Struggling to See the "Man Shortage;" Meeting Women

[Wave Rider]

I'm puzzled by articles like this one about the supposed "man shortage", and this one that says there literally aren't enough men out there, because they're totally different from experience. Rather than feeling like I and my male buddies have all the power in dating because there are so few of us men and so many women, my experience is that just about everywhere I go, I get the sense that men outnumber women significantly, and consequently, the women seem to be the ones who have most of the power in dating game. I realize that this is partially due to the the activities I participate in, like physics, which is about 90% men, and surfing, which is about 90% men. For example, I went to a party for the physics graduate students at my university a few days ago, and I counted 24 men (all college-educated and pursuing advanced degrees), and 4 women. So much for "man shortage" the above articles complain about.

 

But it goes beyond physics and surfing for me. When I go to the general graduate student activities at my university, men still outnumber women by about 60/40. And I went to a public dance hall a few months ago; I would have expected to see a preponderance of women there, but the numbers of men and women were about even.

 

So I am asking the opposite question to the one asked by the women in the above articles: where are all the women? I live in an environment that seems opposite to the one the women in the above articles complain about, because in my world, men outnumber women, so the women are the ones who are acting non-committal, entitled, flaky, and picky. These women seem to know that men are abundant in their world, and that they can do pretty much whatever they want and they'll still have 10 other men approaching them.

 

I feel like I'd have a better chance of meeting women if I went to places where there was a "man shortage" rather than an abundance of men. What places can you recommend to me?

Edited June 12, 2016 by Wave Rider

[carhill]

I feel like I'd have a better chance of meeting women if I went to places where there was a "man shortage" rather than an abundance of men.

While demographic disparities can work in your favor, meaning there are more single women around than men, that excludes an important aspect - perception of attractiveness by those women. Ergo, you, or I, could be surrounded by women and they all find you or I unattractive. Just because there is an excess doesn't imply they will be grasping desperately for any man, increasingly less of such an implication because women are increasingly living independent lives with a man being optional.

What places can you recommend to me?

The census can provide some guidance but IME it takes time and boots on the ground to find a compatible match of demographics, job opportunities, social life, ambiance, etc.

[SwordofFlame]

I believe that there probably is a shortage of college educated, white men, above a certain height, with good careers and whatever standards modern women have. When you hear about the man shortage, it's basically a shortage of men that meet all of these women's standards. I live in NYC and hear the same complaints about the man shortage all the time. It is what it is.

[Jabron1]

When you hear about the man shortage, it's basically a shortage of men that meet all of these women's standards.

 

Yep.

 

It's been proven that women are getting idealized and completely unrealistic standards that are getting ever worse.

 

What places can you recommend to me?

 

Eastern Europe

 

The amount of quality attractive women is insane compared to our standards.

 

You'll still need to bring your game though. There is no such thing as some mythical 'paradise' where you can attract lots of hot women just by showing up.

Edited June 12, 2016 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[carhill]

While Jabron1 makes a good point about international dating, and I spent a couple years in Eastern Europe around ~20 years ago when the demographics were a lot more favorable, today, given the tension in the world and also the interim opportunities and economics applicable to the region, I'd probably advise against such a radical move, except perhaps for a European for whom such choices would be relatively simple and low-cost, presuming they're comfortable with the security aspects.

 

However, if you're up for the adventure, the demographics of Sevastopol, as one example, are quite favorable and also has some decent surfing on the Black Sea.

 

Remember, though, women are women everywhere. No panaceas.

[Buddhist]

so the women are the ones who are acting non-committal, entitled, flaky, and picky. These women seem to know that men are abundant in their world, and that they can do pretty much whatever they want and they'll still have 10 other men approaching them.

 

*Sigh* all of your posts are about how someone's robbed you of your power in the dating game. If it's not your programming it's your environment now. You certainly go to great lengths to decide that it's something you can't change or do anything about.

 

Plenty of advice in this thread already. There's no man shortage anywhere, there is a rising trend of people (both genders) wanting to be perpetually single or only in a relationship with their top choice of partner which explains a lot of lack of interest on both sides. People are no longer compelled to date as a career move, ergo the dating process moves more slowly and everyone's a lot more choosey.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Buddhist

[Wave Rider]

I believe that there probably is a shortage of college educated, white men, above a certain height, with good careers and whatever standards modern women have. When you hear about the man shortage, it's basically a shortage of men that meet all of these women's standards. I live in NYC and hear the same complaints about the man shortage all the time. It is what it is.

 

So yeah, I guess by shortage of men, they mean a shortage of elite men, which is a tautology, because elite men are rare by definition. It is indeed true that only 5% of the male population falls in the top 5%.

 

Eastern Europe

The amount of quality attractive women is insane compared to our standards.

 

I've got four more years on my PhD, so I'm not going anywhere for awhile. And I like it here in CA

 

*Sigh* all of your posts are about how someone's robbed you of your power in the dating game. If it's not your programming it's your environment now. You certainly go to great lengths to decide that it's something you can't change or do anything about.

 

Plenty of advice in this thread already. There's no man shortage anywhere, there is a rising trend of people (both genders) wanting to be perpetually single or only in a relationship with their top choice of partner which explains a lot of lack of interest on both sides. People are no longer compelled to date as a career move, ergo the dating process moves more slowly and everyone's a lot more choosey.

 

Well, that is something to think about. It's true that I have tended to focus on things I can't control when it comes to dating, and I'll have to look at what that means. I get it that people are picky and that I need to up my Game etc., but the point of what I was asking is that, if I am true to myself and focus on the things that I like doing, I will meet very few women because the activities that I enjoy doing are dominated by men at the 90% level. If I work to make sure that I am pleasing no one but myself and if I focus on only making myself happy and if I don't change for anyone else, I will essentially only come in contact with men because my hobbies and interests are predominately male hobbies and interests.

 

So I am looking for ideas of places to go and hobbies to have where more than 10% of the participants will be women. It seems like it would help my chances for meeting women if I had hobbies that were 50-70% women. I'm not sure what hobbies those would be, because even ballroom dance, which I thought would be dominated by women, was still about 50/50 in male/female attendance. So I am looking for places to meet people that are not 90% men, or even 60% men.

[xxoo]

Here's a map for you.

 

Even if it's 50/50, not all men/woman are going to be equally sought after. Be your best you, for you. Reach and push and stretch. As a bonus, women will be more interested in you than the other guys....no matter how plentiful they are.

[Wave Rider]

Here's a map for you.

 

Even if it's 50/50, not all men/woman are going to be equally sought after. Be your best you, for you. Reach and push and stretch. As a bonus, women will be more interested in you than the other guys....no matter how plentiful they are.

 

I like that map, because it fits my experience. Two narratives I've been told have turned out to be wrong: there is no shortage of scientists, and there is no shortage of men. Even when I was a Mormon, I was told on and on about how there aren't enough men in the Church and those poor women have to try to get by all lonely and stuff because there just aren't enough men. But as you can see from the map, Salt Lake City has a surplus of (younger) men, just like the rest of the country. And one of justifications for Mormon polygamy back in the 19th Century was a shortage of men. But guess what? Wrong again! Men outnumbered women in the Church during the time polygamy was practiced.

 

The world is very different place...there is no shortage of scientists, and there is no shortage of men. So that means that if I want a partner, I'm going to have to compete for one. That whole narrative about finding the woman who's my "other half" and we fall in love and support each other and are happy - that's all wrong. Just like finding a job, finding a partner is a competition, although the steps to take are somewhat less clear. I've known about the competitiveness of finding a partner for awhile, but it just seems so ugly. We compete according to external markers of success - wealth, status, looks, credentials - and we're free to leave any time this person no longer suits us. Or we're free to leave for no reason at all.

 

I've taken steps to better myself, but is the economic model really the best way to model relationships? Can love be spoken of in terms of cost-benefit analyses, and does a person's love for me only go so far as my meeting their specifications? Can relationships all be reduced to a set of economic transactions motivated by enlightened self-interest? Can people really be treated as commodities, to be used and disposed of as we see fit? This is what competition means to me, and it seems to be the prevailing way of talking about relationships. But it's unsettling to me.

[TXGuy]

One idea is to go drinking/do activities at a nearby little liberal arts school.

 

Women are 60% of college students. But they are a small fraction of the difficult stem majors. That will put them at around 80% of liberal arts majors. Some nearby liberal arts school will be crawling with women.

[Lady Hamilton]

As a woman, I found it a total turnoff when men acted or expressed a desire to wield some sort of power over the relationship. And you could always tell in relatively short order.

 

And even when it was hard to find a man, that didn't mean my standards changed. As an attractive, educated, and well-spoken woman, while dating I found that men were like buses... If there wasn't one available right away, wait long enough and another one will come by eventually.

 

When I was dating, I had less than zero patience for the game playing that some feel is required in a fledgling relationship. Playing hard to get? Elusive about plans? Conversations built on non-answers? Strategizing to have an upper hand in our dating relationship?

 

Fine, bye. Time for the next bus.

[hasaquestion]

I believe that there probably is a shortage of college educated, white men, above a certain height, with good careers and whatever standards modern women have. When you hear about the man shortage, it's basically a shortage of men that meet all of these women's standards. I live in NYC and hear the same complaints about the man shortage all the time. It is what it is.

 

In my experience, women aren't going to be interested in a dude unless they think he's a special snowflake.

 

The reasons why a man would be perceived to be a special snowflake might be a matter of individual preference, but if women don't find you special they won't be interested. And there will always be a perceived shortage of special, by definition of the word.

 

"Yo, I'm 55th percentile and you're 55th percentile, lets do this" <--- Has never worked before.

 

I think a lot of guys who aren't good at the whole girls thing tend to expect someone who is equally as attractive as them should be attracted to them. But it doesn't really work that way because people want to date up.

 

I hear the man shortage stuff out of my female buddies from college, and I know that there are plenty and they're just holding out for something. And I'm unmarried too so I'd be hypocritical to judge them for it. You have to embrace the "picky" nature of people and play the game.

[JuanDelToro]

OP. Your best chances are in places where most single men don't like to hangout. Art galleries and museums, dance and cooking classes, libraries. At such places you'll find that women significantly outnumber men, are more relaxed and easier to approach and of better quality.

 

I took a pastry cooking class not too long ago with the only two men there myself and the instructor, among 30 women.

[GunslingerRoland]

There are 4 billion men and 4 billion women on this planet, many of them single. There is no man shortage or women shortage even if the numbers aren't perfectly even in all areas and of course not in all social situations.

 

 

What there is for both sexes is a lack of good men and a lack of good women. People generally suck, and are undateable for a variety of reasons. All you can do is make yourself one of the dateable ones and then make yourself visible enough that the dateable women can find you.

[normal person]

What there is for both sexes is a lack of good men and a lack of good women. People generally suck, and are undateable for a variety of reasons. All you can do is make yourself one of the dateable ones and then make yourself visible enough that the dateable women can find you.

 

Good post.

 

In my eyes, it's all Darwinism. Most people are content with mediocrity and therein lies a problem. Most people want to date the best people they can, despite the fact that those people probably don't want to date "down" either. If you want to date the in the upper echelon, you usually have to be part of it yourself, and that often means not settling for mediocrity in your life.

[RecentChange]

So while I don't think your problem is really local demographics (where in CA are you?)...

 

Come north! Santa Cruz has an abundance of women (and surfing, and surfer chicks). I went to UCSC, 53% female.

 

Don't come to Silicon Valley though, we joke about "Man Jose" (instead of San Jose). Thanks to the tech boom, there are a TON of young dudes here. Its crazy, when I go to the local downtown bars, way more dudes then chicks.

 

Stop by a craft beer spot? hahaha male to female ratio must be 80/20.

[Larryville]

I believe that there probably is a shortage of college educated, white men, above a certain height, with good careers and whatever standards modern women have. When you hear about the man shortage, it's basically a shortage of men that meet all of these women's standards.

 

What places can you recommend to me? Eastern Europe - The amount of quality attractive women is insane compared to our standards.

 

It's been proven that women are getting idealized and completely unrealistic standards that are getting ever worse.

 

I said this is a thread some time ago, but I said pick an OLD site, and scroll the women of an appropriate age in your region and cycle quickly go thru 100 or 150 pics and see how many women make you stop and take a closer look. If you do read their profiles and how many of them after reading the profiles make you say wow I’d like to meet her. However before you do that, ask yourself and assume if you stopped pretty much every other dude who saw the same pic would stop too.

 

Finally ask yourself, using your own personal standards, don’t you think that there would be someone relatively near her that would or could meet her standards?

 

A great deal of the women I come across (I’m focusing on OLD BTW) have these high standards when relatively few of them don’t measure up themselves.

Overweight women insisting their man have six pack abs, or broke @$$ women wanting someone with money, or wanting a guy with a nice smile when they have bad teeth.

 

While yes, fewer guys are going to college (Talking U.S.), women are outperforming men in many workplace environment, better educated, men coming out of long term marriages are broke, untrainable, set in their ways but the bottom line is so many people seriously overinflate their own worth and yes far too many women have seriously unrealistic standards that they themselves don’t measure up too.

 

I’m never going to insist on something that someone should (qualities, traits) have or exhibit that I myself can’t bring to the table as well.

 

Having spit out all of this GSR says it best….

 

What there is for both sexes is a lack of good men and a lack of good women. People generally suck, and are undateable for a variety of reasons.

 

Yup

[Weezy1973]

First off, most adults are in relationships. So regardless of demographics, nobody is really struggling to find dates and get into relationships.

 

The problem is with people who think demographics is the problem. The problem is the mindset.

[lana-banana]

I live in one of America's biggest cities and the male-to-female ratio is about 40:60. Among professional individuals with advanced degrees, it's down to 35:65. My single male friends never have much of an issue getting dates. It's just a matter of where you are and how you maximize it.

 

Speaking as a lady I say anywhere in the city is fair game except gyms and abortion clinics. I do not want to be bothered with dudes while I'm trying to beat my deadlifting PRs. Beyond that, go for it. Once I met a guy in a bar and after about 15 minutes we had no sexual chemistry, but we became good friends, and we would hang out with friends and update each other on our romantic (mis)adventures. It never hurts to try.

[dichotomy]

Here's a map for you.

 

 

Wow, so in the 50-59 range - what - all the guys are dying off I guess or finally got married to their second wives?

[GoodOnPaper]

OP, worrying about general population demographics right now is premature. You have locked yourself into an unfavorable environment simply by being male and enrolling in a science PhD program. In the social circles where you will spend at least 95% of your time, there are 6 men for every woman, all those men have your academic credentials and you are at the bottom of the professional totem pole. Speaking from experience - I'm a chemistry PhD - pinning your hopes on finding your soulmate amongst your grad school peers is just setting yourself up for failure.

 

For women in those programs, there is the opposite effect. Their dating possibilities explode wide open -- older grad students, post-docs, professors, and anyone in the outside community within 5-10 years of their age.

 

Focus on getting through your program with the best job or post-doc prospects possible, enjoy your hobbies along the way, and treat any dating/relationship experience you get as a bonus. Once you're out in the real world, then worry about population demographics if you want, and if it's really that important, move to the east coast or the south. At that point, you will be considered a better catch - you and your fellow physics PhDs will be more diluted among the general population and it will be a little easier to stand out.

 

Even with that said, I'd think that you have some things going for you now. I wish that when I was in grad school, I had a hobby 1/10th as cool as surfing - things would have been much smoother socially, I'd think. Also, I imagine that since you are a surfer, that you are physically fit. That has to give you an edge over most of your peers. I'd think that you would get more attention from women if you play up your inner surfer in physics circles while playing up your inner physicist in surfing circles. As you said yourself, it's all about standing out among the competition.

[Wave Rider]

So while I don't think your problem is really local demographics (where in CA are you?)...

Come north! Santa Cruz has an abundance of women (and surfing, and surfer chicks). I went to UCSC, 53% female.

I live in the Los Angeles area, and according to map posted by xxoo, there are slightly more single men here than single women. At least it's not all in my head that there are more single men. I'm working on a PhD, so I'm not going anywhere for awhile, and that water in Santa Cruz is cold. It's true that the majority of college students are women, which should work in my favor, but I don't meet many of them when I spend all my time in the physics department.

 

For women in those programs, there is the opposite effect. Their dating possibilities explode wide open -- older grad students, post-docs, professors, and anyone in the outside community within 5-10 years of their age.

 

This has been hard for me to accept, but I may just find myself outclassed on this one. These graduate student women are pretty highly sought-after: they're skilled and ambitious and intelligent, and since they're in their early 20s, they're at the peak of their attractiveness. So they're peak-value women in lot of ways, whereas I'm still just a student, even if I am getting paid to get a PhD, which I am. Even if I am super smart and super cool and will have a super awesome job someday, these women can date a man who is smart and cool and has an awesome job right now. So yeah, I may be outclassed if I go after the grad student women. That really sucks, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Should I not even bother talking to them?

 

Focus on getting through your program with the best job or post-doc prospects possible, enjoy your hobbies along the way, and treat any dating/relationship experience you get as a bonus. Once you're out in the real world, then worry about population demographics if you want, and if it's really that important, move to the east coast or the south. At that point, you will be considered a better catch - you and your fellow physics PhDs will be more diluted among the general population and it will be a little easier to stand out.

 

This may be true, and again, is very difficult for me. I'm 37 right now, and I'll probably 41 when I graduate. I'm not sure which is more attractive: a 37-year-old physics graduate student, or a 41-year-old physics PhD with a sexy job. It may be true that I might just have to bite the bullet for another four years and wait until I have a PhD and sexy job, at which point my SMV (though I hate that term) might me much higher. But where does that leave me now?

 

Also, I imagine that since you are a surfer, that you are physically fit.

I'm 6 feet tall and 190 pounds. I have quite a bit of athletic skill, but I don't exactly look "chiseled." It's true that getting in a little better shape would help, especially with the surfer image.

 

I'd think that you would get more attention from women if you play up your inner surfer in physics circles while playing up your inner physicist in surfing circles. As you said yourself, it's all about standing out among the competition.

 

This is something I could do, and it might work for me. I could wear surfer shirts and surf paraphernalia and play up that image when I go to physics parties, and I could put a NASA sticker on my surfboard so everyone on the beach knows where I stand on matters of science. That would make me quite unique and would help me to stand out.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Wave Rider

[GoodOnPaper]

Even if I am super smart and super cool and will have a super awesome job someday, these women can date a man who is smart and cool and has an awesome job right now. So yeah, I may be outclassed if I go after the grad student women. That really sucks, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Should I not even bother talking to them?

 

You're right - women don't think much of guys with potential because there are so many guys they could date who are already realizing theirs. That's always been the way of the world but men have sort of forgotten about it because of the last couple of generations. Our parents and grandparents may have married when both partners were young but that's really an anomaly - before that, girls may have married very young but it was to men who had already established their living. 10-15 year age gaps were not that unusual. Even though everyone is now more financially independent, women will still be more interested in men they can look up to - in whatever way the woman defines it - than men who are they consider at their level.

 

As far as talking to your women colleagues, why not? In and of itself, being friendly and getting to know someone is always a good thing. Just temper your expectations, and if you sense that you are "auditioning", being an "orbiter", or experiencing some type of friendzone treatment and it makes you uncomfortable, just back off - go for some wave therapy . . .

 

This may be true, and again, is very difficult for me. I'm 37 right now, and I'll probably 41 when I graduate. I'm not sure which is more attractive: a 37-year-old physics graduate student, or a 41-year-old physics PhD with a sexy job. It may be true that I might just have to bite the bullet for another four years and wait until I have a PhD and sexy job, at which point my SMV (though I hate that term) might me much higher. But where does that leave me now?

 

I know biting the bullet sounds miserable right now, but choosing between being a 37-year-old with a negative/frustrated mindset and a 41-year-old with a more positive one is a no-brainer. The age difference won't affect your prospects, if anything they may improve - as I recall from the map and article, the outlook for single men improves with age plus you will be old enough for the wave of newly-divorced women.

 

You just don't want your frustrations to become depression which leads to a must-take-who-will-have-you mindset. I went down that road and it leads to a lot of regrets.

[Sanman]

Hate to say it, what you are talking will help a bit, but I think you are overestimating the importance of the job (at least one for a physics PhD). Unless you are planning on walking into some multi-six figure gig when you finish, what you make will be of little influence. You are 37 now and will be 41, so most of the women you might date are late 20s to mid 30s. They already have established careers, places to live etc. If you want to meet a woman, the key is to go an try to meet women rather than worrying about what will make you look better in the future. All the stats in the world will not explain chemistry and whether a women like you. Enjoy your life and put yourself in situations where women are present.

[carnelian]

I agree with you because in my long experiences men always outnumbered women by 60--40 or worse. Especially at dances. So women feel they can be as picky and entitled as they want. Even if the numbers were even or women outnumbered men they would still be picky and act like they don't care.

Articles like this are very biased and mean little or nothing.

The only times I have seen more women are at organized outdoor events like hikes. They like organized events, it seems, more than men do.

 

The underlying reasons for this is the feminist movement which pushes the idea that women don't really need men and can do just fine without them.

Writer Maureen Down wrote a whole book "Are Men Necessary?" and another book by another author suggests that men are merely desserts--nice to have but not needed. This is the mentality for over 30 years. "You better meet my standards or forget it" I think blue collar working class type women do not have so many airs and have not been programmed by feminism.

I do not know how the rest of the world's women are like.