
The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women - Abtin88
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26747
======
vowelless
> They end up being forced to compete for the limited pool of educated men not
> just with their more numerous educated rivals, but also with less educated
> women whom men find desirable on other dimensions.

Considering that we want to eliminate any gaps between the genders, why are
educated women limited to educated men of their own ages? Why not increase the
pool like men do: go for more younger, possibly less educated men (as the
article implies for men)?

> As men age, they desire women who are increasingly younger than they are.
> Intelligent, educated women may go for a less accomplished partner for a
> casual fling, but for a committed partner they typically want mates their
> own age or a few years older, and at least as educated and career-driven.

If men can increase their pool size, why not women?

~~~
alva
> If men can increase their pool size, why not women?

Women can, it is just they don't want to due to what the majority express as
desirable characteristics. It is a sad state of affairs that make both men and
women worse off. I know several women in their mid-thirties who adamantly
refuse to consider long term partnership with perceived low status males
(along lines of status, power, wealth and education).

The main issue they seem to run into is this. The small pool of highly
educated, high status and wealthy men are essentially at the top of the sexual
marketplace. Considering the purchasing power (excuse the term, but it makes
sense) these men have, they tend to optimise for traits many men find
desirable.

Finding an "equal" man in your mid-thirties as a women is very hard. Funnily
enough, polygamy in societies partly resolves this distribution problem for
women. The problems it causes amongst a perpetually single mass of men are
catastrophic however.

~~~
xor1
>Finding an "equal" man in your mid-thirties as a women is very hard.

Finding an "equal" woman in your mid-thirties as a man who doesn't want to
date down in terms of education, status, wealth, or mental health is just as
difficult.

~~~
megaman22
Or finding one who isn't traumatized too badly by past relationships.

~~~
xor1
I think that people who are "traumatized" by past relationships were the ones
who had psychological issues of some sort to begin with, that that sort of
damage happens when you are a child, and that your typical, emotionally
healthy adult can get over it and force themselves to trust again, even if it
happens repeatedly and with multiple partners, because the majority of people
are "good" people, and you can't let people with personality disorders taint
your entire view of humanity or a specific subset of it.

I went through the wringer with someone who has Borderline Personality
Disorder with significant narcissistic and sociopathic traits. I can't imagine
a future relationship possibly being any worse, short of a pregnancy being
involved (or another person with BPD). I was shaken up for a few months, but
I'm over it now. She would blame many of her negative traits and behaviors
(that, from my understanding and conversations with her mom, had been a part
of her personality from an early age) on past lovers, as if they were the ones
responsible for damaging her. I'm sure she brought me up to the next guy(s) as
well. How dare I try to get her into therapy? All she ever did was love me,
after all.

~~~
FuckOffNeemo
Nothing more to add to your comment here besides stating I had a similar
experience.

BPD, narcissistic and sociopathic traits all derived or perhaps exasperated by
significant and truly awful childhood trauma.

Had me in an awful state for a year. Being introduced to intermittent
reinforcement by my therapist was the moment that the penny dropped and I
started to relinquish my feelings of loss and guilt.

~~~
epylar
Could you expand on the intermittent reinforcement concept in the context of
an interpersonal relationship? I think it might help me.

~~~
FuckOffNeemo
= = =

If you'd like to contact me direct to discuss any of the below, feel free. My
e-mail is

jonathon at jdtay .com

= = =

I'd be happy to.

The following articles went a lot way to assist me in getting out of an
incredibly toxic, abusive relationship. If you're anything like where I was
at, the addictive qualities of an abuser will leave you with manic highs and
lows. It's a manipulation tactic, you and the relationship you had were
nothing special. You were seduced and it's a trait shared by most people in
abused relationships in every sense.

Once I realised I was being spent and manipulated and I wasn't in anyway in
love, I was just being led astray. My healing process started almost
immediately and the strength I never could find to finally escape from my
abuser came quickly and efficiently. This isn't to say it was easy. Withdrawal
symptoms are very fucking real.

Realising it's not love that you're walking away from, it's something much
more sinister and primal than that. You'll find strength and self esteem to
start putting yourself first. It's also at this point that you'll start to
notice just how horrid the experience was and it's here that I must encourage
you to seek professional help if you are not already. You'll be tearing down
walls that a professional will need to help you rebuild and unpack.

In another note. If you're like me and you're a man leaving an abusive
relationship with a woman. You may find it distressing that almost every
article you find online was written in the angle or perspective of a female
victim and a male perpetrator.

Undoubtedly this is statistically going to be the most likely scenario in most
abusive relationship though I personally believe from my experiences and those
of my closest family and friends. That this statistic is less weighted in
favor of male abusers than you'd suspect.

The number of articles written in a light to support and assist men who've
escaped emotional abusive relationships is shockingly sparse and I was hurt
that there was such little content for me to personally relate to.

Both sites, Out of the Fog (i) and Psychopaths and Love (ii) have a lot of
great content. Word of warning though. Psychopaths and Love's website is a
piece of shit. But the content is relateable.

= = = = =

i) [http://outofthefog.website/what-not-to-
do-1/2015/12/3/interm...](http://outofthefog.website/what-not-to-
do-1/2015/12/3/intermittent-reinforcement)

"Intermittent Reinforcement - Intermittent Reinforcement is when rules,
rewards or personal boundaries are handed out or enforced inconsistently and
occasionally. This usually encourages another person to keep pushing until
they get what they want from you without changing their own behavior." ...

"The personality disordered individual is often aware that he or she lacks
appropriate self-control and that their abusive behavior is less than
satisfactory in the eyes of the Non-PD. They may fear that their behavior will
result in negative consequences, increased conflict, loss of trust and respect
or even loss of the relationship. They often want to make amends and wish for
a better result. However, most prefer not to confront the root of the problem
and want to avoid the unattractive prospect of endless psycho-analysis,
admitting their failings, being treated like a problem, being forced to take
medications, being regarded as someone who has a "mental problem". So they
straddle the line of acceptability, trying to maintain the status quo,
occasionally trying to "make up for it" when they perceive they may have
crossed the line. Once in a while, the Non-PD may blow a fuse and put their
foot down or threaten to leave, but it is typically short-lived. Like the
person who builds a house in the flood zone, they hope they can "ride out" the
occasional storm and get what they want without having to change."

= = = = =

ii) [http://psychopathsandlove.com/intermittent-
reinforcement/](http://psychopathsandlove.com/intermittent-reinforcement/)

The following article I found slightly less helpful. The language is uses is
both emotive and inflamed. There are a lot of shared behaviors that can be
both from some one with Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personal
Disorder, a psychopath, sociopath or some one with deep, horrific trauma. It's
important not to start labeling your abuser. You'll get it very wrong unless
your a professional in this field. Instead just recognise the behaviors as
being unhelpful and leave it at that.

This article (and almost the entire site) is purely targeted towards those who
have been in relationships who are either sociopathic or psychopathic so do
take this into account. It's also exclusively written from the perspective of
a female victim which quite often left me with a poor taste in my mouth.

All the same, you'll find the analogies and the methods that are outlined to
be familiar.

"There is nothing like the elation and bliss of new love. Especially when you
believed you had found ‘the one.’ That took it to another level. You may have
felt you never really knew what love was before. You were probably infused
with incredible joy and happiness. You finally found what you were searching
for, and it was even better than you ever imagined.

And then one day something unexpected happened. You got a queasy feeling that
you couldn’t shake. You sensed deep in your gut that he or she was pulling
away. Your heart sank and your stomach clenched with fear.

In the process of the psychopathic bond, the moment when the joy at finding
love turns into the fear of losing it is called the ‘manipulative shift.’ When
that happens, the psychopath takes control. This is when the devaluation stage
begins.

Fear takes away our ability to think clearly. It’s an intensely powerful and
uncomfortable emotion, and we want it to go away. In this case, fear was
caused by the threat of losing our (supposedly) wonderful relationship. When
we see someone as being the one who can take our fear away, we will give them
just about anything. In this situation, hat would be the very person who
caused it in the first place — the psychopath. He or she took our fear away by
becoming attentive and loving again. If we asked him if something was wrong he
told us that we were imagining things, or he blamed us, or made up some
excuse, for his lapses"

------
nserrino
I've noticed the preferences among my male and female friends diverging over
time. In college, everyone seemed to want the same thing -- a partner that was
both successful and attractive. But now as we make it to our late twenties, I
noticed that they "settle" differently. My female friends increasingly prefer
an older guy with a great career and my male friends a younger woman who is
less accomplished than they were at their age. They both still say they want
the same thing -- and I totally buy it -- but it is hard to find the perfect
person so sacrifices tend to be made.

I have definitely noticed the happiest people I know, in terms of romance,
found their life partner in college.

~~~
xor1
>I have definitely noticed the happiest people I know, in terms of romance,
found their life partner in college.

Definitely. I am almost 30, and I started dating extremely late (26). I'm
happy with who I'm with right now, but I envy people who met their significant
others in their teens or early 20s. They were able to grow together throughout
early adulthood. I had to go through it all alone. I will do everything
possible to make it so that my kids don't have to experience the same thing.

~~~
damagednoob
> They were able to grow together throughout early adulthood.

That's a double-edged sword. Sometimes people grow apart.

~~~
xor1
True, but better to have loved and lost, right?

~~~
Yetanfou
That depends on what the alternative was. For those who have been pining after
love but did not find any until later 'having loved and lost' might be a
desirable alternative. For those who've been busy with other things - study,
research, discovery, what have you - and never really thought about finding
themselves a partner 'having loved and lost' would be a net-negative.

------
jimmywanger
I'm not trying to incite a flamewar here, and this will probably be downvoted
to death.

Well, the argument here should be:

Men don't find education and accomplishment as attractive as women do - they
find youth and beauty important also.

Therefore, in order to attract a mate, logically women should try to attract a
mate when they're younger, and try to improve the way they look. They should
not be trying to get more educated or accomplish more in their careers.

They can of course do whatever they want, but I have very little sympathy for
people who recognize how reality is and don't try to act in ways that will
optimize the probability of the outcome they want.

~~~
pdfernhout
Philip Greenspun makes a related point:
[http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-
science](http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science) "What about
personal experience? The women that I know who have the IQ, education, and
drive to make it as professors at top schools are, by and large, working as
professionals and making 2.5-5X what a university professor makes and they do
not subject themselves to the risk of being fired. With their extra income,
they invest in child care resources and help around the house so that they are
able to have kids while continuing to ascend in their careers. The women I
know who are university professors, by and large, are unmarried and childless.
By the time they get tenure, they are on the verge of infertility. Speaking of
fertility... A $400/hour divorce litigator said "Knowing what I know now, I
could have made a lot more money going to a bar and working for one night than
I have made by going to college, law school, and working for 20 years. It
turns out that I was sitting on something worth a lot more than a law degree."
What's the cash value of fertility compared to working in science? ... As
explained in the Massachusetts chapter of Real World Divorce, child support
can be collected until a child turns 23, and, as in all other states, is tax-
free. How profitable is child support? By formula (2013-2017 guidelines),
$40,000 per year can be obtained from a defendant earning $250,000 per year.
However, the actual costs of a child can be collected on top of that $40,000,
such as health insurance, day care or nanny, and a child's cash expenses.
Subtracting the USDA-estimated $8000 per year incidental costs of a child,
such as housing and food, each child yields only a $32,000 per year profit.
Thus a woman would need to have two children in Massachusetts with
$250,000-per-year defendants in order to exceed the after-tax personal
spending power of a mid-career PhD biochemist. However, the present value of
the child support plaintiff's earnings are larger because the income stream
can start at age 18 or younger and does not require any investment in college
or graduate school."

~~~
Chris2048
> Knowing what I know now, I could have made a lot more money going to a bar
> and working for one night than I have made by going to college, law school,
> and working for 20 years

Can you explain this to me? You can earn 20 years a lawyers salary by finding
a high-earning man in a bar? Sure, I can do the same with lottery tickets..

~~~
pdfernhout
It is about child support. For example from:
[https://www.therichest.com/expensive-
lifestyle/money/outrage...](https://www.therichest.com/expensive-
lifestyle/money/outrageous-child-support-payments-celebrities-have-to-make/)
"Actor, Eddie Murphy entered into a bitter legal battle with his ex-
girlfriend, ex-Spice Girl, Melanie Brown. Brown gave birth to their child in
2008 after Murphy had broken up with her while she was five months pregnant.
Murphy even had a DNA test completed in order to prove he was the father. In
2009, Murphy was ordered to pay $59,950 per month for child support and he
agreed to cover any of Brown’s pregnancy expenses that she may have incurred."

So, US$60K per month for more than 20 years is about US$15 million. Not a bad
return on one night in a bar (considering you can pay nannies to raise the kid
and the spouse gets stuck for that cost too). Of course, it has to be the
right (read rich enough) guy...

Of course, most child support may not be in that range, but it can still be
substantial, and so more than a successful lawyer earns in 20 years of hard
work and study after repaying expensive student loans.

Another quote from there may help clarify (obviously I am not endorsing this
heartless gold digger strategy even if what this lawyer says may be true
economically): "A divorce litigator put it a little more simply: "There is no
reason for a woman to go to medical school. If she wants to have the spending
power of a doctor she can just have sex with three doctors." (see the
Wisconsin chapter for how the arithmetic works out) In some states, though not
Wisconsin, a plaintiff's own earnings or earning potential can reduce the
potential profits from child support. "A degree in poetry is a lot better than
a degree in medicine when you're a child support plaintiff," observed one
litigator, and added "for a woman with a functioning reproductive system, the
decision to attend college and work is seldom an economically rational one in
the United States.""

Is it that hard to to imagine three high-earning young male Googlers ending up
in such a situation of supporting one woman with a combined Google-level
salary in child support?

Perhaps another reason for a basic income (one which includes payment for
children) is to change the divisive nature of child support litigation?

By the way, some related comedy from the 1960s (not quite the same idea but in
that direction): "Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell"
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062767/reviews](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062767/reviews)
"[Gina Lollobrigida] plays the mother of the lovely Janet Margolin, whose
American soldier father was supposedly killed during World War II [or so she
was told]. The thing is, Gina isn't sure who the father was, since she was
friendly with three soldiers at the time, (played by Peter Lawford, Phil
Silvers and Telly Savalas), and all are very much alive. Each of the three
thinks he is the father and has been financially supporting the girl in secret
for over 20 years. Trouble and hilarity ensue when the three men and their
wives return to the Italian village for an Army reunion, and Gina has to
juggle all six of them while keeping her daughter from finding out the truth."

~~~
Chris2048
Ah I see, but then I return to my "lottery tickets" example; You can make
millions with a single ticket, but there is no reproducible strategy for
finding a winning ticket that doesn't exceed the payout in cost.

I'm sure plenty of women have tried it with Murphy, yet it was Mel B that
ended up in a relationship with him, a well-know pop artist already. "one
night in a bar" is misleading if there are requirements in getting into that
bar, and being successful.

How can a woman guarantee bearing the children of 3 doctors? How many men
would they need to have unprotected sex with until success? If this became a
popular strategy, it would be easy to exploit for sex with male
contraceptives.

> change the divisive nature of child support litigation

perhaps, but not to punish the child. Of course, regulation of female
reproductive rights is a can of worms too.. Maybe a male-infertility
pill/device might be a better idea?..

------
niuzeta
Is this a problem that needs to be solved, though?

I see a dichotomy here. On one hand, we would like to have more women in the
"educated" and therefore, high-income workforce. This, in turn, causes
imbalance in the dating market and may force the women in the high-income
bracket to make a concession(by lowering their standards, etc). On the other,
we can go back to the model where men dominate the high-income workforce and
many women can "marry up" when they're younger. I would pick the former than
the latter any day. Equality of opportunity trumps the equality of results in
my world.

Also, beyond a certain point, money just doesn't make the other person more
attractive. I would rather date a caring jobless younger woman than an abusive
doctor with several degrees. I make enough to pursue my dreams and leisures.
Articles like this actually seem very insensitive for the men of my
situation(previously poor, now making comfortably but didn't date much in
20s), as it purports that I, as a man in dating market, is worth as much as
the amount of money I make. I hope that's not case for most people.

Think about it. This is a "crisis" because there aren't high-earning men that
these high-earning women would allow themselves to date? It doesn't
necessarily trigger schadenfreude to me, if not a profound sadness due to a
nature of the "problem". As a single man of early thirties, this sort of
article horrifies and saddens me. You need to find your own happiness and
maybe it shouldn't depend on other people.

Jon Birger's Date-onomics(2015) discusses this phenomenon[1] pretty astutely,
if you're interested in reading further data.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Date-onomics-Dating-Became-
Lopsided-N...](https://www.amazon.com/Date-onomics-Dating-Became-Lopsided-
Numbers/dp/076118208X)

~~~
ghostcluster
It's one of the drivers causing all developed countries to have a fertility
rate below the replacement rate.

Japan's population, which is shrinking, worries about an aging majority
without a base of young healthy workers who can support the economy and social
programs. They are trying to mend this in the medium term by encouraging more
women into the workforce, but, as we see from this article, that may have the
unintended consequence of exacerbating the fertility crisis even further.

~~~
MarkMc
That's a problem for Japan, but not rich western countries which can simply
accept more immigration.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
There is nothing simple about accepting more immigration, just look to Brexit
for that.

~~~
ghostcluster
Or Germany. It was just announced today that Merkel was unable to form a
majority coalition after the recent election:

> Merkel was weakened after a September election as voters angry with her
> decision in 2015 to open Germany’s borders to more than a million asylum
> seekers punished her conservatives by voting for the far-right Alternative
> for Germany (AfD) party

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-
politics/merkel-f...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-
politics/merkel-fourth-term-in-doubt-as-german-coalition-talks-fail-
idUSKBN1DJ0I3)

~~~
InternetOfStuff
> Or Germany. It was just announced today that Merkel was unable to form a
> majority coalition after the recent election

One has nothing to do with the other.

The political landscape in Germany is transforming, and has been since long
before the refugee crisis. Previously typical majority constellations have
gone away (and won't come back, AfD or no), and the parties are struggling to
find a place in this new reality.

The failure of this round of coalition talks was due to one party not
understanding that they need to be more flexible in the new political reality.

My personal suspicion is that, should it come to reelections, they would be
punished for their stubbornness.

~~~
ghostcluster
I directly quotes Reuters.

> Merkel was weakened after a September election as voters angry with her
> decision in 2015 to open Germany’s borders to more than a million asylum
> seekers punished her conservatives by voting for the far-right Alternative
> for Germany (AfD) party

She had trouble forming a coalition because her party's share was further
weakened after the vote, presumably because of 2015 migration crisis and the
rise of AfD, requiring a potential partnership with 2 different parties, at
different ends of the political spectrum, in addition to Merkel's.

~~~
InternetOfStuff
> I directly quotes Reuters.

No doubt.

Reuters still fails to see (or report) the forest for the trees in this
instance.

> She had trouble forming a coalition because her party's share was further
> weakened after the vote, presumably because of 2015 migration crisis and the
> rise of AfD,

AfD and its initial growth predates the migration crisis (but had originally
had very different political goals and actors). You're right of course, they
benefited from it. But I think the lack of a far-right party in the German
political spectrum was always a distortion of reality, which has now been
corrected. My gut feeling is that there will always be ten-ish percent of the
population who subscribe to such ideas. They've merely become politically
visible now.

The fate of CDU/CSU merely repeats what SPD already suffered with Die Linke
more than a decade ago: a contender further towards the political extreme, who
will make previously common coalitions impossible. I've repeatedly read the
claim that such a development was overdue for CDU/CSU. For that reason, it's
generally assumed that AfD (and its effect on feasibility of particular
coalitions) won't go away.

I further think there's an underlying issue that politics in Germany has
become complacent and removed from the people, deeming it unnecessary to
justify and explain their politics to the public. The rise of AfD seems to be
one of the reactions, in a vague parallel to Trumpism.

In fact I consider this the one redeeming aspect of AfD's entry to parliament:
the parties suddenly find themselves forced to justify their choices. I've
already observed that effect in the political discourse.

> requiring a potential partnership with 2 different parties, at different
> ends of the political spectrum, in addition to Merkel's.

It's worse than that: three different parties (you overlooked CSU). And CSU is
in full campaing mode, as there's a state-level election in Bavaria less than
a year away, and CSU is threatened with losing their 50-year absolute
majority. Plus there's a battle going on for the seat of CSU chairman.

Interestingly, the two antipodes, CSU and Grüne, weren't yet ready to abort
the talks, and had in fact both made painful concessions in order to attempt a
coalition.

------
lackbeard
> But for accomplished women who successfully traverse the waters of a mating
> pool unfairly stacked against them, mating triumph at the individual level
> typically takes precedence over loftier goals of reducing societal-level
> inequality when the two come into conflict.

It's wrong to characterize the pool as "unfairly" stacked against them; they
could choose to date men with lower incomes or less education.

~~~
gozur88
Yeah, it's assortive mating. It's not that the mating pool is stacked against
them - it's that their self assessment of their own "rank" is too high. They
assume men want in a woman what women want in a man, and for the most part men
don't care about the (potential) wife's career.

~~~
tomp
> for the most part men don't care about the (potential) wife's career.

There might even be an inverse correlation - the more successful the man is
(hence the more money he earns, and the more hours he works), the more he
would prefer his partner to take the lion's share of childcare and house-
making, _and_ also be able to pay for it.

Ideally, of course, neither parent would have to work, but that's even more
unrealistic for most of the population.

------
indescions_2017
Not the usual sort of discussion I expect to see on Edge but welcome
nonetheless. Fertility services, reproductive tech is very hot right now. With
women who heed the countdown of their biological clocks electing to freeze
their eggs at $50K, it could also be considered a growth sector. So why not
provide the spectrum of services a single professional would need to raise a
family. From quality genetically screened gamete seed banks. Making it as easy
to order 23 chromosomes as you would pick out a new laptop on Newegg. To
generous paid maternity care and leave. Nanny, lactation consulting, on-call
pediatrics, daycare. As well as transportation, grocery delivery, nursery
installation and much more.

Of course all of this is readily available via bespoke services for those that
can afford it. So how to we extend all the necessary services to a middle
class single professional woman?

If it truly is a crisis that birth rates are falling in the developed world.
And restricted immigration results in further population skew. Then taxpayers
must begin the debate on subsidizing reproductive and childcare services.
Because traditional "nudge" messaging and policy seems to neglect where
organic demand lies: having children and career, without the necessity or
social norm of marriage.

~~~
Santosh83
You assume single parent upbringing is optimal? Why are 1. the world's
population (as opposed to 'developed world's' population), and 2., the best
for the child, not considered?

~~~
zanny
Because capitalism. If single wealthy women want children for... god knows
what reason, there are enough studies to show that children _need_ their
parents _throughout_ their childhoods to develop optimally, and having one or
even worse both of them sequestered away in careers while they grow up in
daycare is harmful. But if single wealthy women want children they will get
them, they have the financial resources to push the economy into making it
happen one way or another. You don't fight economics with morals postmortem.

------
mnm1
Better tools to connect women and men could have a major impact and increase
the chances that couples connect with each other. Tinder and other dating
sites are absolute shit (plenty of literature on their problems for both men
and women out there) and in person interactions are becoming more rare.
Improving these tools might help some of the people who would otherwise not
connect or find suitable mates to do so, though it can only address the
problem partially.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
The problem isn't the tools, the problem is human nature. The way we select
mates just doesn't work the way we tell ourselves it does, and the reality is
that vary many people will never be compatible with anyone.

In the past, and in other cultures, this is solved by significant social
pressure forcing people together.

------
jacobkg
This problem is very evident amongst single female friends who are just out of
medical residency. The ones that are married mostly met their spouses in
undergrad but the others are having a lot of trouble finding men of similar
education level.

~~~
rcpt
My wife is applying for residency now and it's become clear to me that
American medical education just isn't fit for human consumption in general.
I'm not at all surprised that your friends are having trouble with dating.

------
zzzzzzzza
My experience trying to date women in physics and comp sci says this is mostly
a crisis amongst non stem women.

~~~
whyever
Of course, because in STEM it's the opposite: an oversupply of (educated) men.

------
squozzer
Where I think this will go is pretty easy, as it happens already among the
less-educated.

Women will select a mate based more on looks than money, have a kid or two,
then divorce him (aka "starter marriages".) Child support from the male will
probably not matter for women who make enough money, but might still be a
useful tool to keep the ex-hubby in line.

This is probably a simpler, if more cynical, means than freezing ova for the
"perfect" man to fertilize.

And while men at the tippy-top might take a pass on divorcees with kids, for
most men beyond a certain age, it's a fact of life, and frankly, we have
decades of cultural brain-washing that makes such attitudes seem sexist.

------
RhysU
Interestingly no discussion of what must be a similar crisis among less-
educated men.

~~~
hjkl4life
That would mean trying to understand and optimize for men's reproductive
strategy. As far as I can tell, the western world seems mostly concerned with
female reproductive strategy.

------
Mz
I wonder if it is any different in other countries with better health coverage
and more family friendly policies.

------
vfulco
You mean it is ok to be biologically inspired for your mating choices? Who
knew?

------
Santosh83
Hardly a crisis...

~~~
iaw
Care to explain why you feel that way? From your statement I hope that you're
extremely enlightened on the topic or have first hand experience being an
educated woman trying to date.

~~~
xor1
No one is entitled to being in a relationship. No one is entitled to having a
partner.

~~~
Oxitendwe
Having a lot of single childless people is not good for society.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
I was wondering why this comment was downvoted, and realized that it’s
probably because of the “childless” bit, which is a pretty conservative
attitude.

But there is an important point here. People who are in a healthy family and
have dependents don’t do things like suicide bomb or go on mass shootings.
Those are the acts of desperate, miserable men.

I’m not advocating nuclear families, but when I hear about the insane gender
disparity in places like China, I worry.

------
lostgame
Who says women have to date men?

~~~
Chris2048
In biology, mating (or mateing in British English) is the pairing of either
opposite-sex or hermaphroditic organisms, usually for the purposes of sexual
reproduction

\--
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating)

------
htrp
Needs citations

------
eighthnate
Anyone else think this article was going to be about chess?

Man HN has my mind so warped I thought this article was going to be about
women and chess.

~~~
xedrac
Seems to fit. "Unable to secure the smothered mate, she had to settle for the
backrank mate."

------
perilunar
I'm impressed HN — not a single mention yet of hypergamy, SMV or Red Pill
theory!

(and now I've gone and ruined it)

~~~
gspetr
Always keep Law 38 in mind.

------
lmcnish14
Why is the onus of lowering their standards being pushed on educated women?
One of the issues the author states is that men increasingly go for younger
women instead of ones their own age. Why do we value youth and beauty instead
of education and accomplishments?

~~~
mythrwy
Because biology. When it comes to mating what someone is is more important
than what they know. Which biologically makes sense.

~~~
xor1
I am a firm believer in humanity's ability to overcome our biology.

~~~
mythrwy
So are religious leaders and mothers and Soviet social planners. But they are
perpetually disappointed.

Because what is humanity without it's biology?

Instinct doesn't belong to the individual, it belongs to the species. And life
doesn't care atoll about abstract moral principal. That's just syntactic sugar
to help us manage and grow the hive given biological impulse. When we overcome
a natural impulse guess what? It's a natural impulse doing that too. If we
overcome all natural impulse (how?) this species is finished and are something
else, certainly not "humanity" at that point.

Right now what _really_ drives us around is 10's of thousands of years older
than the beginning of writing and cities. At least.

~~~
xor1
>If we overcome all natural impulse (how?) this species is finished and are
something else, certainly not "humanity" at that point.

What's wrong with that?

~~~
mythrwy
It might be inevitable that we give rise to intelligent machines, become
machines and that's it. Nothing wrong with it.

But at present we are behaviorally closer to monkeys even if we dress up in
suits and have rules and values. Which don't (unlike what we generally
conceive) have any eternal significance beyond being various versions of
conventions such as "who gets to pick the lice off the alpha male first".

Point being, what we are is the reality of what we have to work with. Mating
included. Puritan scolders will forever fail and life will keep right on going
until the machine (if that ever happens).

