> It's true the male/female ratios are worse

The fact that there are way more men than women in the Bay is a statistical reality, which you admit yourself.

Then you bring an opinion blog-post by a single woman as counter-evidence.

Ironically, all these complaints about "guys there that have a disgusting sense of entitlement" just go to show how picky she is, and can afford to be, in San Francisco.

Nothing in GP's post exhibits an arrogant attitude. He makes the simple observation, that the sort of guys who would be considered attractive and desirable in most other locations, are struggling to get dates in the Bay. This is easily explained by the high male/female ratio, which we already established as a fact.

Given this fact, no amount of hand-wringing will help: if there are far more single men then women, then the women would set a very high bar, and the men below that bar would have to remain single.

There are simply not enough women for all the single men in the Bay. No spectacular feats of mental gymnastics, nor nice-sounding dating tips, nor seeking to blame men for being "arrogant", will get around this reality.

As a final anecdote, I did know women who dated executives and VCs in the Bay. Some of these guys had mammoth egos. Curiously, that didn't prevent them from having far better dating lives than any engineer I knew.

> guys who would be considered attractive and desirable in most other locations

Your conception of what women are looking for in a man might not hew as closely to reality as you think.

You write like "what women are looking for in a man" is some absolute thing, but it is decidedly not! It is highly context-dependent. As an extreme example, there are some places on Earth where simply not being an alcoholic can make you a desirable mate.

Actually, it was the parent post that created the context I was responding in. I totally agree with you.

Hey, don't talk about my home country like that! :)

Exactly. A lot of the single women I know moved here for pretty specific reasons. Maybe he's right that these poor, poor men are exactly what women want in Ottumwa, Iowa, although I doubt it. But I'm quite sure that many of the people who live in the Bay Area are here precisely because they want something different than what they could get elsewhere.

Everyone, literally, is looking for different things. Most ppl try to extrapolate from their personal preference to the whole population, and think their place is somehow unique, but that’s wrong. And, barring extreme inbalances in gender ratio, most people eventually find their match.

In this thread, all people are talking about dating, but looking for a life partner and looking for one night stand are very different things. All genders and sexual orientations look for different things in those two scenarios. A person who would easily find an awesome life partner would have a lot of trouble finding casual sex, and vice versa.

...and might explain some elements of the conclusions.

I think you missed Ps point completely. It was that if the ratios are off, the lower side has more of a supply.

What specifically each individual is looking for doesn't matter. It's supply and demand.

I don't think that's a counterpoint to the comment you responded to in any way at all.

this right here: "Your conception of what women are looking for in a man might not hew as closely to reality as you think."

I'm shocked at the responses to this comment. It is delusional to claim that if all men collectively work harder, they can succeed in one of the most male skewed metros in the United States. This isn't some oil field in North Dakota either, most of the surplus men here are high earning and well educated.

There is a lot of data showing that even with a balanced gender ratio, women are much more selective picking partners than men are. This is for obvious evolutionary reasons. Now, take that and add in a 50% male surplus, and you have a city where most women openly say they only date 6/6'1+ and high earners. This can be verified on practically any dating app with a few hours of data.

> As a final anecdote, I did know women who dated executives and VCs in the Bay. Some of these guys had mammoth egos. Curiously, that didn't prevent them from having far better dating lives than any engineer I knew.

Dating != relationship. Women can have fun too, just dating, and sometimes they are the ones using you just because your ego doesn’t allow you to see it.

>Ironically, all these complaints about "guys there that have a disgusting sense of entitlement" just go to show how picky she is, and can afford to be, in San Francisco

It’s not a matter of being picky. It’s a matter of self respect.

One person's "self-respect" is another's "disgusting sense of entitlement". That's just the way it is.

I am woman, living in area with equal amount of males and females. Being clean and able to be respectful in basic causual communication is pretty standard here. So is not being narcisstic egomaniac.

And my observation of relationships with those high ego men is that being alone is better. Regardless of how much money they earn, they look more like trap then win.

I think that one parallel issue is the low opinion men have of other males. They assume everyone else is dirty and instantly rude and it just is not so.

That is not in fact how it is. Self-respect involves belief that you don't deserve harm. Entitlement involves belief that you deserve good things from other people, generally without proportionate giving in return.

> As a final anecdote, I did know women who dated executives and VCs in the Bay. Some of these guys had mammoth egos. Curiously, that didn't prevent them from having far better dating lives than any engineer I knew.

Considering how many executives and SVPs in tech have been caught in sexual harassment (if not outright sexual assault), you might want to think quietly for awhile about what your definitions and standards are.

I agree with you 100% and have to say that the replies on this particular thread are some of the most toxic I’ve ever read here on HN, and completely indicative of both what you describe as well as my own observations from living here in the Bay for pretty much my entire life.

I live in the South Bay, don’t work in tech, make well under $100k a year, live comfortably and have had no issues dating. I’m a local, white and over six feet tall, so that probably helps, but I’m certainly nothing special looks wise.

Being tall is a huge advantage. Over 6' is tall in the Bay. So is being white. Don't sell yourself short.

The parent commenter doesn't realize just how large of an advantage this is. There's lots of empirical evidence demonstrating that height is one of the strongest preferences women have for men. I have personally made fake dating profiles with the same pictures/bio, but different heights here in the Bay Area. The 5'6 profile did not get a single like in a week. The 6'4 profile had inbound interest from a wide variety of women, racking up more likes in an hour than my real profile gets in 2 weeks.

OKCupid's dataset also shows white men are the most desired on average.

Right. I don't know why pointing this out without whining or complaining about it seems to make people upset. I'm not tall or white, so it's not like I'm bragging. I'm also not trying to use it as an excuse, or to bring others down for having to try less. It just is what it is.

No doubt, and I definitely can’t speak to how it is to date as a short/nonwhite guy other than what I know from my friends. My comments are more directed towards the economic side of this discussion, which started to veer into the “women are all gold diggers” incel-type territory that I’m beginning to hear more often. In my opinion and experience, nothing repels positive relationships like that kind of mindset. Anyway, that’s why I mentioned my salary, which is practically a joke compared to the kinds of numbers people are talking about here.

a programmer friend of mine used to date online. he's not a tall guy and he was convinced that he would never get a date let alone a girlfriend... he started dating offline & has now been with his gf for a number of years! online isn't the only way to go.

The latent shallow male entitlement is gross. However, there is a valid point made that if all the single, unhappy men became cool and attractive, many would statistically still be out of luck. So my suggestion is that in addition to becoming interesting, learning about feminism, etc, they should also recognize the statistical disadvantage as the socioeconomic problem it is, and fight those broader socioeconomic conditions that are causing a massive number of career-obsessed dudes to be dropped into a handful of west coast cities. In the short term that could mean taking your nest egg and moving elsewhere. In the long term we should dismantle the system where a couple of companies collect massive, exploitative digital rents from the rest of the world, thereby necessitating the concentrated labor force within an inherently sexist and exploitative system (capitalism). I also recommend banding together to fight against tech companies' firing disproportionately non-male employees who protest against bad things they do. But that's just my two cents.

"...there are two ways of making money. The first is what most of us do: work. That means tapping into our knowledge and know-how (our “human capital” in economic terms) to create something new, whether that’s a takeout app, a wedding cake, a stylish updo, or a perfectly poured pint. To work is to create. Ergo, to work is to create new wealth.

But there is also a second way to make money. That’s the rentier way: by leveraging control over something that already exists, such as land, knowledge, or money, to increase your wealth. You produce nothing, yet profit nonetheless. By definition, the rentier makes his living at others’ expense, using his power to claim economic benefit.

For those who know their history, the term “rentier” conjures associations with heirs to estates, such as the 19th century’s large class of useless rentiers, well-described by the French economist Thomas Piketty. These days, that class is making a comeback. (Ironically, however, conservative politicians adamantly defend the rentier’s right to lounge around, deeming inheritance tax to be the height of unfairness.) But there are also other ways of rent-seeking. From Wall Street to Silicon Valley, from big pharma to the lobby machines in Washington and Westminster, zoom in and you’ll see rentiers everywhere."

-

Ceptr.org - the most promising attempt I've seen who are trying to better make visible, and then democratize and distribute, the rents.

Yes, absolutely. My one quibble is that I think their point is slightly less valid in that if the men in question got it together to become better humans (and therefore better partners), the imbalance wouldn't be nearly as bad. Partly on the socioeconomic level, because then their companies wouldn't be alienating or excluding so many female employees. But also on the personal level, because somebody from their past might see them as a good catch.

But yes, they should definitely be fighting the system, not getting mad at women and/or society at large. Of course, the whole of incel culture is pretty good at explaining why no woman wants to come near them.

i agree with all of this.

> (although we should certainly adjust for the large gay male population)

Just curious, why wouldn't there be an equivalently large lesbian female population?

Major gay cities aren't necessarily major lesbian cities. The Castro happened because the military discharged gay men from the Pacific theater and a lot of them ended up there - was there a comparable dynamic for lesbians? I don't know of one. And I don't think Atlanta is very significant to gay men.

Exactly. Surprisingly, I can't find any statistics. But San Francisco now has zero lesbian bars, and quite a number of popular gay bars. This is a good article on the contrast in community resources: https://hoodline.com/2016/07/is-there-a-place-for-lesbians-i...

> Exactly. Surprisingly, I can't find any statistics. But San Francisco now has zero lesbian bars, and quite a number of popular gay bars.

Your statement that "a city that has a large group of gay men doesn't necessarily have a large group of lesbians" is accurate, but this is a bad piece of evidence to cite in favor of it. Almost all cities with large LGBTQ+ populations have far more bars and clubs targeted at gay men than at lesbians.

San Francisco had a few lesbian bars a few years ago, all of which have since closed. That pattern - lesbian nightlife disappearing - is pretty consistent across other cities that have large LGBTQ+ populations.

Could be. But it could just as well mean that gay men tend to move to cities in a way that lesbian women don't. Note also that the piece I linked goes well beyond bars.

That does not mean lesbians don't exists. It means they were there all along - just not so visible.

Actually, most research in this area points to the percentage of people being gay among males to be about twice that of among females.

I dunno if we are just rare, or simply not as vocal or active about being out as gay males, on average - but firsthand I’ve seen a lot more gay guys than I’ve seen fellow lesbians. (Much to my dismay...)

There are dozens of us ;)