*2. *_offensive_ _slang_ a woman considered sexually
*3. offensive slang a mean or obnoxious person*


----------



## Saylor (Oct 5, 2017)

Simo said:


> Are you even serious? I mean, really. *Cunt *isn't derogatory? I can't think of a single job I've had where I could call my female co-workers 'cunts', or, say a situation where I was in a restaurant, and said to the waitress, "Hey, Cunt, I need a coke", and it would be just fine and dandy.
> 
> Since when has it been a social accepted norm to describe women this way? Maybe the communities I live in and the places I've worked are different, or you live in a different country, but geez, Louise, get a grip on the English language.



You’re completely missing the point entirely.... You don’t just call any woman that word only on the basis of that person being a female. You can say it to a man  too. You can say it to anyone. You can use it to describe anyone. It’s a slur you use if someone bothers you. If a particular group of people annoys you, you may use that word to describe them as in “They are a bunch of c*nts.” And there could be no women included in that group whatsoever. Tying that word only to one particular gender (women in this case) is in and of itself sexist.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 5, 2017)

I've seen less land mines and fratricidal acts in 5 tours of Iraq and Afghanistan than what this thread is offering currently.  

I offer that everyone take a moment to relax, and return with a clear head. 

Sure, everyone has differing opinions.  Differing opinions have also been often proven to cause chaos historically.  What I am seeing here is an already small community creating unnecessary hostility, instead of coming up with legitimate solutions to the situation (if it can be considered one).


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

Simo said:


> Are you even serious? I mean, really. *Cunt *isn't derogatory? I can't think of a single job I've had where I could call my female co-workers 'cunts', or, say a situation where I was in a restaurant, and said to the waitress, "Hey, Cunt, I need a coke", and it would be just fine and dandy.
> 
> Since when has it been a social accepted norm to describe women this way? Maybe the communities I live in and the places I've worked are different, or you live in a different country, but geez, Louise, get a grip on the English language.



My point is that calling a man a cunt would be just as rude. Besides that, no, a decent human being would not go up to someone randomly and call them a cunt. I was just making a point that I've never in my life heard the term cunt exclusively applied to women. I also never once said that it was a "norm" all I said was that

1. Women are most certainly *not *
marginalized in the US or other first world countries (heck man, women here complain of dumb shit like "manspreading" meanwhile there's women out there in other countries who are beaten simply for speaking)

2. That I've never heard cunt ever being used solely towards women. I've heard things like "fag" being used towards gays, and many other examples, but never this

Just a last note, but the simple fact that I'm here sharing my opinions, and being listened to and regarded as completely legitimate by, surprise surprise, mainly men, just goes to show that no, not all men hold bigotry and that women here are treated equally. I just don't believe women are oppressed, I suppose that's where we'll continue to disagree, but I feel we're all given equal opportunities. If us women keep hiding, and being "scared" by the "big bad men" it's no wonder we won't get far. I'm not slandering women here, I'm just saying that a bit of perspective helps..


----------



## ThatSnarkyDragon (Oct 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> "Institutionalized sexism".
> www.answers.com: What is institutional sexism
> 
> And yet:
> ...



ok i'm gonna go ahead and ignore u being Yikes and dump a bunch of links for you to read. i'm not gonna put any more effort than that into someone trying to say men are oppressed lmaoooooo
www.independent.co.uk: Institutional sexism is closer to home than you think
www.newstatesman.com: Institutional sexism in the legal profession will only end when lawyers confront its existence
policespiesoutoflives.org.uk: Women call on Home Secretary to recognise Institutional Sexism in the police
thepsychologist.bps.org.uk: Institutional sexism in academia | The Psychologist
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00405848709543317?journalCode=htip20
www.theguardian.com: Misogyny runs so deep in this society, it is even used against abused children | Polly Toynbee   --tw for this one, addresses underage sex, sexual abuse and assault 
bostonreview.net: The Logic of Misogyny
https://strategicmisogyny.wordpress.com/
www.theguardian.com: 'I didn’t choose to be straight, white and male': are modern men the suffering sex? 

men aren't institutionally oppressed, bigotry =/= prejudice, and feminism is important.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 5, 2017)

ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> ok i'm gonna go ahead and ignore u being Yikes and dump a bunch of links for you to read. i'm not gonna put any more effort than that into someone trying to say men are oppressed lmaoooooo
> www.independent.co.uk: Institutional sexism is closer to home than you think
> www.newstatesman.com: Institutional sexism in the legal profession will only end when lawyers confront its existence
> policespiesoutoflives.org.uk: Women call on Home Secretary to recognise Institutional Sexism in the police
> ...


And what would you do and/or promote to have more women in the fandom and/or other geeky/nerdy communities in general?


----------



## Saylor (Oct 5, 2017)

Let’s break this down in lamens terms.... 
Femi-Greek stem meaning female or of pertaining to female characteristics.
-ism: a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs (baptism); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. 

Put 2 and 2 together and what do you get? 

Feminism: a strong devotion to principles and doctrines correlating to female characteristics. 

Or, basically put, an ideology which believes females are superior to males.... in no way does modern feminism represent gender equality. Instead, it represents female superiority to over males. 

Want equality? It’s already in existence. The top 5 most powerful people in the world are mostly women CEOs according to Forbe’s business magazine. Women can get a well paying job just as easily as men can. Women have voting rights, can drive cars, unlike in Saudi Arabia where women can’t do any of those things. Some households revolve completely around the woman of the house having a job and then the man stays home to take care of the kids. 

So, what more do feminists demand of society? Total control where men don’t have any rights at all? In light of what I’ve witnessed from modern feminism, I’d say the answer to my question would be yes. Yes, they do want to strip men of their rights, yes they do want to create an imbalance in society. 

Modern feminism is based on weak arguments about feelings instead of actual research and facts.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 5, 2017)

I'd be inclined to disagree with earlier posts that "elitist men" are pushing women away, though I'd be open to the idea that there could be some unintentional pushing of women away as a result of overly-horny men bothering them.

My off-the-top-of-my-head theory for why women are less likely to be in this fandom is that they might be less likely to be a social fuckup, the seemingly main demographic of this fandom, than men. Otherwise, it could a result of the furry fandom's connection to gaming/nerd circles, which seem to be dominated by men. 



Ginza said:


> 1. Women are most certainly *not*
> marginalized in the US or other first world countries (heck man, women here complain of dumb shit like "manspreading" meanwhile there's women out there in other countries who are beaten simply for speaking)


That's a bit of an over-generalisation, no?


----------



## Saylor (Oct 5, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I'd be inclined to disagree with earlier posts that "elitist men" are pushing women away, though I'd be open to the idea that there could be some unintentional pushing of women away as a result of overly-horny men bothering them.
> 
> My off-the-top-of-my-head theory for why women are less likely to be in this fandom is that they might be less likely to be a social fuckup, the seemingly main demographic of this fandom, than men. Otherwise, it could a result of the furry fandom's connection to gaming/nerd circles, which seem to be dominated by men.
> 
> ...



You’re right on with everything you said until that last bit. Go look at Forbe’s magazine and see who the top 5 most powerful people in the world are. That should be evidence for this case


----------



## Ginza (Oct 5, 2017)

Lcs said:


> That's a bit of an over-generalisation, no?



I wouldn't say so. There are no laws that say men can do something that women can't. Therefore, any claim otherwise isn't true. Women have equal opportunities and treatment, by law. If anything, it's actually men who have harsher punishments (i.e. more jail time for same crimes, women always winning cases with children, etc). Especially, since there are women in other countries who are literally beaten or even killed for speaking, or removing their oppressive clothing. If someone were to tell me women were oppressed in third world countries, I'd 100% agree with you. However, feminism today pushes this rhetoric that women are so oppressed meanwhile, it couldn't be further from the truth

www.law.umich.edu: Study finds large gender disparities in federal criminal cases


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 5, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I'd be inclined to disagree with earlier posts that "elitist men" are pushing women away, though I'd be open to the idea that there could be some unintentional pushing of women away as a result of overly-horny men bothering them.
> 
> My off-the-top-of-my-head theory for why women are less likely to be in this fandom is that they might be less likely to be a social fuckup, the seemingly main demographic of this fandom, than men. Otherwise, it could a result of the furry fandom's connection to gaming/nerd circles, which seem to be dominated by men.


Mate, I love you. No homo though.

Also: Swap out limes with text bubbles/squares saying "Common sense". I couldn't find a meme for it, I am sorry. And I am too lazy to make one.






Yes, we have both men and women are are social and sexual deviants, which I've pointed out previously in the thread. The majority of social and sexual deviants are men. Yes, we have socially inept people who either consciously or unconsciously push people away. The majority of people with Autism are men. And as we all know, Autism changes your brain chemistry. Can be mild, such as for instance having Asperger's(Like I do, for example), or heavy cases where someone may be completely unable to read let alone social cues.

Seems like 99% of my shit gets ignored because people don't want to answer them. 



Lcs said:


> That's a bit of an over-generalisation, no?


In first world countries beating your wife is illegal(because we are more civilized and treat our women with love, care and the respect they deserve). In some third world countries it's part of the cultures and the norm. 

It's still vile and sickening though. 

We do have some rabid feminists who go about how their day was "literally" ruined by some randomass man who was "manspreading" on the bus/train. Though they are pretty much just a nuisance. Like an itch. On your nose.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 5, 2017)

Okay, I am now placing a moratorium on further discussion or usage of the word "cunt" in this thread. It's 1) starting to derail the thread and 2) resulting in far too much shitslinging. Please chill out and try to tone down the animosity, people. Civil discussion!



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> oh boy
> i get the feeling ur not gonna believe any evidence i give to you
> there isn't institutionalized misandry in the us my dude idk where u live but i dont know of any countries where there is anywho


Depends on where you draw the line as to what, exactly, you are going to count as misandry. Men have to register for selective service or they lose many of their citizenship privileges, which I'd say arguably counts as pretty misandrist. No equivalent requirement exists for women. (Yakamaru is Norwegian, by the way.) 

There are laws, regulations, rules, and practices that unfairly impact pretty much any given group, whether intentionally or by circumstance. Makes for a less tidy narrative, sure, but pretending like it isn't the case is disingenuous.



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> look. what i'm saying is that overbearing men and men making themselves the majority push women away, but also in other communities i have *personally experienced* misogyny - people throwing competitive matches in video games because they think there's a girl on their team (sometimes me, sometimes someone else); people directly saying that women don't belong in a group or a space; rape threats and sexual harassment - i could go on and on. and if that's still not evidence to you, because my experiences don't matter and nor do the experiences of my friends, i guess, then i'll get studies and sources for you. i dont want to bother if you're not going to take anything i say seriously, though, because that shit's exhausting my man


I think we can all agree that there are people who are incapable of basic manners out there. This will be true regardless of what group we're looking at; the stable where I learned to ride had them, every school I ever went to has had them (well, I can't remember any specific such people at Lund U, but they were probably around), gaming circles have them, Tumblrpon has them, furry fandom has them, and so on ad nauseum. The danger lies in letting those people define the group.

Your experiences are valid. But so are others', and objective truth, to the extent it exists at all, will lie somewhere between all of them. In gaming communities, for instance, I've been accused of having internalized misogyny for _not_ finding particular games offensive or sexist, or for actually having _fun_ making crude jokes with male WoW guildmates. No one should be a jerkbag to you based on your actual or perceived (given that I've also gotten shit for allegedly being a sexist male) sex or gender. But no one should be obligated to have certain opinions just because of sex or gender (or sexuality), either. 

However, there's a world of difference between making inappropriate remarks to people you know or assume to be female on the basis of their sex/gender, and a woman choosing not to engage with a community based on how men within that community interact with each other. Using my old WoW guild as an example, myself and another female member were 100% happy to give as good as we got in terms of crude remarks and inappropriate jokes. Another female member would tolerate it to a point, but wasn't keen on the worst of it. All of us knew to tone it down when she logged on, to not direct it at her, and she knew to tell us off if it escalated out of her comfort zone (happened maybe twice in six months or something of that general magnitude). None of us experienced the environment as hostile despite the crude language, because we had the option to say "please don't direct that at me".

Asking what activities in fandom you perceive as driving women away is a valid question. In my 15+ years I've seen maybe a couple of gay men who essentially argued that women were unclean and gross and should stay away, but it's not as though anyone took them seriously. Nutballs will show up everywhere, much like chocolate may contain up to so many insect fragments per 100 grams. 



ThatSnarkyDragon said:


> some sources:
> LMGTFY
> LMGTFY
> LMGTFY


<academic pedantry>Please do not seriously link LMGTFY as a "source". While a basic Google search is often a good place to start, Google is too "smart" for its own good. The exact results a search brings up will differ depending on things like the user's geographical location, language settings, search/browsing history (at least the portion Google is aware of), and so on. The whole point of sourcing is to provide access to the information _you_ used to inform your statements, and linking a search won't do that. Especially not on a topic like "sexism in furry fandom", where most of the results seem to be articles from one or two fandom sites.</academic pedantry>


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 5, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> The culture are pushing women away? What? I know plenty of women in the fandom. They are neither being pushed away nor are they seeing this misogyny you speak of.
> 
> I have not seen anyone on this forum push the other gender away because of what's between their legs either. Not with everyone I've seen let alone interacted with either.





Yakamaru said:


> Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Your personal experiences have little to no bearing on what's actually going on.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 6, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Yakamaru said: ↑
> The culture are pushing women away? What? I know plenty of women in the fandom. They are neither being pushed away nor are they seeing this misogyny you speak of.
> 
> I have not seen anyone on this forum push the other gender away because of what's between their legs either. Not with everyone I've seen let alone interacted with either.
> ...


It's called using anecdotal evidence to counter anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence often doesn't mean jack shit. What you may experience may not even apply outside of your vicinity. And it's delusional to believe otherwise until you have actual evidence and statistical data to support those beliefs.

Anecdotal evidence is always subjective, the same way beliefs are. What you experience someone else may not. What you may perceive to be true may not be the truth at all. It may be partially true. It may be completely true.

Yes, we have assholes in the fandom, I won't deny that. I also won't deny we have socially inept morons in the fandom either. And some of them I won't deny have the possibility of pushing people away because of their social ineptitude. Either from them individually, or the fandom(s) in general. Consciously or unconsciously.



quoting_mungo said:


> Your experiences are valid. But so are others', and objective truth, to the extent it exists at all, will lie somewhere between all of them. In gaming communities, for instance, I've been accused of having internalized misogyny for _not_ finding particular games offensive or sexist, or for actually having _fun_ making crude jokes with male WoW guildmates. No one should be a jerkbag to you based on your actual or perceived (given that I've also gotten shit for allegedly being a sexist male) sex or gender. But no one should be obligated to have certain opinions just because of sex or gender (or sexuality), either.
> 
> However, there's a world of difference between making inappropriate remarks to people you know or assume to be female on the basis of their sex/gender, and a woman choosing not to engage with a community based on how men within that community interact with each other. Using my old WoW guild as an example, myself and another female member were 100% happy to give as good as we got in terms of crude remarks and inappropriate jokes. Another female member would tolerate it to a point, but wasn't keen on the worst of it. All of us knew to tone it down when she logged on, to not direct it at her, and she knew to tell us off if it escalated out of her comfort zone (happened maybe twice in six months or something of that general magnitude). None of us experienced the environment as hostile despite the crude language, because we had the option to say "please don't direct that at me".
> 
> Asking what activities in fandom you perceive as driving women away is a valid question. In my 15+ years I've seen maybe a couple of gay men who essentially argued that women were unclean and gross and should stay away, but it's not as though anyone took them seriously. Nutballs will show up everywhere, much like chocolate may contain up to so many insect fragments per 100 grams.


If personal experiences are anything to go by, I've had women who were way worse on the trashtalking than me, and I do trashtalk a LOT.

This was when I were doing raids with the guild(WoW) about 2 years ago. The amount of crap our guild leader said? Like, HOLY FUCK. She had this total and absolute brutal honesty about her, and gave absolutely zero fucks about who got hurt in the process. And she laid it out to you, like the verbal assassin she was. But she really knew her stuff, and from the looks of it, was always zoomed out completely, trying to look on the entire raid as much as possible. Suffice to say, it was fun, listening to her trash members live during raids. Had a couple of people leave the guild because they said they couldn't handle the harsh criticism, though I'd say it's more because they got us wiped numerous times due to their mistakes.

The same way we laughed when I got completely trashed over Teamspeak, we laughed back when someone else got trashed. If you can dish it out, you sure as hell have to expect to get shit dished back. It was fun as hell when we once in a while could actually trash BACK to our guild master when she made a bad call, ending in a wipe. We didn't talk for 5 minutes and went on about our mistakes 'n shit afterwards like it was nothing.

These relationships are about give and take. Send and receive. You can't always take, and you can't always send. Your gender in the vast majority of shit online matters not. In fact, I'd say in general your gender matters not. What matters is whether or not you're an obnoxious and annoying little shit.

P.S: Marksman Huntard here(Crit and Haste ftw). xD


A bit more related to the thread topic:

I am not entirely sure on the reasons why the Furry fandom is predominantly male, but there are some plausible/possible reasons for why so far:

- Actual sexism/discrimination
- Social and/or sexual ineptitude
- Gender differences in terms of social and/or interaction
- Sexual and/or social deviance

Personally I'd say it's a mix of different possible reasons. Quite frankly, I don't really care if the fandom is predominantly male or not. The same way I don't care if the vast majority of nurses or kindergarten caretakers are women, or the dock workers and those working on an oil platform are men.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> It's called using anecdotal evidence to counter anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence often doesn't mean jack shit. What you may experience may not even apply outside of your vicinity. And it's delusional to believe otherwise until you have actual evidence and statistical data to support those beliefs.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is always subjective, the same way beliefs are. What you experience someone else may not. What you may perceive to be true may not be the truth at all. It may be partially true. It may be completely true.
> 
> Yes, we have assholes in the fandom, I won't deny that. I also won't deny we have socially inept morons in the fandom either. And some of them I won't deny have the possibility of pushing people away because of their social ineptitude. Either from them individually, or the fandom(s) in general. Consciously or unconsciously.


...
I know. I actually explained all of this 5 pages ago. Relevant text below:

"Nearly everyone on this thread is speaking from personal experience, which is fine since sometimes that's all we have to go on, but it's not the most accurate tool when discussing things like this. For instance, in _my_ personal experience, women- particularly myself- are into way more kinky/sex shit, spend way more time online, are way geekier, and are willing to sink more time into playing games of all types than men. In my rl friend group alone, lady furs outnumber the male ones. Though that's probably because I'm the only one.

We each have a sampling bias. The people we interact with are not going to be indicative of the larger population because we chose them specifically for certain traits. Maybe you bond with guys more easily, so you end up hanging out with more of them, so your view of the fandom is the predominantly male. Maybe you really like girl/girl art, so you spend more time in those art circles, so you think that the fandom is predominantly gay women and straight men. There's a bunch of possibilities. And as mungo stated, that can affect how these demographic surveys get spread."​I literally work in research. All I do 5 days out of the week is think about how to make sure our data is valid. I know the pitfalls of anecdotes. 
Just thought it was interesting that you used anecdotal evidence and then said it's jack shit in literally your next post.
​


----------



## WolfoxeCrevan (Oct 6, 2017)

I don't know, all the furries that I've actually known irl are female. And I guess that would just be 3 people but still.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> The same way we laughed when I got completely trashed over Teamspeak, we laughed back when someone else got trashed. If you can dish it out, you sure as hell have to expect to get shit dished back. It was fun as hell when we once in a while could actually trash BACK to our guild master when she made a bad call, ending in a wipe. We didn't talk for 5 minutes and went on about our mistakes 'n shit afterwards like it was nothing.
> 
> These relationships are about give and take. Send and receive. You can't always take, and you can't always send. Your gender in the vast majority of shit online matters not. In fact, I'd say in general your gender matters not. What matters is whether or not you're an obnoxious and annoying little shit.


Based on what you've said, you're talking about on-topic criticism of game performance. Harsh or not, that's a different matter than someone telling her fiancé he's shit in bed as you're coming up on a raid boss pull. What we were doing was basically everything (verbal) that would have HR on your ass for sexual harassment if you pulled it in a workplace situation. We were brutal. Most of the suggestions that have been made for what would drive women out of furry fandom have involved porn, sexuality, crude behavior, not giving people a hard time over screw-ups.

I don't feel that John Buck (we can't well call him "doe", can we?) commissioning porn or talking sex to his buddies should or would drive away people who'd otherwise be attracted to the community. If he propositions newly-minted furry Jane Doe off the bat, maybe she'll turn right around in the doorway. It's not wholly unreasonable; I've just not seen anything to suggest there's a significantly higher incidence of that sort of inappropriate behavior in furry fandom, than anywhere else that doesn't supposedly have an overwhelming male majority.

I'm still unconvinced that there is actually a significant gender/sex imbalance. We don't have reliable data.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 6, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I'm still unconvinced that there is actually a significant gender/sex imbalance. We don't have reliable data.


Same. 

There's also the issue of talking about outsiders while being insiders. Many people here are looking at this as "something is keeping women out" (biology, psychology, assholes etc) as opposed to " something is drawing more men in". If we're going to take that approach, we're going to be naturally hard pressed to come up with real data since the women who opted out aren't here.

Whatever is supposedly keeping women out of the fandom in this line of inquiry clearly did not affect me or any other lady who's on this thread. Our experiences are decidedly different, so despite being women, we won't necessarily have the right answer no matter how much we speculate. And we can't ask the women outside of the community because they aren't here, aren't taking furry surveys. 

With all the talk of data and facts, I have to say that we are not a good sample for study. We drank the kool aide, paid the price of admission, and decided we wanted to stay. What we need are those who didn't. Or we need to rephrase the question.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 6, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Based on what you've said, you're talking about on-topic criticism of game performance. Harsh or not, that's a different matter than someone telling her fiancé he's shit in bed as you're coming up on a raid boss pull. What we were doing was basically everything (verbal) that would have HR on your ass for sexual harassment if you pulled it in a workplace situation. We were brutal. Most of the suggestions that have been made for what would drive women out of furry fandom have involved porn, sexuality, crude behavior, not giving people a hard time over screw-ups.
> 
> I don't feel that John Buck (we can't well call him "doe", can we?) commissioning porn or talking sex to his buddies should or would drive away people who'd otherwise be attracted to the community. If he propositions newly-minted furry Jane Doe off the bat, maybe she'll turn right around in the doorway. It's not wholly unreasonable; I've just not seen anything to suggest there's a significantly higher incidence of that sort of inappropriate behavior in furry fandom, than anywhere else that doesn't supposedly have an overwhelming male majority.


We didn't throw only criticism. We threw insults and jokes that'd make people drop their jaws. The insults and jokes were heavy in everything from racist remarks to sexism. We all enjoyed it. We all participated. We acted like that with people in the in-group, the guild.



quoting_mungo said:


> I'm still unconvinced that there is actually a significant gender/sex imbalance. We don't have reliable data.


Then what sample size would satisfy you? What amount of people asked/surveyed would convince you? FAF's a too small a sample size, but around the 80/20 ratio do pop up a lot, including this forum.

The data we DO have are something, at least. It may be wrong. It may be somewhere in the middle. It may be bang on the money. We're not certain, but it does shed SOME light on potential actual ratios.

Until we have more reliable data, I will trust the data we actually have to an extent. If it turns out the ratios are wrong and more even, I will change my mind there after.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Then what sample size would satisfy you? What amount of people asked/surveyed would convince you?


The problem isn't with sample size. It's with sample bias. All the furry surveys I've seen and have seen referenced here have been self-selecting, distributed only via internet, have been designed either anonymously or by students, and do not discuss any kinds of bias that their data may have (let alone methodologies to account for that bias). These combine to mean we only have raw data and no context, and as a result the margins of error are probably too large to make it useful. Depending on those margins of error, we very well might have to sample a supermajority of the fandom just to show some discrepancy exists, and even more to show a large one.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 6, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> If he propositions newly-minted furry Jane Doe off the bat, maybe she'll turn right around in the doorway. It's not wholly unreasonable; I've just not seen anything to suggest there's a significantly higher incidence of that sort of inappropriate behavior in furry fandom, than anywhere else that doesn't supposedly have an overwhelming male majority.
> 
> I'm still unconvinced that there is actually a significant gender/sex imbalance. We don't have reliable data.



There is a way to get that data, but it would require sorting the server male/female users.  There's a pretty big sample of who has shown interest in the fandom based on created user profiles.  

Now, the painful legwork would be looking at each user, determining their length of tenure, coming to a still speculated conclusion of why they are: 1) no longer active, 2) how much they participated, and 3) if they are still active. 

 If messages are retained, it might show inappropriate behavior by others, and possibly linking envidence of being scared away if participation dropped shortly afterwards.  It would validate that particular conclusion.  

Still, it is a fact of life.  It's the same in the automotive crowd.  It's the same with the sportbike crowd.  Put a piece of cheese in a cage with a dozen mice, and you'll have alpha behavior take place. 

Now if you want to boost participation, make it worth participating.  Hold contests males can't participate in.  Give them their space where they don't have to "compete" with males.  Hell, give them a forum of their own, give them a place to vent to each other.   Provide as inviting an environment as possible.   

Maybe the population is lower, maybe it's not.  Does it all really matter?   Probably not.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 6, 2017)

Saiko said:


> The problem isn't with sample size. It's with sample bias. All the furry surveys I've seen and have seen referenced here have been self-selecting, distributed only via internet, have been designed either anonymously or by students, and do not discuss any kinds of bias that their data may have (let alone methodologies to account for that bias). These combine to mean we only have raw data and no context, and as a result the margins of error are probably too large to make it useful. Depending on those margins of error, we very well might have to sample a supermajority of the fandom just to show some discrepancy exists, and even more to show a large one.


Then how about we asked every single Furry on the planet? That leaves out any context needed, and any bias. 

But asking literally everyone is impossible, so we are going to have some form of data to draw from, even if it may be wrong. It's what we have currently. 

And if or when that data changes, so will people's view on the subject.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> But asking literally everyone is impossible, so we are going to have some form of data to draw from, even if it may be wrong. It's what we have currently.


The correct response to having unreliable data is to either find the information necessary to make it reliable or to acquire a new data set using techniques which you know produce reliable data. Deliberately proceeding with data you know is unreliable is at best irresponsible and at worst confirmation bias.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 6, 2017)

Saiko said:


> The correct response to having unreliable data is to either find the information necessary to make it reliable or to acquire a new data set using techniques which you know produce reliable data. Deliberately proceeding with data you know is unreliable is at best irresponsible and at worst confirmation bias.


I am not saying it's actually wrong data. I am saying it has the potential to be wrong, or at best, exaggerated. For all we know, the ratios ARE closer to 50/50. We don't know. The data we DO have say we have around an 80/20 split. So far.

This is the data we have SO FAR, and I will trust it to that extent. If or when that data changes, and it most likely will, my opinion on the topic will change. As I stated in my previous post.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 6, 2017)

Ginza said:


> I wouldn't say so. There are no laws that say men can do something that women can't. Therefore, any claim otherwise isn't true. Women have equal opportunities and treatment, by law. If anything, it's actually men who have harsher punishments (i.e. more jail time for same crimes, women always winning cases with children, etc). Especially, since there are women in other countries who are literally beaten or even killed for speaking, or removing their oppressive clothing. If someone were to tell me women were oppressed in third world countries, I'd 100% agree with you. However, feminism today pushes this rhetoric that women are so oppressed meanwhile, it couldn't be further from the truth
> 
> www.law.umich.edu: Study finds large gender disparities in federal criminal cases


What you wrote in that first post was a bit of a blanket statement, and I can think of a few examples of rather sexist "first-world" countries that would go against your generalisation; for instance South Korea, Japan and some of the Eastern European countries. Though if we're talking about the US, I'll mention that some of the more deeply religious areas seemingly have very traditional views of gender roles, similar to that of Japan and SK. There are also quite a fair number of states that limit the accessibility of abortion clinics to women, even in the case of her being raped - I don't know about you, but to me that seems pretty fucked up.

I'm not going to argue that women in the States face similar circumstances to those in very oppressive countries, but I certainly think there are areas that could be improved. And really, I don't think comparing oppression in developing nations with woes in the US is very meaningful in the first place, I mean surely it's a given that the US would be a nicer place to live for women than developing countries.



Saylor said:


> You’re right on with everything you said until that last bit. Go look at Forbe’s magazine and see who the top 5 most powerful people in the world are. That should be evidence for this case


Are we looking at the same list? Seeing only one woman in the top 5 isn't very convincing, neither is seeing that only 4 women make the top 50.

https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 6, 2017)

Lcs said:


> What you wrote in that first post was a bit of a blanket statement, and I can think of a few examples of rather sexist "first-world" countries that would go against your generalisation; for instance South Korea, Japan and some of the Eastern European countries. Though if we're talking about the US, I'll mention that some of the more deeply religious areas seemingly have very traditional views of gender roles, similar to that of Japan and SK. There are also quite a fair number of states that limit the accessibility of abortion clinics to women, even in the case of her being raped - I don't know about you, but to me that seems pretty fucked up.


Well, do you have any actual examples of a law in a first-world country where it says "Men can do X, women can't do X"? Social/local norms are not the same as actual law. Actual discrimination based on gender is illegal in the majority of civilized countries.

On South Korea:
Women in South Korea - Wikipedia
Legally, they are equal. Socially there are still some old fashioned and outdated views still in place.
On Japan:
Women in Japan - Wikipedia
Nope, still equal legally. Social differences can vary a lot from country to country. Still have some more old fashioned and outdated views in place.

As for Eastern European countries, I can't be assed to look up each and everyone of them. You may be right on one or two of them.

Abortion clinics is more of a State issue than a federal issue.



Lcs said:


> I'm not going to argue that women in the States face similar circumstances to those in very oppressive countries, but I certainly think there are areas that could be improved. And really, I don't think comparing oppression in developing nations with woes in the US is very meaningful in the first place, I mean surely it's a given that the US would be a nicer place to live for women than developing countries.


Which areas are we specifically talking about here? What are the specific problems with those areas? What can be improved/changed? I really hope you have some specifics we can go from, rather than vague statements with no suggestions or solutions.



Lcs said:


> Are we looking at the same list? Seeing only one woman in the top 5 isn't very convincing, neither is seeing that only 4 women make the top 50.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/powerful-people/list/


In the top 74, 6 are women. I will leave you with that information with however you want to interpret it.

Also, I forgot to link the Furry psychology video. It has a lot of interesting statistics.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 6, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> There is a way to get that data, but it would require sorting the server male/female users. There's a pretty big sample of who has shown interest in the fandom based on created user profiles.


It would also be highly unethical and possibly illegal (I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert on US contract law), given that such use of user data is not part of TOS. The data would also show possible selection bias, in that the "unspecified" crowd could feasibly also outnumber one or both groups, thus only being representative of people who have chosen to divulge their sex/gender, and that's assuming everyone is honest.



-..Legacy..- said:


> Now if you want to boost participation, make it worth participating. Hold contests males can't participate in. Give them their space where they don't have to "compete" with males. Hell, give them a forum of their own, give them a place to vent to each other. Provide as inviting an environment as possible.


I don't, as a rule, believe in shutting people out for the purpose of including people. Feels kinda ass-backwards to me. I have seen subcommunities for female furries, though I personally don't care to participate in pretty much any tit-gated community. If there is an underlying issue with male furs driving women out of fandom, I don't think creating a separate space for women will fix it. Maybe mitigate some of the effects, but the issue is still there. Taking an antihistamine doesn't stop you from being allergic, to make a stupid metaphor.

Furry community is, largely, one of those "you get out what you put in" places. The more people you interact with, the more attention you get. If you keep to yourself or your small circle of friends most of the time, you're going to have a harder time reaching and connecting with a wider crowd.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 6, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> It would also be highly unethical and possibly illegal (I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an expert on US contract law), given that such use of user data is not part of TOS. The data would also show possible selection bias, in that the "unspecified" crowd could feasibly also outnumber one or both groups, thus only being representative of people who have chosen to divulge their sex/gender, and that's assuming everyone is honest.



I did go to school for legal studies, and the TOS actually explicitly states it in several paragraphs:

"All Content you submit or upload may be reviewed by staff members. All Content you submit or upload may be sent to third-party verification services (including, but not limited to, spam prevention services). Do not submit any Content that you consider to be private or confidential. [...] You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."

Now, I do realize profiles never get updated in cases. I also realize people alter that particular information for their own reasons.  This wasn't the end-all-be-all of information, but only a new source of unused information.   Metaphorically speaking, there are lots of ballots still in the box.  All I did was give an option that I preemptively clarified would be a lot of work to retrieve.  I also mentioned it would still only be suggestive information. 




quoting_mungo said:


> I don't, as a rule, believe in shutting people out for the purpose of including people. Feels kinda ass-backwards to me. I have seen subcommunities for female furries, though I personally don't care to participate in pretty much any tit-gated community. If there is an underlying issue with male furs driving women out of fandom, I don't think creating a separate space for women will fix it. Maybe mitigate some of the effects, but the issue is still there. Taking an antihistamine doesn't stop you from being allergic, to make a stupid metaphor.



Again, it was just a suggestion/option.  Not everyone thinks/views the world the same way as another (and may consequently require different approaches), and these thread responses validate that theory.  Your metaphor isn't stupid either.  I literally troubleshoot systems all day. Treating symptoms instead of the cause isn't an effective problem solving technique.  Again, it's back to if it's even a problem.  



quoting_mungo said:


> Furry community is, largely, one of those "you get out what you put in" places. The more people you interact with, the more attention you get. If you keep to yourself or your small circle of friends most of the time, you're going to have a harder time reaching and connecting with a wider crowd.



I 100% agree with you here.  I have found resolving communication cures most forms of disagreement.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 7, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Well, do you have any actual examples of a law in a first-world country where it says "Men can do X, women can't do X"? Social/local norms are not the same as actual law. Actual discrimination based on gender is illegal in the majority of civilized countries.
> 
> On South Korea:
> Women in South Korea - Wikipedia
> ...


I was actually thinking more about how they're treated socially as a result of traditional viewpoints on gender roles rather than about legislation in SK and Japan, which consequently has resulted in very low labour participation rates for women compared to other developed countries, and it also means that casual forms of sexism are pretty normalised over there. I'll mention that when a survey was conducted on women in South Korea, only 2% believed that they were treated equally to men, compared to 93% that said they didn't believe they were treated equally. So yeah.

As for Eastern Europe, there are quite a fair number of problems, some even legislative. If I were to bring up two examples that I'm aware of, I'd point out that domestic abuse against women is rarely enforced or reported in Russia, and that in Belarus, the government is restrictive about what jobs women can take.



Yakamaru said:


> Actual discrimination based on gender is illegal in the majority of civilized countries.


It's actually not. I know that when you wrote this you were probably referring to discriminating against them in terms of things like employment and housing, but the way that you wrote this was a simplification.



Yakamaru said:


> Abortion clinics is more of a State issue than a federal issue.


I don't see how this is relevant. Whether it's a state issue or a federal issue, it's nonetheless still an issue. Making it so that, in effect, they cannot recieve a regulated abortion after being raped is dangerous and cruel.



Yakamaru said:


> Which areas are we specifically talking about here? What are the specific problems with those areas? What can be improved/changed? I really hope you have some specifics we can go from, rather than vague statements with no suggestions or solutions.


You can easily make inferences on what I think should be improved and in which areas based on my posts. I'm not going into specifics into what I think solutions could be because I don't want to get drawn into a conversation about that, I was instead only really ìnterested in pointing out that some women do have legitimate woes and that it's a generalisation to say that women aren't marginalised ever in first-world countries.

Edit: Moreover on the US, apparently there was just a roll back on free birth control for women, and so now some companies can opt-out of providing it. Pretty uncool tbh.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 7, 2017)

Lcs said:


> I was actually thinking more about how they're treated socially as a result of traditional viewpoints on gender roles rather than about legislation in SK and Japan, which consequently has resulted in very low labour participation rates for women compared to other developed countries, and it also means that casual forms of sexism are pretty normalised over there. I'll mention that when a survey was conducted on women in South Korea, only 2% believed that they were treated equally to men, compared to 93% that said they didn't believe they were treated equally. So yeah.


How men and women are treated socially will depend on their cultural background, cultural beliefs/views, traditions and how they have evolved over the many millennia. Yes, there is some casual sexism here and there. Which goes both ways.

I also came across a rather interesting article on Japan:
mitacampus.com: Japanese Women’s Happiness: Is it not Marriage anymore?

As social norms and traditions are slowly evolving to that of more equality socially, older traditions/views will slowly die out. Though they are still widespread due to the aging population and previous generation(s), these forms of casual sexism will slowly die out.

On the South Korean article, I question the methods used and the size of the sample. 1,257? Really? If some 100-200 thousand were asked I'd be more inclined to believe the statistics. Though if these statistics are even remotely close to what's actually going on over there, I'd be inclined to agree: They should change some social norms. Actually, these statistics on domestic shit can be found on some level all across the western countries. Actual domestic abuse is in a decent amount of countries illegal. Problem is, there are men and women who suffer from it that doesn't report it in fear of retribution from their partner. Psychological terror isn't exactly uncommon, as I've experienced that shit personally.

"The majority of those surveyed, or 23 percent, said that they had experienced sexual discrimination at home. Some 15 percent said they *had felt* discriminated against while driving or using public transport and 14 percent* had felt* that way at schools."

"Had felt". What you feel/perceive to be something may not necessarily be the case. And what is their definition of sexual discrimination?

Though I do find a lot of articles on South Korean women being discriminated against, and statistics to prove it, though the methods used, sample sizes and definitions of discrimination are vague. You may be onto something here.

mironline.ca: Gender Discrimination in South Korea – MIR
Found this article, too. Lol, shit's all assbackwards. In a lot of western countries women tend to get more lenient sentences on crimes committed, not to mention women are favored in the majority of child custody cases. Confucianism tend to give the two genders more traditional roles, which is heavily ingrained in South Korean society. Japan too, for that matter.



Lcs said:


> As for Eastern Europe, there are quite a fair number of problems, some even legislative. If I were to bring up two examples that I'm aware of, I'd point out that domestic abuse against women is rarely enforced or reported in Russia, and that in Belarus, the government is restrictive about what jobs women can take.


Ah yes, Belarus.
www.opendemocracy.net: In Belarus, women need not apply
And I quote:
"In June 2014, the Belarusian Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare approved a directive ‘On the amendment of the list of *physically-demanding jobs and jobs with harmful and/or unsafe working conditions*, for which women may not be recruited.’ The new regulations came into force in July."

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the list of banned occupations for women made a come-back in the now independent Belarus. In the year 2000, the Council of Ministers approved a directive banning women from 252 occupations which were *deemed too physically demanding and their conditions too harmful and/or unsafe.* Like the earlier lists, it was supposed to ‘improve women’s health and working conditions.’ By and large, the 252 occupations related to the chemical, mining, leather and heavy industries. In concrete terms, it banned women from becoming – among other things – train drivers, firefighters, blacksmiths, coach drivers on international routes, and drivers of large trucks."

As far as equality is concerned, it's backwards. In terms of protecting women, they have good reasons for it. I don't really agree with their decision, but I understand where they are coming from. Women are physically weaker than men, and Belarus have taken that into account and applied it to their society. Whether it's going to produce good, bad or indifferent results still remains to be seen.

As for the Russian article, it's sad.



Lcs said:


> It's actually not. I know that when you wrote this you were probably referring to discriminating against them in terms of things like employment and housing, but the way that you wrote this was a simplification.


Unless we are talking about specific situations/types/forms of discrimination we can sit here making vague statements all day, mate. You're going to have to be specific.



Lcs said:


> I don't see how this is relevant. Whether it's a state issue or a federal issue, it's nonetheless still an issue. Making it so that, in effect, they cannot recieve a regulated abortion after being raped is dangerous and cruel.


Abortion, like birth control, healthcare, etc, are services provided by the government and people who support it through taxes, not to mention the companies providing them. They are more a privilege than a right.

Yes, it's assbackwards that they can do whatever they please with it, but it's the law. Or rather, lack there of. The States that do away with abortion will see their women do it in a different State.



Lcs said:


> You can easily make inferences on what I think should be improved and in which areas based on my posts. I'm not going into specifics into what I think solutions could be because I don't want to get drawn into a conversation about that, I was instead only really ìnterested in pointing out that some women do have legitimate woes and that it's a generalisation to say that women aren't marginalised ever in first-world countries.
> 
> Edit: Moreover on the US, apparently there was just a roll back on free birth control for women, and so now some companies can opt-out of providing it. Pretty uncool tbh.


"You can easily make inferences on what I think should be improved and in which areas based on my posts"
Actually, no, I can't. You're being vague. Again. I hate vague. I asked which areas specifically can be improved upon, and what to do about it. Unless you are being specific, I will not know what areas you specifically have in mind.

" I'm not going into specifics into what I think solutions could be because I don't want to get drawn into a conversation about that, I was instead only really interested in pointing out that some women do have legitimate woes and that it's a generalization to say that women aren't marginalized ever in first-world countries."
And I am asking you to prove how they are marginalized. A bit of sexism here and there isn't proof, mate.

Western first-world countries can and will have a bit of sexism here and there. It also goes both ways. You can't do something about one of them while neglecting the other.

Yes, we have some women who do have legit woes. Same way we do with some men. Some men/women doesn't mean a whole gender is marginalized.

If we can identify the exact problems we can then move to identify the solutions.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 7, 2017)

I still think the answer to the question posed by the thread originally most likely is one (or both) of two things:

1) People getting their friends into fandom, and most people having predominantly same-sex/gender friends. I base this on the observation that largely, the people I get exposed to through my friends, tend to be either their partners or same sex they are (or both). Female furries I know, I've almost exclusively met through common interests, female friends, or people who are sleeping with them. Converse is mostly true for male furry friends.

2) There is some degree of absent-evidence-to-the-contrary assumption that if you don't know someone's sex/gender online, they're probably male. While there isn't anything inherently wrong with assuming something that's _usually_ true is also true in the specific case until you find out otherwise, for obvious reasons you can't let it become self-reinforcing.



-..Legacy..- said:


> I did go to school for legal studies, and the TOS actually explicitly states it in several paragraphs:
> 
> "All Content you submit or upload may be reviewed by staff members. All Content you submit or upload may be sent to third-party verification services (including, but not limited to, spam prevention services). Do not submit any Content that you consider to be private or confidential. [...] You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."


My mistake; based on your wording I thought you were referring to privileged user information, not public journals/submissions/profiles. Anyone can try to compile information from public profiles, though it'd be hella time consuming.


----------



## nekhromancy (Oct 7, 2017)

Yakamaru stopped contributing to the thread a long time ago, and just started talking about female psychology in general. Which is weird, coming from a guy.

The topic of the thread:
*Why are furries predominantly male?*

The answer:
*They aren't (as far as we can numerically prove, because the balance shifts drastically between furry platforms). But harassment and objectification is a key reason why we see less female furries in select environments.*


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 7, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> I still think the answer to the question posed by the thread originally most likely is one (or both) of two things:
> 
> 1) People getting their friends into fandom, and most people having predominantly same-sex/gender friends. I base this on the observation that largely, the people I get exposed to through my friends, tend to be either their partners or same sex they are (or both). Female furries I know, I've almost exclusively met through common interests, female friends, or people who are sleeping with them. Converse is mostly true for male furry friends.
> 
> 2) There is some degree of absent-evidence-to-the-contrary assumption that if you don't know someone's sex/gender online, they're probably male. While there isn't anything inherently wrong with assuming something that's _usually_ true is also true in the specific case until you find out otherwise, for obvious reasons you can't let it become self-reinforcing.


In terms of using the deep web, discussion forums, etc, men tend to be more abundant. In social media you see a lot more women. 

There are a lot of hidden effects that we don't see that influence these statistics. Until we have more reliable ways of finding out the ratios, it's the best we have so far.

What sample size would satisfy you?



nekhromancy said:


> *But harassment and objectification is a key reason why we see less female furries in select environments.*


Awwww, how cute. <3

Argument by assertion - RationalWiki

Put your evidence where your mouth is.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 8, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> What sample size would satisfy you?


The sample _size_ of The Furry Survey is fine. The problem is not sample size but the selection methods. I've said this before, and other users have said the same. You don't get a representative sample with self-selecting surveys. This is Research 101. (Actually, probably not even that, because I'm pretty sure I was taught about sample selection in some other subject altogether.)



nekhromancy said:


> They aren't (as far as we can numerically prove, because the balance shifts drastically between furry platforms). But harassment and objectification is a key reason why we see less female furries in select environments.


Correction: There's _no conclusive evidence_ to show that they are. It could be true, it could not be, we just don't know, because representative sample selection within a subculture is a bitch and a half. I personally _believe_ the demographics are a pretty even split sex/gender-wise, based on >15 years of casual observation, though if we're talking about gender identity we also have a significant portion of non-binary folks in the community, quite possibly larger than in the general population. 

I _would_ like to see what you're basing the assertion that we see fewer female furries due to harassment and/or objectification on. I've actually seen very little sex-based harassment in fandom. Most people find other reasons to be asses to each other. To the extent that sex-based harassment occurs, it seems to be disproportionately targeting trans and non-binary individuals, not women in general. Which, don't get me wrong, is shitty as hell, but it's a distinctly different kettle of fish.


----------



## Ginza (Oct 8, 2017)

nekhromancy said:


> Yakamaru stopped contributing to the thread a long time ago, and just started talking about female psychology in general. Which is weird, coming from a guy.
> 
> The topic of the thread:
> *Why are furries predominantly male?*
> ...



I'd like to point out that a topic swerving a bit away from what its original question was, is okay as long as it's relevant in the bigger picture. Since we were reviewing the biological and psychological reasons behind it being a mostly male dominated fandom, talking about dymorphism and the issues women supposedly face (which is somewhat of relevance to the original question) I'd say it's relevant. There's nothing wrong with a bit of discussion and debate lol


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 8, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> The sample _size_ of The Furry Survey is fine. The problem is not sample size but the selection methods. I've said this before, and other users have said the same. You don't get a representative sample with self-selecting surveys. This is Research 101. (Actually, probably not even that, because I'm pretty sure I was taught about sample selection in some other subject altogether.)


Yeah, true.



quoting_mungo said:


> Correction: There's _no conclusive evidence_ to show that they are. It could be true, it could not be, we just don't know, because representative sample selection within a subculture is a bitch and a half. I personally _believe_ the demographics are a pretty even split sex/gender-wise, based on >15 years of casual observation, though if we're talking about gender identity we also have a significant portion of non-binary folks in the community, quite possibly larger than in the general population.
> 
> I _would_ like to see what you're basing the assertion that we see fewer female furries due to harassment and/or objectification on. I've actually seen very little sex-based harassment in fandom. Most people find other reasons to be asses to each other. To the extent that sex-based harassment occurs, it seems to be disproportionately targeting trans and non-binary individuals, not women in general. Which, don't get me wrong, is shitty as hell, but it's a distinctly different kettle of fish.


The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim. Not on someone else who disagrees with you to debunk or disprove those claims. Although it's fun to debunk/disprove poorly argumented shit, ultimately it's not my job to prove you wrong. It's YOUR job to prove yourself right, or rather, your standpoint correct. I am not talking about you specifically of course, mungo. It's a "you" in a general sense.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Here's an example:
"Unicorns exist, I know they do!". Someone reacts with "No, they don't".

Based on how you act/behave next, it will have an affect on the conversation after that point. If you decide to insult those who disagree with you, if you decide to say "No, I am not wrong. YOU are wrong!" and double down on your claims, a mix of those and/or other ways to react without providing evidence for your standpoint, no one will take you seriously over time.

Personally I follow the 80/20 ratios, as the current data suggests. We see these numbers and variations of them pop up extremely often.

But science, and more importantly, people, are often wrong. The only right thing to do is to adjust ourselves accordingly if and when we are proven wrong. And if data pops up that show the 80/20 ratio in male/female ratios in the fandom wrong, I will adjust accordingly.



Ginza said:


> I'd like to point out that a topic swerving a bit away from what its original question was, is okay as long as it's relevant in the bigger picture. Since we were reviewing the biological and psychological reasons behind it being a mostly male dominated fandom, talking about dymorphism and the issues women supposedly face (which is somewhat of relevance to the original question) I'd say it's relevant. There's nothing wrong with a bit of discussion and debate lol


Psychology, biological factors, +++, they all affect how an individual behave, think and how they feel.

Leave out the psychology part, you leave out a huge portion of behavioural patterns that can easily be essential in how a human think. Leave out biological factors such as hormones, brain chemistry and instincts you leave out millions of years of evolution that have ingrained itself into our species that can and will affect us whether you consciously know/feel it or not.


----------



## SevenArms (Oct 8, 2017)

Maybe I'm over simplifying the matter, but I think that females are less active (maybe less predominant, but I can't confirm that) because a small part of the population, mostly males, tent to send creepy messages and notes when they see someone tagging herself as female. 

It's a shame, because I know this is not the majority. But if there's someone, who just open herself to the fandom, and some creepy dude start saying that they want to do all sort of pervert thing to her avatar, or start to asking for rl photos, or asking where they live, etc, the chances are that she will keep a low profile or she will just walk away. And if someone ask her "What the furry fandom is like?" She will have a first negative impression of it.

I don't know what kind of manners, or social interaction -those unspoken rules- you have in each one of your countries/families/social circles. But for me, you don't start sending pictures of yourself or telling where you live to total strangers. I think  that, because you aren't seeing the person in the face, people tent to be more direct. And when is a matter of business that's great, but when you are socializing, and trying to meet someone, you don't open your conversation with "hey show me you boobs" and you don't start asking for nudes 5 min after you start to talk with a woman. If she is open to that kind of behavior, she will probably tell that in her profile, but if she is not, don't get offended if she blocks you.  The harsh truth is that both of our brains work different, both are great and have amazing capacities, but in social interaction, the chemistry in out brains work different. So what works for you to make a connection with a male friend, may not work for a female. But a simple standard is, don't be creepy. Don't scare the girls. You are not being funny and you are making a bad reputation for the fandom.


----------



## JesterKatz (Oct 8, 2017)

SevenArms said:


> Maybe I'm over simplifying the matter, but I think that females are less active (maybe less predominant, but I can't confirm that) because a small part of the population, mostly males, tent to send creepy messages and notes when they see someone tagging herself as female.
> 
> It's a shame, because I know this is not the majority. But if there's someone, who just open herself to the fandom, and some creepy dude start saying that they want to do all sort of pervert thing to her avatar, or start to asking for rl photos, or asking where they live, etc, the chances are that she will keep a low profile or she will just walk away. And if someone ask her "What the furry fandom is like?" She will have a first negative impression of it.
> 
> I don't know what kind of manners, or social interaction -those unspoken rules- you have in each one of your countries/families/social circles. But for me, you don't start sending pictures of yourself or telling where you live to total strangers. I think  that, because you aren't seeing the person in the face, people tent to be more direct. And when is a matter of business that's great, but when you are socializing, and trying to meet someone, you don't open your conversation with "hey show me you boobs" and you don't start asking for nudes 5 min after you start to talk with a woman. If she is open to that kind of behavior, she will probably tell that in her profile, but if she is not, don't get offended if she blocks you.  The harsh truth is that both of our brains work different, both are great and have amazing capacities, but in social interaction, the chemistry in out brains work different. So what works for you to make a connection with a male friend, may not work for a female. But a simple standard is, don't be creepy. Don't scare the girls. You are not being funny and you are making a bad reputation for the fandom.



Well considering a part of the fandom involves anthromorphic cartoon characters (notably female) that are drawn to be pretty damned oversexed
(´・ω・)ﾉ  and I'm part of that problem!
it would kinda makes sense that certain people would believe, "hey, this fandom is full of perverts just like me! This must include the females too! I'm gonna PM this girl for her to show me her boobs!"
I'm guessing this is a big reason the forum is strictly PG-13

It probably doesn't help that people outside the fandom think no better. I.e. "she's part of that furry fandom, she must be a slut!" Which can make it even more pressing to make it private that you're a furry. I wouldn't be surprised if female furs get unsolicited messages from both outside and inside the fandom. I'm not even going to bother wondering which are worse...


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 8, 2017)

SevenArms said:


> Maybe I'm over simplifying the matter, but I think that females are less active (maybe less predominant, but I can't confirm that) because a small part of the population, mostly males, tent to send creepy messages and notes when they see someone tagging herself as female.
> 
> It's a shame, because I know this is not the majority. But if there's someone, who just open herself to the fandom, and some creepy dude start saying that they want to do all sort of pervert thing to her avatar, or start to asking for rl photos, or asking where they live, etc, the chances are that she will keep a low profile or she will just walk away. And if someone ask her "What the furry fandom is like?" She will have a first negative impression of it.
> 
> I don't know what kind of manners, or social interaction -those unspoken rules- you have in each one of your countries/families/social circles. But for me, you don't start sending pictures of yourself or telling where you live to total strangers. I think  that, because you aren't seeing the person in the face, people tent to be more direct. And when is a matter of business that's great, but when you are socializing, and trying to meet someone, you don't open your conversation with "hey show me you boobs" and you don't start asking for nudes 5 min after you start to talk with a woman. If she is open to that kind of behavior, she will probably tell that in her profile, but if she is not, don't get offended if she blocks you.  The harsh truth is that both of our brains work different, both are great and have amazing capacities, but in social interaction, the chemistry in out brains work different. So what works for you to make a connection with a male friend, may not work for a female. But a simple standard is, don't be creepy. Don't scare the girls. You are not being funny and you are making a bad reputation for the fandom.



I actually agree with all of this, hear me out on what I've observed. 

/ranton 

When I was in school, we didn't have cell phones like today.  A couple rich kids had them, but we had pagers mostly.  Internet was something only one computer in the library had.  

Male/Female interaction (don't read into that too deep) in general had more effort required, because you had to present yourself better.  There wasn't much of an anonymous personality you could hide on the internet with.  You were who you were.    People had to interact with others better, or you simply got blacklisted for being an asshole/whatever.  It stuck with you, you can't shake it.  There was a much better understanding of what respect was, and there could be some pretty nasty consequences to running your mouth at the wrong time.  People understood what consequences were, and they had to, because you had a limited environment around you to waste. 

Fast forward to today, holy shit.  Being respectful is now the anomaly.   The internet has given people this disconnect on how to interact with people anymore.  The amount of people you can interact with is endless, and relationships are easily disposable.  It's somehow normal to have split personalities:  one is their real life, the other is the one that can feel no remorse.  You screw up online? Fuck it, make a new profile.  You can't reset stupidity in real life.  

Unfortunately, this has trickled out to the real world.  There isn't as much consequence felt anymore, no concern over what ripple effects you create.   It's all about one's self nowadays.  People aren't valuing anything anymore, part of our new "throw away society."

/rantoff.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 8, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I actually agree with all of this, hear me out on what I've observed.
> 
> /ranton
> 
> ...


Social Psychologists have observed similar things, though not just online. Any situation that allows for a sense of anonymity can lead to changes in behavior, particularly for the worse. 


Spoiler: citations



Zimmerman, A. G., & Ybarra, G. J. (2016). Online aggression: The influences of anonymity and social modeling. _Psychology Of Popular Media Culture_, _5_(2), 181-193. doi:10.1037/ppm0000038
Yam, K. C., & Reynolds, S. J. (2016). The effects of victim anonymity on unethical behavior. _Journal Of Business Ethics_, _136_(1), 13-22. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2367-5
Barlett, C. P., Gentile, D. A., & Chew, C. (2016). Predicting cyberbullying from anonymity. _Psychology Of Popular Media Culture_, _5_(2), 171-180. doi:10.1037/ppm0000055
Mann, L. (1981). The baiting crowd in episodes of threatened suicide. _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41_(4), 703-709.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.703


If we're proposing the hypothesis that shitty online behavior by males is keeping female participation in the fandom down, there's definitely previous scholarly work that could support it.


----------



## Filter (Oct 8, 2017)

In my personal experience, creators in the fandom are closer to 50/50, with women being the majority in some areas. These are the artists, the writers, the fursuit makers et al. Many of whom were making anthropomorphic animal material before they learned about the fandom. Given their longterm interest in these characters, in my opinion, they are more likely to be furries for life. These people seem to be a bit older on average, as well. I recall reading somewhere that the average furry artist is over 30, but don't quote me on that. I know many who are actually closer to 40, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Where does this leave the rest of the fandom? I think it's probably more socially acceptable for gay dudes to be openly into cute fluffy things. And women would rather be where the straight dudes or lesbian women are. Along with that, a whole bunch are probably only here to meet those guys. The latter latter strike me as fair-weather fans, and probably shouldn't be lumped together with the lifers when tallying the stats, but who knows? Maybe they'll end up liking it so much that they stay.

And yes, the smut turns some women away. Heck, it also turns some men away.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 8, 2017)

Filter said:


> And yes, the smut turns some women away. Heck, it also turns some men away.



Pretty much. Not all of us really get into that aspect of the art, and there is no shortage of it by any means.


----------



## Simo (Oct 8, 2017)

I think the answer is simple: boys reach their sexual peak earlier, at around 16-20, and women the age tends to be 27 and higher.

And given the age demographic of the fandom, you got all these horny boys wantin' to have fun. It's kinda basic, when I think of it. Because I do think the sensual and sexual nature of the fandom are a key part of not; not the only part, but certainly a part I've enjoyed in its melding of the sexual and the imaginative, and I can also see it being a gateway to exploring one's sexuality in general.

So, the answer is: curious, horny boys.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 9, 2017)

I don't know. Most of the folks I've know in the fandom have been non-cisgender, not really conforming to the old binary sorting. Gender is a spectrum, after all, it's about more than just the naughty bits.


----------



## rufe-squirrel (Oct 11, 2017)

I am 100% certain that there are equal the ammount of female furries out there.  Its just that the predominat culture on sexuality that makes womens roles one of maternity, celibacy, and demure beauty pretty much shames girls into hiding or erasing their furry fandom interests.  If its not men trying to push women to be sexually meek and monogamous, its other women acting as custodians to the 'feminine role'.... bullying and shunning girls who are kinky or just simply want to live a different lifestyle outside the norm.  Ive met a lot of female artists who have confided in me their erotic fandom for furs, but they can never share it or come out about it for fear of destroying their relationships with their families and female friends.  The other girls I know who actually are very open about their love of fur fandom are kind of treated as crazy and unstable.

Its the fault of the societal system we have constructed around gender and lifestyles.


----------



## Dongding (Oct 13, 2017)

I think the peepees led a lot of us males to furriness. There's messed up stuff I can find here that seems to only exist on furry sites. Period.

I think after sticking around for a while the person branches out and become a more well-rounded furry who starts participating in other furry things.


----------



## lupi900 (Oct 14, 2017)

No idea but oddly every furry I've met has been female.


----------



## Raptary (Apr 18, 2021)

I think it's because of the hormone Vasopressin which is much more prevalent in men. Vasopressin is the hormone in men required for male bonding, but it is used for other things as well. If you're a guy, you do something, and you like it vasopressin is there to only make you want it more. Females just simply don't get enough to the same effect. They normally get initial oxytocin highs and then they die off quickly. So where as a guy growing up will only become more intrinsically interested in the furry fandom or treating their fursona as an identity. A girls interest will waver over time if new highs aren't met. This is probably the best explanation I could find anyways.


----------



## TyraWadman (Apr 18, 2021)

*hobbles in with cane and beard* I don't know, fellers! I tried looking at all the gay bars and I asked that well-endowed gentleman behind the counter if they'd seen any women around but I just couldn't find any!

*Attempts to sit down, but then falls over, having PTSD flashbacks of "GIRLS DONT EXIST ON THE INTERNET" and "WOMEN BELONG IN THE KITCHEN" and other activities that would otherwise prevent them from online participation*

Sorry about that fellers!  It's about high time I take my medicine and resume my search for more BWILA!

[because it's probably hard to make sense of it all: generic sexism plus not looking in the right spaces, and even if you asked for a show of hands. people do not like blatantly advertising their gender sometimes (because it shouldn't typically matter, but it usually changes how people respond to them) and the whole gender/trans acceptance wasn't as strong as it is nowadays]


----------



## the sleepiest kitty (Apr 18, 2021)

Don't know, but I wish there were more women in the fandom. I'd love to have more female friends, not just men.


----------

