Overpopulation of women in college

[magil]

No. I think she's saying that if you are a female that is concerned about meeting guys in college, all you have to do is get into engineering. Those type of degrees are sausage fests filled with intelligent, ambitious guys.

Oh, thanks for explaining. I really DIDN'T understand.

Here's the thing, though. They aren't desperate for a boyfriend, but rather for a certain type of boyfriend. There is still a large pool of men (20% of the school's population, according to the article) that are available but completely unwanted.

The question is, why are they so willing to compromise their wants and needs to have a shot at the top 10% of the population, when they wouldn't have to if they took a second look at the other guys?

Hmm. Good question. What makes a guy undatable to these types of girls, or just girls in general?
I think that question deserves its own thread. I'm gonna have to ponder this for a while.
edit: actually, I finish pondering. Obviously for some people, maybe a lot of people, looks are important. But even if your fat or something, but have an appealing personality, you can get girls. But I'd say if, you are both unattractive physically and your personality is just . . .blah, or disconcerting or something, then you might still have trouble getting girls even when the conditions are in your favor like this.
But I'd say the cause of most of the Mr. Lonelyhearts is probably the guys being to picky, or too shy to actually put them selves out there and get a girl. Maybe there are some (again I'm just guessing here, I'm not a guy or in college) who find the whole hooking up scene extremely unappealing or intimidating, but then lament not having a girlfriend even though they haven;t done anything to pursue one.

 

[JocktheMotie]

Well I have theory on this, if you're interested, in the post that I just directed Elaur to.

Just read it. I don't really understand though. Society has restricted and changed women how? I imagine that the male ideal of a good mate is no longer the female's view of an impressive life, and in the time it's taking the men to catch up to the "modern woman" is causing women to have to lower their personal standards? Or something?

I disagree. Just because you have economic power doesn't necessarily mean people will treat you as an equal. In fact if you have power imbalance, that is the very opposite of equality. Which is just obvious and true for both sexes but I mean . ..
People will pay the due respect to someone in power but that doesn't mean they actaully respect them. I would like to direct you if I may to the happy the hedgehog commerical. Here's the link:YouTube - Happy the Hedgehog
Everyone watches it. Everyone laughs. No one sees anything wrong with it. but take a closer look. See how the women is portrayed as an irrational power bitch and all the men are disrespecting her? And everyone laughs.
So yeah, economic power does not translate to social equality I think they are two seperate things.

Couldn't watch the video because youtube is dying on me for some reason, but I get what you're saying. However, I'd argue that if economic power is equal, the perception of an individual or group is largely inconsequential as that perception cannot reduce that person's ability to shape their own landscape. In your example, the men may not respect her as an equal. But they still have to do what she says and respect her power. Let's face it. If you're not a white male, you're always going to be running uphill, in the social arena. It will take a very, very long time to change that. And I don't even know how you do change that, to be honest.

As a caveat: I am aware that my perspective, as a super ivory tower INTP in which external standards don't apply, might render me useless to make such statements. So I could very well be completely, utterly wrong. This is just what I have observed.

 

[magil]

Just read it. I don't really understand though. Society has restricted and changed women how? I imagine that the male ideal of a good mate is no longer the female's view of an impressive life, and in the time it's taking the men to catch up to the "modern woman" is causing women to have to lower their personal standards? Or something?.

Some girls feel like they have to change their personality and comprimise their interests in order to be considered appealing to men. Ideas that they have been societally taught. Just, Femininty in general. I wrote a post about it in the Feminity thread in the relationships section if you're interested. though if your really interested, I suggest you take a gender studies and educate yourself.

Couldn't watch the video because youtube is dying on me for some reason, but I get what you're saying. However, I'd argue that if economic power is equal, the perception of an individual or group is largely inconsequential as that perception cannot reduce that person's ability to shape their own landscape. In your example, the men may not respect her as an equal. But they still have to do what she says and respect her power. Let's face it. If you're not a white male, you're always going to be running uphill, in the social arena. It will take a very, very long time to change that. And I don't even know how you do change that, to be honest.

The solution is quite simple actually. Change how the media portrays women.
It's not easily accomplished though. The media attitudes reflects societies attitudes towards women. Societies attitudes reflects the medias attitudes towards women. It is like a cycle that is very hard to break but currently, is gradually changing to become more equal. I think the best way to make changes is to change peoples attitudes or to make media that reflects gender equality. However just because things now are better than they have been, we are still a long way from gender equality, though perhaps are closer now than ever before; we still have along way to go. And as long as the concepts of conservative sexism still exist there is always a risk of a societal relapse and women losing rights again. The trends are through out history women's rights will be deminished, then increase, and then a conservative movement will occur where their rights are limited again. I'm thinking of Iran as I type this though that is, admittedly, an unusual example.

 

[Randomnity]

I love how that article is like "almost 60% of all students are women!!!111" and then goes on about the extreme scarcity of men. Come on, 57% is not a serious imbalance by any means.

It is much higher in some programs, though. In undergrad biology/pre-med classes at my uni I would estimate there was roughly 70-80% girls, with the ratio going up slightly over time/in the more advanced clases. In grad (biomedical science) it is about the same ratio, though there seems to be many more girl MSc students but (relatively) more male PhD students. The med students at my school seem to have about the same ratio.

It seems like girls are really drawn to life sciences whereas guys are more interested in chem/physics (the ratios there are at least as extreme at the reverse end). Arts I don't know much, probably somewhat more girls there too.

With that in mind, I've never had social problems with that fairly majorly imbalanced ratio so I don't understand the widespread panic, lol. There is nothing saying that you have to hang out exclusively with your department. My bf is not even in university let alone bio.

 

[Randomnity]

oh and those girls they interviewed are freaking morons. what is this high school bs, honestly, stop being so desperate and grow some balls already.

 

[magil]

I love how that article is like "almost 60% of all students are women!!!111" and then goes on about the extreme scarcity of men. Come on, 57% is not a serious imbalance by any means.

Yeah i had the same thoughts, when I first heard the percentages. 60%? 6 to 4? Doesn't seem that unreasonable. But then when you consider that half the guys aren't even on the scene . . .6 to 2? 3 to 1? I can kind of see what they are saying.

Good points, though and I'm not even in college so I don't really know how exagerrated this article may be first hand. I think being an F I just tend to sympathise when ever I hear about injustices like this . . .idk. Sort of in the same way NTs will eat up philosophers words, I can be the same way when it comes to social issues.

 

[Venom]

Here is the cliff notes for anyone who is still curious:

According to the article, though, of the 40% male population women *may* consider 20% of those datable. Of those 20%, 10% will have a boyfriend of some sort already, leaving only 10% of the college population male, desirable, and single.

2. Get over it, date "undesirables" then, geez. How is this any different from "waaa I cant find a date" rants?

Women can also do what younger males have done for centuries: Lower their standards.
Here's a tip: Beer.

The majority of women see most men as being "below average".

Actaully. There is an interesting phenomenon observed:

1. two large populations (1 of men and 1 of women)
2. have them rate each other
3. the men's ratings of the women will likely come out as a normal distribution bell curve of "Hot, average, below avg" and varying degrees in between.
4. the women however, rate the majority of the men as "below average" (which is obviously a little strange though possible)
5. You might question the population they used, but the pictures of the typical guys used who were rated below average were definitely "typical" normal looking guys.

6. the men, even though they rate the girls as a normal bell curve, direct all their efforts on the hottest girls (even though every guy knows his odds are much worse).
7. the women, even though they have rated all the guys as below average, still make an effort to date and become interests of many more than just the guys rated "avg" by them.

My own conclusions:
A) Most woman think they are settling for a below average looking man (even if its statistically strange, though possible) and feel resentment over the fact that they are "settling".

B) The women then make other demands of the men, because they feel like the man needs to do more to make up for this deficit:
--the male needs social status
--the female desires special treatment

C) the men though, view the women's attractiveness as a bell curve. Knowing that most men cant get that small % at the right of the bell curve, most end up right where they should, and thus view their relationship as more equal than asymmetric (in looks).

D) This asymmetric view of who needs to do what to earn who's affection leads to broken hearts. Women who's expectations of men is way too high, and men who try to make it worse by seeking girls higher up than themselves (only making the female's expectations higher).

E) Im not blaming women. Men are just as much responsible for giving positive feedback to this vicious cycle by not being discerning enough. If more men looked for humility and sanity over maximizing looks, then perhaps this behavior wouldn't be as prevalent.

Here's the thing, though. They aren't desperate for a boyfriend, but rather for a certain type of boyfriend. There is still a large pool of men (20% of the school's population, according to the article) that are available but completely unwanted.

The question is, why are they so willing to compromise their wants and needs to have a shot at the top 10% of the population, when they wouldn't have to if they took a second look at the other guys?

Ive read some economists experiments that point out that no matter the "hotness" or "awesomeness" of guys rated by a large pool, when they are put into a situation of speed dating, about 10% get picked. The bottom line is that women will always be about 1/10 choosey. Not everyone can be rich, and not everyone can be desirable :/


the ratio could be 80/20 men women or 20/80 men women, and the top 10% will still be the "desirable guys". Its simply the level of "chooseyness" women have.

Disclaimer: Im taking a pretty detached macro view of all of this. In my personal life I hardly think it all works out so mechanistically on a person by person basis.

 

[magil]

oh and those girls they interviewed are freaking morons. what is this high school bs, honestly, stop being so desperate and grow some balls already.

Mah, I disagree with you here. Just because you a xcore ISTP doesn't mean that all girls are as sensible. ; }

 

[Randomnity]

Mah, I disagree with you here. Just because you a xcore ISTP doesn't mean that all girls are as sensible. ; }

haha come on, "you have to accept cheating because otherwise you won't have a bf"? "you have to fawn over guys because everyone else is"? "you have to have casual sex with all the guys in order to ever get a bf"?

Not only is that retarded thinking probably not true in the first place (or only true for the assholes these girls are picking), even if all the guys at that college were in fact douchebags somehow it is still not an excuse to let them trample all over you.

Being single isn't a death sentence, jesus.

 

[magil]

The majority of women see most men as being "below average".

I think this might be because personality is more important in turning on a woman than it is for a man. (for guys it's mostly all visual aka physical attraction) But for women it's a combination of the two, with personality and atmosphereic qualities being even more important than the physical ones usually. So because of this, women tend to have higher standards and are more picky than men.

 

[Venom]

I think this might be because personality is more important in turning on a woman than it is for a man. (for guys it's mostly all visual aka physical attraction) But for women it's a combination of the two, with personality and atmosphereic qualities being even more important than the physical ones usually. So because of this, women tend to have higher standards and are more picky than men.

hmm...

1. sense of humor does not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you say sounds funnier)
2. your looks do not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you do looks better)
3. personality does not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you do looks better)

However, having a personality, being funny, and looking good often help ones power and social status

It comes down to perceived social status/power (either one). The "perceived" point is important. Think of the computer nerd who some woman sees as being all smart/important. ... When we were in high school it was jocks. In college it was the well connected to the parties. In yuppie world its the money/flash. In the mid life its the stability. In the old age (singles) it probably reverts back to whose fun and athletic

Point is that, for one more time, the ratio doesnt matter. The girls will always only be really attracted to the top 10% "total packages".

 

[magil]

Being single isn't a death sentence, jesus.

Exactly! So why do they think it is? Is the point I'm trying to get to . . .
(the reason: because they live in a society that tells them that relationships are everything.)
Why are they so dependent on men?
Something that I've felt in the past is, and I know this sounds pretty extreme but girls cling to guys because they feel like, they don't have the same freedoms and oppurtunities they do, sort of in the same way a parent will be like to their children, it may be too late for me but i can try living though you . .. Adds a whole nother meaning to the idea of, "your happiness is my happiness."
I know this mentality sounds extreme and riduclous, but it's true. It exists. the question is why?

 

[magil]

hmm...

1. sense of humor does not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you say sounds funnier)
2. your looks do not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you do looks better)
3. personality does not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you do looks better)

I would actualy say all these things matter and that while social status also matters some, it is certainly not all that matters.
If what you are talking about is how the popular cheerleader would never date that nerdy boy in like . . .middle school, then all I can say is that I really think this mentality decreases with age and maturity. Social standings dimish greatly once your co-workers I'd imagine and if not, then that girl is super immature and not worth your time. If she is purely rejecting you based on power and social standing that is.

 

[FDG]

2. your looks do not matter (when a girl likes you, everything you do looks better)

Ehhh I disagree. Looks seem to be extremely important for being able to have a positive first contact with a girl.

 

[runvardh]

Maybe because the other half seem like the type that would date-rape them.

I mean, this is college.

Meanwhile it's the guys they are dating that are doing the date-rape and taping them while drunk and posting it on the net while the other guys either don't rate or don't try.

Hmm. Good question. What makes a guy undatable to these types of girls, or just girls in general?
I think that question deserves its own thread. I'm gonna have to ponder this for a while.
edit: actually, I finish pondering. Obviously for some people, maybe a lot of people, looks are important. But even if your fat or something, but have an appealing personality, you can get girls. But I'd say if, you are both unattractive physically and your personality is just . . .blah, or disconcerting or something, then you might still have trouble getting girls even when the conditions are in your favor like this.
But I'd say the cause of most of the Mr. Lonelyhearts is probably the guys being to picky, or too shy to actually put them selves out there and get a girl. Maybe there are some (again I'm just guessing here, I'm not a guy or in college) who find the whole hooking up scene extremely unappealing or intimidating, but then lament not having a girlfriend even though they haven;t done anything to pursue one.

This I see is the issue, which kind of coincides with what Babylon Candle has been saying.

I suddently remembered... When in college I had three girls pass through within one year and the difference between getting laid or not was whether or not I went for it. I also went to an all tech school where a class only had about 3-5 women out of a total of 20-25 students each.

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Yeah i had the same thoughts, when I first heard the percentages. 60%? 6 to 4? Doesn't seem that unreasonable. But then when you consider that half the guys aren't even on the scene . . .6 to 2? 3 to 1? I can kind of see what they are saying.

Good points, though and I'm not even in college so I don't really know how exagerrated this article may be first hand. I think being an F I just tend to sympathise when ever I hear about injustices like this . . .idk. Sort of in the same way NTs will eat up philosophers words, I can be the same way when it comes to social issues.

The guys that are taken are with other women at the college no? Thus reducing competition.

 

[Venom]

This I see is the issue, which kind of coincides with what Babylon Candle has been saying.

I suddently remembered... When in college I had three girls pass through within one year and the difference between getting laid or not was whether or not I went for it.

the "hook up culture" definitely turns me off. If you try and take it slow, the girls just view you as: weak, possibly gay or not available. So instead it all has to go backwards: hook ups --> more time together --> assumed continuation of hookups --> people start calling them a couple --> they admit they are together --> THEN they can get to know eachother and explore it....

Ehhh I disagree. Looks seem to be extremely important for being able to have a positive first contact with a girl.

I agree that its "necessary". Could it be more like hurdle rate to be above? Like being above 5 is necessary, but above that it doesnt matter?

I would actualy say all these things matter and that while social status also matters some, it is certainly not all that matters.
If what you are talking about is how the popular cheerleader would never date that nerdy boy in like . . .middle school, then all I can say is that I really think this mentality decreases with age and maturity. Social standings dimish greatly once your co-workers I'd imagine and if not, then that girl is super immature and not worth your time. If she is purely rejecting you based on power and social standing that is.

Thats part of my point though. I dont think people do grow out of it. They just become more oblivious to people's social status as they get older (because there is less of a "social system" like in a school setting. They still care though. I think the "status" symbols change. So you're right, later on its no longer about popular cheerleaders...but i think that sentiment still remains.

Exactly! So why do they think it is? Is the point I'm trying to get to . . .
(the reason: because they live in a society that tells them that relationships are everything.)
Why are they so dependent on men?
Something that I've felt in the past is, and I know this sounds pretty extreme but girls cling to guys because they feel like, they don't have the same freedoms and oppurtunities they do, sort of in the same way a parent will be like to their children, it may be too late for me but i can try living though you . .. Adds a whole nother meaning to the idea of, "your happiness is my happiness."
I know this mentality sounds extreme and riduclous, but it's true. It exists. the question is why?

I think its more than just women though that have this pressure. Yes, its part of the ESTP male stereotype to not care about relationships. However, I'll use this as an example:

People that play WOW. Ive definitely seen articles that go back and forth about how its: its a real waste of time vs "well everything is a waste of time! TV, internet etc its just a hobby"... and often the chief final blow is about WOW is worse because it takes away time from ever having a SO more than other hobbies. The fact that this ALWAYS comes up leads me to ask: so basically everything in life is meaningless unless I have a girlfriend???

Disclaimer: I dont even play wow!

I think its humanity in general that feels pressured. Not just girls.

 

[Randomnity]

Exactly! So why do they think it is? Is the point I'm trying to get to . . .
(the reason: because they live in a society that tells them that relationships are everything.)
Why are they so dependent on men?
Something that I've felt in the past is, and I know this sounds pretty extreme but girls cling to guys because they feel like, they don't have the same freedoms and oppurtunities they do, sort of in the same way a parent will be like to their children, it may be too late for me but i can try living though you . .. Adds a whole nother meaning to the idea of, "your happiness is my happiness."
I know this mentality sounds extreme and riduclous, but it's true. It exists. the question is why?

Yeah, it's an interesting situation. I think a lot of it has to do with low self esteem (for whatever reasons), and also low self-motivation/independence.

I know guys like that too though. I have a friend who serially dates people to the extent that he has eventually cheated on his last two bfs (with the next bf) rather than breaking up when things went downhill, because he doesn't like being single...

 

[runvardh]

the "hook up culture" definitely turns me off. If you try and take it slow, the girls just view you as: weak, possibly gay or not available. So instead it all has to go backwards: hook ups --> more time together --> assumed continuation of hookups --> people start calling them a couple --> they admit they are together --> THEN they can get to know eachother and explore it....

Yeah, I'm not into it either. I run too high on the oxytocin to do one night stands with out major internal emotional backlash. It sucks because while I need to be sure I'm not misrepresenting myself or shoving knives through my spine I'm also running a two and a half year case of blue balls. Might almost have to take a jab to the back of my skull just to make sure I'm not seeming desperate for the girls I do want.

 

[Katsuni]

Depends on the college of course, and alot of factors, but I'd not be surprised if cost played a large part of it too... guys are more likely to be expected to go to work immediately out of high school, and aren't qualified for extra bursaries and loans that are female-only.

Of course, in some places, such as the college I'm at... due to it being a technical arts college, it's heavily skewed to the male side for some courses; the class I'm in started as a 3-13 female-male split, and has since dropped to 2-11.

Another factor could just be that parents tend to be more protective of their daughters and look out for them more; they're more likely to have savings to put their daughter through college, whereas they'd expect their son to earn his way.

There's alot of other explanations I'm sure as well, but I'm trying to stick to ones that aren't just "ZOMG GUYS R DUM".