Said Sourav Guha, assistant dean of admissions at Wesleyan University from 2001 to 2004, quoted in "‘There Was Definitely a Thumb on the Scale to Get Boys’/Declining male enrollment has led many colleges to adopt an unofficial policy: affirmative action for men" (NYT).
This article is illustrated with many photographs of large groups of beautiful young women in shorts. The idea seems to be to cause the reader to agonize over the wasted pulchritude. No boyfriends!
In the 2015 book “Date-onomics,” the business reporter Jon Birger builds the case that hookup culture has become the norm on almost all college campuses, largely because the gender ratio is so skewed. In a world in which straight men are scarce, he maintains, they control the terms of social life. That argument may seem somewhat dated given that so many students now have a wider and more fluid understanding of gender and sexual orientation.
Even so, several women at Tulane expressed to me their sense that the gender ratio left them with fewer options, in sheer numbers and in the kinds of relationships available to them.
Emma Roberts, who graduated from Tulane in the spring, told me she discussed the problem in her gender-studies class. “I think everyone’s consensus we came to was that it’s pretty disgusting trying to date,” she says. “Because the reality is you’re not likely going to find someone that wants to date you.”
Women I spoke to at the University of Vermont agreed that high numbers of female students did not necessarily make for a feminist haven. “It shocks me how many women we can have here and still have a horrible toxic male culture,” said one woman.... [S]he and two friends... characterized the straight men at their school as “picky” and “cocky.”
All three felt they had settled too often — that by the time they left school, they were less confident about what they had the right to ask for in a relationship....
But if they really do "have a wider and more fluid understanding of gender and sexual orientation," why are they not enjoying the new opportunities? I suppose it's one thing to have an expansive "understanding" of what other people are like, but you still want what you want.
To what extent should colleges concern themselves with the students' social life? And even if they do, how can affirmative action for men be the solution? They're going to reject women of higher merit in pursuit some generalized scheme to provide a better array of possibles boyfriends for the women who do attend? And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
Colleges still offer the MRS degree, even subconsciously.
Two girls for every boy....
Yeah, and we're goin' to Serf City, 'cause it's two to one
You know we're goin' to Serf City, gonna have some fun
"I think everyone’s consensus we came to..."
So everyone now, at least at Tulane, has a consensus?
Ann said..." And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!"
From my readings, many men do not attend college due to the fact they are not welcome there, which really doesn't translate into their being the worst students. Unless such BS classes like gender studies, CRT, etc. are required and heavy in the course mix.
Young women, welcome to the new utopia that Marxist-leaning feminist college administrators have created for you. What, you aren't happy with the array of choices we have given to you? We shall have to keep an eye on you . . .
"All three felt they had settled too often"
Euphemisms
Colleges are wayyyyy too focused on their corporate image and not on their mission. These are places students invest 4+ years in and hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital/time value.
However, Ann, I was grabbed too by this sentence, "That argument may seem somewhat dated given that so many students now have a wider and more fluid understanding of gender and sexual orientation. "
I love how this was plopped in there basically to try to give a nod to modern gender theory - meanwhile the practical application of modern gender theory is entirely failing in the article itself.
Maybe students understanding and the academic teaching of "fluid gender and sexual orientation" is actually being taught and applied incorrectly, leading to mass dis-satisfaction and social issues as represented in the article itself. I don't see that even contemplated - instead it's the thing left unsaid.
On the one hand, they say they’re trying to attract more male students. On the other hand, men are denied due process if they’re accused of misconduct. As an aside, asking gender studies students to be sources for the article is a good way to guarantee finding unhappy women to quote.
There's a joke. It's called "the husband store". Read it.
My boys don’t need affirmative action on their behalf, they just need to be judged on the same playing field as everyone else and not be discounted for all of their “privilege “
Black women* have had this problem for a while. They want to mate with smart, successful, honest, healthy, kind, hard-working men. But there aren’t enough to go around. Are they supposed to settle for thugs and layabouts?
* Not just black women, of course. See Theodore Dalrymple on lower-class whites (“yobs”) in the UK. Given the universality of this mate-selection problem that always faces females (who need to be cautious investors of their eggs), why is this particular instance suddenly worth the precious attention of the NYT? Is it because privileged young women aren’t getting everything they wanted, right now and without much effort? In other words: people very like the NYT readership?
Asking for a friend.
Too many birds. Too few worms.
For the record, it is Western woman that has built the societal framework where commitment is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, not men. It is so bad many men view western women, especially American white women, as 100% pozzed. Doesn't mean they're not worth having sex with or anything else short-term, but marriage is almost thoroughly exhausted as a bedrock institution in the West. The economics and the cultural expectations underpinning it no longer function the way they should, and young men are deciding participation is effectively useless. I am married but I thoroughly sympathize with where they're coming from. I got hitched just under the wire and only because I pulled a 'hail mary'.
This wonderful lengthy video from a great divorce lawyer speaks volumes. I highly recommend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5z8-9Op2nM
Have we seen enough yet? Have we seen enough loneliness, longing, and sadness? Or do we need to go another few decades of the failed experiment. The sexual revolution and no judgment divorce (rather than urging people to continue to better themselves to make their relationships stronger) - the social experiment has failed. At stake is human happiness. This is not about controlling social norms for the sake of control. This is about living in a way that brings long lasting and durable joy.
Althouse, “ And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!”
But maybe they are good in bed and would make good husbands.
Socially, a campus population close to balance between the sexes is ideal, for obvious reasons. This isn't rocket science, folks.
If colleges want that balance they need to make themselves more attractive to boys. A good start would be doing away with the Obama-era presumption of rape guilt. Guys getting railroaded for sexual assault when he and she both wanted it, then she had regrets later: that's not something boys are looking for.
Colleges should just stay the hell out of sexual-consent policing; we have a criminal justice system that can handle it. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Maybe the young men can write a personal essay about how they've always struggled in math compared to the girls, but they have overcome such challenges, and now they look forward to owning a pickup truck and running their own business.
They are often handy. I mean really handy.
Is it really affirmative action for men or just an extension of affirmative action for women? Because they're not doing it to help the boys. They're doing it to make the women happy. If it happens to benefit the boys, that is just an unpleasant side-effect.
In an ideal world, schools wouldn’t care about students’ social lives, but they need to to attract students. I can’t help noticing in the pictures that there are a total of six men shown. And of the six, only 1 is actually talking to women. The women have turned their backs on the other 5.
Their mothers and grandmothers won the feminist cause. Why are the female students not happy with those results?
White men are getting affirmative action? Or just men minus white men?
Also, more than a few female podcasters, influencers, journalists, etc. have concluded that the problem with young women is a lot of 3s and 4s are convinced they're 9s and 10s. Maybe these women are not settling at all? If you're a flubby 25 year old with no job and $150,000 in debt, don't expect a super Chad.
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Statesman ... er ... stateswomyn Gloria Steinem
"They're going to reject women of higher merit in pursuit some generalized scheme..."
Isn't that the definition of affirmative action? Is that good or bad? Or does it depend on who you're squeezing out?
Beyonce told us that women run the world. If women run the world, then why do they need so much help?
"That argument may seem somewhat dated given that so many students now have a wider and more fluid understanding of gender and sexual orientation.
Even so..."
"Even so" here means, as Althouse pretty much says, "All the foregoing bullshit aside..."
But if they really do "have a wider and more fluid understanding of gender and sexual orientation," why are they not enjoying the new opportunities?
I'm told there are women in college who are very very heterosexual. Many of them try and hide it to get along...
...it is good to see college is still teaching some economics, albeit in backhanded way. Yes women, the rules of supply and demand still apply. If you are a buyer in a seller's market you're going to have to make concessions and tradeoffs. (There's the substitution effect but see the the statement above...)
If women are supposedly the wiser, superior of the two traditional genders...why didn't you see this coming?
And even if they do, how can affirmative action for men be the solution? They're going to reject women of higher merit in pursuit some generalized scheme to provide a better array of possibles boyfriends for the women who do attend? And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!
Golly, where have we heard this crap before? For a generation you've been fucking falling over yourselves to demonstrate your virtue you've never stopped to consider what you're missing...
Better a “thumb on the scale” than continuing with a “thumb up their ass” for a few more decades.
First, women are instinctively social and collaborative: They join convents, communes, cults, colleges, and become concubines. Boys form goal-oriented teams and gangs, but less often prioritize social outcomes versus competitive/personal/professional goals.
As many have noted: "Girl like people. Boys like things."
Many universities have become a cross between Woke indoctrination centers and female social clubs (...no-sex or alt-sex convents more accurately...modern Isles of Lesbos...)
When an ideology has internal contradictions and tensions, something always warps or breaks. This could be seen in the gay under culture of the Catholic church, and the cynicism of modern-day Mormons who travel just over Utah state lines to drink, gamble, and...whatnot...
Let nature be nature and let cultures evolve organically, or watch your ideology go down in flames after one sterile generation. Many obsolete and surplus colleges don't speak to women (as in, women desiring male mates and heterosexual "trad wife" roles). I advise them to update their curricula. Perhaps they need to invent a modern Home Economics of some sort, and hold social events with non-college laboring men?
To what extent should colleges concern themselves with the students' social life? And even if they do, how can affirmative action { } be the solution?
...this one makes more sense when presented without added context...
seems like a problem that will take care of itself;
since a MAJORITY of girls are now being Told that they are SUPPOSED To BE male.
I think we can assume a trans male (a girl that pretends to be a boy) would go to the FRONT of the line?
Of course, longer term problems..
These side show freaks are going to to be sterile, thanks to their "treatment"
Educated little girls are educated to NOT want children.. No Matter WHAT
This leaves the colleges with the prospect of either being empty,
or filling with illiterate illegal immigrants, that can't even read or write.. in spanish
Don’t worry young man! You should work hard in school and get all straight As! Then study hard during college, then get a good job, work hard at it, save every penny, invest it, go to the gym, work hard at being social, and then maybe when you’re in your 30s you’ll meet a used-up cashed-out railed-through American woman of no value to settle down with.
Remember to give her plenty of oral sex. Remember to think about her pleasure. Geez. Come on. DON'T BE SELFISH.
In college heavy Boston this phenomenon is more obvious. There's disproportionate groups of young women. On the street or restaurant tables full of young women- pairs, trios, big groups...
At one of the banks we work with there's a tall handsome mommas boy kind of guy who checks all the boxes. He has to beat 'em off with a stick. The older lady he works for says she's had to rescue him a few times when the circle of women surrounding him in a bar gets too deep....
Alternate Headline:
Supply Chain Issues Affect Bicycle Shops Nationwide
Fish Hardest Hit
To what extent should colleges concern themselves with the students' social life?
What is it we're always hearing about the other AA programs? To expose students to a diversity of thought and culture in order to foster a more inclusive campus and create better rounded students and adults...
...or something.
Bob Boyd at 0722, Right on, bro. This is being done for the females. They don't give a hoot about the boys themselves/
A few random thoughts:
This demonstrates once again that the iron law of unintended consequences is always in force. Perhaps it would be wise to impose strict time limits on these "let's fix this discrimination" type of remedial statutes with high bars for their re-enactment (say a 7/8 supermajority, even more on subsequent re-enactments). Experience would by now seem to suggest that these things take on lives of their own, and serve mostly to perpetuate public and private bureaucracies rather than actually improve the lot of the alleged beneficiaries of the law.
I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' timeless quote regarding the tyranny of omnipotent moral busybodies. Appears to be at work here.
And finally, women benefit greatly from a statutory scheme expressly designed to do so, and yet the takeaway is that women are hardest hit ("reject women of higher merit", "possible boyfriends the worst students at the school!"
Kind regards,
CS
Women have priced themselves out of the market for relationships. It's all transactional now. They made it that way with their insane monetary demands and indentured servitude for men when it doesn't work out. Not to mention the false accusations of criminal rape when they don't feel respected on their walk of shame, having sobered up.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
― C. S. Lewis
"They're doing it to make the women happy. If it happens to benefit the boys, that is just an unpleasant side-effect."
Great insight, Bob Boyd.
And to Rejahm, I had a similar take. This is a classic example of an ignorance of, and a failing to account for, basic market forces.
RideSpaceMountain said...
This wonderful lengthy video from a great divorce lawyer speaks volumes
"marriage is a contract; couples spend more time discussing the wedding cake, than they do their contract"
This article is illustrated with many photographs of large groups of beautiful young women in shorts. The idea seems to be to cause the reader to agonize over the wasted pulchritude. No boyfriends!
Are we sure it's that or is it more about there not being enough boys for the girls to terrorize? Seems to me today's young women aren't happy unless they are leaving a trail of destruction in their wake.
I've commented about this for years now. We've reduced men by design.
We spent years propping up All Things Women. (or Womyn...depending on how are left you went). In the 80s we told the country that girls were not getting called on in classes because boys, engaged in the topics back then, were too eager to raise their hands with the answers. So teachers were instructed to call on the girls, ignore the boys. To maybe alter curricula a bit to make it less 'masculine' and more appealing to the girls.
And after a few years of boys getting bored by the new curricula and not getting called on, they were getting twitchy. It was decided to drug the boys. Any boys showing boyish behavior had to be tamped down. Ritalin. Adderal.
That worked pretty well, but not good enough so the next phase was to just declare war on men and boys. 'Toxic Masculinity' was diagnosed as the problem. Manly behavior was decreed bad (even opening a door for a woman). Beta behavior, with men being portrayed on TV and in movies as sheepish morons, while the ladies win the day, became the norm. Still is. Seen men on TV commercials? Yikes.
Next, we quit looking to admit to college or hiring for a job those men who made it through all of that. 'Equity', you know. And we just forgot about them all from there on.
We've ignored them, drugged them, castigated them, penalized them, refused them jobs or college, and continue to this day to prop up women, for whatever reason, and denounce anything masculine.
Until there's a need for someone to fight for them, or run into a burning building, or carry heavy objects, build a home, and on and on. Just don't open a door for a woman.
We got the dearth of men in colleges by design. And now, women have the degrees, the advanced degrees, and cannot find a man to meet their income and interests. It was done by design. They're going to need to remove the yoke from boys and let 'em rip.
But gender studies and talk of "toxic male culture" must sound so inviting to all those male students they want!
Somewhat reminded me of a high school friend, something-or-other Blair, a high school lothario, eagerly going off to be part the first coed class at Skidmore.
I assume he met with great success.
If you've a former boy - now a grrl - the left roll out the red carpet.
Well, feminist-strutting, sexually-fluiding, Title IX-abusing, Democrat-voting, college-educated White women: You broke it, you bought it.
Wasted pulchritude? I saw far too many fat girls in those pix. Or fat tending.
- Krumhorn
Sex: male and female. Gender is sex-correlated attributes (e.g. sexual orientation): masculine and feminine, respectively. Trans- indicates a state or process of divergence from normal.
Men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature/nature. Reconcile.
That said, men, women, and our Posterity are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus. War of the worlds.
I strongly suspect that the "thumb on the scales' in favor of men is more like "slightly less thumb on the scales" in favor of women. Women make up 58% of the college population, don't tell me that women are actually that much "smarter" than male applicants. Most schools, particularly good schools, have more than enough highly qualified applicants that they can adjust rations of sexes, ethnicity, religion, etc. without significantly changing the qualifications of their student populations, at least where the subject applicant pool is sufficiently large (e.g., if they wanted to get a larger share of Fijian natives, I doubt there are that many to chose from).
Also, if this person is suggesting that Wesleyan was putting a "thumb on the scales" back in 2001-2004, it was a very weak thumb - Wesleyan reports itself as 54% female today (and 46% male but somehow also 3.5% transgender, gender nonbinary, or genderqueer - maybe don't go to Wesleyan to study math or statistics).
Finally, the "thumb" (such as it was) appears to have been removed or even switched back to the females side of the scale - the new class of freshmen at Wesleyan is (according to the school itself) 58% female, well over the 50.8% that women make up of the country as a whole (and made more egregious when you consider that men make up more than 50% of the college-aged population of the country - 51% of 15-19 year-olds are men, and 50.8% of 20-24 year-olds are men).
Pulchritude! Hadn't hear that in a while. Yeah baby!
>Krumhorn said...
Wasted pulchritude? I saw far too many fat girls in those pix. Or fat tending.<
Huh?? I saw three or four mildly overweight girls amongst dozens of normal sized ones.
Perhaps you would be more interested in photos of the liberation of Auschwitz's women's camp...
Been a while since I was in college. Class of 66. My kids, class of 2000. The pictures look like my granddaughter's friends, graduating high school in a couple of years. Did they recruit the "boys"--used to be referred to as "men", which might tell you something about how things are going today--from a junior high?
It would be a happy movie which put guys in a 70% women, 30% men. Lots of opportunities for comedy gold plus some R-rated implications. And have the women all within three miles'distance and two years' age of the guys. What could be better?
So why on Earth are there so few guys? At what point do we go from the happy hunting ground to a "girly" institution where guys are, deliberately, made to feel unwelcome?
Absent the MRS issue, perhaps women think they need the degree more than guys do, some of whom can see themselves in the trades, or some business where they get in on the bottom and move on up. Got a relation who did that with a big national retailer and, even counting for inflation, his income at age twenty-six is astounding. Takes classes when time allows.
A guy of average size, of average forthrightness/assertiveness, who moves well enough to do okay in intramural sports, keeps his grades at better than C+ might end up with more attention than he can handle, based on the male competition shown in the article.
And, worse for the women on campus is that some number of T9-shy guys only date townies.
So is the complaint that the women are forced to give away for practically free that which used to be desperately sought at immense effort? Mostly, anyway.
"Emma Roberts, who graduated from Tulane in the spring, told me she discussed the problem in her gender-studies class. "
Oh..
Youngins are big on the dating apps.
The tables are reversed there. women inundated with pursuits while most men invisible.
“There was definitely a thumb on the scale to get boys”
Since the ratio of girls to boys is 60 – 40 at most universities, they are going to need a stronger thumb. You would think that with their expertise in affirmative action for minorities, they would be able to do a better job of finding boys if they really wanted them at their university.
I never heard "The Husband Store" joke, so I looked it up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/7djqsk/the_husband_store_the_wife_store/?rdt=55244
Excellent joke.
My understanding is that there are some 20,000,000 excess males of college age in China, compared with female numbers there. Surely some of them can be imported to supply the college's need for slim, smooth-skinned young men? After all, all cats are grey in the dark, and a male body at a college is just a male body, right?
Danno said...
"Unless such BS classes like gender studies, CRT, etc. are required and heavy in the course mix."
They are. When I finished my degree in biology for the screw of it, the class on topography cancelled and they were trying to get me enrolled in something else. Gender studies, women's studies, etc were offered. I asked for a class on men's studies. "Uh... We don't have any of those."
Temujin @ 9:15: Word-perfect summary of the situation. Thanks.
Tommyesq @ 9:55: Well said. What I find interesting about the "thumb on the scale" is, once you start messing with the admissions process (counting by color or sex, then hiding your work), you can't stop. Also you tend to "overcontrol" things: by tweaking this ratio or that, you get unforeseen effects, often unwanted and expensive and long-lasting ones. The analogy is to driving fast: you need to focus on bigger objects farther away, you can't steer by looking at the hood ornament. If you do so, you will crash. Hard.
Here? A lot of chickens coming home to roost. But the DEI bureaucracies won't care. Until they are made to care; preferably (IMHO) by massive if not total attrition.
[S]he and two friends... characterized the straight men at their school as “picky” and “cocky.”
Why shouldn't they be picky?
Althouse:
“And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!"
With an exclamation point. As if that emphasizes the factual nature of the statement.
Easily half of the stupidest fucking people I've ever met have had college degrees. Easily half of the most intelligent have had none.
"This article is illustrated with many photographs of large groups of beautiful young women in shorts. The idea seems to be to cause the reader to agonize over the wasted pulchritude. No boyfriends!"
Headline: Men Denied Higher Education Opportunities, Women Hardest Hit.
Althouse:
"They're going to reject women of higher merit in pursuit some generalized scheme to provide a better array of possibles boyfriends for the women who do attend?"
Now construct that sentence replacing "women" with "whites" and "boyfriends for women" with more melanin diversity and you have affirmative action. I thought you were for that.
There was once a California state Senator who often referred the "Lesbian spear chuckers." I think he was referring to many nof those girls "without" boyfriends.
When my daughter was at UCLA she thought she wanted to join an intramural sport. She made the mistake of going to a meeting of the Rugby Club. They were all lesbians and she finally had to change her phone number. They would not stop calling her.
When me were 60/80/100% of college students: "it's a meritocracy, men are smarter with a constitution better suited to dedication and learning"
Now that women are 60% of college students: "this is a productive of us having beaten down men for decades, the system favors women"
Cons are happy to use structural inequality arguments when it suites them to do so.
Blogger mikee said...
"My understanding is that there are some 20,000,000 excess males of college age in China, compared with female numbers there. Surely some of them can be imported to supply the college's need..."
No. Recall, Asians are on the exclusion side of the spectrum.
Cassandra-lite wins the thread with the second comment!
Now, likely the girls are going for the guys with pecs, not the guys in PECS (Physics, engineering and computer science). However, the lower-achieving men in PECS still do all right as far as getting a degree in college
But perhaps the girls will need to lower their 6-pack abs standard and raise their eyes to look for the pocket protector.
In a new study published today in the peer-reviewed research journal, Science, NYU researchers find that this disparity is not caused by higher math or science achievement among men. On the contrary, the scholars found that men with very low high-school GPAs in math and science and very low SAT math scores were choosing these math-intensive majors just as often as women with much higher math and science achievement.
“Physics, engineering and computer science fields are differentially attracting and retaining lower-achieving males, resulting in women being underrepresented in these majors but having higher demonstrated STEM competence and academic achievement,” said Joseph R. Cimpian, lead researcher and associate professor of economics and education policy at NYU Steinhardt.
Define irony in college: Raising the question of why there are so few straight men on campus in your Women's Studies class.
Or at least it is a lack of self awareness.
Oligonicella said...
"Easily half of the stupidest fucking people I've ever met have had college degrees."
Ah, but perhaps they were among the best students.
Education is a private matter between the person and the world of knowledge and experience, and has little to do with school or college.
Lillian Smith
Colleges increasingly offer men nothing of value, not even women worth marrying. That is a hard truth women are starting to learn, perhaps.
Some of those gals need to become guys.
Take..one..for the team.
“This wonderful lengthy video from a great divorce lawyer speaks volumes. I highly recommend.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5z8-9Op2nM
Great video. Why marriage? Why get married? And if you do get a pre-nup. I think that the video will make me a kinder partner, at least until it wears off.
Top photo. Hot, tanned brunette in jeans and Doc Martens:
"God Damn it all. Those stuck-up cunts wouldn't take me into Tri Delt and now I'm sitting on a curb in New Orleans reeking of piss and vomit surrounded by a bunch of sweat hogs with their tits hanging out pretending that I'm happy. Fuck my life."
Althouse: "They're going to reject women of higher merit in pursuit [of] some generalized scheme to provide a better array of possibles boyfriends for the women who do attend? And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!"
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the word "merit" means.
This sort of thing makes me even more of a male Supremest than I usually am. Women, together, work hard for something, get it, and it turns out that they totally screwed it up for everyone. And esp for themselves. They wanted a more female friendly college, and got it. And now not only can they not find a decent husband in college, but they have to, essentially, prostitute themselves to date men. No real thought of long term consequences, just fairly short term, localized, advantage. An argument for repeal of the 19th Amdt (from a guy whose GGG and GG grandmothers, and their sisters, were actively advocating for sufferance, temperance, and abolition of slavery, in the 1850s).
The optimal M/F sex ratio in college is probably about 55/45. Maybe a bit higher for women, but under 50/50. Females are more driven to marry up than males (who try to move up more on their own). If both sexes have bell curves of desirability centered on 5 (out of 10), then the 5 women prefer 6 and 7 guys, while the 6 women prefer 7 and 8 guys, etc. That means that in many dating relationship, the females are going to have to work harder to get dates, and ultimately, relationships. Putting out earlier, for less chance of a long term relationship (which typically drives women more than men, because of their instinctive need for a provider for their kids, etc). More desirable males have to do less and less to get laid, and the females that don’t put out are passed over for those who do - and are thus pressured to follow suit. Hence the hookup culture in colleges around the country, where everyone gets really drunk Friday nights, and text around until they find a sex partner. Then, the next day, when the guy walks out, without a commitment to the gal, she feels betrayed, because sex is what she instinctively trades for commitment, and she didn’t get what she really wanted, but didn’t require.
My college class, a bit over 50 years ago, was 60/40 M/F. Though there were fewer women than men, they had higher GPAs (almost all had >=4.0) in HS, while we didn’t. That ratio worked fairly well. But we are now seeing the reverse - 40/60 M/F. That means 3 women for every 2 men. The pressure has to be immense to snag a quality guy, esp with the drive to marry up. Instead of acknowledging that the problem is the mismatch in attractive mates, the blame is placed on toxic masculinity. And the feminized sexual mores enforcement apparatus and bureaucracy more often than not sides with the (scorned) woman, ultimately turning higher education toxic for males, who are just doing what guys are driven so hard to do at that age by their hormones - get laid. And this toxicity towards males just makes it less desirable for them, further distorting the sex ratios, making things worse and worse. The whole system is spiraling down, with no real end in sight. Again, an example of females, as a group, to understand and appreciate long term consequences, and instead concentrate of short term, personal, advantage.
Easily half of the stupidest fucking people I've ever met have had college degrees. Easily half of the most intelligent have had none.
That's been my experience.
There's more than one way to be stupid, just like there's more than one way to be smart.
There are probably a lot more ways to be stupid. They're certainly easier to find.
Is that mattress-carrying liar still on the loose? She did more to disuade makes from college than any other single factor.
PrimoStL said, "Beyonce told us that women run the world. If women run the world, then why do they need so much help?"
The first rule of feminism is you do not acknowledge physical reality. The second rule of feminism is you do not acknowledge physical reality.
Also RideSpaceMountain, that interview is dynamite. Really wish I would've watched that 12 years ago. Damnation.
Women I spoke to at the University of Vermont agreed that high numbers of female students did not necessarily make for a feminist haven. “It shocks me how many women we can have here and still have a horrible toxic male culture,” said one woman.
I really cannot get over the hilarity of this line.
Although as the mother of men, it bothers me. It bothers me that we are allowed to talk about men this way, even to the point where they get the blame for a bad culture among high numbers of women.
Send your sons to college to find wives.
This sort of thing makes me even more of a male Supremest than I usually am. Women, together, work hard for something, get it, and it turns out that they totally screwed it up for everyone. And esp for themselves. They wanted a more female friendly college, and got it. And now not only can they not find a decent husband in college, but they have to, essentially, prostitute themselves to date men. No real thought of long term consequences, just fairly short term, localized, advantage. An argument for repeal of the 19th Amdt (from a guy whose GGG and GG grandmothers, and their sisters, were actively advocating for sufferance, temperance, and abolition of slavery, in the 1850s).
The optimal M/F sex ratio in college is probably about 55/45. Maybe a bit higher for women, but under 50/50. Females are more driven to marry up than males (who try to move up more on their own). If both sexes have bell curves of desirability centered on 5 (out of 10), then the 5 women prefer 6 and 7 guys, while the 6 women prefer 7 and 8 guys, etc. That means that in many dating relationship, the females are going to have to work harder to get dates, and ultimately, relationships. Putting out earlier, for less chance of a long term relationship (which typically drives women more than men, because of their instinctive need for a provider for their kids, etc). More desirable males have to do less and less to get laid, and the females that don’t put out are passed over for those who do - and are thus pressured to follow suit. Hence the hookup culture in colleges around the country, where everyone gets really drunk Friday nights, and text around until they find a sex partner. Then, the next day, when the guy walks out, without a commitment to the gal, she feels betrayed, because sex is what she instinctively trades for commitment, and she didn’t get what she really wanted, but didn’t require.
My college class, a bit over 50 years ago, was 60/40 M/F. Though there were fewer women than men, they had higher GPAs (almost all had >=4.0) in HS, while we didn’t. That ratio worked fairly well. But we are now seeing the reverse - 40/60 M/F. That means 3 women for every 2 men. The pressure has to be immense to snag a quality guy, esp with the drive to marry up. Instead of acknowledging that the problem is the mismatch in attractive mates, the blame is placed on toxic masculinity. And the feminized sexual mores enforcement apparatus and bureaucracy more often than not sides with the (scorned) woman, ultimately turning higher education toxic for males, who are just doing what guys are driven so hard to do at that age by their hormones - get laid. And this toxicity towards males just makes it less desirable for them, further distorting the sex ratios, making things worse and worse. The whole system is spiraling down, with no real end in sight. Again, an example of females, as a group, to understand and appreciate long term consequences, and instead concentrate of short term, personal, advantage.
Supply and demand.
Even when I was attending Humboldt State in the early’80’s the proportion of women to men was 2:1. Alas, very few beautiful young women in shorts.
'Emma Roberts, who graduated from Tulane in the spring, told me she discussed the problem in her gender-studies class. “I think everyone’s consensus we came to was that it’s pretty disgusting trying to date,” she says. “Because the reality is you’re not likely going to find someone that wants to date you.”'
Guy: Hey, what's your major?
Girl: Gender Studies
Guy: Goddamn, is that the time? I have to pick up my girlfriend from her work!
"Send your sons to college to find wives."
Send your sons to college to find future ex-wives.
"Send your sons to college to find wives."
Worst advice in the world. Women initiate 70% of the divorces. For women with college degrees, the women initiate 90% of the divorces. So send you son to college to find a wife so he can lose 50% of his wealth and likely have to fight to see his children.
I remember I first heard the phrase "feminine pulchritude" from a W.C. Fields bit, so I hear it in his voice every time I see it.
Trans/homosexual females will fill the gaps. Trans/sim-feminine will enjoy the fruits of social progress. Women can take a knee, figuratively, and literally.
I don't understand why women in college can't find men to date.
In the mid 1900s there were a lot of all men and all women colleges, but the men in those all male colleges were able to find women to go out with.
In the 1920s and up to the 1970s before the ratio of men to women in college became equal, men were able to find women to date. Why can't women of today figure it out now that they are in the majority?
Today, for every 100 men in college, there are about 140 women. And we have a big push for the government to pay for the debt they have because the will be in debt for their lifetimes. Are those that don't go to college the less intelligent ones? See Mike Roe!!!!
Why would a man want to date (or marry) a woke feminist woman with a degree in women studies or social equity, who complains about toxic males and the evil of the patriarchy. That is really key... many/most/all feminists think men are the problem. I don't think they have any capability of looking at life from another point of view.
In the early 1970s when I was in college, I would often ask women the question "Why should it be called 'Women's liberation' and not 'People's liberation' Don't men need to be liberated from the stereotypes also? The answers were telling and would often determine if I ever wanted to become associated with them at all.
And those possible boyfriends are the worst students at the school!
@Althouse, read what Temujin wrote at 9:15.
If the experiences of my sons in K-12 and taking mandatory humanities, social sciences, and grievance studies classes in college are any indication, capable male students find their first 13 years of education and portions of their college experience to be an exercise in learning despite their teachers.
The men are over in the engineering building. Or they're at a technical school learning welding, plumbing, etc.
The article uses the lack of men in colleges to promote affirmative action and to highlight a problem for women in finding love. There isn't any interest in why there is a lack of men in colleges in the first place (at least in the excerpt here). But they still do manage to portray men in a negative way. 'Toxic male culture' is a nice touch!
This is all related to that article a few days ago on how Americans have 'lost their faith in the value of college,' which can be reframed as how colleges have lost the trust of many Americans, including increasing numbers of men.
"If the women don't find you handsome, at least let them find you handy" - Red Green.
You know, if you take a few steps back, you realize that you're reading an article about Universities that was written by-and-for Administrators, instead of by-and-for Educators. Kind of sticks out.
This article is illustrated with many photographs of large groups of beautiful young women in shorts. The idea seems to be to cause the reader to agonize over the wasted pulchritude. No boyfriends!
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." - H. Clinton
“Send your sons to college to find wives.“
They’d do better finding immigrant wives than spoiled Americans.
You can do a lot to attract men to a university other than lowering academic standards. Maybe create an incredible STEM program. Have great sports. Don’t require women’s studies or DEI courses. Create good living arrangements Don’t assume they are rapists
Now that women are 60% of college students: "this is a productive of us having beaten down men for decades, the system favors women"
Cons are happy to use structural inequality arguments when it suites them to do so.
Are you denying that education K through Ph.D. has been altered in dozens of ways that benefit women and disadvantage men?
“Gender studies” … now what exactly are they teaching? Now I’m genuinely curious what a typical class looks like. Oh, I can guess, but it’d be nice to have evidence. And (guessing) you could teach that class in about 30 minutes total, over a coffee. But there’s a gravy train to keep running.
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." - H. Clinton
How incredibly obtuse if her to ignore the real primary victims.
This sort of thing makes me even more of a male Supremest than I usually am. Women, together, work hard for something, get it, and it turns out that they totally screwed it up for everyone. And esp for themselves. They wanted a more female friendly college, and got it. And now not only can they not find a decent husband in college, but they have to, essentially, prostitute themselves to date men. No real thought of long term consequences, just fairly short term, localized, advantage. An argument for repeal of the 19th Amdt (from a guy whose GGG and GG grandmothers, and their sisters, were actively advocating for sufferance, temperance, and abolition of slavery, in the 1850s).
The optimal M/F sex ratio in college is probably about 55/45. Maybe a bit higher for women, but under 50/50. Females are more driven to marry up than males (who try to move up more on their own). If both sexes have bell curves of desirability centered on 5 (out of 10), then the 5 women prefer 6 and 7 guys, while the 6 women prefer 7 and 8 guys, etc. That means that in many dating relationship, the females are going to have to work harder to get dates, and ultimately, relationships. Putting out earlier, for less chance of a long term relationship (which typically drives women more than men, because of their instinctive need for a provider for their kids, etc). More desirable males have to do less and less to get laid, and the females that don’t put out are passed over for those who do - and are thus pressured to follow suit. Hence the hookup culture in colleges around the country, where everyone gets really drunk Friday nights, and text around until they find a sex partner. Then, the next day, when the guy walks out, without a commitment to the gal, she feels betrayed, because sex is what she instinctively trades for commitment, and she didn’t get what she really wanted, but didn’t require.
My college class, a bit over 50 years ago, was 60/40 M/F. Though there were fewer women than men, they had higher GPAs (almost all had >=4.0) in HS, while we didn’t. That ratio worked fairly well. But we are now seeing the reverse - 40/60 M/F. That means 3 women for every 2 men. The pressure has to be immense to snag a quality guy, esp with the drive to marry up. Instead of acknowledging that the problem is the mismatch in attractive mates, the blame is placed on toxic masculinity. And the feminized sexual mores enforcement apparatus and bureaucracy more often than not sides with the (scorned) woman, ultimately turning higher education toxic for males, who are just doing what guys are driven so hard to do at that age by their hormones - get laid. And this toxicity towards males just makes it less desirable for them, further distorting the sex ratios, making things worse and worse. The whole system is spiraling down, with no real end in sight. Again, an example of females, as a group, to understand and appreciate long term consequences, and instead concentrate of short term, personal, advantage.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा