Also something to consider: When 2 straight people couple off, it’s only -1 from the dating pool as far as other straight people are concerned. But when a gay couple exits the dating pool, there’s a loss of 2 people, heightening competition for an already tiny pool.
(And to compare, with where the current link is taking me: https://public.tableau.com/profile/eddie.hernandez#!/vizhome...)
Looks like the term Man Jose is valid to some degree within these data.
Gotta say, I wasn't expecting Boulder to have a worse ratio
Conventional dating is easy in Boulder and I'm more inclined to have a "how-we-met" story of how our eyes met across a crowded coffee shop or we both got bamboozled by the joke of a hilarious vendor at the farmers market, then to tell people I chose to have software help because I'm too busy for traditional romance or am too helpless/hopeless to do it myself.
Per the title, this is only a representation of online dating. Match.com is simply a poor representation for the actual singles population here because nobody wants to use it.
Since you can't really objectively measure that, the next best thing would be via something like Tinder's internal ELO score it assigns each user.
Distribution of ELO across genders would also be interesting. I've often heard statements like "the top n% of [gender] are fought over by x-y% of [gender]".
As an aside, I really loathe the fact that part of the optimal route for finding romance these days seems to be surrendering oneself to a collection of proprietary/black-box algorithms.
I actually love that online dating is now the optimal method of finding romance. The only reason that wasn't the case before is because we didn't even have that option. You're still free to try the older methods, but online dating is far more efficient in my experience. The dating pool is effectively global and you can be as selective and honest as you want without the awkwardness that comes with dating someone in a close circle of yours.
The way Tinder seems to work for example, the broader an appeal you have, the higher your score. That can really suck for LGBTQ people depending on what gender they're looking for matches with.
An openly bisexual male for example, will be met with a huge score penalty due to all the left swipes from women that he isn't concerned with in the first place. Most could be vastly less attractive, or in some geographies even bigoted. The women he is looking for however, have a lower chance of seeing him because of the score hit. It's perverse incentivization all around.
That this doesn't line up with my expectations makes me question the data. I kinda doubt these ratios are actually representative of the overall population of these cities.
A quick google search turned up this page which claims to be using Census data and shows a fairly even gender ratio (scroll down to view the Population Pyramid): http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/san-francisco-pop...
Maybe the point of the OP's data is to show men that subscription fees may be a poor value if relatively few women are using the platform in their cities.
I haven't bothered with dating for a few years, but my brief experience with Match.com is that you're basically paying them to provide you with a bunch of fake profiles that superficially look higher quality than one might find on OkCupid or Tinder. Even when it came to OkCupid, there was virtually nobody on it, and I was living in a metropolitan area.
My guess would be the gender ratios wouldn't look that different for other sites and apps, though Match.com clearly skews a little older because it's people 25 or older who are going to remember that it even exists.
In the context of the match.com dating app, in these cities, in these age brackets, the gender ratios are as shown. There you go. Meaning!
Women in a city like SF expect more from you, they're not that impressed with money or the fact that you have a stable job. Some look at it as a disadvantage, but is actually an upside. Some men come out of the experience jaded and bitter, blaming "the 49ers" and the ratio. Others take it as an opportunity to step it up and have more to offer to a potential partner. You attract who you are.
Disclaimer: huge generalizations above, take with a pound of salt.
So after all this self improvement, it's so that you can meet women who don't have the same driving forces, and actually have quite the opposite -- they can just choose not to date you because you have a funny haircut or they aren't sure and don't feel like following up. That mismatch of effort is a great way to drive resentment on both sides.
I'm not trying to place blame here. All I'm saying is: if you're a single straight male in the bay area, it's probably just the gender ratio of your social circle and social habits. Don't turn blame inwards towards perceived personality defects. In a different city or different friend group you might get drastically different results
It's a little like entrepreneurship and complaining that your parents aren't millionaires and can't seed fund your first venture, so why even bother.
And the women will ignore you anyway because they only care about someone who is a 9/10 and makes at least $300K+.
Why stack the deck against yourself? If you are a guy looking for a woman, LEAVE THE BAY AREA. Period.
Pick something from here:
The DC area is almost as heavily imbalanced with women as the Bay Area is imbalanced with men.
If you're single in your 20s (and not looking to date a 50-something woman), here's a gender ratio map that takes age and marital status into account: http://jonathansoma.com/singles/
Dating is like anything else, it's a skill. So is knowing how to present yourself, how to be charismatic, how to market yourself, how to be at the right place at the right time. It's a crazy amount of effort, and it takes years, but again, if you want it bad enough, it's doable. It's kind of like fitness, it will take you many years and a serious amount of lifestyle changes and sacrifice to go from overweight to looking like a fitness model, but it's doable if that's what you want.
The Bay is hard, but then you can extend that reasoning to all dating. Why bother dating American women who want you to have your shit together? Buy a mail order bride from a third world country, who will appreciate you for putting a roof over her head. Go with that arbitrage then.
I am glad for your success, but my anecdata contradicts yours.
From my social circle, I can tick off almost a dozen men who had a really rough time dating in the Bay Area. After they left for places with a better gender balance, they did dramatically better. They went from practically no dates to quite a robust social calendar. And, it seems that the quality of the women they were meeting got quite a bit better.
They didn't all magically get smarter, funnier, fitter, etc. simply by moving.