Female members

I don't wish to be a miserable killjoy but if SD is serious about attracting lady members to the site and developing their interest in stalking then perhaps some of the more lewd and crude comments need to be toned down a bit. The naked lady with the bow in jokes and funnies was notably bad in this respect and soon removed by admin. atb Tim
:old:
 
I don't wish to be a miserable killjoy but if SD is serious about attracting lady members to the site and developing their interest in stalking then perhaps some of the more lewd and crude comments need to be toned down a bit. The naked lady with the bow in jokes and funnies was notably bad in this respect and soon removed by admin. atb Tim
:old:

Tim I worked in a print finishing room full of women and I can assure you, the conversations they had were far worse than anything that's ever been discussed on here.
 
+1 on that. I have just taken a slagging on another thread for earning my living. Theres too much of it. There is another problem too. From what I see a house hold only seems to be able to have one member per internet address which means that a husband and wife can not both join from the same household email address? is that so?

Mark

Mark,

That is not the case, we have several members who share the same IP address as their spouse or friends from time to time. We as in Admin are aware of this and it is generally not a problem.
 
Tim I worked in a print finishing room full of women and I can assure you, the conversations they had were far worse than anything that's ever been discussed on here.

That doesn't surprise me in the least but to my mind there is a quite a difference between a bit of light hearted banter amongst close friends and going onto an unfamiliar internet site, I expect that some ladies find that a little off putting. atb Tim
 
I would also point out that this site welcomes all stalkers, deer managers, country people of all genders and although we do have the odd troublesome person in general I think it is a fair and strongly moderated site that seems to be out growing most other sites. But then as I am one of the owners I am biased anyway :D
 
From the basis I outlined above - and that is admittedly a relatively small and narrow niche sample - the feedback is slightly at odds with sikamalc's position ( I say slightly, because in a number of respects he is spot on ).

Feedback now as opposed to say 12 months ago is much more positive overall. That is very much attributable to much more 'robust' moderation. I ve covered before what a difficult line Admin try to walk I do appreciate both sides of the equation. But I for one welcome a harder and more proactive Moderator line and would like to see it raised just a notch more. You admin guys still have too much of a social life! ;)

I appreciate its an inclusive forum and should reflect the members as a group with common interest. I welcome that threads stray outwith strict deer stalking - I believe that makes for a stronger forum and espirit de corp. Last thing we want is for clone like agreement on all topics, but I still argue that polite debate is effective debate.

There are increasing numbers joining - great - but the real question is how many members take active part, how many watch only and how many rarely return. And why?

On same basis - female feedback remains unaltered. Out of something like 22 ladies recommended to view SD in the last 12 months I dont think a single one went on to join. I've spoken further with about 16/18 of those and in each case the responses were similar -

1. Atmosphere - pub/rugby club impression left. - Its a forum for all, not a monastary. A number of people have related to me that they talk here as they do at the pub. Thats their call and I do understand their general outlook. But read the posts above - how many in honesty would be completely comfortable talking that way in front of wives, daughters etc? Please be clear, that's not meant to judge anyone else, but try to look at the issue of 'why'. My good lady is ex TA infantry, shown this thread her view is that the majority of females will form an impression - and not a particularly positive one of the SD membership. She appreciated that people were having a laugh, but the effect was perhaps not thought through.

So what? 'They' either accept us as 'we' are or go elsewhere! '?' Not exactly inclusive is it? And do we as a forum want to effectively run on the basis of having a good chance of alienating 50% of the population - stalkers or not - who may look in on SD? I'll rephrase that - 50% of the voting population.

2. Those that looked deeper all went to the intro/ members lists and found one or two posts by ladies. Try it with open eyes guys - it doesnt make happy reading.

3. Because of 1 & 2 those ladies didnt give SD the chance to show how things have improved - and they have in general terms of silliness and aggression - perfect - no, but much better. Effectively they have been excluded from this inclusive forum.

So what - 'we' stalk to get away from home/ women etc? Who is 'we' paleface? There are two sides to be acknowledged and given fair accommodation. But as it stands 'we' are keeping a good number of people interested in stalking away from active involvement in SD - I dont believe that is a good thing. Seems to me that broad pews work well and tend to last. Narrow pews just seem to fall over sooner or later.

Fully appreciate its a bloke pontificating on behalf of ladies and really down to them to speak on their own behalf in terms of answering the original posters question. Aside from welcome post from Linda, that none have done so should be actually speaking quite loudly!

:tiphat:
 
Last edited:
Valid points all espically about members not taking part, in some instances because of being gang rapped by post for saying something that maybe doesn't sit well with a groupe of friends onhere so they all have a pop bit like bullies in a gang and I think the general attitude on here is of a BOYS/MEN'S club which is not in any way inclusive of women! I do not however think that further CENSORSHIP by admin is theway forward I think there is too much already as we are all responsible adults most with FAC SGC so should alway be tempered with common sense it's more that attitudes in general need to change, this forum is about traditional pursuits that Women were traditionally excluded from and we have not moved into the 21st century with our attitudes towards this and as such the forum hasn't either nothing is going to change that overnight it wil be a long cultural change that can be helped & encouraged but not forced upon the membership.
I was once told that SD was the most left wing, racist, shovanist forum theyhad ever bin on and they loved it, I can't say this surprised me but it speaks volumes of some people's first impressions of this site and only the members can change this, not admin, rules, or censorship it will be a long path some may never take and that is their right and they should not be ridiculed for it or excluded for it, it is everyone's right to have their own feelings & opinions and be free to express them through speech,at the moment.
Rant over I welcome all women to the site please feel free to bring your recipes nd sewing skills to our attention :doh:
just joking.
From the basis I outlined above - and that is admittedly a relatively small and narrow niche sample - the feedback is slightly at odds with sikamalc's position ( I say slightly, because in a number of respects he is spot on ).

Feedback now as opposed to say 12 months ago is much more positive overall. That is very much attributable to much more 'robust' moderation. I ve covered before what a difficult line Admin try to walk I do appreciate both sides of the equation. But I for one welcome a harder and more proactive Moderator line and would like to see it raised just a notch more. You admin guys still have too much of a social life! ;)

I appreciate its an inclusive forum and should reflect the members as a group with common interest. I welcome that threads stray outwith strict deer stalking - I believe that makes for a stronger forum and espirit de corp. Last thing we want is for clone like agreement on all topics, but I still argue that polite debate is effective debate.

There are increasing numbers joining - great - but the real question is how many members take active part, how many watch only and how many rarely return. And why?

On same basis - female feedback remains unaltered. Out of something like 22 ladies recommended to view SD in the last 12 months I dont think a single one went on to join. I've spoken further with about 16/18 of those and in each case the responses were similar -

1. Atmosphere - pub/rugby club impression left. - Its a forum for all, not a monastary. A number of people have related to me that they talk here as they do at the pub. Thats their call and I do understand their general outlook. But read the posts above - how many in honesty would be completely comfortable talking that way in front of wives, daughters etc? Please be clear, that's not meant to judge anyone else, but try to look at the issue of 'why'. My good lady is ex TA infantry, shown this thread her view is that the majority of females will form an impression - and not a particularly positive one of the SD membership. She appreciated that people were having a laugh, but the effect was perhaps not thought through.

So what? 'They' either accept us as 'we' are or go elsewhere! '?' Not exactly inclusive is it? And do we as a forum want to effectively run on the basis of having a good chance of alienating 50% of the population - stalkers or not - who may look in on SD? I'll rephrase that - 50% of the voting population.

2. Those that looked deeper all went to the intro/ members lists and found one or two posts by ladies. Try it with open eyes guys - it doesnt make happy reading.

3. Because of 1 & 2 those ladies didnt give SD the chance to show how things have improved - and they have in general terms of silliness and aggression - perfect - no, but much better. Effective they have been excluded from this inclusive forum.

So what - 'we' stalk to get away from home/ women etc? Who is 'we' paleface? There are two sides to be acknowledged and given fair accommodation. But as it stands 'we' are keeping a good number of people interested in stalking away from active involvement in SD - I dont believe that is a good thing. Seems to me that broad pews work well and tend to last. Narrow pews just seem to fall over sooner or later.

Fully appreciate its a bloke pontificating on behalf of ladies and really down to them to speak on their own behalf in terms of answering the original posters question. Aside from welcome post from Linda, that none have done so should be actually speaking quite loudly!

:tiphat:
 
Now tell me that Andy does not have a point, you can't because he does. So why don't we all try a little harder to post in a manner that we would if dealing with the ladies in our life. That does not mean no craic or jokes just maybe a little more thought for other peoples feelings, a little more awareness of just who the audience is and realisation that you are not in a private conversation with a few of your mates.

It is something we should bear in mind when responding to all threads especially the controversial or emotive ones as once you have put it out there it is for everyone to see and use. It is no good crying that it has been taken out of context, it matters not it can and will be used by the antis or whoever as a stick to beat us with. So how about we all try a bit harder and think just a wee bit more before pressing the enter key.

Rocket science it is not.

John

From the basis I outlined above - and that is admittedly a relatively small and narrow niche sample - the feedback is slightly at odds with sikamalc's position ( I say slightly, because in a number of respects he is spot on ).

Feedback now as opposed to say 12 months ago is much more positive overall. That is very much attributable to much more 'robust' moderation. I ve covered before what a difficult line Admin try to walk I do appreciate both sides of the equation. But I for one welcome a harder and more proactive Moderator line and would like to see it raised just a notch more. You admin guys still have too much of a social life! ;)

I appreciate its an inclusive forum and should reflect the members as a group with common interest. I welcome that threads stray outwith strict deer stalking - I believe that makes for a stronger forum and espirit de corp. Last thing we want is for clone like agreement on all topics, but I still argue that polite debate is effective debate.

There are increasing numbers joining - great - but the real question is how many members take active part, how many watch only and how many rarely return. And why?

On same basis - female feedback remains unaltered. Out of something like 22 ladies recommended to view SD in the last 12 months I dont think a single one went on to join. I've spoken further with about 16/18 of those and in each case the responses were similar -

1. Atmosphere - pub/rugby club impression left. - Its a forum for all, not a monastary. A number of people have related to me that they talk here as they do at the pub. Thats their call and I do understand their general outlook. But read the posts above - how many in honesty would be completely comfortable talking that way in front of wives, daughters etc? Please be clear, that's not meant to judge anyone else, but try to look at the issue of 'why'. My good lady is ex TA infantry, shown this thread her view is that the majority of females will form an impression - and not a particularly positive one of the SD membership. She appreciated that people were having a laugh, but the effect was perhaps not thought through.

So what? 'They' either accept us as 'we' are or go elsewhere! '?' Not exactly inclusive is it? And do we as a forum want to effectively run on the basis of having a good chance of alienating 50% of the population - stalkers or not - who may look in on SD? I'll rephrase that - 50% of the voting population.

2. Those that looked deeper all went to the intro/ members lists and found one or two posts by ladies. Try it with open eyes guys - it doesnt make happy reading.

3. Because of 1 & 2 those ladies didnt give SD the chance to show how things have improved - and they have in general terms of silliness and aggression - perfect - no, but much better. Effectively they have been excluded from this inclusive forum.

So what - 'we' stalk to get away from home/ women etc? Who is 'we' paleface? There are two sides to be acknowledged and given fair accommodation. But as it stands 'we' are keeping a good number of people interested in stalking away from active involvement in SD - I dont believe that is a good thing. Seems to me that broad pews work well and tend to last. Narrow pews just seem to fall over sooner or later.

Fully appreciate its a bloke pontificating on behalf of ladies and really down to them to speak on their own behalf in terms of answering the original posters question. Aside from welcome post from Linda, that none have done so should be actually speaking quite loudly!

:tiphat:
 
From the basis I outlined above - and that is admittedly a relatively small and narrow niche sample - the feedback is slightly at odds with sikamalc's position ( I say slightly, because in a number of respects he is spot on ).

Feedback now as opposed to say 12 months ago is much more positive overall. That is very much attributable to much more 'robust' moderation. I ve covered before what a difficult line Admin try to walk I do appreciate both sides of the equation. But I for one welcome a harder and more proactive Moderator line and would like to see it raised just a notch more. You admin guys still have too much of a social life! ;)

I appreciate its an inclusive forum and should reflect the members as a group with common interest. I welcome that threads stray outwith strict deer stalking - I believe that makes for a stronger forum and espirit de corp. Last thing we want is for clone like agreement on all topics, but I still argue that polite debate is effective debate.

There are increasing numbers joining - great - but the real question is how many members take active part, how many watch only and how many rarely return. And why?

On same basis - female feedback remains unaltered. Out of something like 22 ladies recommended to view SD in the last 12 months I dont think a single one went on to join. I've spoken further with about 16/18 of those and in each case the responses were similar -

1. Atmosphere - pub/rugby club impression left. - Its a forum for all, not a monastary. A number of people have related to me that they talk here as they do at the pub. Thats their call and I do understand their general outlook. But read the posts above - how many in honesty would be completely comfortable talking that way in front of wives, daughters etc? Please be clear, that's not meant to judge anyone else, but try to look at the issue of 'why'. My good lady is ex TA infantry, shown this thread her view is that the majority of females will form an impression - and not a particularly positive one of the SD membership. She appreciated that people were having a laugh, but the effect was perhaps not thought through.

So what? 'They' either accept us as 'we' are or go elsewhere! '?' Not exactly inclusive is it? And do we as a forum want to effectively run on the basis of having a good chance of alienating 50% of the population - stalkers or not - who may look in on SD? I'll rephrase that - 50% of the voting population.

2. Those that looked deeper all went to the intro/ members lists and found one or two posts by ladies. Try it with open eyes guys - it doesnt make happy reading.

3. Because of 1 & 2 those ladies didnt give SD the chance to show how things have improved - and they have in general terms of silliness and aggression - perfect - no, but much better. Effectively they have been excluded from this inclusive forum.

So what - 'we' stalk to get away from home/ women etc? Who is 'we' paleface? There are two sides to be acknowledged and given fair accommodation. But as it stands 'we' are keeping a good number of people interested in stalking away from active involvement in SD - I dont believe that is a good thing. Seems to me that broad pews work well and tend to last. Narrow pews just seem to fall over sooner or later.

Fully appreciate its a bloke pontificating on behalf of ladies and really down to them to speak on their own behalf in terms of answering the original posters question. Aside from welcome post from Linda, that none have done so should be actually speaking quite loudly!

:tiphat:

This man's posts should be collected, edited and stickied at the top of the main page as a guide to civil discourse on public fora.

Outstanding good sense, articulately presented.
 
CM

We can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of voluntary change - Lawrence Olivier once said on interview ' the key to playing a bad guy is to realisation that bad guys dont believe they are'. Not really wanting to introduce the perjorative 'bad' into the equation. But I do believe that many people do not realise anything is amiss.

I see admin as captains of a ship - they control the direction, the passengers/ crew have quite a degree of latitude in deciding what happens on that ship.

I think we perhaps see the same thing from opposite directions . Your penultimate line - 'members can change this, not admin, rules, or censorship it will be a long path some may never take and that is their right and they should not be ridiculed for it or excluded for it, it is everyone's right to have their own feelings & opinions and be free to express them through speech,at the moment.'

Is right - but from perhaps both perspectives. No one should be ridiculed/ excluded - but the actions of some are - I argue - doing exactly that.

I'm not Admin, really just another member, so all this is really just floating a view - it is not a mandate, plan nor judgement.

But how SD is perceived reflects upon the whole membership. I remain seized of the idea ( no proof, so just an idea ) that a relative small number of members are setting a tone that whilst acceptable is actually precluding a bigger silent number of members. If this is the case, I do not assert it is any deliberate act - perhaps merely a reflection of the way most societies interact.
 
Well put, I agree, ((and like the LO quote,)espically with the small number of members setting the tone, but there are several small numbers not just setting the tone but other things also, but, this is representative of our society. IMHO most members are very traditional in their views thus the punns and innocently made (in the eye of the poster as per quote)comments that can cause offence or put people off participating in the site, as with most things education is better than punishment and that's the direction I think we should take rather than enforcement its a very fine ballancing act so as to not alienate one group at the cost of another if we constrain one to include another arent we then in the same boat and vice versa but we can disagree on that, because i dont have the answer to that problem, the outcome we want I think is the same a happy environment in which to socialise and learn akin to a campus online where all are welcome and included and free to express their opinions without consequence.

CM

We can agree to disagree on the effectiveness of voluntary change - Lawrence Olivier once said on interview ' the key to playing a bad guy is to realisation that bad guys dont believe they are'. Not really wanting to introduce the perjorative 'bad' into the equation. But I do believe that many people do not realise anything is amiss.

I see admin as captains of a ship - they control the direction, the passengers/ crew have quite a degree of latitude in deciding what happens on that ship.

I think we perhaps see the same thing from opposite directions . Your penultimate line - 'members can change this, not admin, rules, or censorship it will be a long path some may never take and that is their right and they should not be ridiculed for it or excluded for it, it is everyone's right to have their own feelings & opinions and be free to express them through speech,at the moment.'

Is right - but from perhaps both perspectives. No one should be ridiculed/ excluded - but the actions of some are - I argue - doing exactly that.

I'm not Admin, really just another member, so all this is really just floating a view - it is not a mandate, plan nor judgement.

But how SD is perceived reflects upon the whole membership. I remain seized of the idea ( no proof, so just an idea ) that a relative small number of members are setting a tone that whilst acceptable is actually precluding a bigger silent number of members. If this is the case, I do not assert it is any deliberate act - perhaps merely a reflection of the way most societies interact.
[/QUOTE]
 
From the basis I outlined above - and that is admittedly a relatively small and narrow niche sample - the feedback is slightly at odds with sikamalc's position ( I say slightly, because in a number of respects he is spot on ).

Feedback now as opposed to say 12 months ago is much more positive overall. That is very much attributable to much more 'robust' moderation. I ve covered before what a difficult line Admin try to walk I do appreciate both sides of the equation. But I for one welcome a harder and more proactive Moderator line and would like to see it raised just a notch more. You admin guys still have too much of a social life! ;)

I appreciate its an inclusive forum and should reflect the members as a group with common interest. I welcome that threads stray outwith strict deer stalking - I believe that makes for a stronger forum and espirit de corp. Last thing we want is for clone like agreement on all topics, but I still argue that polite debate is effective debate.

There are increasing numbers joining - great - but the real question is how many members take active part, how many watch only and how many rarely return. And why?

On same basis - female feedback remains unaltered. Out of something like 22 ladies recommended to view SD in the last 12 months I dont think a single one went on to join. I've spoken further with about 16/18 of those and in each case the responses were similar -

1. Atmosphere - pub/rugby club impression left. - Its a forum for all, not a monastary. A number of people have related to me that they talk here as they do at the pub. Thats their call and I do understand their general outlook. But read the posts above - how many in honesty would be completely comfortable talking that way in front of wives, daughters etc? Please be clear, that's not meant to judge anyone else, but try to look at the issue of 'why'. My good lady is ex TA infantry, shown this thread her view is that the majority of females will form an impression - and not a particularly positive one of the SD membership. She appreciated that people were having a laugh, but the effect was perhaps not thought through.

So what? 'They' either accept us as 'we' are or go elsewhere! '?' Not exactly inclusive is it? And do we as a forum want to effectively run on the basis of having a good chance of alienating 50% of the population - stalkers or not - who may look in on SD? I'll rephrase that - 50% of the voting population.

2. Those that looked deeper all went to the intro/ members lists and found one or two posts by ladies. Try it with open eyes guys - it doesnt make happy reading.

3. Because of 1 & 2 those ladies didnt give SD the chance to show how things have improved - and they have in general terms of silliness and aggression - perfect - no, but much better. Effectively they have been excluded from this inclusive forum.

So what - 'we' stalk to get away from home/ women etc? Who is 'we' paleface? There are two sides to be acknowledged and given fair accommodation. But as it stands 'we' are keeping a good number of people interested in stalking away from active involvement in SD - I dont believe that is a good thing. Seems to me that broad pews work well and tend to last. Narrow pews just seem to fall over sooner or later.

Fully appreciate its a bloke pontificating on behalf of ladies and really down to them to speak on their own behalf in terms of answering the original posters question. Aside from welcome post from Linda, that none have done so should be actually speaking quite loudly!

:tiphat:
I agree. atb Tim
 
Back
Top