What do you think?
Rate this book
Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game
It’s not that he’s just not that into you—it’s that there aren’t enough of him. And the numbers prove it. Using a combination of demographics, statistics, game theory, and number-crunching, Date-onomics tells what every single, college-educated, heterosexual, looking-for-a-partner woman needs to know: The “man deficit” is real. It’s a fascinating, if sobering read, with two critical takeaways: One, it’s not you. Two, knowledge is power, so here’s what to do about it.
The shortage of college-educated men is not just a big-city phenomenon frustrating women in New York and L.A. Among young college grads, there are four eligible women for every three men nationwide. This unequal ratio explains not only why it’s so hard to find a date, but a host of social issues, from the college hookup culture to the reason Salt Lake City is becoming the breast implant capital of America. Then there’s the math that says that a woman’s good looks can keep men from approaching her—particularly if they feel the odds aren’t in their favor.
Fortunately, there are also solutions: what college to attend (any with strong sciences or math), where to hang out (in New York, try a fireman’s bar), where to live (Colorado, Seattle, “Man” Jose), and why never to shy away from giving an ultimatum.
The shortage of college-educated men is not just a big-city phenomenon frustrating women in New York and L.A. Among young college grads, there are four eligible women for every three men nationwide. This unequal ratio explains not only why it’s so hard to find a date, but a host of social issues, from the college hookup culture to the reason Salt Lake City is becoming the breast implant capital of America. Then there’s the math that says that a woman’s good looks can keep men from approaching her—particularly if they feel the odds aren’t in their favor.
Fortunately, there are also solutions: what college to attend (any with strong sciences or math), where to hang out (in New York, try a fireman’s bar), where to live (Colorado, Seattle, “Man” Jose), and why never to shy away from giving an ultimatum.
224 pages, Paperback
First published August 11, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
February 18, 2016
From the Time magazine article based on this book, I thought it would largely be about marriage markets; when I saw it on the shelf at the library, I picked it up partly because I was curious how someone could write an entire popular-press book about the fact that marriage markets exist and are sometimes imbalanced.
I guess to the extent that I had a specific idea of how that would work, I hoped that this book would use the marriage-market concept to interrogate the cultural idea of marriage as a necessary structuring element of adult, and especially adult female, life. My ideal-world version of this book would be a love letter to women that says that no, not everyone can win the marriage game, but it is a game, and maybe knowing that, and understanding why, and thinking about what else women have done throughout history besides get married (for it is a 1950's fantasy that all women have always gotten married) will be helpful to some women who expected their lives to look different than they have turned out to.
[Probably if I had noticed it was written by a man before I got home with it, I would have guessed that this was not the direction it was going to go.]
To me, "the system is rigged - so here's how you can make sure you're one of the winners!" is a compassionless and sad message, but that's exactly the one this book tries to go with. (Ladies, lock a man down in college or move to a market with a higher ratio of men to women!) This is only one of its problems; the issue that was even more difficult for me to handle was the relentless use of bad social science research to push a reductionist, gender-essentialist message. In the world of this book:
- Human behavior can be explained by the behavior of non-human animals. As someone whose work involves culture in a pretty big way, I vehemently disagree with this notion, although of course there are whole disciplines that try to make it work. I don't know, man. We aren't birds.
- Men change their behavior drastically based on perceived sex ratios, while women pretty much sit there looking pretty. Unsurprisingly, both a high M:F ratio and a low one somehow end up being bad for women. (High: patriarchy, but at least no one will rape you because men Protect Their Scarce Resources; low: YOU'LL DIE ALONE, Career Spinster. After some sad hookups.) No indication is given of how these sex ratios are detected in order to influence behavior, especially when they are not real population phenomena but only imbalances in the subset of the population you'd theoretically be interested in marrying and/or banging. This seems like a pretty big hole to me, but hey, I'm not a cognitive scientist.
- Gay people do exist (but only to the extent that they make life harder for straight women) but bisexual people definitely don't. Non-binary people don't. Poly people don't. Nor do women who don't want to get married, really.
- Most egregiously, in my opinion, the lives and experiences of the non-college-educated (which is ~75% of the adult population of the US) are given almost no attention in this book. Yes, the man drought is a college-educated man drought, but given that the situation is reversed for the less educated, I was quite surprised that this fact was not exploited to check up on some of the book's claims. For example: a low M:F ratio contributes to rape. (Then shouldn't less-educated women experience less sexual violence than more-educated women? Hmm, the data doesn't bear that out.) A low M:F ratio causes marriage rates to drop. (Then shouldn't marriage rates have dropped a lot less among less-educated women? Weird, the data doesn't bear that out either.) Never mind, now I get why the author ignored the less-educated.
Anyway, this rant has gone on long enough, but suffice it to say that if you read this book and were frustrated by it, you're not alone, and it's not very good, and you should probably forget about the whole thing. And if you want to talk about the high rate of non-marriage among women in early modern Europe, you can come sit by me!
I guess to the extent that I had a specific idea of how that would work, I hoped that this book would use the marriage-market concept to interrogate the cultural idea of marriage as a necessary structuring element of adult, and especially adult female, life. My ideal-world version of this book would be a love letter to women that says that no, not everyone can win the marriage game, but it is a game, and maybe knowing that, and understanding why, and thinking about what else women have done throughout history besides get married (for it is a 1950's fantasy that all women have always gotten married) will be helpful to some women who expected their lives to look different than they have turned out to.
[Probably if I had noticed it was written by a man before I got home with it, I would have guessed that this was not the direction it was going to go.]
To me, "the system is rigged - so here's how you can make sure you're one of the winners!" is a compassionless and sad message, but that's exactly the one this book tries to go with. (Ladies, lock a man down in college or move to a market with a higher ratio of men to women!) This is only one of its problems; the issue that was even more difficult for me to handle was the relentless use of bad social science research to push a reductionist, gender-essentialist message. In the world of this book:
- Human behavior can be explained by the behavior of non-human animals. As someone whose work involves culture in a pretty big way, I vehemently disagree with this notion, although of course there are whole disciplines that try to make it work. I don't know, man. We aren't birds.
- Men change their behavior drastically based on perceived sex ratios, while women pretty much sit there looking pretty. Unsurprisingly, both a high M:F ratio and a low one somehow end up being bad for women. (High: patriarchy, but at least no one will rape you because men Protect Their Scarce Resources; low: YOU'LL DIE ALONE, Career Spinster. After some sad hookups.) No indication is given of how these sex ratios are detected in order to influence behavior, especially when they are not real population phenomena but only imbalances in the subset of the population you'd theoretically be interested in marrying and/or banging. This seems like a pretty big hole to me, but hey, I'm not a cognitive scientist.
- Gay people do exist (but only to the extent that they make life harder for straight women) but bisexual people definitely don't. Non-binary people don't. Poly people don't. Nor do women who don't want to get married, really.
- Most egregiously, in my opinion, the lives and experiences of the non-college-educated (which is ~75% of the adult population of the US) are given almost no attention in this book. Yes, the man drought is a college-educated man drought, but given that the situation is reversed for the less educated, I was quite surprised that this fact was not exploited to check up on some of the book's claims. For example: a low M:F ratio contributes to rape. (Then shouldn't less-educated women experience less sexual violence than more-educated women? Hmm, the data doesn't bear that out.) A low M:F ratio causes marriage rates to drop. (Then shouldn't marriage rates have dropped a lot less among less-educated women? Weird, the data doesn't bear that out either.) Never mind, now I get why the author ignored the less-educated.
Anyway, this rant has gone on long enough, but suffice it to say that if you read this book and were frustrated by it, you're not alone, and it's not very good, and you should probably forget about the whole thing. And if you want to talk about the high rate of non-marriage among women in early modern Europe, you can come sit by me!
June 3, 2022
Brief (224 pages) but thought-provoking look at how gender-imbalance can alter the behavior of men and women in relationships. Since this was published in 2015, I would be very interested to see an updated study on if the same cities/professions still have the same gender gaps.
But on the bright side, I now have some very interesting statistics to whip out the next time someone asks me why I'm still single. ("Did you know that by the time a Millenial woman reaches her 30s, there are roughly 5 women for every 1 college-educated male in my part of the country?")
But on the bright side, I now have some very interesting statistics to whip out the next time someone asks me why I'm still single. ("Did you know that by the time a Millenial woman reaches her 30s, there are roughly 5 women for every 1 college-educated male in my part of the country?")
October 19, 2015
All the Single (Divorced?) Ladies-Read This Book!
Jon Birger finally validates what I've always known since I was a freshman at my local southern Utah college, Fall 1993, surrounded by females, taking our Gen Eds asking...Where are all the boys?
The majority of my Friday and Saturday nights were spent studying in an apartment complex where over half the units were occupied by single women. I also had a part-time job.
Attending my LDS (Mormon) Sunday worship services, was also frustrating, wondering how I could possibly compete for a date with 150 other young women, all with an eye single to our eternal salvation. Hitting each other over the head with our trays of freshly baked cookies to impress the handful of single guys, entice them to come hang out at our apartment, was also not uncommon. "Back off b--ch, he's MINE!" was a silent message telegraphed among females at mixers.
Thousands of women know exactly what I'm talking about.
Temple marriage in the Mormon community is exactly like a game of musical chairs. As all the good, active, educated, return missionaries make their selections from the huge pool of eligible bachelorettes, those still left in the circle are not only suffering from the humiliation of never being chosen, but slapped with the blame that it was our own fault for not making ourselves more marketable.
The appendixes at the end were fascinating. Birger lists, state by state and county by county, the dating market numbers of college age women and men. The two listed for Utah are Salt Lake and Utah counties, home to the two largest universities: University of Utah and BYU. I found it very interesting that among the 22-29 age group (millennials) the number of college educated women in Provo totaled 14,000 as opposed to only 7,482 MEN!
Why is it taking so long for young men in Utah county to graduate?
I can't help but wonder if Birger's numbers include divorced men and women which makes Birger's numbers even MORE skewed as most never-married Mormon women aren't looking for a man with baggage, not to mention the alimony which would require us to continue working outside the home; not exactly the ideal life we were taught to strive for.
The man deficit is real.
My roommates and I were not promiscuous but we spent many nights sitting around discussing our options, wondering if we shouldn't just lower our standards like so many of our desperate friends were doing, just to get a guy to notice them.
The numbers here in Utah have always been skewed against never married women where the only male dominated place to meet anyone is the line at Best Buy for the newest X-Box.
Unfortunately, too many of my amazing, single, never married friends and I would rather be doing more grown-up activities, like focusing on our careers and character-building hobbies than waiting for these blue-collar men to grow up, stop playing the field and settle down.
Yes, Chapter 6 was especially fun to read and the author got it exactly right.
In the end, the only solution Birger suggests is doing more to encourage our young boys to be more ambitious, go to school, and graduate.
Now we just need to convince them to stop cohabitating and put a ring on it.
That goes for the women too!
Jon Birger finally validates what I've always known since I was a freshman at my local southern Utah college, Fall 1993, surrounded by females, taking our Gen Eds asking...Where are all the boys?
The majority of my Friday and Saturday nights were spent studying in an apartment complex where over half the units were occupied by single women. I also had a part-time job.
Attending my LDS (Mormon) Sunday worship services, was also frustrating, wondering how I could possibly compete for a date with 150 other young women, all with an eye single to our eternal salvation. Hitting each other over the head with our trays of freshly baked cookies to impress the handful of single guys, entice them to come hang out at our apartment, was also not uncommon. "Back off b--ch, he's MINE!" was a silent message telegraphed among females at mixers.
Thousands of women know exactly what I'm talking about.
Temple marriage in the Mormon community is exactly like a game of musical chairs. As all the good, active, educated, return missionaries make their selections from the huge pool of eligible bachelorettes, those still left in the circle are not only suffering from the humiliation of never being chosen, but slapped with the blame that it was our own fault for not making ourselves more marketable.
The appendixes at the end were fascinating. Birger lists, state by state and county by county, the dating market numbers of college age women and men. The two listed for Utah are Salt Lake and Utah counties, home to the two largest universities: University of Utah and BYU. I found it very interesting that among the 22-29 age group (millennials) the number of college educated women in Provo totaled 14,000 as opposed to only 7,482 MEN!
Why is it taking so long for young men in Utah county to graduate?
I can't help but wonder if Birger's numbers include divorced men and women which makes Birger's numbers even MORE skewed as most never-married Mormon women aren't looking for a man with baggage, not to mention the alimony which would require us to continue working outside the home; not exactly the ideal life we were taught to strive for.
The man deficit is real.
My roommates and I were not promiscuous but we spent many nights sitting around discussing our options, wondering if we shouldn't just lower our standards like so many of our desperate friends were doing, just to get a guy to notice them.
The numbers here in Utah have always been skewed against never married women where the only male dominated place to meet anyone is the line at Best Buy for the newest X-Box.
Unfortunately, too many of my amazing, single, never married friends and I would rather be doing more grown-up activities, like focusing on our careers and character-building hobbies than waiting for these blue-collar men to grow up, stop playing the field and settle down.
Yes, Chapter 6 was especially fun to read and the author got it exactly right.
In the end, the only solution Birger suggests is doing more to encourage our young boys to be more ambitious, go to school, and graduate.
Now we just need to convince them to stop cohabitating and put a ring on it.
That goes for the women too!
January 27, 2016
Let me know if you want to borrow this book from me! This was one of the best books on dating I have read in a long time. It focuses primarily on the statistics and data around dating demographics and it really opened my eyes to something I had never thought of before. There is a chapter that specifically looks at the Mormon demographics and addresses the gender ratios in Utah county which, after reading this book, have completely convinced me that I should not move back to Utah unless I intend to get a boob job and regular botox injections. Pretty sure I am going to move to Wyoming now and marry a cowboy. Fabulous book well worth the read for singles females and males for that matter, college-educated or not.
March 25, 2020
This book is very short, and it shares a simple message: demographics and gender ratios matter a lot when predicting mating behavior in human populations.
Oh, that was dry. Let's try again.
The author says there are way more college-educated women than men in the US, and so the "marriage market" is skewed. Men don't want to settle, and women find it hard to marry.
Birger argues that, especially in cities like New York, it is increasingly difficult for college-educated women to marry college-educated men. He uses data from census and interviews with matchmakers and "women who have it all but can't find a man".
The solution? Relocate (to areas like Silicon Valley, with its overabundance of males), or marry an uneducated man. Also, consider gender ratios when choosing your college.
This is the gist of the book - it also tells some curious cases about the "marriage crisis" in orthodox jews and Mormon communities, but that is about it.
The interviews and quotes seem VERY cherry-picked, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.
Oh, that was dry. Let's try again.
The author says there are way more college-educated women than men in the US, and so the "marriage market" is skewed. Men don't want to settle, and women find it hard to marry.
Birger argues that, especially in cities like New York, it is increasingly difficult for college-educated women to marry college-educated men. He uses data from census and interviews with matchmakers and "women who have it all but can't find a man".
The solution? Relocate (to areas like Silicon Valley, with its overabundance of males), or marry an uneducated man. Also, consider gender ratios when choosing your college.
This is the gist of the book - it also tells some curious cases about the "marriage crisis" in orthodox jews and Mormon communities, but that is about it.
The interviews and quotes seem VERY cherry-picked, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.
April 19, 2024
Don’t recommend reading if you are a single woman in NYC LOL although I guess now I can blame singleness on ratios and other considerations vs myself
January 29, 2020
This is the best book about explaining dating and marriage relationships. Not some sociocultural theory suggested by some professors, but on numbers. The same thing happens in animals.
Simply put, when there are more men than women, men fight for the women and settle early. Men also work harder to earn more, such as China and ancient Athens.
When there are more women than men, men sleep around and become reluctant to settle down. Women then work harder and asked for more rights, such as amongst certain colleges, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, female graduates in big cities, and the Spartans.
The solution? These are all controversial...
1. Graduate women ‘lower their expectations’ and pair with non-graduate men
2. When choosing college, be mindful of the gender ratio
3. Graduate women move to places where there are more graduate men
4. Delay school starting age for boys because boys mature more slowly
5. Graduate women be ‘decisive’ and give ultimatum to their boyfriend as that has been shown to actually increase marriage rate.
The author observed also that women who are still single after 30 are attractive and successful, but men who are still single after 30 may not be so. This really needs to be backed up from studies.
A very interesting book, but sure not to go down well with a lot of people.
Simply put, when there are more men than women, men fight for the women and settle early. Men also work harder to earn more, such as China and ancient Athens.
When there are more women than men, men sleep around and become reluctant to settle down. Women then work harder and asked for more rights, such as amongst certain colleges, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, female graduates in big cities, and the Spartans.
The solution? These are all controversial...
1. Graduate women ‘lower their expectations’ and pair with non-graduate men
2. When choosing college, be mindful of the gender ratio
3. Graduate women move to places where there are more graduate men
4. Delay school starting age for boys because boys mature more slowly
5. Graduate women be ‘decisive’ and give ultimatum to their boyfriend as that has been shown to actually increase marriage rate.
The author observed also that women who are still single after 30 are attractive and successful, but men who are still single after 30 may not be so. This really needs to be backed up from studies.
A very interesting book, but sure not to go down well with a lot of people.
September 7, 2015
Date-onomics is an eye-opener. Whether you are a single person still searching for “the one,” a parent of a student nearing college age, a divorced person re-entering the dating market, or a college admissions officer, this book will provide insights that will help you think more clearly about the dynamics of dating behaviors. As the number of women with college degrees continues to increase in comparison to men with similar educational levels, we need to consider the impact of that shift on our society. Jon Birger offers observations that many of us have never noticed, but that are particularly significant for young adults in the United States. The book is cleanly written and presents economic and social data in an accessible way, along with savvy commentary. Birger is not writing to pass judgment; instead, his book helps people understand their own choices better, including where they attend college, where they live, what profession they pursue, and who they find attractive.
July 26, 2016
Jon presents the facts well, but as someone of faith this book was rather depressing. It serves as a reminder of how, in American culture, women are viewed as objects of pleasure that can easily be used and thrown away so men can easily move on to the multitude of other women willing to do whatever it takes to keep men interested in them. It makes me sad that this our normal -- women who are afraid of being alone and who find their worth in men, resulting in low standards and women who give their bodies and hearts away to men who give them no commitment and men who think they need to take advantage of women to be "men". we were created for so much more than this!
October 20, 2018
As a single Latter-day Saint woman and a former Utah county resident, this book was SO validating! There’s a saying among residents that “Provo kills love” and after reading this book I’m realizing that there is great truth to that statement.
This book is a very quick read and I can’t recommend it enough to Latter-day Saint YSAs or others who can’t understand the complexities of millennial dating within the church.
I shared so much of what I learned from this book with friends! Not sure how this book will influence my dating pursuits, but I am definitely pondering some deep thoughts over here!
Read! Read! Read!
This book is a very quick read and I can’t recommend it enough to Latter-day Saint YSAs or others who can’t understand the complexities of millennial dating within the church.
I shared so much of what I learned from this book with friends! Not sure how this book will influence my dating pursuits, but I am definitely pondering some deep thoughts over here!
Read! Read! Read!
April 2, 2016
This book made me more sad than books that are actually sad.
January 22, 2021
Validating and discheartening all in one. Appreciated the data & analysis.
What I learned: Data doesn’t need to be discouraging. Being informed helps you to be more confident in decision-making.
What I learned: Data doesn’t need to be discouraging. Being informed helps you to be more confident in decision-making.
January 15, 2022
This is something that Fr. Eric has been talking about for years! I may just buy him a copy so he can send excerpts to people. As much as I hate to admit it, there is a specific cohort of women who need to lower their requirements regarding college-educated men if their ultimate goal is to get married. Either that or be a little more firm about realizing what they want and then going after it. Dating is a numbers game and I enjoyed looking at the actual numbers even if it means I am at a disadvantage if I'd like to marry someone who is as driven as me in regards to learning.
September 25, 2021
I love books that apply statistical analyses to daily life in unexpected ways, and this was no exception! The core thesis of the book is that skewed gender ratios, particularly in college-educated populations, have huge impact on dating and marriage practices. This theory is advanced in a few different arenas: as a characteristic of cities, colleges, and even different religious sects, with plentiful statistics and colorful anecdotes supporting. Unfortunately, the picture painted by all of this data is not a pleasant one for single, college-educated women; the odds are simply not in your favor. The book verges a bit on the repetitive, but I found it to be eye-opening with a fresh and well-supported thesis and would recommend it to anyone interested in dating or sociology.
January 4, 2023
This book made me irascible. It explains the current dating world too well but the male interviews made me want to throttle them.
June 4, 2022
Good insights that the author delivers fairly early in the book:
Demographics and gender ratios matter a lot when predicting mating behavior in human populations.
Demographics and gender ratios matter a lot when predicting mating behavior in human populations.
September 28, 2023
Please note: my two-star "it was okay" rating is because the book did nothing surprising, but is worth a skim.
Briefly: Birger wrote this book to publicize that college-educated women outnumber college-educated men, and in dating, the side in higher demand sets the tone of the dating market. Consequently, many women are single or lack the committed relationships they would prefer. We should either even out how many men and women attend college, or women, if they want committed men, should adjust by living where men outnumber women, compromising to an extent on what they want in a man, or dating men without college degrees. Overall, it's a book that is important because it will become more relevant, but it offers no real thought on what to do about the social trends which have created the issues all coming to a head. Get it from a library and skim it; it should be (and perhaps is?) a magazine article instead of a book.
More women should be aware of this message because it is real and will affect them more and more as the trends that created the unequal proportions show no sign of slowing. Women still do better than men at every level of education, at least through getting masters degrees, and the push to further advance women continues, while few people are pushing for men in an analogous way. Compounding the general trend are efforts to get women more heavily involved in male-dominated fields which require degrees (computer science, engineering, etc) precisely because they are male-dominated, and, again, the lack of a similar push for men to go into nursing or teaching or female-dominated disciplines. Birger offers women a pretty specific piece of advice: go to schools and areas where STEM is the major industry or area of study, like Silicone Valley or Georgia Tech, and you will be in low supply and high demand. In 15 years, this advice will not hold true as more women are funneled into STEM. Regardless of whether this is good or bad on other fronts, it will make the dating arena worse for women who want a college-educated man who will commit to a relationship.
Birger makes his observations in a mundane way, mostly letting the numbers speak for themselves. It's what you would expect from a journalist in these times. He seems pretty stoutly against actually doing much beyond making the observations, and I don't know if this is good or bad. He could be abdicating responsibility for recommending social policies, but perhaps the responsibility is best handled at the individual level, i.e. it's best that a woman decides for herself how to deal with the data. For example, he makes insipid remarks about how it is good we've chipped away at social mores around sex and sexual freedom which I think is to appease readers who would, without his qualifications, excoriate him for a man commenting on female dating habits. Yet there are clearly social question and cultural observations to follow a book like this. Contraceptives, at face value, are necessary for women to participate in the more promiscuous dating culture that the high demand of men has created. Another reader was disappointed that Birger didn't validate women on not even needing marriage or commitment; while I disagree with that point, I appreciate the desire for something with more guts to it.
Briefly: Birger wrote this book to publicize that college-educated women outnumber college-educated men, and in dating, the side in higher demand sets the tone of the dating market. Consequently, many women are single or lack the committed relationships they would prefer. We should either even out how many men and women attend college, or women, if they want committed men, should adjust by living where men outnumber women, compromising to an extent on what they want in a man, or dating men without college degrees. Overall, it's a book that is important because it will become more relevant, but it offers no real thought on what to do about the social trends which have created the issues all coming to a head. Get it from a library and skim it; it should be (and perhaps is?) a magazine article instead of a book.
More women should be aware of this message because it is real and will affect them more and more as the trends that created the unequal proportions show no sign of slowing. Women still do better than men at every level of education, at least through getting masters degrees, and the push to further advance women continues, while few people are pushing for men in an analogous way. Compounding the general trend are efforts to get women more heavily involved in male-dominated fields which require degrees (computer science, engineering, etc) precisely because they are male-dominated, and, again, the lack of a similar push for men to go into nursing or teaching or female-dominated disciplines. Birger offers women a pretty specific piece of advice: go to schools and areas where STEM is the major industry or area of study, like Silicone Valley or Georgia Tech, and you will be in low supply and high demand. In 15 years, this advice will not hold true as more women are funneled into STEM. Regardless of whether this is good or bad on other fronts, it will make the dating arena worse for women who want a college-educated man who will commit to a relationship.
Birger makes his observations in a mundane way, mostly letting the numbers speak for themselves. It's what you would expect from a journalist in these times. He seems pretty stoutly against actually doing much beyond making the observations, and I don't know if this is good or bad. He could be abdicating responsibility for recommending social policies, but perhaps the responsibility is best handled at the individual level, i.e. it's best that a woman decides for herself how to deal with the data. For example, he makes insipid remarks about how it is good we've chipped away at social mores around sex and sexual freedom which I think is to appease readers who would, without his qualifications, excoriate him for a man commenting on female dating habits. Yet there are clearly social question and cultural observations to follow a book like this. Contraceptives, at face value, are necessary for women to participate in the more promiscuous dating culture that the high demand of men has created. Another reader was disappointed that Birger didn't validate women on not even needing marriage or commitment; while I disagree with that point, I appreciate the desire for something with more guts to it.
February 4, 2017
Entertaining in an anecdote-y/random statistics kind of way, though the chapter on Mormons and Jews was pretty fascinating.
The advice is kind of meh:
"Pay attention to gender ratios when selecting colleges!" - Too late, dude. I suspect many 18-year-old women still think as I did - I had twelve years before my imaginary ideal marriage age! College was just the beginning! I had no idea how many people at least meet their future spouse in college, though I have definitely reflected on the fact that I would most likely be married by now if I had gone to the Air Force Academy.
"Holding out is risky!" - Birger hastens to assure the reader that he doesn't encourage women to lower their standards, but it's not going to get easier as you age. And hey! You can always get married and put off having kids? Huh, what?
"Consider your career!" "Move west, young women!" "Does he have to be college-educated?"
And then he gets in on a lot of "neurobiological differences"...blah blah blah.
Basically, I'm pretty happy with my alma mater, my career, my location, and my standards. It's too late to change most of that shit anyway. Some advice on how I can develop meaningful criteria for a partner that will result in a good marriage would be nice.
The advice is kind of meh:
"Pay attention to gender ratios when selecting colleges!" - Too late, dude. I suspect many 18-year-old women still think as I did - I had twelve years before my imaginary ideal marriage age! College was just the beginning! I had no idea how many people at least meet their future spouse in college, though I have definitely reflected on the fact that I would most likely be married by now if I had gone to the Air Force Academy.
"Holding out is risky!" - Birger hastens to assure the reader that he doesn't encourage women to lower their standards, but it's not going to get easier as you age. And hey! You can always get married and put off having kids? Huh, what?
"Consider your career!" "Move west, young women!" "Does he have to be college-educated?"
And then he gets in on a lot of "neurobiological differences"...blah blah blah.
Basically, I'm pretty happy with my alma mater, my career, my location, and my standards. It's too late to change most of that shit anyway. Some advice on how I can develop meaningful criteria for a partner that will result in a good marriage would be nice.
October 18, 2015
I have mixed feelings about this book. Whereas it is full of interesting data and statistics nicely showing how gender ratios influence our dating habits, it shows only a part of bigger picture.
First of all, this book have serious limitation, since it defines relationship through marriage and there's a plethora of other relationships which are happy and didn't end in marriage (open, polyamorous relationships and so on).
Secondly, Math it's not the only contributing factor - author seems to forgot about gender stereotypes in dating and relationships which have a strong influence on how we perceive our love lives. Taking that into consideration, author's suggestions about moving somewhere to improve odds of finding "the right woman/man" are a little bit ridiculous - imagine yourself being a leftist feminist and moving to highly conservative place.
To wrap up - Math might help us in short term, but not in a long run, when cultural influence is stronger.
First of all, this book have serious limitation, since it defines relationship through marriage and there's a plethora of other relationships which are happy and didn't end in marriage (open, polyamorous relationships and so on).
Secondly, Math it's not the only contributing factor - author seems to forgot about gender stereotypes in dating and relationships which have a strong influence on how we perceive our love lives. Taking that into consideration, author's suggestions about moving somewhere to improve odds of finding "the right woman/man" are a little bit ridiculous - imagine yourself being a leftist feminist and moving to highly conservative place.
To wrap up - Math might help us in short term, but not in a long run, when cultural influence is stronger.
June 23, 2016
I loved this book for its different perspective on the dating world. As a single woman in the New York City area I was starting to wonder if it was me. After reading this I realized that there are a lot other issues going on that have little to do with me.
The imbalance of the sexes is a really interesting phenomenon, and has a lot of different causes and results.
For someone looking to get married will get some tools for improving their odds, in ways most don't think of.
The imbalance of the sexes is a really interesting phenomenon, and has a lot of different causes and results.
For someone looking to get married will get some tools for improving their odds, in ways most don't think of.
December 6, 2015
This book both depressed me and made me feel a lot better about myself, that my situation is not a personal one but a matter of circumstances. I wish this book had been written 15 years ago and I had read it before deciding where to go to college. I highly recommend it to every single-person, particularly single women.
February 28, 2016
Really a 2.5 stars. It is an interesting concept that is frightening to some extent, how quickly our animal instincts just come right out. It was very repetitive with all the stats that felt like they said the same thing again and again. I also have a problem with social "science" cause it never feels like science.
August 26, 2019
Red pill-ed to the core. Peels open the illusion of human sexual behaviour whereby it is constant or as per individual taste. What happens when you have too many man and too little women? Vice versa? A startling revelation into the sexual market place. A must read.
April 26, 2022
a personal observation: my hometown is an area where the percentage of women is lower than where i live now. in my hometown, men ask me out to meals; where i currently live, men ask me out for drinks. fascinating how there is a lowered standard as is described by this book.
July 6, 2017
This book just scientifically proved why dating sucks so much. It was intriguing and easy to read. It has also provided a lot of heated discussion between me and my single friends.
October 19, 2017
I read this mainly for the one chapter on how the gender ratio has affected Mormons and Orthodox Jews, but the rest of it was pretty interesting too. The author comes up with some theories as to why the increasing number of women being college-educated means that their dating pool is shrinking. Two things crossed my mind whilst reading this:
1) He seemed a bit fixated on women's 'biological clock', not every woman wants kids.
2) I can understand why comparatively fewer smart, educated guys are in demand but the book doesn't explain, if there is a deficit of women in the 'blue collar' areas, why so many men who, lets face it could be an episode of Jeremy Kyle, seem to have no trouble dating and go from one relationship to the next whereas smart, attractive, women with good jobs struggle to find another partner. Where is the 'balance out'?
Overall, an interesting read but not entirely convincing in some areas.
1) He seemed a bit fixated on women's 'biological clock', not every woman wants kids.
2) I can understand why comparatively fewer smart, educated guys are in demand but the book doesn't explain, if there is a deficit of women in the 'blue collar' areas, why so many men who, lets face it could be an episode of Jeremy Kyle, seem to have no trouble dating and go from one relationship to the next whereas smart, attractive, women with good jobs struggle to find another partner. Where is the 'balance out'?
Overall, an interesting read but not entirely convincing in some areas.
March 31, 2023
A mixed bag.
The book's basic points:
- Women in developed countries have been attending colleges at a higher percentage compared to men for decades. In the US this has been true since 1980
- This means most colleges have a lopsided sex ratio, with an oversupply of women
- Wherever there's a lopsided sex ratio, the most frequent mating strategy in that environment becomes the one that favors the undersupplied sex. The author's thesis is that the undersupply of men is the main reason we have seen hookup culture increase (and stable relationships decrease) in popularity on college campuses
- What happens after college? College-educated women overwhelmingly tend to be interested in only dating men who are older and college-educated; this is not true for college-educated men, who don't seem to have degree requirements when dating
- This just perpetuates the lopsided sex ratio: the pool of men that college-educated women consider eligible is just too small, in most cities just like in rural areas. Those men have too many more options compared to them, thus they refuse to settle down
The good
- Great analyses of specific closed environments where the effects of lopsided sex ratios can be empirically measured: college campuses, Orthodox Jew community, Mormon community
- Irrefutable mathematical explanation of why dating for ambitious college-educated women is like playing musical chairs
- Very thought-provoking explanation of the cultural changes of the 1960s-1970s as driven by the lopsided sex ratio created by the Baby Boom. Since women date older men, a sudden increase in births leads to a natural oversupply of women. The author speculates this was the main driver behind both the sexual revolution and the 1970s raise in feminist activism
- Some of the final proposals make sense
The bad
- Too many colorful anecdotes, rather than showing the data
- Too many strongly judgmental opinions based on the author's completely subjective moral preferences
- The older single women the author knows are ALL amazing, while the men are all awful. Yeah, sure
- Whenever the author starts looking beyond closed communities, and using his model to explain pretty much anything that happens in the world, the book's quality decreases
- The author treats in the same way issues of real lopsided sex ratios in closed communities, where either men or women are physically not there (college campuses, Orthodox Jews, Mormons), and issues of preference-based lopsided sex ratios in entire cities or countries. If I refuse to date women who don't look like Monica Bellucci, that's not a sex ratio problem. The two situations can't be equated
- One of the final proposals (delaying men's schooling by 1 year) is completely preposterous; it's not going to change absolutely anything, other than hurting the smartest boys in the class for no reason
Considerations that are missing
- No mention of the fact certain developed countries do not work the same way as the US when it comes to education. While in the US there's a major cultural push to make everyone go to college, in places like Germany, Austria and Switzerland there's also the dVET system (dual vocational education & training), and a much smaller percentage of people attends the academic colleges. This makes it much less likely to consider college degrees as hard requirements when dating. Do we see the same effects in such countries? The author seems to suggest that we do. If so, why?
- No mention at all of the elephant in the room: total fertility rate in all developed nations has plummeted since the Baby Boom. If we only take the most developed regions, it went from 2.8 in 1950 to 1.52 in 2021 (data here). So, if we consider the author's thesis on the Baby Boom effect as correct, by the same logic we should see the opposite effect in place once people are out of college, as the pool of younger women has been shrinking since the Baby Boom. And we should see this effect being stronger in the countries with the highest median age. But it seems like we don't. So the author's model does not work in explaining the current increase in delayed marriages and ultimately childlessness
- No mention of the fact that after college, in the majority of cases, from the 1980s to at least the 2000s, a college-educated woman's work environment's sex ratio has been skewed towards male oversupply, or at worst 50/50 (data here). So, if the author's model is correct, the workplace should have been the perfect environment to find a long-term mate for college-educated women for 30 years in a row, and this dynamic should have canceled the college effect at least until the 2000s
- No mention of the fact many environments where women and men meet up have a business model deliberately designed to rely on an oversupply of men: bars, clubs, dating apps, in many cases even social media. If the author's model is enough to explain mating dynamics, all those environments would be the perfect place for women to cancel the college effect, but they don't seem to produce that result
- An explanation that seems to fit these missing considerations better than the author's model is that, at least after university, college-educated women also choose to delay settling down, and not just college-educated men. But this choice impacts the two groups differently, for the reasons the book outlines (women end up playing musical chairs, whether they're aware of it or not). I wonder if the author has even taken this possibility into consideration?
The book's basic points:
- Women in developed countries have been attending colleges at a higher percentage compared to men for decades. In the US this has been true since 1980
- This means most colleges have a lopsided sex ratio, with an oversupply of women
- Wherever there's a lopsided sex ratio, the most frequent mating strategy in that environment becomes the one that favors the undersupplied sex. The author's thesis is that the undersupply of men is the main reason we have seen hookup culture increase (and stable relationships decrease) in popularity on college campuses
- What happens after college? College-educated women overwhelmingly tend to be interested in only dating men who are older and college-educated; this is not true for college-educated men, who don't seem to have degree requirements when dating
- This just perpetuates the lopsided sex ratio: the pool of men that college-educated women consider eligible is just too small, in most cities just like in rural areas. Those men have too many more options compared to them, thus they refuse to settle down
The good
- Great analyses of specific closed environments where the effects of lopsided sex ratios can be empirically measured: college campuses, Orthodox Jew community, Mormon community
- Irrefutable mathematical explanation of why dating for ambitious college-educated women is like playing musical chairs
- Very thought-provoking explanation of the cultural changes of the 1960s-1970s as driven by the lopsided sex ratio created by the Baby Boom. Since women date older men, a sudden increase in births leads to a natural oversupply of women. The author speculates this was the main driver behind both the sexual revolution and the 1970s raise in feminist activism
- Some of the final proposals make sense
The bad
- Too many colorful anecdotes, rather than showing the data
- Too many strongly judgmental opinions based on the author's completely subjective moral preferences
- The older single women the author knows are ALL amazing, while the men are all awful. Yeah, sure
- Whenever the author starts looking beyond closed communities, and using his model to explain pretty much anything that happens in the world, the book's quality decreases
- The author treats in the same way issues of real lopsided sex ratios in closed communities, where either men or women are physically not there (college campuses, Orthodox Jews, Mormons), and issues of preference-based lopsided sex ratios in entire cities or countries. If I refuse to date women who don't look like Monica Bellucci, that's not a sex ratio problem. The two situations can't be equated
- One of the final proposals (delaying men's schooling by 1 year) is completely preposterous; it's not going to change absolutely anything, other than hurting the smartest boys in the class for no reason
Considerations that are missing
- No mention of the fact certain developed countries do not work the same way as the US when it comes to education. While in the US there's a major cultural push to make everyone go to college, in places like Germany, Austria and Switzerland there's also the dVET system (dual vocational education & training), and a much smaller percentage of people attends the academic colleges. This makes it much less likely to consider college degrees as hard requirements when dating. Do we see the same effects in such countries? The author seems to suggest that we do. If so, why?
- No mention at all of the elephant in the room: total fertility rate in all developed nations has plummeted since the Baby Boom. If we only take the most developed regions, it went from 2.8 in 1950 to 1.52 in 2021 (data here). So, if we consider the author's thesis on the Baby Boom effect as correct, by the same logic we should see the opposite effect in place once people are out of college, as the pool of younger women has been shrinking since the Baby Boom. And we should see this effect being stronger in the countries with the highest median age. But it seems like we don't. So the author's model does not work in explaining the current increase in delayed marriages and ultimately childlessness
- No mention of the fact that after college, in the majority of cases, from the 1980s to at least the 2000s, a college-educated woman's work environment's sex ratio has been skewed towards male oversupply, or at worst 50/50 (data here). So, if the author's model is correct, the workplace should have been the perfect environment to find a long-term mate for college-educated women for 30 years in a row, and this dynamic should have canceled the college effect at least until the 2000s
- No mention of the fact many environments where women and men meet up have a business model deliberately designed to rely on an oversupply of men: bars, clubs, dating apps, in many cases even social media. If the author's model is enough to explain mating dynamics, all those environments would be the perfect place for women to cancel the college effect, but they don't seem to produce that result
- An explanation that seems to fit these missing considerations better than the author's model is that, at least after university, college-educated women also choose to delay settling down, and not just college-educated men. But this choice impacts the two groups differently, for the reasons the book outlines (women end up playing musical chairs, whether they're aware of it or not). I wonder if the author has even taken this possibility into consideration?
July 22, 2022
While this book won’t be able to cure me of being chronically single and constantly finding men who aren’t ready to commit, I loved it. It was a nice read that put some numbers behind why it is so hard for smart, funny, gorgeous, perfect girls (such as myself and my friends) to find a man. It certainly won’t change the way I date or where I want to live, but it’s nice to know that for my coupled up and settling down friends, statistically there are plenty women like me. Plus it’s nice to know that society (and men) are a huge part of the problem (at least I’m going to tell myself it’s not me).
August 22, 2023
For all my beautiful, intelligent, college educated straight queens out there who are struggling with dating or settling for men that ain’t s*it, I implore you to read this book. It gives some hard hitting data on what I’ve witnessed at Duke and in life. Gals, you ain’t crazy, the dating market sucks and the numbers are skewed against you. GIVE THIS A READ! I love me any econ book that can verbalize a social phenomena.
March 15, 2021
I loved this book and found it very validating. I’ve been asking myself for years why I have so many fabulous, attractive, single girl friends (and I myself am still single). It turns out that it’s just straight up statistics that are not in my favor...not that myself or my friends are terrible at dating! In Maryland, there are 22% more college educated women between the ages of 30~39 than there are college educated men within the same age range. In Pittsburgh, 38% more. These gender ratio gaps have caused a shift in dating culture that make it very difficult for men to ever want to settle down. And why would they when there is another beautiful, successful woman right around the corner?
Now it’s on to his next book to learn how to “make my move!”
Now it’s on to his next book to learn how to “make my move!”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews