The New York Times ran an interesting article earlier this weekend about the sex ratio on college campuses and how it is wreaking havoc with the social lives of the female undergraduates. The entire article is worth a read, but here are a few highlights:
Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.
Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”
…
“A lot of my friends will meet someone and go home for the night and just hope for the best the next morning,” Ms. Lynch said. “They’ll text them and say: ‘I had a great time. Want to hang out next week?’ And they don’t respond.”
Even worse, “Girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with, to lock it down,” Ms. Lynch said.
As for a man’s cheating, “that’s a thing that girls let slide, because you have to,” said Emily Kennard, a junior at North Carolina. “If you don’t let it slide, you don’t have a boyfriend.”
It’s very interesting that things like this are now being talked about openly in the media. Of course there is still language in the article about how the men are “victimizing” women because of the sex ratio, but that’s as absurd as saying that the young professional women in Manhattan are “victimizing” their male peers by dating and sexing several notches up the social totem pole. What comes around goes around, ladies.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }
College guys nowadays have it real good!
I went to a technically oriented University where the male/female ratio at the time was 60/40. Of those 40 girls, 20 weren’t all that good looking to begin with. So the guys really had to hussle to get any action.
It seems to be the exact opposite nowadays.
LOL!! Wish it was like that at my uni! But I went to uni is a steel works town where men outnumbered women 10 to 1 easily. That meant it was pretty much impossible to get laid at my uni. To do so you HAD to steal some other guys woman, and the guys were possessive because of the shortage.
It’s funny to see how women ‘complain’ about shit even when they get their way. No matter HOW good a woman has it she complains. It is still not good enough. My fav#1 is correct when she said:
“Women do not know what they want. They have to be told what they can have by their man and then told to be happy about it. Then a woman will be happy.”
I like that quote.
Social life? Is that:
a) Help me with my homework best friend-handyman. Listen to my blabber.
b) Someone whom I can go to parties, get drunk and have sweaty dorm sex with.
c) Someone to help pay for my tuition and daily expenses.
d) A potential soul mate whom I might marry in future.
Sorry, not interested.
P.S: More women in college does not mean that the creatures with a smaller brain turned more intelligent in a few decades. It only means that more young men have switched off, in part due to affirmative action BS in academia.
I know women with graduate degrees and excel in a certain profession but are total airheads beyond the immediate scope of their job. Highly schooled, poorly educated.
So by accounting for a smaller percent of the student body, men are “victimizing” women… huh… and those feminists who advocate killing 99% of the male population, what’s their take on it?
I see, so the worst part of the declining male population in college is that poor girls can’t get dates. Forget that affirmation action other facets of the war on men might be a societal problem worthy of an article or two. Nah, girls can’t get dates. That’s the issue.
Well isn’t Rachel Sasser lucky that she got picked by her ‘boyfriend’ over the multitude of others.
It’s a matter of supply and demand, guys previously had to do more to get what they wanted previously. If girls were feeling pressured they were pressuring themselves. Don’t wanna give a BJ? Don’t give a BJ. Don’t wanna do anal? Don’t do anal. Of course you may not “lock it down” because there are other women who are comfortable “to do more”.
See above.
Of course no-one in the MSM is ready to say that the lack of men in universities is a problem in itself — that would be far too anti-feminist in a direct way. Articles like this one, however, are still a bit anti-feminist in that they suggest that there are darksides to ushering in a new era of female supremacy. In that sense, they are helpful, even if they are focused on relatively silly things.
It may be 60% women at some of these east-cost liberal arts colleges, but at my engineering school, our incoming freshman class was only 23% female. Coupled with the attitude that a lot of these female engineering majors take to men, and we have a campus that reflects pretty closely what a lot of posters here say the end result of feminism is: only 20% of the guys getting laid, with the remaining 80% living in a state of near-permanent celibacy.
Engineering schools (male dominated) and ivy league schools (gerry-mandered to get equal sex ratios, although the US government is investigating this and may force it to be discontinued) are the exceptions. In the male-dominated schools, you’d expect to see a how it works with a high sex ratio: women have the social power and most men are left alone.
After college, what happens is that women have access to a LOT more men (at least those women who did not attend urban universities), and so the men who are their age peers (=/- 1-2 years as was the case in college) are often cast aside in favor of slightly older, more established guys (say aged 25-30). In that sense the time between college graduation and 30 is the hardest for most male college grads, because the women are doing the hypergamy thing and the 80/20 rule comes into play. So the college scene is quite temporary. I’d also expect that the experiences many women are having in college (low sex ratio leading to more free-flowing sex and hook-ups) is spilling over into what women in their 20s are "willing" to do to try to rope a "desirable" man. The behaviors are consistent, even if the pool of men they are dealing with is different.
The article in a nutshell: Hypergamous females only consider roughly 1/3rd of ‘eligible’ men to be worthy of consideration as mates. Those males deemed worthy pump and dump with alacrity, secular-harems of bitches compete for the attention of the alpha.
The MRA/PUA folks are way ahead of the curve on what’s happening in our world.
There is a movement to bring down the misandrist Carol Shea-Porter.
http://www.carol-shea-porter.com/
I say we bring visibility to this, and make an example of her.
The money quote: “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider”
Even with fewer guys available, the betas still get nada. Looks like the same math to me! Don’t expect to find love in college no matter what the ratio there is unless you have wealth or game.
TFH,
Notice, that she is still laying all the blame on “Republican” women. She STILL threw the opposition under the bus.
I do agree, she needs to go.
“Don’t expect to find love in college no matter what the ratio there is unless you have wealth or game.”
You can’t find love: you buy it! Period.
This made me laugh:
Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percentthey’re complaining about a shortage of men, and yet they still discount half of the male population of campus out of hand.
If the genders where reversed, who would publish this?
“College campuses are overwhelmingly male but the real tragedy is that the boys can’t find enough hot girls.’Half the girls are fugly and that leaves all the guys fighting over a small number of hot girls. Getting pussy is just so damn hard.’, complained Brad, a sexualy frustrated member of the Beta Epsilon fraternity.
Lol, it’s very true. Hypergamy is always the rule, it’s just that in some circumstances it’s more frustrating for women than in others.
There is a movement to oust that misandrist Carol Shea Porter.
Yes, the article also notes that many men are dateless because they don’t make the cut. Women will not adjust downwards.
Women even in high female sex ratios would rather share, tolerating infidelity, than have “all” of a beta guy.
It will only get worse.
While men are the minority on campus; because, of the lack of men’s scholarships and grants, they’re blamed for not being numerous enough. This is a joke. If these women want boyfriends, then they can start demanding that the government support it’s male students, as much as it does it’s female students. This article is really messed up. These college girls don’t have a right to have romance in school; but, the men should have a right to equal educational opportunities .
I agree that this was very revealing. No matter how few men are around, women will still sift and sort to optimize and discard the rest. Very revealing of how hypergamous mate selection works, even in a context that is not favorable to women.
I shed a tear. Seems turnabout is fair play.
This is pretty contemptible behavior on both accounts. Disregarding the “permissive environment”, women who remain with scoundrels get what they ask for. Men who behave as scoundrels tend to reap what they sow as well . . . Eventually other men of any stature cease to trust them.
That isn’t to say I’m not a scoundrel . . . None the less.
women’s oppression: I have the right to a boyfriend on campus!
men’s oppression: I have the right not to be discarded in the college admissions process because of my gender
when women have nothing real to complain about, they’ll find something unreal.
I’m a little surprised to see women admit they dismiss half the male population out of hand, even in an environment of scarcity. The Code usually prohibits admissions of this kind.
Or better.
I think a collateral effect will be that, once women realize MRS. degrees are no longer available at a college, they will decline to spend the time and money to get a degree of questionable economic benefit. Not long ago, four years at a subsidized university coasting to a degree in English Lit. or Art History could be a pretty good investment if it allowed her to sink her meat hooks into some young man’s future earning stream.
Fewer men, and the few men left have little incentive to invest in or commit to a relationship. Wave Bye-bye! When I was a senior, I remember female classmates shifting from dating the exciting party boys with poor job prospects and casting about for a NiceGuy with multiple job offers.
@ Novaseeker “After college, what happens is that women have access to a LOT more men”
But during college, the men have been pre-selected for their dating convenience. Generally, smart, organized, successful, good prospects, single, at the height of their sexual imperative, etc. Once these women graduate, there are more men about, but these men are more likely to be married, too old, too young, etc. Once men graduate, they, too, have access to a LOT more women, several of whom are likely to be quite desirable, compared to their female classmates.
I too think it’s odd that the woman quoted in the article admits that she ignores half the men, and then complains about having to compete for the unbonded remainder. It’s like complaining about having to stand up when half the seats aren’t taken.
Some lovely quotes from the article –
Funny stuff, that.
Priceless! Suck it up, bitch.
But the hypergamy is still strong and the betas still get squat.
Ha I actually posted a comment to that article explaining how absurd it was. Not only was my comment not posted, but they immediately closed down the comment section.
honestly, I think you guys make things too complicated. Dress nice, smell nice, and have a good sense of humor and you would be surprised at home many women will come on to you. I am 6′5" and weigh over 300 pounds and I joke about how I do nude modeling and it breaks down a lot of defenses. If you want to date the most beautiful woman, well beautiful woman have pretty much always been a problem. I dont date much because I dont really see the point in being with a woman that I want to date only and not have a family with.
“More women in college does not mean that the creatures with a smaller brain turned more intelligent in a few decades. It only means that more young men have switched off.”
Good point, so the apathy has set in and stage six (the last stage) of John Bagot Glubb’s stages of empire is around the corner.
Re: Zammo,
This is also a choice quote from the article because you can bet Felicite, if she’s even remotely goodlooking, has shot down or subsequently ignored genuinely nice guys who nervously bought her a drink.
Re: epoche*, agreed, it isn’t hard (and especially for you, you are a giant). But attracting women involves what is counterintuitive behavior for most men. Example: it is incredibly hazardous to bring flowers or chocolate on the first date. Arriving nonchalantly late by 5-10 minutes can be beneficial. It goes on and on.
“it is incredibly hazardous to bring flowers or chocolate on the first date. Arriving nonchalantly late by 5-10 minutes can be beneficial. It goes on and on.”
Quite true. Women want men who are assertive, ambitious and daring.
Whatever the feminists fought is exactly what women want: YET, those same women are feminists themselves.
Masculinity, boldness, assertiveness are men’s usual qualities and those are the qualities women love in men, but on the other side, those are also the characteristics that women are fighting against.
When you stop and calculate the numbers, counting everything (some males are gay, some have sworn to never marry, half of them will marry down, some will expat, some will die young,etc…), the ratio between genders is really 8 to 1 (8 women for one man). Result: the elite is not reproducing.
Out of a class of 100 student (ratio 60/40), about 70% will probably not reproduce.
This is continually removing the best genes from the gene pool.
A critical situation in my humble opinion.
There is more, much more than meets the eyes here.
Much more than “romance” is at stake…our future, for example.
I’d argue that if the ‘Best’ genes aren’t spreading into the next generation, they actually aren’t the best. Genetic (and cultural) quality is only measured by ability to produce a viable new generation with the same traits, after all. We may be better off letting Darwin’s smelter pour off the slag, letting a new generation with a better commitment to the social and cultural makeup of successful human societies take over.
Ah the tragedies that befall modern woman.
The genes that are more likely to survive are the genes that are best suited to reproduce in the current generation, not the genes that are best suited for success of the human race.
In today’s society those who are best suited to reproduce are women like the Octomom and guys who are baby daddies to dozens of women.
The women who reproduce the most are not those who have been successful in life and can afford it, they are the ones who spout out babies non-stop while the feminist government takes care of them. Women who are successful in life are likely to have few children and with as few men as possible. This is largely because feminism has told women it’s no longer good enough to be a housewife and raise a large family, and has made income from one parent insufficient to sustain high numbers of college-bound children by flooding the market with female workers.
The men most likely to reproduce are not those who have been successful in life and can afford it, they are the ones who have unprotected sex with the women who spout out babies non-stop. Men who are successful in life are forced to guard their sperm closely lest they be taken for all they’re worth. This is because feminism has instituted unjust laws to constrain good men’s reproduction- alimony, child support, no-fault divorce.
The best men and women have been constrained by feminism to reproduce less while the worst men and women have been been given a free pass by feminism to reproduce non-stop.
Evolution is dead.
novaseeker February 8, 2010 at 16:50
whiskey wrote:Yes, the article also notes that many men are dateless because they don’t make the cut. Women will not adjust downwards.
I agree that this was very revealing. No matter how few men are around, women will still sift and sort to optimize and discard the rest. Very revealing of how hypergamous mate selection works, even in a context that is not favorable to women.
—————————————————-
Could we say they are objectifying men?
You may be heavy, but you’re 6′5". Women love tall men.
”What comes around goes around, ladies.”
Exactly.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
”It’s funny to see how women ‘complain’ about shit even when they get their way. No matter HOW good a woman has it she complains.”
No suprises there. Women are inherently malcontented. Nothing is ever enough, especially todays feminism indoctrinated female.
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
”In today’s society those who are best suited to reproduce are women like the Octomom and guys who are baby daddies to dozens of women.”
Or those women that still use social security and the baby trap to gain there first home. Such as it is in the UK. Social acceptance of this behaviour can be seen to encourage this behaviour. No wonder at the teenage pregnancy rates of countries like the UK. Female thinking in our society due to feminism has it’s price to pay, we’re now paying it. Chaos.
whiskey February 8, 2010 at 20:50
“Women will not adjust downwards.”
Worse Whiskey. Once you marry they ‘adjust upwards’ no matter how well the man does. I am a good example of this. Of course, when I was young we had no money. Situation normal. But we bought our first house and I renovated it over a period of 5 years. We bought our second house in a suburb that just 5 years ealier we were laught at in a real estate agent for hoping to buy there with our lack of money. It was one of the best suburban areas of Sydney.
When we lived in Dublin my income varied between EUR100-200K mostly. Living in the same area as the ‘rich and famous’. Endless embassy parties. Dinner parties with lots of wealthy people. Kids in best private schools in Ireland. Older two kids out on their own with mixed success.
No matter I went from ‘poor starving unit student’ to ‘top 20 in my profession worldwide’ and earning excellent money the last 15 years HER demands for money just kept going up. I also went to many marriage counsellors and I did everything it was suggested to me to do. In the end marriage counsellors were saying to me there was simply no more a man could do for his wife and family. That husbands simply did not come any better and that it was up to my wife to step up and keep her end of the bargain. I am not alone. I know plenty of guys in this boat. This is why I will bother to keep saying to the young guys ‘do NOT co-habit’ it is simply not worth it. You get some kids and you are totally done now. Some listen, some don’t.
@JayHammers: “The best men and women have been constrained by feminism to reproduce less while the worst men and women have been been given a free pass by feminism to reproduce non-stop.
Evolution is dead.”
A few years ago a movie with theme came out. It’s called Idiocracy, I beleive. It’s entertaining, if predictable, but I think most interesting for the main-stream identification of this issue. It was originally brought to my attention by a very attractive, successful, career woman.
@Globalman.
” I know plenty of guys in this boat.”
Exactly and in all walks of our society. It’s time we did warn the young men about to walk into this blindly, exactly what to expect. Even if they ignore the warnings, which many will, I have no doubt eventually men will wake up to this abuse by our ‘equals’. Who are in fact nothing more than greedy parasites that have the law on thier side to leech away to their hearts content.
”young guys ‘do NOT co-habit’’……..and be very careful about your sperm, she will ‘oops, I forgot the pill’. Children are an income for women, they truely ‘love’ them.
Of course co-eds can’t get laid on campus any more.
Who wants to fuck a sassy, in-yo-face African-American-Hispanic Latina Transgendered Lesbian Women’s Studies Majorette.
duh – like who ELSE gets scholarships these days.
Paradoxotaur February 9, 2010 at 12:47
@JayHammers: “The best men and women have been constrained by feminism to reproduce less while the worst men and women have been been given a free pass by feminism to reproduce non-stop.
Evolution is dead.”
—————————————————–
this is probably the worst effect of the welfare state (other than philosophical arguments against it) and feminism. I look around at who is reproducing and mostly it is the least fit members of society.
I still believe the government / community should provide some base level of opportunity for its citizens to allow them to do what they will with it while buffering some of the effects of random chance – for example growing up in poverty, with a crappy family, ugly, or male significantly lowers your level of opportunity int his world. I think the welfare state HAS gone too far and is no longer providing opportunity but free money without merit. And it still is not solving any of the problems it purports to. I’ve said it many times, but you can only solve a problem upstream – not downstream after all the damage has been done. This is why welfare and affirmative action programs never work.
I believe the decline of the “breeding stock” is visible here and now, the net result of the past 20 years of Feminisation and feralism.
I recently moved to a different part of the country, a non-conservative mid sized city in the east and I am astonished. What has happened here? What I am talking about is a stunning reversal in the attractiveness and stature of humans in this local. It is too evident to be just natural odds.
There is a singular lack of attractive people of either sex. The women, at best , are dumpy unattractive she-trolls. The vast majority are 3s to 5s. I have seen a couple 8’s, no 9’s +. That IS amazing. Hey, Im not trying to be mean here, perhaps I could use more scientific descriptions .They do NOT make up for their physical features with sharp minds and wit. Then men are a mirror male image.
It’s devolution.
Think about it. Starting mid to late 80’s when the Liberal / feminist zeitgeist emerged and became dominant in society . At least in areas where it could prevail; and it has NOW expressed itself.
This has to be the result of the most desirable not breeding, and the welfare mom , single mother fertility pattern. It to me confirms that the Divorce culture is nitro fuel to the incendiary pyrotechnics of the well described phenomena observed on this blog.
These are precisely the members selected as most able to fit into our Welfare State. Evolution is never wrong.
All society will need brutes – to combat the brutes from the opposing tribe. Society will need mindless breeding machines accustomed to living in the drippy ruins of the Coliseum and repopulate the earth with fecundity.
Intellectuals are not needed to fight a Sabre Tooth Tiger.
LOL, wait until the Council On Women and Girls extends Title IX to all Science, Technical Engineering and Mathematics college admissions nation wide!
Here is their video, it is a long one but helps you understand the nature of the beast…: I guess they feel women gaining 60% of college degrees is not enough…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqLeg7eunsA
I expect this policy to reduce male college graduates to 30 or 20%.
Oilsands: “It’s devolution.”
“Think about it. Starting mid to late 80’s when the Liberal / feminist zeitgeist emerged and became dominant in society . At least in areas where it could prevail; and it has NOW expressed itself.”
Well they now sell male genes to women based off what celebrity they look like. Do you think this will help?
http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/sperm-banks-men-for-sale.html
Here the end of men is being heralded by the Women’s Party as the promising future as well.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/Sl97Unc46xI/AAAAAAAAAK0/ONdjmxC-yY8/s1600-h/End+of+men.jpg
Main Article: http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/07/end-of-men-discovered-feminists-rejoice.html
The Boys Project is AN EXCELLENT EFFORT to study the disenfranchisement of men and boys. To me the overwhelming theme is that men are withdrawing from civic duties, that of private life and even the creation of families..If men and boys are doing anything in an upward trend, suicide is on the top of the male agenda.
Tom Mortenson: Senior Scholar: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education: http://www.postsecondary.org/archives/previous/GuysFacts.pdf
-Suicide: Among 15 to 24 year olds, suicide rates were 5.8 times higher for males than for females in 2000. In 1900 male rates were 1.3 times higher for males than those for females. Between 1970 and 2000 male suicide rates increased by 29 percent while female suicide rates decreased by 29 percent. (National Center for Health Statistics)
-Incarceration: Since mid 1970s, incarceration rates have gown very rapidly. U.S. rate of 707 prisoners per 100,000 population is now highest in the world.
-Male disengagement from civic role: Male voting rates have declined sharply since mid-1960s. Between the 1964 and 2000 Presidential elections the male voting rate declined from 72 to 53 percent.
-Educational-Master’s degrees: The male share of master’s degrees has declined from 60 percent in 1970to 41 percent by 2001. (National Center for Education Statistics)
First professional degrees: The male share has declined from 95 percent in 1970 to 54
percent by 2001. (National Center for Education Statistics)
Doctorate degrees: The male share has declined from 87 percent in 1970 to 55 percent by 2001. (National Center for Education Statistics)
“You can sober up any audience when you lay out the suicide data,” he said. “The room tends to go quiet. The audience is staring at figures showing young males giving up on life at the very beginning of life, and they understand that something dangerous is happening in our culture.” In recent years several studies by the U.S. Department of Education, the American Council on Education, and others have confirmed Mortenson’s findings.
Throughout my blog and in these reports you will see that all realms of male health are on the decline.
-workforce participation
-voter participation
-suicide rates
-incarceration rates
-college attendance and admittance policy
-family law and marriage
-general health & health care
You must log in to post a comment.