“The sad thing about guys who exhibit these brogrammer qualities is they seem to fall short of greatness in both worlds,” said Parish. “They’re not purely macho or purely geeky, they’re somewhat pretenders in both...”
Part of the problem is that women like this want a man who looks like Tarzan, is rich, respected and powerful but who can also change the oil in the car, fix the plumbing, mow the lawn, fight Brock Lesnar for her honor (and win) and make her laugh on command.
I tell my wife that she should have married a dozen guys. Yeah, I do so much stuff that I don't do anything really well. Thanks for noticing and calling me a pretender. I'm just an average guy like all the rest.
Edit: Happily married for 15 years. My wife and I joke about this. She understands and has settled for me ;)
I don't share that takeaway from the article. What I took away was:
1) She's looking for someone who has confidence in a well formed personality all their own.
2) That personality is not defined by what they do for work.
3) Part of that personality includes taking an interest in the lives and personalities of other people, particularly in the context of a one-on-one social situation who's entire purpose is (arguably) to get to know one another.
Sure, I'm certain that if all of the traits you outline came by in one package they'd happily take it, but the complaint seemed to be that she's encountering men who, having any of those qualities, assume that's like having all of them and don't bother to develop the rest of the bits that make us human and tolerable to fill in the gaps.
My reasoning behind this takeaway is that I spend a fair amount of time hanging out in (apparently) the same neighborhood and same bars that she does, and I find a lot of the folks who aren't interested in talking about anything other than what they do for work similarly insufferable. That said, I'm a guy. I work in tech. In Seattle. For Google. After having gotten tired of Amazon. I routinely catch myself being part of the problem (although not the dating problem as I haven't been single in over ten years).
Sure, a lot of women want that "tall dark and handsome" guy with lots of money. But the author even mentioned some of the people she went with were nice looking, but either they were egotistical, or they were boring. And yeah a lot of tech guys are boring.
I once had an officemate, did decently in the finance department, was ok looking, but... We were both contracting, I was taking the summer off to travel Europe. He... well he wished he could take a cruise or something, but ended up sitting in his apartment for several months until the next contract came along.
Frankly, given the ratios of male to female residents in Seattle and other tech-heavy West Coast metro areas, nobody looking to date men (gay or straight) has any right to complain. You have your pickings!
Are they all kinda similar? Well yeah, but so are the men in all other areas whose economies are heavily mono-industrial. As a matter of fact, so are the women in areas whose economies are heavily mono-industrial with emphasis on more "feminine" professions, and the women in areas with populations more female than male.
I would say "lower your standards", but that allows you to hold on to the whole dehumanizing concept of dating-as-meat-market you've got going. In fact, you should be getting over yourself and understanding that all these "insufferable" men, of whom you have your pickings, are human beings with life histories and hopes and dreams of their own.
This mentality that everyone the natives don't like should just pack up and leave Seattle is actually (shortage of sunlight aside) a significant reason I have turned down job-offers that would have put me in Seattle.
EDIT: Seriously, normally I don't like contributing to outrage-mongering, but this is a seriously bratty article. Men are not entitled to women, and likewise, neither are women entitled to men.
EDIT EDIT: Also, all the really awesome, wonderful men are already married to the really awesome, wonderful women. This article is giving me an immense urge to call my fiancee, tell her how incredible she is just for not giving a shit about cliques and status, and then spend half an hour talking about anime and board games just to reaffirm how "insufferably" nerdy we both are.
I kind of get that, but, there's nothing wrong with a bratty article, and that's her experience. Should she not write about it? Or should she wait until she fits in with the local men and then write about that?
Or I could say "raise your standards" beyond vanilla, non-challenging, pleasant writing.
I really appreciate the writer's description of her experience, even if 20 years ago it would have hit close to home for me.
Frankly, why should she write an entire article, other than perhaps on her personal blog, to complain that she can't find a man who's good enough for her standards?
>Or I could say "raise your standards" beyond vanilla, non-challenging, pleasant writing.
Ok, you want challenging? Here's challenging: I would find many of the same people insufferable as she does. That doesn't mean I feel a right to go telling the whole world that most people around me are unworthy of love or friendship, and that the world will have to fix itself by importing a fresh supply of people I happen to like.
There was a time when I might have thought like that... at age 15. Well, and maybe up through 19. And I still have a hard time finding real common ground with people who aren't at all nerdy.
But hey, diversity is the spice of life! I like having things I don't understand about explained to me! Just last night at Shabbat dinner, I sat across from a fresh new cellular biology grad-student and asked him what his lab does. I did not dismiss him as a peer, even when I grew disinterested because the talk turned to the various drugs he and some electrical engineering type had indulged in during undergrad. At that point I went over and listened to my friend the host of the house (and twenty-something Lubavitch shaliach to my neighborhood) giving his religious lecture for the evening.
Whom did I dismiss as a social peer, politely ignoring for the rest of the night? The guy who thought there was something unpleasant about describing growth rates using terms like "logarithmic", "linear", "polynomial" and "exponential", who considered me less human for knowing.
This is something that has happened repeatedly to me throughout life, and it leaves me with rather more empathy for the boring nerds the author doesn't like dating than for the stuck-up philosophy-major-turned-journalist who can't be bothered to take an interest in lifestyles beyond the underground hippie/artist/rocker crowd that brought her to Seattle in the '90s. To me, she sounds like an insufferable hipster, coincidentally.
Maybe she'll never take an interest, but these are still human beings, not spoiled meat. Just because I don't like brogrammers or workaholic money-mongers on a personal level doesn't mean that I want them dehumanized, any more than I like being dehumanized for being a nerd. Let's have this subcultural holy war! Why do the hippies and humanities majors get to talk down to the rest of us?
>Frankly, why should she write an entire article
Uhm, I don't know... wasn't there an entire tv series, two movies, and another tv series spinnoff that basically revolved around exactly what this article was discussing? Sure it was in NYC and talked about all men, but still...
IMO this did not deserve downvotes, any more than the original article deserved flags. You might disagree with eli's response, but I think it contributed to the conversation.
Interesting reading this from the female perspective. So much of the gender roles have changed over time. There was a time when this exact same article could have been written with the sexes reversed, "All she did was talk about herself and how she was doing this cause, or that cause, and the wasn't it atrocious about the children starving in foreign countries."
Its a problem when our view of the world is focused on what we personally are bringing to the world as opposed to the world around us and the people in it. Perhaps it is the result of having one's "self esteem" pumped up from birth through college.
It would be like carrying around a small yellow card, one that was the exact shade and saturation of yellow that was in Vincent's Starry Night painting. Without the rest of the painting around it, it loses much of its specialness.
It's time for a single man who speaks Latin fluently, knows how to cook, is able to talk at least superficially about philosophy and can even shut up every now and then to disrupt the Seattle dating scene!
Maybe some VC can fund potential "interesting dates", in exchange for a few percent of the newlywed's house?
As a young male engineer in SF who is very much not the brogrammer type, I can understand where the author is coming from. I'm neither a bro, nor a nerd. I find myself in a vacuum sometimes, wondering where the other "well rounded" guys from "flyover country" are. Everyone seems to be too caught up in their startups or caught up in the money. Or their so nerdy that it's impossible to have an honest conversation with them. (Engineers can be so self-righteous sometimes.)
There is a lost art that these tech hubs need to find again. Maybe it's "being a gentleman". Or "being a renaissance person". There are so many soft skills that most people (young tech guys) lack.
* How do you have a conversation with someone not from your socioeconomic/political/technological/generational background?
* How do you treat a woman with respect and dignity?
* How do you "pick up girls" without needing to resort to the absurd tactics of The Game?
* How do you host a dinner party?
* How do you approach the arts and culture?
* How do you pay attention to world news and politics?
* How do you dress respectfully?
* Can you debate philosophy gracefully and purposefully?
From the outside perspective, I'm one of the rich, dumb tech nerds that this article is rallying against. I'm a white kid from flyover country. I have a lot of money. My company is very successful by all standard measures. I'm an engineer, I like science fiction.
It's funny, though, when people (especially women) meet me. They are often surprised that I am not an idiot brogrammer. I can carry on a conversation about topics outside of tech. I have opinions about the arts and music. I can discuss world politics with knowledge and tact. I know how to carry a conversation: give and take, tell jokes, etc. I have traveled widely.
Because of this differentiation, I've found it very easy to pick up women in SF. Women are surprised to find a genuine person who actually cares about them, what their passions are, what they think.
I know I'm not perfect, and I certainly am striving to do better at all of these things. But I know I'm one of the few who actually pursues these activities and has interest in these kinds of soft skills. I wish more people took this approach. I would have more friends, the women of tech hubs would write fewer articles about idiot brogrammers, and we'd all live a more fulfilling and happy life.
So here's a plea: let's make a finishing school for nerds. We would all benefit.
I agree that teaching people how to carry on conversations would be a useful course. But the slight problem with a finishing school is that nerds will probably disagree on the topics of such a school and find some of these suggestions offensive.
E.g.
>How do you pay attention to world news and politics?
Hopefully little as most news isn't news in any usable way. And unless you're actually doing a lot of research, you're unlikely to be discussing anything at a usable level. It's not like I'm going to be comment intelligently on e.g. Crimea without spending what, hours or more(?), reading background on it. News reporting is unlikely to get much insight other than noting which countries are in NATO and saying things like if the US started a war with Russia it would be a big deal. The rest just makes people suffer more bias as they start overestimating the incidence of uncommon events.
Talking about the news is as small talk as talking about the weather. At least with the weather you're likely to get some things right.
Politics, at least in the US, seems to be dominated by moronic discourse. Even the writers/shows that I "agree" with are intellectually dishonest and obviously just "rooting for the team". I'd be surprised if all modern politics is not about the same thing.
>Can you debate philosophy gracefully and purposefully?
What do you mean by philosophy? Because what "most people" consider philosophy is unlikely to lead to any useful discussions. And worse, if you're trying to have a polite conversation with someone but somehow find out they take p-zombies seriously... well it puts a downer on the mood. Just like when someone says they've been feeling sick, probably because of all the WiFi or chemtrails. Or maybe that's what you mean by graceful? How to say "oh really?" in a nice tone and change the subject?
>And worse, if you're trying to have a polite conversation with someone but somehow find out they take p-zombies seriously...
OH GOD! Don't tell me you're some kind of damn dirty naturalist! You people and your scientism! Don't you know Bayes' Theorem can't even solve the Problem of Induction!?
Are you serious? This guy clearly never heard of modesty. Full of himself. Sounds just like the guys in the article (count the I...'s) but added the fake interest in the lady to get his d* wet.
There really is an epidemic of lameness in SF and Seattle.
I'm a straight single guy. We also want interesting dude friends. I'm fortunate enough to have found many, but almost all of them are outside the tech industry or women. Many of my friends don't know what I do, let alone that I'm quite well off and successful. And if you ask me about my work and don't notice when I change the subject, I will immediately and without sympathy move you to my shitlist.
The truth is, all the pasty white faces eager to salve their insecurity by convincing me of their startup's viability are incredibly shallow and dull. Learn how to let loose and be a genuine man who doesn't need my approval. Then come talk to me.
To be fair, a genuine man wouldn't change the subject. He'd say what he did. He just wouldn't consume the entire conversation with it. "I'm a programmer for Google. Yes, I'm evil, ride free buses, and push rent up. What do you do?"
If your "friends" don't know what you do or that you're successful, you're not genuine. You shouldn't be ashamed of it. You just shouldn't be all-consumed by it either.
You might have confused "genuine" with "compliant" and "truthful."
I am under no obligation to answer your stupid, predicable, and irrelevant to our social future questions.
In fact, it would disingenuous of me to give you the impression that your social style was anything but annoying and bland, and likely to lead to me never wanting to see you again.
Honestly, not much would be missed if this is your attitude to things that don't work exactly the way you want them to.
I'd hazard a guess that your friends are more likely 'acquaintances' or 'hangout buddies' (nothing wrong with that) than friends. I know what all of my friends do in life (and it's a diverse mix, from trauma docs to people who work for the governor to self-made day traders to senior management at IT multi-nationals) and, perhaps surprisingly to you, we are able to balance work as a minor conversation topic from time to time.
But phrases such as 'stupid', 'predictable', 'irrelevant', 'annoying', 'bland' only give off the perception of you as having quite the superiority complex, haughtily sniffing down your nose at anyone deigning to disagree.
Why? For we are not our jobs. But as we move through our lives, particularly beyond that first job or two, the kind of person we might be, our wants and desires are not defined, but least elucidated at by how we choose to spend a quarter of our lives.
Contrary to your guess, this approach has brought far higher quality and more intimate relationships into my life. You'd be surprised how immediately rejecting what you anticipate will bother you results in the void being filled by what will add to your life.
If someone is still in a phase of their life where the first question out of their mouth is "what do you do for a living," they can find other friends. There are a lot of people in this world - no need for me to waste my time with ones who follow routine social interaction protocols. Suggesting this is elitist is a little silly. We are all elitists. There are 7 billion people in this world - we choose who we spend our time, and always reject others. Not actively making that choice is a recipe for an unfulfilling and frustrating existence.
I'm not saying you shouldn't know what your friends do, only that I don't want relationships where my first impression or their first impression is based on employment.
Ha. So if, at any time, over the course of our friendship, I asked what you spent 30-40% of your waking hours doing, that would be stupid, "predicable" (if you're going to call me stupid, first learn to spell check), and irrelevant? I find it odd when that's someone's first question, but someone I'd consider a friend should know that. Perhaps you have a low bar for friendship.
That's not what I said. Many of my friends do know what I do.
This whole thread is about first dates and meeting people. I don't want to be around people who have that as their first question. It indicates low creativity, low fun, social compliance, and if I bring a crew of such people around - people will assume the same of me.
If that's not who you are, learn to signal that by not asking dumb questions off the bat, and learn to time such inquiries for when they make sense and rapport has been established. Socializing is about relationships, not information exchange.
And thanks for the spelling lesson. You must be a cheer.
That crossed my mind too. But I see an ounce of truth in this. I can speak from experience, when you're young and consumed by technology, you might have difficulty conversing with women, even if you're attractive physically. My dating life improved after majoring in art ;-)
In general, I think it's hard to find people that can keep an interesting conversation going, and in your 20s you don't have much life experience anyway, especially if you moved straight from a classroom to a cubicle.
As far as talking about yourself on a date, it's not necessarily a problem, it's just a different style of communicating. If she's talking about herself, that's a strong signal she's interested. Then I can respond with information about myself--that's perfectly acceptable and possibly the desired response. In a conversation, you can change the subject, what a concept ;-)
This is exactly why I hated living in the SF Bay Area. We've all heard the jokes: Man Jose and Man Francisco. This article just reminded me of the terrible time I had trying to meet a nice gal there for nearly a decade. Although, to be fair, I've read the census and it seems that the entire West Coast is afflicted by this problem of more single men than women, whereas the East Coast has the opposite problem.
Anyways, to offer an opposing point of view, I found girls like the author equally unpalatable and boring. Sorry, it works both ways.
I'm proudly one of the insufferable "brogrammers" who wears that new employee backpack everywhere. I spend my free time learning new web frameworks. I go to tech meetups. Strike up a conversation with me and recoil in horror at my ignorance about everything outside of tech. I'm racing against imposter syndrome here, and a reduced sex appeal isn't going to stop me.
This post has been locked in a mortal battle between upvotes and flags from the moment it appeared. The flags prevailed. They do however wish to be gracious in victory so we have unkilled the post. Carry on—just not on the front page.
I try my very best not to talk about work unless specifically asked. And when people do ask, they will still get bored very quickly. Even if they are asking for advice on how to learn programming or enter the field—of which it seems only 10% of those asking the question are genuinely interested in doing so.
If a date (or prospective date) asks you about work, it's probably best to just tell them you slay dragons and steer the topic towards something else.
Everybody complains. There's too few men. There's too many men. The men are too random. The men are too predictable.
Are there some good examples somewhere, something which someone could build something upon?
I realize that maybe there's no incentive to write anything, if everything's okay....
Hmmm... never mind that she referred to men as goods... what is wrong with a little odd? After I met my wife for the first time, she told her friends back home that I really wasn't like the other guys she had dated. Like not her usual type. One of them had the good sense to remind her that there was a reason she wasn't dating any of those other guys anymore. :)
What seems strange to me is, if she's found a strongly predictive indicator, why does she not simply filter before going on a date? Have Amazon's employees run off all the "weirdos"? She even mocks them in the last paragraph, saying how easy they are to spot. So why continue to date them?
>but high on his newfound power drank four or five “special” drinks from the craft cocktail bar, Canon, ordered the foie gras, and racked up a $200 bill in less than two hours.
This part seemed the most curious to me. Is having a few "special" drinks a bad thing? $200 seems quite reasonable at a higher-end place. 5 cocktails alone could be nearly $100. Foie gras is like $40 or so (I didn't see it on Canon's menu)? Another few drinks and some food and you're there. Or is the subtext that he ordered in an arrogant way?
I wonder because I'd easily do this and certainly not in an arrogant way, but hey, life's short, and if a restaurant seems good and has interesting food and drinks, why not try them out? It's only money.
Canon is a pretty easy place to run up a $200 tab. My wife and I rarely make it out of there below that, and I've done it myself on at least one occasion.
That said, five cocktails in less than two hours is going to leave all but the stoutest alcoholics a lot worse for wear, and there are more and less flashy ways of running up such a tab. Of course, neither of us was there to witness this, and as I mentioned in another comment, I'm likely part of the problem.
Tangentially related, if you're ever in Seattle and want tasty small plates and cocktails with a bit of showmanship to them (as well as a somewhat absurd scotch/bourbon menu), I'd highly recommend Canon :)
"When you see an asshole, you've seen an asshole. When all you see are assholes, you're the asshole"
Our generation (and by that, I mean broadly "anyone from a western culture currently in the first half or so of their career") has a serious problem with seeing and understanding things outside of our own little world. When we see things, people, events, that displease us, we always have to extract some grand underlying theory and trend about it, about why the world is against us, and why it's just not right. We're always the ones with the intelligence, the burning passion, the openness of mind, the great understanding of the world- it's always others that aren't enough. Of course, the author isn't an entitled self-centered young adult just like the men she describes: it's the whole tech industry that's even more awful than the law or banking industry, and just can't ever be good enough for her! We believe ourselves to be individuals imbued with uniqueness and intricate subtleties, and yet judge others as merely the sum of the loosely defined groups we put them in.
(I have tons of female friends who are in committed relationships/engaged/married to men from the law/banking/tech industry, while themselves having graduate degrees in literature/philosophy/fashion design/biology/etc, and they are all very satisfied. But I'm sure they are all wrong and as vapid as their partners from those god awful industries)
This woman was part of the date with the "insufferable tech worker" as much as he was. If she had a terrible time and found the date bland, chances are he did as well.
As a non American, I do find the US dating culture hilarious to the point of the absurd. It's a practice codified to the extreme, as boring as it gets, practically a checklist of do's and don'ts and desirable attributes and undesirable attributes. In an hour after work around a cup of coffee, the average American expects to gain enough knowledge about the human in front of them to judge whether they should see them again or cut contact forever. How can you expect anything but abysmal success rates in that case?
In the culture where I'm from, you typically meet people through social gatherings where your friends brought some of their friends, who themselves brought some of their friends. You get to know people through shared experiences and group discussions rather than awkward timed sit downs at the local Starbucks. And maybe after a few of those events you realize that the guy who spent the first 30 minutes of your first conversation talking about his job actually is much more than that- because honestly, how reasonable is it to issue a definitive judgement of someone based on 30 mins of conversation with someone you've never met before?
By definition, only some people can be "extraordinary", yet most people in this generation were raised to believe they are. Thus, widespread unhappiness.
It sounds like normal guys acting like normal guys, and women having too high of standards. You can't connect with anyone well on the first date, or at least it's very rare.
Part of the problem is that women like this want a man who looks like Tarzan, is rich, respected and powerful but who can also change the oil in the car, fix the plumbing, mow the lawn, fight Brock Lesnar for her honor (and win) and make her laugh on command.
I tell my wife that she should have married a dozen guys. Yeah, I do so much stuff that I don't do anything really well. Thanks for noticing and calling me a pretender. I'm just an average guy like all the rest.
Edit: Happily married for 15 years. My wife and I joke about this. She understands and has settled for me ;)