3 ms·

At the individual level, yes, there will probably always be a man outcompeting any woman at the top of a competitive field. But on a population level, the insta

At the individual level, yes, there will probably always be a man outcompeting any woman at the top of a competitive field. But on a population level, the instability [0] of matches where the woman out-earns the man means that the pattern of women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. And foregoing that weaker match has increasingly little apparent downside when you're finding some career satisfaction and materially very comfortable. I think you're referring to the fact that successful marriages are largely becoming a luxury good, but these can both be true for a couple of reasons. First, using education as a proxy for attainment (please give me something better, because I haven't found it) I struggle to find statistics going past four year degrees to really talk about the top or competitive fields, and that isn't sufficient. Second, it seems reasonable to me that the women (and men) excelling professionally would have, on average, better chances of making a marriage work; it may be that a strong correlation between women's propensity for success in career and success in marriage is obscuring a negative effect of outlier-achievement on rates of getting and staying married that is also coming into play. Besides all this, it's consistent with what I encounter in my daily life. [0] https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023 https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023

bumby 5y ago
>women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. I agree with your post but the quote above speaks to my original point further up the thread. The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Other than that, the only other proxy for attainment is income but it’s still the same story
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  >The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Absolutely. The proliferation of two-income families is a huge and well-documented driver of inequality. But the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers that they judge as important. And human men who don't feel like their contributions are important to the family (primary earner, mostly) tend to make their relationships less stable.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers I think this point to what people have an issue with. In many western cultures people are told marriage/mating is based on love, yet more than a trivial amount of what people see is largely based on status. They may not be mutually exclusive, but not weighted in the proportion that is commonly spoken about
    - QuarterReptile 5y ago
      Once again, I am in almost complete agreement; I am the last person to defend popular US American messaging about love and match-making. It is mostly fanciful lies, and telling young people how you wish things were does not prepare them for life.

bumby 5y ago

>women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. I agree with your post but the quote above speaks to my original point further up the thread. The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Other than that, the only other proxy for attainment is income but it’s still the same story

QuarterReptile 5y ago
>The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Absolutely. The proliferation of two-income families is a huge and well-documented driver of inequality. But the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers that they judge as important. And human men who don't feel like their contributions are important to the family (primary earner, mostly) tend to make their relationships less stable.
- bumby 5y ago
  >the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers I think this point to what people have an issue with. In many western cultures people are told marriage/mating is based on love, yet more than a trivial amount of what people see is largely based on status. They may not be mutually exclusive, but not weighted in the proportion that is commonly spoken about
  - QuarterReptile 5y ago
    Once again, I am in almost complete agreement; I am the last person to defend popular US American messaging about love and match-making. It is mostly fanciful lies, and telling young people how you wish things were does not prepare them for life.