Last summer a New York Times article worried that having more women on college campuses gave men more bargaining power in dates: "When there were fewer men, the environment was not as safe for women," said Joyce Bylander, associate provost. "When men were so highly prized that they could get away with things, some of them become sexual predators. It was an unhealthy atmosphere for women."
I just started reading this blog, and maybe I am not getting something, but every entry seems to be filled with unqualified bias. Take this one. Aside from the usual economist frame (relationships are games of exchange of sex for romantic commitment,) where is this idea that men look for more sex and women for romantic relationships come from? Sheesh, talk about simple minded acceptance of conventional "wisdom!" Please set me straight if I am off the mark, but I don't see anything about overcoming bias here...
Dog of Justice, what about children who are raised not-so-well as a result of unstable romantic relationships? If Yan Li is right, placing a slightly lesser value on relationships vs. sex may well improve efficiency by encouraging clear-cut separation of those people who are most interested in a stable, long-term relationship.
I don't see why the conventional wisdom Eliezer refers to is incorrect.
While I am a fan of transhumanism, I am not so confident in the imminence of human immortality, or the Singularity, or anything similar that I am ready to write off the family unit as obsolete. Children who are raised well are a GIGANTIC positive externality of stable romantic relationships, and indeed our society is dependent on this externality for its very survival.
James, if the educational and income features applied equally to men and women, they would have no effect on the equilibrium ratio. If education, income prospects, etc. are kept constant, the optimal margin of substitution (neglecting job quality) will be 1-1.
Good point, ZZ. I have noticed that the types of jobs available in DC typically draw more men than women (high-tech, defense, politics, etc.). However, it is important to note that the men who work in these jobs tend to be highly-educated and have relatively high lifetime income prospects. Presumably these features are very desirable to women and I would expect that the greater likelihood of being able to find a husband with these qualities in DC would be enough to draw the marginal woman to the area. However, I realize that the accuracy of my assertion depends on how much weight women place on each of the factors they use to make the choice of where to live. Anyone know of any data on the magnitude of various factors women and men use when choosing a place to live?
James, if jobs in Washington DC happened to be more favorable to men than women, the long-term equilibrium wouldn't be 50-50. Both men and women must trade-off jobs for relationships.
If you spent time among my circle of friends you would hear many references to the "unhealthy atmosphere for men" right here in our very own Washington, DC. I know several men who have moved away from DC because of their difficulty finding a suitable mate here. I remember reading a statistic a year ago that 60 of every 100 single DC residents is male. I am still wondering when this bargaining asymmetry will disappear and why it is taking so long for the mate market to swing into long-term equilibrium (which I assume is a 50-50 male to female ratio).
"One reason for the asymmetry may be the difference in time and effort needed to determine whether the other person is lying. A women has few cheap and reliable ways to determine whether a man who promises to be a life partner will change his mind next year, but a man can cheaply detect that a women who asks for a one-night stand and then attempts to get romance has deceived him."
Peter, in the long run, women should know what they are getting into. Under a surplus-of-women situation, they can expect that men will be less likely to become life partners (caeteris paribus), and accordingly request stricter commitments as a condition of relationship. Their "bargaining power" may fall but deceit should not be an issue, per se.
One reason for the asymmetry may be the difference in time and effort needed to determine whether the other person is lying. A women has few cheap and reliable ways to determine whether a man who promises to be a life partner will change his mind next year, but a man can cheaply detect that a women who asks for a one-night stand and then attempts to get romance has deceived him.A surplus of men does create concerns, it's just that those concerns take different forms (e.g. concerns that societies with a high male to female ratio have more violence and are more likely to start wars).The externalities that Eliezer was referring to might be related to health benefits of marriage, health risks of casual sex (sexually transmitted diseases), and effects of resulting life expectancies on how much effort people put into making the society of 30 years from now a better one (although I'm unsure whether we should worry about these effects).
I suddenly have another thought on this. We hear much less complaints about "romantic predators" perhaps because a "romantic prey" often has difficulties to tell whether she/ he is having a natural crush over someone or turning into another person’s prey. So she/he tends to hold herself/himself responsible for the romantic feelings developed inside. For example, I have never thought about accusing Beethoven for being a "romantic predator." That is a no-brainer because Beethoven is dead and had never winked to me. But how about if Beethoven is alive and winks to me every now and the, I perhaps would have an even bigger crush while still not calling him a "romantic predator." Without making any moral judgment, we would label someone a "sexual predator" if we found her/him sleeping around...
"If men tend to more want sex, and women tend to more want romantic devotion..."
That is a big IF. I somehow believe women like sex not any less than men do although they may prefer monogamous sexual relationship more. As for the desire for romantic devotion, I will have to see data to believe there is a gender difference on that account. It is possible though that among men, the so-called "sexual predators" and "romantic predators" are two greatly overlapping sets whereas among women there seem to be more "romantic predators” (only) because there are less so-called “sexual predators.”
Stuart, so "predators" are creatures who give necessities to get luxuries?
With the eternal caveats about the complexity of sex and romance, and minor quibbles about the words "give" and "predators" (I'm really not leaving many hostages to fortune here, am I? :-), that's a good way to put it.
Sorry. Should be "You could probably get them to admit obliquely that it's a problem. You *might* get them to admit it straightforwardly, if they didn't take an unhealthy view on debates."
I think most feminists would say that since the male side of the problem is so low on the list of social problems, it doesn't deserve as much attention as the female side. You *might* get them to admit straightforwardly that it's a problem, though. You could probably get them to admit it obliquely, if they didn't take an unhealthy view on debates.
I just started reading this blog, and maybe I am not getting something, but every entry seems to be filled with unqualified bias. Take this one. Aside from the usual economist frame (relationships are games of exchange of sex for romantic commitment,) where is this idea that men look for more sex and women for romantic relationships come from? Sheesh, talk about simple minded acceptance of conventional "wisdom!" Please set me straight if I am off the mark, but I don't see anything about overcoming bias here...
Dog of Justice, what about children who are raised not-so-well as a result of unstable romantic relationships? If Yan Li is right, placing a slightly lesser value on relationships vs. sex may well improve efficiency by encouraging clear-cut separation of those people who are most interested in a stable, long-term relationship.
I don't see why the conventional wisdom Eliezer refers to is incorrect.
While I am a fan of transhumanism, I am not so confident in the imminence of human immortality, or the Singularity, or anything similar that I am ready to write off the family unit as obsolete. Children who are raised well are a GIGANTIC positive externality of stable romantic relationships, and indeed our society is dependent on this externality for its very survival.
James, if the educational and income features applied equally to men and women, they would have no effect on the equilibrium ratio. If education, income prospects, etc. are kept constant, the optimal margin of substitution (neglecting job quality) will be 1-1.
Good point, ZZ. I have noticed that the types of jobs available in DC typically draw more men than women (high-tech, defense, politics, etc.). However, it is important to note that the men who work in these jobs tend to be highly-educated and have relatively high lifetime income prospects. Presumably these features are very desirable to women and I would expect that the greater likelihood of being able to find a husband with these qualities in DC would be enough to draw the marginal woman to the area. However, I realize that the accuracy of my assertion depends on how much weight women place on each of the factors they use to make the choice of where to live. Anyone know of any data on the magnitude of various factors women and men use when choosing a place to live?
James, if jobs in Washington DC happened to be more favorable to men than women, the long-term equilibrium wouldn't be 50-50. Both men and women must trade-off jobs for relationships.
Robin,
If you spent time among my circle of friends you would hear many references to the "unhealthy atmosphere for men" right here in our very own Washington, DC. I know several men who have moved away from DC because of their difficulty finding a suitable mate here. I remember reading a statistic a year ago that 60 of every 100 single DC residents is male. I am still wondering when this bargaining asymmetry will disappear and why it is taking so long for the mate market to swing into long-term equilibrium (which I assume is a 50-50 male to female ratio).
"One reason for the asymmetry may be the difference in time and effort needed to determine whether the other person is lying. A women has few cheap and reliable ways to determine whether a man who promises to be a life partner will change his mind next year, but a man can cheaply detect that a women who asks for a one-night stand and then attempts to get romance has deceived him."
Peter, in the long run, women should know what they are getting into. Under a surplus-of-women situation, they can expect that men will be less likely to become life partners (caeteris paribus), and accordingly request stricter commitments as a condition of relationship. Their "bargaining power" may fall but deceit should not be an issue, per se.
One reason for the asymmetry may be the difference in time and effort needed to determine whether the other person is lying. A women has few cheap and reliable ways to determine whether a man who promises to be a life partner will change his mind next year, but a man can cheaply detect that a women who asks for a one-night stand and then attempts to get romance has deceived him.A surplus of men does create concerns, it's just that those concerns take different forms (e.g. concerns that societies with a high male to female ratio have more violence and are more likely to start wars).The externalities that Eliezer was referring to might be related to health benefits of marriage, health risks of casual sex (sexually transmitted diseases), and effects of resulting life expectancies on how much effort people put into making the society of 30 years from now a better one (although I'm unsure whether we should worry about these effects).
For similar reasons polygyny is good for women.
I suddenly have another thought on this. We hear much less complaints about "romantic predators" perhaps because a "romantic prey" often has difficulties to tell whether she/ he is having a natural crush over someone or turning into another person’s prey. So she/he tends to hold herself/himself responsible for the romantic feelings developed inside. For example, I have never thought about accusing Beethoven for being a "romantic predator." That is a no-brainer because Beethoven is dead and had never winked to me. But how about if Beethoven is alive and winks to me every now and the, I perhaps would have an even bigger crush while still not calling him a "romantic predator." Without making any moral judgment, we would label someone a "sexual predator" if we found her/him sleeping around...
Yan, it is amazing how different our perceptions can be. If anyone has any evidence, speak up.
"If men tend to more want sex, and women tend to more want romantic devotion..."
That is a big IF. I somehow believe women like sex not any less than men do although they may prefer monogamous sexual relationship more. As for the desire for romantic devotion, I will have to see data to believe there is a gender difference on that account. It is possible though that among men, the so-called "sexual predators" and "romantic predators" are two greatly overlapping sets whereas among women there seem to be more "romantic predators” (only) because there are less so-called “sexual predators.”
Stuart, so "predators" are creatures who give necessities to get luxuries?
With the eternal caveats about the complexity of sex and romance, and minor quibbles about the words "give" and "predators" (I'm really not leaving many hostages to fortune here, am I? :-), that's a good way to put it.
Sorry. Should be "You could probably get them to admit obliquely that it's a problem. You *might* get them to admit it straightforwardly, if they didn't take an unhealthy view on debates."
I think most feminists would say that since the male side of the problem is so low on the list of social problems, it doesn't deserve as much attention as the female side. You *might* get them to admit straightforwardly that it's a problem, though. You could probably get them to admit it obliquely, if they didn't take an unhealthy view on debates.