f0xr on Nostr: I think it's a personality difference fundamentally. Since the OP was about women ...
I think it's a personality difference fundamentally. Since the OP was about women specifically being chased off, I'll go ahead and give a hot take that's guaranteed to make me some enemies 😅
Feminine antisocial behavior (gossip, insults, reputation savaging, cliques, social shaming, ostracizing, etc) scales extremely well on social media. Masculine temperaments are less effected by these types of attacks. There's a biological reason for that.
Men are often valued for what they can produce materially. If a man has talent and skills, he can provide value and always find a market to support himself, even if he's an asshole and most people don't like him. Therefore men care less about what other people think of them, and more about their own ability to produce, provide and protect.
Women are often valued for their nurturing and caring ability. Both men and women's skills are equally valuable and essential. But women are dependent on a social support network for their physical well-being, while they're busy using their nurturing abilities to provide the long-term survival of the species. Less obviously so in the modern economy, but that's still the biological reality. That makes social rejection much more threatening to women, because it's historically been a matter of life and death.
My working hypothesis is that bringing women into public institutions and politics over the past century is the underlying pressure behind the increasing trend toward censorship, safety culture, and other aspects of feminine temperament that have become pervasive.
Because of that, I don't expect women to ever gravitate toward fully open and unrestricted social platforms. I would expect that the more women move to a platform, the more there will be increasing calls for censorship, self-censorship, and ways to filter and restrict speech.
*to be clear, temperament overlaps significantly between men and women, and what generalizes to women also applies to men with a more feminine temperament, and vice versa
Feminine antisocial behavior (gossip, insults, reputation savaging, cliques, social shaming, ostracizing, etc) scales extremely well on social media. Masculine temperaments are less effected by these types of attacks. There's a biological reason for that.
Men are often valued for what they can produce materially. If a man has talent and skills, he can provide value and always find a market to support himself, even if he's an asshole and most people don't like him. Therefore men care less about what other people think of them, and more about their own ability to produce, provide and protect.
Women are often valued for their nurturing and caring ability. Both men and women's skills are equally valuable and essential. But women are dependent on a social support network for their physical well-being, while they're busy using their nurturing abilities to provide the long-term survival of the species. Less obviously so in the modern economy, but that's still the biological reality. That makes social rejection much more threatening to women, because it's historically been a matter of life and death.
My working hypothesis is that bringing women into public institutions and politics over the past century is the underlying pressure behind the increasing trend toward censorship, safety culture, and other aspects of feminine temperament that have become pervasive.
Because of that, I don't expect women to ever gravitate toward fully open and unrestricted social platforms. I would expect that the more women move to a platform, the more there will be increasing calls for censorship, self-censorship, and ways to filter and restrict speech.
*to be clear, temperament overlaps significantly between men and women, and what generalizes to women also applies to men with a more feminine temperament, and vice versa