He thought that seemed shallow. The rest of the profile info was irrelevant it seemed. I suggested a more generous interpretation. Folks 'fishing' for a partner were just throwing their line in the 'deep end'. They have to start somewhere, and there are no lack of choices.
But I think the answer may be complicated than that.
Maybe people are more afraid these days to pursue romantic relationships with people they meet at work due to fear of the consequences that have been smeared all over the media in recent years. I think this is a shame. I'm happily married but I've worked in a few jobs before where I've really clicked with someone, and the thought did pass through my mind that if we were both single, maybe there could be something there. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same thought occurred to them. I have no idea how, in that situation, I would have gone about it though, but it would probably be spending a lot of time with that person outside of work as part of an extended social group. But chances to do this dwindle as people move between cities/towns more frequently for work. I guess that's what pushes people to use these dating apps.
I have a theory that people who meet their loved ones through pre-existing social groups, have happier long term relationships with their partners.
Screw Match and their silly monopoly on romance.
Anti-sexual harassment training, and more broadly the discouraging of socialization between men and women as bushbaba mentioned, has definitely reduced the opportunity for men and women to marry. The flip side of the male executive no longer being able to chase his secretary around a desk to try to pinch her on the butt is another executive not being able to politely court the secretary he is in love with (and vice versa).
I don't have a good answer for how to get the one without the other, but both are consequences of modern sensibilities.
tldr you hit on a girl/guy at work you do risk a HR violation.
Well, in this interpretation, money is still the differentiator. So how is it more generous? Seems to me it points to the same attitude towards relationships that your friend finds "shallow" being the case.
That's not hard to understand. I think it's more about bitterness than logic in most cases.
For the same reason men don't look at money and money signals when picking female profiles (as verified by several studies). How come it works for them, but when it comes to women picking men suddenly it's a matter of not "fishing in the shallow end"?
There is indeed a logic in "all other things being equal, prefer the person with money". It's a calculating logic, not a logic of love and appreciating the other person as a person. In the end, I take offense in the very notion of "all other things being equal", as if people are replacable cogs, and money can be use for the differentiaton and sorting the best out.
In any case, the record numbers of lonely, partner-less men and women (to the point of the US surgen general calling out an "epidemic"), speaks to the success of this logic...
>I think it's more about bitterness than logic
Yes, in the sense that it iss bitterness to the fact that the selection is based on pure calculation. That's more something associated with the "oldest profession" than a basis for marriage.
But like it or not, money (or the absence of it) has a huge effect on lifestyle, health, safety, procreation, etc. So pretending that the only purpose of marriage is to enter into an oath of true love, even though marriage itself is largely a financial contract, is maybe just a bit detached from reality.
A guy is supposed to be earning big bucks. No matter how you do it, you just need big bucks. Top marks if you are a "government employee" because that signals the family will always have food on the table.
This also means, by the time you are 23-25-28, a guy needs to land something big or else he must remain a bachelor (this is still traditional, family does the arranging and finding a partner thing) .
Girls OTOH, have 2 classes. 1 where groom expects the bride to be "housewife, not going to work after marriage) so these ladies just finish studies and "wait". 2. where the guys expect their wives to be "working" so the ladies have developed this hack where they work, as literal slaves in primary schools as teachers earning a pittance but "yep, she is working" checkbox gets ticked.
its a hopeless thing really
"a teaching job probably signals a woman likes (and is good at) dealing with children."
i gave a primary school teacher as an example. it is equally okay for the same person to do bookkeeping/assistant/data entry operator. the point for these people is to say "the lady is doing a job" not what or how much is she earning.
edit: "If a government job signals a man is a good provider,"
nope. it signals that the person (guy/girl) got lucky.
Is it? None of his other profile items pointed to "personal drive and your character"?
Maybe poor people have no drive and character. (Ayn Rand approves).