Sounds like churn is much lower with men. Unless it is much more expensive (in terms of advertising etc.) to get new men, which looking at the ‘1+’ row doesn’t seem to be the case, or women are more productive, this suggests you have a higher Customer-Lifetime-Value / Customer-Acquisition-Cost ratio with men. If this is the case then, to the extent you can, you should re-allocate your efforts at the relevant margin towards attracting more men.
Several previous forum posts have suggested that it’s useful to try to have a balance of men and women because:
-In the longer term, only focusing on white, middle-class men who want to do good using evidence will mean we lose out on a large amount of talent and resources. source
-The focus on men might not be reversible: unbalanced events now could put off “highly productive” women, who might continue to view EA unfavourably years later. source
-Diversity will likely make conversations and viewpoints less predictable and more useful. source
It may be a bit short sighted to try and grow in a way that leads to 0.1% of people being interested in effective altruism rather than 5%.
It seems to be a mistake that both the atheist and skeptic communities have made in the past.