There’s been a fair amount of buzz in the blogosphere about the NYX’s article re a shortage of men on UNC’s campus. I thought I’d bring you some of the more interesting bits.
I. From Feministing, that bastion of sex-positive, snarky women:
Would You Like a College Degree to Go With Your Man? The NYT’s Heteronormative Fail
This article appeared at the front of the Style section. It involves slut shaming (the passages about sexually aggressive women or women who-God forbid!-ask men out), anti-male sentiment (men are cads, men only want to “use” women), and rampant heteronormitivity.
My Take:
Slut shaming? Because women talked about how miserable they are with a steady diet of no-strings sex? It was implied that one woman lacked manners when she grabbed a guy in the middle of a conversation and starting grinding her pelvis into his. That shameful slut!
Anti-male sentiment? I thought the article provided an objective supply and demand analysis of sexual trends on campus. Furthermore, it called attention to a very real problem in our society, which is that women are outpacing men in education. We need to address why many men are dropping out, not just for their sakes, but for ours. We can’t have relationships with them if they’re not showing up!
Heteronormitivity? Yeah, well, there’s no greater sin over at Feministing. This does raise an interesting question, though. With guys increasingly MIA, it occurs to me that gay women should potentially reap some benefits here. UNCLUG! Based on the Smith model, UNC Lesbian Until Graduation! Why not?
II. At Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams weighs in with More women coeds = more Clooney rentals!
According to yet another of those scare tactics stories that makes my weekend coffee seem just a little more bitter, when women outnumber men in colleges, they’d better lower their uppity-ass standards, stat!
Ah, wake up and smell the snark:
"I’m sorry, I’m just a set of knockers who can’t do math, but a 45 percent male enrollment makes for a no-man’s land?”
“Sure, Williams throws us the bone that all this education “is hardly the worst news for women” (no, it’s your withering love box that’s the bad news).”
“But no, women barely above drinking age are hooking up for desperate one-night stands. College women! Having easy sex! Because they are lonely and sad. And if they’re lucky enough to land one of those precious boy thingies, they’d better be wiling to put up with his shit.”
“Go bust your ass on the SATs and take out loans you’ll be paying until well into your 40s, as long as you don’t mind paying the price and being victimized and all. Happy now, girls? HAPPY NOW? No you are not, that’s the answer. Dammit, why did they have to ruin everything with stupid learning? Now they’ll never have babies!”
“But brace yourselves: Not all young women are looking for serious boyfriends. Psssst…. not all young women are into boys, period. (Note to the Times: it’s pronounced lez-be-in.) Never mind that drinking and hooking up and heartache and occasional insensitive behavior are part and parcel of the human experience.”
Speaks for itself. Is anyone else tired of this intellectually lazy brand of brat speech?
III. Finally, Gawker’s Foster Kamer gives us an interesting and reasonable response that makes sense (Why, oh, why is the only sane bit written by a guy?):
The Dance-Card Problem: College Girls Outnumber College Guys, Misandrist Chaos Ensues
A trend showing women outnumbering men on some college campuses gave the Sunday Styles an excuse to find the worst people at these schools, and quote them. Women get painted as floozies, but men? We’re painted as seed-spreading, penis-powered primates. The problem is that some of it’s so, so true. Painfully so.
He continues:
Is the New York Times is trying to start some kind of gender-population war? Or are people really as awful as this article would lead us to believe? Probably a little bit of both. Because—real talk—the truth is:
If College Girls want the kind of man who enjoys this kind of “fierce competition” over him, then they’re inherently welcoming that competition.
Why would College Girls want a man who doesn’t want to settle down in favor of putting his penis in as many women as he could? If they want that kind of man, they’re kinda welcoming that kind of behavior.
If college girls are dealing with the kind of man who reserves his judgment of you based on what happens on “the first night,” they also welcome him into their lives to come and go as he pleases. Literally.
Do women really want to be with a guy who forces them to condone that behavior? Also, does a guy want to be with a woman desperate enough to condone that kind of behavior? Because, really, I don’t.
Noting a “man’s ideal” of relationships is “fucking everything that moves” is antiquated, misandrist bullshit. Each man has their own ideal of what a good relationship is. Mine is dating someone with the good sense not to put up with me being an asshole. Lots of men are actually like this!
Finally, if women lower your standards for men, they’ll probably respond in kind, by either (A) dropping to these new lows or (B) lowering their standards for women.
New York Press writer Jamie Peck made a good point about the women in these dire straits:
It seems disingenuous to me, though, to habitually put up with this kind of treatment and then complain about it, unless of course, you like having something to complain about, in which case you should take up a healthier hobby, like shark hunting or heroin. I’m not saying it’s not shitty when guys behave this way, but you do have the ultimate power to walk. I’d rather not date anyone at all than have a man who makes me wanna kill (note: this does not mean you can’t fuck anyone; it’s that nebulous in-between thing that trips most ladies up).
And finally, my personal favorite, Kamer’s disgusted response to that repellent quote by repellent sorority chick Jayne Dallas:
Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent.
“Congratulations “unconsidered” 20%. You’re apparently less likely to end up getting brain disease through your dick, as that’s easily one of the more despicable quotes delivered to the Styles Section, ever. Right, well. We’re done here. New York Times, please go fuck anybody but us, today. Particularly, yourself.”
