July 05, 2007

The Rolling of the Five Dudes

Three Dudes, Questionable.
Five Dudes, Unacceptable.

As I (bluntly) pointed out last month, attempting social commentary about the differences between men and women inevitably puts one on a dangerous one-way road towards unbridled idiocy, and as such, when considering delving into this most thorny realm, every effort should be expended to avoid producing yet another clichéd manifestation of one's own sexual frustrations; see, e.g., Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, or any movie billed as a romantic comedy. However, given both my penchant for unchecked hypocrisy and the fact that most people would likely already characterize the Realm as a clichéd manifestation of my sexual frustrations (and those of others, as well—it ain't easy for a nerd out there), I feel fairly comfortable about once again diving (head first) into the brier bush. Today's question to be answered: when is it acceptable to roll with five dudes to a social function?

The answer is, quite unequivocally, never! You hear that, assholes? It is never, ever acceptable to roll with five dudes. Not to a bar; not to a club; and certainly not to a house party, especially if said house is mine. Why do I bring this up? Well, in the course of the past two months, I have been privy to a number of situations where there has been the Rolling of Five Dudes, and believe me, it was not pretty. Two particularly egregious instances come to mind.

The first was at my recent Patriot Party, where my roommate's friend was boxed out from talking to his own girlfriend by, of all things, a popped collar moron (hereafter PCM) wielding an unintelligible pick-up line. The worst part: none of us even knew this guy! Unsurprisingly, when questioned by my roommate, he claimed he knew someone who knew someone who knew me. In other words, this alleged someone whom I knew (a highly suspect claim to begin with, as I do not associate with people likely to pop their collars or tolerate others doing so) had unleashed a popped collar plague upon my party. Eager to clear the locusts from my house, I went in search of this person, but to no avail; it was only at the end of the party, when PCM left with four other guys (none of whom anyone knew, incidentally) that we realized that we had been victims of the Rolling (of Five Dudes).

The second episode was just as egregious: while at a house party at Perfect Ratio's place, celebrating the Union St. Festival, we were once again victimized. In this case, our otherwise well-functioning party was interrupted by the arrival of five dudes, who wasted little time in monopolizing the keg and killing the party well before it would have naturally died.

Several questions come up as a result of these field observations. For instance, why is rolling with a single gender such a bad thing? Also, why is it five dudes (and not three, four, or six), i.e., what is so special about the number five? Finally, why have I chosen to single out guys, i.e., why is it fine for five women to roll somewhere when five dudes cannot?

The answer to the first question is rather self-evident. Assuming that the goal of the party in question is an equitable gender balance (this assumption underpins the entire analysis that follows, so you can forget about the strip club argument), it becomes clear why rolling with a single gender can be problematic: it is more than likely to upset the delicate balance, especially at a house party, where the host does not have the luxury of picking and choosing who enters (though, having learned our lesson, we will likely be categorically bouncing anyone with a popped collar at our party next week).

The number five is the magic number because while three is a standard number to go to a party with, and four, a mild insult to the host, five is the point where it simply becomes unacceptable. In any group of five people, men or women, at least one person should know someone of the opposite sex. I mean, come on people: this isn't middle school. The opposite sex doesn't have cooties (well, some do, but that's why regular testing is crucial). If you're going to come with five people of the same gender, find someone to balance your group out, dammit! Even one person will suffice.

The last question is harder: why only guys? The answer to this one rests, in general, on the fundamental inequities between sexes—one might say differing roles—defined by social mores that continue to dictate societal interactions, and in particular, on the fact that a large accumulation of (heterosexual) men is virtually guaranteed to quickly degenerate into something resembling every negative stereotype associated with fraternities. I would argue that given these two aforementioned points, a so-called sausage fest is by far the greater of two evils if one is to deviate from the ideal of equitable gender balance—and that is not just because I am a guy. In this situation, everyone loses: men lose because of obvious reasons; women, however, also lose, though more subtly: as the proportion of men grows, so does the likelihood that over-compensating idiots will emerge, in all their misogynistic, sleazy glory, hitting on anything that loosely resembles a woman, and consequently, ruining it for everyone.

In stark contrast, having had the great foresight to apply for positions in female-dominated fields like residential living and orientation during college, I can personally attest to the fact that the situation is not nearly as awful when the gender balance tips in the other direction, i.e., more women. More surprisingly, having spoken with a number of female friends, I would venture that there is not nearly as much resistance among women to attending a female-heavy party as there is among guys to attending a sausage fest. Going back to the social mores, the presence of more women at parties is generally interpreted as a sign that there are enough quality men (i.e., not worthless—no one said the interpretation is correct) present to justify the imbalance; on the other hand, the presence of more men, rather than suggesting the opposite (i.e., there are plenty of quality women), simply suggests that the men in question are tools.

Answering why this is could certainly be the subject of a rather involved sociological dissertation, but I would venture that it can essentially be attributed to basic Darwinism. In nature, as in our society (rightly or wrongly), males still compete for females, and eventually, the female makes her selection based on the individual she perceives to have the greatest evolutionary fitness, since she has the most to lose from an erroneous decision (read: pregnancy). (Again, this is likely changing with our generation—and perhaps, with the advent and popularization of birth control—but akin to women making the first move, it remains relatively underground.) Thus, it should be self-evident why a female-dominated party does not have the same negative aura that a male-dominated one does: women are only likely to stick around a venue with fit members of the opposite sex (whether fit here refers to for a one-night stand or for life depends entirely on context), so a dearth of women at a party naturally insinuates that there is a lack of fitness amongst the men.

Which brings me back to my original point about the Rolling of the Five Dudes. Not only is the Rolling a Bad Thing™ for those victimized by the idiotic and sleazy behavior that all groups of five men will inevitably demonstrate, but it also reflects poorly on the Five Dudes themselves, in that they are fundamentally unfit (evolutionarily speaking, anyway). Thus, as I said above, there is never an appropriate time to roll with five dudes. Please do not do it, and more importantly, please do not allow yourself to be victimized by it! Quod erat demonstrandum.