TL;DR Vice reporter realises the devastating impact the decreasing number educated/quality men will have on women's happiness. We discover that low value (smv) men are invisible to women, before heading back to the gym for more gains.
Women don't date down. This is a groundbreaking development - also scientists discover the sun actually rises in the East... more in our news at 7.
Let's stop feigning surprise. A Vice reporter is horrified that beautiful, intelligent, driven woman who—like Katherine Heigl in every rom-com—can't find a decent date. This is horrible! Hang on to your seats, because it gets worse:
Every guy she goes out with is an asshole; she consistently dates "below" her league, and she's on the verge of giving up on a committed relationship altogether.
Fortunately she finds someone with the balls to crunch actual numbers, only to find a sobering conclusion:
There simply aren't enough college-educated men to go around. For every four college-educated women in my generation, there are three college-educated men. The result? What
Birger (redacted) calls a "musical chairs" of the heart: As the men pair off with partners, unpartnered straight women are left with fewer and fewer options—and millions of them are eventually left with no options at all.
Let's breakdown some of this research:
The Department of Education projects that by the class of 2023, there will be 47 percent more women than men [graduating from college]. That's three women for every two men, essentially. Obviously, none of this would matter if we were all a little more open-minded about who we are willing to date and marry.
Did you see that? Even though more women are finishing college, We should still be more open minded guys! It's still our fault! We should apologise if we don't finish college because who would these women marry? Michael?
The reporter is self-aware enough to hit the nail on the head, yet overshoots later in the article:
"Being unwilling to consider working-class guys affects women in ways that it doesn't affect men. It's totally unfair, and I get that."
Her insight continues in the form of a Hyper.Actuating.Mental.Sytem.Transiently.rationalizing.Everything.Readily or what trp simply refers to as a Hamster:
It feels that the smarter you are as a woman, the smaller your dating pool is, because women seem less likely to date men less intelligent than themselves.
Oddly the Hamster produces accurate results. There must be a blue moon outside your window or something.
The statistician then conveniently strays into white knight territory, resting the blame for women's unhappiness on men's shoulders as per usual
It's not just women, both men and women are unlikely to date and marry across those lines. It just doesn't matter for the men because the pool of educated women is so vast that their own classism doesn't really punish them. But being unwilling to consider working-class guys affects women in ways that it doesn't affect men. It's totally unfair, and I get that, but it's not like only the women are choosy and the men are all open-minded.
Far and away, the best dating market in the country for women is Silicon Valley, San Jose, San Francisco. Even with the gay population
Odd how men describe that place as a sausage fest while women discover although the men there are rich, successful, good-looking, tall men who throw money around but lack style or interest in their dates cause they are totes obsessed with their gadgets, omg Becky.
Even the statistician gives her a coded warning about betas
I'm making a quantitative argument not a qualitative argument. I don't know if these [tech] guys are good guys or whether—I don't know if they can carry on a conversation or not.
I'm just telling you by the numbers I think they're less likely to act like dickheads because they don't have the same kind of leverage.
The hamster goes on a rampage:
And my argument is that the old discrimination [against women] obscured a fundamental biological truth: Girls' brains mature at a faster rate than boys' brains, girls mature [faster] socially and intellectually. They're about a year ahead of boys. When it comes to actual schoolwork, girls do their homework better, girls are more organized, they're less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, they don't get put in jail [at the same rates]. So I think girls have a developmental advantage when it comes to college preparation.
Let's have a moment of silence for the man who mistakenly reverses the genders in that phrase then reads it out loud. For the rest of you, this should read - After centuries/millenia girls mature faster mentally, giving them a developmental advantage when it comes to family court and divorce proceedings. FTFY. There is no point arguing here, because like all women, she HATES shirtless pics.
The indoctrination continues, yet the market is correcting itself. The man who has Game, Lifts and improves is already shooting fish in a barrel. Be that man. Not one commenting on the Vice article that spawned this post.
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM TO FIX.
Couldn't spell hamster properly. Clearly OP has never been to college.