Date-onomics: How Dating Became a Lopsided Numbers Game (Book)

Amazon page

quote:

---

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.

---

basically this is a book that focuses on certain areas where women outnumber men and the social response (which is less commitment and more "hookup culture", due to the value of men and men's comprehension of their sexual value/status)

really good podcast discussion from the author on the Art of Manliness (Soundcloud Link)

i love reading the negative comments on Amazon b/c they almost all center around how this book is somehow anti-feminist

for example:

There is a very real possibility he is pulling all of this "information" out of his backside. I have seen this woman-shaming garbage over and over and over again. It keeps getting recycled every single time there is an economic downturn. It is pernicious filth trying to guilt women out of getting an education because no man will want them. It is garbage right out of the 1950s.

Though the book provides compelling evidence on the male shortage in relation to college campuses, religious sects and the workplace it's the kind of evidence that may reinforce the kind of preconceived notions among the people who'd be most likely to read this book.

You're likely to fall into two camps after reading the last page of this Jon Birger creation: either you will see this as a wake up call to women and their inevitable comeuppance for all their SJW, "feminazi" rhetoric of putting unassuming men in a corner in the name of smashing "the patriarchy," or you'll see this book as a veiled threat against women and their rise to power disguised as a cautionary tale of what happens when a woman's standards are simply "too high" (this book was written by a man after all).

and i'll give that 2nd comment credit for the 2-part distinction (even though there is some strawman in the post)

i actually think it's more the "cautionary tale" route but i doubt any legit feminist would desire to actually discuss that point