I don't plan to make this a long post because it's centered on two short articles dealing with the issue of the apparently lack of good men. As such I'll try to just plop down some lines that are central to this theme and avoid making some snarky comment on every sentence in each of these, which I could easily do. Included in one of these articles is a literal scientific study done as a sociological analysis of this lack of marriageable men, and as I have a scientific background this is something I'll read and post about here sometime in the future.

First article: https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects/

There’s a devastating shortage of men who have their act together, according to a new study that may not be so surprising to all the single ladies out there. Research now suggests that the reason for recent years’ decline in the marriage rate could have something to do with the lack of “economically attractive” male spouses who can bring home the bacon, according to the paper published Wednesday in the Journal of Family and Marriage.

As I said, I'll pry my way through this scientific submission at a later date, but notice here how in this article this is literally the first sentence and they've already shifted the burden of this problem onto the men. Supply and demand doesn't matter here; if there are too many eligible bachelors, ladies have their pick of the litter and high standards. If there aren't enough, those standards don't budge, and said ladies complain that it's men's fault for not measuring up to those standards and they need to work harder at it. Never is there any mainstream criticism of women not measuring up to a minimum standard, and any time a user's post or comment broaches this subject it's immediately shot down in screaming accusations of sexism and bigotry.

“Most American women hope to marry, but current shortages of marriageable men — men with a stable job and a good income — make this increasingly difficult,” says lead author Daniel Lichter in a press release.

Most men have a stable job. The catch here is the "good income" bit, which translates into ladyspeak as "at least as much if not more than I make."

To investigate the man drought, researchers created profiles of potential husbands, based on real husbands as logged in American Community Survey data. They then compared these hypothetical spouses with actual unmarried men. They found that a woman’s made-up hubby makes 58 percent more money than the current lineup of eligible bachelors.

So they took stats of married men, averaged them, and compared those averages to the ones of the unmarried men. The conclusion the article draws from is this:

“This study reveals large deficits in the supply of potential male spouses,” the study concludes. “Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors’,” Lichter says.

Women don't have high standards for men for marriage, no, it's that men are lazy now and don't "bring anything to the table." Women wanted to compete with men, they complained that it was patriarchal that a man expected to be the breadwinner for his family, then they complain that they can't find "good men" who make more than they do.

Take note of the above: they compared married men to unmarried men. They didn't compare unmarried men to unmarried women. The article doesn't include any age discrepancies that would make a huge difference, it's reductionist to the point of "men make shit money now and aren't marriageable." Notice that this reduces men to a single factor and highlights that women look to men for resources, even if they're already resource-rich. Could you perform this exact same study for women? No. Why? Because their value comes from physical appearance and fertility. In this article men are reduced to the value of their annual income. A "potential male spouse" is only as good as his paycheck. Adding insult to injury, the question is raised of how many of these women have the jobs that they do due to quota-hiring and whether their position is a "make-work" job that involves little importance, yet are well compensated for them anyway.

Some ladies are even starting to date down in order to score a forever partner. And sure, there’s the whole “love” factor in a marriage. But, in the end, “it also is fundamentally an economic transaction,” says Lichter.

Uh huh. Again, no standards or requirements for the ladies, we can't have that. Men? You need to be X Y and Z. She's bringing her love of laughter and travel to the table, but you're going to need to bring more than your love of woodcrafting, solid circle of friends, and moderate paycheck if you hope to have a shot with that.

Second article from four years back: https://nypost.com/2016/06/01/the-solution-to-nycs-man-drought-date-down/

Before I get to this though, click that link for a second and take a look at the first image of the poster children they decided on for this story. I submit this without comment.

“We get it all the time, so we’re used to it,” explains the 31-year-old Long Island attorney — who asked that her last name be withheld for professional reasons — about the occupation of her husband, Jason. “But it’s a little annoying that people stereotype so much about career choice. My husband is successful, driven and a devoted dad. What more could I want?” Andrea is hardly the only woman in the Big Apple finding herself “dating down” — or engaging in a relationship with a man from a lower educational or social class

If you got whiplash from that, I don't blame you. Read it again. The article is quoting a woman who bemoans people stereotyping potential mates based on their career, and literally the sentence after this is calling this woman's selection "dating down." Because he's an electrician and she's a lawyer (uh, by the way, electricians can make very, very good money, just so you know).

Manhattan alone has 38 percent more young, college-educated women than it does similar men, forcing ladies to consider potential mates they may have otherwise overlooked.

And as I mentioned before this tells you nothing. College-educated no longer means "intelligent." It no longer means "well rounded" or "skillset with real world application." It doesn't indicate "driven" either.

“I’d had a boyfriend in college who was perfect on paper,” she says. “We both were going to be attorneys. But he had a drug problem, and I knew deep down, he wasn’t right.”

Sorry to tell you Jason, I smell an alpha widow. Which is a bit surprising to me, going back to that image, but hey, crazy shit happens.

Taryn Burke, a 28-year-old Brooklyn-based research scientist with a master’s degree, is engaged to a Long Island barbershop owner. “I always tended to go for the ‘man’s man,’ which I just wasn’t finding at college,” says Burke, who’s been with her fiancé for nearly seven years since they met at a barbershop. “I also think the fact we have different professional backgrounds is a huge advantage. If I had settled down with a doctor or fellow scientist, I’m sure there would be some competition. But with my fiancé, I feel I can relax. I’m a pretty strict, Type A person at work, but I feel I can just turn that off at home,” she explains.

Doesn't take a genius to read between the lines there. She settled for a pushover, which is particularly amusing considering she's implying her husband is a man's man. Also, doctor or scientist would be competition at home? I went to one of the best science universities in the nation, there are betas everywhere. Why is this woman conflating career choice with alpha behavior (again, ironic)? Her complaint is one that most "man's men" feel: they get enough stress and burden of performance doing their jobs and running errands that need to get done, they don't want to come home and be concerned about playing the game with their wives to make certain she doesn't lose attraction or fidelity for him. But that's reality, even when married you can't stop playing the game; the game doesn't just end. That's another topic, however.

So this woman "dated down" and got engaged to a barber who is somehow a man's man but doesn't compete with his wife-to-be at home and lets her strict take-charge personality rule the day. We have so little information about this guy and yet these details all spell out "unattractive" from a conventional female sexual selection standpoint, so you know there's something else going on here.

“Here’s the thing: I have student-loan debt, which my husband doesn’t have. He’s doing really well, financewise. I think there’s a common misconception that ‘lack of a degree’ means ‘lack of income,’ which isn’t the case,” says Andrea.

Oh.

“We fell in love instantly, but my grandmother thinks we’re insane,” says McGuiness, who lives in Los Angeles with Karabatos and their 15-month-old daughter. “While we do sometimes fight about finances, at the end of the day, I’m really glad to be the primary breadwinner. I like being in control, calling the shots and deciding what color the dining room should be painted. Would I have that control if I were married to a corporate attorney? I don’t think so.”

Okay...so what I'm seeing here is the article apparently trying to cherrypick exceptions to the rule and showcase women who may or may not be control freaks selecting a guy who clearly isn't going to give them any pushback. Now sure, this makes sense from a logical standpoint: you can't have a relationship without one of the two people more or less in control or taking the lead. But women leading in a relationship we know is unattractive to them by nature, and pushover guys are an absolute turnoff. Even if the guy is a rich 11/10 model, if he's got beta behavior, any woman with him will lose respect for him in time.

So far I'm not seeing these women "dating down" due to a dearth of eligible men, it looks like they're making a decision based on his superior finances or unwillingness to stand against her. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like they're absolutely settling, but it doesn't sound like lack of options was the driving force behind this.

“I want to date men of a higher rank than me,” adds Lynda Valanzano, a 35-year-old divorced marketing strategist from Staten Island. “They should be a [chief officer] or business owner. I’m a director — my job is demanding, and men who don’t understand that find it intimidating.” Valanzano feels like sticking to these standards — even if it means remaining single indefinitely — will only lay the groundwork for a rock-solid relationship in the future. “I find it very hard to meet a man who meets my criteria,” she admits. “I feel like the ones who do are playboys and aren’t ready to settle down. Honestly, as much as we’ve broken gender stereotypes in the workplace, not much has changed at home. I think most men want to feel like they are a breadwinner.”

Alright, so it's a standard woman right here. Not much I need to say here that aren't thoughts already echoing in your brains, although I do have a wry smile from reading "playboys" and "thirty five." Keep in mind, this was four years ago...you think someone got the bad news through to the hamster yet, or did she settle like all the other case studies?

Also have you noticed that the "women have to settle because men don't make tons of money" narrative from the first article hasn't really popped up here? I don't see any of these women settling for guys who just have "okay" paychecks. They all own their own businesses or are in a business that makes appreciable amounts.

Karabatos agrees. “I think my wife was brought up thinking she should marry Mr. Right, but she chose me because I have an adventurous, free spirit, which was really attractive to her,” he says. “And these ‘perfect’ men lose sight of the most basic fundamental things to our human experience, of enjoying life and actually connecting to people.”

She was 37 when you got her pregnant, buddy. The wall had passed years earlier, you were her emotional tampon and she knew you wouldn't give pushback in a relationship. "Those perfect guys just can't enjoy life and connect to people" is a beta cope to try and justify why you're superior to Chad and you finally got his leftovers over a decade and a half later once the woman of your dreams ultimately had the veil pulled back from her eyes to see how great you truly were all along. In truth, those perfect Chads spinning plates can connect with people just fine, and that's partly how they spin plates; they simply have options and an abundance mindset, so they can choose who to connect with, while women like your wife kept going back to them hoping to be chosen.

Sorry, I'm getting off track here. I'll finish my commentary here but leave this last nugget for the rest of you:

Still, some are unwilling to bend. Former Jersey City, NJ, research scientist Erica, 28, was married to a guy who hadn’t graduated from college, and the union ended disastrously. Erica, who withheld her last name for personal reasons, regrets her choice to “marry down” entirely. Says Erica: “I want an equal partner, not one I have to support. I feel when you have different career levels, there’s inherently an imbalance in expectations. Ever since that relationship ended, I would never consider dating or marrying below my education level again.”

edit: also if you've made it this far, have an Elon Musk red pill comment as your chuckle for the day http://archive.is/9DB4x