>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 itβs still the same story
>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.
>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
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.
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 itβs still the same story