In article ,
 Skinner1{at}hotmail.com wrote:

> 
>
> >
> >I concur.  This reads like feminist propoganda trying to
> >offset all the 30 something women PANICKING from
> >Bridget Jones and Hewlett.  I especially find it amusing
> >how she openly lies about the interpretation of a statistic
> >she cites:
> >
> >"The overall birthrate dropped 40% from 1955 to 1973"
> >
> >This is total crap first of all.  The "baby boom" referred
> >to a period from 1945 through 1965 where the population
> >INCREASED.  But let's take her at her word for a moment:
> >There was a baby BUST from the mid-60's to the 70's with the
> >second baby boom onward from the 80's (my understanding).
> >
> >Even so, if the population began to increase again,
> >as SHE claims, from 1973, then this means that there
> >are more women for every year after that starting with
> >women aged 33 and YOUNGER!
> >
> >In other words, pity the poor men!  There are more and more
> >YOUNGER women for them to date every year!  Yeah, that
> >means men who can't find one of those aging Gen Xers will
> >just have to settle for a more sexually active, attractive
> >younger women.  Cantya just pity 'em? :-)
> >
>
> You say this like it's the man's choice??  Surely you cannot STILL be
> laboring under that misconception can you?

Let's look at it this way:

Let's say you were raised in a log cabin and killed
your own food and made your own clothes.  Compared to
a woman living in the city, you would be "roughing" it.

Now imagine that the city woman is pushed out to the
country and now has to make her own shelter and
her own food.  Whose worse off?

> The man has NO choice in the mateing game beyond the choice to either
> get out there and "Try" or not.

Agreed.  But when a woman's needs and resources make
her market choices very limited, the "choice" to
sit around and wait for the perfect man to approach
her quickly becomes a liability.

This is why, despite the (I noticed) 4 year old WSJ article's
claim, women (especially those in their 30's) comprise
40% of all ads on online services.  Slowly, but surely,
the "hard to get" scheme is cracking...

> And what if he does get out there and "Try" and never get's picked.
> What then?

Look at it as similar to finding a job.  Generally, few
people really need starve if they're willing to make
compromises.  Sometimes, the market works to their
advantage.  At worst, for most people, they just don't
get the perfect job they want.

Come on!  If a man tries long enough and has something to
offer, he can ALWAYS find some woman, even one way
below his standards, who will be happy to have him.  Yes?

This is why for young men, it may be best to focus
on "hookups" if they feel that they're choices aren't
the best at that point in time.  You don't buy a home
at the high end of the market.  You rent and wait
for prices to come down.

> >She claims in the article that such services are scrambling
> >to find women because of population increase but it's
> >more likely that they want more members because men
> >just tend to sign onto such services faster than shy,
> >often less computer saavy women.
> >
>
> Ever hear of Ladies night at the local disco??  Why do you think they
> let the "ladies" in for free????

Because there are pathetic losers who think that women
coming to a club with their friends for free drinks are
going to go home with them. :-)

Nearly everyone I've talked to has had bad things to
say about Discos as places to meet members of
the opposite sex.

> Cause they know if they can get a
> larget number of females in the place then the men will pay a cover
> charge to get access "to all that available trim".

And these are probably the same men who invest in
lotto tickets.  I call them the "stupid" tax. :-)

Let's look at this logically: If ladies night is about
getting plenty of men who are willing to pay money to
look at the ladies, then not only are more ladies coming
but also more competition SERIOUS about getting
their money's worth.  Right?

Also, at the same time, just as the place is flooded with
horny men, most of the women coming are cheapskates who
only came to get in for free and maybe some half price
drinks.  Do you think the chances are good that they
won't be on their top guard that night for pickup artists?
Usually, they go out with their friends who "cover" for them
and drag them home kicking and screaming just in case
they do meet someone.  Only chumps pay for ladies night.

Smart guys go to hotel bars where business women and golddiggers
hang out.  They don't bother with promotions for the ladies
becuse the ladies are willing to pay the higher priced
drinks to talk with men in suits in an environment
that's not noisy.

Kapish?

> So why shouldn't the dating services be any different?

I checked Great Expectations and they're like this, a little,
but for older women they require the full service fee.  Only
young women get a discount.

> I knew a guy that started one up locally here in my area.... he spend
> DAYS and DAYS taking anonymous pictures and posting them up to his
> site and filling in bogus bio's just to beef up his "selections" to
> try to get more men to SUBSCRIBE to the service!

Good heavens!  I hope nobody catches him!

> >I don't know what crack she's been smoking, but match.com started
> >out with male to female ratios of 10 to 1 and now it's
> >evening out.
> >
>
> Unnn Huh...... Read my previous paragraph!

I don't think match.com deliberately puts up false bios, of course,
but I have heard that they do inflate their female
members numbers a bit by not removing inactive bios
for a while.

But still, we're not talking about dating in general but
about the 30 to 45 y/o age range.  In that age range,
it's probably even or even to the man's advantage.

> >She must be Dan Rather's cousin to write up this "memo".
> >
> >regards,
> >Mark Sobolewski
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/20/05 12:59:14 PM ---