It’s easy for women to find dates. Much harder to find competent potential life partners who want to start a family.
Your OP is saying, it’s easy for women to get 100 dates but out of 100 dates only 1 will be a sensible life partner.
It may be harder for a man to get 10 dates than for a woman to get 100 but in those 10, half of them will be a sensible life partner.
It’s a little like an advertising funnel: women have a source for getting lots of clicks, but few will be well qualified for a sale.
Men have a harder time getting clicks, but generally when they do they are generally well qualified.
You’re just thinking about the clicks as if that’s the only equation that matters but it’s a multiplication of two conversion rates, not one.
Plus with the advent of online profiles, I don't have to go on 100 dates to figure out 50-90 of them won't work out. so if 1 out of every 10 dates I go on is a winner, and it takes me a week to set up those 10 dates, then it is still better than for a guy to spend a month setting up 10 dates, of which due to small sample size, there's a lower chance of the let's say 2-3 sensible life partners appearing.
Edit: found it https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-ame...
That's probably the point of disagreement, I don't see any reason to think this is true.
Imagine a heterosexual relationship dating pool of 100 men and 100 women. 40 of the men are date-spammers, and 5 of the women are date-spammers. They will all attempt a first date with anyone with a pulse.
So each woman in the pool can easily get 40 dates, and each man in the pool can easily get 5 dates. These dates will likely not turn into long-term relationships, as the indiscriminate selection protocol does not correlate highly with sufficient investment into any particular relationship.
In short order, each non-spammer semi-pool will adapt compensation and filtering strategies to avoid the date-spammers. As the women have a lower signal-to-noise ratio (1.5) than the men (19), their filter will be more brutal, and block more false positives. The hookup bros make it harder for the normal men to find dates, as they increase the strength of women's filters, and then they profit more strongly from mimicry of non-spammers in order to defeat the filters.
With this hypothetical dating pool, the normal guys could cartelize, and join a dating site where men are only allowed a first date after a timeout interval of N days. New accounts have to wait N days before setting up a first date or accepting a date. While dating is in progress, the timeout clock stops at N days, communication with everyone else is suspended, and either person has to click on a "relationship ended" button--which notifies the other person--to start them up again. The ToS can penalize users with multiple accounts. It's rate-limiting dates, to stop the spammers.
So yes, that group is female biased. That was the whole point of his comment.
The kinds of things men are typically looking for are also in short supply in the median woman who will go on a date with them, but that’s a separate point.
(I feel like a lot of people in this thread read some implied moralizing here, like single men are bad for not being family ready, that it’s some sort of female supremacy argument, but no one said that. It just is what it is.)
Secondly, if I told you that there was a > 20% chance you were going to get run over by a car, would you cross the road? Even the best partnerships (statistically) have a 20% chance of divorce. "Hey 'incompetent' life partner, do you want to take a 20-50% chance of losing 60-80% of the assets that you build up over the next 10 years? Oh, how about a similar chance that you'll lose the relationship with your children?"
Men are not upset (in general) that they are single. It's women that are upset.