2 to 1

8 to 5

3 to 2

10 to 3

4 to 1

although meaningless without context, trust me when i tell you that you’re much more acquainted with these numbers than you’d like to be.

they’ve been read in pretty much every article about any PWI, HBCU, and attractive metropolitan area you’ve ever seen, watched on every news show and documentary focusing on your particular demographic you’ve ever taped, and recalled at every lounge mixer, happy hour, networking event, game night, house party and any other place where not-really-all-that-young-anymore blacks gather at night when they want to avoid gunfire you’ve ever attended.

they all tell tales of the black male/black female ratio monster terrorizing the black community, a lurking behemoth no man, woman, or child can escape from. it’ll find you at the dorm or while you’re hoping for a date, at the corporate boardroom and the bar, and at the cookout and the club. its growth has no end, its menace knows no bounds, and its power has no limits.

but, while these tales are (mostly) true, they’re told with the implication that the ratio monster creates an all-you-can-eat gourmet p*ssy buffet for any and every young black man with an occupation and an appetite. and, since the math makes sense —if there are five or six eligible women to every man, of course every man will have a smorgasbord of options— this feeling is accepted as true.

this widely accepted “fact” is a bullsh*t falsehood, though, and here’s two reasons why.

1. the food-chain conundrum

as anyone who’s ever lived on a college campus where women outnumber men can attest to, the female-male ratio usually plays out the exact same way, with the exact same hierarchy:

(for arguments sake, lets say there are 100 women on campus and 70 men)

group a) 10 percent of the men (7) and approximately 30 percent of the women (30).

***comprised of the top of the food chain dudes and the women who’ve given them exclusive providence.***

group b) 20 percent of the men (14) and 30 percent of the women (30).

***comprised of the guys who’ve grown bitter that they don’t have access to the same women that the top 10 percent do, and the women who’ve grown bitter the top 10 percent dudes aren’t checking for them. the only difference between them is that while the guys might get into half-assed relationships while still holding out hope that one of the “top 30 chicks” will give them some love, the women won’t even date at all.***

group c) everyone else

***comprised 70 percent of the men (49) and 40 percent of the women (40)***

anyway, while my math may be a bit off, the same basic dynamic occurs in every place where the ratio monster exists. basically, although it may seem like every brotha with a pulse and a penis should be bombarded with numerous options, only the top of the food chain cats are able to truly take advantage. and, when you combine this with the fallout created by the top ten percent and their “choices”, the ratio evens out (and even sometimes flips!)

***there’s a perfect opportunity here for an analogy about market share, the upper class, the recession, and reaganomics that i’d probably be able to create if i hadn’t slept though stats class.***

2. following the (mis)leader

“well, even though they say there’s 2.5 women to every 2 men in atlanta, once you separate the gays, the cats on house arrest, the guys under 5’9”, n*ggas with bad credit, the nissan altima-ass n*ggas, cats with degrees from clark, and the men my girls have already dated, the ratio is like 9 to 1″

—overheard by everyone, everywhere

a rather telling graphic makes its way across the screen one minute and 30 seconds into the recent nightline piece about successful and single black women.

using wedding cake figurines, the piece initially shows 100 female figures and 100 male figures, and then begins to cite reasons such as “unemployed” or “incarcerated” to subtract male figures from the screen until they’re left with 54 (as in, only 54% of black men are “eligible marriage material”), leaving the impression that every black woman is marriage material but only half of black men are

although nightline’s tactics may have seemed a bit sensationalistic, exaggerating the ratio by eliminating “eligible” candidates in any way possible is a common practice people use when speaking about the ratio monster, and a little hyperbole is sometimes necessary when getting your point across.

with that being said, what makes the nightline piece (and others like it) dishonest is the fact that they don’t even attempt to even the playing field by eliminating “ineligible” women from the ratio. and, while there may not be as many black women incarcerated or unemployed as black men, from “she doesn’t want any kids” to “avon barksdale used to beat a couple years back, and i aint trying to get shot over her ass” i bet that a roomful of single brothas could create a list of perfectly valid categories detailing why a seemingly eligible sista might not be “marriage material”, and why he still hasn’t received any ratio reparations checks.

you know, i guess it makes sense to think that if one side is “losing” the ratio game (black women), the other must be “winning” (black men). it makes perfect sense actually, at least until you remember that we’re on the same team.

—the champ