NYT article on dating at UNC draws criticism
February 8, 2010
Popping up on Facebook newsfeeds and Twitter posts all weekend, it’s the article men and women are talking about.
The New York Times published an article Sunday about the effects of high percentages of women in higher education on dating, quoting and photographing students at Chapel Hill bars and discussing the gender ratio on campus.
If you haven't read the article, it's worth doing so. Tell us what you think. Is it that much harder for girls to find relationships at UNC? And is it as easy for guys as the article seems to suggest?
Here's what students are already saying about the article:
“I think in general the ratio is skewed, but the implications about dating are not true.” - Kelli Daffron, Senior, psychology and anthropology double major
“I think it’s a little over-the-top. I think of Carolina girls as classier than that.” - Emily Noonan, Junior, business major
“I’m embarrassed by the things in that article. It’s dis-empowering, to say the least. It
reduces dating to numbers.”- John Reitz, Senior, English and drama double major
“That’s not the image we need to be portraying. Those quotes are really demeaning to women.” - Jordan Swain, Senior, communications studies major
Reaction on Twitter to the NYT article:
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Most Commented
Breaking News
Be the first to know when breaking news occurs.
The Daily Tar Heel newsletter
Subscribe to our daily newsletter that includes the top stories of the day.
This article portrays a very
This article portrays a very biased view of campus, that of sorority women trying to date fraternity men. If that's what you want, then that's what you get. No excuses.
One thing I have found a bit odd about some campus women is many of them seem to enjoy being treated poorly. I was much more successful when I made an effort to be just a little bit of a jerk. Sadly(?), I didn't enjoy it, and it made me feel bad about myself, so I went back to my normal style, which leaves me feeling much better but also going home alone more often.
Looks like Gawker has jumped
Looks like Gawker has jumped on board, too. http://gawker.com/5468601/something-doesnt-add-up-for-the-women-of-the-new-math-on-campus-story?skyline=true&s=i
Though I have a lot of
Though I have a lot of problems with the NYT article, I find they're all to do with the journalist's oversights and negative generalizations about men and women at UNC: though it's hard to condone some statements made by the students interviewed, I hope people will have some compassion for their situation. Dating at UNC can be rough and from my experience it seems that the slightly skewed gender ratio does tip the advantage to the males. I realize that this too is a sort of generalization, though it's not meant to reflect on men individually or as a group, but I've personally had so many negative experiences dating at UNC that in this last semester of my senior year I've given it up entirely.
Look at these Twitter
Look at these Twitter reactions... So pathetic and helpless. Girls keep complaining about this, but I wonder what the real truth is about the percentage of guys that are single and the percentage of girls that are single on this campus. The two issues I had with the article are the "letting cheating slide" quote and the "out of the 40% of guys here, we would only consider half of them". On the first quote, that is disgusting and speaks to how meaningless your relationship is, which has nothing to do with the gender ratio. If you're willing to have sex with a guy the first night you meet him and then you expect a long-term relationship, I don't blame guys for not wanting to date you. Maybe if you want to have a sustainable relationship with a guy you should to approach him in places other than frat parties or bars. If it is as bad as you act like it is, at least, in having to approach guys for once, you girls will realize what guys have to do in normal dating circumstances. Regarding the latter quote, setting standards that exclude 50% of the available male population, does not make you a victim, but rather spoiled. You could introduce such logic in any environment, even in a 60/40 ratio in favor of guys, and say that under your standards only 30% of males would be eligible and there would be a shortage of guys. Lastly, I'd like to address the whole gender ratio issue as a whole. When college was only guys, women took action (and rightfully so). When college was mostly guys, women complained, and gender-based affirmative action was instated. Now that UNC is mostly women, who is complaining? Women. I might just venture to guess that if any action were taken to correct the gender ratio, there would be women complaining about that. The point isn't that women are whiny, although it is interesting that you never hear guys making a big deal about the gender ratio, but rather that, if there is even gender problem at UNC, changing the ratio will not solve it. At some point this fuss about the gender ratio has to stop and we have to realize that there are other more effective ways to combat gender issues at this university. One last question for the women interviewed in this article: Would you have turned down the opportunity to attend UNC if you were guaranteed a boyfriend at another yet likely less prestigious university? I didn't think so. I think the fact that at the moment there are more women at UNC is a reason for those women to be proud and thankful, rather than bitter, whiny, and spoiled. The point of the matter is, had UNC taken action to avoid such a skewed gender ratio, it could've been half of the girls complaining about the gender ratio that would've lost their spot to a guy.
As much as I enjoy seeing UNC
As much as I enjoy seeing UNC and its accompanying campus life portrayed in the NYT, upon reflection I've found the article to be a fairly lazy bit of journalism that does a disservice to the diversity of campus life. I don't think you can extrapolate such a sweeping generalization by cherry-picking a few experiences essentially derived from word of mouth (in a rainy night in a bar, no less) and applying them to seemingly favorable data.
I can't imagine that a writer from the NYT performed research in excess of a cursory glance at the gender numbers and then went on the hunt for money quotes. Glance at the numbers, go to a couple of bars, talk to sorority girls, draw some fairly broad conclusions, print. You can almost envision the thought process that went into this article's creation. It was written by someone with little-to-no familiarity with our campus. I absolutely dispute the validity of its thesis and condemn the portrait it paints of UNC - it cheapens everyone.
I think it is ridiculous that
I think it is ridiculous that some "girls feel pressured to do more than they’re comfortable with" just to have a boyfriend. If you are willing to whore yourself out then no, you probably won't end up with a very nice guy. Girls shouldn't be so desperate to have a boyfriend that they lose all self respect.
This article is another
This article is another example of lazy (and despicable) journalism. While this scenario plays out in a lot of liberal arts institutions, the tone seemed almost cruel.
However, I cannot bring myself to fully defend any woman who accepts a man cheating on her.
I'm a grad student at UNC, I
I'm a grad student at UNC, I got my undergrad degree at a university with a much more even sex ratio.
Though the article was simplistic and lazy, I think it did hit on some fundamental truths of life at UNC. Walk into some places (upstairs at the union, perhaps) and you could almost be at an all-girls college.
And if you walk past frat court on some Saturday nights, what do you see? Dozens of girls in cocktail dresses fawning over a few shabbily dressed guys. And look at the way sororities are openly ranked by how attractive their members are.
The gender politics at UNC are messed up. I think a lot of the negative reaction to this article is justified (not a mention of non-white, non-sorority type girls), but much of it is sheer defensivesness. For a moderately but not extremely attractive girl, the dating scene at UNC has got to be painful -- all the guys they might have had a shot with at other places are suddenly much harder to snag.
Oh, and those of you who say that the article isn't valid because it only focuses on sorority girls: sorority girls are people too, and there are a lot of them.
Why not show some compassion to people who have worked hard to get into a relatively good and fairly selective university, only to find a major part of the social scene bitter and painful for them?
Right, you once again return
Right, you once again return to the same problem that plagues all the people interviewed for that article: it's not strictly about being attractive. For the people who think that that's all that counts, then maybe it is interesting. The rest of us have gone on to develop personalities in the mean time, and as such have other qualities that we desire / are desired for rather than our ranking on a high to low attractiveness scale.
Is this something that's happening to these people, or something that they're a part of? The girls in the article are objectifying themselves - why should someone feel compelled to talk to you or call you back just because you wore a tight shirt or you slept with them? None of these girls ever considered "Hmm, maybe no one will engage in a long term relationship with me because I am vapid and shallow."
Also, thanks for picking up again on the line about victimization. I'm sure that 70 years ago, when university populations were 80% or higher masculine, those poor victimized rich white men were all really taxed by the difficulty of trying to get the 3 girls who were brave enough to put up with gender discrimination in higher education to sleep with them... or not
You have totally missed the
You have totally missed the point.
I agree that physical attractiveness is not anything, but I think it's more important than you admit -- how many ugly/hot couples do you know? Not too many, I'd wager. But as I said, I agree that it isn't everything.
Even supposing that whether you get a partner or not is based on how physically attractive you are, the skewed ratio still affects you. Suppose that you are right and it's personality that you are desired for. If there are fewer guys and you are a girl, that means that you still have to have a more desirable personality than you otherwise would, and will get less desirable guys than you otherwise would-- even if the competition is in personality not looks, there is still more competition in this situation.
And vapid and shallow girls are people too. If they were at a university with more guys, the vapid and shallow girls would stand a better chance of getting in a relationship. Why is that so hard to grasp? And for the record, I don't think the girls interviewed were vapid and shallow -- I think they were admirably honest about a situation (men are harder to come by here), rather than engaging in the sort of defensiveness you are.
I'm not sure I know what you mean in your last paragraph, it's pretty incoherent. But there are universities where the gender balance goes the other way, such as Imperial College in London, where I have several friends. And you know what? The guys there hate it, and they too spend time poring over text messages to see whether a girl might like them.
The report is interesting because a historical pattern has started to shift, and people who would previously have found a mate are finding it more painful than they expected. Why are you getting so defensive about that? Noone is talking about victimization.
If dating is a market, then the fact that there are more girls than guys means that the girls' value has gone down in that market. If you want to know how it feels, try spending dollars in Paris, and multiply that by a hundred. Have some compassion.
The key is in your "if dating
The key is in your "if dating is a market" statement. Well, it's not for all of us. People who treat other people like meat that can be graded should not be surprised when they find themselves in a meat market.
I hope you aren't a graduate student in economics; the girls value has gone down in the market because there are more girls than guys? Gone down from what? When? You mean when sexism prohibited women from attending higher education?
Perhaps in your extensive study of markets you came across the phrase "open market." This is the one that suggests that buyers and sellers can move into and out of a market to maximize profit. Further, competitive markets tend towards equilibrium. If dating is indeed a market, as you claim, then wouldn't you see market forces at work? Namely, an influx of buyers ( heterosexual men, lesbian women) into these chapel hill bars where women who are otherwise allegedly desirable (your words, not mine) are just waiting for a romantic encounter?
There's no rule that says that all the women at UNC have to date other people at UNC, nor that only people who attend UNC are allowed to try and hit on people in the Chapel Hill area. So why aren't there men flocking to these bars to pick up these desperate girls? Perhaps because, if the article is any indication, they aren't very desirable people in the first place. Had you considered that as Jayne Dallas writes off half of the male population as being beneath consideration, so too she and her sorority sisters may be written off as being beneath consideration for many men?
Frankly, I find your line of arguing not terribly appealing and also not terribly insightful. The basic assumption underlying your argument is that if UNC were 50% male and 50% female, everyone would have someone to date. I understand, of course, that you'll deny this, in the same way that you said I "missed your point" and then remade the same point. However, your assumption is that a skewed male/female ratio at a certain university makes it more difficult for the majority group to get dates. Yet somehow, people still seemed to find dates when universities were 100% male. Obviously there is a larger pool to draw from.
Regarding victimization: RTFA. "Women on gender-imbalanced campuses are paying a social price for success and, to a degree, are being victimized by men precisely because they have outperformed them, Professor Campbell said."
My point was that Professor Campbell would hardly argue that men are victimized in their Fortune 500 Companies, elite Ivy league schools, medical school classes, etc. etc.
Sure, I would love to have some compassion for 6 girls who deliberately joined sex-segregated organizations on campus and now can't meet people of the opposite sex in bars. None of my friends at UNC are having a hard time meeting people that they like, but then again, they aren't killing time in the Deep End (a heavily Greek bar with 50 cent Busch light on Friday, what a deal) on Western Night. Whom do the other women I know date? Men and women at UNC, as well as friends from their hometowns, people already out of college, people not yet in college, and people they meet in the course of being real human beings.
Maybe the key is that when you ask me how many "ugly/hot" couples I know, I don't have a good answer for you. I haven't sorted all my friends into "ugly/hot", nor do I claim to have the formula for attractiveness that would be valid for everyone - I try and let people make their own decisions about what they think is good-looking. I accept that my friends date the people whom they date because those people appeal to them for one reason or another - not because they think that's 'the best they can do' based on their own level of attractiveness.
Wow, I don't know where to
Wow, I don't know where to start. I'll just pick on two of your stupider statements.
That dating is a market doesn't mean that people are treated like meat. And who said that a market has to be an open market? There are probably pretty significant barriers to entry in this particular market: for good or bad reasons (a lot of them bad, and possibly racist), people want to meet and date people like them. In this case, many UNC students want to date other UNC students. Not to mention that *some* people do seem to be branching out: UNC girls going to Raleigh has been mentioned a few times.
And when I said that the girls' value had decreased, I meant from a hypothetical case where there are 50% (heterosexual) men and 50% (heterosexual) women. The more women there are, moving away from this point, the choosier the men can afford to be, and the value of women in the dating market goes down. This is happening in China, where there are fewer girls born than boys and men are having a hard time finding wives, and it's happening in Chapel Hill.
You can talk about finding other things attractive etc until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that if there are more single-and-looking girls than single-and-looking guys, then things are going to get much harder for the girls. (And vice versa.)
And there's no need to get so defensive about the ugly/hot thing. Don't pretend that you don't have a rough idea of how attractive your friends are. There have been lots of studies showing that most couples are consistently rated (in a survey) between 1 and 2 points physical attractiveness of each other. It's part of assortative mating. (Wikipedia it).
Minor points:
It was you who introduced the 'desire' locution, not me.
You are right, the original article talks about victimization, but where did I? You said that I did.
cf. "Frankly, I find your
cf. "Frankly, I find your line of arguing not terribly appealing and also not terribly insightful. The basic assumption underlying your argument is that if UNC were 50% male and 50% female, everyone would have someone to date. I understand, of course, that you'll deny this, in the same way that you said I "missed your point" and then remade the same point. However, your assumption is that a skewed male/female ratio at a certain university makes it more difficult for the majority group to get dates. Yet somehow, people still seemed to find dates when universities were 100% male. Obviously there is a larger pool to draw from."
The meat comment was a reference to trying to sort and commodify people, which you insist on trying to do. Sorry, I don't have pictures on HotOrNot, and I'm not interested in turning everyone I know into a number, nor would I trade up my current SO for someone else on the spot, even if I'm a 5 and she's a 7, but now a 5 can date an 8 because of monopsony power, as your argument seems to suggest. I'm not trying to rock your world here, but those of us with a minimal degree of self-confidence aren't constantly obsessed with where our next orgasm is going to come from, or with whether or not a sex "imbalance" means our babies will have slightly better bone structure.
What you're trying to say is not that there are barriers to entry in this market, but that the market doesn't align with consumer preferences. Do you really think that there are significant barriers to entry? It's like 10 miles by Robertson bus to Duke.
What you don't seem to get is that these preferences are too rigid to adapt to market conditions. There are many people that I would never date, no matter what. The girls that I'm attracted to now don't become that much more attractive to me if all the sorority girls relocate to wake forest. I wouldn't date any of the girls in this article even if they were the only 6 girls at UNC.
May I ask what you study as a graduate student?
No you may not ask. You
No you may not ask.
You say:
"the girls that I'm attracted to now don't become that much more attractive to me if all the sorority girls relocate to wake forest"
but what if half the girls you *are* attracted to were to relocated to wake forest? Mightn't you find it harder to find a girlfriend among the remaining half?
Touchy touchy. I'm an econ
Touchy touchy. I'm an econ student, for what it's worth.
Unfortunately, how badly I want a girlfriend isn't dependent on how many girls are around or available. I also had no desire for a Tamagotchi in 4th grade, even though everyone else wanted one. Weird, huh? Sometimes demand is independent of market conditions. When I broke up with my first girlfriend, I didn't date anyone for a year. When I broke up with the girl I dated after that (at UNC), I began dating someone else almost immediately. Why? Because I liked her and thought it was a good idea. There was no evaluation of whether or not I would get a "better offer" if I auctioned myself off. So I guess you're partially right - if I lived on an island with only men, I probably would have a harder time dating women (although my preferences might change), but that doesn't mean there would necessarily be a big gaping hole in my life. Maybe I would read more books, or learn magic tricks, or write my memoirs. I'm just not so insistent on getting into a monogamous heterosexual relationship that it dominates my thoughts, or even occupies a great deal of them.
I maintain that people have intrinsic value - I don't feel less pleasure at visiting my brother just because there has been an increase in 17 year old boys in Chapel Hill, nor does an influx of 50 year old women make me miss my mother less.
Again, I keep coming back to the same point. Somehow, we managed to have an increasing population even when universities were all male. What makes you think that this is no longer possible?
I stopped having a problem
I stopped having a problem with the ratio when I stopped going to frat parties...branch out girls its not too tough.
As a male student on campus,
As a male student on campus, I was felt like the article was demeaning to the student body as a whole. It makes the whole female population sound like a bunch of desperate whores, who sleep around in the hopes of finding a "steady relationship". It also makes all of the guys look like heartless jerks who could care less about a girl's feelings and are just looking for a one-night stand. While these assumptions may be true for a portion of the student population, they are not true for everyone as the article made it seem.
Bars aren't your only
Bars aren't your only option.
I'm a UNC alumna living in Athens, GA, home of the University of Georgia, also mentioned in the NYT article. First of all, thanks Tarheels, for having an opinion. Furthermore, thanks DTH for hosting a forum for these opinions to be expressed. The University of Georgia's newspaper, the Red and Black, http://www.redandblack.com/, doesn't allow reader comments anymore, nor do any UGA students even seem to have heard of this article, much less have an opinion about it.
This distinction leads me to my own reaction to the NYT article. UNC shows time and again that it is a campus engaged with the world in tangible and cogent ways, not merely a community of over-zealous co-eds, as the reporter would have the NYT's readership believe. Sure most folks are trying to get it on, one way or another, but that the reporter chose to focus on the bar scene reveals that slant. Alex Williams excludes all the other locales and methods of meeting people at the fingertips of Carolina students. Classes come to mind...
For instance, I met my husband in a German class in Peabody Hall in 2007. We didn't have a one-night stand, only to "hope for the best" the next morning as one woman quoted in the article stated of her friends' experiences. Our relationship began with a series of outings to the Haw River in Saxapahaw, Maple View Farms Creamery, the planetarium, down east to Wrightsville Beach, the arboretum for frisbee, to the quad for soaking up some March apricity. Dating doesn't have to be a sordid, back alley pursuit of physicality, nor a compromise of your ethics, despite the ratio.
I hardly consider myself an expert on relationships, but I feel certain if you take back the art of being coy, Carolina women, you'll probably find the decent Carolina men.
This has been an issue for
This has been an issue for African-American women for years.
I think that the ratio does
I think that the ratio does play an important role, but the article did not portray my experience here. When I wanted to have fun, I did. When I was ready for more of a commitment, I got one. I've never felt that I had been pushed to do more than I wanted to, and I've never felt used. I've had my fair share of rejections and doing the rejecting.
However, I do think that it is VERY true that Carolina men are able to date women who are smarter and better looking. You tend to see that a lot around here. But that doesn't mean that those women aren't happy. I'm sure many of them are.
The most depressing thing
The most depressing thing about this article (and the accompanying photos) was that you would end up thinking UNC was lily-white and the only way to meet people was the bar scene on Chapel Hill. It's been a while since I was on campus but I am guessing the experience of minority students is a bit different.
The biggest joke in the
The biggest joke in the article was the line
"And the university feels obligated to admit the most qualified applicants."
Also, as a guy, I felt the article was MUCH more demeaning to men that women, it felt like it basically said: Women are at an disadvantage because of the numbers and thus guys take advantage of this and get as much sex as they want.
Step 1 to avoiding guys like this is to not be one of the "6 provocatively-dressed girls hovering around 1 guy at a bar." Just because guys think you're hot doesn't mean they respect you, and if they don't respect you they won't take you seriously. And, even worse, if you date them then you won't have the power women need in a relationship. Should dating be a two-way street? Yeah sure, but there's gotta be a little bit of the guy being "whipped" in a successful relationship, where the girl can ask the guy to run to Blockbuster and get some crappy movie on a Saturday night when she's running a fever and he'll actually do it.
Unfortunately, a large percentage of college girls unknowingly look for the guys who won't do this. It's the age-old tale of many girls enjoying the thrill of the chase. If you're dating a guy who doesn't respect you, then you feel you're still on the hunt to lock him down. if a guy does respect you and is willing to do things for you, then suddenly he becomes much less interesting. I know many girls who'd scream "That's not true!" but there's gotta be some effort to think outside the box and get a little creative in the guy to whom you're attracted. Wearing Croakies and Brooks Brothers shouldn't seal the deal. I rarely am attracted, in the dating sense, to the prototypical sorority girls. Are they gorgeous? Yes, they are, no doubt. But there's many factors that go into play in terms of being in a committed relationship with someone, and I much prefer a girl who can keep me interested with her music taste and creativity than tank tops and willingness to grind. Not that I'm making blanket statements about all sorority girls, just the "prototypical" ones.
Words cannot even describe
Words cannot even describe how disgusted and disappointed I am. As a graduate student at UNC I think this article implies that all women at the university are desperate for men which is certainly not the case. It is very unfortunate that the NY Times managed to find girls who's self esteem was so low they feel it is necessary to demean themselves in order to find men. While the percentages may be true I personally think they have nothing to do with these girls opinions or decisions and their statements certainly do not hold true for all women on campus (and I really hope they does not hold true for most women on campus).
I also do not appreciate the fact that this author assumed that women's main purpose in college was to find a partner stating that it may be a priority for schools to even the percentages, even mentioning "affirmative action for men". I think the percentage shift is an excellent demonstration of the women who have worked hard to be successful. This article should have focused on why men are not doing well in college, not why a select few sorority girls are desperate to find someone to pacify their insecurities.
This article is embarrassing
This article is embarrassing to all women at UNC. As an '09 graduate and a current graduate student here at UNC, I'm ashamed of the image of UNC women put forth in this article. Unfortunately, the fact that these women are in sororities is just further perpetuating stereotypes.
This reporter seems to have chosen women in school for their MRS degree and not for a real education. Yes, the ratio is 60/40, but since when is it ever ok to "just let cheating slide"? No one deserves to be cheated on. Call me crazy, but if that happens, then that's probably not a relationship you should be in. To the women in this article: have a little self-respect, and try not to come off so desperate. And to the reporter: try interviewing more women and not just the anxious sorority girls determined to find a husband. Finally, to the men in this article: just because the numbers are in your favor, doesn't mean you can use and abuse women at your own whim.
What are the "normal" dating
What are the "normal" dating rituals this article is saying UNC gals are missing out on? And what are the interviewees comparing their experiences to? There are so many things wrong with this article, it's hard to know where to begin.
I graduated in 2008, and the
I graduated in 2008, and the NYT article was nice in that it made me say finally "I'm not crazy! It really is 60-40!"
I had to spend my college years on match.com finding guys at Duke and State. I met some great men that way, and I still keep up with a few of them, but I always found it really sad and disheartening that the few straight, single, UNC guys that there were learned within weeks of landing on campus not only that they didn't have to put in any effort, but that they could treat women like crap and get away with it.
More of a concern, even a few years out of college, I'm finding that the guys who went to UNC still seem to have the same mentality. They retain a sense of entitlement that allows them to justify what seems to me like really egregious behavior when it comes to women.
Haha The dude in the article
Haha
The dude in the article smashed at least five homies.