I can get my own Playboy boy? Damn, I really do need to get out more. Too bad I have this steady job, it really cuts down on the time I can spend rubberneckin’ at the pool house.
But truly, unemployment/underemployment is an issue that affects a guy’s dateability, from my perspective. I will never date a guy who’s unemployed or lives with his parents. If it means I’m single forever, I can live with that. If my lame, uneducated ass can get a job and support the rest of me, then his ass can too. 
Also, that article is approaching epic length, but doesn’t have anything approaching epic content. My comments are ruminations based solely on the snippet you posted.
The entire article seems to revolve around (from what I can tell) perceived failures of men as the cause of this issue of life long female singlehood. Either men are not good enough for lacking proper employment and status, or if they do and there is a gender imbalance then they will not be commitment oriented.
Granted I only read it once, but that seemed to be the jist of it. And there was no real mention of the other side of the coin, men who choose to remain single for their own reasons (not finding the crop of available women to be ones they’d like a long term commitment with).
It was good, but I’d like to read an article from a male POV on the same issue to see what he says about it.
I don’t think the problem is so much that the men are lower quality (after all, plenty of patriarchal cultures have high unemployment and lots of cheating) as much as that women are able to ask for more. For many women, marriage does not serve them well. I agree, it’s time to start thinking about new paradigms.
first liberals promise to improve an institution, let’s say marriage, to make it more just, socially responsible and similar. After awhile under liberal rule the institution in question finds itself on the brink of collapse. Then liberal media announces that, hey, the institution in question is of no use anyway. Marriage is such an outdated relic of the first several thousands years of human history. Time to move on. Let’s reform some other basic human institution out of existence.
I wonder when President you-know-who makes a similar announcement about the Constitution and the institution of legislative checks on the executive. After all, why be so hidebound by tradition. Time to move on into the brave new world of liberalism, now with 20% more social justice.
I do think that some women have decided that now that they can afford their own way in life, marriage just isn’t worth it anymore.
In other cases, I do think women have unreasonable expectations. I am a female physician, and I’ve seen how some women in high powered careers like physicians think they are “owed” a guy who is also in a high esteem career and will refuse to date guys who don’t make as much or more money.
Myself, I actually never really sought to date male physicians because I didn’t want to be with a guy where there would be conflict about whose career comes first (plus the issue that even the most jerkish or homely male doctor still has women going nuts over him because of this perception that it’s prestigious to be a “doctor’s wife”, which I feel raises the risk of cheating all other things being equal). I ended up finding a guy who was what I wanted in the ways that I think matter most (personality, intelligence, etc.) but had been overlooked by other women because he didn’t have a very good career or very much money.
Sure, more money is always NICE, but is it really necessary for a relationship? I don’t think it is.
I think some women think it’s essential because they see other women place a lot of importance on it and it becomes a self-perpetuating thing: “Wow, if everyone wants it, this must be something really important so I want it too”.
Being single is not really that bad, but it is kind of sad when someone who wants a family misses out on it because they reject decent guys over superficial things like money (I also think this is an issue for other qualities like how some women refuse to consider a guy who is any less than six feet tall). In the end, I think my guy will be a good dad and he’s been there for me during the low points in my career. That’s worth more to me than being able to tell others that he has a prestigious career.
I don’t think that the institution of marriage is on the brink of collapse. Why is it so bad that less people are getting married?
Regardless of whether it’s about to collapse or not, it’s ok to reform basic human institutions out of existence. Slavery was a basic human institution that liberals got rid of. Do you think that was a bad idea?
What has the President done that makes you afraid of him removing legislative checks on the executive?
I agree! If something has been a part of society for a long time, it must be good forever. Now, let’s all go back to our farms, pop out a dozen kids and go back to the good old fashioned non-representative governments that have served us for the first several thousand years of human history. After all, the life of a miserable sustenance farmer was good enough to get us from ancient Sumaria to the mid 19th century, where do we get off trying to change such a basic human institution!
I have subscribed to this magazine for something like 25 years and this article is probably the final straw for me and The Atlantic. Another vanity feature about how the poor author can’t find a man that is good enough for her along with a bunch of anecdotes and references to popular culture. When I got to the second reference to one of the “gorgeous” friends who couldn’t find traditional romance I couldn’t read any more. And this isn’t anywhere near the first time The Atlantic has covered the same ground. If I want to read anecdotes about the difficulties of being a beautiful, strong and successful women in America I could read Cosmo, or maybe Tiger Beat. It’s not that I disagree with the article or think the subject is unimportant. It is that The Atlantic has keeps retreading the same tired social issues with very little new material.
I’m guessing you are a guy, right? And probably married?
I agree that it’s not an exceptionally insightful or well-written article, but you probably are not the target audience of this particular piece. Think for a moment about how most women view the sports piece. Sometimes stuff seems irrelevant to you, but a good chunk of the Atlantic’s readers are single women in their 30s, and this subject is extremely relevant to them. Cosmo is an utterly worthless advertisement machine, and Tiger Beat is a pre-teen picture magazine. Why would you think intelligent people would want to go there for discussion of one of the more important things in life?
The article sounds a little too much like it’s trying too hard to convince us how awesome it is being “single and fabulous”.
One of the problems, IMHO, women have grown up being fed this “Princess” mythology, reading Cosmo and watching Sex And The City. They have built up this expectation in their mind of sipping martinis in the hotest bars and clubs while dating all sorts of interesting men until some handsome, rich guy sweeps them off their feet. When a woman says “something is missing”, that’s usually what they mean.
Ironically, the men who have the traits these women are looking for tend to be the type of men who aren’t particularly interested in settling down. And keep this in mind - he’s probably going to keep getting wealthier while your looks ain’t getting any prettier.
I’ve read several but I don’t have the links handy. But basically the gist is as a man, we don’t NEED to be married. We make our own money, just as we always have. We don’t need to be married to have sex. And a lot of guys just aren’t interested in being tied down to the same woman forever. And we have less of a biological imperative to do so.
Clearly being single is better than being locked in for life into a loveless or abusive marriage. But I think given the option most people would like to be in a long-term relationship with someone they cared about and who cared about them.
Why is it that all conservatives want to take us back to a magical time in 1950 when a woman’s place was in the home, gays stayed in the closet and Negros knew their place?
Income and height aren’t comparable: general income – or, at least, income potential – is controllable, and having a low income is even sometimes a choice (e.g., folks who work at nonprofits), but height is not.
A guy who makes half of what I do might be a perfectly fine partner in every other regard, but what’s wrong with preferring to date someone with more-or-less the same amount of disposable income? Likewise, I think it would be awkward to date someone who makes twice as much as I do: there’d be an inequality built into the relationship right from the start. Which isn’t to say that relationships with significant income disparities can’t ever work, just that I understand an inclination to prefer men whose income is no more/less than a certain amount (relative to your own salary).
I think this is more than a bit of a stereotype. My friends are smack in this demographic- late 20s/early 30s career oriented single women in a big city. Maybe I hang out with a particularly level headed crowd, but none of them are like this.
Let’s see…there is me. I’m 30, have been travelling too much to maintain a long term relationships. I’m unsure if I want kids or not, and leaning towards keeping up the vagabond life rather than settling down (which has never really held much interest for me.) I like the concept of having a family, and it’d be great to have someone to grow old with. But I just don’t see how it can all fit in. I’ve been dating in a rather systematic way using OKCupid, and some of these may have staying power, but in the end I’m not really sure what I’m going to get out of it. Hell, I might leave town at any moment. So I guess I’m figuring that if I meet the right guy, it’ll happen. If I don’t, I might have a kid on my own. Or I might not.
Mary is 28, and hates any and all commitment. Even close friends make her nervous about having too many expectations. She lives light- she owns almost nothing, saves all her money, and travels frequently. For sex, she has a few booty calls she keeps lined up, but they are never allowed to stay over night. She seems comfortable with this. I think settling down with a man would be on her radar, but she doesn’t have the stomach for the parts in between.
Jane is 28, and is just having too much fun. She spends every evening out at nice restaurants, watching movies, going to MeetUp groups, and having an absolute ball with her life. Now and then she dates someone for a bit, but it’s generally not her priority. She’s on a bit more of a man hunt than most of my friends, and is definitely marriage-minded. But she hasn’t really done much to make that happen.
Belle is 27, and very much still in party mode. She’s just not interested right now. She picks up a lover now and then, but would usually rather be out with her friends. She also travels a lot, and it’s hard to get through the early stages of a relationship when you are gone two weeks out of every month.
The pattern we see here are not spoiled princesses flipping through Cosmo, waiting fruitlessly for their prince to come. Rather, it’s women doing what men have always done- being nervous about commitment, not wanting to stop partying, being ambivalent about having kids, prioritizing people with whom they are attracted to over people who would make good spouses, and fulfilling their sexual needs via short-term low-commitment relationships.
FWIW, 0% of the women I know consider “rich” to be especially important. I think most are interested in physical attraction, intellectual attraction, and if he is interested in long term relationships. We earn our own money now, and as long as the guy we are dating is able to support himself and isn’t going to be lowering our own standard of living, I think most women in this demographic are fine with that. Hell, I’d love a stay-at-home-husband who could watch the kids, and if I could afford it, that would be my ideal situation.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that “personal responsibility” types blame liberals for everything?
Carrie
Samantha
Charlotte
Miranda
I think that’s definitely a factor; many “high powered” women have the attitude that not only does their potential man have to have as much of a job and income as they do, but also be taller, good looking, etc… not to mention whatever personal baggage that they bring to the party.
Men typically don’t have that issue; I know plenty of “high powered” men whose wives aren’t as career oriented, or even particularly attractive.
I think the comment about women “prioritizing people with whom they are attracted to over people who would make good spouses” is very true as well.
With men, there’s not the same fertility/looks window that women have to deal with, and women who play the field aren’t always aware of that until after that window has passed, and then have bad luck finding marriage minded men after that.
I don’t care if it’s cliche, this is the thread winner right here.
I think there’s a lot more out there than simply the two extremes, deadbeats vs. playboys. But that view has a lot to do with attitude. My attitude. A couple years ago, I read Self Made Man, a story about this woman who went into drag and lived as a man for a year and a half just to try to see how the other gender thinks. That book really opened my eyes to the expectations and pressures that women put on men and with that perspective, I really changed how I approached dating after that.
Because I’m one of those strong, smart, independent single-and-fabulous women who owns her own home, has a good steady job with a good income. I don’t need a man to kill spiders, reach the tall stuff, or move heavy objects for me. I can either do for myself or hire someone. I don’t need a man to supplement my income and/or provide a retirement plan. I don’t need to be married to get sex, love, affection, or intimacy.
But I was still looking at men as if they had to fit some sort of checklist of all the qualities I thought they should have. And I don’t mean physical traits; more like “Does he have a job? Is it delivering pizzas?” I’m not concerned about dating broke guys or pizza delivery guys, but I am not going to take care of myself and a guy too. I do not expect a man to take care of me, so I’m not going to do it for him. I expect a man to take care of himself. By the same token, I’m not interested in marriage and children myself, so I’m definitely not interested in any marriage-minded men at all.
My concerns now are – rather than what he can do for me – more oriented toward, “What kind of woman am I? Do I have all the traits and qualities that make me a good partner? Am I giving as much to this relationship as he is – not more, not less, but as much? Is he getting as much out of this as I am? What can I do to show him I care without trying to run his life, tell him how to be, and not expect him to take care of my shit in my life?” Instead of looking at men in terms of what I can get from them, I started looking at men in terms of what I can give to them (without being taken advantage of by a guy who wants another momma to take care of him and solve his problems for him, or supplement his income). If it’s not fairly evenly matched, then that’s not going to work.
I see a lot of women on the hunt for a man because they think they can’t take their own car in to the shop, so they want a man to do that sort of thing for them. This is a major turnoff for my current BF. I never ask him to do anything for me that I can do for myself. He will even offer to help me, but if I can take care of it on my own, I save his kind offer for something I actually need help with. And that totally works both ways. I’ve gone from one co-dependent relationship to another until I finally figured this out and now it’s a healthy mutually supportive relationship, but we both respect each other’s independence. I don’t care what he makes (or what he drives, or where he lives) as long as he can pay his own bills and doesn’t have to borrow from me. Because I’m not going to suck off him; I can pay my own bills without borrowing from him. He deserves every shred of respect that he gives me.
Right you are. I am a married guy. My point isn’t that The Atlantic shouldn’t have articles that appeal to women, it is that they are stuck in a rut with these anecdotal style stories that seem to have no other purpose than for the author to sound off about how she and her fabulous friends aren’t getting all the stuff they want. If you think that a story about college sports is only for guys then you must understand that a story, and not the first one in the magazine either, about a single women and her adventures in dating might not seem that insightful or useful to a male reader. Frankly, I can’t understand how women would find the article useful either, unless they happen to as fabulous as the author’s friends.
Cosmo has these exact same type of headlines except that this story is much longer. I don’t think it is an unfair comparison. Tiger Beat may have been a little unfair but The Atlantic has been pissing me off for a while and just the cover of this one made me go, “Cripes, not another ‘Women are like this and men are like that’ feature article.”
Standard DC life strategy (for women):
Graduate college, enjoy being a yuppie in a city. Grow ever more self-involved until mid-30s, when friends start getting married and having kids. Feel abandoned and lonely, settle down with attractive self-involved yuppie male, have first child at the age of 42. Move to Montgomery county. Be old lady at the playground drinking Starbucks while avoiding eye contact with the Mexican nannies. Raise 1.7 children in absolute sterility. Watch grandchildren be born when you’re 85.
(Yes, I’m being a judgmental prick)