I've only ever heard that said in the Bay Area, and I think I would agree...
It’s ridiculous and due to our super woke culture. HN is full of typical shitlib wokeist mainstream nonsense because that’s how most of SV is. It’s also great for capital because it distracts from the real issues.
It gets really odious around here when women are discussed.
HN is very very far from whatever spectre the right currently is labeling "woke"
I think often we don't realize how different our experiences are in dating. There are definitely core shared similarities but there are lots of differences and create different strategies that make us often envy the other. For example, many men will just "swipe right" on everyone and then select after a match because being choosy in the first round may be emotionally draining (as a tiny part gets invested in the "potential" matches that never come). But this strategy is much more uncommon in women.
But dating has always been an asymmetric game. The risk/reward structure is very different for the two players. (E.g. getting date raped as a man is so unlikely that it's rarely heard of. But for a woman it's still unlikely but common enough that there's probably a woman you know that has had it happen -- even if you don't know it has).
You actually made the same implication again just now:
> Men typically have a hard time matching, making it hard for them to find the person they want but also making them feel desperate. On the other hand women don't have a hard time getting a match, but the quality of their matches is low.
This again implies men are not also experiencing low quality matches at similar rates. They are.
That's the point that seems to be being glossed over repeatedly in this thread.
Was this studied?
That's why bringing quality up in a conversation about quantity ratio disparities in the dating market is meaningless.
Quantity is objectively demonstrable. Quality is not (in this case at least). Your quality complaints about a partner are the things someone else would praise about them.
That's why every single response I've made in this thread is towards comments on quality as the equalizer/silencer to quantity complaints. You are proving my point by asking this question, not sure if you realize.
It's just a red herring meant to prevent the conversation from moving in a meaningful direction, meaningful as in it helps both sexes (for example, enforcing M:F ratios in dating apps). Mostly because the meaningful direction probably doesn't benefit (or rather, have as much perceived benefit for) most women as much as a one sided approach.
That's also why the implication that "women are the big winners of dating apps" is important.
Most women don't actually want them to change in favor of both sexes, they only want their own problems addressed. Not realizing that addressing the problem for both sexes would benefit both sexes probably much much more. Yes, I'm implying people mentioning "quality" want a relative gain in value, not a net.
And that's just human nature (see the trickle down economics reference next), if men were the big winners of dating apps, it would be the same.
By focusing on quality (a problem mostly only women experience because you need quantity/volume to have quality issues in the first place), all of the benefit goes to women, and the expectation from there I guess is that the perks "trickle down" to the losing side... Right.
Does this situation sound familiar? Also this has historically proven not to be true and in reality it is not true; I feel quite comfortable saying there are far more men who feel completely disenfranchised from dating than women. Femcels exist, but I'm pretty sure there are way more incels.
Dating apps should improve upon reality... Not exacerbate the existing disparities.
Interestingly enough, the example of a meaningful solution I mentioned before (enforced M:F ratios) would directly impact quality... Imagine an app where you sign up and have to wait for your account to be activated until the ratio of males and females in your area is made even by your acceptance..
That implies that when bad actors are removed their spot is filled... By someone who is presumably not a bad actor (or this repeats until someone who isn't a POS gets in and stays). You would probably also think twice about cat fishing or sending obscene messages to people.
Hair: Young women have great hair. 25% of young men are experiencing moderate-to-extensive male-pattern baldness.
Physique: a woman has a great physique if she is thin ( which they usually are at 18 without additional effort) -- a man who doesn't lift weights has a boy's physique which is usually a demerit -- to get an impressive physique as a man takes real gym time.
Wealth: there's no expectation for a woman to have money. Men without success or prospects of success (eg. grad school) is a demerit.
Its massively imbalanced.
Make-up: makes women look even better if done right, men can't pull off make-up.
Facial hair: sometimes makes men look better, often makes them look worse
Other hair: men grow hair every possible place (eg back-hair) because of testostrone I'm told.
Age: women seem to age better, something about the growth of the male jaw-line. Do young women even find Leonardo Dicaprio attractive anymore? idk.
Thin: women are more dialed into how important being thin is than men, it matters more for them, but at the same time they do a better job with it.
I left one out b/c I'm prudish.
There seems to be this mentality of women towards men of, "the odds are good but the goods are odd", but personally it seems to be like 'quality' of men and women seems to be roughly similar in the general population, if you think in terms of attractiveness, intelligence, personality, career prospects, etc.