It sucks to live in North Dakota
There’s an article in today’s NY Times about the woman shortage in the oil areas of North Dakota.
Christina Knapp and a friend were drinking shots at a bar in a nearby town several weeks ago when a table of about five men called them over and made an offer.
They would pay the women $3,000 to strip naked and serve them beer at their house while they watched mixed martial arts fights on television. Ms. Knapp, 22, declined, but the men kept raising the offer, reaching $7,000.
It has been suggested by some commenters that working the oil fields is a good way for young men to earn money for college, but if they are going to blow the money like that, then the whole endeavor winds up being a big waste.
Ironically, even women don’t’ want to live around so many men:
At the urging of her family, Barbara Coughlin, 31, who recently moved to Williston after her 11-year marriage ended, is now getting her concealed weapons permit so she can carry a Taser. Ms. Coughlin, who wore silver glitter around her eyes at work as a waitress on a recent day, said her mother and stepfather, who live here, advised her to stop wearing the skirts and heels she cherishes, so she does not stand out like “a flower in the desert,” as her stepfather put it. Her family hardly ever lets her go out on her own — not even for walks down the gravel road at the housing camp where they live.
“Will I stay for very long? Probably not,” she said. “To me, there’s no money in the world worth not even being able to take a walk.”
Business is good for nude dancers, but regular women of good morals want out.
* * *
The accompanying map shows the best and worst states for young single men who want to meet women. Massachusetts wins. The northeast is the most young-man-friendly region. The northern interior west is the region to avoid.
PROOF women make lousy business “persons” and politicians:
Turning down an easy $7,000.
Firepower
January 16, 2013 at 10:00 am
Once they go over there, what’s to stop them from getting gang raped? It was prudent to turn down the money. If the women wanted to make money stripping, they could do so safely in a strip club.
DaveinHackensack
January 16, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Gang-rape is rare… amongst certain… demographics
Nor is rape the guaranteed outcome our Femininized Hollywood culture portrays.
I’ve had a lot of friends who stripped at even “wild” bachelor parties without incident; it seems today’s male is a rather timid, reverent soul when it comes to The Fairer Sex. They’ve absorbed State propaganda completely.
Serving Nood Nachos to rural roughnecks in ND is obviously different than stripping at Lil’ Jeezy’s Crip Funeral sendoff in Oakland CA.
Firepower
January 17, 2013 at 1:55 pm
She could hire two guys she trusts (with concealed weapons) for say $500 per person to chaperone and still net $6000 tax free.
HaileGebreselassie
January 17, 2013 at 5:19 pm
It has been suggested by some commenters that working the oil fields is a good way for young men to earn money for college, but if they are going to blow the money like that, then the whole endeavor winds up being a big waste.
Because college kids have neeeeeever wasted money on booze and strippers…
Tarl
January 16, 2013 at 10:01 am
B.S. This is no different than working for Aramco or any other expat oil work. You go to Saudi, you make your money, and you have plans for post-Aramco work.
I’m not sure how much these guys are making in N.D., but the guys I know in Saudi are making upwards of half a million per year, and its tax free. 10 years of that, and they can stop working altogether. These are engineers, so the alternative is maybe working in the US for $100k.
Buzzcut
January 16, 2013 at 10:43 am
If you look at suicide rate you see a real connection. The worst states for single men are also the places with the highest suicide rate, and places that are good for single men have a low suicide rate.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/suicide
I can only imagine what it must have been like for the logger and cowboy and gold rush settlers of the west, before gender balance arrived. Ratios were several to one in places.
Suicide accounts for most military deaths now, with extreme gender imbalance. I would argue that having 25% women in the military is worse for most men than having 0% women in the military. People around you are getting laid but you are getting nothing. Or when you do have success, your love is stolen away very easily.
Dan
January 16, 2013 at 10:50 am
“I can only imagine what it must have been like for the logger and cowboy and gold rush settlers of the west, before gender balance arrived. Ratios were several to one in places.”
Soldiers stationed in remote areas during this era took “fort wives” from the local Indian tribes. The tribes recognized these marriages as legitimate, even when the fort wife and fort children were sent back if the white wife showed up. Fanny Kelly describes this phenomena in detail in her captivity narrative.
islandmommy
January 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm
Women in the military is terrible for group cohesion. Likewise openly homosexual superiors will begin demanding sexual favors for promotions. The left has succeeded in destroying our armed forces. The ancients eradicated these elements from military service for good reason.
Conquistador
January 16, 2013 at 2:13 pm
I think it would be cool to live for awhile in North Dakota. I’d certainly give it a try. But I’m married with kids, so I’m not scouting around for women. But if I were, I wouldn’t mind a woman who was OK with North Dakota. I like empty spaces, and Williston is at this point an internationally-known boom town. I don’t think most of ND is particularly like this.
ice hole
January 16, 2013 at 10:58 am
@Buzzcut It’s not tax free. You get a foreign earned income exclusion but it’s no where near 500k.
New York Times comments are terrible. It’s like the people are intentionally ignorant. The whole “tell men not to rape” instead of teaching women how to protect themselves is stupid. It’s just like controlling population. You control the women because if one man gets through the cracks he can knock up everyone. You teach 99/100 guys not to rape and one guy can still rape a whole lot of women if the women don’t know how to protect themselves.
Scott
January 16, 2013 at 11:08 am
Obviously, the glittery waitress in question is not a woman of “good morals”–and it’s not really clear she wants out. I should say she’d like to get in on the nude dancing, but at 31, she’s gonna need a lot of eye glitter to pick up those kind of tips.
These are growing pains. Very young men like to throw away money to impress chicks. Some of them will never learn, but others will learn quickly.
This is particularly evident in light of the seeming fact that they weren’t even offering $7,000 for sex: they just wanted some kind of James Bond title-sequence backdrop for watching tv. This is a young man on the make’s version of rolling cigars out of $1,000 bills. A stupidity, but also a sign of virility. The Dakotas may be the only place left in this country with a pulse. God bless Dakota.
And god save the northeast eunuchs. What “young men”? Adam Lanza?
Lucius Somesuch
January 16, 2013 at 11:11 am
–Oh wait, but they offered $7,000 for a woman with a tattoo on her chest?
31-year old Barbara is still in the game. Rock that eye glitter, girlfriend! Make ‘em hollar, make ‘em pay!
Lucius Somesuch
January 16, 2013 at 11:15 am
Can you imagine how much money an attractive prostitute could make there servicing just 10-15 steady clients? Probably $400-500 per hour easy. Without “working” all that hard $160,000-200,000 per year in cash.
Jeff
January 16, 2013 at 11:25 am
I’d put getting screwed by smelly oil field workers, for hours on end, solidly in the category of “work.”
islandmommy
January 16, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Oh, but then one day Richard Gere would pull up in his Ferrari!
Tarl
January 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm
2-3 hours a day, and I doubt the actual sex would last more than 5-10 minutes per hour (if that).
Jeff
January 17, 2013 at 11:25 am
Who said they were screwing roughnecks?
This is no different – and a repeat of – the female shortage in America’s pioneer/frontier west or the California Gold Rush.
In reality – and I’m talking reality – the Hollywood portrayal of those days is cockeyed. It was the Victorian Age – with guns – and “decent” women were treated respectfully. It was unheard of to even say something considered improper lest ten similarly armed men beat you to a pulp.
It’s all there in real histories of this era. Hollywood taints reality because…they’re movies…
Firepower
January 17, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Alaska (which I have visited many times) has traditionally had a high M:F ratio. Plus the winters are even colder and longer than in North Dakota. I’ve heard this story many times – if a single Alaskan girl wants to find a man, well, the odds are good but the goods are odd.
Black Death
January 16, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Anyone who thinks Massachusetts is the best place for a young man will find an attractive, thin woman wanting to get married is not paying attention to the women in the region. The Bos-DC corridor is full of consumer feminist female robots. You’ll hook up plenty, but it will not be anything long term and you’ll be dealing with Feministing readers.
SOBL1
January 16, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Massachusetts is a really, really good place to get a wife (probably the best in the country outside of Utah), DC is not. Don’t conflate the two.
T
January 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm
What makes you say that?
Utah is good only if you are Mormon.
AsianDude
January 16, 2013 at 1:50 pm
I lived in Massachusetts. Are we talking traditional wife or a ball busting modern gal who will hyphenate her last name with your last name if you’re lucky? If you want a normal gal likely to enjoy being a wife and mom, try flyover country and seek for good socioeconomic background markers.
SOBL1
January 16, 2013 at 3:00 pm
I’m not sure if I’ll go that far (as far as Mass) but I’ve always thought New England women are underrated. Not many superhotties, but plenty of decent ones, who tend to like intelligence in a guy. It’s also true that with higher education comes plenty of feminists, but it’s not really any worse than in other major cities, I imagine.
Jack
January 16, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“You’ll hook up plenty”.
No you won’t.
MA is a horrible place to look for hook ups. It’s got a combination of new age feminism + old school puritanism + a heaping dose of catholic guilt. When was the last time that sex and Boston were both mentioned in the same sentence? Oh, that’s right, when a bunch of Catholic priests fiddled around with little boys. Any other examples? Nope. Boston is puritan central when it comes to sex. People love to party but hate to screw. If you can prove me wrong with evidence, then do it.
Allerious
January 18, 2013 at 10:23 am
Her experience would be no different in Paterson, Newark, Queens or the Bronx, except the “offers” would be stingier and contain more demands.
Fiddlesticks
January 16, 2013 at 12:21 pm
I live in the Northeast. Women flock to the east coast because this region is traditionally high-status and has the big cities and great schools that facilitate their desire for hypergamy.
AsianDude
January 16, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Female hypergamy in the Northeast applies mostly to Asian men. The Columbia University Dating experiment proves just that.
Just Speculating
January 16, 2013 at 5:24 pm
I don’t know the study you are referring to, but it seems true that Asian women have somewhat culturally built in hypergamy instict that is stronger than the other races. I’ve got an Asian girlfriend that appears to be attracted to me partly because of my educational pedigree.
AsianDude
January 16, 2013 at 10:13 pm
The study shown that Asian men have to earn a lot more money than other men to be dating any woman. That’s female punishment working against guys like you.
Based on the study done in NYC, an Asian man who earns an average salary of $60,000 a year, needs to earn a lot more than their Black and White counterparts when it comes to being successful with women.
“For equal success with an Asian woman, an African-American man needs no additional income; a white man needs $24,000 less than average, a Hispanic man needs $28,000 more than average”.
“For equal success with a white woman, an African-American man needs to earn an additional $154,000; a Hispanic man needs $77,000; an Asian needs $247,000″.
Just Speculating
January 17, 2013 at 12:14 am
Just Speculating, you know MM is terrible at reporting studies. And you are just following your pattern to be as negative as possible about Asians. Did you actually look at the study? The numbers you are citing are from the NYT article: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/single-female-seeking-same-race-male/
The original links are dead, but I took the time to find again. The Columbia one (speed dating conducted at Columbia, paper done by University of Chicago) http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/genderDifferences.pdf
It says nothing on income. And he found most kept to their own race.
The part quoted was linked to a study that is dead, but I found a copy. http://www.aeaweb.org/assa/2006/0106_0800_0502.pdf
It doesn’t say anything on income though there is study on it. The interesting is when you skip to the next to last page. It shows an easy chart of how much men and women by face would initiate contact. It also looks at income and obviously found the higher for men, the more contact he got and etc though nothing about income. It seems NYT tried to do its own math based on the study.
Dreamer
January 17, 2013 at 1:45 pm
The Columbia Dating experiment show that Asian men were the least desirable to women in a speed dating environment. The income requirements by women was another dating experiment carried out in another school in the Northeast, MIT, where Asian men had to outearn other men when it comes to being successful with women. You can download the findings here.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=895442##
These experiments should confirm that female hypergamy is a tradeoff for Asian men wanting to be successful in dating, because they are generally perceived as less physically attractive than other groups of men.
Just Speculating
January 18, 2013 at 10:22 am
What’s the purpose of stating over and over again that Asian men are undesirable?
And if it’s true, it’s because the media tells women over and over again that Asian men are nerds. If the media featured more cool Asian men with hot girlfriends, then Asian men would magically become more desirable.
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 18, 2013 at 11:43 am
Are we talking about Indians or Chinese?
Blog Raju
January 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm
The Columbia University dating experiment proves the media is wrong. Independent of media portrayals, this experiment took an overrepresented sample of men at an Ivy League school, in this case Asian guys and compared them with an underrepresented segment, who are Blacks and Hispanic guys in regards to desirability from a woman’s perspective. These fewer non-Asian male minority at the school were judged to be more attractive by women than the Asian male majority.
Just Speculating
January 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm
The media is wrong about what? Asian men are portrayed as nerds in the media. But is that the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog?
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm
The media is wrong in the sense that any portrayal of Asian men as nerds have no bearing on how women perceive them as being attractive or not.
There are plenty of positive media representation of Asian men in Asia, yet many Caucasian men are seen as more attractive by Asian women.
Just Speculating
January 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Western media is also consumed in Asia though, and is often regarded as more prestigious than local media. It tends to positively portray Caucasian men (and black men for that matter) relative to Asian men. So it’s not a case of there only being positive portrayals of Asian men in Asia.
Mark
January 19, 2013 at 12:20 am
My personal experience suggests Just Speculating is correct. I’ve had male and female friends who were Asian. When I was younger (late teens) both told me they’d prefer to date white. I was shocked because I’d assumed most people were more attracted to someone of similar background.
Now I realize most women prefer their own whereas men prefer anything with a pulse. Asian and hispanic women are an anomaly in that both prefer white men as much or more as their own. This certainly isn’t true across the board. But statistically it is. It’s not such a big deal for hispanics because there’s a much larger hispanic population in the US. The smaller asian population makes it a lot rougher on the asian guys.
I’ve dated asian women some but not a lot. They all showed interest in me first and I definitely got the impression hypergamy was at work. Still, I intended to marry someone of my own background and I didn’t think it was right to date someone I probably wouldn’t marry. I also didn’t like that Asian guys were getting a raw deal. Personally, I wish women would get their hypergamy under control. But that’s the way women are wired.
destructure
January 19, 2013 at 12:20 am
“The smaller asian population makes it a lot rougher on the asian guys”.
It’s not so much that the small Asian population takes a toll on Asian men when it comes to dating. I believe Asian men are overall seen as less physically attractive or masculine relative to their small numbers, hence their undesirability with most women including their own. There aren’t many Middle Eastern men in America either, but they do a lot better in the dating scene than East Asian guys.
I also believe the Northeast is the most women unfriendly region for many of them, this coming from my observations and the dating experiments conducted at the 2 prestigious regional schools, Columbia & MIT.
Just Speculating
January 19, 2013 at 3:39 pm
I don’t think there is solely an under supply of women in ND. It seems there is an over supply of single male rednecks. Keep in mind, men seek opportunities while women tend to wait around for the right situation to take care of them. I’ve also read that women become skittish if sex ratios in their proximity move too far past 50% male. Too many males = too aggressive.
I’ve thought about this a lot since I was a kid. I was lucky enough to have a parent from Nassau County and Park Ridge Il. When I was a kid I saw what happened in NYC and Chicago enough to understand that diversified commerce (as opposed to a single extraction industry economy) and its wealth attracts women. I realized that the best women lived in cities, especially the cities with regional financial hubs. Coming from a small Midwestern rust belt city with close proximity to rural areas I also witnessed rural culture. The women who stay and populate these areas aren’t worth perusing.
Like the chick said, what single woman is going to stay in a place that’s devoid of something to do and populated by too many brash red neck males (the wrong kind of male)? Sounds like hell to me. The single and smart ND chicks left and went to Minneapolis or Seattle or wherever. As for the males, what good is making a lot of money, career building, and caring about social building skills if they can’t use them towards what men prefer? Which is a good time leading to sex. In other words, most single men working the oil fields of North Dakota will get lonely fast because they don’t have the chance to go home and release with an intimate partner. If you’re going to work the oil fields, you might want to bring someone with you.
I do see plentiful opportunities for strippers and whores to make a killing in these oil towns.
Max Headroom
January 16, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I agree, women seem to love cities for some reason. This fact has disastrous consequences for society, and in particular for young women. Young women don’t seem to be able to see that moving to a city will result in spinsterhood, or at best delayed childbearing.
Ideally, the government would tackle this problem by forcing companies in female dominated industries to move their offices out of cities and into the suburbs. Perhaps the government could provide funding targeted at getting women to where they are needed most, for example sending women to photograph mountains and farms.
T
January 16, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Bobos like cities. Women are better at internalizing bobo norms than men.
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 16, 2013 at 4:56 pm
Women like cities because that’s where the aristocracy resides. Women crave the end of liberty and return to princely rule that way it’s easier to know who the “big men” are.
Conquistador
January 16, 2013 at 5:28 pm
The imploding birthrate of well educated women isn’t due to urban living… there is an inverse relation between intelligence and childbearing. Read about the eugenics program in Singapore which had the opposite effect than intended. The higher women rose in status, the fewer children they had, while the women who remained low on the ladder kept having babies. Now Singapore has to pay well educated women to have kids.
islandmommy
January 16, 2013 at 6:30 pm
$7000.00?! What? And the chicks declined? It would be more cost effective to fly to Vegas on the weekend and bang a hooker there. For $7000.00 you could probably get 5 at the same time including a buffet.
No ND for me
January 16, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Serving drinks topless to a group of men in one of their homes is likely to turn into a gang rape, and who knows if you’d even get paid? They were probably smart not to do it. Agreed that they would be better off to travel for that kind of entertainment. Selling package deals for these guys to go to legal brothels in Nevada would probably be a good business.
aisaac
January 17, 2013 at 2:40 pm
What is this, some kind of feminist troll? You certainly aren’t a man.
Business people work around the risks. Yea the risk of gang rape is high. That’s why you tell people where you are, when you are going to be there, and when you are scheduled to leave. Do it with multiple people. Everyone should have phones on hand with speed dial to their out if they need it. Lastly, you tell the chumps up front if they pull anything, your boyfriends will be over in minutes, with bats. Well, if I was an enterprising slut, that’s what I would do. This kind of service is pay up front, 100%.
Last time I checked, fathers teach their daughters to do this with “nice guys.”
If you think like a woman... take care of me!
January 17, 2013 at 5:09 pm
“Her mother and stepfather advised her to stop wearing the skirts and heels she cherishes, so she does not stand out like “a flower in the desert,” as her stepfather put it. Her family hardly ever lets her go out on her own — not even for walks down the gravel road at the housing camp where they live.” – the article
The same things are seen in other cultures of the world where male sexual poverty is the norm. We’re becoming more like them where women must be concealed/covered and guarded by a male relative at all times when in public. This isn’t just relegated to the oil fields girls complain about being harassed by “creepers” all the time nowadays.
Conquistador
January 16, 2013 at 1:54 pm
“but if they are going to blow the money like that”
How is that blowing the money? I don’t get it.
Seriously, this is almost traditional for men, particularly blue collar men. Go to some godforsaken place and make alot of money. Some of it will be blown on, well, emotional release because you are in some godforsaken place but after 1-2 years there will be enough left over that you can live off of that for another 1-2 years while enjoying life and figuring out what next to do. Working 40 hours a week every week, every year, and then doing some activity on the weekends isn’t for everyone.
Incidentally, a version of this even exists in Manhattan. New hires at investment banks have to work crazy hours, not much downtime to enjoy Manhattan. Now the people who hire for these positions work really hard to screen out people who will just pocket the money and leave after a few years, and the whole partnership track concept is designed to prevent it, but there are probably a few to slip through the crack. I would not take one of these jobs myself with the expectation that I would stay at the firm my entire working life.
The NY Times map, as usual, is not very good. There seem to be just two categories, low population states (where you get all sorts of anomalies) are lumped in with high population states, and the big divide seems to be the Mississippi River, which doesn’t make much sense and screams problems with the data, probably multicolinearity.
Ed
January 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm
They should legalise bestiality.
dearieme
January 16, 2013 at 2:27 pm
The main downside to working in North Dakota now is the housing shortage. But if you can find a place to hook up an RV, it would be great deal for 2 or 3 guys to buy a used one, park it there, and bank some coin while the going is good.
A meta-point: it’s important for the NYT to piss on North Dakota, because it’s the rare place where American blue collar workers in high demand and have high wages (even fast food workers there are making close to $20 per hour, IIRC). Can’t have Americans asking why we can’t work to have higher wages elsewhere, by, for example, limiting immigration. Instead, the NYT has to focus on the minor inconveniences of a region gushing with cash and good-paying jobs.
DaveinHackensack
January 16, 2013 at 3:04 pm
amen. must protect the cocoon at all costs. information that might overturn the thesis must be discredited.
lion of the lionosphere
January 16, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Get a generator and some propane and you don’t even need hookups. Used RVs are incredibly cheap – most of them hardly ever get used, but nobody wants to buy something that’s 20 years old, so if you buy an old one you can get something in great shape for a few thousand dollars. A lot of working poor could afford the startup costs to do that.
aisaac
January 17, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Good point humble lion of the blogosphere. Ditching college to make and save money in the oilfields is trickier(at least the saving part) then many commentators realize. I do love the internet, now thousands of people can read and comment on what happened or didn’t happen in some bar in North Dakota. It seems like both sides were getting their egos massaged with the 7k offer. I would be more concerned with guys taking their cash and spending 10 or 20k more then they normally would on a vehicle or housing. I still like the idea of ditching College but I am more skeptical then most about savings going on.
mark
January 16, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Also, if people are really making $100K/yr, it’s only a matter of time before they figure out how to get immigrants to do the job cheap. It’s a temporary market imbalance.
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 16, 2013 at 5:35 pm
I am somewhat skeptical. Homegrown oil field workers will still average more strength and brains than immigrants. The US has workplace safety regulations that are at odds with having stupid people doing dangerous work. The refineries in Texas are staffed by these blue collar types who aren’t just unskilled labor. These folks are above average, just not way above average. The average immigrant willing to do this kind of work is physically weaker by a lot and dumber in absolute terms and can’t read English well enough to pass safety training and all kinds of other gov’t required training for hazardous work. Best practices will dictate that these oil field workers will need to have reasonable intelligence and significant physical strength. That is going to mean generally American workers.
not too late
January 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm
Americans have been working offshore in the Gulf of Mexico for decades. They have not been replaced by immigrants.
Blog Raju
January 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Just looked at the photos. Does the NYT confirm ages it quotes? Barbara Coughlin looks at least 10 years older than 31.
DaveinHackensack
January 16, 2013 at 3:07 pm
1. No, the MSM does NOT verify ages, they take the person’s word for it and treat it as the Gospel truth. That’s how the MSM works.
2. Lower-class women do age worse then what you are used to seeing in Manhattan.
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 16, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Then go to ND but live in Fargo, Grand Forks or Bismarck. More even ratio, Universities/State gov’t, lower cost of living, but still beneficiaries of the Bakken boom.
Boxthorn
January 16, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Women accepting money to go to men’s houses, get naked and serve beer is a perfect example of the What Could Possibly Go Wrong with That? scenario.
Peter
ironrailsironweights
January 16, 2013 at 3:41 pm
Yeah, I can’t blame her for turning it down even leaving aside morals. Lots of rape potential in that scenario.
MC
January 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm
It is kinda scary out there. A couple years ago a teacher in Sidney, Montana was out on her daily run and a couple guys grabbed her off the road and killed her. They were drifters from the south, searching for that big money as oil rig workers.
caroljm36c
January 16, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Oh, and Sidney is ND-adjacent.
caroljm36c
January 16, 2013 at 4:23 pm
This reminds me of a bumper sticker that was often seen in Alberta in the ’80′s:
“Dear God, please send another oil boom. I promise not to piss it all away this time.”
Melykin
January 16, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Lol, I just finished reading “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” North Dakota sounds like Luna. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#Politics_and_society
aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)
January 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm
“The northeast is the most young-man-friendly region. The northern interior west is the region to avoid.”
The South also does well…but it could be a race thing. Most Blacks live in the South or big NE cities, and black men have the highest early death rates.
aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)
January 16, 2013 at 4:10 pm
So who has perused the ND hooker ads on CL or backpage after reading this story? If so, please report back, because I’m not brave enough to witness it firsthand.
islandmommy
January 16, 2013 at 6:20 pm
One interesting thing about this subculture is that it’s not uncommon for escorts to specify “no black males” or “no african americans”. The Blacklisting isn’t due to “racism” (insofar as it is commonly conceived) or penile size or STDs, but a fear of being robbed, beaten, or raped. From what I’ve read, Blacklisting is also common within homosexual hookup sites, but is perhaps more of a sexual preference in that environment.
anon
January 16, 2013 at 8:52 pm
The only pertinent Craigslist ad I could find in the North Dakota section actually is for a fine establishment in Montana:
♨♨ Shangri-La Spa & Sauna ♨♨
N e W Management & ALL N e W STAFF
437 Bernard St. Billings, MT 59101
Tel ☏ 406-248-8845
Semi Truck Parking Available
ATM MACHINE AVAILABLE
* SWEDISH * DEEP TISSUE MASSAGE * SAUNA
* ORIENTAL MASSAGE *TABLE SHOWER
* No RUSH * VISIT FOR RELAXATION
* No Appointment Necessary * Walk-In Welcome
We Hope To Serve You Real Soon Let Us Show You The Magic Of Oriental Relaxation
Mention This Ad For Discount
Peter
ironrailsironweights
January 16, 2013 at 9:10 pm
On a more serious note, here are today’s job listings under “General Labor” on Craigslist’s North Dakota section:
Pipe hand looking for work – (Western ND)
Looking to work in the oil fields – (North Dakota)
Montana Conservation Corps’ Veterans Green Corps – (Billings MT)
Part-Time Installer Needed $12-25 /HR – (West Fargo)
Field Inspectors- Burlington, ND – (Burlington, ND)
AUTO DETAILING TECH. – (BISMARCK ND)
REFLEX SPRAYED ON TRUCK LINER TECH. – (BISMARCK N.D. )
Note that the first two are from jobseekers looking for work in the oilfields. Aren’t there supposed to be jobs galore for everyone? Why would anyone need to post ads like this?
Peter
ironrailsironweights
January 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Billings is 325 miles from Williston; 3+ hours away even at Montana freeway speeds. My guess is the Shangri-La’s Williston location is already swamped and doesn’t need (or want, until they can find some more “masseuses”) to advertise.
One error we’re all making here is accepting this article as gospel. I don’t believe for a minute the events described in the first paragraph posted happened in the fashion described, if at all. It reads more like a screenplay than a description of real events. And why on earth is somebody getting a permit for a TASER when they could carry a gun? You’re going to have to actually use a TASER to stop an assault; simply displaying a gun will. A NYT reporter probably thinks every time somebody pulls a gun a gunfight ensues that inevitably results in somebody dying, which almost never happens. That’s why it’s news when it does.
As bad as the article makes it seem for women, don’t forget that all oilfield workers aren’t roughnecks covered with tattoos; there are petroleum engineers and other higher level employees they’ve got a shot at that would be completely out of their league in other locations, a phenomenon almost anybody with a military background has seen many times.
J1
January 19, 2013 at 12:36 pm
I think you’re falling into the NY Times trap here, which is to reassure their urban readers that any success enjoyed by hicks has dark undertones that means their success is really a negative. “Hence, you made the right decision to live in NYC and aren’t you glad our newspaper reminds you of that.”
The northeast is good for young men – only for college. Strip that out and you have a high cost of living that is not conducive to family formation, which means you get women looking for alpha males who can thrive in an expensive environment..
The wild west was once a place unfriendly to women. Gold rush type environments always have been. Anything dangerous and unstructured is, which is the essence of risk, and if you believe risk and reward are related then that would make sense.
Most economic growth depends on having a “center of gravity” like cinema, oil, finance etc. Other businesses can spring up around them.
The liberal fantasy that economic growth will always be win-win-win (good for business, good for employees, and pleasing to liberal social values) like it is with “green energy” means that we as a society become unable to recognize useful economic growth when it occurs. Eg, North Dakota is a win for business but bad for liberal values, therefore bad, even if it is a greater long term economic impact than, say, Solyndra.
PS – how many articles has the NY Times written about prostitution and strip clubs in NYC, and the men who frequent them? The former governor of NY state was spending about as much on an hour with just one woman. But, he’s a crusader for liberal values, so it’s clearly not the same.
lion of the lionosphere
January 16, 2013 at 8:30 pm
The northeast is good for young men – only for college. Strip that out and you have a high cost of living that is not conducive to family formation, which means you get women looking for alpha males who can thrive in an expensive environment..
The Northeast is a great place for young blue collar white men to score pussy provided they aren’t too close to the white trash end of the male SMV-spectrum. The Northeast is filled with liberal women who are sexually frustrated with their well bred SWPL men. There are tons college girls in particular who are surrounded by liberal male coeds who can barely shave who like to get their rocks off with a cop or firefighter. And then, of course, there are the bored housewives and cougars.
Most importantly, the talent in the Northeast is increasingly good among the 30 and under white female demographic for two reasons. First, there are many wealthy men in the Northeast who made their fortunes in the booming 80s and 90s. These men then cashed in on their fiscal success by traveling to Europe and picked up a feminine, hot wife model who then propagated smoking hot girls who are now at their peak SMV.
Secondly, because the Northeast got the bulk of the Great Wave immigrants a strong majority of under 30 Yankee girls (and men) are some combination of all the major European ethnicities. This intra-Euro mixing of physical trait combinations has resulted in female hybrid vigor.
The Undiscovered Jew
January 17, 2013 at 12:18 am
This intra-Euro mixing of physical trait combinations has resulted in female hybrid vigor.
That explains why Massachusetts has the second lowest fertility then.
Hybrid Sterility
“Notes on the causes of cross and hybrid sterility”
From The Correspondence of Charles Darwin
Toad
January 18, 2013 at 5:49 am
That explains why Massachusetts has the second lowest fertility then.
I said young Yankee chicks are hot not that they have high fertility.
The Undiscovered Jew
January 19, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“you have a high cost of living that is not conducive to family formation,”
So why does practically everyone I know in Boston have 3 or 4 kids? The Northeast probably has the most favorable trends in the US in terms of eugenics – high IQ, high achievers all have 3-4 kids because it’s a status thing. Affluent and educated people from the rest of the country also see the Northeast as a desirable place to raise children because of the good public schools and generally safe environment, so we suck in talent from the rest of the country. Working and middle class people can’t afford to marry or have kids, so the lower IQ, low achiever types tend to move out and go to places like Colorado, Arizona or Florida. These trends will probably accelerate over the next few decades.
Peter the Shark
January 17, 2013 at 5:57 am
Um… MA has the SECOND LOWEST birth rate in the nation, after Rhode Island. Of the ten lowest fertility states, nine of them are in the Northeast (depending on whether you consider PA “Northeast” or not). ALL of them have sub-replacement fertility levels.
So much for your anecdotal account. I hope it’s true that the high achievers are breeding in the Northeast, because nobody else is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
Tarl
January 17, 2013 at 9:52 am
Peter the Shark what is the average household income in your area? Most don’t have anywhere near 3-4 children on average. That’s an outlier. Thanks a lot for giving an anecdote.
Yub8iuyb
January 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm
My anecdote is worth as much as your overgeneralized data. Who exactly is breeding in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico? The average income in my town was over $100,000 year, which is precisely my point. High earners tend to have lots of children. High earning men who get married two or three times often have 4-5 children. The only useful data would be data that parses fertility by income and ethnicity, not just by region. The fact that New England has a very low birth rate in total probably supports my eugenics argument – high achievers in New England can afford to breed, no one else can.
Peter the Shark
January 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm
No, your anecdote is WORTHLESS. Come back and talk when you’ve got some facts at your disposal.
Who exactly is breeding in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico?
Who cares? They are breeding. People in the northeast are not.
The average income in my town was over $100,000 year, which is precisely my point. High earners tend to have lots of children.
Your point is not supported by any factual data. People in MA are not breeding so far as the available data shows.
The only useful data would be data that parses fertility by income and ethnicity, not just by region.
Well gosh since you made the argument, it is your job to find the data to support it. The available data does not support what you say. But thanks for playing!
Tarl
January 17, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Tarl, get off your high horse when you have some data that actually parses ethnicity and income levels. It’s not my job to provide any data in support of an anecdote. Discount it as much as you like, it’s worth exactly what you paid me for it.
Peter the Shark
January 18, 2013 at 12:28 am
everyone I know in Boston have 3 or 4 kids
Average family size, 2010 (Boston)
Toad
January 18, 2013 at 5:54 am
Tarl, get off your high horse when you have some data that actually parses ethnicity and income levels.
YOU made the claim. YOU have to prove it. Right now all you have is unsubstantiated huffing and puffing. As I said, the ACTUAL DATA THAT WE DO HAVE completely refutes you.
Tarl
January 18, 2013 at 10:55 am
So why does practically everyone I know in Boston have 3 or 4 kids? The Northeast probably has the most favorable trends in the US in terms of eugenics – high IQ, high achievers all have 3-4 kids because it’s a status thing.
While actual data about Bostonian family size relative to income may be pending, this is an interesting point, and I don’t have trouble believing you – but I do argue that it ought to give one pause about what we mean by “eugenic” and whether it is really a good thing in and of itself. Status-symbol-race-via-childbearing sounds like a hell worse than almost anything. I’ve got a relative who worked for a summer at a rich-kid’s camp in MA, and she made it sound just terrible: kid after kid raised in wealthy families, given every material privilege in the world, who felt their parents didn’t really love them.
Anecdotally, I know lots of female doctors with 3-4 children, which I always found to be weird considering that we are constantly told how “career women” don’t have kids. I used to think this meant that female doctors were “different” and more motherly than other career women. To some extent, I still think this, but I also realize now that there’s a significant status-symbol element here. “Well, I’ve done my Master’s (TICK!); completed medical school (TICK!); got a nice career (TICK!); and now it’s time to prove that I can do all of it while having MORE than the average number of children!” Gag me with a spoon.
Samson J.
January 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Samson: status-whoring is human nature. The question is whether it can be channeled productively. I’m not sure bright young women having lots of kids is such an awful thing.
SFG
January 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Partly this is a graph of how desirable states are to live. Single young men are more likely to move than women, so if there is a preponderance of men in an area, that is usually a signal of opportunity. It looks like the West is better than the East.
John
January 16, 2013 at 8:33 pm
I predict the NYT will soon run one or more stories about how racist the energy workers and the firms employing them are. That’s the natural next charge in the indictment after sexism, and will be “supported” by statistical evidence. It will turn out that the energy workers are insufferably white (and this charge will make it even harder for anyone to protest their displacement by more melanin-qualified immigrants).
Piper
January 16, 2013 at 9:58 pm
The New York Times has run (at least) three pieces recentlypoo-pooing the energy boom in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota. They have not yet run a piece on how that oil money is helping state residents (Chronicle of Higher Ed had a piece on the effect that North Dakota’s money is having on their college funding).
Sometimes I think the NYT is just pissed that some of these states won’t beautifully and tragically fade into yesterday like they’re supposed to.
trumwill
January 16, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Oil money has definitely kept Montana finances afloat for the last 8 years. Otherwise we’d be up shit creek like the other purple states.
caroljm36c
January 17, 2013 at 1:26 pm
The New York Times has run (at least) three pieces recentlypoo-pooing the energy boom in Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota.
Ironic that they are damning the energy sector at a time when the major SWPL employers are about to use technology to automate many of the SWPL’s favorite jobs out of existence. The newspaper sector has been bleeding red ink since 2006 thanks to the internet (they’ve lost over half of their revenue even before adjusting for inflation) and the computer tablet revolution is about to deliver the coup de grace to what’s left of them. The Times might survive as an online only publication, but they may be the last one standing.
And the university system is about to experience mass layoffs of college professors because of MOOCs. California just announced they are going to launch a pilot program to give college credit to MOOC students. Scott Walker is letting high school graduates on the four year degree track to test out of all basic courses. Even upper level humanities courses are in danger of being eliminated because humanities classes are the easiest types of lectures to automate because all they involve is writing essays and taking scantron tests.
The Undiscovered Jew
January 17, 2013 at 12:26 am
Wild West mining boomtowns in the 19th Century were quite safe for women, even prostitutes. In a study I read of one mining town, lots of young men shot each other in stupid gunfights, but only woman was a killed, a prostitute by a john. And she was avenged by the outraged citizenry, who instantly lynched her murderer. Schoolteachers and other respectable women were treated like goddesses: supply and demand. In Western cultures at least, a high male to female sex ratio goes along with women’s rights. Montana, a mining state, elected a woman to Congress 100 years ago, Jeannette Rankin.
Steve Sailer
January 17, 2013 at 5:23 am
There was an article in the FT a month or two ago about the Brazilian government’s recent efforts to pacify favelas in Rio ahead of the World Cup and the Olympics there. In the favelas pacified so far, drug violence is down, but violence against women is up: rape was rare before, because the drug gangs executed rapists.
DaveinHackensack
January 17, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Yes, here is the aforementioned article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/27511af8-23b3-11e2-a46b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ILFbnqTv
However, I think it’s a different issue than in the Old West. There, there were few women so they were a precious commodity (supply and demand, as Sailer says). In the favelas, it’s more that drug dealers protect their turf and promote their kind of order to better run “business” (robbery inside the favela is also severely punished, but permitted outside).
zenocosini
January 18, 2013 at 10:38 am
I’ve read that the same phenomenon occurred in NYC neighborhoods w/ a strong Mob presence (Little Italy?).
It’s much easier to control street crime when the enforcer need not concern himself with conforming to Due Process. We live with tradeoffs.
anon
January 18, 2013 at 11:27 pm
“Wild West mining boomtowns in the 19th Century were quite safe for women”
“In Western cultures at least, a high male to female sex ratio goes along with women’s rights.”
There have been significant cultural changes over the last 150 years.
705 people survived the sinking of the Titanic – 338 of them men 20% of the men aboard. .69% of the women aboard survived.
What happened when the Costa Concordia sank?
“On the Costa Concordia, in the words of a female passenger, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboat.” ”
From http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/ship-336602-titanic-concordia.html. The same thing happened when the MV Estonia sank.
Steve Johnson
January 17, 2013 at 2:57 pm
The 19th century was not rife with online porn and a therapeutic/entertainment establishment urging people to heed their inner desires.
caroljm36c
January 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm
I’ve also read that they have a lot of Mexican immigrants going to work there, who are probably considerably more macho and acting in the way feminists despise…can anyone verify this? If we can get this into Sailer’s blog we might be able to set up a counter-meme.
SFG
January 17, 2013 at 6:42 am
The story is impossible to independently verify. Why hasn’t anyone considered possibility that the journalist might have made it up or exaggerated (remember NYT’s very own Jayson Blair!) Also, local women might have had fun at the expense of a gullible big city journalist.
WRB
January 17, 2013 at 9:25 am
I too wondered if the times wasn’t just pouncing on the opportunity to portray uneducated white men as blathering, sex crazed rednecks.
islandmommy
January 17, 2013 at 11:50 am
Speaking of immigrants, can Lion blog about how computer programming sucks as a career?
This American programmer outsourced his work to China for 1/5 his salary; he received excellent reviews. In other words, American corporations can outsource computer programming, get great work, and save lots of money.
http://betabeat.com/2013/01/programmer-outsources-his-job-to-china-so-he-can-get-paid-to-screw-around-on-reddit-all-day/
AsianDude
January 17, 2013 at 11:30 am
Yeah but you noticed that Verizon’s attitude was, “sorry sucker, only management gets to reap the benefits of outsourcing, not labor.”
Tarl
January 17, 2013 at 2:16 pm
The accompanying map shows the best and worst states for young single men who want to meet women. Massachusetts wins. The northeast is the most young-man-friendly region. The northern interior west is the region to avoid.
That is exactly right. If you go up there to North Dakota etc, you will find it a wasteland of non-diverse pale boring northern european women. And that is the last thing you want. Whatever you do, stay away. Go straight to MA and get you a feminist studies grrrl who knows what men are for.
not too late
January 17, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Hardly anyone majors in feminist studies. Only 0.5% of college degrees are in “Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies”. Most women in Massachusetts major in business, education, health services just like women in every other state.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_271.asp
And Massachusetts is a pretty white state. 84% white, vs 90% white in North Dakota, so it’s not a very big difference. And New England women tend to be pretty pale. Have you ever been there?
Lion of the Blogosphere
January 17, 2013 at 4:33 pm
College students may not major in feminist studies; but feminist studies majors in them.
Lucius Somesuch
January 17, 2013 at 9:55 pm
They may not major in it, but it is everywhere in the environment there.
Toad
January 17, 2013 at 11:09 pm
I spent a few years in Boston. Can’t speak about rural New Hampshire.
In general, the liberalism of people in big cities, particularly below the Ivy-educated elite, is greatly overestimated. There’s a segment of people who make all the noise, but most normal people want to get married and lead a normal life. They might vote Democrat rather than Republican, but I think the differences between a secretary at a big firm in Boston and in Atlanta are not so huge.
The big problem that IS specific to Massachusetts is that if you get married, and divorce, and they award alimony, the woman gets alimony UNTIL SHE REMARRIES. So women never remarry and the poor guy has to keep supporting them for the rest of his life.
Oh, and the winters are COLD.
SFG
January 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm
The Lion is right. Go to a Bruins game if you want to meet women who are more your speed. Some of the femal hockey fans are actually pretty damn hot.
Peter the Shark
January 18, 2013 at 12:32 am
Non-hispanic white makes it 76.4 to 88.6
ND
German…. 43
Norwegian 31
Irish………… 8
Swedish……5
English……..4
Massachusetts
German……..7
Swedish……..2
English……..12
Irish………….24
Italian……….14
Portuguese…5
Toad
January 17, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Website Sells Fake Facebook Girlfriends
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5076866
“To bolster the ranks of fake girlfriends, the website is inviting women to send in their profiles, with a 50 percent profit-sharing incentive.”
The site (namorofake.com.br) now says their fake gf profiles are all real women. They’ve also got a selection of types ranging from Ficante (Hook-up), Ex-Namorada (Ex girlfriend), Namorada (Girlfriend) and Namorada Virtual (Virtual Girlfriend). The difference between the latter two is the virtual gf lasts longer and leaves more comments.
Translated from the site/Portuguese…
“Because of the large amount of simultaneous hires our profiles are all occupied at the moment. (Now all of our profiles are from real women and not fake profiles.)”
On their Depoimentos (Testimonies) page, one guy says…
“I had a lot of success. The reaction of my friends was unbelievable, it was (just) three comments that made my Facebook take off hahahaha. I even had some girls from my college adding me, I think it was because of this (site). In a few days I’m going to hire another “ficante” to make me look even more important. Thanks guys…”
Jeep
January 18, 2013 at 12:10 am
http://securityblog.verizonbusiness.com/2013/01/14/case-study-pro-active-log-review-might-be-a-good-idea/
This is brilliant idea to earn six digit income without doing much work. Lion, this is not you, right?
IC
January 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Asian and hispanic women are an anomaly in that both prefer white men as much or more as their own. This certainly isn’t true across the board. But statistically it is.
It certainly is NOT true for Hispanic women in the Northeast. They show little if any interest in white men.
Peter
ironrailsironweights
January 19, 2013 at 9:10 am