Professor tells student to 'get out of the Bay Area' if they want a girlfriend(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
Professor tells student to 'get out of the Bay Area' if they want a girlfriend
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/uc-berkeley-professor-criticized-comments-women-19363213.php
200 comments
It's Jonathan Shewchuk, author of An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain. That guide saved me on multiple occasions. All the best, Jon.
Here's an article from a few years ago about the high male/female ratios in the dating population in the Bay Area. San Jose ("Man Jose"!) was particularly high [1].
Probably anyone who has spent significant time in an environment with a significant difference in gender ratios will have personally observed that this tends to change behave of people of both genders in those environments in regard to dating compared to people of the same gender in more balanced areas or in areas where the balance goes the other way.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/Chart-using-Match-c...
Probably anyone who has spent significant time in an environment with a significant difference in gender ratios will have personally observed that this tends to change behave of people of both genders in those environments in regard to dating compared to people of the same gender in more balanced areas or in areas where the balance goes the other way.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/Chart-using-Match-c...
> You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
Isn’t this literally just a commentary of the 104:100 male female ratio of SF & SJ? This is a commonly brought up argument regarding dating in the bay. It seems to be a statement saying “you’ll have an easier time dating when the demographic odds are in your favor.” Taking offense to that statement requires a lot of bad faith interpretation.
Isn’t this literally just a commentary of the 104:100 male female ratio of SF & SJ? This is a commonly brought up argument regarding dating in the bay. It seems to be a statement saying “you’ll have an easier time dating when the demographic odds are in your favor.” Taking offense to that statement requires a lot of bad faith interpretation.
Getting out of the bay area to date might be great advice.
Blaming the inability of people to date on the "behavior of women" is uhm.. that's some card carrying misogynist talk right there...
Blaming the inability of people to date on the "behavior of women" is uhm.. that's some card carrying misogynist talk right there...
If a man changing location improves his ability to date, what are the implications of that? Did the man improve his personal character just because he changed location? Or is he more successful because the pool of women he has to choose from is different?
My point being, there seems to be some inconsistency in your comment. If simply changing location is helpful, as you claim, then that must have something to do with the dating pool (women in this case) in the two locations. (I don't have an opinion of my own on this, since I'm not dating.)
My point being, there seems to be some inconsistency in your comment. If simply changing location is helpful, as you claim, then that must have something to do with the dating pool (women in this case) in the two locations. (I don't have an opinion of my own on this, since I'm not dating.)
[deleted]
I haven't seen the original comment, only what is quoted in the article. What you're writing is a pretty gross misrepresentation of at least that quoted part, which simply makes a statement about gender ratios and that they can have significant effects on people's behavior. If you disagree with that, I'd be curious to hear the argument. Beating up a straw man, on the other hand, is bad form.
There are screenshots of the full comment thread here: https://old.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bitr75/another_d...
Shewchuk's comment is on the third image.
Shewchuk's comment is on the third image.
This guy was my professor at Cal. He has pretty bad self awareness, but he's absolutely not wrong.
Both genders behave entitled and get an inflated sense of self worth when the gender ratio in the dating market favors them significantly.
If you have lived and dated in different places, it is 10,000% true that women in the Bay Area behave on average differently (to put it kindly) than women in say NYC or a Midwest town.
You can't just call people's experience misogyny if it you don't like it. This isn't misogyny, it's just straight up fact that nearly every guy in the Bay has experienced.
Both genders behave entitled and get an inflated sense of self worth when the gender ratio in the dating market favors them significantly.
If you have lived and dated in different places, it is 10,000% true that women in the Bay Area behave on average differently (to put it kindly) than women in say NYC or a Midwest town.
You can't just call people's experience misogyny if it you don't like it. This isn't misogyny, it's just straight up fact that nearly every guy in the Bay has experienced.
It's universally acknowledged that men "in high demand" behave differently than men in low demand.
Thank god that women are different.
Thank god that women are different.
Having lived in a series of places with far more men than women and seen the effects on the dating seen, he is speaking some truth.
There is a vast difference between having equal numbers and large imbalance, and it does impact behavior.
There is a vast difference between having equal numbers and large imbalance, and it does impact behavior.
This is just human psychology of being on the winning side of an imbalanced market with limited supply, it's not a man vs woman phenomenon.
If you were a senior SWE with sexy credentials in the Bay during its latest tech boom, say between 2010 and 2020, you were inundated daily with recruiter spam and offers to join sketchy early stage startups that were clearly never going to take off.
Were you nice to those recruiters? Did you take the time to gracefully let them know that you weren't interested in that specific opportunity, wishing them good luck in their search? Maybe the first time? Maybe the first ten times? But after hundreds, possibly thousands of those requests years later, it becomes a joke, you start seeing them at the same level as Nigerian prince scammers, they're not even fully human in your mind.
If you were a senior SWE with sexy credentials in the Bay during its latest tech boom, say between 2010 and 2020, you were inundated daily with recruiter spam and offers to join sketchy early stage startups that were clearly never going to take off.
Were you nice to those recruiters? Did you take the time to gracefully let them know that you weren't interested in that specific opportunity, wishing them good luck in their search? Maybe the first time? Maybe the first ten times? But after hundreds, possibly thousands of those requests years later, it becomes a joke, you start seeing them at the same level as Nigerian prince scammers, they're not even fully human in your mind.
Sure, just as advising a woman to move from D.C. to San Jose because of the "behavior of men" would be misandry. Not.
Yes, its obviously top-shelf misogyny. There's no amount of backtracking that can hide it now.
Ironically, while there may be an overabundance of men in the Bay Area, with a particularly acute imbalance in center of the big tech industry, in Berkeley it's the other way around. Women have a +10% overrepresentation at the university, so at least numerically it is a piece of cake to find a female partner. At least, it should be for people who are normal and not creepy jerks with axes to grind.
Ironically, while there may be an overabundance of men in the Bay Area, with a particularly acute imbalance in center of the big tech industry, in Berkeley it's the other way around. Women have a +10% overrepresentation at the university, so at least numerically it is a piece of cake to find a female partner. At least, it should be for people who are normal and not creepy jerks with axes to grind.
Stating obvious fact is not misogyny, just because you don't like it.
90% percent of men that have dating experience outside the Bay Area will attest to the stark difference in women's behavior, and it's definitely not a good difference.
It is simple human psychology that we grow more entitled the more desirable we are. This is why balanced gender ratios are important.
You can't just call people's shared experience "misogyny." Pointing out commonly and repeatedly observed behavior differences is not that.
90% percent of men that have dating experience outside the Bay Area will attest to the stark difference in women's behavior, and it's definitely not a good difference.
It is simple human psychology that we grow more entitled the more desirable we are. This is why balanced gender ratios are important.
You can't just call people's shared experience "misogyny." Pointing out commonly and repeatedly observed behavior differences is not that.
> Getting out of the bay area to date might be great advice.
It depends on the kind of partner you're looking for. I met my now-wife (and many other great women) in the Bay Area. But some men are threatened by women who are as smart/capable (or moreso) than they are.
It depends on the kind of partner you're looking for. I met my now-wife (and many other great women) in the Bay Area. But some men are threatened by women who are as smart/capable (or moreso) than they are.
The gender skew is well-known, but it's one of those things you simply cannot say out loud in polite society.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11231284/does-san-jose-deserve-the...
https://www.kqed.org/news/11231284/does-san-jose-deserve-the...
I come from a country which has been suffering from this problem for many decades. A large gender imbalance warps society, and is a real concern particularly for straight dating/marriage. There are many ways to talk about it that reflect the seriousness of the problem.
But all too often in the Bay Area, laypeople talk about it without the gravity that it deserves. Unserious comments, like the professor talking about "artillery distance", are what you can't make in polite society. And I think that's good.
But all too often in the Bay Area, laypeople talk about it without the gravity that it deserves. Unserious comments, like the professor talking about "artillery distance", are what you can't make in polite society. And I think that's good.
> like the professor talking about "artillery distance"
That's a common phrase in the US. It's just a marker of distance, like "a stone's throw." That's not what most people are objecting to.
That's a common phrase in the US. It's just a marker of distance, like "a stone's throw." That's not what most people are objecting to.
That's a common phrase in the US.
There are probably a lot of other expression you don't know. Are trying to say that those of us who know it are making it up?
Yeah, it's not a common phrase in the US, even in the more militarily focused areas. I don't know why the commenter said that.
Thanks for the anecdata. You don't know anyone who voted for Trump, either, do you?
Nah, I know a few of those. I just thought we were playing "my anecdote is more meaningful than your anecdote".
Be that as it may, the phrase, and the comment in general, just does not reflect the gravity of the issue.
A large gender skew is really, really bad for society and needs to be taken extremely seriously.
A large gender skew is really, really bad for society and needs to be taken extremely seriously.
> just does not reflect the gravity of the issue.
In what way? How could he have phrased his statement to make it "extremely serious" in your eyes?
In what way? How could he have phrased his statement to make it "extremely serious" in your eyes?
I think a serious, mature comment would have provided at least one citation about gender ratios, and would have treated this as a systemic problem rather than commenting on any individual or group's behavior.
A serious comment would have also included an exhortation to the student to get their act together and stop thinking of life in terms of "looking for a girlfriend" -- the student he was replying to comes off as in some serious need of self-confidence, something that most well-adjusted people seek out in a partner.
A serious comment would have also included an exhortation to the student to get their act together and stop thinking of life in terms of "looking for a girlfriend" -- the student he was replying to comes off as in some serious need of self-confidence, something that most well-adjusted people seek out in a partner.
This was an answer to a question on a social media site. Why are you expecting citations? You haven't given any in this conversation. Should I not be taking your comments seriously?
> would have treated this as a systemic problem rather than commenting on any individual or group's behavior.
All systemic problems of the kind you're talking about involve the behavior of a specific group. Otherwise, you're talking about, what? All humans? All mammals? How is that useful to a guy trying to find a girl?
> get their act together and stop thinking of life in terms of "looking for a girlfriend"
What motivation do most men use to get their act together? Women. That's not a bad thing. It's human nature.
> the student he was replying to comes off as in some serious need of self-confidence, something that most well-adjusted people seek out in a partner.
And you don't think moving to an area where it's easier to get a date is going to help with that?
> would have treated this as a systemic problem rather than commenting on any individual or group's behavior.
All systemic problems of the kind you're talking about involve the behavior of a specific group. Otherwise, you're talking about, what? All humans? All mammals? How is that useful to a guy trying to find a girl?
> get their act together and stop thinking of life in terms of "looking for a girlfriend"
What motivation do most men use to get their act together? Women. That's not a bad thing. It's human nature.
> the student he was replying to comes off as in some serious need of self-confidence, something that most well-adjusted people seek out in a partner.
And you don't think moving to an area where it's easier to get a date is going to help with that?
To be clear, it was not an answer to a question. It was a reply to a commenter (not the OP) dumping on an unrelated question about job advice. At no point did anyone ask for dating advice.
> All systemic problems of the kind you're talking about involve the behavior of a specific group. Otherwise, you're talking about, what? All humans? All mammals? How is that useful to a guy trying to find a girl?
You're not wrong at some level, but phrasing matters a lot when you're talking about sensitive topics like this! Someone commenting on "stark" differences in "behavior" comes off as much more of a creep than someone making the more general point that it can be harder to find someone with a gender skew.
By the way, the idea of a gender skew has been disputed -- apparently, Berkeley has more female students than male ones. You can find other comments pointing that out.
> What motivation do most men use to get their act together? Women. That's not a bad thing. It's human nature.
I don't think that's true -- I've never heard any of my male friends say they were inspired by anything like that. Even if it is the case, it doesn't seem that much like human nature.
Personally speaking, the idea of getting my act together so I can find a partner is completely alien to me. My main motivation for getting my act together has been so I can fulfill my responsibilities to the people (and animal) I care for.
> All systemic problems of the kind you're talking about involve the behavior of a specific group. Otherwise, you're talking about, what? All humans? All mammals? How is that useful to a guy trying to find a girl?
You're not wrong at some level, but phrasing matters a lot when you're talking about sensitive topics like this! Someone commenting on "stark" differences in "behavior" comes off as much more of a creep than someone making the more general point that it can be harder to find someone with a gender skew.
By the way, the idea of a gender skew has been disputed -- apparently, Berkeley has more female students than male ones. You can find other comments pointing that out.
> What motivation do most men use to get their act together? Women. That's not a bad thing. It's human nature.
I don't think that's true -- I've never heard any of my male friends say they were inspired by anything like that. Even if it is the case, it doesn't seem that much like human nature.
Personally speaking, the idea of getting my act together so I can find a partner is completely alien to me. My main motivation for getting my act together has been so I can fulfill my responsibilities to the people (and animal) I care for.
> it was not an answer to a question.
> reply to a commenter (not the OP) dumping on an unrelated question about job advice.
Still an answer to a question. Do you see the direction this keeps going? You keep contradicting yourself.
> Someone commenting on "stark" differences in "behavior" comes off
And what does that matter? Do you think if he quoted some research it would have "come off" better? It wouldn't have. You fail to grasp why some people have an issue with what the professor said. It has nothing to do with how he said it.
> I've never heard any of my male friends say they were inspired by anything like that
Procreation is one of the if not THE major motivating factor in human behavior. I'm sure I could find a couple of dozen citations for that, if you'd like.
> reply to a commenter (not the OP) dumping on an unrelated question about job advice.
Still an answer to a question. Do you see the direction this keeps going? You keep contradicting yourself.
> Someone commenting on "stark" differences in "behavior" comes off
And what does that matter? Do you think if he quoted some research it would have "come off" better? It wouldn't have. You fail to grasp why some people have an issue with what the professor said. It has nothing to do with how he said it.
> I've never heard any of my male friends say they were inspired by anything like that
Procreation is one of the if not THE major motivating factor in human behavior. I'm sure I could find a couple of dozen citations for that, if you'd like.
NGL, I don’t think the advice to gtfo the Bay Area was the offensive part. It was the part where he suggested to get out because the women of the Bay Area were categorically worse!
If he just said it’s better to expand the geographical search due to not enough women in general that just makes sense. The additional step to insult all women in the area was wild
If he just said it’s better to expand the geographical search due to not enough women in general that just makes sense. The additional step to insult all women in the area was wild
Technically the professor didn't quite say that women in the Bay Area are worse people.
The argument made (or implied) is that when women are not "plentiful" (his words) then you have a skewed dating market where men will on average date less desirable women than they otherwise would (and the least desirable men will find themselves without any dates).
Anyway, I don't endorse the professor's statement (and it's certainly inappropriate in a professional context). But the professor is at least correct in pointing out that a gender imbalance on the dating market makes dating significantly harder.
The argument made (or implied) is that when women are not "plentiful" (his words) then you have a skewed dating market where men will on average date less desirable women than they otherwise would (and the least desirable men will find themselves without any dates).
Anyway, I don't endorse the professor's statement (and it's certainly inappropriate in a professional context). But the professor is at least correct in pointing out that a gender imbalance on the dating market makes dating significantly harder.
I don't think his comment means women are worse in the bay area. The bay area with far more males, then women are in high demand, and low supply. They have more bargaining power and can navigate to fewer men.
It doesn't mean women are bad. But the dating environment can be less advantageous to men in the bay area than other markets. Moving can be logical without implying anything wrong with women.
It doesn't mean women are bad. But the dating environment can be less advantageous to men in the bay area than other markets. Moving can be logical without implying anything wrong with women.
But he didn’t say that. He just slagged on all women’s “behavior”. Don’t introduce nuance where he clearly didn’t. Nuance would’ve made the statement much better, but he chose not to! So bizarre!
As a dude in a happy relationship I would absolutely give the same recommendation to any guy my old professor did here. He is merely making a statement about average behavior, not all behavior.
It is just not worth sifting through the sand to find the "normally" behaving women here. It is so much easier to date in literally any other city that it's not even funny.
It is just not worth sifting through the sand to find the "normally" behaving women here. It is so much easier to date in literally any other city that it's not even funny.
>all women’s “behavior"
Again, he never said the word "all", and much turns on that word. It is you who is attempting to destroy nuance, by twisting what he did say into something more shocking, in the hope that more pearls will be clutched.
Again, he never said the word "all", and much turns on that word. It is you who is attempting to destroy nuance, by twisting what he did say into something more shocking, in the hope that more pearls will be clutched.
His rationale was solid: there is limited supply of women in the Bay Area so the market tends to favour women.
If there was an under supply of men, for example after a war, the same thing would be true of the few remaining men.
His mistake was apologising when I suspect he knows he is correct, or more broadly, not having sufficient opportunity or resources to leave an institution that would force him to retract a correct analysis of a market.
If there was an under supply of men, for example after a war, the same thing would be true of the few remaining men.
His mistake was apologising when I suspect he knows he is correct, or more broadly, not having sufficient opportunity or resources to leave an institution that would force him to retract a correct analysis of a market.
But he didn’t say there’s a limited supply of women. He explicitly said the behavior of the women in the area is categorically worse than outside of it, which is wtf. Imagine being a female student and having your professor say that you suck as a dating prospect just because you live in the area?
>He explicitly said the behavior of the women in the area is categorically worse than outside of it
No. He did not use the words "worse" or "categorically" -- you did.
No. He did not use the words "worse" or "categorically" -- you did.
It was very obviously he wasn’t saying it positively!
I inferred that "difference" meant "difference in a worse direction" too, and so would almost anyone. But that doesn't excuse your false claim, which magnifies what he did say.
> But he didn’t say there’s a limited supply of women.
Yes he did:
“You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco.”
Yes he did:
“You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco.”
The behavior of people whose skills are in demand is always different. When has that ever not been true? The quote isnt that these people are behaving badly, just that theyre following their incentives.
> His rationale was solid: there is limited supply of women in the Bay Area so the market tends to favour women.
Slightly, but only in the 20–24 cohort. If you're looking for women 25 and older, there's a higher ratio of women than men in San Francisco County than there are in California as a whole, and nationwide as a whole.
People just hate to hear that the problem is them.
Slightly, but only in the 20–24 cohort. If you're looking for women 25 and older, there's a higher ratio of women than men in San Francisco County than there are in California as a whole, and nationwide as a whole.
People just hate to hear that the problem is them.
I remember posts on social media a few years back urging single women to move to SFBA that they will have their pick of men even if they aren't attractive in their home county and I found that offensive to men.
Yes, and if a professor was saying this to their students what would be offensive! But that’s not what we’re talking about, I’m so sorry you were offended though.
I think we should all try to be offended less, not more.
Especially by something written on an Internet forum by somebody we don’t know who probably was not talking about us.
Especially by something written on an Internet forum by somebody we don’t know who probably was not talking about us.
> I think we should all try to be offended less, not more.
Doesn't seem to be going that way, though, does it?
Doesn't seem to be going that way, though, does it?
Unfortunately not.
And not only do we feel offended for things that are or even simply could be about us, but also for others, and even when those others do not feel offended themselves.
And not only do we feel offended for things that are or even simply could be about us, but also for others, and even when those others do not feel offended themselves.
He's not wrong. You don't go to the lesbian capital of the USA if you're looking for heterosexual dating prospects.
Please read the original comment the professor made. He’s not talking like the women are just unavailable. He’s talking that they’re categorically bad. (FWIW I don’t believe lesbians are bad lol)
I read it. I disagree with your portrayal of his statement.
Wait how do you read that the advise to get out due to “the differences in the women” outside of the area vs the women in the area as not saying the women in the Bay Area are not suitable life partners?
It's a bad idea to pursue lesbian women if you want a heterosexual life partner. This should not be a hard thing to understand. Do you agree that lesbian women are different from straight women?
He didn’t say they were lesbians. He said their behavior is shocking! Lesbians aren’t shocking lol. They’re very normal.
Statistics say that San Francisco is the LGBTQ capital of the world. They're very normal, but they're not what most straight men are looking for in a relationship. As I said before, this is not hard to understand.
The LGBTQ+ community in SF skews Gay and Trans, not Lesbian.
That said, none of this has ANY bearing on his clearly misogynistic statements
That said, none of this has ANY bearing on his clearly misogynistic statements
> clearly misogynistic
What's clear is that you're not treating the man's actual words with any sort of grace or understanding. It's not sporting and it's against HN's guidelines. Assume good faith.
What's clear is that you're not treating the man's actual words with any sort of grace or understanding. It's not sporting and it's against HN's guidelines. Assume good faith.
alephnerd(1)
"difference of behavior due to the competition"
he never said there were not good life partner, only that they were INACECSSIBLE. he was literally answering to basically an (literal) incel complaining to not have luck with women
he never said there were not good life partner, only that they were INACECSSIBLE. he was literally answering to basically an (literal) incel complaining to not have luck with women
I agree with the other commenters that you're reading your own beliefs into his statement. Think of what the prof said as more like a anthropologist analyzing human behavior through the lens of animal behavior.
Statistically, it's not a good idea. Bay area has the most men per women in the country.
https://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/solocities_gap1.aspx
When I was looking for a partner, I moved to DC.
https://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/solocities_gap1.aspx
When I was looking for a partner, I moved to DC.
The issue is he said this - "You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco"
This is a highly inappropriate comment for anyone to make, let alone a Professor.
Cal already has some issues with misogynistic professors, with one Prof at Haas recently getting suspended for inappropriate sexual relations with grad students
Edit: made quite clearer
This is a highly inappropriate comment for anyone to make, let alone a Professor.
Cal already has some issues with misogynistic professors, with one Prof at Haas recently getting suspended for inappropriate sexual relations with grad students
Edit: made quite clearer
I hope you understand that inappropriate sexual relations with grad students is in a different league than saying that dating may be a different and/or easier game to play in other areas of the country.
Such behavior might fly in Italy, but this side of the pond it is very inappropriate.
Basically, a guy making a qualitative generalization of all women in a specific area is just scuzzball behavior.
It's not as egregious as rape or inappropriate touching, but it's absolutely a Title IX violation, and just a bad thing for someone in an authority position to say.
Basically, a guy making a qualitative generalization of all women in a specific area is just scuzzball behavior.
It's not as egregious as rape or inappropriate touching, but it's absolutely a Title IX violation, and just a bad thing for someone in an authority position to say.
No, unfortunately it would probably not fly in Italy either.
The professor is just saying that some markets are tougher than other markets. The BA. LA, I imagine. NYC. I can surely add Milan to the list.
The professor is just saying that some markets are tougher than other markets. The BA. LA, I imagine. NYC. I can surely add Milan to the list.
> No, unfortunately it would probably not fly in Italy either
Good. It better not.
> some markets are tougher than other markets
Fundamentally that is the issue.
Assuming that relationships or sex are a numbers game imply that deep down, you assume that you deserve getting sex or a relationship.
This removes the onus on the individual to change themselves.
Good. It better not.
> some markets are tougher than other markets
Fundamentally that is the issue.
Assuming that relationships or sex are a numbers game imply that deep down, you assume that you deserve getting sex or a relationship.
This removes the onus on the individual to change themselves.
If it’s a numbers game, it’s just more likely to happen in some areas vs others. This has little to do with one’s quest for self-improvement, however we define that.
I disagree that “it better not”. You are, of course, free to disagree with me, but should imho not try to stop the debate by saying you are right and everybody else is wrong.
Otherwise, you get Trump.
Which is what is going to happen again in November.
And no, while I am not a fan of Biden either, Trump once is more than enough to me.
Otherwise, you get Trump.
Which is what is going to happen again in November.
And no, while I am not a fan of Biden either, Trump once is more than enough to me.
He said "You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco". Not taking sides here, but your citation is really an interpretation.
Fair. Editing to use that quote.
I know. But, I'm just assuming guys reading these comments want to solve their problem.
If you ain't getting action in the Bay, you def ain't getting action in DC either tbh.
Why do you think that? I mean I haven't dated in like 15 years, but I had dates every week, and I'm pretty average.
Because I have lived, worked, and dated in both cities in the past Decade+.
I am an average looking PoC man and I've done fine, as have my peers of all races.
Also, assuming statistics implied ability to get laid is plain dumb, especially in a metro like the DMV which has a very robust lesbian community (according to my lesbian friends, it's their version of what SF is for Gay Men)
Furthermore, assuming that relationships or sex are a numbers game imply that deep down, you assume that you deserve getting sex or a relationship. This removes the onus on the individual to change themselves.
I am an average looking PoC man and I've done fine, as have my peers of all races.
Also, assuming statistics implied ability to get laid is plain dumb, especially in a metro like the DMV which has a very robust lesbian community (according to my lesbian friends, it's their version of what SF is for Gay Men)
Furthermore, assuming that relationships or sex are a numbers game imply that deep down, you assume that you deserve getting sex or a relationship. This removes the onus on the individual to change themselves.
Doesn't make much sense, sorry.
Plus who said anything about sex?
Plus who said anything about sex?
"If you want a good deep dish pizza you need to go to Chicago" is offensive to pizza chefs everywhere but Chicago.
Telling people that to get what they want they need to go where it is is offensive now. You don't like the dating culture where you live? Go somewhere else. The dating culture where you live is objectively abysmal? Go somewhere else. If you're a man in Alaska you're bound to get similar advice, and nobody will complain.
Telling people that to get what they want they need to go where it is is offensive now. You don't like the dating culture where you live? Go somewhere else. The dating culture where you live is objectively abysmal? Go somewhere else. If you're a man in Alaska you're bound to get similar advice, and nobody will complain.
That analogy doesn't really fit. To make it fit the setup needs to be you are in a city with only a few restaurants that offer deep dish pizza, and are advising someone who wants to have deep dish pizza three meals a day every day but is having trouble with that because the price for deep dish pizza is high and the restaurants are often full.
Telling them they should go to Chicago [1] and that they will be shocked by the difference in price and ease of getting into deep dish pizza restaurants there is not going to be offensive to deep dish pizza chefs elsewhere.
[1] I've never been to Chicago. I'm just assuming that its reputation as the deep dish pizza capitol is at least partly due to having a lot of deep dish pizza places.
Telling them they should go to Chicago [1] and that they will be shocked by the difference in price and ease of getting into deep dish pizza restaurants there is not going to be offensive to deep dish pizza chefs elsewhere.
[1] I've never been to Chicago. I'm just assuming that its reputation as the deep dish pizza capitol is at least partly due to having a lot of deep dish pizza places.
"good deep dish pizza" is offensive to pizza chefs everywhere
Everywhere but Chicago.
WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE*
*except supply and demand, economics, evolution, biology and statistics
*except supply and demand, economics, evolution, biology and statistics
djohnston(1)
Well, as a professor there's almost nothing this guy can do to endanger his future employment at Berkeley. There's another professor who is, arguably, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people via decades of HIV/AIDS denialism, and he's still on the payroll. You can be whatever monster you want to be and they won't be able to get rid of you.
This is where the classic rhetoric of "the professor is creating a hostile environment / is making people feel unsafe / caused irreparable harm to underprivileged groups" will come in.
I'm not justifying what he said in any way, but he touched a sacred third rail which is going to make people not want to be associated with his name in any way, at least for a few years until everybody forgets this ever happened. Possible he will resign due to pressure or ostracism.
I'm not justifying what he said in any way, but he touched a sacred third rail which is going to make people not want to be associated with his name in any way, at least for a few years until everybody forgets this ever happened. Possible he will resign due to pressure or ostracism.
That would be really sad.
Shewchuk is a great professor and cares deeply about teaching undergraduate and graduate students.
The post by this professor was probably correct, and in any case should be submitted to debate, but one of many things one is not allowed to say anymore in 2024.
It’s one of those things you weren’t allowed to say in 2014.
If any professor did that when I was in college, there would be a public apology within a week.
If any professor did that when I was in college, there would be a public apology within a week.
According to the (fairly short) article, the professor was indeed required to issue an apology.
There’s never been a time when people haven’t been saying this, and there’s never been a time when the people saying this weren’t mocked as the losers they so obviously are.
You can say whatever you want. There will be consequences to the things you say, but you can still say them. You just have to accept the consequences.
Toddlers & children understand this.
Toddlers & children understand this.
This is just obtuse.
“Murder is one of the things not allowed in our society.”
“Oh, you can kill whoever you want. There will be consequences to your killings, but you can still kill people. You just have to accept the consequences. Toddlers & children understand this.”
“Murder is one of the things not allowed in our society.”
“Oh, you can kill whoever you want. There will be consequences to your killings, but you can still kill people. You just have to accept the consequences. Toddlers & children understand this.”
The irony of your comment isn't lost on me, but to be clear, words can't murder you. The stakes are a bit lower.
I've generally found people complaining about things they "can't say," especially around topics like this, are utter clowns who can't grasp the basics of communication. Again, you can say whatever the hell you want. Some people will love it, some people will ignore it or not care, and some people will get pissed at you. If you run crying to the hacker news boards about it, instead of reflecting on the reaction you got to the thing you said to understand why you were cEnSoReD, I don't have time or patience to hear your complaint.
I've generally found people complaining about things they "can't say," especially around topics like this, are utter clowns who can't grasp the basics of communication. Again, you can say whatever the hell you want. Some people will love it, some people will ignore it or not care, and some people will get pissed at you. If you run crying to the hacker news boards about it, instead of reflecting on the reaction you got to the thing you said to understand why you were cEnSoReD, I don't have time or patience to hear your complaint.
That's a two-edged sword. There are consequences to what the school says and does, and they _also_ have to accept the consequences.
Indeed, and that's the crux of this story, a professor of the school giving advice to the student of the school cannot easily be seen as anything other than a representative of the school in such a context .. and the minimum consequence that has to be accepted here, as outlined, is for the professor to apologise.
You have a hilarious definition of "not allowed"!
How so?
You say it, you are pushed to back-pedal otherwise you might lose your job. Isn’t that, more or less, the situation we are talking about?
You say it, you are pushed to back-pedal otherwise you might lose your job. Isn’t that, more or less, the situation we are talking about?
Ahh yes the hilarity of being forced to apologize and having your job threatened for having an unwoke opinion on something unrelated to your job. Ha ha ha!
This is wildly inappropriate in a professional setting. As a woman reading that, I'm shocked. For a woman hoping to get into tech, comments like that made by authority figures just reinforce prior beliefs about how hostile our field can be to women.
I'm glad the professor apologized, at least.
I'm glad the professor apologized, at least.
If I had a nickle for even half the times I heard women saying how annoying or generally shitty men are in profesional settings...
It never ocurred to me to make a case out of it. What a missed opportunity.
It never ocurred to me to make a case out of it. What a missed opportunity.
I think his words were ill advised and he was likely to get in trouble for them.
But, as a woman, I don't think you ought to be offended. His point is in your favour. He is saying there are too few women in the area and the industry which puts pressure on the behaviour of both sexes. This says nothing derogatory about women, unless you are primed to look for it.
But, as a woman, I don't think you ought to be offended. His point is in your favour. He is saying there are too few women in the area and the industry which puts pressure on the behaviour of both sexes. This says nothing derogatory about women, unless you are primed to look for it.
> This is wildly inappropriate in a professional setting.
Old (and incorrect): the student explicitly asked the professor for dating advice.
Updated: the student sought advice for what to do with life after school. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
Old (and incorrect): the student explicitly asked the professor for dating advice.
Updated: the student sought advice for what to do with life after school. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
From what I've found [1] the OP asked for ideas on what to do after they graduate, not dating advice. Then, a commenter started off responding but quickly switched into dumping their emotions about how they can't get a girlfriend. That commenter also did not ask for advice.
The professor then replied to this commenter, not the OP, with his thought about how women in "artillery distance" of the bay area have stark behavior differences. Some of those women he was talking about were, presumably, his own students.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bitr75/another_d...
edit to add:
A model response from a professor who did want to weigh in on this might be something like "Stop thinking about life in terms of looking for a girlfriend, and start meeting new people and forming relationships with them, some of which may turn romantic." The student's attitude is just not a healthy way to go about life, and the general demeanor they have (that kind of response to a job-advice post) is not conducive to actually forming healthy relationships.
The professor then replied to this commenter, not the OP, with his thought about how women in "artillery distance" of the bay area have stark behavior differences. Some of those women he was talking about were, presumably, his own students.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bitr75/another_d...
edit to add:
A model response from a professor who did want to weigh in on this might be something like "Stop thinking about life in terms of looking for a girlfriend, and start meeting new people and forming relationships with them, some of which may turn romantic." The student's attitude is just not a healthy way to go about life, and the general demeanor they have (that kind of response to a job-advice post) is not conducive to actually forming healthy relationships.
It's hard to know what's good advice, but I don't think it's a good idea to be careless about dating. Realistically, after college it will be dramatically more difficult to find someone. In retrospect, finding each other was probably the most important thing my wife and I did at school. Once you're an adult, things stop happening by default for you and you have to make them happen. So sure, don't obsess because that's off-putting, but also be strategic about what's important to you (unfortunately the time to do that is probably when picking a school, assuming you have the luxury to do that).
Rates of unmarried people are on a steep increase[0]. If a family is important to you, go somewhere where that's more likely to happen (e.g. good dating odds, other people with similar goals). The bay area is probably not that place for either sex.
[0] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/comm/neve...
Rates of unmarried people are on a steep increase[0]. If a family is important to you, go somewhere where that's more likely to happen (e.g. good dating odds, other people with similar goals). The bay area is probably not that place for either sex.
[0] https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/comm/neve...
I'm really happy that you found the love of your life!
I'm not saying you should be careless, but I am saying that the way you put in effort is by having good, healthy relationships with others around you. I think the kid needs guidance and mentorship on how to become a self-confident person more than anything.
Completely agreed that it is harder to find people to meet. But also, the people you meet in your late 20s/early 30s will be much more mature than those you meet earlier in life, so it's not all bad.
Gender skew is a very serious problem -- but the student is primarily in need of guidance about self-confidence. And again, some comments have pointed out that there are more women at Berkeley than men.
I'm not saying you should be careless, but I am saying that the way you put in effort is by having good, healthy relationships with others around you. I think the kid needs guidance and mentorship on how to become a self-confident person more than anything.
Completely agreed that it is harder to find people to meet. But also, the people you meet in your late 20s/early 30s will be much more mature than those you meet earlier in life, so it's not all bad.
Gender skew is a very serious problem -- but the student is primarily in need of guidance about self-confidence. And again, some comments have pointed out that there are more women at Berkeley than men.
Tbh the commenter offering to pay for friends suggests something a little more serious going on than just bad social skills, but who knows.
It's not just about gender ratios though. In some areas, girls have no qualms about pursuing a Mrs degree in engineering; it's a practical way to achieve their goals and find a happy life. In the bay, you might find yourself on a petition to be fired if you suggest that a wise strategy for a boy who wants to pursue engineering and wants to find "marriage material" might be to find a school with the type of girls who are pursuing their Mrs in engineering.
It's not just about gender ratios though. In some areas, girls have no qualms about pursuing a Mrs degree in engineering; it's a practical way to achieve their goals and find a happy life. In the bay, you might find yourself on a petition to be fired if you suggest that a wise strategy for a boy who wants to pursue engineering and wants to find "marriage material" might be to find a school with the type of girls who are pursuing their Mrs in engineering.
> start meeting new people and forming relationships with them, some of which may turn romantic.
I happen to think this is terrible advice, for whatever my 2 cents are worth.
I happen to think this is terrible advice, for whatever my 2 cents are worth.
To be clear, as a woman, hearing a potential partner (of any gender -- I'm pansexual) whine about how they can't get a girlfriend would make me instantly uninterested in a romantic relationship with them.
Also, the advice to focus on meeting people and making friendships first is what _I_ got, and it's worked out pretty well for me. Even at times when I was single, enjoying what I had rather than pining for things I didn't was a much healthier attitude to life.
Also, the advice to focus on meeting people and making friendships first is what _I_ got, and it's worked out pretty well for me. Even at times when I was single, enjoying what I had rather than pining for things I didn't was a much healthier attitude to life.
As woman you should also realize, what works for you as woman, doesn't work for a man. Have more empathy for people who are not like you.
People are having an open adult conversation; I don't think it's fair to classify that as whining.
The way the professor put thing was less than ideal, to put it mildly. That was lacking in nuance and unprofessional. But "Stop thinking about life in terms of looking for a girlfriend, and start meeting new people and forming relationships with them, some of which may turn romantic" is excessively politically correct. That is: avoiding an unpleasant truth and coming up with platitudes instead to avoid it.
I've never been to the US, much less the bay area, so I can't vouch for the correctness of his views, but I have lived in different places in Europe, and there's definitely a difference in dating difficulty level between places. I don't entirely know why, there it definitely exists.
People want to have a loved one in their life. They want to have sex. They want to have that "special person" to laugh with. Your platitude sounds nice on the face of it, but it sounds a lot less nice if you've been without any of that for years, have dealt with uncountable rejections, and just feel lonely. "Friends" can only fill so much of that void. And not everyone is so extroverted they want to have lots of friends in the first place. And while some people may be fine without a partner for years, others really do have a need for it – different things work for different people.
I think it's reasonable to talk about all of this, and "dating is kind of hard here" is fair advice to give.
> The advice to focus on meeting people and making friendships first is what _I_ got, and it's worked out pretty well for me.
Yes, but you're a woman. This is significantly harder as a man. Women, especially, but also men, tend to treat you as hostile-by-default in the public sphere.
I've had plenty of girlfriends over the years, but by and large meeting one is work. "Just hang out and have the craic and end up with a girlfriend" can work, but is rare. Maybe if you're one of those very charismatic people, but most of us aren't. And again: not everyone wants to be doing this all the time in the first place.
People talk about "male privilege", but I like to call it "experience blindness": being blind for experiences of people outside of your own. This emphasises that it exists in both directions.
Related previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36473719 (not just the comment I linked to, also my reply to the top comment). While there are also ugly comments there, in general I found that to be an interesting discussion).
The way the professor put thing was less than ideal, to put it mildly. That was lacking in nuance and unprofessional. But "Stop thinking about life in terms of looking for a girlfriend, and start meeting new people and forming relationships with them, some of which may turn romantic" is excessively politically correct. That is: avoiding an unpleasant truth and coming up with platitudes instead to avoid it.
I've never been to the US, much less the bay area, so I can't vouch for the correctness of his views, but I have lived in different places in Europe, and there's definitely a difference in dating difficulty level between places. I don't entirely know why, there it definitely exists.
People want to have a loved one in their life. They want to have sex. They want to have that "special person" to laugh with. Your platitude sounds nice on the face of it, but it sounds a lot less nice if you've been without any of that for years, have dealt with uncountable rejections, and just feel lonely. "Friends" can only fill so much of that void. And not everyone is so extroverted they want to have lots of friends in the first place. And while some people may be fine without a partner for years, others really do have a need for it – different things work for different people.
I think it's reasonable to talk about all of this, and "dating is kind of hard here" is fair advice to give.
> The advice to focus on meeting people and making friendships first is what _I_ got, and it's worked out pretty well for me.
Yes, but you're a woman. This is significantly harder as a man. Women, especially, but also men, tend to treat you as hostile-by-default in the public sphere.
I've had plenty of girlfriends over the years, but by and large meeting one is work. "Just hang out and have the craic and end up with a girlfriend" can work, but is rare. Maybe if you're one of those very charismatic people, but most of us aren't. And again: not everyone wants to be doing this all the time in the first place.
People talk about "male privilege", but I like to call it "experience blindness": being blind for experiences of people outside of your own. This emphasises that it exists in both directions.
Related previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36473719 (not just the comment I linked to, also my reply to the top comment). While there are also ugly comments there, in general I found that to be an interesting discussion).
I guess it works if you like groups and going out with many people. Not my cup of tea, but that’s just me.
> the OP asked for ideas on what to do after they graduate, not dating advice.
Here is the student asking:
“ Currently the only drive that makes me still want to try my best and fight for my future is knowing that getting a gf is even harder, like fr. I only know 4 girls (not counting the ones that are virtual or expired due to haven't talked to them for too long), 2 of them their parents know my parents so I can't do anything. One of them friendzoned + not interested, one of them about to expire cuz haven't talked since last month. I know for sure I'm not getting a gf at least till I graduate, 100% sure. For getting a job right after 1 graduate, I know it's still somewhat possible at this stage, as long as I try my absolute best not to get distracted too much, plan my days and use all possible time allowed, seek help when needed, and not get affected too much by anxieties and negative emotions.”
Full post: https://twitter.com/oliverjohansson/status/17702150244785482...
Here is the student asking:
“ Currently the only drive that makes me still want to try my best and fight for my future is knowing that getting a gf is even harder, like fr. I only know 4 girls (not counting the ones that are virtual or expired due to haven't talked to them for too long), 2 of them their parents know my parents so I can't do anything. One of them friendzoned + not interested, one of them about to expire cuz haven't talked since last month. I know for sure I'm not getting a gf at least till I graduate, 100% sure. For getting a job right after 1 graduate, I know it's still somewhat possible at this stage, as long as I try my absolute best not to get distracted too much, plan my days and use all possible time allowed, seek help when needed, and not get affected too much by anxieties and negative emotions.”
Full post: https://twitter.com/oliverjohansson/status/17702150244785482...
That's not the OP, and in any case that's much more of a comment than a question.
Hern that's presented as the first item in 'the entire thread'. If you know it's not the first item and this isn't the entire thread, where is the entire thread?
Edit due to rate limit: sorry you're right, Reddit was being odd on my phone. I've updated my previous post to say the student was asking for life advice after school, and was not explicitly asking for dating advice.
Edit due to rate limit: sorry you're right, Reddit was being odd on my phone. I've updated my previous post to say the student was asking for life advice after school, and was not explicitly asking for dating advice.
I linked to it in the comment you replied to. Here's the link again: https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bitr75/another_d...
(You need to click on the right arrow to see the full series of images on Reddit.)
(You need to click on the right arrow to see the full series of images on Reddit.)
EECS = electrical engineering and computer science?
I don’t think the professor was saying anything regarding the fact that women cannot do well in the field, not at all. That would have been terrible, I agree.
I don’t think the professor was saying anything regarding the fact that women cannot do well in the field, not at all. That would have been terrible, I agree.
Yes, that's the name of Berkeley's department.
If you're from a minority group in an area, it is _extremely_ unpleasant to hear yourself being talked about as if you're the object of a tactical military operation. "Artillery distance", really.
Agree that if he'd said that women can't do well in the field, that would be much worse.
If you're from a minority group in an area, it is _extremely_ unpleasant to hear yourself being talked about as if you're the object of a tactical military operation. "Artillery distance", really.
Agree that if he'd said that women can't do well in the field, that would be much worse.
I don’t think the professor was talking about his female students, but rather about the average woman in the Bay Area (but I don’t know for sure, of course).
Artillery distance just means 100 miles or something like that. I agree that saying “keep 100 miles from the Bay Area” would have sounded better, but I don’t think it’s that important (again, just how I read it).
Artillery distance just means 100 miles or something like that. I agree that saying “keep 100 miles from the Bay Area” would have sounded better, but I don’t think it’s that important (again, just how I read it).
You are not a minority for being a women. There is more women on earth than men.
Doubly so in the bay area
[deleted]
Well good thing it wasn't a professional setting then, but only a class discussion. Really it's hostile to point out that Silicon valley is not a good place to find a partner?
> one of many things one is not allowed to say anymore in 2024.
Thank god. Imagine being a tuition-paying female student and having you professor tell you...
"You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco.”"
The more that men in positions of power learn not to talk about the "behavior of women", the fucking better.
Thank god. Imagine being a tuition-paying female student and having you professor tell you...
"You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco.”"
The more that men in positions of power learn not to talk about the "behavior of women", the fucking better.
I don’t think he was talking about female computer scientists, not at all.
He said "if you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area" to female students who live in the Bay Area.
He’s saying that women in the Bay Area are highly valuable. Your outrage is very strange. Do you think women in the Bay Area are not very valuable? Why would you want to claim that?
If you can’t afford a car, maybe stop car shopping at Mercedes dealerships, right? How can this possibly be controversial, unless you simply hunger for outrage.
If you can’t afford a car, maybe stop car shopping at Mercedes dealerships, right? How can this possibly be controversial, unless you simply hunger for outrage.
That's one way to construe what he said, I think it's a little generous. What most of us get, and I think it's probably closer to his intent, is "women in the bay area expect you to make half a milliom dollars a year at google and do half the housework." That's a perfectly fine thing to advise a young man on if he's not in that position and doesn't want that kind of family life, but let's not pretend that he was calling them valuable. He was calling them too demanding for what they have to offer.
Women who in demand are in a position to hold out for more from men. Of course they are! This is NOT CONTROVERSIAL, nor insulting to women in any way.
Why would you want to interpret this as an insult to women? Does it make you happier than the alternative?
Why would you want to interpret this as an insult to women? Does it make you happier than the alternative?
I don't interpret this as an insult to women. I interpret it as disparaging to bay area culture, which isn't really a big deal, lots of people disparage the culture in lots of places when they declare they'd never live there.
He was stereotyping a vast group of people, a group which includes students in his class, and discussing their value. People just should not do that. It's rude, dumb and inappropriate.
What if he made a similarly broad judgment about all Asians or all Black people? It would be similarly fucked up.
What if he made a similarly broad judgment about all Asians or all Black people? It would be similarly fucked up.
I see your point, but I don't think those are the same thing. People don't go out seeking specific races of people to begin lives with them. We all go out seeking someone of our preferred sex. Pairing is a fundamental part of human behavior.
Also he didn't generalize all women, he disparaged the local culture. It's not like he told the dude to turn gay because women suck or something like that.
Also he didn't generalize all women, he disparaged the local culture. It's not like he told the dude to turn gay because women suck or something like that.
I simply can't comprehend the worldview of someone who would waste their time defending this. I feel the need to call it out because I have many female friends and have heard their views on these types of issues over the years, which compels me to speak out. Do you have many women in your life that you can talk to about these issues?
Yeah, my wife for one. I mentioned this to her yesterday actually. She thought it was funny.
I think it helps to not default to outrage and then examine things critically and unemotionally.
I'm not defending anything, just discussing details.
I think it helps to not default to outrage and then examine things critically and unemotionally.
I'm not defending anything, just discussing details.
You don't speak for women.
He's not stereotyping anyone. He was observing market conditions in a geographic area.
Men should not comment on the "value" of women to their students, are you fucking kidding me?
No, I'm not kidding you. Get your head out of your ass and start learning how humans live and mate.
He didn’t say their behavior was bad or good.
How about men in positions of power simply NEVER comment on the behavior of women as a whole?
The post:
> If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area. Almost everywhere else on the planet is better for that. I’m not kidding at all. You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
I take issue with that last sentence which is vague enough to be a dog whistle of sorts and implies it is women who are somehow at fault and who need to change their behavior.
I learned awhile ago that nuanced perspectives surrounding women are pretty lacking in this site, however. I expect this post to be flagged or downweighted within an hour.
> If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area. Almost everywhere else on the planet is better for that. I’m not kidding at all. You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
I take issue with that last sentence which is vague enough to be a dog whistle of sorts and implies it is women who are somehow at fault and who need to change their behavior.
I learned awhile ago that nuanced perspectives surrounding women are pretty lacking in this site, however. I expect this post to be flagged or downweighted within an hour.
> > You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
> I take issue with that last sentence which is vague enough to be a dog whistle of sorts and implies it is women who are somehow at fault and who need to change their behavior.
We read this very differently. I read it as basically a reminder that people don't put in effort if they don't have to and that people respond to incentives. To take an example, how many devs were pretty lazy at work before the market tightened up vs right now? A change in scarcity can sometimes lead to some pretty big changes in behavior.
I also didn't read it as women need to change their behavior, as it was the student that the professor was explicitly telling to change (specifically their choice of location). If you want it to generalize it, it could be taken as advising men to change their behavior (and move out of SF en masse).
But it read to me that the professor in question thinks that women have a stronger position in the dating market than men in SF right now. If that's true (I have no personal knowledge about this), it seems unlikely that women would want to change that. I'm actually struggling to see how this could be a call for women to change their behavior. Would you mind elaborating on how you read this? It could be that I'm missing some subtext.
> I take issue with that last sentence which is vague enough to be a dog whistle of sorts and implies it is women who are somehow at fault and who need to change their behavior.
We read this very differently. I read it as basically a reminder that people don't put in effort if they don't have to and that people respond to incentives. To take an example, how many devs were pretty lazy at work before the market tightened up vs right now? A change in scarcity can sometimes lead to some pretty big changes in behavior.
I also didn't read it as women need to change their behavior, as it was the student that the professor was explicitly telling to change (specifically their choice of location). If you want it to generalize it, it could be taken as advising men to change their behavior (and move out of SF en masse).
But it read to me that the professor in question thinks that women have a stronger position in the dating market than men in SF right now. If that's true (I have no personal knowledge about this), it seems unlikely that women would want to change that. I'm actually struggling to see how this could be a call for women to change their behavior. Would you mind elaborating on how you read this? It could be that I'm missing some subtext.
>>You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
This is a positive statement which means that it is stating something that the author thinks is true, not something they think ought to be true. If you don't think it is true then offer a rebuttal. But people like you reading this sentence and then doing a round of mind reading and then responding to the fiction in your head is the reason we can't have debates anymore.
This is a positive statement which means that it is stating something that the author thinks is true, not something they think ought to be true. If you don't think it is true then offer a rebuttal. But people like you reading this sentence and then doing a round of mind reading and then responding to the fiction in your head is the reason we can't have debates anymore.
I believe we’re having a debate currently. I disagree with his implied vague premise that women are being too difficult with regards to dating in that area. More likely, women in the area have to put up with assholes like him more often and so have a reasonable level of guardedness. Honestly both statements are generalizations and I’m not going to speak on behalf of all women there because I’m not a woman and I don’t live there.
And for what it’s worth, when someone is vague in this fashion, some amount of inference is required.
And for what it’s worth, when someone is vague in this fashion, some amount of inference is required.
I don't think it is vague at all. He's commenting on the dating behavior of his female students in a clearly negative light.
I don’t think he is talking about his female students.
He said "If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area" to female students who live in the Bay Area.
He doesn’t mention what the behavior is at all. I agree that it is clearly negative of course.
Stupid. A student was asking, so what's bad about answering this way?
At no point was a student asking for dating advice.
Article says "Shewchuk’s comments were in response to a student who was asking for advice about finding work in the Bay Area and dating in the area"
If the prof wasn't personally asked and butted into someone elses convo, sure then I can see that being not appropriate
If the prof wasn't personally asked and butted into someone elses convo, sure then I can see that being not appropriate
The full thread is here (click on the right arrow to see all the comments).
https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bitr75/another_d...
https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bitr75/another_d...
If a man said “how can I meet millionaire women who are perfect 10’s?” One might say back to him “Well are YOU a millionaire and are YOU a perfect 10? Maybe set your sights lower, kid.”
Would that be advice that women would consider misogyny? Hard to believe it would.
This is basically the same sentiment that then professor uttered: seek to court women who want what you offer.
Would that be advice that women would consider misogyny? Hard to believe it would.
This is basically the same sentiment that then professor uttered: seek to court women who want what you offer.
Why hasn’t the market corrected the imbalance: more women moving to Bay to get access to these high income men ?
Nothing about what he said disrespects women. Matehood is and has always been an economic enterprise.
It’s astonishing how gender politics has completely blinded people to the nature and history of their own species.
Enough is enough. Stop backing down when a power group sets out to intimidate you to get more than its share.
The reason some people are acting like this is misogyny is because it’s a convenient trope that motivates shallow women.
There is real misogyny, you know. This kind of reaction to someone saying “play in a different league if you want to win more games” just hurts the cause of dealing with real misogyny.
It’s astonishing how gender politics has completely blinded people to the nature and history of their own species.
Enough is enough. Stop backing down when a power group sets out to intimidate you to get more than its share.
The reason some people are acting like this is misogyny is because it’s a convenient trope that motivates shallow women.
There is real misogyny, you know. This kind of reaction to someone saying “play in a different league if you want to win more games” just hurts the cause of dealing with real misogyny.
Better yet, get out of America
Under the current political climate and division, sound advice!
[deleted]
The quote in question:
> If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area. Almost everywhere else on the planet is better for that. I’m not kidding at all. You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
This reads to me like a reflection of his own difficulties with dating in the bay area, leading him to generalize. He's only human, and I don't think he should be burned at the stake for letting a bit of that humanity slip.
At the same time, it's not surprising that a professor is going to face some scrutiny for publicly deriding a population he will inevitably have to teach. In his apology he says he didn't mean to disrespect women, but he definitely did, the point of his statement was specifically to call out the women in that region as being so undesirable that eligible men should move rather than date them. That's a mean thing to say, and an unfair generalization to all the lovely ladies in the bay area. I think an apology suffices, hopefully he doesn't get fired for it.
> If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area. Almost everywhere else on the planet is better for that. I’m not kidding at all. You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco
This reads to me like a reflection of his own difficulties with dating in the bay area, leading him to generalize. He's only human, and I don't think he should be burned at the stake for letting a bit of that humanity slip.
At the same time, it's not surprising that a professor is going to face some scrutiny for publicly deriding a population he will inevitably have to teach. In his apology he says he didn't mean to disrespect women, but he definitely did, the point of his statement was specifically to call out the women in that region as being so undesirable that eligible men should move rather than date them. That's a mean thing to say, and an unfair generalization to all the lovely ladies in the bay area. I think an apology suffices, hopefully he doesn't get fired for it.
> the point of his statement was specifically to call out the women in that region as being so undesirable that eligible men should move rather than date them.
That's not what I got from it at all.
What I got from it is: there is a gender imbalance in the Bay area. This gender imbalance favors women. That has an impact on women's behavior - presumably allowing women to be pickier. This makes the experience frustrating for men, hence the recommendation to go elsewhere.
Note, it's not the women who are the undesirable ones in this interpretation...
That's not what I got from it at all.
What I got from it is: there is a gender imbalance in the Bay area. This gender imbalance favors women. That has an impact on women's behavior - presumably allowing women to be pickier. This makes the experience frustrating for men, hence the recommendation to go elsewhere.
Note, it's not the women who are the undesirable ones in this interpretation...
I wrote a similar reply to a sibling comment, but to me the tone suggests "undesirable" because the advice is "don't even try to date, go anywhere else in the world", he even bolsters it by saying "I'm not kidding" because he knows its a bit extreme to uproot your life to increase dating odds. If he had said something along the lines of "expect to face some rejections before success, that's just the reality of dating, especially for a man in the bay area, here are some tips to make yourself more competitive in the dating market", that would strike me as a reflection on picky women.
I don't disagree with everything you said, but I don't think its extreme to uproot yourself in search for a partner. Choice in a life partner is going to be one of the most consequential decisions you'll ever make. If you've got to go to the end of the earth to find your soul mate, will you do it? Extreme, hyperbolic example but it shows my point. All the things you need for a successful pairing and family, similar culture, similar socioeconomic details, similar values, similar philosophies, similar life goals... Going somewhere where the potential partners are more like you (while of course simultaneously making sure you meet their criteria as well) is not that extreme when you consider that you will ideally spend the rest of your life with them and raise your children with them.
"being so undesirable"
I don't think he meant "undesirable". I understood it as "too selective", with the implication that there's too much male competition in the Bay.
I don't think he meant "undesirable". I understood it as "too selective", with the implication that there's too much male competition in the Bay.
Perhaps, but that's not the connotation I take. If someone is living in the bay area asking for dating advice, saying "seriously, don't even try dating, just leave", it heavily implies the type of behavior he's referring to is the kind you should run away from. If the problem was that they are "too selective" then the advice should focus around tips for making yourself more competitive in the dating market.
"improving" can't work for everyone when there are a limited number of slots.
The solutions are win, polyandry, do without, leave, and change the demographics.
The solutions are win, polyandry, do without, leave, and change the demographics.
Dating isn't a zero sum game, there are hundreds of thousands of single women in the bay area at any time, more than any individual can ever possibly meet before "running out of slots".
Zero-sum has nothing to do with absolute numbers, let alone "the number you can meet".
The issue is relative numbers. If there's more demand for women than there is demand for men in the relevant cohort, some men's demand must be unsatisfied (barring polyandry). That's as true for 10M men and 8M women as it is for 10 men and 8 women. (After those 8x women are matched, there are 2x men left over.)
Moreover, single is the wrong characteristic - available is the right one. The ratio of available women to available men is even more lopsided than the ratio of women to men (in the relevant cohort). (It doesn't matter what definition you use for available as long as it's the same on both sides.)
The issue is relative numbers. If there's more demand for women than there is demand for men in the relevant cohort, some men's demand must be unsatisfied (barring polyandry). That's as true for 10M men and 8M women as it is for 10 men and 8 women. (After those 8x women are matched, there are 2x men left over.)
Moreover, single is the wrong characteristic - available is the right one. The ratio of available women to available men is even more lopsided than the ratio of women to men (in the relevant cohort). (It doesn't matter what definition you use for available as long as it's the same on both sides.)
It's a lot worse than zero sum actually. Most girls are happy not to fuck if they feel "there's better out there". Hence the decreasing degree of sex in young people to be linked with the increase of social media.
If you're naturally bad at dating just don't shoot yourself in the foot in a place where there's limited supply of mates.
And regarding the behavior yeah it's def said in a misognistic tone, but It's the same tone than women complaining a guy treated them like sh** because he had too many option.
Nothing new, nothing to be extra offended of even if it was radically unprofessionnal (as would be a women saying stuff like that)
And regarding the behavior yeah it's def said in a misognistic tone, but It's the same tone than women complaining a guy treated them like sh** because he had too many option.
Nothing new, nothing to be extra offended of even if it was radically unprofessionnal (as would be a women saying stuff like that)
Interesting how we don't try and unpack the merits of his words and quickly label something this or that and try and get him fired - what happened to fkng free speech Berkeley fascists. Perhaps what he meant is Technology is heavily slanted male, higher percentage so more competition, for a limited supply. Could it just be that simple my panty wadded peeps!
SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEN:WOMEN
15 to 19 106 to 100
20 to 24 110 to 100
25 to 29 112 to 100
30 to 34 108 to 100
35 to 39 104 to 100
LETS LOOK AT THE DATA
LETS LOOK AT THE DATA
> This reads to me like a reflection of his own difficulties with dating in the bay area
I'm pretty sure the professor is married.
I'm pretty sure the professor is married.
Being married is not necessarily an indicator of not having difficulties just as being alone is not necessarily an indicator of having difficulties, imho.
Well it says he's been teaching there from at least 1998, I assume he had some exposure to the dating world prior to getting married, but in fairness that opinion is total speculation. It'd be more puzzling to me if he made this comment after having no problems dating in the bay area. Either way, no way to know for sure.
It's probably more prominent in the bay area because of the status seeking cultures at Berkeley and Stanford, but it's everywhere. The culture has become more mercenary. The best thing I think young people could do is set the age of their dating profiles 20 years into the future and see what it's going to look like for them. Your relationship options are to work and adapt, or settle. No partner can sustain reinforcing your false narratives about yourself for very long, so find and drop those as fast as you can. As far as success goes, you're not a very good muse for yourself, and nobody else is going to shape you like a family, so have one. Also, stay fit. A lack of fitness is poverty after 30.