Everyday Systems

Most participants around here, it seems, are women.

In your opinion, what accounts for that?

By tradition, the tendency for women to seek out help from supportive environments is widely accepted. We may be seen as more in touch with our emotions, as better listeners and more willing to help others and therefore have an easier time discussing our own thexperiences, thoughts, feelings and behaviour. In contrast, a long-held societal expectation has been placed on men to be independant and emotionally restrained, thus they may be hesitant in entering a thread that beckons its users to vent and seek advice and support from others. This societal view may be evolving, but would still effect plenty of people to the point it would perhaps affect the ratio of men to women on this thread. But I could be wrong, what do YOU think?

We're conditioned by the silent Bogart type...
Could be. Boy, do I hate that old (well...) Hollywood image and what it has wrought.
Though, of course, Hollywood has been as much a reflection of our culture as an influence.

I haven't thought much about it, just struck me, and was hoping to get input from those who may very well know something about this...


Thanx, Rikki.

Funny, there was a time when people were worried that No-s only worked for men.

In any case, you're definitely not the only male of the species here. Welcome!

Reinhard

I believe there are two causes for the lack of males here:

1. The concept of moderation seems to be harder to get for men. We tend to think in extremes, especially regarding diets/fitness. "Harder is better, No Pain no gain, Go hard or go home" and all the other macho-"crap" seems to resonate more with the male psychic.

2. Non-visual repressentation: This site by todays standards is rather plain. Very rare pictures, graphs and so on. Social marketing studies show, that females prefer plain informations while males prefer informations paired with visual stimulation.

Of course these are very broad terms, but in general i tend to agree.

Hey, GermanHerman, didn't know about the plain vs. graphic preference. Interesting.

I so agree with the hard push lurking behind both diet and exercise 'advice'.
People are convinced that losing fat and exercising entail pain.
No one mentions the pleasure in exercise, for example.
I used to go to a gym, and, while I knew I had mixed feelings about it, I only saw why vaguely. I now think that, among other things, it's the rhythm, the exuberant loudness and the 'no pain no gain' article of faith. It's all so ungraceful and unsustainable. It occurs to me now that they know perfectly well what they're doing - this way, the clients, having paid their annual dues, don't come back.

With recent changes, I've seen the joy, in both exercise and diet, of going for moderate, friendly-to-self guidelines. It's easy and (therefore) sustainable.

Interesting that you suggest women are more open to the moderate take. It's in keeping with the preponderance of women in yoga and in approaches to food as an emotional issue.

Because men don't have as many body issues, eating disorders, societal weight pressures, and sweet cravings as women (No S is known to help all of these issues.)

I believe the men that do turn to No S have a much easier time at it than the women and stick to it long term. Women are often emotional eaters. Men are often practical eaters. No S is just naturally practical. There's no room for emotion.

Forcing myself into that practical box of, "It's not meal time? Then you can't eat anything." - makes me irritable, grumpy and rebellious, and I have thrown in the towel on No S many a time. I keep coming back because it's the best way to eat, but it has never been easy.

I believe that largely, men are naturally No S'ers, along with a smaller number of women "thin eaters." No S to them is not a diet so they would not be searching for a forum to talk about the way they eat naturally.

Wow, Leafy, interesting.

As I was reading you, I saw, and not for the first time, how the traits usually ascribed to women fit me like a glove...
Among the things you mention: body issues, eating disorders, emotional eating.

Not to contradict the general observation, about which I simply don't know enough.

The posts on this thread, I find, have suggested intriguing ways of looking at the gender gap here.
This is exactly what I was looking for.

What they said, and

Women have been judged much more for their appearance pretty much throughout history, with it relatively accepted in the world of biology that originally, and subconsciously now, men look for "healthy" mates and women look for mates with status, both to ensure the survival of the offspring. Thus, it's been usual for men to have to get a lot heavier than women do before they're likely to think they need to do something about it. Yes, there are exceptions, but that doesn't change the generality. And of course there are other influences but that one is pretty basic.

Mirrors and modern media have raised the expectations inordinately. Trying to achieve these is often a bonding issue for women ( and one of the reasons I tend to eat lunch alone these days, given that most of their tactics emphasize misery).


But just about everybody is in a similar boat in terms of the problem these days, as the culture of overeating is so dysfunctional in regard to food that just about everybody has to find some kind of "tribe" to huddle with in order to flout it. It takes a pretty darn rational person and a program that fits pretty easily to be able to say, "Oh, is that all I need to do?" and then go do it. (Sound like someone we know?) In this arena, I hope the women won't be offended if I say it's a lot more likely that a man would go that route in regard to eating than a woman. I know I also read some research once that said men were more likely to just attack the most egregious eating habit[s], and that was often enough to get the results they wanted. Also familiar? If there were no internet, or if Reinhard had been an insurance salesman or something, we would probably all still be floundering and suffering.

Jacn, you go right ahead and be atypical all you want here!

Thanx, oolala...

I know I also read some research once that said men were more likely to just attack the most egregious eating habit[s], and that was often enough to get the results they wanted. Also familiar?

I can't be the only woman whose husband can say, "Huh, I'm up a few pounds," stop eating ice cream for a couple of weeks, and -boom- problem solved.

No introspection required.

I've always been kind of in awe of this.

This is so funny, Phosphorous.

Thanx.

Phosphorus, that's exactly what I mean about men as above. But they have their burdens...

For what it's worth, it occurred to me that the explanations offered account for a general, population-level between men and women.
Which is welcome and enlightening, needless to say.

What I personally was wondering about, though, was the preponderance of women here on the NoS forum.
Are most NoS followers women? Is it more so on the forum?

In any case, I feel the make-up of forum members differs from that of dieters, or reformed eaters, shall we call it, in the population.
I'd guess, for example, that among low-carbers, paleo followers and calorie-counters, men account for a considerably higher proportion than what seems to be the case around the forum.

If so, what accounts for that difference in approach to reformed eating?
Is it the NoS style itself? Being active on the forum? Both?
Because...?