> > You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San J

> > You’ll be shocked by the stark differences in behavior of women in places where women are plentiful versus their behavior within artillery distance of San Jose and San Francisco > I take issue with that last sentence which is vague enough to be a dog whistle of sorts and implies it is women who are somehow at fault and who need to change their behavior. We read this very differently. I read it as basically a reminder that people don't put in effort if they don't have to and that people respond to incentives. To take an example, how many devs were pretty lazy at work before the market tightened up vs right now? A change in scarcity can sometimes lead to some pretty big changes in behavior. I also didn't read it as women need to change their behavior, as it was the student that the professor was explicitly telling to change (specifically their choice of location). If you want it to generalize it, it could be taken as advising men to change their behavior (and move out of SF en masse). But it read to me that the professor in question thinks that women have a stronger position in the dating market than men in SF right now. If that's true (I have no personal knowledge about this), it seems unlikely that women would want to change that. I'm actually struggling to see how this could be a call for women to change their behavior. Would you mind elaborating on how you read this? It could be that I'm missing some subtext.