The more successful a women is in her career, the fewer dating options she has. The opposite is true for men.

Another issue is that college educated women do not prefer to marry non college educated men. This is a problem because there are way more women in college than men.

The best place to be for successful women to find a mate is Silicon Valley where the gender ratio is so messed up. There is a joke that women in the Bay Area have a “49er attitude”. A 4 who thinks she is a 9 because of the abundance of successful and intelligent men.

> The more successful a women is in her career, the fewer dating options she has.

This is a result of their own sky-high standards and unwillingness to date/marry down. The same is not true for a man.

> There is a joke that women in the Bay Area have a “49er attitude”. A 4 who thinks she is a 9 because of the abundance of successful and intelligent men.

Isn't this also true nationwide due to dating apps, skewing the perception of successful and attractive men on the apps as the new "average" ?

> This is a result of their own sky-high standards and unwillingness to date/marry down. The same is not true for a man.

That's a very reductive take.

While I'm sure this is sometimes the case, is it inconceivable that it's also hard for women to fulfill their socially prescribed womanly duties while also being a high performer in their careers, and they have to choose between picking from a limited dating pool of partners who don't have traditional expectations, or a relationship which becomes punctuated by conflict over their unwillingness to take on duties expected of them?

Whereas a traditional relationship is centered around men as the primary (or sole) breadwinner, and the family structures revolve around catering to their domestic needs while they make the domestic/familial/social sacrifices in order to climb the career ladder, so (while I'm not denying it's also a frequent source of conflict) it's easier for high-achieving men to find partners who will accept the status quo and take on supporting roles

You seem to misunderstand what is meant by "dating down" and the refusal of women to do so. It's not a problem of philosophical compatibility and non traditional roles.

If I like fast cars and I'll I've ever been exposed to is your average beater, then it wouldn't take that much to excite me. A sporty commuter might even do it.

But if I've been consistently exposed to supercars, or if I even own one myself, then it will take a much more impressive vehicle to excite me.

Fundamentally, I'm still attracted to the same thing regardless of my situation: fast cars..but one scenario leaves me wanting a lot more than the other.

No, I think it's just necessary. Most couples want kids. That means the man needs to be able to support her lifestyle in the 9 months where she shouldn't work.

>Isn't this also true nationwide due to dating apps, skewing the perception of successful and attractive men on the apps as the new "average" ?

It's true on dating apps but those women come back to Earth as soon as they turn off Tinder. In Bay Area, women don't come back to Earth. Tinder or not.

PS. I'm not bashing Bay Area women. It's how it is. I think more Silicon Valley men should move to New York and more New York women should move to Silicon Valley. Both sides will be happier.