There aren't enough single men for single women - article

[Woggle]

Off topic:

 

I am for one is sick of these dating articles that are written in NYC, let me you thats definitely a haven for singles to die. Why has NYC become the central viewpoint of dating? Modern love by the New York Times. We get it NYC is full of undeseriable weirdos.

 

I grew up in NYC and I agree this is what it turned into. I would choose the hookers that used to populate Times Square over these hipsters and yuppies any day of the week.

[RedRobin]

I've never disqualified a guy from a date due to having less education and money than me. I don't care about those things. I care that they like their job and are good at it... and he can support himself. That's it. My fiancée never went to college, and I have a PhD. OTOH, he was never threatened by my goals... he had his own brand of ambition (three Emmys... that he received AFTER he and I started dating, BTW).

 

 

I've met many men... I'd say most... who got a little weird about me making more or having more education. To the point where I couldn't really talk about what I did, and I definately didn't share my salary with a guy I was just getting to know. They'd find some way to take it out on me. Got to the point where I'd have a hard time dating a guy who wasn't as successful as me because I don't want to deal with their insecure BS. Nothing to do with me having higher standards at all.

 

 

... and about NY. Yea, it's a cess pool. I had a hard time meeting ANY single men who weren't recovering alcoholics, or bankrupt, had an STD, multiple DUI's... or were dudes playing the field... trying to build their harem. And that's married guys too. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

 

 

All I can say to any woman... is seriously reconsider any choice to live in NY or the NE. I was stuck there career-wise after my fiancée died, and years later I finally escaped. Thank GOD!!

 

 

I've been in the Seattle area maybe a month and LOVE IT!!

[road]

Those women are single because they have an inflexible criteria for what they want in a mate.

 

The problem is they confuse being able to provide for themselves with their college education and white collar careers they will stay single because they will stay to picky. To me that is just as being shallow as the women that will not date based on how the man looks without even getting to know the man.

 

Back in the late 1980's I knew some female African American teachers in a large metropolitan high school. They were paid well and did not need to be supported.

 

 

Yet they wanted a marriage. They often would commiserate on not finding a husband. They would say all they want was a BMW. Then they would exclaim they wanted a black man working, any kind of job, minimum wage, as long as it was 40 hours a week and they could keep that long term.

 

 

There was no job that had a collar too blue or they got to dirty at work. They wanted a good man. A man that could hold a job steady, stay out of trouble, treat them right. That's all they needed to be happy. This is all they needed to be proud of in their husbands to be.

 

 

They never complained that there are not enough college educated blacks to go around. They never complained that there were not enough black men making 6 figure salaries to go around.

[Mrlonelyone]

FWIW for me educational levels are not a requirement. I do require that a mate be exceptional in some area of life. That is, I want them to have their own goals, and ambitions and talents. I found the mates I was most into male or female were those I could sit back and marvel at them at their best.

 

Now that I am a professor for me to date "on my level educationally" would require another professor.

[toolforgrowth]

If these women are finding more women to be their academic (and all that goes along with that) equals than they are men, then it may, very well, be a contributing factor to the rise in lesbianism.

 

Food for thought, men!

 

If more women would rather munch carpet than ride pole, let them. I will personally vouch for how much fun munching carpet is!

 

I tend to think that this illustrates the hypergamous nature of women. Men are only now catching onto that same idea: If she doesn't make the same amount as I, doesn't have the same level of education as I, and isn't as ambitious as I, then what does she really have to offer me?

[Mrlonelyone]

If more women would rather munch carpet than ride pole, let them. I will personally vouch for how much fun munching carpet is!

 

I tend to think that this illustrates the hypergamous nature of women. Men are only now catching onto that same idea: If she doesn't make the same amount as I, doesn't have the same level of education as I, and isn't as ambitious as I, then what does she really have to offer me?

 

Exactly, when it comes to dating and casual hookups even LTR's women don't care as much about the hypergamy. Then just like it is for men it is all about turning them on physically.

 

However, when it comes to marriage age women. Say 25-45 they are looking for men who are more alpha than they are. This study basically says it. A woman who's highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly accomplished isn't going to want some schlubby guy who works down at the local auto lube shop for a husband.

 

If women didn't choose men based in some part on education/intelligence/invention ... wed still be walking around like Australopithecines in the grasslands of Africa. Likewise men prefer more educated/intelligent/inventive women.

 

That said: If a woman is really marriage minded maybe grabbing a coffee with the guy from the lube shop and seeing if he's at least well read wouldn't be a bad move.

[Frank2thepoint]

I generally just find it easier to deal with someone at a similar level because there is less chance of resentment.

 

And by that consequence you have a higher standard for men.

 

 

I am for one is sick of these dating articles that are written in NYC, let me you thats definitely a haven for singles to die. Why has NYC become the central viewpoint of dating? Modern love by the New York Times. We get it NYC is full of undeseriable weirdos.

 

The article actually focuses on where single women can go, if they are willing and able, to find a man that meets their standards. It mentions New York City being worse for singles, compared to West Coast cities such as Silicon Valley, San Jose, and San Francisco.

 

Also, don't be jealous. NYC is the capital of the world. And no, I'm not an "undeseriable" [sic] weirdo. At least that's what I think.

[GoodOnPaper]

I'm always surprised to hear about all this angst regarding a man's educational level. Having climbed that mountain, I found pursuing/having a PhD was more of a detriment than an asset when it came to dating. Of course, timing and location mean a lot . . .

 

My experience in the '90s was that women pursuing the same academic track as me intentionally sought "opposites-attract" relationships -- the partiers and beefcakes were of far more interest. Now, I'm a professor at a university in a small city -- out of the hundreds of faculty and professional staff with advanced degrees, very few are coupled. These women are with contractors, entrepreneurs, tradesmen, farmers/ranchers, etc. We professors simply don't register on the masculinity scale. Therefore, we are married to secretaries, K-12 teachers, nurses, etc.

[Mrlonelyone]

I'm always surprised to hear about all this angst regarding a man's educational level. Having climbed that mountain, I found pursuing/having a PhD was more of a detriment than an asset when it came to dating. Of course, timing and location mean a lot . . .

 

My experience in the '90s was that women pursuing the same academic track as me intentionally sought "opposites-attract" relationships -- the partiers and beefcakes were of far more interest. Now, I'm a professor at a university in a small city -- out of the hundreds of faculty and professional staff with advanced degrees, very few are coupled. These women are with contractors, entrepreneurs, tradesmen, farmers/ranchers, etc. We professors simply don't register on the masculinity scale. Therefore, we are married to secretaries, K-12 teachers, nurses, etc.

 

Depends on the field. Among physicists and STEM fields women in those fields prefer men in those fields for marriage. That said.

 

 

Par of the reason you may see that professor types are married to non-professor types is because of the "Two Body Problem".

 

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/609-on-poor-husbands-and-two-body-problems

 

The short version is if you marry someone who is also on an academic track what happens when one of you gets that Tenure offer in California and the other gets it in New York. It may just be easier to marry someone who can move easily for you.

[Els]

People 'should do' or 'should not do' lots of things, but unfortunately it's not as simple as just telling them not to.

 

Consider a guy who holds out for a certain 'type' of appearance in women and 'won't date down' in that department. Logically speaking, this 'should not' be a factor in relationships and him doing otherwise 'should not' be considered 'lowering standards'. But you can't just tell him to date someone he isn't attracted to, regardless of how ridiculous or illogical his reasons for attraction or lack thereof is. It's not fair to him and especially not fair to her.

 

So I guess I'm not seeing the point of your post. People absolutely should date people they are attracted to regardless of what the parameters for their personal attraction are. If there aren't enough people in their pool then they can choose to be single or reexamine themselves and the reasons why they find these people attractive. The worst thing they could do is just try to convince themselves that that person is 'okay' and that they 'should be' willing to date him/her.

 

That being said, I'm reading something different out of the article compared to what you're saying in your opening post. Also, FTR, from what I have seen, what he describes about urban China is true, and it is also true for other places like Singapore and Japan.

[mike_89]

People 'should do' or 'should not do' lots of things, but unfortunately it's not as simple as just telling them not to.

I think this phrase captures so much of what is going on in our societies. Society these days has so many things that "should" or "should not" be, idealistic visions that are sadly far from the reality. You should not find sweaty, fat people repulsive. You should find ugly people just as attractive as handsome people. You should only look at ones personality for dating. The list goes on (and not just in the dating scene)! That's just not how human beings work. Human beings are primates and human mate selection is a complex algorithm that has evolved through hundreds of thousands of years. In our current, modern society this algorithm is way outdated but it's still there, blocking our attraction to people we "should" be with and creating attraction for people we "should" avoid.

[GoodOnPaper]

Depends on the field. Among physicists and STEM fields women in those fields prefer men in those fields for marriage. That said.

 

 

Par of the reason you may see that professor types are married to non-professor types is because of the "Two Body Problem".

 

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/609-on-poor-husbands-and-two-body-problems

 

The short version is if you marry someone who is also on an academic track what happens when one of you gets that Tenure offer in California and the other gets it in New York. It may just be easier to marry someone who can move easily for you.

 

I'm in a STEM field myself and the last thing I expected in grad school was for the women to consider those of us in the same field to be too nerdy of a lot for them.

 

Your point about the two-body problem is a good one. Not being in a major metropolitan area, we are rarely able to hire our first- or second-choice faculty candidates for this reason. And it's very difficult to hold on to faculty who are single -- we just lost a young superstar in one of our social science departments because her long-distance boyfriend landed a department Chair job at a school 1200 miles away and she decided to move to his location.

[toolforgrowth]

A woman who's highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly accomplished isn't going to want some schlubby guy who works down at the local auto lube shop for a husband.

 

Likewise, a successful man isn't going to want a woman who is unemployed or makes minimum wage, and has a number of kids in tow (by multiple baby daddies no less).

 

Heck, I don't even see myself dating a childless woman who isn't even close to my tax bracket.

 

So if all those women decide to become lesbians, I can't say that'd be a particularly great loss for the male gender.

[Mrlonelyone]

I'm in a STEM field myself and the last thing I expected in grad school was for the women to consider those of us in the same field to be too nerdy of a lot for them.

 

Interesting. In my travels through graduate school I noticed that the women seemed to want the men in the programs but those men also did not want those women. I had some good prospects while I was in graduate school... things working well. When push came to shove there was never enough there to make us work out the two body problem.

 

Closest I got was an ex who found work right near where I live even though we weren't talking. Then we started talking but then I had to move. Then they moved a great distance away and that was that really.

 

 

Your point about the two-body problem is a good one. Not being in a major metropolitan area, we are rarely able to hire our first- or second-choice faculty candidates for this reason. And it's very difficult to hold on to faculty who are single -- we just lost a young superstar in one of our social science departments because her long-distance boyfriend landed a department Chair job at a school 1200 miles away and she decided to move to his location.

 

Sad. But can you really blame them. Look at LS and you can see how hard it is to find a decent partner/mate. I'd say jobs are easier to find than spouses.

[JustGettingBy]

Its also funny how the article assumes having a good educations means a really good job. Its as if the author thinks you're automatically hired the day after you graduate.

[Trane]

It's not a matter of a lack of single men.

 

The issue is the desirability of these singledoms and the inflated egos of the choosers.

 

The most common complaint I've heard about the lack of single men by women is that the majority of available men aren't attractive enough to consider anything worthwhile in a relationship. It doesn't matter if it's a serious relationship, a casual relationship or a strictly FWB situation. There concerns are centered on gaining public approval through positive reinforcement.

 

Lack of height, lack of hair, lack of good looks, etc, etc, etc,. Men have been reduced to being an accessory to a woman's shoe closet as far as I'm concerned. Only a smaller percentage of men qualify. Those with the checklist-required-physical looks that make her feel petite, dainty, weak and sexually submissive that is.

 

Money does trump everything and has NO height, hair to comb or lack of physical attraction to deal with.

[MoreAmore]

Likewise, a successful man isn't going to want a woman who is unemployed or makes minimum wage,

.

 

I am always surprised by that sentiment.

 

Of the men who have proposed to me, it was... Student (pre-med, when I was 19), IT (masters in information security); IT -management (associates only- though he made well over 100k), engineer - management (masters in aerospace engineering); contractor (physics PhD); professor (English PhD). That doesn't include men I have dated where it didn't go that far. I have never been rejected for lack of educational attainment.

 

I only have a high school diploma. I am intelligent, and each one of those men have said I am one of the most intelligent women he has ever met, and that matters. Still, they were not concerned with material or educational success.

 

I don't come from the upper middle class background where that was the value reinforced as most important. I come from poverty as such I didn't always have meals growing up, and d never quite picked up on materialism. I know I can live a happy life on what I can make, though many others could not, and so am nonplussed by it. I do seek intelligence, though. I would have dated my counterpart, though I am not the highly educated woman mentioned.

My brother, though, he is much the same as I am with no degree but a high IQ, and is engaged to a woman with dual masters degrees, one in biochemistry and molecular engineering, and I don't remember the other.

 

I do have female friends who are very concerned by this. They have less luck than I have had in finding the qualities they seek. No one likes to be broken down to superficial categories and checklists instead of a person enjoying the fundamental nature he or she possesses. I am not sure any of my male friends have ever expressed concern, though admittedly many are more looks focused.

[autumnnight]

Its also funny how the article assumes having a good educations means a really good job. Its as if the author thinks you're automatically hired the day after you graduate.

 

 

This is so true. The field you choose is vitally important. For example, get an MFA in romantic literature...and you just might be the most well-read Gap manager on earth. Get your tech degree in welding....you can make a lot of money. Plus, and I am not generalizing, some people who have degree after degree are just perpetual students who want to postpone real work. So they have to be highly motivated to GET a job and then have enough work ethic to KEEP it.

 

Give me an auto mechanic with drive who works hard over a PhD who can't get tenure anywhere because "his dept head is a jerk" any day.

[toolforgrowth]

I am always surprised by that sentiment.

 

Of the men who have proposed to me, it was... Student (pre-med, when I was 19), IT (masters in information security); IT -management (associates only- though he made well over 100k), engineer - management (masters in aerospace engineering); contractor (physics PhD); professor (English PhD). That doesn't include men I have dated where it didn't go that far. I have never been rejected for lack of educational attainment.

 

I only have a high school diploma. I am intelligent, and each one of those men have said I am one of the most intelligent women he has ever met, and that matters. Still, they were not concerned with material or educational success.

 

I don't come from the upper middle class background where that was the value reinforced as most important. I come from poverty as such I didn't always have meals growing up, and d never quite picked up on materialism. I know I can live a happy life on what I can make, though many others could not, and so am nonplussed by it. I do seek intelligence, though. I would have dated my counterpart, though I am not the highly educated woman mentioned.

My brother, though, he is much the same as I am with no degree but a high IQ, and is engaged to a woman with dual masters degrees, one in biochemistry and molecular engineering, and I don't remember the other.

 

I do have female friends who are very concerned by this. They have less luck than I have had in finding the qualities they seek. No one likes to be broken down to superficial categories and checklists instead of a person enjoying the fundamental nature he or she possesses. I am not sure any of my male friends have ever expressed concern, though admittedly many are more looks focused.

 

The point is that if women can disregard men as potential mates based on that criteria, then men can do the same when assessing women. I've dated women who were not as ambitious or intelligent as I. Needless to say, it didn't go well.

 

What could a woman who isn't on the same level as I in terms of income, ambition, and success offer me? I want a partner, not an obligation.

 

I'd rather be single than with a woman who isn't up to my standard.

[Oregon_Dude]

It's not a matter of a lack of single men.

 

The issue is the desirability of these singledoms and the inflated egos of the choosers.

 

The most common complaint I've heard about the lack of single men by women is that the majority of available men aren't attractive enough to consider anything worthwhile in a relationship. It doesn't matter if it's a serious relationship, a casual relationship or a strictly FWB situation. There concerns are centered on gaining public approval through positive reinforcement.

 

Lack of height, lack of hair, lack of good looks, etc, etc, etc,. Men have been reduced to being an accessory to a woman's shoe closet as far as I'm concerned. Only a smaller percentage of men qualify. Those with the checklist-required-physical looks that make her feel petite, dainty, weak and sexually submissive that is.

 

Money does trump everything and has NO height, hair to comb or lack of physical attraction to deal with.

This is it. Illusion of endless choice has made people, especially women, incredibly picky to the point where they will serially date for years, passing on perfectly good men who don't meet every criteria of their unreasonable checklist, next, next, next, searching for that perfect man who doesn't exist, because they are somehow entitled to him, despite being incredibly imperfect themselves.

 

No one is ever good enough, men are mockable, women are above reproach and carry themselves with an unearned sense of ego. Good men are being treated like sh*t because of the brainwashing we have done as a culture, telling young women they can, nay, SHOULD have it all, deserve nothing but the best and shouldn't settle for anything less than money, good looks, etc etc etc.

 

Good men are opting out of dating because their self-esteem has taken such a hit, being dictated by princess women. They're sick of being treated like sh*t and have decided not to play the game anymore. Feminism, while good in its intention, has become aggressive and had tipped the scales to the point where everything is the man's fault, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, there's always someone better, and you deserve better, yo go girl, dealbreaker, oh no he di'int.

[Trane]

This is it. Illusion of endless choice has made people, especially women, incredibly picky to the point where they will serially date for years, passing on perfectly good men who don't meet every criteria of their unreasonable checklist, next, next, next, searching for that perfect man who doesn't exist, because they are somehow entitled to him, despite being incredibly imperfect themselves.

 

No one is ever good enough, men are mockable, women are above reproach and carry themselves with an unearned sense of ego. Good men are being treated like sh*t because of the brainwashing we have done as a culture, telling young women they can, nay, SHOULD have it all, deserve nothing but the best and shouldn't settle for anything less than money, good looks, etc etc etc.

 

Good men are opting out of dating because their self-esteem has taken such a hit, being dictated by princess women. They're sick of being treated like sh*t and have decided not to play the game anymore. Feminism, while good in its intention, has become aggressive and had tipped the scales to the point where everything is the man's fault, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, there's always someone better, and you deserve better, yo go girl, dealbreaker, oh no he di'int.

 

I am a good man. I have a good body. I have good skin and teeth. I have good health and I also have a good job. I have a very good family and very good friends who love me.

 

I WANT IT ALL.

 

For this reason and in this age of internet dating which I have failed miserably at, I NOW only approach the women "in person" who meet my required mental and physical checklist. The main difference is that my checklist isn't ridiculously unrealistic with physical expectations that exclude a large percentage of women from my fun times.

 

There are women I won't even notice unless they invade my personal space, make eye contact with me and present themselves with a positive premise.

[Oregon_Dude]

I WANT IT ALL.

 

For this reason and in this age of internet dating which I have failed miserably at, I NOW only approach the women "in person" who meet my required mental and physical checklist. The main difference is that my checklist isn't ridiculously unrealistic with physical expectations that exclude a large percentage of women from my fun times.

Trying to understand your point (though I do agree with a lot of it). You clearly DON'T want it all if your checklist is not unrealistic.

 

I too seem to fail at online dating. Did you stop OLD entirely? In what situations do you approach women? I don't drink anymore, so the bar thing is out of the question for me.

[serial muse]

This is it. Illusion of endless choice has made people, especially women, incredibly picky to the point where they will serially date for years, passing on perfectly good men who don't meet every criteria of their unreasonable checklist, next, next, next, searching for that perfect man who doesn't exist, because they are somehow entitled to him, despite being incredibly imperfect themselves.

 

No one is ever good enough, men are mockable, women are above reproach and carry themselves with an unearned sense of ego. Good men are being treated like sh*t because of the brainwashing we have done as a culture, telling young women they can, nay, SHOULD have it all, deserve nothing but the best and shouldn't settle for anything less than money, good looks, etc etc etc.

 

Good men are opting out of dating because their self-esteem has taken such a hit, being dictated by princess women. They're sick of being treated like sh*t and have decided not to play the game anymore. Feminism, while good in its intention, has become aggressive and had tipped the scales to the point where everything is the man's fault, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, there's always someone better, and you deserve better, yo go girl, dealbreaker, oh no he di'int.

 

The trouble with this is that it's not related to the article that the OP posted, which notes that both men and women have these standards. A lot of people are glossing over this, possibly not actually reading it, and instead just using this as an opportunity to post something they already believe fervently (usually about women being too picky, which is basically a trope at this point). But the article doesn't say women are pickier than men.

 

It's more interesting when you read the article and think about what it's trying to say and comment on that. Just saying. Otherwise it's just a random rant.

[mrldii]

The trouble with this is that it's not related to the article that the OP posted, which notes that both men and women have these standards. A lot of people are glossing over this, possibly not actually reading it, and instead just using this as an opportunity to post something they already believe fervently (usually about women being too picky, which is basically a trope at this point). But the article doesn't say women are pickier than men.

 

It's more interesting when you read the article and think about what it's trying to say and comment on that. Just saying. Otherwise it's just a random rant.

 

 

And, a gender-bashing rant, at that.

[Mrlonelyone]

Men have been reduced to being an accessory to a woman's shoe closet as far as I'm concerned.

 

There are and have always been women who looked at men in just exactly that way. To them men are a fashion accessory. They tend to be the ones that will have the boyfriend (or even husband) for one look. Yet will *ick around with another man maybe even in public for another look. They may have a merry go round of men that are all "boyfriends" or "just friends" for the same reason.

 

Why would anyone choose one and forsake all others when they can enjoy a variety? It would have to take real love to do that.

 

The problem as I see it isn't a lack of single options in the USA. The problem is a lack of real love or even a sense of values. Instead we get a really cynical whats in it for me approach to relationships in general. This makes it hard to feel the emotion that can make a strong bond.