So I just found this hamster-driven attempted analysis of why dating in SF sucks for career women: http://whysfreallyisthatbad.com
Wanted to nuke the hamster in the comments but figured too direct would get me banned for trolling. I've pasted it below; there's some dead horse flogging going on but I thought I'd share.
I've long been trying to put together a concise overview of red pill concepts that would be helpful in getting civilians to see the light. This could be a first step.
---
One thing left out of your analysis is
1) that men and women are attracted to different traits in potential partners. Most men don’t care about women’s professional or educational achievements. Women care deeply about men’s achievements since these achievements are a proxy for social status. A socially inept geek devoid of charm is to women what a fat, physically unattractive woman is to a man.
2) Women are hypergamous; that is, they strongly prefer to date up. It is very rare for a woman to be attracted to a man who is less educated or has lower social status than herself. Men will happily marry women of lower status than themselves as long as they are physically attractive and strong on attractive feminine traits like nurturing. So as an accomplished woman you are competing with all of attractive womankind for the top 10% of males in the world. Many of whom, as you rightly noted, are either married or gay.
With these odds in the dating market a single, high status male is spoilt for choice. If you’re a man in his late twenties or in his thirties, kicking ass professionally, charming, socially savvy, reasonably good looking you have your pick of women in their prime (early to late-twenties). You’re a rare commodity – the women you’re able to choose from are not. After all, you mostly care about their looks and feminine charms – not their diplomas or high-powered corporate career. In fact a high powered corporate career or a high partner count (more likely in educated women) is likely to erode the feminine charms that men with wide-ranging options prize.
So a large pool of women ends up having sex with a small pool of the most attractive men. Serious commitment from these men will elude all but the very best looking and grounded women; there is no pressure for a man to commit while safe in the knowledge that he will be in his prime for another ten or twenty years and can have fun dating a glorious variety of women in the meantime. Unfortunately women do not have this luxury.
Women have become more successful than men in getting top qualifications. Consequently they’re pricing themselves out of the dating market. For every step of the ladder women climb, the pool of feasible men they’ll find attractive shrinks; for every step on the ladder a man takes the pool of women that find him attractive grows. It’s especially lonely at the top since women are hard-wired to date up.
The really sad thing is that women are constantly told to ignore these truths, often only realising that they’ve been misled when it’s too late.
Wanted to nuke the hamster in the comments but figured too direct would get me banned for trolling. I've pasted it below; there's some dead horse flogging going on but I thought I'd share.
I've long been trying to put together a concise overview of red pill concepts that would be helpful in getting civilians to see the light. This could be a first step.
---
One thing left out of your analysis is
1) that men and women are attracted to different traits in potential partners. Most men don’t care about women’s professional or educational achievements. Women care deeply about men’s achievements since these achievements are a proxy for social status. A socially inept geek devoid of charm is to women what a fat, physically unattractive woman is to a man.
2) Women are hypergamous; that is, they strongly prefer to date up. It is very rare for a woman to be attracted to a man who is less educated or has lower social status than herself. Men will happily marry women of lower status than themselves as long as they are physically attractive and strong on attractive feminine traits like nurturing. So as an accomplished woman you are competing with all of attractive womankind for the top 10% of males in the world. Many of whom, as you rightly noted, are either married or gay.
With these odds in the dating market a single, high status male is spoilt for choice. If you’re a man in his late twenties or in his thirties, kicking ass professionally, charming, socially savvy, reasonably good looking you have your pick of women in their prime (early to late-twenties). You’re a rare commodity – the women you’re able to choose from are not. After all, you mostly care about their looks and feminine charms – not their diplomas or high-powered corporate career. In fact a high powered corporate career or a high partner count (more likely in educated women) is likely to erode the feminine charms that men with wide-ranging options prize.
So a large pool of women ends up having sex with a small pool of the most attractive men. Serious commitment from these men will elude all but the very best looking and grounded women; there is no pressure for a man to commit while safe in the knowledge that he will be in his prime for another ten or twenty years and can have fun dating a glorious variety of women in the meantime. Unfortunately women do not have this luxury.
Women have become more successful than men in getting top qualifications. Consequently they’re pricing themselves out of the dating market. For every step of the ladder women climb, the pool of feasible men they’ll find attractive shrinks; for every step on the ladder a man takes the pool of women that find him attractive grows. It’s especially lonely at the top since women are hard-wired to date up.
The really sad thing is that women are constantly told to ignore these truths, often only realising that they’ve been misled when it’s too late.
"A flower can not remain in bloom for years, but a garden can be cultivated to bloom throughout seasons and years." - xsplat
