Sunday, January 13, 2008

Annals of Speed Dating

This article by Tanya Gold is from 2002, and it's great stuff [link via Chugs' Sunday Morning Links]. Gold "devised an experiment to find the definitive answer" to that one question that has been vexing womankind since FSM knows when: "what do men want?". Read her article for the full story ...

Update: I forgot to add this; an earlier post on speed dating is here.


  1. Vivek Kumar said...

    The article is funny, in a dark way. But why is it "great stuff"?

    BTW.. Seinfeld already answered that question: Men want women.

  2. Anonymous said...

    in my opinion, the advertisement to view this article is quite out-of-place in this blog.
    The "research" that went behind writing the article was obviously flawed, the premises even more so, and the less said about the conclusions drawn, the better. It seems like a kangaroo court type of article, and am surprised it figured in The Guardian, and am even more surprised you call it "great stuff".

  3. Abi said...

    Vivek: I filed this post under "fun stuff" (in addition to "gender"). I certainly found it great, didn't you?

    Wanderlust: I am worried after reading your comment that "this article is quite out-of-place in this blog." I hope my blog is entitled to some "fun stuff" once in a while, no?

  4. Anonymous said...

    it doesn't have to do with being 'fun stuff'. it has to do with being 'badly researched, perverse, sexist stuff'.
    right on the surface, it's quite obvious that it doesn't deserve to be spoken of as glowingly as you do of it.
    she judges that all men prefer a florist to a lawyer merely by her flawed experiment - did she stop to consider that people at speed-dating evenings aren't necessarily the sort that find kafka interesting? Or that the people in soho bars are looking for an easy lay? and in either situation, no one is looking for anything serious that her "research" means anything at all?
    were both the lawyer and florist equally nice? or was one more fake-sounding than the other to the point of ceasing to appeal?
    there's simply too many factors that she failed to control or even keep account of in these situation to have an experiment from which reliable results can be drawn.
    while it might be a fun rant to read in the style of bridget jones, it's stupid to take it even the least bit seriously.

  5. Vivek Kumar said...


    You can file it under any categories you wish, I have nothing to say for/against the filing system.

    I just want to know *why* you called it "great stuff"? What was so great about it?


    Hehe.. don't try to list the shortcomings of her "research"; in this case, shortcomings is all that it had!

  6. Abi said...

    Vivek: What I found in Gold's piece is an interesting way of conveying her blunt thesis. You may or may not agree with it [I don't. As Wanderlust said, her piece tells us more about the kinds of people who (used to) go to these speed dating events, than about 'man'kind as a whole]. But the surreal elements -- e.g., talking about Heidegger, cats called Roe and Wade -- are pretty funny. So is her description of men's reaction to the florist's cluelessness.

    Wanderlust: You said, "it's stupid to take it even the least bit seriously."

    I think it's best to leave it at that.