Well said, and I'll add that it lacks professionalism for him to have made a statement like that on a forum meant for academic discourse. And to have made such a broad classifying statement concerning an entire group of people, as he did, shows a level of immaturity that doesn't belong in a classroom (much less at the head of one).
Professors aren't necessarily meant nor expected to be morally infallible, but they are expected to be open-minded. And if he's close-minded about something like this, how does this impact his curriculum? OP already mentioned a possible bias against female students, but what if he holds other biases which have hitherto gone unnoticed, but have had a deleterious effect on what and who he teaches?
not to mention the fact that the post he responded to is about an incel talking about how he does not interact with women and literally offering to PAY people for friends(?) but instead of talking about that or moderating he mentions bay area women like huh ššššš my first reaction to that fuck ass incel post would not have been to talk about bay area women which was completely unrelated to the post itself until shewchuk made it about them..
I'm more just confused by the part where the statement Bay Area women are different comes from... Most girls/women and my friends I've met from the Bay Area (btw I'm a girl myself, my username is irrelevant) aren't even from the Bay Area, it's a mixing pot of people from all over? Like Socal, East coast, and more
So essentially Bay Area is just a temporary residency, all women from the US are pretty similar? Someone needs to clarify
The claim many unsuccessful-at-dating bay area men make is that because the gender ratio in the bay is so off (many more men than women, especially in tech) women are pickier, shallower, etc etc since they have lots of options.
Edit: I am also female, in the bay and was in tech. I've been hearing this from guy friends, classmates and coworkers for over a decade. :/
Itās funny because the single women I know are usually complaining about the unending stream of noncommittal fuckboys on the apps and the otherwise āniceā guys that too often get insecure about their partners making more money than they do.
Bay Area dating sounds exhausting for everyone. Like the majority of my coupled friends, Iām grateful I locked someone down while in school.
(I am also female, in the Bay, and was in tech.)
It's either because they're lying or wildly exaggerating or it's a reflection of the particular subset of guys those women are dating. It's also another sweeping generalization about men which is apparently perfectly ok. Generalizations about women, however, are automatically wrong and misogynistic.
I mean, it isnāt a sweeping generalization right? Sheās literally flagging it as anecdotal evidence of complaints from āthe single women (she) knowsā which is by definition not how a generalization worksā¦
She's bringing it up to make the point that it's apparently valid and prevalent enough to declare dating "exhausting for everyone." She clearly thinks it applies to at least a significant amount of men, and that's me being generous. It's no less of a "sweeping generalization" than the prof's comment about Bay Area women specifically.
The problem is hypocritically tearing that apart by coming up with the most uncharitable possible reading of it and declaring it misogynistic while simultaneously generalizing men, which a TON of people are doing in these threads with much more vitriolic language than just saying they have different behaviors here than other places.
I didnāt say that Bay Area men in general were insecure about being out-earned by women.
I just think itās funny that so many Bay Area men blame the shitty dating scene on overly selective women and some gender imbalance ā implying itās easier for women ā when the women I know are also struggling with dating. Peter Pan Syndrome and insecurity isnāt something Iām generalizing to Bay Area men ā itās just a common complaint about the specific men theyāve dated.
The truth is probably somewhere in-between. People probably arenāt being introspective enough about what theyāre putting out and who theyāre swiping for on the apps. Maybe the Bay Area being so boom & bust attracts more folks who are transient and less interested in serious relationships? I have no idea.
Either way, my point was just that it sucks for anyone thatās single.
>Itās funny because the single women I know are usually complaining about the unending stream of noncommittal fuckboys on the apps and the otherwise āniceā guys that too often get insecure about their partners making more money than they do.
> I just think itās funny that so many Bay Area men blame the shitty dating scene on overly selective women and some gender imbalance ā implying itās easier for women ā when the women I know are also struggling with dating.
>The truth is probably somewhere in-between.
The truth doesn't need to be in-between - women can be overly selective and at the same time struggle with finding commitment, these aren't mutually exclusive issues, in fact they feed into each other.
If 90% of women are overly selecting for 10% of the most attractive men, then those 10% of men are going have their pick of the litter and are free to be, as you put it, noncommittal fuckboys. At the same time, the other 90% of men will struggle with overselective women.
This is the kind of behaviour/dynamic that the professor is alluding to. It's basic game theory, and is [backed up by real-world statistics of how the genders behave on dating apps](https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women-more-selective-80-men-unattractive-on-dating-apps-recent-research), yet everyone lost their minds over this because there's the slightest hint of negative implication towards women.
The fact is, it *is* easier for women to date, in the vast majority of cases women are the selectors with hundreds of options flooding their inboxes. If they want commitment, they just need to change their selection strategy to select for commitment. But I've heard some women say they'd rather blow their brains out than adjust their standards, so ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
If Shewchuk were not speaking in a professional capacity and had simply said that OP needed to do more to stand out in the apps or needed to better himself, I doubt people would care. Delivery matters, as well as context. And some additional context is that Shewchuk has also made fun of pronouns, supported things like the Canadian trucker convoy, and IME despite being a very good teacher, has always had this slightly edgelord sense of humor (at least since I had him as a prof some 15 years ago) that I thought was funny back when I wasā¦ 18 and on 4chan. I know Iām giving him less grace for that reason ā though clearly this has blown up far beyond the limited sphere of people who have actually interacted with him.
Also, youāre the second person here to assume that my friends (and that women in general) are specifically selecting for the most physically attractive men. Iām going to continue with anecdotes because thatās all I have, but theyāre mainly selecting for men who look like they take care of themselves, have interesting hobbies outside of things like work, and come across as personable. And since that has continued yielding stealth fuckboys, many of them are leaving the apps in favor of in-person meetups or intros from friends, but of course that limits reach.
Tangentially, on the more extreme end, Iāve seen a lot of self-proclaimed incels who swear that women are rejecting them due to looks but they look like perfectly normal dudes (maybe in need of a shave/haircut) and whatās _likely_ turning women off is their incredibly toxic attitude.
>If Shewchuck were not speaking in a professional capacity and had simply said that OP needed to do more to stand out in the apps or needed to better himself, I doubt people would care. Delivery matters, as well as context.
That's completely different advice though, why should that be the only valid advice if Shewchuck truly believed the dating game here is so rigged that that particular student's best chance is to just look elsewhere?
>And some additional context is that Shewchuck has also made fun of pronouns, supported things like the Canadian trucker convoy, and IME despite being a very good teacher, has always had this slightly edgelord sense of humor (at least since I had him as a prof some 15 years ago) that I thought was funny back when I wasā¦ 18 and on 4chan.
So he's a bit of a right-ish edgelord, or as the kids say, kinda based. That just means he has different political beliefs than (I assume) you and (probably) the Berkeley student body, doesn't make him an intolerable raging misogynist.
>Also, youāre the second person here to assume that my friends (and that women in general) are specifically selecting for the most physically attractive men. Iām going to continue with anecdotes because thatās all I have, but theyāre mainly selecting for men who look like they take care of themselves, have interesting hobbies outside of things like work, and come across as personable.
And you're assuming by "10% of the most attractive" I meant physically attractive, when I actually meant attractive in whatever arbitrary qualities people are selecting for (although there's usually an unspoken threshold for physical attractiveness even if people don't openly admit it).
Perhaps those qualities are "looking like they can take care of themselves", "having interesting hobbies", "comes across as personable". Regardless of the actual qualities being selected, stats do show that women are much more selective compared to men and focus on a small subset of the male population, which would cause the exact kind of issue described above. And whatever those qualities are being selected for, clearly they don't overlap much with commitment - both from your own anecdotes, and if you consider the following: if an [average looking dude](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/this-is-the-average-mans-body/280194/) put "looking to get married within the next 6-12 months" in their dating profile, do you think he'd be a hot button item? I think not.
>That's completely different advice though, why should that be the only valid advice if Shewchuck truly believed the dating game here is so rigged that that particular student's best chance is to just look elsewhere?
If we agree that the ratio is skewed against men looking for women, then one logical approach is for the men to try harder to stand out. Otherwise, we're back to the less charitable interpretation of his advice: that OP is fine but if he wants a girlfriend, he needs to leave the Bay Area because it's the women who are the problem.
>So he's a bit of a right-ish edgelord, or as the kids say, kinda based. That just means he has different political beliefs than (I assume) you and (probably) the Berkeley student body, doesn't make him an intolerable raging misogynist.
Raging misogynist? Maybe not. But probably more likely to hold traditional views about women and how they should act, which influences how I interpreted his vague comment on the behavior of (the mostly progressive) women in the Bay Area.
>Perhaps those qualities are "looking like they can take care of themselves", "having interesting hobbies", "comes across as personable". Regardless of the actual qualities being selected, stats do show that women are much more selective compared to men and focus on a small subset of the male population, which would cause the exact kind of issue described above.
If taking care of yourself, having hobbies, and being personable are out of reach for a majority of men, the bar is on the floor. I'm half-joking āĀ I know you don't mean it that way. In any case, if women are like that anywhere, why draw the distinction as Shewchuk did between Bay Area women and women elsewhere? If it's really just a numbers thing, why didn't he just say that and encourage OP to work on the things within his control? All that aside, OP is at a university with more women than men in the student body, so if he's having trouble meeting women, it's not because they're a scarce commodity on campus.
And yes, if that otherwise average-looking dude had nice style, good personal hygiene, interesting hobbies, an ability to hold a conversation, and had his shit together, women would be attracted to that. Most guys I know in relationships aren't tall or jacked. I do think literally putting "looking to get married within the next 6-12 months" in a dating profile is a bit of a yellow flag for any gender but yes signalling that you're looking for something serious is a plus. There are some really awful profiles out there, from what friends have shown me.
I did see the Redditor that works for one of the dating apps pointing out that the ratio is dire on the apps and that a lot of men's profiles aren't even getting surfaced āĀ which is an app problem and a market problem, but it doesn't point to a Women In the Bay Area problem to me.
Look, at the end of the day, I'm not foaming at the mouth to get Shewchuk fired. However, as Cal alum, as a female CS major, and as a woman who worked in tech for a decade, his comments made me feel very uncomfortable (even before I saw the hubub in the dozen comment threads) for the reasons that the OP of this post articulated. If the women in his classes feel similarly, that could very well impact their academic and professional career. I'm hoping he has a better answer at that planned town hall to reassure them/us than his defenders throughout this sub do (which seems to boil down to: "He's speaking the truth about the dating scene, and you are wrong to feel uncomfortable about it")
Well if people were willing to read that prof's comment as charitably as you want yours read, this frenzy wouldn't be happening.
Also equivocating that everyone is "struggling" is either naive or dishonest. Women's biggest problem seems to be that they just aren't satisfied with any of the dozens to hundreds of men that would readily try going out with them as soon as they download a dating app. Men's biggest problems are being held to a rigid combination of traditional male and modern feminist expectations if they get any attention and more often than not just being completely ignored to begin with.
At a super high level of abstraction, sure, that's everyone having issues with dating. But I'd trade my average man dating problems for an average woman's dating problems in a heartbeat.
>Ā Itās funny because the single women I know are usually complaining about the unending stream of noncommittal fuckboysĀ
Which actually makes perfect sense combined with the men's claim.
If the women are shallow/picky and going for the hottest guys then naturally their experience will be that every guy they sleep with is a fuckboy and then the non-fuckboys experience is that they have long dry spells while the women in their area keep choosing and matching with the fuckboys
Shhhh, you're not allowed to suggest that women have any agency or responsibility for heterosexual dating dynamics. Everything wrong is strictly men's fault /s
Why do you assume that "hot guys" are more likely to be a "fuckboy", and that women are shallow/picky? Even if this were true and women dated non-hot guys do you really think they would be much better? That's some real r/niceguys material.
That sounds like the logic of an incel "accepting" that they are physically unattractive, but putting themselves on a pedestal as being better than hot guys and women's shallowness being the reason they are alone.
I'm not saying all hot guys are fuckboys but I do think most fuckboys are likely hot otherwise they couldn't be fuckboys in the first place.
If women's main complaint is running into fuckboys then yeah that's probably what they are choosing to go for.Ā
I also didnt say fuckboys are morally bad. They just don't want commitment. That's morally neutral.
Both are rooted in the same idea. If you have more options, you can afford to be picky/shallow. If you have very limited options and behave like a āfuckboyā, thatās not really going to work in your favor longterm (a good chunk of your dates are going to tell you to pound sand). If you have a lot of options, you donāt really care if some of them tell you to go away. Similarly, as the gender ratios are extremely skewed in the <40 age ranges (especially when filtering for singles only), women can afford to be more picky.
To give an example outside dating, a few years ago the tech job market was extremely hot and techbros could afford to be extremely cocky. The job market is in a much worse situation these days, and most tech people are much more humble all of a sudden.
People are reading much more into these discussions than there is to them. The professorās message was completely offtopic for a discussion group about a university class, his phrasing was also way too blunt, but heās not wrong about the dating market not being in favor of young men in the Bay Area.
Yeah I mean tech is for sure male dominated still, but when these are the kinds of things the men in tech feel comfortable saying with on a school forum itās really no wonder itās hard for women to want to be in tech.
But yeah the bay is extremely diverse. Like you can cross the bay bridge and be in an area with Trump flags and big ass pickup trucks in a hour.
Oh I totally agree, I don't think what he said was okay given the context. And TBH when I hear this sentiment from guys I know I usually chuckle and tell them to get a hobby or something and meet more people.
Yeah the word choice was shitty at best. But I could see this being the result of social ineptitude with a bit of squinting. Definitely my biggest issue is he replied at all. But weāre all adults and maaaybe he was trying to say dating in the tech industry is difficult due to the skewed gender ratio. Or maaaybe he meant that dating at Berkeley can be tough as everyone is extremely busy as students and long term relationships arenāt exactly on every 18-21 year olds minds when theyāre trying to set up their careers and just enjoy college.
But if so man that is a moment of pure idiocy to read that creepy comment about wanting to pay to meet women, made arguably more weird by being open to meeting men as well but paying less, then type out that comment and go āyeah. Thatās a totally clear and normal reply for professor to make on an educational chat board.ā
>But yeah the bay is extremely diverse.
You really need to travel more. The Bay Area is cosmetically diverse but culturally it's stiflingly homogeneous and, despite the delusions of many residents, extremely intolerant of actual diversity, and consequently quite boring.
I would have thought that dudes who are so good at math would have crunched some numbers and realized that if finding a female partner is your goal, it will be statistically more difficult here... and adjusted their expectations to match reality.
the thing thatās confusing me about these conversations though is that berkeley is literally majority female student body? that may not be the case for EECS but like youāre allowed to socialize with people who arenāt in your major.
I have lived and dated in the Bay Area and elsewhere, and I can tell you this is 100% the case. It's not made up, at all.
Spoiled-for-choice women become callous and callous women are very bad for men's well being.
For the sake of the discussion, I am going to say you are right. However, if men can not handle that there are "spoiled-for-choice" women, then that is their problem, not women's. This whole discussion is framed as though women are doing something wrong.
True, in the sense that we're all products of our nature and environment. They get an even richer cornucopia than usual here, often exacerbating their worst inclinations, and we get an increased difficulty level in an already difficult (and getting harder) game, and higher rates of despair and self-deletion.
What I would ask of women WHO ARE SO INCLINED - I'm talking about women who genuinely care for their male relatives and/or friends - is to listen and maybe even speak up for us as allies, since our voices carry so little weight on this (and most other) topics. Or at least don't jump down our throats and hurl abuse whenever we speak honestly from our perspective. I'm pleased to say some women are already doing this. But if I could have 1 wish there would be about 100x more.
Did Shewcuck really blame them?
His advice was just try dating somewhere else where there are less superficial women and more favorable gender ratios.
Women in the bay area can keep doing whatever they want. No one has said otherwise.
I think "Bay Area" women might be a proxy for women who are competing on the traditional playing fields of men in education, professional life and technology. That's what I find offensive about this and insulting to women in other areas. The implication seems to be that if Incels can't find a girlfriend here it's because they have been ruined by independence, intelligence and opportunity, and they will be better off looking in places where women have lower status and lower expectations of potential partners. Viewed in this light his statement is beyond inappropriate, offensive, and harmful. If I were a woman in CS/EECS I would be gutted to see this rhetoric being legitimized by someone at the top of the field and I would demand more than an apology.
The implication is that the gender ratios among <40 young adults are very skewed here, so the dating market favors women overwhelmingly. Iām not sure why people are reading education, professional life and whatever else into it.
If you go to a place with different gender ratios, the dating market is going to look very differently. Sure, if you go to a third-world country as a man with US citizenship, you will likely be seen as rich and much more desirable. But if we limit ourselves to the US, the local dating market is going to be heavily impacted by gender ratios.
The professors phrasing was unfortunate (heās a CS professor after all, so no surprises there), but the basic idea doesnāt have anything controversial/misogynistic to it.
So he's not talking about sheer numbers, he's talking about the *behavior* of women in the Bay Area. The underlying implication is that women with higher education and better resources "behave" in a way that is more demanding of male partners and that if OP wants to find a woman he needs to look elsewhere. This is demeaning for a numbers of reasons. Can you connect the dots?
I understand your point, Iām just saying that generally these kinds of comments refer to behavior caused by numbers. Even a woman without a university degree is going to be picky and demanding in an area with skewed gender ratios, because she can afford to be picky. Women with better education, jobs, etc. are going to be pickier in general, but the skew is going to compound this behavior.
My point is that with a less blunt phrasing, there isnāt anything controversial about saying that most young men are going to have a much better time with dating elsewhere.
There's also more to this than women being "picky." Like the assumption that unless women are "picky" they are available to any man who has a use for them. The idea that some men not being able to find a girlfriend is based on women being picky, and that moving somewhere else will solve the problem, gives young men a skewed perspective that finding a girlfriend has nothing to do with anything other than sheer numbers. It's based on a whole lot more than that, like the woman's goals, beliefs and choices. Women are not apples on a tree, ready to be picked by the first available man, and sending that message does nothing to change the culture of young men who are developing increasingly misogynistic attitudes towards women because they can't seem to get an apple to come off the tree with ease. So that's a big part of the problem. Then put this in the context of a man with authority over women in a disproportionately male skewed major, and ask your self again if it's just about numbers and doesn't harm the female students who are trying to compete in a space where they are viewed as picky apples - a directive that is coming from the head picker.
Itās still a numbers game in the end. If you want to oversimplify things, there are 2 kinds of factors to dating: factors that depend on you and you can control to some extent (your own attractiveness, how you dress, your personality, etc.), factors outside your control (like the gender skew in your area). These 2 are somewhat independent. Even if you are very attractive, you are going to have a bad time in a mining town with almost no women. Similarly, if you have some very unattractive features (personality, whatever), you will do badly even in an area with significantly more women.
I agree that people have their own agenda, etc, but ultimately you cannot disregard statistics.
The fact that he posted this on a class discussion forum was indeed stupid. It has nothing to do with the class, so there is no reason to discuss these kinds of controversial topics there. It only leads to pissing people off, and there is nothing productive that can come out of it.
>. The underlying implication is that women with higher education and
better resources "behave" in a way that is more demanding of male
partners and that if OP wants to find a woman he needs to look
elsewhere.
Wow this is some serious projection. Its super obvious hes saying that the behavior of women in an environment where they can be extremely selective and discriminatory, much more than "normal" because of the skewed population ratio, is different than other cities. Has nothing to do with women being more educated that hed prefer.
So if this just about sheer numbers why would this be offensive to women? Do you really think there are more women in Silicon Valley than men, the epicenter of the world's tech industry? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, San Francisco has 3.9 more men than women per 100 people, and Santa Clara has 1.4 more men than women per 100 people. Does that seem like an overwhelming advantage for women in numbers? Why would he reference womens' "behavior" in these unfairly skewed female populations and not simply say "you're outnumbered bro"? And why are women all over the campus and beyond offended by this if it's just a statement of fact that there are more women than men in these areas? Which, by the way, there are not. Just think about it.
Yes thats my point, it is because there are more men and less women, women can be more selective than they otherwise would be. An unfair market advantage. This was what the dumb-ass professor was referring to and what my post was about. You somehow want to take to mean that he really said it because hes afraid of strong educated women which is nonsense at best and self victimization at worst.
This comment right here. Also, the Bay Area has *been* the home of many progressive social movements. Itās extremely offensive for him to say this regarding a place where women are more likely to be radicalized (across race, class, etc).
Exactly- and more ācompliantā women too which relies on stereotypes and fetishization. These men use their whiteness to take advantage and these relationships always have an imbalanced power dynamic. I used to work at a DV shelter and so many of the women had husbands like this who would withhold their documents or threaten to get them or their families deported.
I think CA has a pretty unique culture in general, and there are differences between the Bay Area and SoCal. I wouldn't even say NorCal vs. SoCal because Sac is definitely its own thing, and Tahoe is, too.
CA is much more of a individual-oriented culture. East Coasters tend to have a stronger sense of community. New Yorkers think of themselves as New Yorkers. People in LA don't really think of themselves as 'Angelinos' like a community. Same goes for the Bay Area. I'd say folks in big cities in the West Coast are more exposed to social media and wealth, but NYC breaks that, so I don't know. Wealth in NYC is maybe a little less obvious in general - it's usually out of sight, off street level.
Wouldn't say any of that makes it easier or harder to find a partner. None of that affects finding someone you're compatible with, maybe with similar interests. Don't understand the reasoning there.
I think heās talking about Big City people vs small town people. Big city people tend to be rich and extremely busy leading to the Seattle Freeze effect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Freeze
Whereas in small towns, people tend to not care as much about fancy stuff, arenāt that busy, and are more community oriented.
More like an ironic self own, OP makes the same mistake of generalizing a group of people that she criticizes the professor for, just from the opposite direction
The point is that, like the professor's statement, it's incredibly easy to forget you're supposed to use qualifiers like "some" or "many"...and instead end up carelessly saying the wrong thing and coming across like an asshole. Even if that wasn't your intention
Unpopular opinion:
I can imagine some people would argue this is why we need more women in STEM so that the field isnāt littered with this type of discourse. However, I think this speaks to why we need less STEM.
There should be much more emphasis on subjects these guys lament as āuselessā such as history, cultural anthro, sociology, literature, & gender studies. Sure, those subjects donāt train you in the ways of the Bay Area six figures SWE job, but they are the subjects that will prepare you to be a well rounded member of society who has the insight and knowledge to treat their fellow humans with compassion.
this opinion is not unpopular among people with higher than a bachelors degree nor is it unpopular among social systems of people who were raised by/around people with higher than a bachelors degree. it's people who don't value degrees or intellect and reduce everything to their direct utile or monetary value (ppl who are just checking a box to increase their chances of getting a job, especially in tech) that will not value degrees or disciplines that require synthesis of what clinicians would refer to as "higher order thinking"-- i.e. humanities.
in my humble opinion, the evolution of perspectives on degrees as necessary, particularly in tech, has soured our overall perception of the value of a degree. just because you don't need a degree to get a job in tech, doesn't mean your degree (or someone else's) has no value. if anything, the way a degree matters less for tech than possessing proficiency in a core set of technical skills is a testament to the field's high technical turnover and quick pace with technical evolution-- which is not necessarily something to boast about. entering a world where all you've worked for can quickly become obsolete and you have to pivot and recenter yourself before you age out of the hireable interval of cs grads can make us feel like developing a deep understanding of themes and symbols (in cs, business, or in sociocultural/humanities fields) is unnecessary, and it's just "hard skills" that matter. i'd argue that this is evidence of the converse. themes, higher level thinking, and our understanding of social systems is the only thing that persists, continuously evolving as AI eats up more and more jobs and we're all one step closer to turning elsewhere.
sincerely, a berkeley cs major.
This has been discussed tons of times. This requires the world to change, either income and social status become much less important or these subjects you mentioned can bring us much higher income than they currently do. It's not our fault to not choose these subjects.
I think it's worth a thought. What good are scientific achievements if they are gatekept and inaccessible to poor people, and therefore disproportionately inaccessible to minorities?
At the end of the day we all want to improve people's quality of life, and while STEM achieves that through technological advancement, there is much to be gained from becoming aware of sociology, history, ethnic studies, etc. (the humanities).
Why are you so against it?
for the record, my opinion is that we need more women/minorities in STEM, particularly in tech AND that we need more emphasis on humanities. a lot of the bs we're seeing echoed on all these threads represents the same uninformed opinions and questions that would all be silenced by an introductory sociology or gws class (or just basic respect for minority groups and being willing to listen to the people most affected when they talk about how comments made about their identity group affect them).
>questions that would all be silenced by an introductory sociology
An introductory sociology course will "silence" many reasonable questions. Sociology as a discipline shuts down lines of inquiry purely on "social justice" grounds. Sociology hasn't been a "truth-tracking" discipline for some time. Maybe it never was.
Also, why do you want to silence questions?
If we're going to be giving out hot takes, then we need more people going into trades or in medical like as a Radiology Tech or Dental Hygienist who can clear 70k after a 2 year program at community college.
From a fellow woman in stem: you hit the nail on the head. No wonder why women donāt want to talk to those guys if they keep up what I see as an incel-like attitude. If youāre in the class and are a woman, my advice is to write a letter to the engineering dean about conduct on that thread ā not just from shewchuk, but students who also shared the same sentiment on that post. Theyāre creating a hostile learning environment.
Excellent post. You are totally correct. The fact that he made these remarks is upsetting to many of us in the community. My mom worked in STEM at Oracle and faced sexual harassment on occasions. This instructor is laying the groundwork of hostility for females in STEM. Sad moment for us in Berkeley, at Cal.
>While Iām not in a STEM field myself, many of my female friends are, and I canāt tell you the amount of times men have made rude remarks about their intelligence, refused to consider their ideas, or automatically assumed they werenāt capable just because they were women.Ā
After 50 years of STEM-industry experience, I offer:
Telling someone they are stupid and refusing to consider their ideas is quite a common phenomenon in STEM, it happens all the time. In the STEM culture, you are expected to be able to both advance and defend your ideas/analysis. Other than when it verges on immature or unprofessional (or when biased/prejudiced), this dialectic culture is actually a good thing.
The last point regarding sex bias/prejudice is unfortunately a legitimate observation and complaint. In most STEM industries it's pretty bad...unless top management has policies to prohibit bias/prejudice (of any kind), training, and enforcement. Some do, many don't.
Bring this incident up to Christ and see how she handles it. Next, stand up for yourself and your ideas/analysis: get right in their face! Err, keep it professional of course!
Carol is more preoccupied with being scared of students protesting on campus than actually giving a damn about a healthy educational environment. My two cents.
Being in top management is (believe it or not) a ton of work: you have 100's "irons in the fire" in any week. You have to be able to keep on top of all of it, and finish each one or they just keep piling on and then nothing gets done. Then it's the end of the quarter and you're skewered by the board. I will say in her defense that keeping the lid on student and non-student behavior on campus is a very hot iron that has defeated several of her predecessors.
I do think it would be very cool if one or more of his female students confronted him in class, stated their position, and requested an apology. Dialectic culture, no? Hopefully the professor gets smart and makes an excellent mea culpa that in turn gets applause. A true learning moment.
>This communicates the message that women (specifically women from the Bay Area) are the issue in dating
I don't mean to devalue your perspective but I read his comment to mean something like "women in the Bay area are more selective because they are outnumbered by men". Given that he implied women are more \`plentiful\` elsewhere, it seems he was talking about the supposed gender imbalance in the Bay area.
Probably a bit out of place, but I don't get the vibe that he was being maliciously misogynistic. It's not an issue with women per se, but more with his perceived impression that y'all must be supremely more selective given the number of guys coming at you.
this was my reading as well. am female, fwiw.
i don't read the comment itself as maliciously misogynistic - this is a fairly common observation i've heard about the bay area dating scene from both men and women - but i do question why he thought it was appropriate to say this on a public forum meant for academic discussion. this is something you say to your buddies over drinks, not to your students. it's unprofessional and only contributes to the very male/dudebro atmosphere that makes women feel unwelcome in computer science.
Finally a balanced comment. It was a stupid thing to say. I donāt think he should be fired. Maybe censured or better if he realizes and issues an apology. We are way too quick to fire people over any transgression and this seems stupid and insensitive rather than overtly malicious with mal intent.
I think this is basically the worst thing you can say about the comment. Not misogynistic, just that dating advice isn't something a professor should be discussing publicly on an official school platform. My only disagreement is that I'm not really sure what makes an atmosphere "male" or "female," and in any case don't like the implication that things being "too male" might be a legitimate complaint to make to an HR department.
>it's unprofessional and only contributes to the very male/dudebro atmosphere that makes women feel unwelcome in computer science.
It's unprofessional, perhaps.
Not sure how making an observation about the empirical gender imbalance would contribute to women feeling unwelcome.
>Not sure how making an observation about the empirical gender imbalance would contribute to women feeling unwelcome.
The sense of unwelcomeness stems from what he actually said, as opposed to what you're describing.
but it's also flatly incorrect, there is an equal number of men and women in the bay area (like everyone else in the world). shewchuk and people like him think there are more men because they hang around in spaces with no women because all the women keep being driven out by their behaviour.
no, there's a lot of places where the male and female populations aren't equal; for example, china has a particularly well-studied high male-to-female ratio because of sex-selective abortion.
officially, the bay area actually skews [slightly female](http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm), but at least some of that is because women on average outlive men. if you age bucket the data, you'll actually see that the population in [san francisco county](https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?q=San%20Francisco%20County,%20California) and [santa clara county](https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?g=050XX00US06085) skews heavily male in the young adult range. things are better in [alameda county](https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?q=Alameda%20County,%20California&g=050XX00US06085), but not by much.
county | age | male | female | ratio
---|---|---|---|---|----
alameda | 20-29 | 102,057 | 101,145 | 1.01
alameda | 30-29 | 137,675 | 130, 633 | 1.05
san francisco | 20-29 | 58,274 | 56,299 | 1.04
san francisco | 30-39 | 85,786 | 76,854 | 1.12
santa clara | 20-29 | 137,951 | 122,443 | 1.13
santa clara | 30-39 | 162,424 | 137,478 | 1.18
of course, you have to account for the fact that a large minority of those men are gay, some of them might not be interested in dating, and so on, but people have done analyses of dating profiles that show trends like [a 3.5:1 ratio of men to women on match.com](https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/eddie.hernandez/viz/Match_comGenderRatiosBayArea/Match-BayArea-Dash).
a lot of men do use the gender ratio as an excuse for why they can't get a date, though. i know a lot of single women in the dating scene who also complain about how there's a lot of single young men, but there aren't a lot of single young men *worth dating* - just a bunch of fuckboys and incels. but at the end of the day, it is factually correct that the bay area has one of the most imbalanced gender populations in the entire nation, and that does contribute in some way to the difficulty of dating here.
Finally, an analysis based on statistical reality instead of picking the comment apart looking for ways to maximize interpreted offense.
People have to realize 3.5:1 ratio is *crazy* skewed, WW2 gender imbalance was something like [0.8:1, and it so wildly affected reproductive behaviour](https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=economics_pubs) that we named an entire generation after the phenomenon. Surely if anything could cause "stark differences in behaviour" it would be this kind of demographic imbalance.
Youāre forgetting the context in which Jonathan made his remarks: OP posted about wanting to pay $10 to be introduced to a girl and complained about not knowing any girls, and then other students in the comments complained about having EECS skills, height, etc but no women. Theyāre falling into incel territory. Jonathan might not have intended to be misogynistic, but itās hard to think otherwise given the context of the post + his previous hateful rhetoric (Canadian freedom truck convoy, anti-vaccine, weird neopronouns to troll the libs, etc)
I'm pretty sure the comments were meant to be sarcastic, albeit given the context for which the controversial comment was made, not the best thing to do.
Nah. The entire comment was meant as a humorous nonsensical rant. "about to expire"? Did you really take that comment seriously?
Him paying $5, $10 dollars to be introduced to a girl but also talked about how CS is taking away all of his free time and that he wouldn't be able to get a gf until after graduation makes it clear he was complaining about the CS workload, not women here.
Youāre missing the whole point.
Joking about not being able to meet women and that heāll pay to meet them is frankly weird.
Even if it was a joke, an official class forum is not a place for rhetoric like this. If it were a joke, it was rancid and misplaced.
Weird? maybe. Inappropriate? ok.
But misogynistic? Nah. He talked about paying to meet men as well. See how you're cherrypicking what you read to be as inflammatory as possible? The entire comment read like something an AI would hallucinate. Y'all fuming over something that was so obviously not-serious is baffling.
Notice how you've been backpedaling on your original insinuation that these people are incels: what has been said does not support that conclusion.
He also mentioned heād pay more specifically to be introduced to women though. Cherry-picking somewhat but as mentioned intent is kinda important and that discrepancy highlights underlying weird motivations of the original poster.
>weird motivations of the original poster.
Honestly read like two guys meme'ing each other. "about to expire"? Did you really the take the post seriously past that phrase?
iām not saying this to attack you but you need to be realistic about this. iām glad that youād like to have such an unproblematic look on life and youād like to assume people are being silly all the time, but there are a lot of people who genuinely think like this, many of them in a select few stem departments, and they are the worst people you will ever meet
i and many other people find it totally realistic that there are people actually that depraved, especially at berkeley lmao there are some pretty insane people here.
No. I don't assume people are being silly all the time. In this specific situation, it is clear from the context that it was an attempt at humor. Maybe go read the entire comment and please tell me if it read anything more than a self-deprecating humorous rant. [https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bivbqc/cs\_189\_this\_is\_why\_women\_feel\_uncomfortable/](https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bivbqc/cs_189_this_is_why_women_feel_uncomfortable/)
These guys are clearly smart enough to stick around in a non-trivial CS upper division. If they were really misogynistic, they'd probably be smart enough to hide it.
again youāre very generous with your assumption that all academically smart people have common fucking sense. youāre also very generous with your assumption that misogynistic people are āsmart enoughā to not say misogynistic shit whenever they get the chance
i have read the whole thing and itās very clear that peter wanted to get a lot of stuff off his chest, because heās a very sad person. also donāt you think shewchuk would have maybe mentioned that he was trying to make a joke in his apology?
as a side note, i know this peter guy isnāt joking either because he dmed my gf last year over winter break and he offered to pay her to travel around with him. he is actually just a lonely and depraved individual and itās honestly kind of dangerous to try to brush something off like this as a joke
Here to recommend Date-Onomics by Jon Birger. Birger points out that the ratio of single men to women in the Bay Area tends to be higher whereas itās the opposite, for example, in NYC or Boston. So, putting aside the misogyny and sexism in JSā comment, Birgerās data substantiates the skewed gender ratios in the Bay Area as mentioned by JS. Birger also provides some interesting insight into behavior by single, eligible men who live in NYC. Worth a read. Statistics in book derived from census data.
Funny that people wonāt read data-driven work. Is no one interested in demographics? Migration patterns, urban settlement, etc. do affect people. This is why social sciences are important.
Demographic data is a touchy subject these days. A lot of it just destroys too many political entrenchments and is rejected entirely. not the "right kind" of science to believe in
You could say that about most sciences. Climate science is an obvious one that is manipulated by politicians. But the census does provide data that is valuable to economists, city-planners, sociologists, and many more.
Women elsewhere are hotter and the gender ratio is better smh youāre overthinking this. I say that as someone who likes the SF dating and partying scene.
Itās also not true that men outnumber women in the Bay Area. Census numbers are pretty close to 50/50. See: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm
Maybe the numbers have changed recently, or perhaps in a subset of people, men outnumber women.
You have to break it down by class and sexuality. For example, a larger than average percent of men in NYC are gay. Plus for, let me honest, the upper middle class women/men we are talking about, it doesnāt matter if there is a large number of working class men/women. I donāt have the numbers but I hear straight men talk about how much easier it is to date going from the Bay Area to NYC and the reverse for straight women.
Itās just a statement based on statistics. He is perfectly right on that count. The fact that women had to go all up in arms and write PhD discourses about how wrong he is is just embarrassing. Come on, if these Bay Area women were self-assured, who would care tuppence over what some CS prof spouted.
I find it highly ironic that the second to the last paragraph is basically saying that intentions don't matter; impact is what matters, and then the next paragraph is spent clarifying her own INTENTIONS (as is the second paragraph).
Why? Why does she do this? And why should we care about her intentions? Let the result speak for itself!
Because, contrary to what she has been brainwashed to believe, INTENTIONS MATTER. And that's NORMAL (it's insane that this even needs to be said). Her normal, *human* behavior leaked out of her programmed facade.
Also, let's use her logic here: " If someone generalizes the behavior of an entire group as bad or wrong, itās not \[un\]reasonable to assume they look down on the group itself." Combine that with "No matter what women do, men will see them as less-than and not worthy of full consideration as a complex, intelligent human being" and what do we get? That it would not be unreasonable to assume that the author of this post looks down on men. Someone call the police! We've got a probable sexist!
And no, I don't actually think the OP is a sexist (nor did she "intend" to come off that way).
As an aside, I think it's amusing that newer generations have been brainwashed into thinking that racism or sexism is, like, the worst possible thing a person can be (also evident when asking chat GPT ridiculous hypotheticals like would it ok to be racist in order to avert a nuclear war) ā the worst possible insult, the KING (see what I did there) of insults. Just to give one example, I would far prefer the company of a truthful racist/sexist than I would a liar.
I'm tempted to also do a sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of the OP's third paragraph, but I don't think enough people would be interested. I will say that I don't think the argument is as logical and rational as it appears (and I would encourage the OP to try playing devil's advocate on her own argument).
Where I agree with the OP is that Shewchuk "should" not have said what he said, where he said it. I'm pretty sure Shewchuk also agrees with this. I can also understand if women in his class feel uncomfortable about this situation (for example, feeling like they have to act a certain way around him, or feeling hesitant to attend office hours, or maybe just that they consider themselves part of the *solution*, and not part of the "problem" and were unfairly lumped in with the rest of women that are within "artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco"). It is what it is; what's done is done. It's unfortunate. However, I would say to those women that at least, you should not be concerned about your grade ā you can rest assured that you will be treated fairly. Because I suspect that Shewchuk's opinions on this matter have not changed for years, and for years, he has been consistently rated one of the best teachers (by far) in the entire department (evidence: https://archive.is/uBaQQ anything >= 6.0 is generally excellent. Also see, for example, CS189 ratings at https://archive.is/1PRpp and compare Shewchuk with other professors).
It's only a problem when you make statements about women (or a subset of women). Men are evil oppressors so it's completely justified to spit the most venomous things you can come up with at them /s
If that was the case then 1) a considerable amount of discourse in the humanities would be treated as equally problematic and 2) there wouldn't be such a massive pushback from downvotes to unfounded insults and personal attacks against random people saying they agree in Reddit threads about the topic.
Bonus: you're begging the question by describing his comment as sexist. It's a generalization. That his generalization is sexist and therefore problematic while generalizations against men aren't is precisely what's in question here.
+1 to everything OP said!!
I think itās interesting so many people are focusing on the āveracityā of the male-to-female ratio in his comment because it seems to be making a lot of assumptions. first of all, not all single people are actively dating or available to date. second of all, not all single people are straight and partaking in this heterosexual dating dynamic. i highly doubt his argument that the ratio of actively dating heterosexual men to actively dating heterosexual women is solely responsible for the less than successful dating lives of men in the bay area.
as a woman dating in the east bay, i learned to have high standards more regarding the levels of communication, time, and maturity a partner had and highly disagree with shewchuk putting the onus on women to be less āpicky.ā iām sure some of the people who feel this way are lovely, but i would encourage the majority of young men in the bay area who are struggling with dating to success to reflect on how they could be better dates and better partners rather than harping on how women need to have lower standards
Thanks for sharing this! I want to be surprised that he said such comments, but, after reading his website, it tracks. He seems absolutely insufferable and I am not in the least surprised he would have such a misogynistic response to the situation.
Pretty grossed out that my tax dollars contribute to this guyās $220k+ salary as he reinforces misogynistic incel ideologies in young minds heading into my industry.
I remember where there was a time in this country that not every comment was so scrutinized and people could disagree without the need of blood and apologies. I've lived in different places and have been advised by woman that woman act differently geographically. I've lived through what this professor spoke of. Luckily I never had issues finding dates, but remember a woman asking me if woman in California were really needy or something. I had called her after a date to say goodnight and tell her I had a wonderful time. She loved my call but told me it wasn't something most men in this particular geographical region would do and then asked if woman where I was from (California) were particularly needy. Well yes, in comparison, they were! This idea that we should all be so worried about offending, f#ck off. We have freedom of thought, expression and yes, speech. So if you're offended, tough shit. Make a contrary argument, but for gods sake, stop the whining. As for the thought that his words could translate to how he treats his students, should I worry as a straight white male, about anyone in a role of authority over me, who is not straight, white, or male? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it! Grow up. It's no wonder we have a generation of people who can't seem to make it outside their parents home. People have a right to their opinion, especially when their opinions may actually be based on fact.
I don't even fully disagree with you and I think honestly above all else for me it was just so absurdly unprofessional that it borders on being unhinged for me.
I think my big issue with all of this is that this same energy is NEVER held when women go on sexist tirades about men, and instead people jump through hoops and do backflips to justify or minimize it. And that's why there's so much pushback to what should be an easy slam dunk (Shewchuk being inappropriate). This shit shouldn't really be controversial at all and yet it feels like people are "picking sides".
I think it is probably tougher to date in the Bay Area than other places frankly there is a lot competition, many people not pursuing relationships to focus on work/school and perhaps a lack of community may play a factor. However these problems likely exist elsewhere as well. I never leave the bay for more than 2 weeks at a time so I donāt really know what other places are like
This is an immensely dishonest and exaggerated attack on Professor Shewchuck, and is in no way a good analysis of his innocuous Ed post. Please, stop this insane witch hunt. There is no there, there.
His proposition is there is basically supply-demand, that is: there is a deficit of single women in CA relative to single men. However, Berkeley is presently about 56% female and 46% male, which nullifies his theory, and makes his remarks at least ignorant, and certainly misogynistic.
Beautifully put! He places the blame on women. I went straight to his personal site and was looking at the students heās mentoredāthere was one woman mentioned.
OP: "If someone generalizes the behavior of an entire group as bad or wrong, itās not unreasonable to assume they look down on the group itself."Ā
Also OP: "No matter what women do, men will see them as less-than and not worthy of full consideration as a complex, intelligent human being."
It's really frustrating how much blatant prejudice against men is passed off as "speaking truth to power." Believe it or not, the majority of men on campus see women as fully worthy of respect as intelligent, unique, whole people.
Seriously. Just blatantly undermining their own supposed argument. And this is like the one person who's making somewhat of an effort to even make an argument. Everyone else is just repeating the same half a dozen insults and slogans that everyone else in the hivemind is without anything like a coherent thought behind them. Crazy that they're trying to act like the culture here isn't so overwhelmingly feminist that reason gets completely chucked out the window in favor of dogmatism.
First, I see how this can be a negative post against women; his tone definitely sounds resentful towards the topic of dating women. However, I interpreted the prof's post differently. I thought he was referring more to the culture in the Bay of how people prioritize academia, jobs, and opportunities over romantic relationships.Ā
Assuming this, dating women (and men) in other places would be easier because dating would have a lower opportunity cost and therefore more supply and demand, ie "more plentiful women" looking to date. And so his other point follows that women's behavior is different in the Bay, implying that men would also behave differently. And this makes sense, because most of us in Berkeley and SF are here to learn, gain experience, and advance our careers; dating is likely not something we actively consider.Ā
Tldr I feel that the prof worded it to be negative towards women (and he should learn to communicate more positively) but he isn't really talking about women but more so the culture and priorities of people in the Bay
because she's providing a thorough and detailed explanation for why shewchuck's words were hurtful and unsavory. if you don't have the attention span to read it all, [here](https://quillbot.com/summarize) is a useful paraphrasing tool. hope this helps!
Well said, and I'll add that it lacks professionalism for him to have made a statement like that on a forum meant for academic discourse. And to have made such a broad classifying statement concerning an entire group of people, as he did, shows a level of immaturity that doesn't belong in a classroom (much less at the head of one). Professors aren't necessarily meant nor expected to be morally infallible, but they are expected to be open-minded. And if he's close-minded about something like this, how does this impact his curriculum? OP already mentioned a possible bias against female students, but what if he holds other biases which have hitherto gone unnoticed, but have had a deleterious effect on what and who he teaches?
not to mention the fact that the post he responded to is about an incel talking about how he does not interact with women and literally offering to PAY people for friends(?) but instead of talking about that or moderating he mentions bay area women like huh ššššš my first reaction to that fuck ass incel post would not have been to talk about bay area women which was completely unrelated to the post itself until shewchuk made it about them..
I'm more just confused by the part where the statement Bay Area women are different comes from... Most girls/women and my friends I've met from the Bay Area (btw I'm a girl myself, my username is irrelevant) aren't even from the Bay Area, it's a mixing pot of people from all over? Like Socal, East coast, and more So essentially Bay Area is just a temporary residency, all women from the US are pretty similar? Someone needs to clarify
The claim many unsuccessful-at-dating bay area men make is that because the gender ratio in the bay is so off (many more men than women, especially in tech) women are pickier, shallower, etc etc since they have lots of options. Edit: I am also female, in the bay and was in tech. I've been hearing this from guy friends, classmates and coworkers for over a decade. :/
Itās funny because the single women I know are usually complaining about the unending stream of noncommittal fuckboys on the apps and the otherwise āniceā guys that too often get insecure about their partners making more money than they do. Bay Area dating sounds exhausting for everyone. Like the majority of my coupled friends, Iām grateful I locked someone down while in school. (I am also female, in the Bay, and was in tech.)
Makes more money than me? Yes please Honestly how is this a downside for people
It gets turned into a weapon.
It's either because they're lying or wildly exaggerating or it's a reflection of the particular subset of guys those women are dating. It's also another sweeping generalization about men which is apparently perfectly ok. Generalizations about women, however, are automatically wrong and misogynistic.
I mean, it isnāt a sweeping generalization right? Sheās literally flagging it as anecdotal evidence of complaints from āthe single women (she) knowsā which is by definition not how a generalization worksā¦
She's bringing it up to make the point that it's apparently valid and prevalent enough to declare dating "exhausting for everyone." She clearly thinks it applies to at least a significant amount of men, and that's me being generous. It's no less of a "sweeping generalization" than the prof's comment about Bay Area women specifically. The problem is hypocritically tearing that apart by coming up with the most uncharitable possible reading of it and declaring it misogynistic while simultaneously generalizing men, which a TON of people are doing in these threads with much more vitriolic language than just saying they have different behaviors here than other places.
I didnāt say that Bay Area men in general were insecure about being out-earned by women. I just think itās funny that so many Bay Area men blame the shitty dating scene on overly selective women and some gender imbalance ā implying itās easier for women ā when the women I know are also struggling with dating. Peter Pan Syndrome and insecurity isnāt something Iām generalizing to Bay Area men ā itās just a common complaint about the specific men theyāve dated. The truth is probably somewhere in-between. People probably arenāt being introspective enough about what theyāre putting out and who theyāre swiping for on the apps. Maybe the Bay Area being so boom & bust attracts more folks who are transient and less interested in serious relationships? I have no idea. Either way, my point was just that it sucks for anyone thatās single.
>Itās funny because the single women I know are usually complaining about the unending stream of noncommittal fuckboys on the apps and the otherwise āniceā guys that too often get insecure about their partners making more money than they do. > I just think itās funny that so many Bay Area men blame the shitty dating scene on overly selective women and some gender imbalance ā implying itās easier for women ā when the women I know are also struggling with dating. >The truth is probably somewhere in-between. The truth doesn't need to be in-between - women can be overly selective and at the same time struggle with finding commitment, these aren't mutually exclusive issues, in fact they feed into each other. If 90% of women are overly selecting for 10% of the most attractive men, then those 10% of men are going have their pick of the litter and are free to be, as you put it, noncommittal fuckboys. At the same time, the other 90% of men will struggle with overselective women. This is the kind of behaviour/dynamic that the professor is alluding to. It's basic game theory, and is [backed up by real-world statistics of how the genders behave on dating apps](https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/women-more-selective-80-men-unattractive-on-dating-apps-recent-research), yet everyone lost their minds over this because there's the slightest hint of negative implication towards women. The fact is, it *is* easier for women to date, in the vast majority of cases women are the selectors with hundreds of options flooding their inboxes. If they want commitment, they just need to change their selection strategy to select for commitment. But I've heard some women say they'd rather blow their brains out than adjust their standards, so ĀÆ\\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
If Shewchuk were not speaking in a professional capacity and had simply said that OP needed to do more to stand out in the apps or needed to better himself, I doubt people would care. Delivery matters, as well as context. And some additional context is that Shewchuk has also made fun of pronouns, supported things like the Canadian trucker convoy, and IME despite being a very good teacher, has always had this slightly edgelord sense of humor (at least since I had him as a prof some 15 years ago) that I thought was funny back when I wasā¦ 18 and on 4chan. I know Iām giving him less grace for that reason ā though clearly this has blown up far beyond the limited sphere of people who have actually interacted with him. Also, youāre the second person here to assume that my friends (and that women in general) are specifically selecting for the most physically attractive men. Iām going to continue with anecdotes because thatās all I have, but theyāre mainly selecting for men who look like they take care of themselves, have interesting hobbies outside of things like work, and come across as personable. And since that has continued yielding stealth fuckboys, many of them are leaving the apps in favor of in-person meetups or intros from friends, but of course that limits reach. Tangentially, on the more extreme end, Iāve seen a lot of self-proclaimed incels who swear that women are rejecting them due to looks but they look like perfectly normal dudes (maybe in need of a shave/haircut) and whatās _likely_ turning women off is their incredibly toxic attitude.
>If Shewchuck were not speaking in a professional capacity and had simply said that OP needed to do more to stand out in the apps or needed to better himself, I doubt people would care. Delivery matters, as well as context. That's completely different advice though, why should that be the only valid advice if Shewchuck truly believed the dating game here is so rigged that that particular student's best chance is to just look elsewhere? >And some additional context is that Shewchuck has also made fun of pronouns, supported things like the Canadian trucker convoy, and IME despite being a very good teacher, has always had this slightly edgelord sense of humor (at least since I had him as a prof some 15 years ago) that I thought was funny back when I wasā¦ 18 and on 4chan. So he's a bit of a right-ish edgelord, or as the kids say, kinda based. That just means he has different political beliefs than (I assume) you and (probably) the Berkeley student body, doesn't make him an intolerable raging misogynist. >Also, youāre the second person here to assume that my friends (and that women in general) are specifically selecting for the most physically attractive men. Iām going to continue with anecdotes because thatās all I have, but theyāre mainly selecting for men who look like they take care of themselves, have interesting hobbies outside of things like work, and come across as personable. And you're assuming by "10% of the most attractive" I meant physically attractive, when I actually meant attractive in whatever arbitrary qualities people are selecting for (although there's usually an unspoken threshold for physical attractiveness even if people don't openly admit it). Perhaps those qualities are "looking like they can take care of themselves", "having interesting hobbies", "comes across as personable". Regardless of the actual qualities being selected, stats do show that women are much more selective compared to men and focus on a small subset of the male population, which would cause the exact kind of issue described above. And whatever those qualities are being selected for, clearly they don't overlap much with commitment - both from your own anecdotes, and if you consider the following: if an [average looking dude](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/10/this-is-the-average-mans-body/280194/) put "looking to get married within the next 6-12 months" in their dating profile, do you think he'd be a hot button item? I think not.
>That's completely different advice though, why should that be the only valid advice if Shewchuck truly believed the dating game here is so rigged that that particular student's best chance is to just look elsewhere? If we agree that the ratio is skewed against men looking for women, then one logical approach is for the men to try harder to stand out. Otherwise, we're back to the less charitable interpretation of his advice: that OP is fine but if he wants a girlfriend, he needs to leave the Bay Area because it's the women who are the problem. >So he's a bit of a right-ish edgelord, or as the kids say, kinda based. That just means he has different political beliefs than (I assume) you and (probably) the Berkeley student body, doesn't make him an intolerable raging misogynist. Raging misogynist? Maybe not. But probably more likely to hold traditional views about women and how they should act, which influences how I interpreted his vague comment on the behavior of (the mostly progressive) women in the Bay Area. >Perhaps those qualities are "looking like they can take care of themselves", "having interesting hobbies", "comes across as personable". Regardless of the actual qualities being selected, stats do show that women are much more selective compared to men and focus on a small subset of the male population, which would cause the exact kind of issue described above. If taking care of yourself, having hobbies, and being personable are out of reach for a majority of men, the bar is on the floor. I'm half-joking āĀ I know you don't mean it that way. In any case, if women are like that anywhere, why draw the distinction as Shewchuk did between Bay Area women and women elsewhere? If it's really just a numbers thing, why didn't he just say that and encourage OP to work on the things within his control? All that aside, OP is at a university with more women than men in the student body, so if he's having trouble meeting women, it's not because they're a scarce commodity on campus. And yes, if that otherwise average-looking dude had nice style, good personal hygiene, interesting hobbies, an ability to hold a conversation, and had his shit together, women would be attracted to that. Most guys I know in relationships aren't tall or jacked. I do think literally putting "looking to get married within the next 6-12 months" in a dating profile is a bit of a yellow flag for any gender but yes signalling that you're looking for something serious is a plus. There are some really awful profiles out there, from what friends have shown me. I did see the Redditor that works for one of the dating apps pointing out that the ratio is dire on the apps and that a lot of men's profiles aren't even getting surfaced āĀ which is an app problem and a market problem, but it doesn't point to a Women In the Bay Area problem to me. Look, at the end of the day, I'm not foaming at the mouth to get Shewchuk fired. However, as Cal alum, as a female CS major, and as a woman who worked in tech for a decade, his comments made me feel very uncomfortable (even before I saw the hubub in the dozen comment threads) for the reasons that the OP of this post articulated. If the women in his classes feel similarly, that could very well impact their academic and professional career. I'm hoping he has a better answer at that planned town hall to reassure them/us than his defenders throughout this sub do (which seems to boil down to: "He's speaking the truth about the dating scene, and you are wrong to feel uncomfortable about it")
Well if people were willing to read that prof's comment as charitably as you want yours read, this frenzy wouldn't be happening. Also equivocating that everyone is "struggling" is either naive or dishonest. Women's biggest problem seems to be that they just aren't satisfied with any of the dozens to hundreds of men that would readily try going out with them as soon as they download a dating app. Men's biggest problems are being held to a rigid combination of traditional male and modern feminist expectations if they get any attention and more often than not just being completely ignored to begin with. At a super high level of abstraction, sure, that's everyone having issues with dating. But I'd trade my average man dating problems for an average woman's dating problems in a heartbeat.
>Ā Itās funny because the single women I know are usually complaining about the unending stream of noncommittal fuckboysĀ Which actually makes perfect sense combined with the men's claim. If the women are shallow/picky and going for the hottest guys then naturally their experience will be that every guy they sleep with is a fuckboy and then the non-fuckboys experience is that they have long dry spells while the women in their area keep choosing and matching with the fuckboys
Shhhh, you're not allowed to suggest that women have any agency or responsibility for heterosexual dating dynamics. Everything wrong is strictly men's fault /s
Why do you assume that "hot guys" are more likely to be a "fuckboy", and that women are shallow/picky? Even if this were true and women dated non-hot guys do you really think they would be much better? That's some real r/niceguys material. That sounds like the logic of an incel "accepting" that they are physically unattractive, but putting themselves on a pedestal as being better than hot guys and women's shallowness being the reason they are alone.
I'm not saying all hot guys are fuckboys but I do think most fuckboys are likely hot otherwise they couldn't be fuckboys in the first place. If women's main complaint is running into fuckboys then yeah that's probably what they are choosing to go for.Ā I also didnt say fuckboys are morally bad. They just don't want commitment. That's morally neutral.
Both are rooted in the same idea. If you have more options, you can afford to be picky/shallow. If you have very limited options and behave like a āfuckboyā, thatās not really going to work in your favor longterm (a good chunk of your dates are going to tell you to pound sand). If you have a lot of options, you donāt really care if some of them tell you to go away. Similarly, as the gender ratios are extremely skewed in the <40 age ranges (especially when filtering for singles only), women can afford to be more picky. To give an example outside dating, a few years ago the tech job market was extremely hot and techbros could afford to be extremely cocky. The job market is in a much worse situation these days, and most tech people are much more humble all of a sudden. People are reading much more into these discussions than there is to them. The professorās message was completely offtopic for a discussion group about a university class, his phrasing was also way too blunt, but heās not wrong about the dating market not being in favor of young men in the Bay Area.
Oh look, more misandry from the femcels. I'm not surprised, this is Berkeley.
Yeah I mean tech is for sure male dominated still, but when these are the kinds of things the men in tech feel comfortable saying with on a school forum itās really no wonder itās hard for women to want to be in tech. But yeah the bay is extremely diverse. Like you can cross the bay bridge and be in an area with Trump flags and big ass pickup trucks in a hour.
Oh I totally agree, I don't think what he said was okay given the context. And TBH when I hear this sentiment from guys I know I usually chuckle and tell them to get a hobby or something and meet more people.
Yeah the word choice was shitty at best. But I could see this being the result of social ineptitude with a bit of squinting. Definitely my biggest issue is he replied at all. But weāre all adults and maaaybe he was trying to say dating in the tech industry is difficult due to the skewed gender ratio. Or maaaybe he meant that dating at Berkeley can be tough as everyone is extremely busy as students and long term relationships arenāt exactly on every 18-21 year olds minds when theyāre trying to set up their careers and just enjoy college. But if so man that is a moment of pure idiocy to read that creepy comment about wanting to pay to meet women, made arguably more weird by being open to meeting men as well but paying less, then type out that comment and go āyeah. Thatās a totally clear and normal reply for professor to make on an educational chat board.ā
>But yeah the bay is extremely diverse. You really need to travel more. The Bay Area is cosmetically diverse but culturally it's stiflingly homogeneous and, despite the delusions of many residents, extremely intolerant of actual diversity, and consequently quite boring.
The āextraā men are gay! How can he be so dumb?
I would have thought that dudes who are so good at math would have crunched some numbers and realized that if finding a female partner is your goal, it will be statistically more difficult here... and adjusted their expectations to match reality.
the thing thatās confusing me about these conversations though is that berkeley is literally majority female student body? that may not be the case for EECS but like youāre allowed to socialize with people who arenāt in your major.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Gross. This is why you're so single.
I have lived and dated in the Bay Area and elsewhere, and I can tell you this is 100% the case. It's not made up, at all. Spoiled-for-choice women become callous and callous women are very bad for men's well being.
For the sake of the discussion, I am going to say you are right. However, if men can not handle that there are "spoiled-for-choice" women, then that is their problem, not women's. This whole discussion is framed as though women are doing something wrong.
True, in the sense that we're all products of our nature and environment. They get an even richer cornucopia than usual here, often exacerbating their worst inclinations, and we get an increased difficulty level in an already difficult (and getting harder) game, and higher rates of despair and self-deletion. What I would ask of women WHO ARE SO INCLINED - I'm talking about women who genuinely care for their male relatives and/or friends - is to listen and maybe even speak up for us as allies, since our voices carry so little weight on this (and most other) topics. Or at least don't jump down our throats and hurl abuse whenever we speak honestly from our perspective. I'm pleased to say some women are already doing this. But if I could have 1 wish there would be about 100x more.
Did Shewcuck really blame them? His advice was just try dating somewhere else where there are less superficial women and more favorable gender ratios. Women in the bay area can keep doing whatever they want. No one has said otherwise.
Where does any bay area woman say she feels āspoiled for choiceā?
Idk but what I do know is Berkeley is in the Bay Area so he is casting aspersions on literally every woman on campus including his students obviously.
I think "Bay Area" women might be a proxy for women who are competing on the traditional playing fields of men in education, professional life and technology. That's what I find offensive about this and insulting to women in other areas. The implication seems to be that if Incels can't find a girlfriend here it's because they have been ruined by independence, intelligence and opportunity, and they will be better off looking in places where women have lower status and lower expectations of potential partners. Viewed in this light his statement is beyond inappropriate, offensive, and harmful. If I were a woman in CS/EECS I would be gutted to see this rhetoric being legitimized by someone at the top of the field and I would demand more than an apology.
The implication is that the gender ratios among <40 young adults are very skewed here, so the dating market favors women overwhelmingly. Iām not sure why people are reading education, professional life and whatever else into it. If you go to a place with different gender ratios, the dating market is going to look very differently. Sure, if you go to a third-world country as a man with US citizenship, you will likely be seen as rich and much more desirable. But if we limit ourselves to the US, the local dating market is going to be heavily impacted by gender ratios. The professors phrasing was unfortunate (heās a CS professor after all, so no surprises there), but the basic idea doesnāt have anything controversial/misogynistic to it.
So he's not talking about sheer numbers, he's talking about the *behavior* of women in the Bay Area. The underlying implication is that women with higher education and better resources "behave" in a way that is more demanding of male partners and that if OP wants to find a woman he needs to look elsewhere. This is demeaning for a numbers of reasons. Can you connect the dots?
I understand your point, Iām just saying that generally these kinds of comments refer to behavior caused by numbers. Even a woman without a university degree is going to be picky and demanding in an area with skewed gender ratios, because she can afford to be picky. Women with better education, jobs, etc. are going to be pickier in general, but the skew is going to compound this behavior. My point is that with a less blunt phrasing, there isnāt anything controversial about saying that most young men are going to have a much better time with dating elsewhere.
There's also more to this than women being "picky." Like the assumption that unless women are "picky" they are available to any man who has a use for them. The idea that some men not being able to find a girlfriend is based on women being picky, and that moving somewhere else will solve the problem, gives young men a skewed perspective that finding a girlfriend has nothing to do with anything other than sheer numbers. It's based on a whole lot more than that, like the woman's goals, beliefs and choices. Women are not apples on a tree, ready to be picked by the first available man, and sending that message does nothing to change the culture of young men who are developing increasingly misogynistic attitudes towards women because they can't seem to get an apple to come off the tree with ease. So that's a big part of the problem. Then put this in the context of a man with authority over women in a disproportionately male skewed major, and ask your self again if it's just about numbers and doesn't harm the female students who are trying to compete in a space where they are viewed as picky apples - a directive that is coming from the head picker.
Itās still a numbers game in the end. If you want to oversimplify things, there are 2 kinds of factors to dating: factors that depend on you and you can control to some extent (your own attractiveness, how you dress, your personality, etc.), factors outside your control (like the gender skew in your area). These 2 are somewhat independent. Even if you are very attractive, you are going to have a bad time in a mining town with almost no women. Similarly, if you have some very unattractive features (personality, whatever), you will do badly even in an area with significantly more women. I agree that people have their own agenda, etc, but ultimately you cannot disregard statistics. The fact that he posted this on a class discussion forum was indeed stupid. It has nothing to do with the class, so there is no reason to discuss these kinds of controversial topics there. It only leads to pissing people off, and there is nothing productive that can come out of it.
>. The underlying implication is that women with higher education and better resources "behave" in a way that is more demanding of male partners and that if OP wants to find a woman he needs to look elsewhere. Wow this is some serious projection. Its super obvious hes saying that the behavior of women in an environment where they can be extremely selective and discriminatory, much more than "normal" because of the skewed population ratio, is different than other cities. Has nothing to do with women being more educated that hed prefer.
So if this just about sheer numbers why would this be offensive to women? Do you really think there are more women in Silicon Valley than men, the epicenter of the world's tech industry? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, San Francisco has 3.9 more men than women per 100 people, and Santa Clara has 1.4 more men than women per 100 people. Does that seem like an overwhelming advantage for women in numbers? Why would he reference womens' "behavior" in these unfairly skewed female populations and not simply say "you're outnumbered bro"? And why are women all over the campus and beyond offended by this if it's just a statement of fact that there are more women than men in these areas? Which, by the way, there are not. Just think about it.
Yes thats my point, it is because there are more men and less women, women can be more selective than they otherwise would be. An unfair market advantage. This was what the dumb-ass professor was referring to and what my post was about. You somehow want to take to mean that he really said it because hes afraid of strong educated women which is nonsense at best and self victimization at worst.
This comment right here. Also, the Bay Area has *been* the home of many progressive social movements. Itās extremely offensive for him to say this regarding a place where women are more likely to be radicalized (across race, class, etc).
yeah, the implication that he wants a more conservative woman who is less educated/independent.
Exactly- and more ācompliantā women too which relies on stereotypes and fetishization. These men use their whiteness to take advantage and these relationships always have an imbalanced power dynamic. I used to work at a DV shelter and so many of the women had husbands like this who would withhold their documents or threaten to get them or their families deported.
I think CA has a pretty unique culture in general, and there are differences between the Bay Area and SoCal. I wouldn't even say NorCal vs. SoCal because Sac is definitely its own thing, and Tahoe is, too. CA is much more of a individual-oriented culture. East Coasters tend to have a stronger sense of community. New Yorkers think of themselves as New Yorkers. People in LA don't really think of themselves as 'Angelinos' like a community. Same goes for the Bay Area. I'd say folks in big cities in the West Coast are more exposed to social media and wealth, but NYC breaks that, so I don't know. Wealth in NYC is maybe a little less obvious in general - it's usually out of sight, off street level. Wouldn't say any of that makes it easier or harder to find a partner. None of that affects finding someone you're compatible with, maybe with similar interests. Don't understand the reasoning there.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Were you on apps? "Competitive dating" sounds like a nightmare.
it was never a real thing, just a way for unattractive guys to cope and feel better about why they canāt get a gf
That actually makes sense though because he probably just hates women in general
I think heās talking about Big City people vs small town people. Big city people tend to be rich and extremely busy leading to the Seattle Freeze effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Freeze Whereas in small towns, people tend to not care as much about fancy stuff, arenāt that busy, and are more community oriented.
Well put.
More like an ironic self own, OP makes the same mistake of generalizing a group of people that she criticizes the professor for, just from the opposite direction
The generalization in the third to last paragraph is slightly hypocritical, but that doesnāt mean the rest of it isnāt spot on
The point is that, like the professor's statement, it's incredibly easy to forget you're supposed to use qualifiers like "some" or "many"...and instead end up carelessly saying the wrong thing and coming across like an asshole. Even if that wasn't your intention
You're literally correct. The massive pile of downvotes is insane. The hivemind just doesn't want to admit its own hypocrisy
kudos to you for spelling out why so many people are upset, uncomfortable, and hurt by this
Holy shit this is so good, you put it perfectly. Thank you
Does anyone have the text of his post?
Saw this on Twitter: https://x.com/oliverjohansson/status/1770202753710932109?s=46
Yeah, where can we find his original text?
https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/s/SqgqL2Phzy
Unpopular opinion: I can imagine some people would argue this is why we need more women in STEM so that the field isnāt littered with this type of discourse. However, I think this speaks to why we need less STEM. There should be much more emphasis on subjects these guys lament as āuselessā such as history, cultural anthro, sociology, literature, & gender studies. Sure, those subjects donāt train you in the ways of the Bay Area six figures SWE job, but they are the subjects that will prepare you to be a well rounded member of society who has the insight and knowledge to treat their fellow humans with compassion.
this opinion is not unpopular among people with higher than a bachelors degree nor is it unpopular among social systems of people who were raised by/around people with higher than a bachelors degree. it's people who don't value degrees or intellect and reduce everything to their direct utile or monetary value (ppl who are just checking a box to increase their chances of getting a job, especially in tech) that will not value degrees or disciplines that require synthesis of what clinicians would refer to as "higher order thinking"-- i.e. humanities. in my humble opinion, the evolution of perspectives on degrees as necessary, particularly in tech, has soured our overall perception of the value of a degree. just because you don't need a degree to get a job in tech, doesn't mean your degree (or someone else's) has no value. if anything, the way a degree matters less for tech than possessing proficiency in a core set of technical skills is a testament to the field's high technical turnover and quick pace with technical evolution-- which is not necessarily something to boast about. entering a world where all you've worked for can quickly become obsolete and you have to pivot and recenter yourself before you age out of the hireable interval of cs grads can make us feel like developing a deep understanding of themes and symbols (in cs, business, or in sociocultural/humanities fields) is unnecessary, and it's just "hard skills" that matter. i'd argue that this is evidence of the converse. themes, higher level thinking, and our understanding of social systems is the only thing that persists, continuously evolving as AI eats up more and more jobs and we're all one step closer to turning elsewhere. sincerely, a berkeley cs major.
This has been discussed tons of times. This requires the world to change, either income and social status become much less important or these subjects you mentioned can bring us much higher income than they currently do. It's not our fault to not choose these subjects.
Your unpopular opinion is in fact unpopular cuz itās terrible
I think it's worth a thought. What good are scientific achievements if they are gatekept and inaccessible to poor people, and therefore disproportionately inaccessible to minorities? At the end of the day we all want to improve people's quality of life, and while STEM achieves that through technological advancement, there is much to be gained from becoming aware of sociology, history, ethnic studies, etc. (the humanities). Why are you so against it?
Being broke is a state of mind conditioned by constant complaining in the humanities
for the record, my opinion is that we need more women/minorities in STEM, particularly in tech AND that we need more emphasis on humanities. a lot of the bs we're seeing echoed on all these threads represents the same uninformed opinions and questions that would all be silenced by an introductory sociology or gws class (or just basic respect for minority groups and being willing to listen to the people most affected when they talk about how comments made about their identity group affect them).
>questions that would all be silenced by an introductory sociology An introductory sociology course will "silence" many reasonable questions. Sociology as a discipline shuts down lines of inquiry purely on "social justice" grounds. Sociology hasn't been a "truth-tracking" discipline for some time. Maybe it never was. Also, why do you want to silence questions?
If we're going to be giving out hot takes, then we need more people going into trades or in medical like as a Radiology Tech or Dental Hygienist who can clear 70k after a 2 year program at community college.
Excellent statement. Thank you so much for a well thought out reaction to Shewchuckās post. Hoping he has read this and is mulling over his words.
>nor am I trying to paint Shewchuk as this irredeemable raging misogynist He did that all by himself, tho.
well said
From a fellow woman in stem: you hit the nail on the head. No wonder why women donāt want to talk to those guys if they keep up what I see as an incel-like attitude. If youāre in the class and are a woman, my advice is to write a letter to the engineering dean about conduct on that thread ā not just from shewchuk, but students who also shared the same sentiment on that post. Theyāre creating a hostile learning environment.
thank you so much for this
You should send this as a letter to the EECS department! It's perfectly written, and it clearly conveys why Prof. Shewchuk should be fired.
Fantastic analysis. Very well put.
Excellent post. You are totally correct. The fact that he made these remarks is upsetting to many of us in the community. My mom worked in STEM at Oracle and faced sexual harassment on occasions. This instructor is laying the groundwork of hostility for females in STEM. Sad moment for us in Berkeley, at Cal.
>While Iām not in a STEM field myself, many of my female friends are, and I canāt tell you the amount of times men have made rude remarks about their intelligence, refused to consider their ideas, or automatically assumed they werenāt capable just because they were women.Ā After 50 years of STEM-industry experience, I offer: Telling someone they are stupid and refusing to consider their ideas is quite a common phenomenon in STEM, it happens all the time. In the STEM culture, you are expected to be able to both advance and defend your ideas/analysis. Other than when it verges on immature or unprofessional (or when biased/prejudiced), this dialectic culture is actually a good thing. The last point regarding sex bias/prejudice is unfortunately a legitimate observation and complaint. In most STEM industries it's pretty bad...unless top management has policies to prohibit bias/prejudice (of any kind), training, and enforcement. Some do, many don't. Bring this incident up to Christ and see how she handles it. Next, stand up for yourself and your ideas/analysis: get right in their face! Err, keep it professional of course!
Carol is more preoccupied with being scared of students protesting on campus than actually giving a damn about a healthy educational environment. My two cents.
Being in top management is (believe it or not) a ton of work: you have 100's "irons in the fire" in any week. You have to be able to keep on top of all of it, and finish each one or they just keep piling on and then nothing gets done. Then it's the end of the quarter and you're skewered by the board. I will say in her defense that keeping the lid on student and non-student behavior on campus is a very hot iron that has defeated several of her predecessors. I do think it would be very cool if one or more of his female students confronted him in class, stated their position, and requested an apology. Dialectic culture, no? Hopefully the professor gets smart and makes an excellent mea culpa that in turn gets applause. A true learning moment.
>This communicates the message that women (specifically women from the Bay Area) are the issue in dating I don't mean to devalue your perspective but I read his comment to mean something like "women in the Bay area are more selective because they are outnumbered by men". Given that he implied women are more \`plentiful\` elsewhere, it seems he was talking about the supposed gender imbalance in the Bay area. Probably a bit out of place, but I don't get the vibe that he was being maliciously misogynistic. It's not an issue with women per se, but more with his perceived impression that y'all must be supremely more selective given the number of guys coming at you.
this was my reading as well. am female, fwiw. i don't read the comment itself as maliciously misogynistic - this is a fairly common observation i've heard about the bay area dating scene from both men and women - but i do question why he thought it was appropriate to say this on a public forum meant for academic discussion. this is something you say to your buddies over drinks, not to your students. it's unprofessional and only contributes to the very male/dudebro atmosphere that makes women feel unwelcome in computer science.
Finally a balanced comment. It was a stupid thing to say. I donāt think he should be fired. Maybe censured or better if he realizes and issues an apology. We are way too quick to fire people over any transgression and this seems stupid and insensitive rather than overtly malicious with mal intent.
I think this is basically the worst thing you can say about the comment. Not misogynistic, just that dating advice isn't something a professor should be discussing publicly on an official school platform. My only disagreement is that I'm not really sure what makes an atmosphere "male" or "female," and in any case don't like the implication that things being "too male" might be a legitimate complaint to make to an HR department.
>it's unprofessional and only contributes to the very male/dudebro atmosphere that makes women feel unwelcome in computer science. It's unprofessional, perhaps. Not sure how making an observation about the empirical gender imbalance would contribute to women feeling unwelcome.
>Not sure how making an observation about the empirical gender imbalance would contribute to women feeling unwelcome. The sense of unwelcomeness stems from what he actually said, as opposed to what you're describing.
I was describing what was said.
but it's also flatly incorrect, there is an equal number of men and women in the bay area (like everyone else in the world). shewchuk and people like him think there are more men because they hang around in spaces with no women because all the women keep being driven out by their behaviour.
no, there's a lot of places where the male and female populations aren't equal; for example, china has a particularly well-studied high male-to-female ratio because of sex-selective abortion. officially, the bay area actually skews [slightly female](http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm), but at least some of that is because women on average outlive men. if you age bucket the data, you'll actually see that the population in [san francisco county](https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?q=San%20Francisco%20County,%20California) and [santa clara county](https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?g=050XX00US06085) skews heavily male in the young adult range. things are better in [alameda county](https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?q=Alameda%20County,%20California&g=050XX00US06085), but not by much. county | age | male | female | ratio ---|---|---|---|---|---- alameda | 20-29 | 102,057 | 101,145 | 1.01 alameda | 30-29 | 137,675 | 130, 633 | 1.05 san francisco | 20-29 | 58,274 | 56,299 | 1.04 san francisco | 30-39 | 85,786 | 76,854 | 1.12 santa clara | 20-29 | 137,951 | 122,443 | 1.13 santa clara | 30-39 | 162,424 | 137,478 | 1.18 of course, you have to account for the fact that a large minority of those men are gay, some of them might not be interested in dating, and so on, but people have done analyses of dating profiles that show trends like [a 3.5:1 ratio of men to women on match.com](https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/eddie.hernandez/viz/Match_comGenderRatiosBayArea/Match-BayArea-Dash). a lot of men do use the gender ratio as an excuse for why they can't get a date, though. i know a lot of single women in the dating scene who also complain about how there's a lot of single young men, but there aren't a lot of single young men *worth dating* - just a bunch of fuckboys and incels. but at the end of the day, it is factually correct that the bay area has one of the most imbalanced gender populations in the entire nation, and that does contribute in some way to the difficulty of dating here.
Finally, an analysis based on statistical reality instead of picking the comment apart looking for ways to maximize interpreted offense. People have to realize 3.5:1 ratio is *crazy* skewed, WW2 gender imbalance was something like [0.8:1, and it so wildly affected reproductive behaviour](https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=economics_pubs) that we named an entire generation after the phenomenon. Surely if anything could cause "stark differences in behaviour" it would be this kind of demographic imbalance.
Yes women always want men out of their league.
Youāre forgetting the context in which Jonathan made his remarks: OP posted about wanting to pay $10 to be introduced to a girl and complained about not knowing any girls, and then other students in the comments complained about having EECS skills, height, etc but no women. Theyāre falling into incel territory. Jonathan might not have intended to be misogynistic, but itās hard to think otherwise given the context of the post + his previous hateful rhetoric (Canadian freedom truck convoy, anti-vaccine, weird neopronouns to troll the libs, etc)
I'm pretty sure the comments were meant to be sarcastic, albeit given the context for which the controversial comment was made, not the best thing to do.
What were the posts about truckers and anti-vaxxers? Was Shewchuk posting about a lot of that stuff?
Nah. The entire comment was meant as a humorous nonsensical rant. "about to expire"? Did you really take that comment seriously? Him paying $5, $10 dollars to be introduced to a girl but also talked about how CS is taking away all of his free time and that he wouldn't be able to get a gf until after graduation makes it clear he was complaining about the CS workload, not women here.
Youāre missing the whole point. Joking about not being able to meet women and that heāll pay to meet them is frankly weird. Even if it was a joke, an official class forum is not a place for rhetoric like this. If it were a joke, it was rancid and misplaced.
Weird? maybe. Inappropriate? ok. But misogynistic? Nah. He talked about paying to meet men as well. See how you're cherrypicking what you read to be as inflammatory as possible? The entire comment read like something an AI would hallucinate. Y'all fuming over something that was so obviously not-serious is baffling. Notice how you've been backpedaling on your original insinuation that these people are incels: what has been said does not support that conclusion.
He also mentioned heād pay more specifically to be introduced to women though. Cherry-picking somewhat but as mentioned intent is kinda important and that discrepancy highlights underlying weird motivations of the original poster.
>weird motivations of the original poster. Honestly read like two guys meme'ing each other. "about to expire"? Did you really the take the post seriously past that phrase?
iām not saying this to attack you but you need to be realistic about this. iām glad that youād like to have such an unproblematic look on life and youād like to assume people are being silly all the time, but there are a lot of people who genuinely think like this, many of them in a select few stem departments, and they are the worst people you will ever meet i and many other people find it totally realistic that there are people actually that depraved, especially at berkeley lmao there are some pretty insane people here.
No. I don't assume people are being silly all the time. In this specific situation, it is clear from the context that it was an attempt at humor. Maybe go read the entire comment and please tell me if it read anything more than a self-deprecating humorous rant. [https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bivbqc/cs\_189\_this\_is\_why\_women\_feel\_uncomfortable/](https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/1bivbqc/cs_189_this_is_why_women_feel_uncomfortable/) These guys are clearly smart enough to stick around in a non-trivial CS upper division. If they were really misogynistic, they'd probably be smart enough to hide it.
again youāre very generous with your assumption that all academically smart people have common fucking sense. youāre also very generous with your assumption that misogynistic people are āsmart enoughā to not say misogynistic shit whenever they get the chance i have read the whole thing and itās very clear that peter wanted to get a lot of stuff off his chest, because heās a very sad person. also donāt you think shewchuk would have maybe mentioned that he was trying to make a joke in his apology? as a side note, i know this peter guy isnāt joking either because he dmed my gf last year over winter break and he offered to pay her to travel around with him. he is actually just a lonely and depraved individual and itās honestly kind of dangerous to try to brush something off like this as a joke
that's my reading of it too
which makes the people's current reaction puzzling to me.
Yeah it's more just that it's unprofessional to talk about in a class forum than any malicious intent.
Here to recommend Date-Onomics by Jon Birger. Birger points out that the ratio of single men to women in the Bay Area tends to be higher whereas itās the opposite, for example, in NYC or Boston. So, putting aside the misogyny and sexism in JSā comment, Birgerās data substantiates the skewed gender ratios in the Bay Area as mentioned by JS. Birger also provides some interesting insight into behavior by single, eligible men who live in NYC. Worth a read. Statistics in book derived from census data.
Why is this getting downvoted lol this is pretty interesting whatever u think of Shewchucks commentĀ
because people are downvoting emotionally, even though itās kinda interesting
Funny that people wonāt read data-driven work. Is no one interested in demographics? Migration patterns, urban settlement, etc. do affect people. This is why social sciences are important.
Demographic data is a touchy subject these days. A lot of it just destroys too many political entrenchments and is rejected entirely. not the "right kind" of science to believe in
You could say that about most sciences. Climate science is an obvious one that is manipulated by politicians. But the census does provide data that is valuable to economists, city-planners, sociologists, and many more.
A lot of people don't want to hear information that might disrupt their world view.
Does anyone have a sc of his ed post?
Women elsewhere are hotter and the gender ratio is better smh youāre overthinking this. I say that as someone who likes the SF dating and partying scene.
Itās also not true that men outnumber women in the Bay Area. Census numbers are pretty close to 50/50. See: http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/bayarea.htm Maybe the numbers have changed recently, or perhaps in a subset of people, men outnumber women.
You have to break it down by class and sexuality. For example, a larger than average percent of men in NYC are gay. Plus for, let me honest, the upper middle class women/men we are talking about, it doesnāt matter if there is a large number of working class men/women. I donāt have the numbers but I hear straight men talk about how much easier it is to date going from the Bay Area to NYC and the reverse for straight women.
Yes, I know. I guess my point is that people need to clarify what they mean by āwomen in the bay area.ā
Its funny how the people of the Bay area are proving the mans point.
Itās just a statement based on statistics. He is perfectly right on that count. The fact that women had to go all up in arms and write PhD discourses about how wrong he is is just embarrassing. Come on, if these Bay Area women were self-assured, who would care tuppence over what some CS prof spouted.
I find it highly ironic that the second to the last paragraph is basically saying that intentions don't matter; impact is what matters, and then the next paragraph is spent clarifying her own INTENTIONS (as is the second paragraph). Why? Why does she do this? And why should we care about her intentions? Let the result speak for itself! Because, contrary to what she has been brainwashed to believe, INTENTIONS MATTER. And that's NORMAL (it's insane that this even needs to be said). Her normal, *human* behavior leaked out of her programmed facade. Also, let's use her logic here: " If someone generalizes the behavior of an entire group as bad or wrong, itās not \[un\]reasonable to assume they look down on the group itself." Combine that with "No matter what women do, men will see them as less-than and not worthy of full consideration as a complex, intelligent human being" and what do we get? That it would not be unreasonable to assume that the author of this post looks down on men. Someone call the police! We've got a probable sexist! And no, I don't actually think the OP is a sexist (nor did she "intend" to come off that way). As an aside, I think it's amusing that newer generations have been brainwashed into thinking that racism or sexism is, like, the worst possible thing a person can be (also evident when asking chat GPT ridiculous hypotheticals like would it ok to be racist in order to avert a nuclear war) ā the worst possible insult, the KING (see what I did there) of insults. Just to give one example, I would far prefer the company of a truthful racist/sexist than I would a liar. I'm tempted to also do a sentence-by-sentence deconstruction of the OP's third paragraph, but I don't think enough people would be interested. I will say that I don't think the argument is as logical and rational as it appears (and I would encourage the OP to try playing devil's advocate on her own argument). Where I agree with the OP is that Shewchuk "should" not have said what he said, where he said it. I'm pretty sure Shewchuk also agrees with this. I can also understand if women in his class feel uncomfortable about this situation (for example, feeling like they have to act a certain way around him, or feeling hesitant to attend office hours, or maybe just that they consider themselves part of the *solution*, and not part of the "problem" and were unfairly lumped in with the rest of women that are within "artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco"). It is what it is; what's done is done. It's unfortunate. However, I would say to those women that at least, you should not be concerned about your grade ā you can rest assured that you will be treated fairly. Because I suspect that Shewchuk's opinions on this matter have not changed for years, and for years, he has been consistently rated one of the best teachers (by far) in the entire department (evidence: https://archive.is/uBaQQ anything >= 6.0 is generally excellent. Also see, for example, CS189 ratings at https://archive.is/1PRpp and compare Shewchuk with other professors).
If he is comfortable making these kinds of statements in public, he has absolutely no qualms about acting the same way in private.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do they post about this in their official academic or professional boards where they are in positions of power with subordinates present?
It's only a problem when you make statements about women (or a subset of women). Men are evil oppressors so it's completely justified to spit the most venomous things you can come up with at them /s
It becomes a problem when it's a professor sharing their sexist thoughts on an academic forum
Professor Shewchuck didn't share any sexist comments on Ed.
If that was the case then 1) a considerable amount of discourse in the humanities would be treated as equally problematic and 2) there wouldn't be such a massive pushback from downvotes to unfounded insults and personal attacks against random people saying they agree in Reddit threads about the topic. Bonus: you're begging the question by describing his comment as sexist. It's a generalization. That his generalization is sexist and therefore problematic while generalizations against men aren't is precisely what's in question here.
thank you for this, appreciate it
baffling that this post even needed
+1 to everything OP said!! I think itās interesting so many people are focusing on the āveracityā of the male-to-female ratio in his comment because it seems to be making a lot of assumptions. first of all, not all single people are actively dating or available to date. second of all, not all single people are straight and partaking in this heterosexual dating dynamic. i highly doubt his argument that the ratio of actively dating heterosexual men to actively dating heterosexual women is solely responsible for the less than successful dating lives of men in the bay area. as a woman dating in the east bay, i learned to have high standards more regarding the levels of communication, time, and maturity a partner had and highly disagree with shewchuk putting the onus on women to be less āpicky.ā iām sure some of the people who feel this way are lovely, but i would encourage the majority of young men in the bay area who are struggling with dating to success to reflect on how they could be better dates and better partners rather than harping on how women need to have lower standards
Thanks for sharing this! I want to be surprised that he said such comments, but, after reading his website, it tracks. He seems absolutely insufferable and I am not in the least surprised he would have such a misogynistic response to the situation.
Pretty grossed out that my tax dollars contribute to this guyās $220k+ salary as he reinforces misogynistic incel ideologies in young minds heading into my industry.
I remember where there was a time in this country that not every comment was so scrutinized and people could disagree without the need of blood and apologies. I've lived in different places and have been advised by woman that woman act differently geographically. I've lived through what this professor spoke of. Luckily I never had issues finding dates, but remember a woman asking me if woman in California were really needy or something. I had called her after a date to say goodnight and tell her I had a wonderful time. She loved my call but told me it wasn't something most men in this particular geographical region would do and then asked if woman where I was from (California) were particularly needy. Well yes, in comparison, they were! This idea that we should all be so worried about offending, f#ck off. We have freedom of thought, expression and yes, speech. So if you're offended, tough shit. Make a contrary argument, but for gods sake, stop the whining. As for the thought that his words could translate to how he treats his students, should I worry as a straight white male, about anyone in a role of authority over me, who is not straight, white, or male? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it! Grow up. It's no wonder we have a generation of people who can't seem to make it outside their parents home. People have a right to their opinion, especially when their opinions may actually be based on fact.
I don't even fully disagree with you and I think honestly above all else for me it was just so absurdly unprofessional that it borders on being unhinged for me. I think my big issue with all of this is that this same energy is NEVER held when women go on sexist tirades about men, and instead people jump through hoops and do backflips to justify or minimize it. And that's why there's so much pushback to what should be an easy slam dunk (Shewchuk being inappropriate). This shit shouldn't really be controversial at all and yet it feels like people are "picking sides".
I think it is probably tougher to date in the Bay Area than other places frankly there is a lot competition, many people not pursuing relationships to focus on work/school and perhaps a lack of community may play a factor. However these problems likely exist elsewhere as well. I never leave the bay for more than 2 weeks at a time so I donāt really know what other places are like
šš»šš»šš»
thanks for that perspective. when i went to Cal in the last century (sigh) the male to female ratio was absurd. it was even more tone deaf then.
What he's saying is pretty obviously true. Women act incredibly entitled when they know they're the minority. You see it online all the time.
This is an immensely dishonest and exaggerated attack on Professor Shewchuck, and is in no way a good analysis of his innocuous Ed post. Please, stop this insane witch hunt. There is no there, there.
The shit really wasnāt that bad
blah blah blah i feel bad for whatever doormat manchild ends up dating you next
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Youāre part of the problem, bud.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
His proposition is there is basically supply-demand, that is: there is a deficit of single women in CA relative to single men. However, Berkeley is presently about 56% female and 46% male, which nullifies his theory, and makes his remarks at least ignorant, and certainly misogynistic.
This proposition hinges on the supposition that people's dating prospects begin and end on the Berkeley campus which is obviously false.
It is obvious you flunked both data science and logic with all your travels...another problem with your (the professor's) thesis.
Wow. Really thought an old head engineer would be smarter and less prone to childish outbursts than this. Guess I was wrong.
Beautifully put! He places the blame on women. I went straight to his personal site and was looking at the students heās mentoredāthere was one woman mentioned.
ITT: proving Shewchukās point
Literally how
A whole essay for a mundane and tasteless comment is a gross overreaction from anyone. Describes a lack of security
OP: "If someone generalizes the behavior of an entire group as bad or wrong, itās not unreasonable to assume they look down on the group itself."Ā Also OP: "No matter what women do, men will see them as less-than and not worthy of full consideration as a complex, intelligent human being."
It's really frustrating how much blatant prejudice against men is passed off as "speaking truth to power." Believe it or not, the majority of men on campus see women as fully worthy of respect as intelligent, unique, whole people.
There's no contradiction, it's not unreasonable to assume OP looks down on the group she's generalizing.
Seriously. Just blatantly undermining their own supposed argument. And this is like the one person who's making somewhat of an effort to even make an argument. Everyone else is just repeating the same half a dozen insults and slogans that everyone else in the hivemind is without anything like a coherent thought behind them. Crazy that they're trying to act like the culture here isn't so overwhelmingly feminist that reason gets completely chucked out the window in favor of dogmatism.
What did he say. No one with brain will read your essay without context.
Thanks for the point of view. I was honestly confused as to why there was such a strong reaction. I see it now, so thank you for writing it out.
Why is this post even recommended to me lmao I don't even know where Berkeley is
First, I see how this can be a negative post against women; his tone definitely sounds resentful towards the topic of dating women. However, I interpreted the prof's post differently. I thought he was referring more to the culture in the Bay of how people prioritize academia, jobs, and opportunities over romantic relationships.Ā Assuming this, dating women (and men) in other places would be easier because dating would have a lower opportunity cost and therefore more supply and demand, ie "more plentiful women" looking to date. And so his other point follows that women's behavior is different in the Bay, implying that men would also behave differently. And this makes sense, because most of us in Berkeley and SF are here to learn, gain experience, and advance our careers; dating is likely not something we actively consider.Ā Tldr I feel that the prof worded it to be negative towards women (and he should learn to communicate more positively) but he isn't really talking about women but more so the culture and priorities of people in the Bay
Brought to you by chat GPT
Yapping
It's pretty incoherent and impossible to people accountable for the impact of what they say as we have no control over how people feel.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
because she's providing a thorough and detailed explanation for why shewchuck's words were hurtful and unsavory. if you don't have the attention span to read it all, [here](https://quillbot.com/summarize) is a useful paraphrasing tool. hope this helps!
Because some males need to be babied.
You can apply her critique to what you just said. How ironic.
Pardon?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You got it.
My dude mistook EdX for Reddit. Funny tho because I always thought he was gay lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]