Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Teabaggers: Having it both ways Previous entry: Just more silly history, or silly history with scary potential?

Battle of the dueling interpretations!

Okay, the title oversells this a little bit, but I still found this amusing.  The NY Times, as part of the ongoing “who the fuck taught women to read?!” project they’ve been running, ran a concern trolling article about how more women are going to college and OMG THEY CAN’T FIND BOYFRIENDS. To bolster these claims, they dig up women who have bought the idea that life isn’t worth living if you go for entire minutes without basking in male attention, women who are sure to complain about the supposed drought. 

“This is so typical, like all nights, 10 out of 10,” said Kate Andrew, a senior from Albemarle, N.C. The experience has grown tiresome: they slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another, Ms. Andrew said, “because there are no guys.”

I don’t mean to be so harsh, but seriously, I never trust a woman who thinks that women only dress for men.  That sort of thinking tends to infect your entire worldview, and puts you in a position where you start regarding male attention like oxygen.  And because the NY Times may report on the fact that college-educated women are more likely to get and stay married—-but they will never believe it—-they resort to the time-honored “reading and marrying are at odds with each other narrative”.  And so they take very seriously the idea that because there are slightly more women than men on college, men cannot be bullied through sexual desperation to settle down (it’s assumed at all points in time that men find women’s personalities so repugnant that love is off the table, and only blackmail will work), and no woman can get a real date.  Ever.  We’ve heard this song before, though it’s never entirely clear what women are supposed to do.  I guess we’re supposed to give up our hopes of career and education in order to find a man—-or at least, that’s the insinuation with the other form of this article, the “mothers can’t have it all and have to quit” articles. 

Anyway, Jill dealt with this story in an interesting way, pointing out that because we are still stuck in believing college is for men and women who go are “co-eds”, women’s numbers seem higher than they are. 

But when you look at the actual numbers of women vs. men on campus, it’s not so unbalanced that dudes are pulling five chicks a night. It seems to be a problem of perception more than statistics — if there are roughly equal numbers of men and women in a room, or if there are a few more women than men, we perceive the situation as thoroughly female-dominated. The same phenomenon happens with race. We’re used to seeing men (and white men in particular) as the standard; we’re used to them dominating higher education and the workforce. When we up the numbers of non-men in a situation where men have traditionally made up large majorities, the perception is that no more men exist – even though men are nearly half of the room.

I’d point out that if the girls are as shiny and sparkly as described above, this is just going to make the situation worse.  When you’re talking about a population that makes itself very visible versus one that tries to look non-obtrusive—-and if you’ve been around groups of Greek-style students like the ones interviewed, the guys in their flip-flops and girls in their glitter and mini-skirts will present such a contrast—-that illusion is only heightened. 

Matt, while agreeing that the article blows the whole thing out of proportion in order to score some sexist points, still thinks there’s some truth to this idea that systems change dramatically with even small shifts in the gender ratio.

But there’s a core interesting fact in the article, which is that it really does seem to be true in a variety of contexts that even a very small surplus of heterosexual women over heterosexual men is tend to be associated with fairly dramatic shifts away from norms of monogamous relationships.

Except, of course, that college-educated women are more likely to marry, and more likely to stay married.  The norm isn’t abandoned—-it’s just put off into the future.  I just don’t think the disparities are big enough or long-term enough to produce the kind of social shifts Matt’s talking about.

Here’s what I think is happening in articles like this—-the norm on college campuses is to take relationships somewhat lightly, because both men and women know their futures are somewhat uncertain.  The model where you meet your spouse in college and get engaged belonged to an era where women went to college expecting to get married, and not to have a career.  Marrying right out of school didn’t seem that big a deal, because your husband made all the decisions about where you’d live.  Now, that’s changed.  My college relationship broke up for a number of reasons, but the one overriding factor was I simply wasn’t happy following him where he wanted to go.  That was true of a lot of college relationships I saw—-you change so much in the transition between college and adulthood that unless one of you is submitting to the other’s life choices, then it’s just not going to work.  Kids these days might just be smart to avoid commitments that aren’t going to work out anyway. 

That said, you can always find women that buy into our culture’s endless drumbeat pressuring them to make men and relationships the center of their lives.  Getting your MRS degree is a less and less popular fantasy all the time, but if you’re a determined journalist, you can easily find those girls, especially by scouting the sororities.  Many, if not most, college girls would be annoyed by the insinuation that they’re dying to have a boyfriend above all, and many would be embarrassed to even admit that they’d like that.  But those girls don’t fit the thesis, so they don’t get interviewed. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:04 PM • (84) Comments

OK, I haven’t read your whole article or the NYT article yet, but I just clicked over there and noticed that they’re trying to prove their point at UNC-Chapel Hill… which is not only 60 percent female but also has a significant gay population. You know, I could make a great point about how men can’t find girlfriends on campus if I did my study at The Citadel…

Comment #1: Jeff  on  02/10  at  12:48 PM

Exactly.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/10  at  12:55 PM

The whole “solution” also seems to be weird.  We need fewer women to go to college to make it easier for those who do go to college to get husbands which of course dooms those who don’t go to college from finding the “perfect” husband.  My guess the NYT’s solution would of course be to eliminate need based scholarships for females to make sure only the “right” women are allowed to get the good husbands.

Comment #3: Robert  on  02/10  at  01:06 PM

I went to fifty five percent female college and there wasn’t a man drought of any sort.  I’m one of the most socially awkward girls in the history of the world and I did all sorts of dating in college.  I’m pretty sure all of my friends did as well. 

The NY Times doesn’t count anyone’s boyfriend as a man unless he’s ready to marry and impregnate within two dates, anything less serious is obviously just fooling around.

Comment #4: semi_factual  on  02/10  at  01:06 PM

I haven’t read the whole article, but I know I definitely would not be interviewed!  My significant other and I are still together after 8 years (3 yrs undergraduate and 3yrs graduate school).  But it didn’t break down into the typical gender norms.  I was in graduate school and he followed be across the country when I graduated.  I guess he got his MR degree grin  (though he is just now finishing up his MBA too!)

Comment #5: AmberChi  on  02/10  at  01:08 PM

I went to a women’s college, and we didn’t have a man drought.  Collectively, we spent a lot of time chasing them off when they weren’t welcome, actually.

Comment #6: rowmyboat  on  02/10  at  01:08 PM

The point isn’t to date, its to find a husband which is the most important thing.  Unless the co-ed of course is willing to intern and marry the man 20 years older she meets there.  But thats a different complaint about how women right out of college are not throwing themselves at David Brooks like they should be doing.

Comment #7: Robert  on  02/10  at  01:09 PM

They also completely ignore the fact that a great deal of the increase in the number of women on college campuses has to do with non-traditional students who are returning to finish their education. This has been going on since the 1980s:
(http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/CATALYST/V23N3/allen.html)
So, at least some of the women that account for the change in the male-to-female ratio are at least 10 years older than normal-age college students, and wouldn’t be considered dating fodder anyway.

Comment #8: Occam  on  02/10  at  01:15 PM

WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE [comment destroyed by space-laser]

Comment #9: norbizness  on  02/10  at  01:17 PM

Yeah, it’s the same old “You’re more likely to get killed by a terrorist than marry, you bluestocking!” crap that’s been around forever. Frankly, if I was a guy and some desperate girl came up to me just because I was a dude, I’d run.

Comment #10: ginmar  on  02/10  at  01:18 PM

Yeah, the NY Times is definitely invested in selling the illusion that the MRS degree is in any way still operant, same with trying to pretend away the idea of casual dating. Most people casually date and just try and figure out their sexuality stuff in college and the years following. Long term stuff can come out of it. I’m still with my partner from college. Several of my partner’s friends married their partners from college, but it usually works with a long lag time (are we still together a minimum of 2-3 years post college, ok, let’s tie the knot) and by not actively trying (they all went to college either to figure themselves out as an adult or for career or educational pursuits, you know like what people go to college for).

But no, they need to hard sell the idea that the pre-Feminine Mystique stuff is somehow still relevant to “the kids today”.

Love your inclusion of the interesting equality paradox thing though (when you force an equal number or equal participation by minority and non-minority students, both sides assume minority groups dominate as several studies have no shown) and think it’s a lot of the origin of the “chief quotes” of this garbage.

Also a contributing factor in my opinion? Different lexicon. Someone saying there’s “no men here” often gets spun in these things like someone looking for marriage and it’s been eliminated by the gynocracy and how reading made them unable to find a partner.

Whereas, I imagine most are using it the way most people do in bars or on the way to bars. “(I’m horny, I want some sex and) there’s no men (I want to sleep with) here” with the parenthetical being more obvious in the context. Well that and there will always be some minority of a population that’s plain old lonely and willing to whine about being lonely in interview in overgeneralized messes. Why? Because being lonely or undersexed or feeling isolated can feel overbearing, dominating, and physically painful as part of some conspiracy or force. A blanket, “there’s no men here” is basically the extended version of the other parenthetical, except with the desire to not wake up alone or to enjoy the tinglies of NRE or love replacing raw sex. I haven’t found someone who gives me NRE or love tinglies here yet who likes me back.

Ripping either out of context however can imply a gynocracy or something else shady and thus prop up the regressive bullshit they like to peddle in.

Also, am I a bad person in that my first response to the “man drought” spin was to go “damn skippy, everyone knows that college is the time for sexual exploration, now get to ‘experimenting’. C’mon ladies test those bisexual waters and see if there’s a there there. Same with you dudes.” smile

Comment #11: Cerberus  on  02/10  at  01:29 PM

I’m a former UNC grad student, and when I taught chem lab I heard this type of complaint from time to time from my female students.  As mentioned above, it is a situation where 60% of the undergrad student body is female, and (IIRC) according to some survey it’s one of the most skewed towards women in the country.  So, maybe a case of the media looking for an angle on a story, finding an extreme case, and trying to fit that in to a narrative?

Comment #12: BBG  on  02/10  at  01:33 PM

My favorite part is where they bring in the usual hysterical “Women are having casual sex only because men want it” person, sexually infantilizing women in the process.  “The poor laydeez are having to have the dirty secks because, if they don’t, who will love them?”

Comment #13: Atheist Feminazi  on  02/10  at  01:42 PM

So women aren’t supposed to go to college because if they go to college there will be too many of them and they won’t get a date…? Talk about “no one raindrop believes it’s responsible for the flood” mentality.

Also, having grown up in a college town and gone to college myself, I always thought there was a prohibition against people in the university mixing with “townies.” So if a woman isn’t supposed to go to college to find a mate, and if guys in college don’t think much of the uneducated locals… mail order? Arranged marriages? Mad Men-esque return to women joining secretary pools in hopes of snagging a partner?

Comment #14: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/10  at  01:46 PM

Yeah, the NY Times is definitely invested in selling the illusion that the MRS degree is in any way still operant, same with trying to pretend away the idea of casual dating.

Slightly to one side: I can’t be the only one who’s noticed how Britain’s so-called leftist The Guardian’s been publishing much more of this kind of tripe for the past while; more evo-psych, more “I was a career woman and wasn’t happy” op-eds, more “traditional gender roles rule!” screeds, etc etc.  Pretty much one or two a week.

Comment #15: Ranylt  on  02/10  at  01:53 PM

Why does the NY Times hate men so much?  Oh, who cares, when you’re white and male and reading the Times you’re doing it for the affirmation and the occasional pleasant jolt of white male victimhood whines.

Comment #16: ginmar  on  02/10  at  02:11 PM

Frankly, if I was a guy and some desperate girl came up to me just because I was a dude, I’d run.

I am a guy and that would creep me the hell out.

Comment #17: KeithM  on  02/10  at  02:12 PM

@15

Yeah, it’s almost like the old white men running these magazines were a) not very left-leaning and b) have slowly come to the realization that the feminist movement really did happen and that despite all that effort in the 80s, women are actually expecting all that crazy equal treatment stuff they blab on in their girl talk ways. And that these same self important white men have decided its time to put a stop to it with the standard Backlash copy and paste methods they trotted out back then.

Crazy I know.

I think it’s actually a good sign. The dominant group is visibly agitated. They blinked their eyes and shit they thought they beat back by making feminist a dirty word have become internalized, normal. They’ve realized belatedly as the Iowa Majority Leader said “you’ve already lost, the younger generation does not care”.

I know the type of women it’s working on and they’re not in their 20s or their teens. Hell, teenyboppers are using abstinence only religious moralizing books to masturbate over bondage vampires. The shit just isn’t flying at the level they’re operating at and while they may be able to retard the slow gain of progress a bit, it keeps happening and very few can look back at what these people consider the good ol’ days and really be interested in going back. It’s otherworldly to them.

And they’re desperation is delicious. It means we are winning, step by step, inch by inch over the decades, because for all the hype and the propaganda and media dominance, people still like living in more progressive societies than less progressive societies.

And they’ll have to evolve or die.

Comment #18: Cerberus  on  02/10  at  02:13 PM

The first time I heard of the MRS degree, I was 26 and talking to my cousin who said that’s what she was going to Palomar College for.

It was really disturbing. I still find the idea offsetting.

Comment #19: BenYitzhak  on  02/10  at  02:15 PM

Occam @8, try since at least the 70s when my and many of my friends moms were going back to finish their ug work.

Comment #20: helen w. h.  on  02/10  at  02:16 PM

So is the point supposed to be that women ruin anything and everything just by virtue of their presence, or by being all uppity and going to school for unnecessary smartening?  And I should buy a Dodge Charger?

Every college campus has its share of silly girls who think some prince is going to take them away, and Sorority Row is the first place you look.  Doesn’t mean every woman on campus needs to be hectored about Getting A Man While You Still Can.

Bathed in a neon glow, they splashed beer from pitchers, traded jokes and belted out lyrics to a Taylor Swift heartache anthem thundering overhead.

Ugh.  I wouldn’t go near their table either.

Comment #21: Sour Kraut  on  02/10  at  02:16 PM

My college relationship broke up for a number of reasons, but the one overriding factor was I simply wasn’t happy following him where he wanted to go.  That was true of a lot of college relationships I saw—-you change so much in the transition between college and adulthood that unless one of you is submitting to the other’s life choices, then it’s just not going to work.

My brother is an example.  Married his long-term college girlfriend almost right after they graduated.  Over the several years they dated, there didn’t seem to be any significant issues between them.  Both families got along well, so no in-law troubles.

They didn’t last the year.  Thankfully no kids to complicate the divorce.

Comment #22: KeithM  on  02/10  at  02:19 PM

Taylor Swift is the anti-Christ. Yeah, yeah, yeah, plays the guitar, writes her own (puerile) songs. Jezebel (the site) has such a thing for her, but her fans strike me as precisely the sort of women guys should avoid. You know those conservative women who say the most amazingly hateful shit about men, even while they enforce sexism for other women? All those gender cliches, except with a dose of horrible treacle.

Comment #23: ginmar  on  02/10  at  02:22 PM

I went to a women’s college, and we didn’t have a man drought.  Collectively, we spent a lot of time chasing them off when they weren’t welcome, actually.

YES. You’d think that, on a women’s college campus, with 60+ women in the library at any given time, the handful of men from the neighboring coed school who hang out there wouldn’t be the ones making all the gaddamn noise but you’d be *wrong. If there is more than one man in that library you can hear masculine voices booming through the still air in the most irritating way. And the mansplanations from the one or two guys in the predominantly female classes? Much more highly concentrated mansplaining, ‘cause there’re only a few dudes and apparently they feel the need to “represent” of something. Just because men make up <5% of the class doesn’t mean they should get less than 50% of the airtime! :p

We didn’t want more men, we wanted to ditch the few we had.

*You guys, of course, would know better and wouldn’t expect this.

Comment #24: Bagelsan  on  02/10  at  02:28 PM

How are these articles still getting green lighted? They are so insipid and boring.

Comment #25: Olivia  on  02/10  at  02:33 PM

And why do they still think women want committed relationships and men don’t? As an undergrad I thought it was absolutely *lovely* not having guys around to complicate things—I particularly wanted to go to a women’s college so that I could go off campus and meet guys if I wanted to, and then go back “home” and not have to put up with self-indulgent 20-year-old dudes who think they’re the shit. (I knew plenty of smart guys who thought they were the best thing since sliced bread in highschool, and I wanted to give the male population a few years to get over itself.)

Now that I’m out in the “real” world I have to tolerate older guys who don’t understand that I’m not interested in them being all “hey, want to be friends? and hang out ALL the time with me? andmaybegetmarriedandhavemybabiesohgodI’msoold” who then get offended when I actually understand the subtext, and refuse to be roped into all that clingyness. I want to spend my 20s establishing myself as a person and getting my career going, thanks—while I’m not going to snub love I certainly am not going to settle for the first guy that decides I look fertile, thanks.

I want the prolonged bachelorhood that educated guys have had historically; gettin’ all rich and famous and set in my ways and datin’ around, so that when I’m in my early 30s I’ll go to parties and all the handsome young men’s fathers will pull them aside, giggling “ooh, that’s so-and-so! She is a bit of a cad but she’s the *talk* of the scientific community! Go, go say something cute to her! Bat your eyes!” :D

Comment #26: Bagelsan  on  02/10  at  02:36 PM

Thanks for writing on this. When I read the article I was too confused/apalled to make a coherent analysis. Especially because, as Jill said, the proportions of genders are relatively even in college. However, as a grad student who teaches students and a recent college student myself, I can tell you that it is not hard to find a woman who wishes she had a boyfriend but simply believes there are NO AVAILABLE GUYS anywhere. These women are not experts. They are 20 years old and a little bit dramatic. I don’t blame them, but they aren’t really credible sources either.

Comment #27: bethany  on  02/10  at  02:36 PM

“ooh, that’s so-and-so! She is a bit of a cad but she’s the *talk* of the scientific community! Go, go say something cute to her! Bat your eyes!” :D

That is a very good dream.

Comment #28: lonespark  on  02/10  at  02:57 PM

@19

I think that’s what’s got the newspaper people and misogynists in general so frightened. The MRS degree to our generation is archaic. Same with “asking her father for her hand in marriage”. To us it’s obscene and when we see someone still carrying that baggage, it disturbs us which means that these people can’t keep selling it to their kids as this great and wonderful thing because it leads immediately to being an outcast (which is a critical hit to an ideology based on using the power of conformity to enforce the status quo).

And I think that’s the sort of clean your hands, it’s all over but the screaming. I mean, there’ll still be the handful of women in college carrying this baggage and older women will still be more susceptible to this and delay even further their feminist awakenings, but in general, the shit is just foreign these days.

Comment #29: Cerberus  on  02/10  at  03:05 PM

I went to a college that was 60% men, 40% women.  It affected the college experience. It was hard for male students to get girlfriends. 

Colleges that are 60% women, 40% men are going to have similar experiences that are affected by the ratio.  Since there are a lot more of those “60% women, 40% men” schools than there used to be, the nyt story has a valid point.  I would not advise anyone to go to a school with a ratio that skewed if they could avoid it. It makes a difference.

Comment #30: lemmy caution  on  02/10  at  03:19 PM

#29 Cerberus, I wish I could totally agree with you that the concept is archaic.  However, I will never forget the first time I heard it—because I only understood how insulting it was after the fact.  I went to a service academy, for multiple reasons (financial consideration and ability to do something “important”  were first on my list).  I won’t deny that the multitude of fit young men available was an exciting factor going in—and I enjoyed the odds in my favor.  But I was chatting with a guy friend in grad school a couple of years ago and he asked me why I decided to do what I did, and I gave the vague generalities that I provided above.  Then told he me he thought it was to get my M.R.S. degree.  I had no idea what he meant, being slow, plus working for a government we must wade through a blizzard of acronyms everyday.  He was definitely my generation (I’m a new 30).  Perhaps he thought it didn’t work out, since I was/am still in and still happily single.
So much to say, I wonder if it there isn’t a little sustained incredulity about why women actually persue accomplishments of their own.

Comment #31: colleeniem  on  02/10  at  03:25 PM

Ick. Just Ick. Who are these editors that let “journalists” get away with this bullshit form of reporting? This shit wouldn’t pass my middle school paper’s editor’s standards. And he was a shy, mumbling 13 year old who would rather print misspelling and incorrect grammar than have to talk to a girl about corrections. ZOMG! Maybe he is an editor at the NY Times.

Comment #32: shakahi  on  02/10  at  03:26 PM

They blinked their eyes and shit they thought they beat back by making feminist a dirty word have become internalized, normal.

So true!!  I teach a course in Management in a business school, and one day during discussion of a video about Jean Hollands Bully Broads program, a young woman in the class prefaced her comment with that old cliche of “I’m not a feminist but….” And I gently said to her, “Really?  Do you realize that it’s very unlikely that you would be sitting there, or that I would be standing up here, without the advances of feminism?”  And she thought about it for a moment, and then admitted, yes, that was probably true.
But, you see, in the way she’d been thinking, that wasn’t “feminism,” that’s just the normal way things are and should be.

Comment #33: CalliopeJane  on  02/10  at  04:11 PM

“This is so typical, like all nights, 10 out of 10,” said Kate Andrew, a senior from Albemarle, N.C. The experience has grown tiresome: they slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another, Ms. Andrew said, “because there are no guys.”

“Hair sculpted”...“make-up just so” ... This can’t possibly be part of a favorable description of anyone.

Do most college girls really “sculpt” their hair? 
Are college girls really worried about getting their make-up “just so”?  Not appealing, mind you, but “just so”.

Can we make these young women sound any less intelligent or attractive?

Comment #34: happyfungirl  on  02/10  at  04:50 PM

I’m dismayed to see that, as with so many progressive ideas of the sixties and seventies, feminism is in recession. But you can still get this slogan on tee-shirts and bumper stickers:

http://www.stickergiant.com/fish-woman_b5718.html

Women, especially those eager to get married, need to experience independent living.

But what about the women who just want some male companionship? What really surprised me about the article is the omission of any mention of Duke University, which is all of <b>nine miles away.</i> Are there no guys there?

Comment #35: Hector B.  on  02/10  at  04:51 PM

“while agreeing that the article blows the whole thing out of proportion in order to score some sexist points, still thinks there’s some truth to this idea that systems change dramatically with even small shifts in the gender ratio. “

I disagree.  The article barely mentions marriage at all, it just talks about the dating market - how the guys get to be more choosy, sexually demanding, and promiscuous when they’re outnumbered by women on campus. 

“I just don’t think the disparities are big enough or long-term enough to produce the kind of social shifts Matt’s talking about. “

I apologize in advance for the mansplaining.  Hopefully citing source gives me bonus points.

In his book “The Logic of Life”, economist Tim Harford gives the example of the model of dating/marriage called the “Marriage Supermarket”.  The model assumes that being partnered up is preferrable to being single, and that men and women desire each other with equal intensity (this is also one of your assumptions when it comes to women’s sexuality.)

Imagine 20 men and 20 women in a store - those who pair up and walk out together collect $100 which they can split together.  Since any couple that walks out of the store can collect $100 to split between them, with 20 men and 20 women participating, each person walks out with an even split of the pot - $50.

Assume a shortage of just one man.  One woman is walking out of the market alone, and so goes home with $0.  The model says that instead of going home empty-handed, the odd woman out will attempt to muscle in on an existing pairing, perhaps by offering a better split of the pot to the man - she will get only $40, and he’ll get $60.  The other lady counterbids with $30, and so forth, until a woman offers to split the pot with a man $1 to $99, because walking out with $1 from this experiment is preferrable to walking out with $0. 

The law of one price says that identical products (it’s only a model) sell for identical prices.  Which means that every woman in the experiment will have to offer up the $1 to $99 offer to a man, and all of them walk out with $1, except for the odd girl out who gets $0.

Obviously, this is just a very simple model of human behaviour.  But it predicts that even a small shortage of one sex dramatically increases the bargaining power of the other sex.  Obviously people aren’t perfect substitutes for one another.  But they’re at least partial substitututes.

Comment #36: PeterZeroOne  on  02/10  at  04:56 PM

The model assumes that being partnered up is preferrable to being single

Which is often not the case in college.  I went to college for 5 years and was single most of the time and mostly pretty happy about it.  I slept around, I hung out with my girlfriends, I watched a lot of Law & Order, and tried to remember to go to class.  I didn’t really need or want a boyfriend.

In fact, I’m single now, and don’t really need or want a boyfriend.  And I know a lot of people like me. 

Obviously, this is just a very simple model of human behaviour.

Yes, simple unto absurdity.  It assumes that no one cares which man or woman they get, just any old man or woman will do.  Which we know has no relationship to reality whatsoever.  I don’t know a single solitary person who wouldn’t rather be alone than be in a relationship with someone they detest.  If I were in that supermarket, I wouldn’t want to leave with a man who would take $99 from me and leave me $1.  I would rather be alone than be with someone who would screw me like that.  Because I have a life after I leave the supermarket with my man, and a man who takes 99% of everything that should be ours together is a man who would cause me nothing but misery.  I have a vibrator and cats and friends, thankyouverymuch.

Comment #37: Denise  on  02/10  at  05:10 PM

PeterZeroOne: Do you even KNOW any girls?

Comment #38: KMTBERRY  on  02/10  at  05:20 PM

But Peter, people can go home empty handed one day, but return the next and get their $50.  It’s not like you have one chance.  Also, people ‘just dating’ are often dating more than one person.

This model assumes that the supply of men and women is limited, which it technically is, but effectively, your number of potential partners is limitless.  I don’t think it is a good model at all.

Lastly, economists think that people make rational decisions and for the most part they use thier rational brains to justify thier emotional decisions.

Comment #39: Ron O.  on  02/10  at  05:21 PM

“If I were in that supermarket, I wouldn’t want to leave with a man who would take $99 from me and leave me $1.  I would rather be alone than be with someone who would screw me like that.  Because I have a life after I leave the supermarket with my man, and a man who takes 99% of everything that should be ours together is a man who would cause me nothing but misery.  I have a vibrator and cats and friends, thankyouverymuch. “

Then, according to the model, you’re the odd girl out.  Some of the girls described in the NYT article stay single - obviously they’re like you and there’s things they won’t give up.  The article mentioned a senior who has yet to have had a boyfriend in all four years she’s been at school.

“Yes, simple unto absurdity.  It assumes that no one cares which man or woman they get, just any old man or woman will do.  Which we know has no relationship to reality whatsoever.  “

Really?  The more casual the relationships, the less you find out about a person’s unique traits.  Besides, are you really suggesting that men aren’t capable of objectifying women enough to not care about their personalities or unique traits, so long as they’re attractive enough to meet his criteria?

” If I were in that supermarket, I wouldn’t want to leave with a man who would take $99 from me and leave me $1. “

Ok, what if he offered you $10?  $20?  Would that make him slightly less detestable, enough to cash out with $20?

Comment #40: PeterZeroOne  on  02/10  at  05:22 PM

I would rather be alone than be with someone who would screw me like that.

So, interestingly, the more the woman is “paying” for the relationship, the less that relationship is worth. So the only relationship where “payment” and value are identical is an equitable relationship. Sounds about right to me. 

And the economic model being postulated (rather ridiculously) should work the other way, right? If there were 50 men and 49 women. All the guys would end up getting $1 a piece, right? Cause that’s economics! /sarcasm

Comment #41: rivki  on  02/10  at  05:27 PM

“But Peter, people can go home empty handed one day, but return the next and get their $50.  It’s not like you have one chance.  Also, people ‘just dating’ are often dating more than one person. “

Which predicts the male exploitations described here, right?  The guys cheat on girls and the girls put up with it - they’re “leaving the store” with multiple girls. 

“This model assumes that the supply of men and women is limited, which it technically is, but effectively, your number of potential partners is limitless.  I don’t think it is a good model at all.”

No, your number of potential partners is limitless only if you live forever.  Assume you meet three potential dating partners a week - that means you can only meet ~150 people a year.  It also predicts that the girls will go outside campus to find partners if the college is in a larger city - they find a new market where they can get a better deal. 

“Lastly, economists think that people make rational decisions and for the most part they use thier rational brains to justify thier emotional decisions. “

This is a point of contention.

Comment #42: PeterZeroOne  on  02/10  at  05:29 PM

Peter, you’re going to have to both learn to use HTML to differentiate quoted text from your own comments as well as make arguments that make sense before people will pay attention to you.

Starting with: why when the odds are tipped slightly in the other direction is this not a crisis?

Comment #43: Tyro  on  02/10  at  05:49 PM

,i.The experience has grown tiresome: they slip on tight-fitting tops, hair sculpted, makeup just so, all for the benefit of one another, Ms. Andrew said, “because there are no guys.” </i>

meanwhile, the heterosexual female rowers are getting all the action from the male rowers ... etc. I don’t think I’m the only one who met guys through shared activities, rather than in bars full of women.

Gee, I want to get laid ... I’ll go somewhere where there are mostly women around primping and try to out primp them!

Comment #44: Ms Kate  on  02/10  at  05:51 PM

Well, I majored in engineering during college, and women were outnumbered 5 to 1 in the best case (chemical engineering core classes), so maybe I can’t relate to this.  But in some of my elective and minor classes, women outnumbered men and it was never an issue.  In one sociology course, there were about 20 women and only 3 men, and nobody gave a fuck.  Very few people at my university had serious monogamous relationships, and everyone felt a little sorry for most of those who did.  College is for hooking up and sexual experimentation.  One of my best friends had a girlfriend from high school, and she dumped him during our senior year.  My friend said it really sucked that he missed out on so much, especially because high school romances rarely last through college anyway.  I did the smart thing and agreed with my high school boyfriend that we could still see each other, but not exclusively.  It worked out really great because both of us changed so much over a few years that we weren’t right for each other anymore, and we ended it pleasantly without missing out on college life.

Comment #45: bananacat  on  02/10  at  05:51 PM

Peter,

Did it ever occur to you that maybe some women don’t want a monogamous relationship, because they want to date more than one person at a time?  Plenty of women “put up with” men dating other women because they want to date other men too and they’re not hypocrites.  In fact, some of us don’t even care if the men we’re dating want to see other women, because we don’t want commitment yet and we’re enjoying dating multiple men.

Comment #46: bananacat  on  02/10  at  05:55 PM

Peter01:

I should point out that one of the problems with your model is that there’s a strong implication that a good number—maybe all—of your couples might just be there for $50 and a quick lay in the bread aisle, and will go their separate ways after the supermarket closes. Now is that a flaw in your model, or have you accounted for it?

Comment #47: BrianX  on  02/10  at  05:55 PM

Then, according to the model, you’re the odd girl out.  Some of the girls described in the NYT article stay single - obviously they’re like you and there’s things they won’t give up.  The article mentioned a senior who has yet to have had a boyfriend in all four years she’s been at school.

Why are you assuming that I am somehow unique?  Ask yourself, would you take that deal?  Would you rather be with a woman who takes 99% of all of your assets for herself, or would you rather be single?  And let’s be serious about this and not do the jokey “women take all their men’s money and use it to buy shoes!” thing.  How about 80%?  Would that be OK for you?

Besides, are you really suggesting that men aren’t capable of objectifying women enough to not care about their personalities or unique traits, so long as they’re attractive enough to meet his criteria?

Your model assumes that all women are interchangeable.  And that all men are interchangeable.  Your model assumes that men not only have no physical standards whatsoever, not to mention personality, intellect, interests, etc.  That any man would go home with any woman who is willing to give him 99% of her assets.  And your model assumes the same thing about women.  That any woman would rather give up nearly everything she has to get a man, any man, anywhere.

If the men in your model were picky, the “best” woman in the supermarket could get a man for $50, because the men would rather be with the “best” woman than get $99 and 2nd worst woman.

Comment #48: Denise  on  02/10  at  06:04 PM

I’ll give it a shot.

Starting with: why when the odds are tipped slightly in the other direction is this not a crisis?

Haha, I see what you’re saying.  I wasn’t arguing whether or not it’s a ‘crisis’, I was arguing that the phenomenon is real and predictable if the assumptions I list hold true, which they do to a degree. 

Nevertheless, the phenomenon, in the other direction, is/was real.  Go to an engineering school and observe the girls and the guys - who’s well dressed, who’s keeping fit, etc.  True, some guys just give up and try to enjoy being single, but you’ll see many well dressed, muscular, well groomed men, and I don’t want to slam engineering girls so I’ll just say they’re very practical about their appearance and clothing.  You’ll also see a lot of rather plain girls dating very good looking guys.

Comment #49: PeterZeroOne  on  02/10  at  06:06 PM

There are many flaws in this NYT article, but I’ll focus on one.

Their seems to be an assumption that women can only date men who go to the same school they do and that women can only date men in college.

That’s a huge and questionable assumption.

Don’t a lot of these students have cars, or access to a friend’s car, to travel to other places to meet men who go to other schools, or men who aren’t in school at all? If they go to a college in a city with really good mass transit, like New York City or Boston, they can socialize off campus even if they don’t have a car at all!

As Hector B pointed out above, the students in the article are just down the road from Duke University - and, to expand on his point, they’re also within driving distance of Ft Bragg, which has a large population of young men, since it’s a military base.

I have a friend who went to Syracuse University and she used to drive all over Central New York to party and meet people (in part because she’s African American, and she only dates within her race, so she had to go out of her way to find Black men to party with) - she ended up dating an Air Force pilot who was stationed at the air force base in Rome, NY. In other words, she found a suitable partner in another city - and he wasn’t even in college!

So I really don’t buy this assumption that just because their is a slight gender imbalance on one campus that the women on that campus are somehow doomed to singleness.

Besides the fact that, as other posters have pointed out, not every undergrad has meeting a man as her priority # 1, no matter what the NYT thinks.

Comment #50: GregoryAButler  on  02/10  at  06:08 PM

Go to an engineering school… you’ll see many well dressed, muscular, well groomed men,

I believe we must have gone to completely different engineering schools!

There are a few important points to be understood:

(a) this is one of those “trend articles” that was made up by the author or the assignment editor

(b) When men outnumber women, no one worries about the future of the relationships for our young people

(c) Your model is silly because it assumes a fixed number of men and women in a fixed time interval and only one “chance”

Comment #51: Tyro  on  02/10  at  06:21 PM

If the men in your model were picky, the “best” woman in the supermarket could get a man for $50, because the men would rather be with the “best” woman than get $99 and 2nd worst woman.

Sure, Denise.  You’re right, the model, if modified so, would kind of predict something like that. 

And from the New York Times article:

“Guys tend to overshoot themselves and find a really beautiful girlfriend they couldn’t date otherwise, but can, thanks to the ratio,” he said.

Mr. Ivey himself said that his own college relationship lasted three years. “She didn’t think she would meet another guy, I didn’t think I would meet another girl as attractive as her,” he said.

Comment #52: PeterZeroOne  on  02/10  at  06:22 PM

@Bagelsian #26: OMG, please say that you’re in my field (evolutionary biology). Extended scientific bachelorhood (even if it’s geo science or something) for the win.

Comment #53: grolby  on  02/10  at  06:34 PM

This story is part of a larger narrative about women as repulsive surplus.  Too many of them will spoil the environment, any environment.  Hey, sculpted hair and makeup ‘just so’, go away, you’re disgusting.  And ‘too many’ can be a tiny fraction indeed.

The United States has tons of male surplusage: in the military, Congress, the trades, Wall Street, science research, police forces, state legislatures, engineering schools (as many here have noted), high-paid corporation managers.  Nobody says that men in these environments are doomed to misery because they lack sufficient companionship of the other gender.  Why’s that, I wonder.  No, actually I don’t.

If the ev-psych crowd were honest, they would admit that from their point of view, it’s men who are redundant and excessive.

Comment #54: Unree  on  02/10  at  06:36 PM

Anecdata!  We are enlightened!

Comment #55: Ms Kate  on  02/10  at  06:36 PM

Why is it always the NY Times? They seem to keep printing the same article again and again. It´s almost funny.

I think Ms Kate has hit the right note. Not only women (or men) are not interchangeable, but people tend to gravitate towards those who have their same interests: A woman who is a sailor, a rower or an engineer will be highly prized by the (loads of) men who share her interests and who want to pursue their hobbies and be with their girlfriends at the same time. A man who is into getting primped and going out to fashionable bars, or is a literature major, will get to choose among the many, many women that surround him when he pursues his interests, as the article says.

In my view the supermarket analogy does bear some relation to real life if you are dead set on getting a mate from a certain group, and you are your “competitors” outnumber your options. Then you have to put something else on the table: I.e: men who want very good looking women have to work very hard to keep them happy, and I know many couples where one of them does a lot more than the other to compensate that perceived scarcity. But if you are open minded you won´t have that problem. And I think in any case, the breaking point is closer to 70-30 than to 99-1.

Comment #56: Maria  on  02/10  at  06:54 PM

I have a vibrator and cats and friends, thankyouverymuch.

So, the boyfriend-substitute functions of the vibrator and the friends are obvious: sex and companionship. Do the cats allow you to experience the joys of hair everywhere and picking up after/feeding someone every day? :D

grolby: Biology indeed! (Not evolutionary, though.) And I totally love research for exactly that reason (among others), in that it’s pretty acceptable to love your work and do it for a while without meeting some sort of 2-kids-and-a-wife-and-golf-with-the-boss or you don’t get that raise! criterion. Considering you’re in school ‘til you’re 30 I feel like there’s less of a rush—you’re not a *real* grownup until you have your own lab anyways. ;p

Comment #57: Bagelsan  on  02/10  at  06:58 PM

Peter, what does the money represent in this thought experiment?  Sex?  A romantic relationship?  A wedding ring?  Most people don’t want those things from just anyone.  Your scenario assumes a closed system in which there’s only one limited pool of men, the women have only one chance to snag one, and getting a man confers a solid material reward.  None of this bears any resemblance to the reality of dating.

Also, even if accepting the $1 payout because it’s better than nothing is the logical thing to do in an economic model, it’s not what people will actually do.  In similar experiments on real subjects, most people will choose no reward over a reward they find insulting, even if the logical response would be to swallow their pride.  If I remember correctly, the person with the upper hand can get away with something like a 60/40 split before the other person refuses.  The men in your scenario do have an advantage, but it’s unlikely they’d be able to get the women to accept the dating equivalent of a 99/1 split, whatever the hell that would be.

I went to Vassar, and the dating pool available to straight women was indeed a little low.  Before I started college, I worried that I’d never be able to get a date.  But being surrounded by intelligent, interesting women, at a strongly female-friendly college with a rich history of women’s achievement, made it more than worthwhile.  I had a great time at college.  And I spent most of that time dating a guy I met online.

Comment #58: Shaenon  on  02/10  at  07:01 PM

catgirl @46

Oh, don’t break the poor troll’s brain. Demoting women from thinking feeling real human beings to interchangable variables on a poorly thought out spreadsheet of life is about all his wee mind can take.

Asking him to expand enough from an expectation of monogamous heterosexual pairing to take into account various levels of bisexual and homosexual both experimentation or life admissions, polyamorous morphologies both stated and unstated, and casual sex relationships (fuckbuddies, cuddlebuddies, FWB, etc…) not to mention that it’s college so there’s also a lot of people also you know using it as a college, both as a place to figure out who they are as an adult free from the constrictions of familial expectations and as a place to what’s the word, oh yeah, study. Plenty of people downgrade the importance of “putting oneself out there” because they’re focusing more on the main reason they went to college in the first place assuming correctly that relationships of one form or another are almost zen in their zenith and actively trying to force one never usually ends well for the desperate person.

At that point you’re creating a mess on the rug and now you have to roll the corpse out into the bin and the garbage pickup service never seems to take them.

Not to mention the fact that women and men aren’t interchangable goods, nor the fact that hotness isn’t actually remotely objective and lust and love have proven time and time again to be pretty much illogical and highly random as everyone who has crushed hard over someone they were never ever ever going to work out with can very well attest.

Best not to even mention it, brains are so hard to clean off ceilings.

Comment #59: Cerberus  on  02/10  at  07:05 PM

I guess since the troll’s conversation is dominant though, I will point out that relationships are not critical to life. Nor are they even remotely always net positive. Take someone, say who has an underdeveloped sense of self or someone in an abusive relationship or hell, just bored couples who coupled up because “it was expected”.

Hell the latter is almost the clincher in and of its self. Many people end up miserable and begin to see the end of the relationship as freedom. Why? Cause it is to a degree. Relationships are high social, high energy investments. You are going to be spending a variable, but likely large amount of time with the person and a lot of your freedom is going to be dictated by the bounds of the relationship in question. And that’s before the social weights. What society expects people who are couplebound to do (and to which the most susceptible are going to be those who don’t fully understand why they have coupled to begin with).

We do it, however, because we fall in love or lust, because there’s a there there that makes us view time with that particular person (not an interchangable person, but that one person) to at the current time to be a net positive, usually a high one. Payments of time or social scheduling or in the case of monogamy an inability to explore new NRE or lust options are worth it because the love and/or lust one feels makes the interactions on a whole happier on a whole.

But it’s not exactly critical to pair up. Life is a big wonderful world out there and there are ways to have an exciting and fulfilling life without anything more than friends. Hell, some exceedingly strong introverts can even do without that. Passion from one’s career, one’s hobbies, exploration of this Earth, experiential joy, and the freedom that can come from not having to consider someone else before doing something life-altering crazy like say, move to France for a year, surviving by busking on the street for spare change or joining the army or just anything. It’s easier to pack up and move on or travel in general when you’re not trying to synch up schedules and the like.

Romantic companionship can be great if you want it. Certainly I love it, but it’s not like if you go without, you’ll wither up and die. People have different priorities and the vast array of friend/sexual/romantic interaction structure possibilities allows one remarkable freedom in theory to figure out what best works for them and experiment with it, editing it as other needs or options become available.

And that’s really for everyone.

Comment #60: Cerberus  on  02/10  at  07:27 PM

Asking him to expand enough from an expectation of monogamous heterosexual pairing to take into account various levels of bisexual and homosexual both experimentation or life admissions, polyamorous morphologies both stated and unstated, and casual sex relationships (fuckbuddies, cuddlebuddies, FWB, etc…)

I’m not writing a Master’s thesis; it’s a simple model.  But just to take a small section of that run on sentence of yours, I would expect to see a larger than usual number of bisexual women in same-sex relationships, and a smaller number of bisexual men than usual in same-sex relationships, assuming equal preference.  Then again, I know next to nothing about bisexuality, and it’s not really relevant to the discussion, because I doubt enough women are bisexual to make a significant dent in a 10-20% sex-ratio difference. 

Not to mention the fact that women and men aren’t interchangable goods,

They’re partially interchangable.  Of course not all men will agree to sleep with all women, and vice versa, but the only way men and women aren’t interchangeable at all is if most people only fall in love in one person once in their lifetime.  Which we know not to be true.  Also, the interchangeability increases when the relationships are more casual, but with the sex ratio in favour of men, it will be the men who have multiple, high quality partners, and the women who have a single part-time partner she shares with others. In other words, polygyny. And look at that, I took into account FWB and polyamory.

Plenty of people downgrade the importance of “putting oneself out there” because they’re focusing more on the main reason they went to college in the first place

Sure, a valid criticism.  Do women put school first much more so than men do?  10-20% more?  If men and women in univerisity find studying equally important, then the model holds.

hotness isn’t actually remotely objective

People scale faces from most to least attractive with remarkable consistency. 

lust and love have proven time and time again to be pretty much illogical and highly random as everyone who has crushed hard over someone they were never ever ever going to work out with can very well attest.

This just proves the importance of physical beauty - you fall in love irrationally with someone because they (shocker!) look good, and you’re blinded to their personality faults.

Comment #61: PeterZeroOne  on  02/10  at  07:45 PM

PeterZeroOne: Do you even KNOW any girls?

Comment #38: KMTBERRY

Go to an engineering school and observe the girls and the guys - who’s well dressed, who’s keeping fit, etc.  True, some guys just give up and try to enjoy being single, but you’ll see many well dressed, muscular, well groomed men

Evidently he doesn’t know any engineers either.  Come to Seattle and I’ll introduce you to more balding with ponytails, goatee’d, overweight, socially mis-adjusted engineers in both civil and IT than you can shake a can of AXE body spray at.

Comment #62: cynickal  on  02/10  at  07:48 PM

The supermarket analogy is only valid in a very, very narrow fashion, and the main assumption is that women are interchangeable and willing to take anything rather than nothing.

So what if one woman agrees to take a dollar?  Do you think all the others will have to take that amount?  Pretty much if one woman is insulted enough to refuse, you’re back to a 19/19 pairing.  If two women refuse to play b/c the men are being such assholes, then suddenly, even though there are more women than men, there are fewer women to hook up with, and the men will have to bargain.

Once bargaining has begun…you’re not going to see 19 sets of $99/$1.  I seriously see a bunch of college-aged girls telling the boys to fuck off and either take a 50/50 split or get nothing.

But that’s because I see women as people who will be insulted and pissy and conniving and sweet and fair and selfish.  And who will talk amongst themselves and to the boys. 

The only way you get 99/1 is theoretically and by constraining women to be interchangeable commodities and not people.

As for being the marrying type?  Some people are, and if that’s what you want, you need to put yourself out there.  But not everyone is, and not every woman is, and some who are aren’t always ready or wanting that commitment at any time.  That’s what’s so damn offensive: NYT keeps running articles insisting—despite all evidence to the contrary—that the worst of the rom com lonely hearts characatures is actually reality, and that all women desperately want the same thing.

Women are people.  What’s so fucking hard to understand about that?

Comment #63: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/10  at  08:04 PM

Do women put school first much more so than men do?  10-20% more?

If college population gender ratios are indicative of how seriously men and women take school then…yes? I think so?

Comment #64: Bagelsan  on  02/10  at  08:32 PM

Peter’s scenario only has internally consistent logic once you buy his starting assumptions, which are totally not based in reality.

He posits a closed system—college is clearly NOT a closed system
He posits that everyone wants to be coupled—clearly NOT everyone wants to be coupled
He posits a single chance to find someone—obviously we do NOT have only one chance

Whether or not it “works” once you allow for all these assumptions doesn’t matter; the assumptions are wrong.  He might as well be discussing the mating rituals of seahorses for all the relevance it has to real women, the real world, or this conversation.

Comment #65: CalliopeJane  on  02/10  at  08:33 PM

Go to an engineering school and observe the girls and the guys - who’s well dressed, who’s keeping fit, etc.  True, some guys just give up and try to enjoy being single, but you’ll see many well dressed, muscular, well groomed men

We don’t have an engineering program, but we do have a physics and a technology program.  The tech program is basically a blue-collar engineering program and the guys in it almost fit that description.  We get our cleanroom student workers from there and they are generally as funny as they are handsome, which is a nice break from the other scientists smile  Unfortunately, they are a) about 10 years younger than me and b) already have hot girlfriends.

Comment #66: Kyso K  on  02/10  at  08:35 PM

I’m not writing a Master’s thesis; it’s a simple model.

It’s a spectacular failure of a model and seems to show how you shouldn’t let Game Theory books fall into the hands of morons.

Comment #67: BlackBloc  on  02/10  at  08:48 PM

I have a game theory book.  A real one, not the baby stuff from the likes of Axelrod.  Those are in no way easy to take in.  I suppose if you’re good at math, game theory is superficially comprehensible, but it’d be the same way as statistics.  Easy math, but, uh, you just can’t NOT know what you’re actually doing when you’re putting something together.

He doesn’t have much of a comprehension of any model people would take seriously.

And oh yeah, Even at the all guys school and later engineering school, if I actually *tried* to get laid, I’m pretty sure I could.  Just not being an asshole makes you better than a good quarter of the pool, and then actually being good looking and companionable (the latter I was not…) would have made you hot property even if you were at a school 65% or more male.  The same goes for the women at female dominated schools.  Sane, empathetic, competent, etc, etc, really is merely a fraction of the populace, and those that got it can get relationship no prob.  It just gets progressively harder as you lack more and more of the elements of attractiveness.

That’s when you come to the conclusion that the NYTime’s article?  It’s directly written to losers, who hopefully don’t recognize that they’re marks, and not actually being catered to…

Comment #68: shah8  on  02/10  at  10:29 PM

My reaction to PeterZeroOne’s store that gives couples money and single people none (which is like, the wierdest store promotion ever, but lets go with it), is that the extra woman takes out her cell phone and says, “MikeEss, want to get a free $50? Come down to WeirdMart and meet me in aisle 3.”

Which actually has more real-world applicability than the store model itself. Women can enroll on a bunch of dating sites free. They can post Craigsllist ads. They can email old friends. They can go to robot war events, which, if TBBT is correct, are male-dominated. They have thousands of options, really, that are better than “I’ll settle for 1% from him in this relationship, and do the other 99% myself.” Which is what you’re trying to imply by the store model.

Comment #69: Samantha Vimes  on  02/10  at  10:32 PM

Oh my god, I just read that stupid comment #36 to figure out what was going on…

No dude, that stupid economist was doing the same shit stupid freshwater economic priests have been doing since forever…First assume a can-opener.  Models are fine and all, and they have great explanatory power, but the vast majority of models are shallow, and some effort of comprehension of the situation is mandated.  You don’t really get to say that of course, that women left out decides to muscle in.  There is an actual cost of effort, which most people, economists even, account for in making even the most simple of serious models with nash equilibria and everything.  You gotta run studies that figure out what the cost of effort is, and what the value of hookup is, and everything.  You don’t get anything but a tautology using a crap ass model like the one in comment #36.

Comment #70: shah8  on  02/10  at  10:46 PM

Wait, all of us bio people outnumber any of the other sciences commenting here, don’t we?

Comment #71: shah8  on  02/10  at  10:49 PM

So, the boyfriend-substitute functions of the vibrator and the friends are obvious: sex and companionship. Do the cats allow you to experience the joys of hair everywhere and picking up after/feeding someone every day? :D

LOL I believe they provide you the joys of taking care of someone’s every need and then being under appreciated and/or ignored for it.

Personally my cats are sweethearts and definitely better than some of the people I know in terms of companionship.

These types of articles are so completely confusing to me.  I spend so much time thinking “What the hell?” while I’m reading it by the end I’m not sure if I am a complete alien or the rest of society is. 

I spent way too much time in school and at no point did I ever feel any type of desperation for a date.  Studying and getting into trouble with friends was more than enough for me.  I hooked up a couple of times (although both boys and girls so maybe I don’t count) and we had fun but it was never intended to go any further than that because no one wanted it to.  It was college, people wanted their freedom.

I did end up finding a partner near the end of my uni excursion but even then it kind of happened by accident, a good accident because we are still together but it’s one of those “How did we end up together?” type things.  Of course he was not in school at that point so I screwed it up there too.

Thankfully, I get to hear these things shredded apart here, but if it ever does come up in casual conversation my story is not that unusual!  Heck even among those who went to school decades earlier than I (more 70’s but some 60’s) still did not go to school to try and find a man they, horror of horrors, actually went for the education.  Would the mainstream news media please tell that story at some point?

Comment #72: hypatia  on  02/10  at  10:55 PM

I read this and thought more of the standard cosmological explanation of why the observable universe is almost entirely matter, even though almost identical amounts of matter and antimatter are believed to have been formed after the Big Bang. All the matching particles and antiparticles annihilated each other, the story goes, and so what he have left is the tiny excess of normal matter and a lot of photons.

If your observable universe is places where people go to pair off in very conventional ways, in a mostly-static community like a university it won’t be that long into the academic year before all the very-conventional pairs have formed. So regardless of how many men might be available, relatively few of them are likely to be visible at the places where the women this reporter selected choose to look.

Comment #73: paul  on  02/10  at  11:03 PM

Chapel Hill is pretty much just as described.  Down to clothing, make-up, hair, attitudes and the actual words said.  If those were the people they wanted to meet, there are plenty of them around.  Of course, had they gone to a different bar, they could have met people who were more interesting.

And, of course, had they gone to Dartmouth, the article would have been quite different.

But- as stated- this was the article they wanted to write.  It’s just a slice of the population, but from what I’ve seen, I think they are accurate in describing this slice.

Comment #74: drachonfire  on  02/10  at  11:09 PM

”...the extra woman takes out her cell phone and says, “MikeEss, want to get a free $50? Come down to WeirdMart and meet me in aisle 3.” “

Actually, StrangeMart is more my style, but hey, for $50 I can be flexible…

Comment #75: MikeEss  on  02/10  at  11:36 PM

shah-

I think so, I’m bio as well. And what’s cool is a lot of us seem research track. Back in undergrad I always hated that I was practically the only person in any class I took who wasn’t trying to get into medical school.

MikeEss-

StrangeMart has the best Frozen Cthulhu tentacles. They go great in a good Paella of the Damned. Yum, yum.

BlackBloc-

Seriously.

Though I do love the self-pwnage in assuming love a) is at all related to lust b) has anything to do with physical attractiveness while c) basically admitting that the notion that you’d actually want to spend time with a particular person for reasons other than the sexual is incomprehensible. I believe we could sit him down and politely explain to him the facts of life for days and he still would have no fucking clue what he just admitted about himself.

The libertarian mind is a frightening frightening hellscape.

Comment #76: Cerberus  on  02/11  at  12:29 AM

I can’t decide whether Bagelsan at #26 or Unree at #54 or both have won not only this thread, but every other possible thread on this or any other internet on the subject.

Halp!

But wait, maybe PeterZeroOne, through his self-described mansplaining can create an economic model to determine the answer to this question!  Of course, my female brain will probably be too simple to make any sense of it.

Comment #77: Ismone  on  02/11  at  01:33 AM

I think we’re all giving PeterZeroOne too much of a hard time for what is really a horribly simplistic model. It assumes that we will all behave like cooperative lab rats, then applies game theory to the concepts that if you have 49 of one half and 50 of the other half, you’ll only make 49 wholes. I’m sure than an experiment like this could happen, with the proper IRB approval if everyone signs the waiver, and we might even see the results as Peter described. But since the situation is so contrived and the model breaks when any other factors of reality are added, it is barely worth noting.

So essentially, what I am saying is that, Peter is either a true troll, who said something stupid that riled a bunch of people up, or [and I think this is more likely] he just thinks he’s smarter than he really is. Any idiot can figure out that if you have to put two things together and have unmatched numbers, that some things will not be matched. Apply this to sexed animals and assume we’re talking about mating, and the members of the sex with the lower number is automatically at an advantage because they are guaranteed to match up. They may even get to exert some influence over who they choose.

The model is simple, obvious, and really hardly worth repeating. That he still posted it offends me more than the fact that it’s so limited that it doesn’t even apply. So while we’re giving him too much of a hard time, we’re also giving him WAY too much credit.

Comment #78: Ursula  on  02/11  at  01:44 AM

I think the zero one hasn’t seen A Beautiful Mind, or considered that somebody already thought of this AND made it a sufficiently serious area of study to win a Nobel Prize in Economics despite his serious handicaps.

Comment #79: Ms Kate  on  02/11  at  01:12 PM

As Hector B pointed out above, the students in the article are just down the road from Duke University - and, to expand on his point, they’re also within driving distance of Ft Bragg, which has a large population of young men, since it’s a military base.

We mustn’t ignore the possibility of elitism/snobbery when dating on or especially off-campus.  If my experiences with certain Ivy/private Ivy-type schools are any indication, one cannot ignore the possibility some UNC students may not want to go to Duke to date because of the fear of social rejection based on possible perceived snobbery/elitism from Duke students who feel “superior” or the possibility they may not want to go to Ft. Bragg because some UNC students feel they are “superior to military personnel, especially those in the enlisted ranks. 

Then again, I’m just tossing out a theory from my experiences with students attending Ivy/private Ivy/Ivy-type schools in the midwest and the Northeast…especially overhearing arrogant expressions of superiority from some students at the Ivy/private Ivy-type institutions, inferiority complex fears expressed by students at lower-tiered institutions, and some contempt from both groups for dating military personnel…especially those who were not officers as they preferred someone with similar academic background.

Comment #80: exholt  on  02/11  at  06:12 PM

exholt # 80

Yes, you are quite right, snobbery IS a big issue here - and indeed there probably are folks who limit their dating options because they think - falsely - they are “better than” certain other people.

Also, racism - I’m sure there are White UNC students who’d be uncomfortable socializing with military personnel because a high proportion of them are African American or Latino (ESPECIALLY in the enlisted ranks). This might also be a barrier to these folks dating students from the many Historically Black colleges in North Carolina.

Comment #81: GregoryAButler  on  02/11  at  06:19 PM

some UNC students may not want to go to Duke to date because of the fear of social rejection based on possible perceived snobbery/elitism from Duke students who feel “superior”

While we’re traficking in stereotypes, in my experience, stereotypically, men do not have a problem with dating women perceived to be from a “lower-tier” school… even not counting the issue that UNC-Chapel Hill is not really considered a significant step down from Duke, academically.

Comment #82: Tyro  on  02/11  at  07:22 PM

Uh, if these girls were actually paying attention in school instead of spending all their time worrying about d00dz, they’d learn about the Universal Laws of Narrative Irony. Which dictate that the easiest way to get a guy is to stop giving a shit. In fact, if you can learn to actively hate dating men, you’ll be the hottest property on campus! Problem solved!

Comment #83: thecynicalromantic  on  02/12  at  12:29 AM

There are an infinite number of variations on “THE MAN SHORTAGE” story.  There is no man shortage.  There is only a shortage of a certain type of man.  Broad shouldered, muscular, 6’3” tall, 8% body fat, blue-eyed, dark haired, guys with chiseled features who speak 3 languages, play guitar, write poetry, and speak with eloquence are rare outside of the paperback section in the local library.  These man shortage stories are extremely offensive to men, but the vast majority of the public laps them up.

Comment #84: Seth  on  02/13  at  08:11 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.