Anonymous wrote:Marketing people from OK Cupid?

Is this what passes for “scientific research” on TikTok?

OKCupid took the 80% blog post (yes, it was from a blog post) down years ago because of how badly incels misinterpreted it.

My daughter had no desire to attend a female heavy school. She had enough of that attending an all-girls high school.

My DD doesn’t care about gender disparities at all. She is looking at schools that are 60% female, as many are, and it’s a complete non issue.

I can understand why males would like a more balanced ratio for friend-making, but once upon a time women were in this exact situation. So don’t let it discourage you. Go, make the most of it. All will be okay.

Highly recommend for anyone curious about this who wants to avoid the incel/manosphere rabbit hole to read Richard reeve’s Of Boys and Men. Yes women are beginning to outpace men across the board and that is a huge victory for women’s progress and feminism. Unfortunately it’s also revealing a symptom of the opposite phenomenon where boys and men are regressing and need a similar support to thrive again. This is not a zero sum game and both genders can succeed together. But trying to raise awareness about the issue is often plagued with whataboutism and accusations of misogyny or wanting to revive the patriarchy. We need mutual support, kindness, and empathy to prevent tribalism.

Marketing people from OK Cupid?

Is this what passes for “scientific research” on TikTok?

Also see: https://web.archive.org/web/20120723173702/http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. But with the basic ratings so out-of-whack, the two curves together suggest some strange possibilities for the female thought process, the most salient of which is that the average-looking woman has convinced herself that the vast majority of males aren’t good enough for her, but she then goes right out and messages them anyway."

"Paradoxically, it seems it’s women, not men, who have unrealistic standards for the “average” member of the opposite sex."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

Of course it isn’t true. The PP is full of sht.

Um, she might have confused the 5% / 90% thing.

But she is not entirely wrong. Scientific research bears out the 80% / 20% hypothesis:

https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=journal

Essentially: yes. 80% of women pursue 20% of men; the so-called high quality men.

Based on how a sample of 30 women from Korea used Tinder?

Based on how everyone uses tinder: https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/exploitive-platforms-how-tinder-exploits-lonely-men-to-make-massive-profits/

https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/5.png

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

Of course it isn’t true. The PP is full of sht.

Um, she might have confused the 5% / 90% thing.

But she is not entirely wrong. Scientific research bears out the 80% / 20% hypothesis:

https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=journal

Essentially: yes. 80% of women pursue 20% of men; the so-called high quality men.

What?! In my 20s I was chasing every Morrisey type art major, every "interesting" guy, and would 100% have married one but wasn't edgy enough to reel one in. Instead I married a average guy no one chased but who adored me and was "interesting" in his own understated, smart way He has been a solid partner and I likely would have ended up here eventually after a failed marriage if I had been more successful with the angsty boys.

I would have died before I even looked twice at a "high status" guy. (Preppy business major type I assume?). Have things really changed that much since the 90s? Don't girls still want the guy they can talk poser bullshit with?

Your spent your youth chasing the 20% guys and only settled for your husband whom you wouldn't have given the time of day when you realized they weren't interested. In other words, you follow the pattern to a T.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

Of course it isn’t true. The PP is full of sht.

Um, she might have confused the 5% / 90% thing.

But she is not entirely wrong. Scientific research bears out the 80% / 20% hypothesis:

https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=journal

Essentially: yes. 80% of women pursue 20% of men; the so-called high quality men.

What?! In my 20s I was chasing every Morrisey type art major, every "interesting" guy, and would 100% have married one but wasn't edgy enough to reel one in. Instead I married a average guy no one chased but who adored me and was "interesting" in his own understated, smart way He has been a solid partner and I likely would have ended up here eventually after a failed marriage if I had been more successful with the angsty boys.

I would have died before I even looked twice at a "high status" guy. (Preppy business major type I assume?). Have things really changed that much since the 90s? Don't girls still want the guy they can talk poser bullshit with?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

Of course it isn’t true. The PP is full of sht.

Um, she might have confused the 5% / 90% thing.

But she is not entirely wrong. Scientific research bears out the 80% / 20% hypothesis:

https://amj.kma.re.kr/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1597&context=journal

Essentially: yes. 80% of women pursue 20% of men; the so-called high quality men.

Based on how a sample of 30 women from Korea used Tinder?

Wow!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

I have the same in female form and she feels invisible to 90% of guys despite being petite, pretty, well dressed, etc because they're all chasing after the absolute top girls. She says she would date very average guys and she has said yes to dates with them so I believe her. In fact, next weekend she's going out with a guy who I would say is maybe a 6/10 (if I was pressed to grade him in the picture she texted me) but super interesting, kind and smart. She is so excited about him and I'm so excited for her. So people like our kids will find each other, I hope.

That certainly sounds hopeful. My DS is definitely not interested in the absolute top girls. Nothing wrong with them but he would like a girl who may be a bit nerdy. He would rather talk about books and music and horror movies. He has his guy friends for the gym.

Both of my boys go to top 20 schools that are roughly 50-50 men and women. Both have serious girlfriends. Dating has been very common for them and their friends. But both go to universities in the south - think Duke, Vandy, Rice - where the social dynamics seem fairly healthy and normal.

The boys at their schools all seem very smart and motivated. I think by senior year relationships are the norm at their schools. So perhaps things are different in the south.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

Of course it isn’t true. The PP is full of sht.

No, there are a zillion articles and posts online about how top 50% women (or whatever) all want to date the same "high value" or top 5% men.
This isn't unique to DCUM.

I assume it's all social media driven.

Grown adults taking their information from social media are, I'm sorry to say, stupid. FFS people. Social media is BS. Get off your phones and interact with real people.

Exactly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly hope the 5%/90% stat isn’t true. I have an average decent boy. A good person, physically fit, good grades, but not a “star” at anything. Thus far, it’s like he’s invisible but maybe that will change someday.

Of course it isn’t true. The PP is full of sht.

No, there are a zillion articles and posts online about how top 50% women (or whatever) all want to date the same "high value" or top 5% men.
This isn't unique to DCUM. .

It is common to DCUMAD: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/1077382.page

But sociologists and other scientists have confirmed the phenomenon exists. Ratios vary (50% 5%, or 80% 20%).

The exact ratio isn’t what matters.

The fact that every ratio demonstrates the majority of women chasing the top percentage of men is what matters.

The imbalance obviously exists. Only a fool or an ignorant person would try to claim otherwise.

So now the click bait ratio doesn't matter.

Where is the evidence supporting your claim? "Scientists" on TikTok?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the swing away from SAT/ACT scores. Plenty of bright boys who can do college work but the level of achievement kids are now expected to do for 4 years with zero room for error totally weeds out boys.

I happen to have a son who has been a very strong and focused student since 9th grade with strong ECs so he will benefit and I also have a daughter so I worry for her. It’s bad for everyone. Time to put down the GRL power shirts and attempt to figure it out.

Maybe parents should raise boys with equally high expectations so they have to step up? My high school didn't have class rank technically, but most of the top students in my class year at my very competitive independent school--by grades and scores--were boys. But this was also at a time when students of both genders got weeded out for disciplinary matters, and high standards were the norm (no extra credit, only the highest quality work earned the highest grades, etc.).

Yes to high expectations for boys. But that doesn’t mean letting boys slack on learning crucially important details about their roles and place in society. This includes history because our historical past formed the future we now find ourselves in.

Through this lens, everyone can agree boys first and foremost need to have consent ingrained in them. Next, they need to be fully aware of the unearned male privilege from which they benefit every day. I think raising men to be authentic feminists is key here. Many of us empowered and informed boy-moms understand these truths.

ok chatgpt