I'm appalled that so many other commenters don't see an issue with such behavior in class:
> number of female students have approached me, noting they are disgusted and uncomfortable with the amount of leching taking place
> It's also demoralizing several of them, since we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
So suppose you're a university student who have a mild preference for this course. Upon hearing of such behavior, you'd end up avoiding such a class to sidestep such a distraction. Not to mention being distracted with insecurities if you don't end up being offered tuition.
This was my first reaction as well - sounds cute and prankish until you’re one of the students negatively affected.
Meeting people is part of the college experience, and I definitely met people who attended classes with a higher female ratio in the hopes of meeting someone.
But there’s a big difference between “I’ll take an acting class because there’s a lot more women there”, where you might just happen to learn something, and “I’m going to effectively run a class and control the situation so attractive students get an advantage by hanging out with me”
It's curious how a particular app changes the language and interaction culture of behavior. For example, there was a Facebook course at Stanford by a self-styled persuasion researcher who delved into how user interfaces and appearances of websites forms the basis of an impression in the viewer's mind. And then, from that basis, encourages or discourages behavior based on the technical behavior of the website. From there, it would then influence and shape the individual's beliefs and attitudes as much as any traditional PR manufacturing of consent. (Cambridge Analytica, 2016 Russian US election hack)
I didn't ignore that, but chose to focus on the fact that other commenters have seemed to ignore all the problematic lines lines completely surrounding those three words. There can be only willing advances between the person making the advancing and the the person it is advanced on, but in the completely wrong environment can affect everyone else who has to be in an environment who has to be in the same environment. These surrounding lines spell out how such behavior affects everyone else. A later comment by the professor makes explicit the harm being done:
> Even worse, some women in the class seem oblivious to this or don't care, while the majority of them are insulted and hurt by this.
> but in the completely wrong environment [welcome advances] can affect everyone else who has to be in an environment who has to be in the same environment.
Well, honestly, I dunno what to say - people who are getting mad that their peers are hooking up can't very well petition[1] to stop other people from hooking up.
> A later comment by the professor makes explicit the harm being done:
>> Even worse, some women in the class seem oblivious to this or don't care, while the majority of them are insulted and hurt by this.
So? That's just a different way of saying "People who don't get dates get hurt and angry". We already know that.
We also know that the professor in this case doesn't know that the majority of them are insulted and hurt, because the professor in this case did not actually do a survey of the class.
After all, even if only 49% of the class are oblivious or happy with the arrangement, that doesn't scream to me "Something wrong is going on here".
You're still being blind to everything else that happens as a precondition to auditing students making advances to attractive students, if you think that
> That's just a different way of saying "People who don't get dates get hurt and angry". We already know that.
Perhaps I should spell out one aspect of it.
These auditing students have to survey and evaluate the female students taking the class for their attractiveness. It's uncomfortable and distracting to receive such attention when you are in an environment that's primarily for academic learning.
Now, I'll admit that perhaps this is only mildly uncomfortable. But as I said in my original comment, the likely result of students taking things into their own hands would be to just take a less preferred course that they feel more comfortable in with respect to sexual attention.
>It seems very appalling when you focus on the bits you don't like and ignore the bits like "no unwanted advances".
Yes, lets cultivate young hetero men to expressly look for sexual opportunities where they have an explicit and conscious asymetrical power-relation to women. Quality dudes these will be.
Would it be ridiculous to possibly interpret this instead as young hetero men looking for opportunities where they have something to offer? Or should they only look for sexual opportunities where they are outclassed by their peers?
While the thirsty may equate to "drug" users, love lacks math(s). There's plenty of CEO women with mechanic husbands. Station is somewhat orthogonal to quality, but not completely.
I'm most depressed that the prevalent attitude of 20's-30's somethings (men and women) tends to be maximizing hookups, binge drinking, and self-indulgence. Read a book, mentor a kid in high school, raise a service animal, donate blood, volunteer for the food bank, or talk to another human like human regardless of where they come from.
I'm not sure if I follow. Maybe you were thinking I meant "outclassed" literally?
I just mean this seems like a case of men competing for womens attention in an arena where they have some kind of competitive advantage against the other men around them.
If you can't go to the bar and be better looking than the guys around you, why not go to a class where you can be more helpful than the guys around you?
As much as it creeps people out to say it out loud, a lot of social life is transactional and competitive.
If you want friends or lovers, you have to have something to offer to them, and it has to be more valuable than what other people are offering.
Some people don't have to find clever ways to make this work, or to think about this at all, because they are naturally valuable in some way. These guys are probably not that.
Teenager behavior. I get it. Some kids (and people) need validation and obsess about it, while the winners (and old people like me) care less and go with the flow.
Some folks, e.g., spoiled, expect their desired group to be attracted to and/or be friendly to them. (Brag alert: Myself and my SO - not models but not fugly.)
Others expect others, e.g., incels, expect others to treat them badly, and have a proverbial chip on their shoulders. This can be a combination of social and physical looks. People who have physical disfigurements or unusual appearances have it rough in the world, that it can either make them stronger from repeated exposure or tear them down to retreat into and hate themselves and maybe others. Yellowman and (RIP) Shock G.
I don't understand why that would be specifically teenager behavior. Would it be teenager behavior to apply for jobs where you have relevant skills? It seems like the same thing to me.
We all have something to offer in the right environment, and are relatively useless in the wrong environment. Is there something juvenile about recognizing that and aiming for the right environment?
I think you're right about this. The male auditors are overdoing the whole showboating thing in a way that creates a bad experience for the rest of the students, and probably doesn't really help their romantic prospects either. Sensible women want to get to know friends in a gradual, natural fashion and perhaps be a little wowed in non-obvious ways. No one wants to be advertised to with "FREE private tutoring sessions, limited offer!" That alone is incredibly obnoxious.
> The male auditors are overdoing the whole showboating thing in a way that creates a bad experience for the rest of the students, and probably doesn't really help their romantic prospects either. Sensible women want to get to know friends in a gradual, natural fashion and perhaps be a little wowed in non-obvious ways.
They aren't looking for sensible women, they're looking for attractive women. IOW, it furthers their goal, even if you think they should have a different goal.
> They aren't looking for sensible women, they're looking for attractive women. IOW, it furthers their goal, even if you think they should have a different goal.
Maybe sensible is what they find attractive. Who are we to say?
Edit: Changed above, as can't reply to the below, as being restricted/censored.
> The young men have certain goals (like attracting a mate/partner/girlfriend), and trivialising their goals because the poster thinks they should have loftier goals (attracting a mate/partner/girlfriend of "better"[1] quality) is pointless and stupid.
We are in agreement on this point. I re-read the post and the one you were responding to.
Adults should be able to choose what is attractive to them, and not be restricted by what is only satisfactory to some opinionated and intruding outside 3rd party.
> Why demonize these young men? It looks like you are injecting your beliefs about them, which is not backed by evidence. And not seeing how it's "wrong" for men to choose who they find attractive, want to associate with, or invest time into. Are men not suppose to have options, but only women are?
I'm not demonizing the males involved. I'm not saying anything about my beliefs. I'm not saying it is wrong that they find certain females attractive, or that there is wrong about anything with their choices.
I am saying that the judgements being passed on by the poster are invalid, because the poster's implication (i.e. the women who fall for this are not quality women anyway) is irrelevant.
The young men have certain goals (like attracting a mate/partner/girlfriend), and trivialising their goals because the poster thinks they should have loftier goals (attracting a mate/partner/girlfriend of "better"[1] quality) is pointless and stupid.
IOW, you and I are making the same general argument in this thread, but on the particular comment upthread I was only addressing that poster's implication that the males are doing something wrong (because that poster feels that the males should have the same criteria for "quality partner" as that poster has).
FWIW, I never said anything about "quality" of women; the implication that attractive women might be less than "sensible" is your own doing, and I disagree with it. I'm only assuming that these guys would also want to attract or favorably impress these women somehow; if so, what they are doing is not really helpful or conducive to that goal.
> I'm only assuming that these guys would also want to attract or favorably impress these [sensible] women somehow; if so, what they are doing is not really helpful or conducive to that goal.
That's a very big IF. Their goal seems to be to attract an (or more) attractive woman(women). There is no indication that your assumption is in any way correct, and I've no idea why one would assume this.
Your post came off as dismissing their goal of attracting a mate. I just reread it, and it still reads like "If they want to get the CORRECT girls, they're doing it wrong."
What you consider to be "correct" or even "sensible" is completely subjective.
Their criteria is obviously not to get girls that is "correct" under your definition, it's to get girls that are "correct" under their own definition.
If they simply want to impress girls enough to get them to agree to a date, then what they are doing actually is "helpful or conducive to that goal".
The point is not that they should be "getting the correct girls" but "getting the correct attitude and behavior from these same girls" - behavior that helps you romantically, that is. Let's go through this step by step. If you're just barely getting a girl to agree to a date, you're basically back at square one in terms of wooing her - except that now you've also foolishly thrown away a chance to be friendly with her in a way more natural fashion. You're left hoping for something not unlike love at first sight, which is rare. And when these things go south (as they probably will) the girl will quite probably feel bad about it and blame you for that silly, "manipulative" tutoring stunt that got her to agree to a date in the first place. It's just a problematic situation all around.
> ...except that now you've also foolishly thrown away a chance to be friendly with her in a way more natural fashion...
Making way too many assumptions, to include interjecting personal beliefs on how other adults should or are suppose to meet.
These are adults, that have the right to choose how they want to approach and interact with each other, as long as its consenting and legal.
It also comes off as a denial of agency and choice of the adult women involved, as if they can't freely decide to enter a relationship or not. Thus we have 3rd parties wishing to involve themselves, where arguably they should not be placing themselves, to attempt to decide for them (interloping teacher or college) by villainizing or criminalizing the male students. Which at the end of the day, is actually what's wrong.
No, the burden is on those who endorse this silly, obnoxious private tutoring stuff to justify their assumption that it's a good way to get to know people (including but not limited to, in a romantic fashion). You're in a majority female class that you chose specifically for that fact about it, and you can't get your fellow students' attention without ruining the class as an educational experience for everyone else? I'm sorry but that just doesn't seem plausible or right.
> No, the burden is on those who endorse this silly, obnoxious private tutoring stuff
Actually, no. If you want to ban stuff or stop an activity between two consensual adults, you better have a damn good reason, other than it offends me!
> "getting the correct attitude and behavior from these same girls" - behavior that helps you romantically, that is.
They appear to be doing just fine with the girls, which once again makes me question why you think that the girls who welcome these advances are behaving incorrectly.
Everything else you say is purely wishful thinking on your part and there is literally no evidence that the males are not getting whatever it is they are aiming to get.
The complaints, remember, are not coming from those girls who date, it's coming from the professor (who is unhappy about this), and from the girls who aren't getting advances.
The TLDR is this: There's no obvious evidence for any of your conjecture about how courtship should go; in this case it obviously is going correctly if the girls who get advances aren't complaining, but the ones who don't are complaining.
> Sensible women want to get to know friends in a gradual, natural fashion and perhaps be a little wowed in non-obvious ways.
How do you befriend these "sensible women" if it's apparently not okay to go where they are -- because they're there?
I've done the opposite to what these guys do by ignoring this when choosing my education, so I met basically no female peers from HS to higher education to _now_.
Discussion around this question really reinforces my conviction that things are fuc*d beyond point of repair. "Get to know friends in a gradual, natural fashion"? Lol, impossible, because you can't even meet people without it being an issue.
Reminds me of kids in my high school classes that would misbehave and cause disruptions, which would cause a disruption for everybody else, but the teacher really couldn't do anything about it because short of violence, you couldn't kick them out of the class.
So, the social norms are that men are supposed to approach women to form relationships.
But they can't even offer women free tutoring lessons... because other women feel bad about it? Wat?
Or women are offended, supposedly rightfully, solely because of the presence of these men (because person who asked the question said clearly they have done nothing wrong)? What the...?
"Being distracted with insecurities" - men, on the other hand, have no such problems, yes? They willingly went to classes that are useless to them, in order to try to impress women.
They might be! Which makes it even more of a shame that they used an app whose intent was to help students audit classes where they have a gender ratio opportunity.
If this person sent an email to the class group offering their services and coached folks without seeing their gender or appearance, I would applaud them, and I’d be more than happy to support whoever they met through that.
But my guess is, that’s not the situation here. Would love to be wrong.
The crux of the issue is if the behavior of these students harms the learning environment in any other way. For example, raising their hand to answer a question every opportunity they get meaning fewer of the typical students get to answer and learn from [their] mistakes, or running these private tutoring sessions then giving up if no attractive women show up / giving the women they're interested in way more attention. It's also not a good look if they're bad at teaching and use the tutoring session to effectively do peoples' homework for them by solving every questions on a whiteboard with little room for discussion.
Is there not a chance that the professor might, in fact, be correct in her assessment of the motivation of these upperclassmen and decent?
It's not like anyone's proposed sentencing them to death. (Or any punishment at all?)
Most universities have gobs of overlapping official and unofficial tutoring programs both broad and subject-specific. Enterprising scholars will also inevitably find a way to announce independent tutoriing services.
Students who are enthusiastic about sharing knowledge, making a few bucks, or adding a line to their resume generally don't have trouble finding such opportunities to share their knowledge and help others succeed without having to audit a course.
I think it's a conflict of interest if someone is teaching/tutoring so they can sleep with their students, and that approach can result in unfortunate incentives for the tutor at the expense of their students.
It's enough of an issue that tutors and lecturers who sleep with students will often be booted from the University. There are official rules at most unis, and more importantly, they are actually enforced even for high ranking researchers (eventually...).
A decent tutor's first and foremost goal is to educate their students. If a student makes advances on a decent tutor, the tutor will rebuff them, for concern that it will detract from their attention and the quality of the lesson. That's not what these guys are up to.
> ...if they keep their hands to themselves and make no unwanted advances, what exactly do you find indecent about this?
It's likely that they are bothered by heterosexual males who might have any situation or opportunity (among adults of similar age and agency) that can be perceived as advantageous to them or contributes to their happiness.
You're in a couple of these threads stanning for these creeps. As a mental exercise: why do you think several of the women are demoralized by this environment if there's nothing going wrong here?
Why do you think anyone, female or otherwise, being demoralized means something “wrong” is occurring? So silly to form a moral/ethical framework on something as intangible, fickle, and culturally influenced as people’s feelings.
Also, comments like “stanning for these creeps” are disrespectful and have no place on HN, imo.
> You're in a couple of these threads stanning for these creeps.
Well, how about you explain why you are equivocating "no unwanted advances" to "creeps".
I'm in a couple of these threads because a) I have some free time now to read, and b) there are way too many people demonizing males attempting to find a partner.
Like you are doing.
> As a mental exercise: why do you think several of the women are demoralized by this environment if there's nothing going wrong here?
Well, the women who are dating are specifically not complaining. Who are you to tell women where and when they may allow courtship?
Fortunately we don't have to speculate because the professor herself explains why:
> Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
The more attractive women are receiving all the positive attention, and the others are hurt by this. Which is completely natural, but...welcome to the world. Life is unfair, and being attractive opens doors that aren't available to others. Are people obligated to show equal interest in everyone, regardless of their actual feelings towards them? Men who expect this from women are usually derided (and rightfully so) as "incels".
Because they are, in fact, decent, and find going to frat parties to engage with a drunk girl who can't properly consent, or hiring a prostitute, to be reprehensible. Online dating doesn't work unless you're in the top X% of attractiveness, so what's a college student to do? They're not generally rich enough to garner the attention of women that way, and they're competing against a larg pool of older men who are.
You hit on a major point, that many don't realize or the more misandric minded purposely overlook. The vast majority of young heterosexual men (arguably 80% or so) simply do not have the same opportunities with the opposite sex, as do most young women in the reverse. This is a matter of both biology and society.
Young heterosexual men have to also compete with older men, who may be already established in terms of socioeconomic position, maturity, knowledge about women, and focus. These attributes, of what older men can bring to the table, can be very attractive to younger women and severely reduce their availability.
Young heterosexual women are often massively focused on and only have eyes for the top 20% to 10% who hit the genetic and/or socioeconomic lottery and mostly have it all in terms of looks, style, build, height, innate charisma, popularity, and/or family wealth. Even when such woman are in the lower rankings (though may refuse to acknowledge reality) and have little chance to realistically get or hold on to such men. Which by the way, can lead to them taking their anger and frustrations out on men not in those positions that don't engage in nor have the opportunities to act in such ways.
Many women, in general, are not even looking or care little about younger men who are not providing any obvious benefits or are as popular. The further the young men are from the top, the harder their struggles with the opposite sex can be. And dramatically way more so, than their female equivalents.
This can be why such young heterosexual men (outside the top 20%) can be resorting to seemingly extreme measures that are incomprehensible to females and non heterosexuals. More so, many women have little to zero sympathy or empathy for the harsh struggles of such young men, and even to the point that such women have misplaced or unreasonable disdain and contempt of males that need to or have to make such an effort. Which can be combined with the ignorance to the realities of the opposite sex, and the arrogance of their position, as women with an easier path in such particular matters.
Many women take attention, sexual choice, and sexual opportunity for granted. It's something they can choose to indulge in (particularly as young women), almost whenever they feel like or the mood hits them. These are options that most young men do not have whatsoever. Which is why some kind of app, doing auditing, or tutoring are even seen as helpful possibilities.
> to engage with a drunk girl who can't properly consent
Shouldn't we disallow girls from drinking alcohol, then? It's rather weird to allow parties with alcohol, and then claim that rape occured "because someone was drunk and so cannot be held responsible for their decisions".
What if the man was also drunk? If a drunk person can't be held responsible for their decisions, well...
I don't understand why is it always about guys supposedly taking advantage of girls.
The real source behind this statement was that Ok Cupid once published a blog post with some analysis of their data. They found that the average man on the platform was rated as bellow average attractiveness by woman while the average woman was ranked as average attractiveness by men. There were some more related stats in the same post.
This of course exploded and they deleted the post.
This one?[0] It's funny it's always cited with the reversed finding: while men were more fair in rating attractiveness, they then only target the top most attractive females, completely oblivious of where they stand. OTOH women were more harsh in rating but they are then able to shift their expectation to realistic ones. By these data dating only works if you are in the top X% of attractiveness if you are a woman, but it works better for the average man.
Nice shade. But if someone is able to meet people in-person and get dates from people in that top X%, then the conclusion that it's the online component of online dating that's at fault doesn't seem unwarranted.
Really? It sounds like some of them are lacking self awareness, and maybe representing themselves poorly. But is what they are doing really on the level of disturbing?
People need to learn how to interact with each other, possibly by failing like this. College is one of the places where that is supposed to happen.
If it's such a big deal, maybe we should just go back to separate schools for men and women.
If you happen to be an intelligent and decent young man from a male-dominated major who legitimately likes helping others who are struggling to learn the subject you're passionate about, how would women in your dating pool, who find those personality traits attractive, discover those things about you?
And, you will likely never get answers from the other side about how to do such, outside of: do nothing, consult zodiac sign, hope for magic, fate, luck, or a shoulder shrug response.
Maybe they would notice you help whoever asks for it, not just attractive women, and by contrast they would think, "Hey, he seems decent, not like those creeps that only have tutoring sessions for hotties."
And how would she notice if you weren't in her class? The chances are extremely low compared to if you joined her class and made an effort to socialize with her.
In this age group the ratio of <gender you prefer> who are not assessing dating partners based almost purely on physical attractiveness to those who are is tiny.
That being said, this is appalling, predatory behavior on the part of the students using the app. These are vulnerable people that the app users are taking advantage of and trying to manipulate into an intimate relationship.
> These are vulnerable people that the app users are taking advantage of and trying to manipulate into an intimate relationship.
Of course. Men should just stay alone, unless they are hyper attractive. Because _attempting_ to get to know other people is "manipulation into intimate relationship".
I guess they're cheating because they don't know their place? Predatory behavior, lol.
It comes off as very misplaced to categorize the app, by itself, as predatory and appalling. These are adult men and women. Why would it be such a surprise for intelligent young men in college to create an app to better determine the ratio of males to females in a class? This has long been done, by both sexes, way before convenient apps.
I'm sensing there would be no disdain or accusations of predatory behavior, if a female student created an app or openly expressed her intentions for picking classes where she is more likely to find dates and marriage prospects among the opposite sex or even the same sex.
I'm almost quite sure, the same appalled people, would have no reaction or even state this as acceptable or categorize her as being smart. It seems that if male heterosexual students, are doing something that would circumvent their supposed ranking based on innate attractiveness or better their odds in any artificial way, then it's something to be villainized and criminalized.
> why are they relying on such disturbing tactics to meet women in the first place?
Seems rather ingenious, frankly. What tactics should they rely on, exactly? "Intelligent and decent" alone aren't traits that are necessarily attractive anyway.
Not if they’re putting themselves in that tutoring position using a dating app specifically designed to facilitate manipulating those students for romantic purposes.
It’s absolutely appalling. And especially so with so many comments suggesting the opposite of the things you quote. Seeing no harm by pretending the directly express harm was never expressed at all.
Less attractive girls get less male attention no matter what. Why would it be any more demoralizing if that attention comes with tutoring? Why would it be distracting?
It seems everyone is complaining except the girls getting tutored. And if they did complain, if some guy was pushy or wouldn't take no for an answer, then deal with him the same as any other such guy - that they're attending a class for the sake of dating would be incidental, and make their actions no worse or better, and wouldn't affect the response in any way, except that it would be easier to expel them from the class, as it wouldn't impact their academics.
Because it can be very dehumanizing. "Even in a STEM class, I can't escape being unattractive". At minimum, it'll make me less likely to want to excel.
> Even in a STEM class, I can't escape being unattractive
Ironically, the men that OP is complaining about almost definitely feel the same way: "even when I go out of my way to be helpful, I can't escape being so unattractive that they professor actually wants to kick me out of class."
This is the hand they have been dealt. The solution is to detach your motivation and happiness from caring about how you are perceived. Not wishing the real world was complicit in your denial of reality. The only person whose opinion on yourself which holds any weight is your own.
One time, me and some other people signed up to volunteer for H4H, to get 1 or 2 college credits, and because it was a cool thing to do, and in my case because I wanted to learn the American way of making houses.
We rebuilt a former crack house. It was actually pretty cool (although I don't much like how American houses are made - they go up fast, but they also are intended to come down in 1 or 2 generations, I'll stick to brick and granite, thanks!). I did my part. Guess who was and wasn't called when it was time to take a picture showcasing all our work. This was before consumer-priced smartphones, so I don't have a picture of that.
Why not? This is reality and how the world works. Attractive men and women get promoted more easily, get better service in bars and restaurants, etc… to infinity.
This idea that it’s more worthwhile to wail at the sky about how the world works rather than acknowledge it and seek to take advantage of other areas of life where the scales are tipped in your favor fucking mystifies me.
There’s clearly a disadvantage to not having any meritocratic considerations during the hiring process and it will eventually come back to bite the hiring company. That said, everyone has free will and should be completely free to hire whomever they want for whatever reasons they want.
Where would you draw the line on how the world works, though? For example, I imagine it's quite natural to want to kill someone. People do it all the time, even though it's outlawed. Should that also be fine, because aggression is natural, and nature is how the world works?
> This idea that it’s more worthwhile to wail at the sky about how the world works rather than acknowledge it and seek to take advantage of other areas of life where the scales are tipped in your favor fucking mystifies me.
Yep. This discussion is full of insinuation that trying to leverage your knowledge or intelligence to attract women is _manipulation_ or _predatory_.
Attractive people definitely get more help from peers regardless of class. However, this is a strange situation where they literally already know all the material. IMO they shouldn't be taking the class.
I agree it shouldn't factor into getting help from class TA's.
> Less attractive girls get less male attention no matter what.
This is simple reality, but it seems certain people want to reject it. As if the less attractive women should be forcibly provided special access to the more attractive or top percentage of men.
> It seems everyone is complaining except the girls (college women) getting tutored.
I also find this quite strange. It's as if the college women tutored are denied agency and are children of the school. Like these guys are not talking to adult women who can choose their actions, but rather the teacher of the class and school administration control these women and mandate dating access to them.
> And if they did complain, if some guy was pushy or wouldn't take no for an answer, then deal with him the same as any other such guy...
Again, you are noticing the same thing. Not seeing why any actual complaints can't be handled on its merits, based on the individual it happened to. What the hell is going on that the teacher feels she should control the "dating privileges" of her female students and be empowered to block male heterosexual student access to her class.
I find the behavior and intended actions of the teacher in question very strange. It's as if she wants to run a "pre-crime" unit, where the male students are already guilty, and her female students need to ask for her permission for who they can or can't date.
When you take a college class, there is an expectation that you do not receive special academic attention based on how good-looking you appear to some arbitrary people. Usually there isn't any need to have rules for this situation because
1. Teachers and TAs are forbidden from discriminating and signalling romantic/sexual interest during the course.
2. Those in the course are typically either being graded or auditing the course out of academic interest, and so romantic/sexual interest is rarely the primary factor for grouping up and helping each other out.
As such, this is rarely the norm when it comes to academic attention, in contradiction to
> This is simple reality
In response to complaining, you say
> It's as if the college women tutored are denied agency and are children of the school.
But the right thing to do in such a situation is exactly what they have done: to exercise their agency by raising their discomfort to the one that seems to be liable for setting the norms of their course, the professor. The other thing I've seen happen is students exercising their agency by avoiding the course altogether, albeit since the situation I've discussed is so rare, I'm thinking about an analoguous situation where a professor was notorious for giving preferential academic attention to attractive women.
> What the hell is going on that the teacher feels she should control the "dating privileges" of her female students and be empowered to block male heterosexual student access to her class.
Because the majority of her class who are taking in good faith thinks that this is detrimental to their student experience... the complaint isn't against men who are also taking the course in good faith.
> empowered to block male heterosexual student access to her class.
I find it a radical suggestion that people ought to be allowed access to a course when their goals are not in line with the course's goals.
> I find the behavior and intended actions of the teacher in question very strange. It's as if she wants to run a "pre-crime" unit, where the male students are already guilty, and her female students need to ask for her permission for who they can or can't date.
... no? She's not trying to control their students' dating lives. Her actions are against behavior that violates unspoken norms about the environment in which her course is conducted, violations for which she has received complaints for.
> Less attractive girls get less male attention no matter what. Why would it be any more demoralizing if that attention comes with tutoring? Why would it be distracting?
And fuckton of men get literally 0 attention. That's, of course, not an issue at all.
It goes deeper than that. It's predatory. And it can go from being harmless to SA really fast if you're on the receiving end.
If you are a SA, or a CSA, survivor, then this is the kind of behavior that gives you nightmares. I know, because it gives me nightmares. And it's brought up in almost every support group I've been a part of. Their behavior is identical to someone who profiles a victim type, seeks opportunities to put themselves in the victim's path, and creates an opportunity to engage.
At the extreme end, Bundy did this with a cast and by targeting times of high stress (exam time). He would place the car outside of dorms and essentially fumble putting things in a car. Women would come up and start trying to help him; at which point, he'd kidnap them,
> Further similarities between the victims were noted: the disappearances all took place at night, usually near ongoing construction work, and were within a week of midterm or final exams. All of the victims were wearing slacks or blue jeans when they disappeared, and at many crime scenes there were sightings of a man wearing a cast or a sling and driving a brown or tan Volkswagen Beetle.
This post isn't to say that these people are Bundy. That's not the point. If you had 50 glasses of wine in front of you, but 1 of them contained cyanide, would you drink the wine at random? Now, what if the wine glasses were being forced on you? And you still didn't know?
1 in 50 to 1 in 10 of these people won't have such nice intentions. 1 in 100 will be a psychopath. If you are at the receiving end, how do you know? How do you differentiate between the majority that's innocent and the years of hell and therapy on the other hand?
Would you want to navigate this every time you went to class to learn?
I don't find this line of argument compelling though. For example, your Bundy argument appears to imply that it is immoral to have any sort of difficulty in a public place that might cause a woman to come offer help to you. This seems like a fairly absurd, possibly ableist moral guideline?
The reductio ad absurdum of this reasoning is: "Abusers breathe oxygen, if you breathe oxygen that makes you like an abuser, therefore it's predatory to breathe oxygen."
Basically by saying "X is a behavior that abusers do", decent people will want to avoid beahvior X in order to not be thought of as abusers. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: no decent person will do behavior X. This works regardless of whether behavior X is inherently problematic.
I'm really sorry that you had such shitty experiences, but I think your ideas about reworking society to give you less anxiety are misguided and counterproductive (even for the goal of reducing your anxiety).
If you're super risk-averse, you can implement some personal guidelines like "never be alone in a room with another person" or whatever. I don't think your own risk-aversion is a good justification for preventing other consenting adults from being alone in a room with each other though.
The issue isn't that it's "immoral" to have any sort of difficulty in a public place that women might offer help for, it's the predatory intent and behavior, and the fabrication/manipulation of situations in order to manipulate others.
That predatory behavior and manipulation also betrays a good faith interpretation of consent. Consent isn't realized through trickery and technicalities.
If someone believes that predatory behavior and manipulation are okay, especially when it comes to dating, sex or consent, that is definitely someone that a SA/CSA survivor should be wary of, because those are the beliefs and attitudes that perpetuate such abuse.
What's your definition of "predatory intent"? If a woman signs up for eHarmony with the intent to find a husband, is that "predatory intent"?
Suppose a man does as described in OP and if anyone asks him what he's doing, he responds honestly. Is that fabrication/manipulation?
Suppose a woman wears makeup in order to appear more youthful and beautiful than she really is. Is that fabrication/manipulation? If she successfully seduces a man into sleeping with her as a result of her makeup, is that a consent violation?
Ted Bundy wasn't signing up for a dating service to find a spouse, he was fabricating situations and preying on women's sympathy to deceive and kidnap them. That's predatory intent.
> Suppose a man does as described in OP and if anyone asks him what he's doing, he responds honestly. Is that fabrication/manipulation?
Suppose one of Bundy's potential victims asks him what he's doing, and he goes, "Well, I'm just pretending to have trouble in order to get close enough to kidnap you!" Is that still predatory and does it affect his intent?
> Suppose a woman wears makeup in order to appear more youthful and beautiful than she really is. Is that fabrication/manipulation? If she successfully seduces a man into sleeping with her as a result of her makeup, is that a consent violation?
Surely you can see the difference between taking care of yourself and preying upon people. There's nothing deceptive about looking good. If they're out there catfishing people to sleep with them, however, that is predatory, but that is not what you're describing.
>Ted Bundy wasn't signing up for a dating service to find a spouse, he was fabricating situations and preying on women's sympathy to deceive and kidnap them. That's predatory intent.
I agree if you want to kidnap someone, you're a predator.
>Suppose one of Bundy's potential victims asks him what he's doing, and he goes, "Well, I'm just pretending to have trouble in order to get close enough to kidnap you!" Is that still predatory and does it affect his intent?
The key thing that makes Bundy a predator is wanting to kidnap someone. If someone did the exact same thing with the intention of meeting their future spouse instead of forcibly kidnapping someone, they're not a predator, barring extenuating circumstances.
For example, the other day in the store a woman dropped something near me, while I was squatting on the floor. I picked it up and gave it to her. Afterwards, I realized that she'd been looking at me prior to dropping the object, and it occurred to me that maybe she was trying to get me to talk to her (out of all the places in the store, she somehow dropped her thing right next to me, and also waited for me to pick it up instead of bending over herself).
I don't have any particular reason to believe she's a predator based on that interaction, even if she dropped the item intentionally.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It seems like you're using a wild analogy with Ted Bundy to demonize harmless flirtation of the sort you'd find in a romantic comedy.
>There's nothing deceptive about looking good.
Let's change the scenario -- suppose she deliberately makes her makeup look natural, and when someone asks if she's wearing makeup, she lies and says no. What do you call that?
Because it seems about as bad to me as a man who does as described in the OP, and when asked why he's in the class, says something like "yeah I like helping people, I don't know!" In both cases you're doing something to attract people you're interested in and telling a white lie related to it.
There is nothing wrong with pretending to have trouble to talk to meet or talk to women. It's just a conversation starter. If you want to meet new females you will need to come up with some strategy to improve your odds of finding one. Else you will be alone forever.
There's a widespread lack of male role models, absentee fathers, and anything and everything male bashing.
The ladies could be mentioning to the guys specific constructive feedback, because the guys probably don't know how they're failing or how they're making others feel.
The surprising and shocking secret of being a ladies' man, is underwhelming and doesn't get press: being human and treating others as human according to their needs (improved Golden Rule).
It's not the classes's student's moral responsibility to teach these men. But it turns out that you are somewhat right in the sense that the professor and the answerers think that something student-let eventually has the most promise, to show the women that they can protect themselves by student-organized activities to draw attention to the issue.
It's quite interesting that if a college woman picked a class where she is more likely to find dates or a husband, that this situation is not seen as immoral, dangerous, threatening, criminal, or villainized.
> ...to show the women that they can protect themselves...
What exactly are these adult women, capable of choice and agency, protecting themselves from?
From heterosexual males asking them out on a date? From possibly deciding to be tutored by "smart" heterosexual males that know the subject material? In any individual situations, aren't these women capable of reporting any criminal wrong doing or harassment?
If these women are not capable of free will and have mental disabilities then maybe they need a 24/7 caregiver assigned to them, but somehow don't think that's the case.
Who else would? If something makes you uncomfortable and you don't try to correct that... It will keep going. Of course, sometimes that's not possible (threat of physical violence and whatnot), but in many cases it is perfectly fine. Especially if the other person is just naively making you uncomfortable instead of trying to harm you.
And being corrected on the spot is much more effective than someone else telling you days later you did something wrong. At least for me, I remember very well few times I was dumbass and that was made painfully clear to me. I remember those lessons to this day and it sure did help me.
I mean there's a certain amount of social awareness of what to do & what not do due in different contexts I don't think is wrong to assume someone has (barring cultural differences, neurodiverse conditions, the occasional misreading of social cues), asking someone out out of the blue is one of those things
yeah it's not a cardinal sin or explicitly hurting someone, but I would expect a well adjusted 21-23 year old male engineering senior to know this
> barring cultural differences, neurodiverse conditions, the occasional misreading of social cues
All of those is a thing and it does happen. Especially is we include sub-cultural differences into „cultural differences“ bits.
> yeah it's not a cardinal sin or explicitly hurting someone, but I would expect a well adjusted 21-23 year old male engineering senior to know this
Maybe it's a cultural differences or whatever, but I'd say this demographic is VERY prone to misreading social cues..
However, I think this is not age or whatever related. People are different. social circles are different. People move around. Various norms change and people talk across age groups. It's never ending process of finding a common protocol to communicate. I doubt it's possible to rely on a hope that everybody will know how to not upset people around them.
I still have clear recollection of the 50:1 men-to-women ratio in my CS2xx classes and higher. Your odds weren't good if you were hoping to meet Mrs. Right. I imagine things have gotten better since.
Still, seems like a fairly high effort low outcome place to meet someone who is likely not even receptive to advances in that context. Do colleges not offer many other opportunities for people to meet outside of class in 2023?
It's interesting that one of the highest-voted responses suggests bringing in the ten ton hammer of legal governmental involvement against a bunch of kids trying to score a date. Yikes.
When I was in college I think the thing to do was to take the ballroom dancing class if you wanted to meet Mr./Mrs. Right. I agree that taking an introductory science class is overthinking things…
Hah, in my time at a technical uni it felt like everyone had the idea to take Spanish classes. Because women love Spanish, right? And surely that's what they do with their free time, right?
Cue the start of the Spanish course with 18 guys and 2 girls in it. Not sure how it progressed but I dropped it again after that one semester. I have a feeling many of the other guys did the same.
> It's interesting that one of the highest-voted responses suggests bringing in the ten ton hammer of legal governmental involvement against a bunch of kids trying to score a date
College students aren’t “kids” and it’s extremely disturbing that our society continues to infantilize teenagers and grownups and push the boundary of adulthood later and later. In the Jewish tradition the coming of age ritual for young men happens at 13. Clearly we don’t need to coddle these little degenerates into their 20s.
> In the Jewish tradition the coming of age ritual for young men happens at 13.
What does this have to do with anything in the modern age? Girls being up for grabs after their first period was also a tradition of coming of age, it doesn't mean anything about a kid's maturity...
I had several 3 and 4 hundred level CS classes with literally zero women in them. This was at a large, major public school with several hundred in our CS program.
My upper level CS classes in college had one woman back in early 2010s.
I entered grad school some years later.
My graduate level CS courses that over lapped the data science classes were usually around fifty percent. The courses that didn't were more male but nothing close to undergraduate. It really wasn't something I noticed like in undergrad. So seems to be getting better
What I did notice was both the data science classes and CS classes often times had fifty percent or higher non American students. We seem to be educating a lot of foreign born students who are willing to come to America.
It felt gross when I had a friend, with an American master's degree in STEM, who ended up having to leave a job she liked to go back to her home country because she ran out of time on her visa and didn't win the lottery to stay.
Seems extremely stupid of us to be kicking out highly educated individuals basically randomly.
America's immigration system is in desperate need of reform. The green card "diversity" lottery is stupid and outright discriminatory. I've considered emigrating from the US to some EU members, and while it isn't easy for any of these countries, it certainly is nowhere near as difficult as if I were doing the reverse. Will it ever be fixed in my lifetime? I'm 22. I have my doubts.
If America really wanted to reform its immigration system, it would have by now. Half the people in America want much less immigration; they said so loud and clear when they elected Trump. These voters don't want people with masters degrees in STEM, or anyone else really; they think people with masters degrees are going to take their jobs at Walmart.
> Seems extremely stupid of us to be kicking out highly educated individuals basically randomly.
I don't understand why the US won't allow me to migrate*. Presumably someone from the EU making above-average salary should be net gain. There are no significant "cultural differences", I think.
I resent that tech world is centered on the SV and I don't have fucking access because I was born in the wrong location. I guess I should be happy it was inside of the EU, at least.
* well, I haven't tried. Diversity lottery has bullshit odds, H1b is too hard to get. I think I'd be willing to offer sth like $100K for a permanent residence permit, if it was possible. Why isn't it?
Instead the price is investing ~$1M - apparently, if you need to work for a living, you're not free.
(through it's _investing_ - presumably there could be a way to _pay_ someone less than that to invest on your behalf and then take that money later, along with what you paid them for this service. Hmm.)
The correct answer is to require the hiring of any non-citizen to be for something like the greater than the top 25th (mode average) pay in that field nationally / in that locality AND to allow anyone that's put in 3 months of work or more at a job one year after that job to land the next compatible one or finish up their immigration paperwork as long as they're actively looking for work.
Obviously, America doesn't really want people like that. People with master's degrees in STEM should instead look for countries that welcome them with their immigration policies.
i was going to say.. there weren't many women in my CS classes either and I'm not an outgoing person, but i still had no problem meeting women. just go to whatever events anyone puts on. whether it's a dorm party or a school dance. just go out. that's how you meet people.
Part of the problem appears to be the anti-male agendas or stealth contempt of males and heterosexual coupling. If this was in reverse or non heterosexual, it would likely be close to a "protected" privilege or right nor not even mentioned.
Almost any context to where males are perceived to be at an advantage or even having better options for hooking up, has become fashionable to demonize. Even mentioning the situation and the inherent unfairness of it can mean attempts at silencing and demonization.
It has reached the point of silliness, where instead of focusing on teaching (like you would think), time is endlessly spent on worrying about which adults might be dating who or ways to more effectively block heterosexual male students.
That this is even going on, is likely a reflection of such reduced normal opportunities for meeting (that should be available in college), that students would be resorting to more desperate measures.
> Almost any context to where males are perceived to be at an advantage or even having better options for hooking up, has become fashionable to demonize.
If so, it's a weird thing to demonize - 80% of women chase after the same 20% of males in the 18-39 demographic. That means 80% of males of poor dating options.
> Almost any context to where males are perceived to be at an advantage or even having better options for hooking up, has become fashionable to demonize. Even mentioning the situation and the inherent unfairness of it can mean attempts at silencing and demonization.
Do you have any other examples of this occurring?
> It has reached the point of silliness, where instead of focusing on teaching (like you would think), time is endlessly spent on worrying about which adults might be dating who or ways to more effectively block heterosexual male students.
The professors concerns seem to be that students think that the class is an uncomfortable environment, not that student are dating or that heterosexual students are trying to hook up.
> The professors concerns seem to be that students think that the class is an uncomfortable environment, not that student are dating or that heterosexual students are trying to hook up.
Based on the evidence of what the professor typed, she's going too far beyond what should be her professional limits. Her job, in addition to teaching the subject, should be noticing and addressing any actual violation of school rules and policies.
A student in her class can feel uncomfortable, demoralized, or disgusted by the color of clothes someone chooses to wear, the way someone walks, or that a person stutters when they talk. Someone's preferences or feelings about another doesn't mean a violation of school rules, policy, or law.
It is also not for her to presume what people might be thinking, to automatically assume guilt without evidence, to be preoccupied with the possible dating and sexual lives of her students outside of her classroom, nor attempt to forcibly interject herself or any prudish beliefs into the private lives of her adult students.
if this post is reflective of how you and fellow male computer science students acted with them then maybe we have a reason why they don't like computer science that much
> It's interesting that one of the highest-voted responses suggests bringing in the ten ton hammer of legal governmental involvement against a bunch of kids trying to score a date. Yikes.
I think the bigger "yikes" to me is the implication that being young, male, and lusty as a motivation is a sufficient to dismiss any possibility of illicit behavior.
I don't see that implication being made and I have trouble believing anyone could read that into the above in good faith. The linked questions mentions that this has created an uncomfortable environment for female undergraduates -- but no allegations of illegal behavior.
It seems pretty obvious what the intentions of the men [EDIT: described in the article] here were, so I'm not sure why anyone would bother stating that if they didn't intend it to convey anything additional. Given the relative number of times I've seen people say things like "just trying to score a date"to defend sketchy behavior compared to anything else, it's honestly hard for me to imagine _not_ having a viscerally negative reaction to that phrase. I recognize that everyone has different experiences, so the way they'll interpret ambiguous language will vary, but my good faith response to something like that is genuinely just..."yikes".
> According to one person anyway. We haven’t surveyed the class, correct?
No, according to the complainants, there has been no unwanted advances.
IOW, the people who object to this have said that there have been no unwanted advances. Why are you assuming that poor behaviour won't be reported by the complainants when they complain?
I'd argue that there have been numerous cases of illicit behavior coming out long after the fact, and that any number of factors could involve a victim being hesitant to report an incident of any specific individual, but even putting that aside, there's still the matter of the website itself. Did they have permission to use the data in this way, or were there terms that disallowed it being used for something like this? Did the students consent to their data being included in this database, and were they properly informed about what uses would and would not be allowed with that data? Did the actual content of the website alongside the data encourage any illicit behavior or lie about how it was obtained? Some of these might not fall on the side of illegality, but the details about what exactly this data is and where it came from is a bit vague (at least in the initial question; I didn't read through every response, so it's possible some later replies might shed light on this). Without knowing what jurisdiction the university is at, if it's public or private, or who at the university was involved with compiling and publishing the data, it seems plausible that there _might_ be something worth investigating from a legal perspective, and I feel like that would necessarily include looking at the actions of the students who made the website.
> Because the people complaining aren’t reporting poor behavior, but your own admission?
No, I said that the complainers who are complaining have NOT experienced poor behaviour, so what on earth makes you think that the poor behaviour must exist but is unreported?
> The linked questions mentions that this has created an uncomfortable environment for female undergraduates -- but no allegations of illegal behavior.
>> According to one person anyway. We haven’t surveyed the class, correct?
The claim they were making was that there was an uncomfortable environment. They did not claim there was any illegal behavior.
When saying the class hasn’t been surveyed, the reasonable assumption here is the class hasn’t been surveyed to see the percentage of uncomfortable students - as that can only be substantiated or not by asking for opinions/internal state, as there are no clear objective markers otherwise. It’s a purely subjective thing.
Which by the way, in any large number of students will always be non-zero for pretty much anything.
Any obvious Illegal behavior would likely not require a survey, as one person reporting it should be enough to investigate, and should have enough concrete objective details to substantiate it or not.
Allegations of illegal behavior when they aren’t occurring are, unfortunately, also decently common. Even when everything is being recorded. It does make the investigation a lot easier though!
Where's the illicit behavior? The only accusation being made is that the men are lusty and perhaps socially awkward. There have been no sexual harassment complaints. What it looks like to me is that being young, male and lusty somehow now carries an assumption of illicit behavior, even with a complete lack of any evidence thereof.
> This might be hard, as no unwanted advances are taking place. We simply have students excelling at the course, and drawing-in a crowd. I should've been more clear with my "leching" comment. Still, it seems harassing in nature.
It seems increasingly that society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues, and outside those strictly delimited places, men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
Then wonder why marriage and fertility rates are tanking.
Nobody cares if college students try to date other students from their classes.
It is weird when people take a class specifically because of that reason though.
It is even weirder when the class in question is something that they have a very high skill level in specifically so that they will be able leverage that into some kind of situation that leads to dating.
This is pretty cut and dry to me, I am not sure why so many people in this thread see no problem with this.
It's not surprising imo. If you don't go significantly out of your way to be in spaces where you might bump in to someone you'd date, it's unlikely to happen. "designated dating spaces" like apps and bars have largely been failures so people are returning to tradition of trying to bump in to people semi organically.
I'm a gay guy so the situation is a little different/more level but I put a lot of effort in searching out local events, clubs, hobbies and attending a whole bunch of things I don't actually care that much about, just in an effort to be more visible and meet new people. Because getting to know someone first without jumping directly in to being serious like you get in dating apps is way better. You wouldn't consider it weird to join say a hiking club to make friends as the primary goal over just the hiking.
>You wouldn't consider it weird to join say a hiking club to make friends as the primary goal over just the hiking.
I'm queer. I think the issue in the OP is more like that one episode of Community where someone who's very advanced at pottery takes a pottery course -- nothing wrong with meeting people in a class. Nothing wrong with having people see your kindness as attractive because you do things like organize a study group.
The problem becomes if you only let someone like Jeff Winger learn from you, and turn away the Shirleys. (To keep with the "community" analogy :))
I agree there's nothing wrong with joining something to be social, the issue is hiding your skill level or purposefully competing below it...
> As Scott has kindly allowed this discussion to carry on, let me try to inject some more sisterly honesty into the question of dating and what women do or don’t want.
> Let me start by noting that there are a few billions women in the world so the question as posed is ridiculous . In fact I will just say what the sort of women I know well want and leave you to guess how widely applicable this could be. Everything below is unbelievably obvious to most people but I feel is somehow being hidden from the argument by feminists.
> In broad brush strokes, we would like the attractive men to find us attractive and potentially to hit on us *and the unattractive men not to notice we are women.*
> In fact we want a very small percentage of men to find us unbelievably attractive and to hit on us, but in, you know, a nice way. We would like a slightly larger number of men, but still small, to find us very attractive but to do nothing about it (they can talk to each other about how hot and unattainable we are though) and the rest just to completely leave us alone and preferably have no thoughts about us at all.
> But of course it’s not actually that simple, sometimes we don’t even want the hottest men to hit on us. It depends. *To achieve this attraction of the hottest men, we would, like millions of women, dress in a way that is designed to be maximally attractive. A lot of thought and a lot of money goes into the design of the clothes women wear and it’s not an accident that your eye naturally runs up the leg of the dress or down the cleavage*. But how can you dress in a way that is attractive to the men you want but not attractive to other men? How can you let it be known which subset should hit on you? You can’t of course. We Western women take a not very well calculated risk every day hoping that the odds will work out in our favor.
> *It is of course disgusting when an unattractive man hits on you in any situation. You might say we should hit on men. Apart from the fact that you would then just reverse the problem, we don’t want to. Rejection is humiliating*.
> As you may tell, we would like to have all our cakes and eat them at once. But who wouldn’t? Women are just like men, people. Those who are aware of the other nations of Earth will also notice that some cultures don’t think this degree of freedom for women is a good thing. Despite what our media may suggest, they are not simply insane. Although you may not agree with them, our system is not without its flaws.
> My advice to nerdy men would simply be this. If you see a women you would like to date, ask her gently and respectfully (and only once) for a date somewhere non-threatening. How about lunch? She may reject you out of hand. If so, take it politely but confidently and move on and don’t worry about it. Everyone normal understands that what you have done is perfectly reasonable even though you may feel embarrassed at the time.
I assume you are using that phrasing as a proxy for "they want to date".
To note, chosing a field with higher ratio of women can be good for completely different reasons. After spending years in almost 100% male environments, moving to more balanced and diverse environments was like night and day, the toxicity was mostly gone, discussions and communication would be more interesting etc. I heard the same for women moving away from women only places as well.
So yes, looking at the ratio can be plenty helpful outside of any dating concern.
In this case the student wanted to eventually get married and figured his chances were less if he was spending most of his time in classes of mostly males. So it was more of thinking that if he choose a degree path that resulted in fewer female friends, his odds of meeting the right person to marry were lower.
It is probably not weird in the hormone-addled mind of a teenager but yeah, I find it to be some combination of weird, pervy, sleazy, misogynistic, etc.
There are still all female colleges. I wouldn't consider it weird for a female to decide against an all female college because they want to be able to be around males. It also doesn't seem weird that they might want to avoid classes that are all female. If they have two degree options they are considering and one tends to be mostly female, it seems like that might factor into their degree selection as well without being weird.
Wanting to spend more time with women is misogynistic?
I don't want to whip out the dictionary definition of that word, but in what way does choosing classes to spend more time with women (because your existing classes are full of guys) mean you hate women?
If you are someone who genuinely enjoys the company of women over the company of men, then I agree that it is not misogynistic.
But that isn't really what we are talking about. The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
He just wants to surround himself with a higher percentage of people that he is sexually attracted to.
Are you saying that being sexually attracted to women is misogynistic?
I assume you're not saying that, but you're not explaining why this behavior is misogynistic. At best, you might mean that if a man is sexually attracted to women, and he seeks out the company of women, then he must believe that women are sexual objects made strictly for his personal pleasure. Is that what you're trying to say?
> you might mean that if a man is sexually attracted to women, and he seeks out the company of women, then he must believe that women are sexual objects made strictly for his personal pleasure.
I am sort of saying this but not as tautologically as you are stating it.
I am saying that generally, when someone chooses a class or major because of the high percentage of people taking it that said person is sexually attracted to, said person is probably objectifying those people. Said person is probably not interested in friendships with those people or with the personality of those people.
I am not saying that any situation in which a person seeks out another person that they are sexually attracted to is misogynistic or requires objectification.
Sex is not objectification, it’s a natural need. It’s an entirely different point to argue that a friendship between a man and a woman with zero (0) sexual interest, does not exist.
What is this modern style thinking that sex is bad? Sex is a tool for love making.
> I am saying that generally, when someone chooses a class or major because of the high percentage of people taking it that said person is sexually attracted to, said person is probably objectifying those people. Said person is probably not interested in friendships with those people or with the personality of those people.
It comes across that you are demonizing natural and biological sexual attraction between the opposite sexes, and categorizing it as objectification and bad. Then there is oddly separating the possibility of friendship or having an interest in people beyond sexual attraction, as if this is not possible. To include, based on previous statements, these are probably misandric beliefs directed towards men in general.
There is nothing wrong with being physically attracted to the opposite sex, and it's also possible to form friendships or be attracted to other aspects about them. A man can think of a woman as both physically attractive and intelligent. A woman can look at a man as both attractive and possessing a nice personality.
And whatever are the attributes that attract one person to another, that is their right. It is not for a 3rd party to decide what two people find attractive between them. If they want only the purest of friendships or only completely sexual relationships, that is their prerogative. Of which, we usually can't truly know, because both men and women can lie. Only when the line is crossed towards actual violations of written legal policies, violations of human rights, or criminal behavior that it should become the concern of 3rd parties.
> He just wants to surround himself with a higher percentage of people that he is sexually attracted to.
This statement comes across as a bit misandric, but in way in which it appears not to be realized. It's demonizing males who are attracted to the opposite sex, which is natural biology, and as if men shouldn't be allowed to freely associate with other adults of the opposite sex.
On the flip, I don't see women being demonized for wanting to be around a higher percentage of people she is sexually attracted to. Be it males or other females. To include if she chose a class or major with higher prospects for meeting the opposite sex, dating, or for greater marriage prospects.
> The average hypothetical man choosing his class or major because of how many women are in it isn't looking to make female friends.
Again, the casual male demonization and vilification, is both sad and amazing. Few people would come to the conclusion that a woman choosing her class or major based on greater opportunities with the opposite or same sex, would find that to be nefarious by default.
> If you are someone who genuinely enjoys the company of women over the company of men, then I agree that it is not misogynistic.
The later statements contradict this statement. It also appears that for a male to genuinely enjoy the company of women is something weird or odd. Why can't an adult prefer to be around other adults that they want to associate with. There are many women that state they prefer male friends to female friends. That's their preference or personality, nothing nefarious should be read into it, without evidence.
> Really? I know people who specifically chose their entire major based on the ratio of women in that major.
I've chosen my high school (CS-profiled) and major without any such consideration and ended up having ~0 contact with female peers through it all 'till now at 26 years old (and it's unlikely to change...)
I'm an aspie so I guess that might've been for the best*... still, maybe something is slightly off with the society in which this can happen. It seems rather absurd.
* Somewhen during middle or maybe even elementary school I figured I'm unable to understand dating and such, so I should just not attempt it / min-max. I didn't know I'm an aspie until maybe 2 months ago (or rather, I figured I probably am, but as it's permanent I didn't bother thinking about it much and researching information about specifics).
It didn't bother me much, except now I've got an annoyingly persistent FOMO. Eh.
When you approach finding a partner like if you were finding a car or a career, that is definitely weird in my books. Humans have a remarkable ability to be attracted to one and other, it really takes no effort, as if we naturally evolved to do exactly that or something. Now getting attracted to a field of industry, art, or science, that is a lot harder and takes way more effort. Most people I know focus on the latter, and find partners anyway (if they so choose).
> Humans have a remarkable ability to be attracted to one and other, it really takes no effort, as if we naturally evolved to do exactly that or something.
Therefore people wanting to but unable are not human, I guess.
Do you know anybody that wants to be attracted to another person and is unable to?
I know people have some conditions (such as psychopathy) where they don’t form attraction towards other people, I also know there are people that do form attractions but have a hard time expressing it (such as in autism), however I don’t know of any condition or neuro-diversity which wants to form attractions, but is unable to, that would be like a psychopath that still show empathy (which is kind of a contradiction).
But if these people exist, they are still human. I merely said that humans have this capability, not that it was a necessary condition for human individuals.
I see what you mean. I have no opinion on that, as that doesn’t really matter for the subject at hand.
My main point is that if you go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way. What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned. These attractions just arise naturally for most people. So altering your life course to maximize some chances of attraction, that is weird.
Comes off like a rich person ignoring and walking over poor homeless people begging for food. Then when asked about it, has no understanding for how such circumstances could occur nor empathy. This would be willful obliviousness or tone deafness about the circumstances and plight of others.
> ...go about living a normal live, attend social functions, or just see other people on a regular basis, most people will be attracted to some of the people they meet along the way.
It is more of a feminine perspective and privilege to wait and hope random luck will take care of romantic matters, because mostly, males pursue females. Many women are able to get attention, as a matter of biology. Ignorance or purposely ignoring the mechanics of what is occurring in the background, with regard to why this attention exists and how it shapes the dynamics, can lead to distorted and misplaced views.
Furthermore there are clearly great numbers of people (male and female) that are shy, fear rejection or embarrassment, are socially awkward, or at some disadvantage in social settings. To pretend otherwise, seems to be making a concerted effort to remain oblivious.
> What I’m getting at, is there is no skill nor effort needed, nothing needs to be carefully evaluated and planned.
That is not a perspective many others share and when people are specifically and repeatedly saying this is not the case, it's not helpful to blatantly ignore them. For various people, and more so for men, they do need various levels of knowledge, skill, effort, and/or planning.
Perhaps you are right, however people that are shy and awkward in a natural setting, won’t they also be shy and awkward in a setting which they have manipulated in their favor? I have my doubts about the success rate of these efforts compared to no-effort.
You are right, I might be the one who is tone deaf here, but I still get a strange vibe from people that do this kind of thing, and personally I think I would feel uncomfortable around them.
I guess I kind of expect people to choose to go to a coed college instead of all female or all male based on (at least partially) dating prospects. Does it seem weird for a female interested in both business and nursing to choose business because nursing would be mostly other females and business would be more balanced and more opportunities to develop friendships with the opposite sex?
Coed colleges become all male quite quickly when choosing certain majors - especially in the STEM region.
When I did math & cs - there were almost no women in any classes I took. The few that showed up were typically fob and didn’t speak English much at all or have any interest in integrating.
Is it really weird? I get the gut reaction, and it certainly feels something like "pathetic", but when I think about it more: at the end of the day it's people trying hard to meet other people and find a connection.
Why is it not weird that tons of people use digital buffets to rate potential mates in their area before matching and meeting (often for one night stands)? Is that much different?
What about people looking for "the one" and going to unrelated social gatherings with strangers with that passive desire in the back of their head? That doesn't seem all that weird to me.
What makes this feel weird just seems to boil down to "they are trying too hard" or "they are trying in an unconventional way". The post said it: there are no unwanted advances, there is no harassment, there's just young men trying to find a wife, and pursuing that in a pretty direct and unconventional way.
> It is weird when people take a class specifically because of that reason though.
The ends seem to justify the means, sometimes. I know a married couple who met on a college campus. While students, the man (boy at the time, really) was a manager and chose his and her hours at the campus store so they would overlap. They tell this story proudly. The distinction between weird and romance seems to be whether it succeeds.
Good point. Just saying that considering who you might get to be friends with as part of choosing a section, class, degree, or college isn't anything new.
Perhaps not, but after the novelty wears out, I think there is a high correlation with weird and annoying (especially within the realms of human behavior). And high annoyance within a class setting can for sure be problematic (or at the very least, questionable).
No, you just to treat women with respect. The issue here is intention. The intention here is not about teaching or learning in the class. But its using that pretence in fact distrupting the intention of the class and people there. How do you like your intention distrupted? How about by unattractive slobs who are objectifying you and trying to be "helpful" and trying tricks they found on internet If someone is trying to come to terms with complex mathematics it just not appropriate to distract or give them the feeling of having to deal with a situation of someone coming onto them.
How do people not get this? It's about basic respect. Isn't it totally distracting to you if someone you're not attracted in is looking at you and commenting on you and trying to "help" you?
Maybe you'd like unattractive specimens distrupting your coding process by hanging around and offering to be "helpful"?
You've assumed a great deal more about their behavior than was written. The professor even states "no unwanted advances are taking place", contradicting your characterization. Indeed, your extra assumptions would qualify as 'disruption', and I imagine the professor would be well within her rights to expel such students.
But merely offering, not pushing, assistance, or even less "showboating", letting students in search of help come to them if they want to, isn't disruption or even untoward.
> No, you just to treat women with respect.
We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?
>Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions). This is further compounded by the condescension involved (i.e. one self-admitted user of the app told me "this material that others struggle with is so easy for me, and I'm doing it for laughs and phone numbers.").
This suggests otherwise. I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.
Don't want to make you mad, but odds are someone has done something positive for you at some point solely for one trait about you that they coveted, be it money, your network, your sense of humor, the way you dressed that day, or yes, possibly even the physical shape of your face and/or body.
Emotions aside, why are we not allowed to discourage bad faith behaviour here? It doesn't have to be a legal rule, a social rule seems to exist already. We do the same for many other actions.
Either way I think you're allowed to discourage whatever you want (assuming you do it in a civil way). Not everyone's going to agree though.
Some people are going to think/do things that you/I don't like. And sometimes there doesn't have to be some kind of resolution that comes out of it, some kind of trial and adjudication. Life can just go on regardless.
> I personally would be very upset if someone helped me purely because they thought I was attractive.
What if they helped you because you were funny, or kind, or intelligent, or any number of traits that are primarily related back to your genetics or upbringing?
This is how humans interact. It's rarely a concious consideration of the reason we help others, but it's almost always based on our perception of them.
> You've assumed a great deal more about their behavior than was written. The professor even states "no unwanted advances are taking place", contradicting your characterization
where did I say anything about unwanted advances?
> We've really come to a point where even the purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands) are "disrespectful", have we?
that's not what was said. read again. The romantic intention is fine and human, what's at point here is when its totally lacking empathy or any sense of the other person.
You want to know what's romantic?
Respect. Caring about another. Understanding. Doing selfless actions to support another (including by consciously doing nothing because it may be disruptive).
Or do you want to be just like all the other bros who think there's a "trick" and you kinda like have to 'do A, B + C' then you "get" someone? That's a creep who see's women as some sort of prize.
EDIT: I don't know what you've assumed about this post but I'm a guy. If you are actually interested in someone for who they are, try to do good stuff and try not to do bad stuff and respectful you won't have much trouble. Just trying to be a decent human is a universal turn on.
While this is true, you have a lot more control over this than you may realize. Especially if you're a male seeking a female. Most men think they same physical characteristics they're interested in will be appealing to the opposite sex. There are many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men.
Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.
Oh I'm plenty aware. I wish someone had explained it to me when I was 16 though.
"There's truly nothing you can do today to change her mind. All the things that would have made her say 'yes' are things you had to start working on 2 years ago. Today you can start working on who you will be in 2 years and persuading the girl you meet then to say 'yes'."
I disagree that guys will only see results from self-improvement in two years; there are behavioral changes that should be mastered immediately. Learning to treat women with proper respect and still come across as attractive to them can be highly beneficial, and is not exactly something that society strives to teach. The earlier you master this, the better.
>Learning to treat women with proper respect and still come across as attractive to them
The unfortunate thing is that not only is this totally opaque, but society actually gives instruction that doesn't work, i.e. bad advice. That's how we get 'nice guys' and pickup artists. Young men have an overwhelming need for intimacy that they're driven to satisfy and there. are. no. guides. on how to obtain it.
I do pretty okay in that department now, but only from 20 miserable years of trial-and-error. Looking back, I had no opportunity to learn the things I know despite desperately looking for them. Felt like I was playing a game where everyone but me and my friends knew the rules. An older brother or maybe a coach might have been a help, but that's all I can think of.
I might agree that the situation 20 years ago was this bad; but things have changed quite a bit. We now know a whole lot more as to how women generally relate to this sex and relationships thing - because they've been telling us first-hand! We have not exactly come to a general realization throughout society that there is such a thing as behaving and relating to others in a more attractive way, but we're not far from it either.
And we also know a lot more about what doesn't work. As it turns out, nice guys simply have no need to gaslight or bamboozle others into doing things they don't actually want, quite unlike the males in OP's story; they have way better things to care about. And the best part is that women can tell; these are not things you can fool anyone about for very long.
There are different types of nice guys. One group is the one that has been told to "be nice, and respectful" and tries to do that but goes over the top to the point of simping and being creepy in a hard to describe way.
They aren't trying to be creepy, they are just misguided and lost.
> There are many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men.
> Confidence and the ability to talk are huge. You're social status among your peer group. How well you dress. Do you look after yourself physically. All of these things can be developed.
So, "fit smooth-talking alpha guy"? I'm not sure I agree with it, but your description seems _very_ shallow TBH.
> What traits, that are found attractive, would you describe as less shallow?
You got it backwards - my point was that your description of "many physical traits that women prefer but they're less shallow than us men" is as shallow as "hot lustful babe with big tits" or some other stereotypical horny teenager's dream partner that you probably meant by "shallow".
Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?
I say less shallow as they are personality traits not purely physical. I'm interested in knowing what you would consider less shallow. Unless your point is that attraction is shallow. That I could see.
>Also, you know that "gender X is less shallow than Y" is sexist statement, right?
I strongly disagree. It's like saying women on average prefer people and men on average prefer things. It's not a judgment just an observation.
> Majority of things you mentioned are not personality traits.
Here are the things I listed:
Confidence and the ability to talk are huge
You're social status among your peer group.
How well you dress.
Do you look after yourself physically.
Lets break them down.
"Confidence and the ability to talk" is absolutely a personality trait.
"You're social status among your peer group" this happens as a result of your personality. If you are a jerk you will not be well liked and will not have very good standing amongst your peers.
"How well you dress" this is an external reflection of who you are. Do you put effort into picking clothing that fits and looks good. This has a massive impact of how other people perceive you. It's the first insight someone gets into your personality. Does this person care enough to put effort into their external appearance. Do they value the perception others have of them.
"Do you look after yourself physically" women and men are looking for life partners. Often people to have a family with. If you want to stick around for long enough to do these things you're going to have to maintain some level of a healthy lifestyle. That desire to maintain health is a personality trait. It doesn't need to be that you spend 2 hours in the gym each day. Just that you haven't let yourself go to the point that you need a mobility scooter and a cpap machine.
> Your anecdotes are not statistics.
Sure if you'd like data please refer to these papers.
>he purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands)
Sure, using academic data to statically enter the easiest class with most chicks exudes pure romanticism. I'm sure the upperclassmen playing professor in a lab or doing the work of women they find attractive is totally helping the students learning.
No unwanted advances are taking place is code for "no forced touch or stalking is happening".
Taking a class, participating in labs and offering tutoring purely to find a partner is an extremely high effort attempt from a man. Men try less respectful and far more thinly veiled attempts on women all the time.
> Isn't it totally distracting to you if someone you're not attracted in is looking at you and commenting on you and trying to "help" you?
Why does the amount of effort make things better? By the same measure we would say spying on someone with binoculars is more acceptable than stalking their facebook page.
Effort is generally a pretty good proxy for respect. If this isn't a respectful attempt, can you explain what is a respectful attempt?
You go to a class, offer to help a girl and then at some point later (End of the class, etc) you ask for her number. If she says no at any point you leave her alone. What's disrespectful about that if you're genuinely helping her?
Of course if you're leering and won't leave a girl alone that's disrespectful, but taking a class and offering help to attractive girls isn't inherently disrespectful.
>Effort is generally a pretty good proxy for respect
My example above says otherwise.
>can you explain what is a respectful attempt?
One done in good faith. Which is a slippery and vague concept. The ambiguity would explain the state of this comment section.
>taking a class and offering help to attractive girls isn't inherently disrespectful
I, and others, would consider the crucial point here to be "taking the class" because there will be attactive girls there, to be the disrespectful part. It also matters that this is being done on a mass scale, so that many suitors are disrupting the studies of many students at the same time.
> I, and others, would consider the crucial point here to be "taking the class" because there will be attactive girls there, to be the disrespectful part.
Wait until you find out why men go to nightclubs...
> If men have to pursue women in "good faith" and not purposefully try to position themselves then I have news for you, 99% of men are 'disrespectful'.
"You don't get me Amanda, I'm stalking you because I just have so much respect for you. I'm one of the nice ones!"
"Well detective, I felt like we got off on the wrong foot because I kept a journal of her movements and social circle in a purely respectful manner, but she thought it was creepy. So then I thought, how much more respect can you show a woman than by carefully planning her murder and meticulously cleaning the scene and disposing of her body?"
It’s disrespectful because it ignores the fact that the women are not there to date, but to learn. The men are getting in their way by showing off and offering disingenuous tutoring.
I feel like (as an old person) trying to tell youngsters how to behave at college, seems, well likely to fall in deaf ears.
But I'm not sure your point holds water. If women want to date, they can. If they don't want to then they don't have to. These other students hold no power, assign no grades, and so on.
Perhaps the root issue is the demoralization of some not being offered dates or extra tutoring? But it's hard to see how that might be corrected.
I confess I don't see the actual harm here - those that want to learn can learn, those that want to date can date. I suppose those that want to date, but aren't getting any offers....?
Still, as an old man, I'm not sure I'm qualified to weigh in - but to me it sounds like kids being kids.
A key point is that these students do have power because they already know the coursework. That is the whole reason that they chose these specific classes.
That's a pretty weak hand really. It's not like they're in competition with the other students. They're also offering to help pass on that knowledge in exchange for attention from women. That's not a power move.
That's kind of a hall monitor position of power. Yeah, you appear to be in power but the first person to get annoyed with you is still going to stuff you in a locker. It shows these guys don't know what they're doing. You don't impress girls by showing off how much of a nerd you are. Been there tried that. It doesn't work.
That's part of the problem. The other side has no viable suggestions for such young men, outside of them being already blessed with good looks, is tall, very charismatic, well built, popular, and/or wealthy. So, be the top 20% they are already clearly not, or just passively sit around doing nothing and hope to get randomly lucky.
The subtext here is that women should be able to exist in the world without "unwanted" sexual attention being given towards them. The question is whether this is reasonable.
Should men not seek dates? Should men not go where single women are to seek dates? Should men limit their efforts at getting dates only to "appropriate venues", where women's interest is explicit? How does the man's attractiveness factor into these constraints?
None of this seems reasonable at first blush. Obviously women don't want men they're not attracted to to engage them with romantic interests. Conversely, women generally do want men they are attracted to demonstrate romantic interests, regardless of venue (to a certain extent). But how can this constraint possibly be enforced in a reasonable way?
To me, the issue isn't that class is a totally inappropriate venue (for context, I'm a woman). I've been asked out in class when I was in college. I've also asked people out in class. It was never an issue. It does not interrupt class.
But that is so different than showing up to class with the intent of getting a date. It's disingenuous and, when you have multiple people doing it, it's disruptive and disrespectful to everyone there who wants to learn, especially women.
I'm not saying people never ask each other out in class. What people were doing usually do is fine by my book. But this is a situation where a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind.
There is also no real way to signal interest in being approached. Personally I wear a rainbow watch band in an attempt to signal this but I'm not aware of any typical way a straight person signals interest without being somewhat outgoing and making the first move which seems to be deeply disturbing to the commenters here.
It takes two to tango. If the service works, then clearly some of the women are there to date. Who are we to tell them they're wrong, if both parties benefit from the arrangement?
Obviously if the men are harassing the women, that's bad and they should be held accountable.
I suspect the problem is not harassment but social incompetence. If the young men are anything like I was their approach will be less than smooth. I can see how that would get tiring over time.
When I was in college, many women were there for their "Mrs. degree." Not most women but enough that it had a familiar jokey label. This was even joked about by those same women who were partner-hunting.
And investing time into an activity to meet someone is the opposite of disrespectful. It shows a willingness to at least commit something. I don't see how this is any worse than taking dance classes to meet people. As long as they're not interrupting dance class.
I feel like that does not line up with whats in the post, though. Women are complaining. The guys aren't even fully enrolled in the class, they are auditing. It's the opposite of genuinely investing time - it's all some charade.
> It’s disrespectful because it ignores the fact that the women are not there to date, but to learn.
Well, if they're dating in that class, then you're obviously wrong; those women who date in that class are there to learn and (obviously) open to dating as well.
Who are you to tell women who they may or may not date?
I don't think most of the women in the class are dating. It's clear that a lot of them are uncomfortable. And frankly, we should privilege the interests of people who go to class to learn over those who do not. Even if just say 10% of people found this disruptive to there education, I do think that would make it a bad thing.
> I don't think most of the women in the class are dating. It's clear that a lot of them are uncomfortable. And frankly, we should privilege the interests of people who go to class to learn over those who do not. Even if just say 10% of people found this disruptive to there education, I do think that would make it a bad thing.
Just to be clear, you're advocating that we should take steps to prevent two consensual adults meeting because if they date it offends some other people???
Really? What sort of regressive primitive viewpoint is this?
Didn't we fight for decades to ensure that consensual adults can do whatever the fuck they want to even if some people find it offensive, disgusting and/or immoral?
The whole point is about people seeking out a class just to get a date. Like, if you were interviewing someone for a job and they said they were interested in your company because they wanted to date your coworkers? Would you hire them?
I wouldn’t, because that’s not the point of work.
That doesn’t mean you should stop people from dating their coworkers at all.
If I’m teaching or participating in a class it’s reasonable to expect that everyone shows up with the same primary purpose: learning. Doesn’t mean you need to ban people from dating. But these men are showing up and ignoring the whole point of the class.
My wife told me when we started dating that she picked math in university to find a STEM boy (who was expected to get a high paying job. No math grad school for me). And yes, I helped her with her homework and with studying only because I was attracted to her and dating her. We're both happy with how that turned out.
Honestly assuming we send our kids to college (it's looking like a house and a trust fund will be cheaper by the time they're 18 if we're trying to be financially optimal), we'll definitely be telling them that finding their spouse is going to be the most important thing they could possibly do while there. Almost all of our two social groups are not married, and we probably wouldn't be either if we hadn't met in university (I almost certainly wouldn't be). It is probably the best opportunity for one of the most important events to set the course of your life. Absolutely people should treat it that way.
> My wife told me when we started dating that she picked math in university to find a STEM boy (who was expected to get a high paying job.
The situation that we are dealing with in many societies, is the attempted demonization of heterosexual males by certain groups, which ends up being destructive and a net loss.
That a woman would purposely choose to pick a class to find "better dating options" is fine or even a woman's privilege. If a heterosexual male does so, then it's distorted into being a type of crime or abuse, that certain elements feel it demands punitive school administrative actions or to be criminalized
> It is probably the best opportunity for one of the most important events to set the course of your life.
Not only have many known this for a long time, that college is often the best time and place to find a husband, but statistics bear this out. Many highly educated women who have got married, found their husband during college. When they don't, many regretted it and had severe struggles later on, or the clock ended up running out on their fertility and dating prospects.
As opposed to what? A great jawline or a minimum height level? If anything it's probably relatively mature at that age to even consider what your long term life trajectory would look like with someone.
I guess because they're complaining to the professor about it? Nice attempt to turn the table though, with social skills that subtle I bet you'd fit right with the bozos in this class.
Any sizable group of people where there is fun occurring, will inevitably have someone complain because they aren’t included. It’s impossible to please everyone.
It also can happen if there are actual problems too!
But without looking at the situation, good luck figuring it out.
Modern feminism is very odd, and is the reason I no longer call myself a feminist. The gist appears to be that men - and anything associated with masuculinity - is not ok, unless you're attractive. In addition, women are independent but also need constant protection, assumedly from said attractive masculine men.
It's not hard to see how incel culture rose up and why people like Andrew Tate have so much support. Turns out chickens come home to roost.
Oh come on. It's disingenuous because the motive is to place the women in situations where the tutor can make advances, not to impart knowledge or help. They may or may not be effective tutors; that has nothing to do with whether it's disingenuous.
Taking an art class to meet different people is one thing. You at least have to grapple with the material. You are on equal footing with other students.
Showboating, or "offering to help" in something you have already learned thoroughly is disruptive to others learning.
The "unattractive slobs" bit seems a bit excessive to me, but I absolutely agree with your main point: the issues are indeed respect and intention. As the professor describes it, it sounds like the perpetrators of this "prank" are turning this class into their own romantic playground without regard for their classmates' wishes. Their "help" comes under false pretenses. They seem to think their dating lives are more important than the education of their classmates. There's a fundamental disrespect and a bit of -- sorry to say it -- misogyny there.
An extreme example, I know, but I can't help but think of the movie Audition.
That wasn't my reading. It seemed like the instructor was not thrilled that her course was being audited by showboaters, who were interested in meeting/impressing women as opposed to learning.
I got the sense it was an academic class, not a social class. Also, most students who take classes with no interest in learning would either skip class or keep their mouths shut. The problem here is that they're degrading the learning environment for others.
I think her argument would have been stronger if she had of listed more details about how the academic environment is being degraded. Upperclassmen helping with labs and offering to tutor some students doesn't immediately make it clear how it is making it harder for students to learn.
If there are students in the class who need help but don't want to go to the upperclassmen, then I'd assume the professor would have more time to help them. Overall I'm curious if the class is doing better or worse than previous classes.
100 level classes barely qualify as academic, and we must have had very different academic experiences if you believe that “most students… with no intention of learning… keep their mouths shut”.
There has always been a population of students that attend college/uni with seemingly no higher goal than scoring and making life worse for everyone around them. The only interesting development here is that the published diversity data has allowed them to finally create Scumbaggery as a Service.
Birth rates are tanking because of increased access to contraceptives and people having the wealth and freedom to enjoy their 20s and 30s unburdened by children
> people having the wealth and freedom to enjoy their 20s and 30s unburdened by children
and people *not* having the wealth and freedom to have children, being burdened by 80+ hour work weeks to pay rent on a place they'll never own or have capital in.
Listen to the millenials and gen z'ers before you make bold accusations.
Unintended pregnancies have continued to rise among the poor and fall among the wealthy (including folks with decent birth control who don't think they can afford a child) for decades now.
I spent some time researching this after reading your comment, not a lot admittedly. There seems to be a great deal of uncertainty around the topic but I came away with the impression the parent comment is closer to the truth than your own.
My wife and I are having a very hard time convincing ourselves to have kids for exactly this reason.
We're wealthy, free to pursue our hobbies, and advance in our careers. Nobody's body is getting wrecked, nobody's free time and sleep is getting upended, and it's generally a Very Good Time.
Both having kids and not having kids feels selfish for different reasons. It's hard to really feel like there's a right answer here.
I strongly recommend against it. We had kids and it has wrecked our mid 30s and early 40s. It’s only going to work out because I made prudent investments earlier in life and built a robust network of colleagues who help ensure I’m fully employed at all times. Embrace what you have, life is short. Don’t sacrifice happiness for FOMO.
What argument is there for "not having kids" being selfish? I guess by the strictest definition, it means you're taking time for yourself over some hypothetical child? But to me, selfishness requires someone you're harming by doing so, and that child doesn't exist, so there is no harm.
For what it's worth, my partner and I have made the same decision. We're not having children. It's already too difficult to buy a home here in Brisbane, let alone with the spectre of climate change related problems in the future. And, more to the point, we love our lives as-is!
It's a tragedy of the commons issue; if everyone decides as you do, the species stops existing, so not having kids is a luxury decision you get to make on the backs of the rest of the species.
Of course having kids is also selfish, as it's bringing someone into this world just to fulfil your biological imperative to reproduce; you create a human being that will (if you don't screw it up) love you for the rest of your life, and your gift to them is this fucked up world, forced to consume scarce resources that may already be gone by the time they're old enough to actually enjoy being a human.
Or more likely something within our food / water chain labeled safe and unharmful. Birth control pills part of the drinking water supply is a popular theory
I think one people miss is that lack of interaction can be a form of harassment.
>we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
Imagine how it must feel to be sincerely interested, possibly struggling because they didn't have a great K-12 experience and thus didn't have things like pre-Calc or AP credits and then... being brushed aside so someone can "tutor" their crush 1:1?
Speaking as someone who's had the unpleasant experience of having someone treat me differently at work based on if I'm "datable", it's incredibly demoralizing, it makes you want to leave an entire field. On my end it made me leave a specific strain of research, but had it happened earlier on I'd have probably switched majors entirely.
I'm sorry for your situation but this is just ridiculous.
You cannot ever harass someone through non-interaction, which is by definition aggresive and unwanted interaction.
People complaining the women aren't being offered enough "private tutoring" in a post about how men offering women "private tutoring" being harassment.
Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
>You cannot ever harass someone through non-interaction
Maybe not harass, but it's a form of discrimination -- only giving professional opportunities to people willing to fuck you is absolutely not kosher.
>Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
I'm also on the autistic spectrum, and I've never had an issue finding partners, and I doubt that complaints about tutoring are the reason your sex life has taken a pause.
>>Being mildly autistic you can see why I don't date either gender with ridiculous sentiments like these being blown around.
> I'm also on the autistic spectrum, and I've never had an issue finding partners,
This is a major difference between males and females and it is hard to get either side to understand the experiences of the other. As a guy on the spectrum who managed to cross over somewhat to the dating side, I have sympathy for the OP's confusion. You may also have some confusion, but it doesn't stop you from having a relatively normal life.
It sounds like everyone in the class can clearly see what's going on, which means there's probably not a lot of "tutoring" going on in these 1:1 sessions. So no need for the other girls to worry much about that. That said, even if they were I'm not seeing the problem. If two people start dating is one not allowed to help the other with homework now because it's "unfair" to single people? I helped my wife (then girlfriend) with her work in college. In fact I helped her in her 1 semester general optics course in the physics department when one of my majors was optical science, so almost the exact same situation (though we met in a math class). Should I have offered to help her classmates too? Does it make a difference that she's older than me? Or that the other students didn't know I was giving her 1:1 attention?
I get that rejection is demoralizing. Probably almost any man understands that. But we can't exactly expect people to prioritize fairness to everyone in their personal relationships, nor does it make sense to ban students from seeking those relationships.
> Imagine how it must feel to be sincerely interested, possibly struggling because they didn't have a great K-12 experience and thus didn't have things like pre-Calc or AP credits and then... being brushed aside so someone can "tutor" their crush 1:1?
Imagine how life must feel for these males, who, desperate for attention, spend large amount of effort going to classes which are useless to them, solely to get it (potentially). And then they're, IDK, reading threads on HN about themselves being _predatory_ and _manipulative_. Because they tried.
But of course, men don't matter. Can't wait 'till society decides to cull unattractive men or something - they're "dangerous" after all. I guess world war would be really handy, so that people unworthy of empathy can be dealt with.
I mean, seriously. You're blaming them for not trying to interact with people they're not attracted to?
Do you blame attractive women for not interacting with unattractive men? Ever thought about it?
> I think one people miss is that lack of interaction can be a form of harassment.
I don't think you actually think, that - be honest with yourself, have you ever spoke up on behalf on incels, claiming that they are actually a group of harassed males because females are ignoring them?
>be honest with yourself, have you ever spoke up on behalf on incels, claiming that they are actually a group of harassed males because females are ignoring them?
"Involuntary celibate" is a rapey, entitled, oxymoron of a phrase. Everyone wants physical affection.
I remember being distressed after the Elliot Rodger shooting, and discussing in therapy how I was... not like that... and still very lonely. I developed an eating disorder, because I had my PhD adviser and coauthors trapping me in academia by playing fast and loose with reccomendations -- only giving good ones if it'd benefit them getting tenure and keep me working on their grants, and meanwhile I had zero social life despite trying very hard.
(In retrospect, I should have taken a year off of drinking and dating and given it another go when I was healthier rather than fail upwards onto K Street, but that's a story for another day.)
Anyways... I'm talking about refusing to tutor someone unless they're pretty, not refusing to date them.
If you shut down any "fatties" or "uggos" who ask you how to smash the stack, you're engaging in a form of harassment.
I'm sorry that correctly stating a fact (giving different levels of support depending on if you've got romantic prospects) is a form of harassment apparently triggered so many.
Not only have I not spoken up for incels, I've actively advocated they should feel free to exit this planet (sans spree killing) if they feel that upset about their dating prospects.
(I'm not in the best place myself -- I got some bad advice on how long it takes to get an EU passport, so I'm stuck in a country I don't consent to living in with no job prospects because I'm not some alt-right lunatic and tried to stick up for people. But at least if I decide to leave this earth, I'll do it alone. But at least I know I can dial out for a booty call if I get sad, because I'm not some weirdo.)
> Anyways... I'm talking about refusing to tutor someone unless they're pretty, not refusing to date them.
Yeah, still not harassment. Discrimination maybe, definitely not harassment in any known dictionary.
> I'm sorry that correctly stating a fact (giving different levels of support depending on if you've got romantic prospects) is a form of harassment apparently triggered so many.
I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
> Not only have I not spoken up for incels, I've actively advocated they should feel free to exit this planet (sans spree killing) if they feel that upset about their dating prospects.
Are you or are you not claiming that $GENDER_A ignoring $GENDER_B is a form of harassment?
If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
>I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
Semantic difference. It's discrimination to only help the hotties.
>If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
I've had folks politely turn down coffee, but I literally never had a female classmate refuse to help me with something related to an engineering course.
> >I don't think you know the difference between harassment and discrimination.
> Semantic difference. It's discrimination to only help the hotties.
>If you're making the claim that MEN ignoring WOMEN is a form of harassment/discrimination, but WOMEN ignoring MEN isn't, then you're experiencing some severe form of cognitive dissonance.
> I've had folks politely turn down coffee, but I literally never had a female classmate refuse to help me with something related to an engineering course.
Are you or are you not claiming that $GENDER_A ignoring $GENDER_B is a form of harassment?
Infact, that's exactly how high fertility societies operate. At least the Islamic ones, like Afghanistan for example, where the population doubled since 2001.
Fertility has been dropping since the 80s, long before anything to do with wokeism or meetoo or whatever.
In those societies, 'dating' may be highly regulated, but it is present and functional, however immoral to women's rights.
But in our free societies, where dating and romance are left to chance, we are one by one prohibiting it in the places where that chance might occur, and not replacing them with anything. Not at school, not at the workplace, not outside the workplace if you are in the same profession and there might be a perceived "imbalance of power"...
That doesn't eliminate everyone you meet and get to know, but it eliminates most.
I don't think the population is doubling in Afghanistan because of segregated school classes. There might be another confounding factor you're forgetting...
> It seems increasingly that society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues
Isn't that the definition of "dating" though? If you're not at a previously designated "date" you're not really dating, you're just hanging out as friends. You can still try to show off good qualities that would hopefully raise the other person's interest. Sometimes people who hang out as friends even get involved quite closely romantically prior to having any formal "date" together.
it is, and that's the problem. in my opinion, dating is really the wrong way to meet a partner. it is a high-stakes activity where the first impression decides everything without any second chances.
Sometimes people who hang out as friends even get involved quite closely romantically
because that is really the better way to find a partner. someone you already know and are friends with.
There is a strong correlation with a puritanical culture having much higher birth rates than a sexually permissive one, so I don't think that is the reason.
We have moved from a sexually permissive society 60/70/80s 90s.. but sex is now taboo under the thought of children seeing content and being abused by the experience and children being allowed in previously adult spaces.
Ever wonder why murdering, killing, blood, guns are allowed on prime time tv but naked breasts are not? It use to be the opposite.
Your tv example is severely outdated. Do you know how easy it is for anyone with an internet connection to watch hardcore pornography on demand for free? It's been that way since the internet went mainstream.
It might be a bit harsh to say "society demands". Society created that dating service, and, apparently, society accepted it eagerly enough for that to be seen as a problem by some other part of that society, which then came about complaining on academia.stackexchange.com.
I'm not even trying to say that the former is a majority that represents the real desires of the "society", and the latter is a vocal minority: I don't have the data for that (even though I suspect that might be the case — but again, I don't know). I'm trying to say, that I'm wary of such wording, because it contains an implicit assertion that some part of the society isn't really a part of society and what it demands doesn't count. Because society demands this and that, and whoever wants anything else, isn't the society: at best, it's a sore spot on the body of the society, which should be treated as such, by applying a medicine to cure that... thing. Which is rather totalitarian worldview.
So, I get what you are trying to say, but even just by saying it like that you kinda help the cause you are supposedly against.
I'm not sure whether to classify this approach to dating as merely dishonest or actively predatory. In either case, I'd hope that I would have imparted enough sense and wisdom to my children that they could see through such transparent attempts at manipulation.
serious question, are deliberately ignoring the context of the question to post your victimizing dribble? it's male seniors borderline harassing freshman woman, not "someone asked someone else on a date in my class!"
> ...society demands a world where dating only happens during designated and approved dating times and venues...
It's not so much "society", as it being groups with extreme contempt, misandry, and hostility towards heterosexual males, that have pushed a very distorted narrative. That is acting like all heterosexual males are a constant danger and threat, in which all women in their presence must feel uncomfortable and under continual harassment. Leaders and advocates of such groups with negative views about men, act like they speak for all other women, and are continually attempting to push these biased and actually hateful agendas.
So we get placed more into situations where any actions initiated by heterosexual males, is perceived by such groups as aggressive or predatory. Asking someone out for a date, asking women questions, heterosexual flirting... easily becomes demonized. Despite how such is unfair, illogical, and opposed to biology. It should be no more of a "threat" or "violation" for a man to ask a woman out, as a woman to ask a man or another woman out (note the included cases).
Furthermore, many heterosexual males are afraid to even ask women out, for fear of rejection or embarrassment. Lots of guys can't do it or seek advice. Asking out the opposite gender is not something that needs to be so tightly regulated, unless its truly a case where the person has repeatedly said no (thus actual harassment), is stalking, blackmail, extortion, etc... And in that context, women are equally capable of harassment, stalking, blackmail, etc...
> men are to behave as eunuchs, and all prospects of romance are to be extinguished.
There is a trick being played here, to get to that misandric destination that certain parties wish for. This is to stealthily and by defacto limit and restrict male rights, and give women extraordinary and special rights.
So, push the situation where only women would have the right or privilege to initiate the possibility of a date, with men or other women. Where if a heterosexual man attempts to do so with women, he would face the possibility and fear of punishment.
Think about what this teacher, who is so preoccupied with the dating lives of her students, is trying to enforce in her classroom. Looks like if she got her way, she could actively restrict the numbers of male heterosexual students in her class, for any half baked suspicions. Wants to control the popularity of where heterosexual males want to go. Then seek punishment or expulsion for any male heterosexual students that might of asked one of her female students (like she's their owner) on a date.
Well that's the issue. It's not their fault. The idea of dating today has been reduced to hitting on people and jumping right into high commitment situations instead of slowly building a lasting relationship built in solid fundamentals, the kinds of advances which are rarely rejected in practice compared to just hitting on someone as if they are a checkbox to be ticked.
eh, i guess i get the point now. on a dating app atleast you have consent of some sort (they're both there, both signed up, both made profiles, both interested in a common goal)
whether it's "predatory" for a senior in college (21) to prey on a 100-level STEM student (basically an 18 year old/pre-college according to my friend), that's a whole different question from "consent to being hit on" in my opinion
No but there are social queues for this. Flirting is exactly that. Friendly small talk to see if the other person is receptive or not. If you're like me and are probably slightly autistic with very little social interaction growing up, then you'll be terrible at that. Perhaps this is the problem. A large number of socially awkward guys are joining these classes irritating all the young women.
The comment right below you is "the default should be don't hit on me" (in all caps) which kind of translates to "the default should be don't flirt with me", doesn't it?
No flirting doesn't begin with hitting on someone. It's a game two people play. They edge closer to hitting on each other. Each time gauging the response. If the other person is not playing you'll never reach the point where you're hitting on them. Neither party needs to lose face and it can simply be a polite chat.
Some people just seem to know how to do this. For others its near impossible. I'm in the others group. When a girl was flirting with me in the past I sent messages to her that I wasn't interested. As I had no idea how to play that game. I didn't even know it was going on. Then when I was interested in a girl I tended to creep her out by being too awkward too direct. Even when I asked my wife out she almost dropped the phone as I shocked her by being too direct. Luckily we'd been friends for years and she knew me well enough to say yes.
Maybe that's what we should work on instead, along with making hitting on people acceptable for women too. That way, it's not just a male thing, and people can still indicate they want to be left alone.
It's definitely acceptable for women to hit on men, in fact there is currently a double standard in place in many cultures.
Two days ago at a party I saw a woman sexually harass multiple men without any repercussions, and she constantly apologized afterwards which somehow made it ok to continue the behavior all night.
Yes, that person clearly has unresolved issues to work on but the double standard is there and it's harmful in both directions.
If that's true, then the only way to let a woman know you're interested in her is after she has first told you. But that's a horrible way to make room for different personality types. Some women are assertive. Some are less so. Should the more reserved women just stay single?
Do the more reserved women want to stay single? Maybe they do!
And most people have introvert friends and extrovert friends. You meet safe and good people through friend circles and then they get you to meet the other person.
Don't you think it's pretty ignorant to pretend the only type of relationships happening between 18 -> 21 year olds throughout every college in America is exclusively "safe and good people met through friend circles" as opposed to two people just randomly in a class together where the guy typically just says "hey, what are you doing later? want to hang out/study together?"
I've had multiple conversations with women who are somewhere between disappointed and despondent that guys don't hit on them more.
>I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
I think the solution that leaves everyone happy is: start a conversation with that woman, but if she's not interested, leave her alone.
Look at it in utilitarian terms:
* If the woman you're talking to isn't interested, your attempt to start a conversation will create a brief unpleasant experience for her.
* If she is interested, there's a chance at a great, long-lasting romance which will benefit both you and her.
The positive utility from finding your future spouse is much larger than the negative utility from a brief unwanted conversation. So on expectation it often makes sense to start that conversation.
"[27/F] Why don't guys approach me? I even go out on my errands alone, or hang out at cafes alone (like, go out and eat while reading a book) just to put myself out there."[1]
(edit) removed link to avoid HN's flooding someone's Reddit post
What can be accepted as “it’s okay to hit on me right now”? I don’t disagree with your assertion btw. Determining collective social etiquette can be challenging, and I’m always interested in other perspectives to better understand other humans in general.
> I don’t disagree with your assertion btw, I’ve dated several coworkers years ago but have never been in a situation where me showing interest was indicated to be unwelcome
How close to the truth is this as a different take on your situation: "you slowly hit on them, and they wanted it, so they didn't report you to HR/make it a big deal"?
I would assume that if you indicate interest and the other person declines, you never bring it up again and you treat them no different than if you had never asked, that’s appropriate? I’d like to think that, at the topic’s core, it’s about empathy and respect for the other person and adults are still adults who can make decisions when there isn’t a power differential (peers, not in a reporting chain).
My question is genuine though and stands: when is it okay to communicate interest in someone? If the answer is never, it doesn’t impact me, it just feels very telling with the times (third places evaporating, and most people spend most of their time outside the home at work). If there is a line, I’m curious where that line is, not to leverage it but to respect it.
“Don’t be a dick” but you’ve still gotta put yourself out there if you want optimize for luck and possibility. To handle rejection with grace is key, which comes from emotional maturity.
> Data from 2017 shows that as many as one in 10 heterosexual couples in the US say that they met at work. Considering some data shows people in the US between the ages of 20 and 50 spend nearly four times as much time with colleagues than they do with friends, this seems all but bound to happen.
Women signal interest or a lack thereof in a thousand ways. Picking up on that is a basic social skill and like all skills some persons are more capable than others.
Women have different personalities and indicate their attraction or lack of attraction in very different ways. Flirting for some women is the exact same behavior presented to everyone for other women.
If you want to know if a woman is attracted to you, ask her out and see what she says
> If you want to know if a woman is attracted to you, ask her out and see what she says
Sometimes she'll say no to test to see if you're serious or not and probably to test your social acumen too. Picking up whether it's a "no, I'm not interested" or a "no, but I want to see more" is exactly the kind of social cue reading I'm talking about.
And yeah learning that can be rough for people who aren't naturals and especially rough for spectrumy folks. Some of whom will probably even say there is no such thing at all because they can't see it. But them's the breaks. The reality of the sexual marketplace is what it is.
Taking no for no, and moving on with a smile to other women can show confidence, and maybe she will reconsider and take steps to get back into your social life.
In general, asking over and over again hoping for a different answer can signal desperation.
So it turns out in this situation, the spectrumy response of just taking a response at face value, can also be the best strategy for the "sexual marketplace".
That is in addition to it just being the right and decent thing to do, of course.
that's a huge problem with this too. you can say there are two camps, flirting (warranted or unwarranted can be ignored) and "hitting on". i'm sure some can argue it's a subtle vs not so subtle difference
you're asking socially awkward + nervous + scared guys to 1. go out of their comfort zone and smoothly create inorganically an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone, and 2. sprinkle in something that is considered flirtatious but not too strong that it falls under the category of "hitting on"
Yes, “basic” means fundamental, not simple. And for a sexually reproducing species reading the social cues of the opposite sex is indeed of fundamental importance, modulo outright barbarism.
I said subtle because I am not inexperienced in this area and these "signals" absolutely are subtle/ambiguous a decent portion of the time. And clearly you do need to track all 1000, otherwise how would you know if someone is trying to "signal interest or a lack thereof"? If I'm not paying attention to that one signal and they use it, then I'm missing the signal.
Indeed, I didn't say subtle because I thought it was so obvious it went without saying. My bad.
Now why these social cues are so often subtle or ambiguous is itself an interesting question. It's not one I have any good answers to though. In this area, as in most, I'm a phenomenologist and not a theorist. Needless to say the phenomenology I've developed precludes telling a woman I'm interested in about the phenomenology I've developed. Except of course when I think she might find it attractive. Human social interactions are marvelously complex. Frankly my inclination to start navel gazing has set me back once or twice.
If you want to learn it, just practice. It will take time. It will probably be worth it.
BTW, I’m not talking about PUA stuff here. Rather, I would think of it as practising the art of conversation, and cultivating a curiousness about other people.
> If you want to learn it, just practice. It will take time. It will probably be worth it.
A skill that you need to practice with dedication and that "takes time" to learn still doesn't sound basic.
As someone that has participated in lots of flirting, conversation, and curiousness about other people, I can say confidently that being curious and being good at conversation are not sufficient to navigate flirtatious behavior successfully, unless you're using "art of conversation" as a huge umbrella term which includes charisma / etc. If you are doing that, then I'll note that probably the majority of people on Earth have not mastered the art of conversation (or even cultivated it much) by such a broad definition.
Let me clarify: You don't pork out during your academic day; you get acquainted during the day to get the ball rolling, and then proceed with the porking once you've punched out and are now spending your private time.
So what, you're hoping that potential love interests just stagnate like you and don't date and find other partners? No. This is highly unrealistic of normal young men and women.
It's one thing to become familiar and make friends with people around you, that's just the natural order of society.
It's completely another to pork yourself out in environments and situations unfit or not intended for such purposes. You ostensibly go to class to learn, not (eventually) fuck.
The problem about that is the exact opposite is happening. There is a teacher who wants to interject herself into the private lives of her adult students, have full control over how they meet, control their sexual interactions, and exert excessive influence outside of her classroom. She is attempting to force her beliefs on how people should form personal or sexual relationships, by taking advantage of her position as a teacher.
This "porking" you are referring to is not happening inside of her classroom, it's outside. The adult students should have the freedom to associate with whoever they want to, for whatever reasons they want to, as long as its legal and consenting. If any of the individual adult female students have an actual complaint of harassment, they can bring that case directly.
The teacher in question didn't personally like the nature of the associations being made among her adult students, and seeks to stop any possibility of "porking" through multiple public and elaborate means. To include attempting to indirectly shame all parties involved and force the school's hand.
I admit I didn't bother to read the link because this whole subject is stupid. If the porking isn't adversely affecting the class nor other students during class nor faculty thereof, then whatever the students are doing is of no concern to the teacher.
I don't see why this matters. Two people like each other? Why does it matter where it's happening or what the context is? It's probably more natural and humanizing to treat people like humans instead of objects you cannot have feelings for too.
>Why does it matter where it's happening or what the context is?
If it disturbs the surrounding environment (eg: inhibits work to be done, disrupts classes to be held, etc.), yes it does matter where and how it happens.
A love life is a strictly private affair; if it intrudes into professional, academic, or otherwise not-private time then you are doing it wrong.
> Paul Allen, who would later become a co-founder of Microsoft, was a couple of years above Gates at school. Together they fixed the school scheduling software to ensure Gates was the only boy in classes of girls.
In 2004-2005 one of the most interesting features of Facebook was to see which students were in which classes (lectures), and even which smaller labs or sections of that class. So you could enroll and change your entire schedule if there were openings based on data made available within Facebook... it felt pretty creepy even back then.
It's a bit of legend in the YouTube community, but I've never looked into it myself. Thank you for motivating me to. The source in the article is from Steve Chen, co-founder of YouTube itself, at SXSW.
Sergey Brin too, with company massage rooms at early Google.
As others have pointed out, it's also how Facebook was started.
Sometimes I look back at my youth, and think about how I used to view technology: as a democratizing force which could tear down artificial barriers. Then I look around today and wonder what happened.
It makes sense, though, if you look closely at the founding fathers of big tech.
Zuckerberg's case is arguably even worse (though I completely agree otherwise). If I recall he created a way for harvard guys to rate their female peers appearances and had some pretty disparaging comments on the site itself.
Trying to shut it down is probably going to create more interest, Streisand effect type thing. I would leave it to burn out on it's own. It sounds like a net positive on the whole.
Hard to tell if there is really a problem here. "a number of female students" reached out to her with concerns, but "a few fellow profs either find it comical, or are happy that open labs are so full of volunteer tutors" and the boys are leading labs and offering tutoring.
Of course there are hidden motives, but it sounds like for the most part everyone is getting something useful out of this.
I agree that shutting it down would likely backfire if the prof tries to shut it down too aggressively, but I don't know that I follow the conclusion that this is mostly a positive. There's some selective minimizing of the students that feel uncomfortable and maximizing of what some of the faculty think:
~Sure, some female students feel weird about guys in their class pretending to be in the instructor so that they can trick the hot students into "private tutoring", but some of the faculty think its funny. Sounds like a net positive~
There's a bit of boys will be boys energy in this reply.
> There's some selective minimizing of the students that feel uncomfortable and maximizing of what some of the faculty think
When did the goal of the university shift toward minimizing when students "feel uncomfortable?" When did the definition of "uncomfortable" expand to such a degree that men simply enrolling in and performing well in a class with mostly women is seen as "misconduct?"
> There's a bit of boys will be boys energy in this reply.
What do you mean by "boys will be boys energy?" That the vast majority of young men are attracted to young women and will attempt to create situations where they encounter young women?
What's stopping the young women from standing up for themselves? Why are they being treated like damsels in distress without agency.
I suspect the likely reason why the faculty think its funny is because the average number of volunteer tutors is likely close to zero, and having too many volunteer tutors is an unusual problem.
The more cynical faculty may think that there is generally only two reasons why students would spend their time volunteering as tutors. Either because they get paid, or because they want to impress other students.
Yea, the word "leching" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, and the edit doesn't really add much information:
> (edit: there are no unwanted advances, but it's painfully obvious to some students of what's taking place)
OK, but what's taking place? That's pretty important. If they're catcalling, harassing, whistling and other kinds of inappropriate behavior, that seems to be a clear cut discipline problem that should be dealt with via the university's discipline and sexual harassment policies. But OP specifically says no unwanted advances, so what on earth is OP talking about? It's definitely not painfully obvious to me.
As much as I disagree with "diversity" pushes, I don't see the publication of this data (which the author mentions at least twice) as being really important here. It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it which classes would fit the description. It seems like the app is somehow a catalyst for coordinated activity at this school (and maybe driven by the data) but realistically you could probably find a speculative "what classes to meet girls in" thread on reddit that would give the same info
Ah, but a speculative approach wouldn't be a misuse of data that was published to burnish the university's diversity image. Following the OP's logic here, it seems to be grounded in a complaint that the university is publishing granular diversity data as a way to burnish its image without considering potential adverse effects of publishing said data. So it's attempting to set up a scenario of two pillars of woke ideology coming into conflict - like homeless people camping in the wetlands, or trans people vs women's sports - which I think is why the writer also thinks it's something the right would pounce on.
I'm offering the above analysis whilst thinking all parties in this are creating a tempest in a teapot.
If a male engineering student chooses, say, a drama elective in hopes of meeting more women, that's fine as long as he takes the class seriously and treats fellow students with respect. He might even learn something. But someone with a strong math background shouldn't be allowed in a 100-level math for liberal arts students class, regardless of motive.
I took one such class, of latin, which unexpectedly was all women except me. The class itself was okay but the environment was terrible, I wouldn't recommend unless you really want to study the topic. Ended up quitting but read the textbooks anyway. Depending on how you look like, you get treated like a creep just for being in such place, no matter how respectful you are.
Language classes typically prohibit students from taking the class if it's one of their native languages or they're above some skill level. On the other hand, STEM classes are wide-ranging enough that even someone with a graduate degree in math and computer science might benefit from taking physics 101.
I specifically took a bunch of easy classes in my Senior year because 1. I already fulfilled my major-required core and elective classes, 2. I already had a post-uni job lined up (so I just had to keep my GPA high) and 3. Honestly I'd been burning myself out with 18 credits per semester, and thought I could use a break.
I wouldn't see the harm in adding "4. There are a lot of women in these classes" to my already lazy-burnout list of criteria. I kind of wish I had those demographic information available to me back when I went to school. Neat hack.
I took weightlifting as my PE elective in college, and it was full of young women. I made a comment about this to the instructor one day and he said it's always like that. The young ladies sign up for weightlifting because they think it's going to be full of buff men but instead it's 75% women and the 25% of the class that's men are out of shape and taking the class because they want to get fit. Already buff guys just go to the gym and don't bother with the class.
I suspect that if you just announced this fact to the women in the class - either officially, if that doesn't get you in trouble, or under the table if it would - then the problem would basically solve itself. Certainly no males in the class would be getting dates.
I was a bit disappointed in how much the question and the answers concentrated on the course/university/app. Students have agency and are relatively intelligent. There's one side of "how to change this in the future" which matters of course. But for making the environment safer? The teacher can literally state what's happening for the first few lectures: "This semester the class composition looks different, because we've been joined by a large number of students using app XYZ to select this class for its high female:male ratio. They're likely familiar with the curriculum already and are hoping for easy grades and the chance to get close to others under the pretext of tutoring. Keep this in mind if approached. You know who you are and you're still free to change your course for this semester. Now for the actual lecture..."
Even this seems over the top. A simple "Wow, the ratio of men to women in this class is much higher than it usually is" can get the point across there, without alienating the men in the class who actually care about the subject material. Women aren't oblivious, and people can absolutely draw their own conclusions with that info.
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" was my first reaction, and I felt awful & loss hearing your comment (because I simultaenously also agree!), but I'm also back to some transparency in the end, if less hopeful (that this would turn out/cleans us of what feel like thin actions). It's up to people to decide, hopefully from an informed place! Simply posting about this & hopefully awareness taking off & giving folks warnings what is afoot here is basically the one responsible step, that at least tries to inform potential datees about this pretty icky predation (but which alas to everyone, also makes sense).
This definitely feels not good to me, in a big sense. But I have a hard time convincing myself it really matters in a case-by-case sense. If someone's cute and has prospects, is doing something actually interesting on their own & has potential I respect, and has the time and slack to come meet & be interested in me while (hopefully) also enjoying & sharing a subject some, I'm not really sure that I'd be all that bothered. Even knowing there's a bit of sham, a bit of a waste, a game at the heart. They're going out of their way to find a connection. Like, ok, this person gave up a sensible path to go do something stupid to come meet me... ok, weird, but ok.
I still think there should be a disclaimer at the start, make it known. Not that adolescents really have the fully developed limbic system to handle/make use of the info fully, but at least to open the idea first, give em a better chance. Heck, let's deploy some ML: "HAL 10k reports 20% of the boys in this class have no business here whatsoever; it has no contribution/would be easier than their regular classes, & their intents are suspect!" Match data with data! If the diversity data gives insight one place, equity insists we give counter-data on the un-diverse, and in that seems like a solid chance to start to make pretty strong inferences about what is up.
Or just more simply, pointing out the stats in general: that these classes have rather surprising new attendees en-mass, and showing what ranking of predation the class has on the predatory website being described here, for what search critereon. Rather than be specific, just leave it at the general non-judgemental but also generally most would conclude yuck. Let the information go two ways.
But to return to my parents point. Yeah. I think we should prepare & equip, make known & make bidirectional some of the what-is-what here. But I also don't think, even knowing & seeing, it'd be that much of a hinderance or burden in many cases. I started with a so what, and that still kind of is my final conclusion. But I still feel the need for sunlight, the need to make it a reasonably fair so-what, versus a Dark Forest scenario.
Let's change the subjects from "horny upperclassmen" to "MLM representatives that want to get new suckers". Would you be fine with going to a class where a significant percentage of people are trying to get you to sell Amway products? And they don't give a damn about the class?
> Would you be fine with going to a class where a significant percentage of people are trying to get you to sell Amway products?
Yes, absolutely. If they are getting in the way of my ability to focus by talking to me about Amway products, then no. Likewise, if they ask after class "Hey, wanna buy some Amway?" and I refuse, that's fine -- one bite of the apple is reasonable. If they keep asking me if I want to buy Amway, then that becomes a problem.
A bunch of people with any ulterior motive in my class are fine with me. Those people not respecting my motives (learning) is the issue.
> Would you be fine with going to a class where a significant percentage of people are trying to get you to sell Amway products? And they don't give a damn about the class?
Yes?
I'm capable of saying no, even aggressively when people don't get the hint. I've even done it in the past, numerous times.
I mean, yeah? If it turned into harassment then no, but the post itself says that's not happening.
How is this any different from Bob talking your ear off about some hobby that he has that you have absolutely zero interest in? You just don't listen or tell him directly you don't care. This thread makes me feel like I'm going insane, this is basic human interaction.
Let's say there's 20 Bobs in your class, and they are pushy, not pushy because that would be harrasment ;) Also the Bobs don't give a shit about the class, they just got in to talk about [INSERT ANNOYING HOBBY].
It's totally okay if you say something that's totally not equivalent.
The specific numbers would make a big impact, and it depends alot on what we define as 'harassment'.
Is it 20 among a class of 600? Or is it 20 among a class of 50? How pushy are they about it? Do they stop if I tell them I don't care once? twice? twenty?
These are all relevant questions but it feels like many folks are automatically treating it as if they make up half the class and they're doing the absolute maximum amount that's just under what would be considered 'harassment'.
For what it's worth, most of the people in my college classes (including myself often) didn't give a shit about any part of the class except for the grade.
Worth considering that with the post in question, these male students are auditing the class so in general they have no consequences if they fail. They are there solely for the purpose of trying to sleep with younger female students and need to place no consideration on their academics.
And as for how pushy they are, according to the author, these male students are trying to take on a perception of authority (acting like instructors/TAs during classes) which implies some amount of attempted coercion (whether explicit or implicit) is likely taking place.
This type of power dynamic is really dangerous and it's a matter of time before somebody particularly scummy takes part and ends up victimizing one of the female students who are actually trying to pass the class.
> Let's say there's 20 Bobs in your class, and they are pushy, not pushy because that would be harrasment ;) Also the Bobs don't give a shit about the class, they just got in to talk about [INSERT ANNOYING HOBBY].
I don't mind - I can say "No" 20 times in a single day and then be left alone for the rest of the semester.
The real issue was pointed out by the professor herself, that only attractive women were being offered tutoring and getting attention. The ones complaining were jaded by the competition.
I don't see how there is any issue with this if the men were respectful and didn't actually make unwanted advances. Why does the professor (a woman) feel like women are stupid, or need to be coddled? I can't think of anything more disrespectful to empowering women than assuming they don't possess the agency to make calculated decisions on their own.
I took that as within their lab groups. As-in sitting with their group of 4 or so, they led the group work.
Honestly, whatever their motives, that kind of interaction is what group work is for. Having students that can lead and communicate with peers is invaluable.
This works great until someone rejects their advances and in retaliation the male student (who is auditing the class so they have no consequences for failure) sabotages the female student's labs and therefore their grade.
The professor was simply stating what they observed. I am extrapolating on the possible problems that'd arise in this environment and what I am suggesting isn't really that absurd.
As a male student during my years in undergrad, I had 2 different instances of team members/partners who outright stated they would not cooperate and would just fail the lab/project unless I did XYZ thing for them. In the 2 cases I remember it was basically "do most of my work for me" despite barely having enough time to complete my own portions. To add onto this, professors often repeated in my courses that "it's your responsibility to make group/pair work succeed" and that students would need to pick up the slack for any deficiencies in the team/pair. To their credit, I occasionally had professors who graded work per team member to prevent this type of leaching but often the answer the professor would give the class was that learning how to pick up the slack was just part of the course.
It isn't much of a leap to see this kind of "if you don't cooperate we can just fail" behavior from someone who already has no academic penalty for failure (as audits don't have final grades) and who joins the class explicitly to try to get laid.
Young women aren't oblivious to their own charms. They know what they're doing. They're getting free 1-on-1 tuition from a nerd, and the nerd gets to be within 3 feet of an attractive young woman - maybe even more than that, let's not be naive about college campuses - which might otherwise be impossible. Everybody wins.
You might even upset the women most of all! When the quiet part is said aloud, you take away their plausible deniability. You're calling them out even more so than you are the men.
Because I have an attractive daughter studying engineering, and she tells me that her single biggest problem is that she constantly has to reject, avoid, or otherwise fend off male advances nearly every day. It's exhausting, it makes her never feel at ease in her classes, and she is constantly being distracted when what she really wants is quiet time to figure out integration by parts or whatever.
As a male, this is not a problem I ever had, but I believe her. She isn't making it up.
> Because I have an attractive daughter studying engineering, and she tells me that her single biggest problem is that she constantly has to reject, avoid, or otherwise fend off male advances nearly every day. I
And yet the complainants are complaining about not getting attention, which seems like a different problem that your daughter is experiencing.
That doesn't follow. You were implying that the women are not aware of the men's motives, and going along with it out of naivety.
That your daughter is rejecting them outright would suggest that it's either a futile plan anyway, or that the women are already on to it so the announcement would be pointless.
Perhaps your daughter doesn't need or want to cash in on her attractiveness for academic favours. Others will, quite readily. Men sure as hell aren't saints, but nor are women.
Some people are just nice, some are looking to make friends, some may be confident about certain aspects of the course & want a support group for the parts they are weaker with, and some are just passionate about a given subject so they offer to help or study with classmates.
Unless the person is being super obvious, it's pretty hard to to tell whether the person offering help is one of the above types or if they are just trying to get in your pants until after the fact. When I was in uni, this was a constant issue among my female friends and it constantly left them on guard.
Then when the guy would make their intentions clear and inevitably get rejected, it'd be a coin toss whether they'd respond negatively as if they were owed for their assistance. It's mentally exhausting relying on people, having to constantly second guess whether they might want to sleep with you, and how to handle things in the event they try. Worst case if you are isolated (in a dorm, empty classroom, library study cubicle, etc), they might try to "take what they are owed" or make threats for "deceiving them". More likely they'll just drop any effort put towards helping you as you are now a missed mark and mid semester you'll have to quickly try to find someone else to study with or work on assignments with lest you fall behind.
Of course not all cases end badly but enough of them do that the majority of women will have at least one experience with some degree of retaliation for rejecting advances.
This of course is only worsened by male students like in the post who are auditing the class (i.e. no penalty for failing or stopping participating) with the explicit intention of trying to sleep with other students in the class. With the case in the post, there is even less of a chance of those making advances simply accepting the rejection and continuing to work with you. Also this particular case could be additionally problematic because if it's as pronounced as the post describes, it might shift the grade distribution (and therefore the end-of-course curve) which sets bad incentives for students.
Oh, okay. The fact that the engineering world is often unpleasant for my daughter strictly because she is a young blonde woman isn't the fault of the people making it unpleasant. It's my fault.
She doesn’t feel that way. She feels like she is surrounded by scummy males who just want to get laid and aren’t actually interested in her as a person. And constantly fending these men off is emotionally draining. Once she does fend them off, they aren’t exactly friendly any more, so she's surrounded by men who emotionally stunted and offended that she personally didn't respond to their advances.
If she were interested in bedding the most attractive males possible, then maybe. But what she actually wants is to build cool environmentally efficient buildings, and to do that she needs to pass her classes.
Well if she’s fending off men - why would they be friendly?
I’m not friendly to anyone who acts like an asshole to me.
Your daughter is also probably just not attracted to the overwhelming majority of those men. She’s probably quite picky. Very common with engineering women since they have endless options.
How would you feel about being in an environment where 75% of the people are mad at you because you didn’t want to get naked with them? Would you find that environment conducive to professional development?
At no point are the men getting mad at her or expressing that. They're not like, "Well fuck you, ya damn stupid cunty bitch." They're not doing that and you know they're not. If she just says no thank you then all they do is walk away feeling down. If instead she's super aggressive and an asshole about it like: "ew no, you fucking incel dweeb. Fucking die!" then maybe they have all the reason to be mad at her.
Doubt your daughter is going to be telling you when she acts like the later though.
The most basic way misogyny gets expressed is through the wholesale disregard of what women tell you if it doesn’t match your preconceived ideas.
I have chosen to believe my daughter (and, fwiw, my wife). You can say what you want, but this is what I am being told by two of the people I love and respect most in the world: it is exhausting and demoralizing to have to consistently wonder whether someone is being nice to you because they like you or because they want to sleep with you.
I find the behavior predatory but not to a point that I can complain about without any more detail. If I swap out senior students with complete strangers, then it kind of sounds worse, but that may be an unfair comparison.
One thing that I will complain about is the preferential treatment that these seniors are showing. In my opinion, you are in a course to learn and teach (or because you're forced to), and these seniors definitely fall in the latter, yet, as teachers, they only help select juniors. This somewhat reveals their intentions and also makes the other juniors uncomfortable.
I don't see what point the app and diversity data play aside from optimizing for the courses you join and being backstory as to why seniors are joining. You're free to stick your head into courses and figure out if there are potential partners there.
Unsettled how many HN readers think this is OK. Please think deeply
about this situation, using your systems thinking, to see why this is a really bad trend.
It is kind of worse than a single guy joining a yoga class for the same reasons. This is a conspiracy to get lots of men to interfere with the education and success of women to get a date or sex.
"guys being guys", "people find their partners in college so it's ok!", "men are the real victims so they're justified / understandable", "nothing is wrong so long as it's not sexual assault". grossest comment section i've seen on this site in forever
nothing strikes you as creepy or off putting about a non-insignificant number of people entering a class for the sole purpose of trying to find a partner? not incidental flirting or relationship that might occur from taking a class to learn or because of a requirement, but only to find a partner
>there are no unwanted advances
considering how underreported sexual harassment and assault is in America (for all genders), especially at the college level, I'm not inclined to believe this
These kinds of threads are always an interesting reminder of the kind of people that post here. They have comments on other things too... Can't take any comment seriously
This story, even if it's a fake, is a great litmus test for how many engineers are creeps and continue to justify creepy behavior for the most absurd of reasons.
> It is kind of worse than a single guy joining a yoga class...
Let's start with that point and take the reverse. Are we suppose to automatically discriminate against or condemn a woman who joins say a kick-boxing class full of men?
Her reasons, which others may agree with or not, are not as relevant as her right to do so. In the same way those male students have the right to join that class, regardless of internal reasons. To include we should be mindful that people have many reasons for doing things, so singling out just one, doesn't mean a complete picture of their motivations.
The next problem with the argument that you are presenting, is because a person of the opposite sex joins a class, does not mean they will automatically gain total sexual access to everyone there. This is why you can't drop a simplistic argument, and act as if it represents real world scenarios.
Every adult person inside the class has the right of refusal. If a person makes dating or sexual advances towards them, they can refuse the offer. If there is any kind of harassment or violation of class rules, they can complain about it to the appropriate instructors or higher. That they actually did something, should be the issue, not the belief of what they might do or the automatic presumption of guilt.
What the issue is, as presented by the teacher, is she personally didn't feel comfortable with the opportunity certain male students had. We are arguably dealing with a level of prudishness or disdain versus actual probable cause that violations of anything had occurred.
It would be similar to an old kick-boxing coach not liking females training in the same gym he's in, because he believes their mere presence is an unacceptable distraction and they are possibly sexually promiscuous, so wants to kick them out. That is him grabbling with his own internal issues and trying to impose his biases and preferences on others. In the same way this female teacher is trying to impose her biases and beliefs on various male students in her class.
At the end of the day, the opposite sex exists and people might have sex, so deal with it. The school makes rules of behavior for which people in the class are suppose to follow. That's what the teacher should enforce. What adults do on their free time and outside of the class, is not the business or concern of any prudish teachers. The teacher needs to focus on her class, not what people might be thinking, any possible dating, or the consensual sexual lives of her students outside of her class.
Guys being guys trying all the ways to meet girls that are not present in their "engineering majors". Nothing new here. TBF, somewhat applaud the creativity.
At the same time totally understand the unpleasant atmosphere this behavior creates.
I never dated when I was in school, if I could advise my past self I'd say try to get as many dates as you can because after school it dries up pretty fast... I'm 36 now and still single -_-.
I think often we way over-weight environmental factors in this area. As individuals we have crazy amounts of agency to change things for ourselves. FWIW I barely dated in school, partly because I didn't care much for social interaction but also (maybe mostly) because I was quite clueless about romantic attraction. Since graduating and especially getting into my 30s, things have become so much easier.
Especially as a male, you can really change your situation by consistently choosing to invest in becoming a compelling partner.
It's what you want it to be. Dating area, social network building place, source for information and tutors, source of certification, funnel to corpo jobs, etc...
Acculturation to bourgeois and haut bourgeois norms depending on the college, for elite colleges a way for the rich and those highly likely to be professionally successful to associate to the benefit of both, a way to launder IQ tests (the SAT and ACT), a four year holiday and networking opportunity, an entree into better jobs, a way to get the public to subsidise research they don’t understand. College has many purposes, just like school. They share the sorting and ranking function but for college there childcare one is much attenuated.
That said, the professor is a mandatory reporter under federal law. Either she is aware of violations and has reported them, or she doesn’t believe that what is happening crosses that line.
Especially when she writes that students have complained to her. If it even begins to sound like a Title IX violation, you interrupt to tell them that you are legally required to make a report of anything they tell you and offer to let them continue talking or that you will personally escort them to the university office where they can talk to someone that is not legally required to make a report. You absolutely do not solicit the internet for advice.
So this is dumb, creepy, and uncool. But it’s not a Title IX issue.
Only because the first options of reaching out to department members and administration went completely ignored. I certainly wouldn't file a formal complaint as my first action in this case (as described), but at a minimum the people who work there have experience dealing with situations like this, and could offer advice to the professor, or perhaps have a discussion with the administration about how to prevent this situation from escalating into a Title IX issue.
While I normally would argue about virtue signaling, this seems like creepy and unsettling behavior that definitely warrants an investigation. That doesn’t mean there was any rule breaking, but this is one of those creepy things that I strongly oppose looking the other way at. If you’re afraid of an investigation, then it is probably something worthwhile looking into.
Don't let senior level students audit junior level classes? Why are they even there besides the reasons outlined in the problem? This is a problem with the University because they don't want to acknowledge a problem. Do they really think that's going to last? If it was my daughter who left the class because she was harassed I'd be very angry.
Why do people see this as even remotely unethical? It seems to me that it's great that plenty of younger people are getting essentially free tutoring sessions and fun friendships/relationships out of it.
Unless there's sexual assault/battery being alleged here, this is both ethical and good for all the students involved!
There is an assumption in a class that you are there to learn the curriculum in some way.
The seniors in this case are interested only in the other students. The class/coursework is only a prop for them to force interactions with other students.
I don't think it's violence, but it's certainly unethical, and makes the class a "joke" for senior students to interfere with others learning.
Imagine taking your first CS course and you get paired with someone who does the entire project before you can grapple with the question, An important part of the class has been taken from you.
They can offer to "teach you how" but they have little motivation (or even skil) to actually do a good job.
> Imagine taking your first CS course and you get paired with someone who does the entire project before you can grapple with the question, An important part of the class has been taken from you.
I opened an IDE and it did my first assignment for me as part of the opening screen. In no way did it prevent me from learning hello world
I did miss out on properly learning what a Jacobian is and how to work with it intuitively because a buddy and I did two different class projects together and did a project from each solo, but I don't think the project would have done the job on the learning.
The most important learning from university is that you're in charge of your own learning. Just because said partner can do the whole thing doesn't mean you're off the hook
> There is an assumption in a class that you are there to learn the curriculum in some way.
No there isn’t. We’re talking about a university, not someplace whose sole or primary purpose is learning. The assumption in a university classroom is that students are there to earn a grade and a credential.
Maybe it would help to imagine it's an all men's school and it's young men who feel uncomfortable being hit on while they need to learn. I'm not saying it's any different, I'm just saying shifting it this way be help you think about how it's a power imbalance.
>Why do people see this as even remotely unethical? It seems to me that it's great that plenty of younger people are getting essentially free tutoring sessions and fun friendships/relationships out of it.
>Unless there's sexual assault/battery being alleged here, this is both ethical and good for all the students involved!
A high school senior in Calc 2 would a helpful in an Algebra 1 class as a tutor or teaching assistant. A high school senior in Calc 2 taking that same class on the pretense they forgot how to take the slope a linear equation is, uh, just weird vibes you know? It's that pretense that does it.
Double so if there's an age dynamic of Seniors/Freshmen.
That requires support of the university which the instructor doesn't have, and there are legitimate reasons for senior students to audit junior level courses in a different field from their major. Universities want to encourage intellectual curiosity and cross-field pollination. However, by the time students are senior they likely have filled their non-major electives, so unless they are taking enough classes to get a minor, the class won't count towards their degree and taking it for a grade is all risk and no benefit GPA and graduation wise. That is one of the main reasons that auditing courses is allowed.
If the professor did have support, and this phenomenon was really was causing a surge in enrollment, they could make a compromise like having sections that only allowed junior-level same-major students, to consolidate all the pranksters together.
This is an economics problem and this teacher should work with their Econ department to change the rules for course auditing and increase reputational costs to disincentive this behavior.
A few options: 1) Make auditing those classes more expensive by limiting the total number of courses a student can audit, or capping the number of students that can audit those courses. 2) Make auditing a remote-only class option. 3) Give lectures on how to spot this behavior which will make the perpetrators obvious and undesirable. 4)Have a no-dating policy between students within the same class under penalty of failure. 5) Couple course participation with a mandatory internship at a STEM company (something a serious student would want but a time-suck for a fake student).
The economics department might enjoy testing these policy changes and could get some papers out of them.
(I wish I could have posted on the original site but I need some sort of karma to do that)
It is difficult to suggest solutions without knowing exactly what the course is, but designing a class project to develop a solution for an analogous problem might be a solution.
Assign the students a project to filter out students with ulterior motives from a theoretical class. The engineers will then be forced to produce a solution for the problem of their own creation while subtly alerting other students that not everyone enrolled in the course is there for the same reason.
This is a fantastic suggestion. Probably not going to be applied by this professor but I love the symmetry of 'playing games' back and forth. Sounds fun honestly, as either side.
It was kinda obvious knowledge back when I was the uni on which courses have higher ratio, that just centralized this knowledge. The professor sounds like total buzzkill, "how dare they use our forced diversity program against us!"
Whether or not this account is mostly true or not, IMO, the most important thing lost in this is that some young adults are reportedly so desperate for a date that they'll go to class more often. Think about how stunningly crazy that is. That's a clear indicator that something is really broken about society.
What is it society that is so backwards right now?
IMO, it's the bullshit of the last 3 years. If you're in college today, either the tail end of your high-school years, or all of your college experience has been ruined by the inhumanly stupid reaction to Covid. This has been one of the worst times in human history for meeting new people with all of the nonsensical Covid rules. How many college campuses have been fully masked up and made normal social engagements a nightmare?
There's a lot more that can be said, particularly how dating apps screw over average people, but I'd say that looking at why these young adults seem to be engaging in weird behavior is the most important takeaway.
True. Going to class to meet girls is a pretty crazy thought.
“Hey man, that professor sucks and we can learn the material outside of class more effectively.”
“I gotta go though man, it’s my only way to meet girls… in a lecture where you can’t really talk to each other and maybe can get a few words in at the beginning and end.”
Truly we live in a dystopian time. Third spaces - even for college students are wildly absent.
I'd guess the people doing this gaming probably think it's clever, fun, and fair play (designed by-and-for hormonal college students).
Maybe all the school needs, to handle the problem without scandal or lawsuits, is for the students doing it to be called before a dean, who says it's disrupting class, and to save the dating efforts for extracurricular environments, not taint the academics.
If they don't seem to get it, spell out what a scandal they almost caused, but hopefully can be averted, and that the risk to themselves starts with getting suspended/expelled, and can get worse for them in the court of public opinion/mobbing.
That people should keep dating efforts out of workplace dynamics is also a good lesson for those kids to learn in the gentler environment of college/university, than to learn a harder way in a company.
>save the dating efforts for extracurricular environments
Then we get:
>Oh no I only joined to rec league soccer team to play soccer not so that lecherous guys can hit on me.
I'm OK with the idea that there are certain situations where it isn't OK of approach women, but online at least there always seems to be a reason why any given situation is the wrong one.
People these days just hate the other gender and are incredibly socially awkward. Look online - there’s nothing out there from people saying they love the other gender. Nothing. It’s all hate. It’s because they’re all so fucking awkward and don’t know how to interact anymore.
People who only think the only appropriate avenue to ask someone out is through a dating app are very likely socially awkward and are not representative of the norm.
The only thing this person needs help with is how to laugh at the cleverness here.
Doesn't this actually push really hard towards a perfect 50/50 split of men and women in the classes anyway? Isn't that exactly what the professor wants?
Think of it closer to a company where the interns are girls, the team leaders are boys (who took the job to chat up the interns) and are
now in a position of power and can legitimately ask for time with the girls (in 1-1s). They don’t do
anything illegal or even hit on them overtly but it is creepy as hell.
How is this power, though? All the other students can still learn the information just as well as they otherwise would. Knowledge isn't a zero-sum game.
I took an art history class one time. One of the students worked at a local museum doing some curation work. I still learned art history, and that one student came across as a know-it-all, but everything was absolutely fine.
> since we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
This seems like an extremely low yield way to get female attention. A male engineering student would have to take an entire class, study new material, and come up with schemes for seeming like a "chad" for the unlikely chance that the opposite gender will be impressed with him. They could spend that time building cool things. Are people really this desperate?
A 100 level math class for an engineering or other math heavy major should be easy though. A liberal arts algebra class that barely does math and spends more time talking about X and Y's feelings should be a total cakewalk if you've passed Calculus II and are taking classes on imaginary numbers and group theory. So all they'd have to do is join a study group, schedule group study time, and not even have to be all that brilliant at the math part.
If you're in college, and not interested in traditional partying (frats, loud music, beer, getting wasted; am terrible at beer pong), this is an alternative route to getting noticed doing something you're good at.
It is that bad. If I was in college again - I might consider the same approach. Modern dating is exceptionally difficult - especially so for men.
People really hate the other gender and there are very few ways to interact with the opposite sex without getting called a creep/harasser. Just look at this thread. It’s insane. “Online dating is the only acceptable form of social interaction with the opposite sex!”
> A male engineering student would have to take an entire class, study new material, and come up with schemes for seeming like a "chad" for the unlikely chance that the opposite gender will be impressed with him
not if you audit the class, which is what the post explains
(Assuming that the story is true, and not trolling.)
I'd guess that the school administrators don't want a public scandal for the school, lawsuits for the school (if the people behind it get exposed and harassed), nor individual risk for themselves.
But won't all of that happen if one of the targeted students goes to complain to a news organization (even the student newspaper), or files a lawsuit for harassment, and it turns out those administrators declined to act after they were alerted to the problem?
I've heard of schools gambling like this before, and sometimes it's seemed to probably come down to individual risk to administrators (e.g., definitely taking a career hit vs. possibly taking a worse career hit), not thinking of the school, students, or study. As much as we might've been brought up hearing stories of the brilliant, principled, altruistic, fearless professor... sometimes it seems organizational behavior is better explained by assuming the more common human corporate careerists are also involved.
Hmm. So, try to get more men to enroll in mainly female courses? Might work, but I doubt it. And no university anywhere frets about disciplines where males are underrepresented. Males in general are underrepresented overall at university. Oh well.
Note that OP stipulated that there were "no unwanted advances". Is this even a real problem?
It seems lot of people are searching for things to fight against. But, clearly then drop them when they don't get traction and the fight might actually hurt them...
there is a non zero chance this post is a LARP or if it's real then greatly exaggerated. Parts of it don't sound right to me. I doubt anyone would keep this gag up throughout the whole semester if it wasn't going anywhere the first few days.
But the teacher also said there are no unwanted advances happening but referred to it as leching. Then later she described the problem as:
We simply have students excelling at the course, and drawing-in a crowd.
The same poster also made some other strange comments.
My university had versions of courses that engineering majors were not allowed to take. Chem 160 for most students, chem 167 for engineers, chem 177 for chemistry majors.
Mine had separate engineering versions of courses to make sure that all the courses work out.
The non engineering ones were equivalent and acceptable so you could switch tracks, but if an engineer didn't get into a chem class, they'd be screwed for their whole degree. The proper engineering classes have specific times both during the day, and during the year.
Engineering students allowed in the non-engineering courses, non engineers not allowed in the engineering ones
I'm mostly amazed that they are allowed to audit whatever class they want. I tried to audit a class in college once and the teacher refused. Now maybe that was not within their rights and I just took their word for it, but wow.
The author hints at this problem being more acute within a particular demographic: a “database of courses that are statistically likely to have a large proportion of young women from certain cultural backgrounds”.
Some societies put a lot more pressure on young people (usually men) to find a trophy partner. For example groups that consider themselves aristocratic and other forms of more explicit arranged marriages.
One of the reasons people go to college is to find a partner. It’s a good place for meeting new people, and getting a good idea of their personality/intelligence.
Maybe the college could prioritize students that actually need the class, limit the class size, and not let so many random seniors in.
I also think it would be good for us nerds to take a few art classes now and then :)
It is absolutely insane that the professor cannot eject an auditing student from their class. The relevant university is apparently a joke at the expense of fresher student safety.
Several components stand out to me as a safety risk:
1. There are senior students leading labs who may not have completed relevant OHS training that a listed employee would run. This is a no fly zone in any training scenario and is the most important point IMO.
2. The (fresher) students have commented on the remarkably high number of seniors in the class. This has a slightly less direct safety issue: a perceived power imbalance. If you have ever led a class you may notice that too many "big" personalities can cause less confident students to withdraw, and, crucially, ask less questions. This can lead to accidents (the seniors 'trying to lead' doesn't fix this in my experience).
3. The nature of the interactions itself is a distraction. If I am getting hit on, I am probably not thinking about the content of what is being said - I am thinking of the quickest way to excuse myself from that situation. Once again, this can increase risk.
While I'm here, I also have issues with this from a non-safety perspective.
4. While lecherous behaviour does not constitute harassment, it 'sets the bar' for student interactions and makes particularly socially ill-equipped students feel more confident in pursuing people. This just ends up making the environment less pleasant for the people being approached, as well as the onlookers.
5. Further, this is actually worse than flirting at, say, work ,or a social gathering, because college is expensive. Distracting students from a highly expensive experience designed to provide skills and challenge thinking is arguably wasting someone ELSE'S money. Which is just not cool.
Safety, literally? Maybe. But if the women are feeling demoralized and it’s preventing their access to those courses, then I’m confident the Title IX office will be able to look into it. Google U, JDs are focusing too narrowly on harassment. It could be analyzed as the policy of allowing this is having a disparate impact on women’s access to certain courses.
It’s not unreasonable to ask people why they’re doing in your class.
From what I hear, this is the case in most universities (or at least in state schools). I really hope this doesn't spoil the view of students auditing on campus.
Sounds like a clear misuse of being able to audit a class.
If they're actually doing the work, and are meeting people to work with, it doesn't matter (edit: see edit at bottom). In any given class, attractive people get more help from peers.
Edit: I just realized these are math and science classes for non majors. I thought it would be something like economics or geology or something, where having a STEM background would help but not directly.
In this case, this is inappropriate and I don't think these students should be taking this class at all.
This reminds me of a pretty crude and unworkable site I launched in college called TheRatio. This was in 2000, before smartphones. The idea was to have people at bars in Manhattan and Brooklyn text a rough male to female ratio they were seeing, which would be aggregated so you could check the website (from your, ahem, computer) for which bars to go to before you went out for the night. I thought it was sort of clever at the time. (It was also just one of my first experiments in learning PHP and SQL). It just seems kind of crass and sophomoric, looking back, and in light of the info-commodification of sexual attraction like HotOrNot and Tinder that were on the horizon. I guess in my defense, I'd say I literally was a Sophomore, and that's what most 21 year old guys are thinking about. And that was for bars. Leveraging university course equality data and making it about classes would have struck me even then as douchey if not nefarious.
Just because someone is uncomfortable does not mean there's something untoward going on. E.g. if I'm uncomfortable with two men kissing each other in public, it doesn't follow that those two men are creepy.
If you grow up with conservative parents, you may be socialized to believe that men kissing each other is creepy, when it is actually normal and healthy. Similarly, if you grow up on tumblr, you may be socialized to believe that men taking steps to meet women is creepy, when it is actually normal and healthy.
>Lots of creeps here in the comments too. Some might call a 22 year old pretending to be helpful to younger 17 year olds for their ulterior motives, "grooming".
You're pulling in a separate issue of someone being under the age of consent. Let's focus on one thing at a time.
Not the same thing because of the power imbalance (older students, that teach labs) and obvious intent there is the threat of unwanted advances. I’d bet on even odds of actual abuse having occurred and it
ends up being reported as less
because who wants to go to court and face the next Epstein?
>Not the same thing because of the power imbalance (older students, that teach labs)
The average marriage involves a husband who is taller, older, and wealthier than his wife. Is that power imbalance problematic? Shall we pass a law that men cannot marry women who are shorter, younger, or poorer than they are?
>obvious intent there is the threat of unwanted advances
Not obvious to me. What incentive is there for coercion, even? Suppose I "threaten" with an unwanted advance in this circumstance -- what would I be getting in return?
The point of the prank is to meet your future wife. The best way to meet your future spouse is to find someone who's just as interested in you as you are in them.
>I’d bet on even odds of actual abuse having occurred and it ends up being reported as less because who wants to go to court and face the next Epstein?
"If we allow men and women in the same building, odds are good that abuse will occur at some point. All facilities need to be gender-segregated to prevent abuse."
It depends, I made a sister comment that say joining a yoga class
or whatever is ok, but team leading a lab full of women to hit on them is not. Tutoring women to hit on them or even “see if I get lucky” is not.
It is a conflict of interest clearly.
Even just having a bunch of guys in a class they have no intention of studying for or completing just to get lucky is clearly off.
Yes people meet each other in jobs and
school
etc. but usually by chance not engineered to this degree.
>Tutoring women to hit on them or even “see if I get lucky” is not. It is a conflict of interest clearly.
A "conflict of interest" arises when someone is incentivized to act in a way that conflicts with their professional responsibility. E.g. if a surgeon gets paid for a surgery even if the patient doesn't need it, that's a conflict of interest.
There is no professional responsibility for someone auditing a class.
>Even just having a bunch of guys in a class they have no intention of studying for or completing just to get lucky is clearly off.
If it results in an increase in students mastering the material, I'm not sure I see the problem.
>Yes people meet each other in jobs and school etc. but usually by chance not engineered to this degree.
The underlying message seems to be: "people can meet each other, but it has to be done in an inefficient and time-consuming way". Is that what you mean?
Are we talking here paid or unpaid tutoring? That should make pretty big difference, in paid case yes it is not okay. It is professional service offered for money. If it is unpaid? Why isn't that an okay motivation?
Maybe then we should ban unpaid tutoring and set some industry standard minimum rates for it. Just so we can avoid any unpaid labour.
>Lots of creeps here in the comments too. Some might call a 22 year old pretending to be helpful to younger 17 year olds for their ulterior motives, "grooming".
The age of consent is 16 in 16-33 states in the US (depending on how you count), and 17 in another 5. Wild to be labeling what is legal behavior in much of the country as "grooming."
The problem is now he(she) won't be able to "stop" this at all. The cat is out of the bag, humans accepted a new niche and moved into it. Would banning app or stats make app authors "forget" their already existing data? Of course not. Also this already public data will be a basis of this app for many years in the future, even if zero new data is available. Because courses and gender rates doesn't change a lot or quickly. Lawsuits against uni are completely pointless, maybe only as a punishment (debatable due to a disparity in power of single prof and whole uni).
The only real solution is now to adapt the course itself, change auditioning rules, change program, have more individual approach to intercept predatory help etc. Basically a ton of more work from the teacher. Unfortunately.
Nobody promised you a rose garden. Life is not fair. Boys will be boys. These phrases became cliches because they are true.
The problem will not go on forever, because the men will become bored with it. Unless, of course, their plan is working. In which case, your issue is that you can’t stand the realness of reality.
The cynic in me thinks that the one of the reason for the post is that the instructor has lost control of the class and that showboating is not the only reason. I'm guessing some of the seniors auditing are better at understanding and explaining the course material than the instructor.
Sounds more like she's whining about creative reuse of open data.
Most US universities are 60% undergraduate women.
She should be glad some men actually want to socialize because US society is pushing most men into feeling "bad" about themselves and saying they're "stupid".
Philip Zimbardo wrote several books on the subject "Boy, Interrupted", "Man, Interrupted", "Man: Disconnected" and has a TED talk on the subject.
If she didn't want her university/class to be a dating service, she should go teach at nursing homes or become a nun. According to Thomas J. Stanley, a microeconomics wealth researcher, most millionaires met their spouses in college. Where do you think Google's founders met their wives, the DMV? No, Stanford parties.
A lot of questionable defenses in these comments hinging on this phrase from the piece: "no unwanted advances". Keep in mind this is through the professor's viewpoint. I would love some direct testimony from the women students to see if they truly have received ZERO unwanted advances. I find that highly unlikely given that the piece also states that several of them have been demoralized by all of this.
> I find that highly unlikely given that the piece also states that several of them have been demoralized by all of this.
The piece specifically states that some women have been demoralized by the fact that they aren't receiving advances. Obviously, that is the opposite of making an unwanted advance.
I suspect that if the situation in this class became well-known on campus, enrollment of both men and women would increase.
Maybe my perception is based on outdated knowledge. My own experience as an undergraduate was two generations ago. What I remember was that choosing classes to increase your chance of meeting good dating material was common with both sexes.
The apologists in these comments for what's effectively using educational data as a means to reducing the women in their program as "potential mates" - and making them "disgusted and uncomfortable" in the process! - are really concerning.
People can tsk tsk this, but it's damn hard to find a mate if you are not in the top 20% of (straight) men, and basically requires you to be aggressive like this. You may be praised for being a "nice guy" by being passive, but it will not get you dates.
I've seen some downright hideous guys get laid and get a girlfriend. They didn't use first year classes as a shittier Tinder, nor were they especially aggressive. The problem seems to be elsewhere...
I'm curious why you interpreted the GP's comment this way. In my experience "find a mate" typically means "find a life partner". This is similar to the usage of the term in the original article ("future wife"). I see no reason to think that someone who says "it's hard to find a mate" would leer at someone or call someone they barely know their "mate" prior to being in a serious relationship.
The word leer refers to the leching that was discused in the article. The article says, "a number of female students have approached me, noting they are disgusted and uncomfortable with the amount of leching taking place". Lech and leer are semantically related words. [1]
It was the exact same context, a commenter on HN lamenting the difficulty for 80% of men to meet a women, unless one is aggressive, made as a comment in an article about a group of older-year, leching males. You are interpreting that to mean "find a life partner".
From reading the text of the actual article, "and a number of female students have approached me, noting they are disgusted and uncomfortable with the amount of "leching" taking place".
From the comment I had replied to, "but it's damn hard to find a mate if you are not in the top 20% of (straight) men, and basically requires you to be aggressive like this".
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Please respond to the article and not an interpretation of partial words and phrases taken from comments. Frankly, it wastes time and derails actual discussions from happening.
As a woman, I can speak on experience that women will run away from any space men try to invade to seek us, whether it's dating apps, classes, bars, etc. The last thing I want is for a horde of thirsty men to chase me.
There are not hundreds of millons of unique, real women on dating apps, because there would be billions of men on dating apps given the statistical gender ratios of mainstream apps.
I'm sorry for getting to this so late, but you've been breaking HN's guidelines repeatedly by posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments and using the site for ideological battle (which is not allowed, regardless of ideology). We ban accounts that do these things, so would you please stop?
You miss one thing - positive feedback. It's easier to be laid-back and relaxed when "the world smiles at you" at first sight for your looks. When others treat you like a creep for any move you make, you eventually become bitter or intense, which as you said, repels people regardless of looks.
The dating experience of (heterosexual) men and women is worlds apart. Being on the non-initiating side blinds women to the amount of rejection involved in the process. Men, on the other hand, are not exposed to the amount of unwanted attention it involves since men only interact when they initiate.
There's a chance for everything. A gold laden meteor might land in my backyard in the next ten minutes. There's a chance for that too. There's also a 1 in 1000 chance to get laid on tinder. You'd have to swipe a thousand times to get a single swipe back. Is that humanly possible? You'd have to be a robot for that. And a heartless one -- making sure that none of those many constant rejections affect you emotionally.
Getting access to real, living, hot college girls in your area is a 100,000,000X user multiplier for whatever you are working on. It's literally how "The Facebook" got so much traction at other universities in its very early years.
It sounds like the instructor has no control of the classroom. Even in the face of random attendees, the instructor should have the skills to manage and direct discussion so it benefits the intended participants, no?
this is so contrived and written in dramatising and fuzzy language ("perverted the data") that to me it's pretty obvious that this is a made up story by someone who takes offence in diversity measures.
I'm quite worried that the sexual motivations of young people being subverted by insincere programs is only going to increase as we become more connected.
On Twitter there are a number of male personalities with incredibly toxic tendencies. Andrew Tate and Sneako are topics that draw in an inordinate amount of unnatural attention. Bots or equivalents stalk those keyword names. Mention those male role models, even without a @ mention, and your tweet will be swarmed with responses.
I stumbled upon a subreddit called transmaxxing through some Astroturfing on Twitter. It weird, they still talk about women as objects but they also couch the actions under capitalist terms like value, extract, access. It's all very concerning and I hope no one falls for the propaganda they are spreading.
Sex sells... but I just don't know what these people are actually buying.
College is a great place to meet women. This professor needs to lighten up. After all, where does he think all of his students come from? To create future students, services like this are necessary.
> a number of female students have approached me, noting they are disgusted and uncomfortable with the amount of leching taking place
It’s heartening to see that since #metoo, boundaries are being re-established as to where it’s appropriate for men to express interest and when it isn’t. Society used to have clear rules for courtship, and where and when it was okay for men to make romantic overtures and where and when it wasn’t. Men threw out those rules in the 1970s-1990s, but it seems that women have been pretty emphatic recently that new guidelines are in order. They want spaces where they’re not being propositioned by men: class, the office, the gym, etc; where they can focus on other aspects of their lives in peace.
Well, on one hand you have created "damsel in distress" classes for women who should not necessarily be in that field, so that part of the problem. On the other hand, dating is also very necessary and is more important for men and women in the big picture than an average college class. It's "How I met my future wife" app, not "How I met my latest one night stand". Places with concentration of young people should give them more transparent and dignified places to meet, get to know each other and prove their worth as a mate. In this sense, help with studies is a classic part of courting someone and there is nothing wrong with that.
It's so weird to see people defend this because this seems like fairly textbook power harassment. If this was to occur at work where some managers were organizing their pods or such so that they're the only man in a group of women for the sake of dating it would clearly be seen as a problem.
If the story is true, people auditing courses should be treated with a higher level of responsibility. Giving preferential treatment as a result because you want to date them or find them attractive isn't the purpose of auditing at all. This isn't to say it's wrong to potentially date someone while auditing a course, but the intention behind joining in the first place is what matters.
I thought "power harassment" is when you have power over someone. How does auditing a course give you power over fellow students?
>the intention behind joining in the first place is what matters
What's wrong with having an intention of finding someone to marry? Suppose a woman signs up for eHarmony with the intention of meeting her future husband -- is that problematic?
Really? They're seniors in a class. It's heavily implied they're joining classes they know and are easy so that they can wow people. They offer tutoring and assistance to other individuals they seem attractive.
And the classroom is a place to learn. eHarmony last I checked is not a classroom so can you explain to me what exactly was the point of your comparison? It's literally an apples to oranges point you're making.
>And the classroom is a place to learn. eHarmony last I checked is not a classroom so can you explain to me what exactly was the point of your comparison? It's literally an apples to oranges point you're making.
This was in response to a user who said "the intention behind joining in the first place is what matters". My point is that having an intention to meet your future spouse is not bad.
>And the classroom is a place to learn.
Having lots of tutors available to help people facilitates that objective. My guess would be that the net effect of the practice described in the OP is to increase student learning.
So just to establish: You would be okay with someone say, joining a company with the explicit purpose of dating and not doing their work, yeah? Like they join the company, do nothing except look for women to date. Not only that, but if management found out they would not be allowed to fire them.
>So just to establish: You would be okay with someone say, joining a company with the explicit purpose of dating and not doing their work, yeah?
Getting a job and then not doing your work makes you a shitty employee, and being a shitty employee is bad. You're violating the spirit of your employment contract, that your employer gives you money and you do work for them in return.
Correct, now apply that to being a student. When you go to college, there is a contract that you sign to not cheat, to not be disruptive. To be a 'good' student (which doesn't necessarily entail passing classes, but not affecting others or being dishonest). Guess what these people are doing in this situation.
>When you go to college, there is a contract that you sign to not cheat, to not be disruptive.
Cheating isn't relevant when you're auditing a class.
I think the key issue is how disruptive the behavior really is. My suspicion is that it isn't very disruptive and the people complaining are being oversensitive.
So you're going to continue dancing around the point I'm making. I believe we're done here then since you've planted your feet at the 'it's not disruptive even if people are saying it's disruptive' line.
Yep, just because people say it is disruptive doesn't make it disruptive. Imagine a gay couple sits together in class every day -- no PDA, but it's obvious they're a couple. Students complain to the professor that they're being disruptive. What is the appropriate response?
If they're consenting adults engaging in activities that are mutually consensual, generally speaking I don't think there is a problem.
> How does auditing a course give you power over fellow students?
I believe the logic is that the upperclassmen have more knowledge of the subject and therefor have more power to help others do well in the class.
I've definitely had classes with annoying fellow students, but I never felt that I needed to study with anyone that I didn't feel comfortable studying with.
if you know the material and are offering the tutoring sessions then you clearly have power over the person whom you are tutoring. similar reason why dating your student as a TA is questionable.
if you take a class purely to offer tutoring to less advanced students for the purpose of looking impressive, finding dates, etc., then you are taking advantage of this power dynamic
sure this is different but if the advanced students are engineering situations where they are leading lab sessions then it's not that different
>if you take a class purely to offer tutoring to less advanced students for the purpose of looking impressive, finding dates, etc., then you are taking advantage of this power dynamic
Sure, and if I pay a fast food worker to make me a burger, I'm taking advantage of the "power dynamic" of me having more money than they do.
>sure this is different but if the advanced students are engineering situations where they are leading lab sessions then it's not that different
I think the right response for the professor in this situation is
1. Don't reduce the amount of help that would normally be offered to students in the class. That way there's still someone getting paid to lead lab sessions.
2. Pull aside the seniors and say to them: "I know what you're doing, and I'm ok with it, as long as you help everyone who asks for help, including people you're not interested in. If you're making the students you're not interested in feel terrible, I'm going to announce what you're doing to the entire class."
Thank you! Fuckin’ a, I can’t believe I had to scroll down this far to find someone who actually understands the dynamic here. People help each other out and study together in college courses. These guys know that and are orchestrating the situation to position themselves as a valuable resource to their female classmates and selectively dole it out based on their desire to (generously) date them or (realistically) sleep with them. Ew.
I can’t even imagine how pissed I would be if I found out a guy I was talking to used that app. Like oh cool you’re not actually helping me because we’re classmates taking the same course together, this is actually some weird scheme where we trade tutoring for “access” to me but I’m of course not allowed to know this arrangement because it would expose how gross the whole idea even is.
>I can’t even imagine how pissed I would be if I found out a guy I was talking to used that app. Like oh cool you’re not actually helping me because we’re classmates taking the same course together, this is actually some weird scheme where we trade tutoring for “access” to me but I’m of course not allowed to know this arrangement because it would expose how gross the whole idea even is.
I think you should recognize that your feelings aren't necessarily representative of all women. Women vary a fair amount in the ways that they want men to approach them:
>I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
Am I understanding correctly that some students took the publicly published racial/gender/diversity data for the college and basically made an app advertising "here are all of the women taking college seriously and pursuing STEM courses, so you can maybe find a sugar mama?"
Why would a female smart enough to pass college level STEM classes fall for that "bro" logic? How is this successful at all?
> number of female students have approached me, noting they are disgusted and uncomfortable with the amount of leching taking place
> It's also demoralizing several of them, since we routinely have cases where a young man is leading open labs as if they're a teacher themselves (in order to "wow" their female classmates, offer "private free tutoring sessions", etc). Some of the young students in my class take up these offers, and this further demoralizes other female students seeing this happen (i.e. only attractive women being offered tutoring sessions).
So suppose you're a university student who have a mild preference for this course. Upon hearing of such behavior, you'd end up avoiding such a class to sidestep such a distraction. Not to mention being distracted with insecurities if you don't end up being offered tuition.