An even-ish ratio is probably a plus. I went to a very male-heavy school (as a guy) at the time which wasn't ideal. (Though, at the end of the day, it was fine.) But I'm not sure I'd have wanted the flip side either for a variety of reasons.
It's nice for the guys to have it easy for a couple of years, but it's bad for all of us if an entire generation of women find it almost impossible to date because they want to date men with degrees and those don't exist in large enough numbers.
Maybe. I've gone out with women with advanced degrees and women without undergrad degrees. They've all been smart and I pretty much didn't care about their educational resume. Historically, that simply wasn't an issue in general.
Not for you - I'm saying it's an issue for them: many (most? all?) university-educated women want to date their peers - men with degrees. This is a huge problem for them when the ratio of graduates are two women for each man.
Fair enough. I'd just argue that "peers" is not solely determined by degrees. Of course, it's easy for me to say I don't care; I have too many of them. But I know a lot of people care a lot.
Having attended a school in the 90's with a 7-1 male to female ratio, I concur. A strange culture and negative behaviors are reinforced on both sides in such an unbalanced environment.
Caltech was / is not a school in the middle of nowhere. It's in a big city next to a metropolis. Caltech students who want to find people to date can find people to date.
While I get your point but it's short sighted to not view college as a place where both men and women learn and grow as humans outside of formal study. Learning to navigate relationships, discover your sexuality, and generally learn to work with and collaborate with people of different backgrounds. In an environment where the population is radically unbalanced there is less opportunity especially for the people who need to learn about these things the most.
Yes, a lot of growth and exploration of various kinds happens at college. Diversity in the university is probably good.
But, in the context of a society which historically denied women a place in higher education, and an institution which did not admit women, and then had disproportionately few women, to react to higher numbers of women with "this is good for men looking to date" is a really bad take. It frames more women in corners of higher ed where they were previously underrepresented in terms of how it's good for men, and specifically in framing women students as romantic opportunities for men.
You pretending that yeeetz's comment is part of some broader appreciation of a diverse college environment is kinda bs, b/c yeeetz did not say anything about learning from/working with people of a different background -- just that it makes dating easier for guys.
Similarly if you advocate for more women in STEM jobs so straight men in those jobs can date in their workplace more easily ... maybe HR should keep an eye on you and you shouldn't consider yourself to actually be supporting real equality.
This is unhinged. You think women go to university to date? In this country with the cost of higher ed?
- when women were mostly or entirely excluded for higher ed, they still participated in society and courtship and had "functional social skills"
- men and women today who never go to college still participate in society, date and have functional social skills
So maybe women go to university to learn or to launch their career or to appease their parents just like everyone else? And commenting on their growing numbers in terms of the benefits to straight male students looking to date is fundamentally objectifying people who are just trying to live their lives? And when someone points this out you imply that women who have the attitude that universities are for something other than dating are on some track to be broken non-social loners, that's failing to account for the broad opportunities to (a) date someone outside your school (b) defer dating until later because you're focused on learning and paying a huge amount to be at this institution or (c) being open to the possibility that people who don't date aren't doomed to be lonely cat ladies b/c there are other kinds of valuable human connection and the people that perpetuate this myth are invested in continued oppression?
Pearl clutching and shrieking about objectification is so 8 years ago. Doesn't really work anymore because it doesn't drive an emotional reaction; people just roll their eyes and move on. This appears to be your special interest but you're responding to normal, healthy men as if they just killed your dog.
I'm responding to your direct personal attack on the parent, demonstrating what such assumptions look like.
And for your initial assumption to be true, men would have to be doing the asking. Otherwise, why white knight to save the poor women? Yet if women did the asking, there's no downside for them, yes?
