I was reading an article today entitled: "Catholic Church claims women should marry earlier and not be too picky to avoid the Australian man drought" by Damien Currie, Brendan Lucas (Couriermail Aust) which said such things as:
Australia is experiencing a huge decline in the number of available men aged 25-34
Today's women wanted the best of both worlds
In trying to have it all, they [women] end up missing out
78 per cent of Australian couples now lived together before they married
The perception that co-habitation increased the chance of a happy marriage was false
How you feel about these statements is your business, but what I found interesting was the paragraph which said:
Demographer Bernard Salt calculated that for single women aged 25 to 34, there is substantially less heterosexual, well-off, young men available after excluding those who were already married, in a de facto relationship, were gay, a single parent or earning less than $60,000 a year.
Do you see anything wrong with that statement? Let's break it down shall we? For single women aged 25 to 34 finding well-off available young men is extremely difficult. Why? Because:
Many are married - so naturally they are unavailable
Many are in De facto relationships - so naturally they are unavailable
Many are gay - so naturally they are unavailable (can there really be that many?)
Some are single parents - which certainly does not mean 'unavailable' so they are probably counted as unsuitable
AND - and here is the punchline...
The remaining 25-34 year old single hetero males (with no kids) are earning less than $60,000 a year.
When reading reports of this nature one has to ask what is the purpose.
At first I thought it was implying that all the cute guys were gays and I did wonder for a moment if there really could be that many gay men in Australia leaving our fair ladies in the lurch, but when I got to the bottom line I understood the real meaning. The story was really misleading, for it wasn't about 'not enough men to go around' but about 'Well Off ' available young men.
With 'Well Off' being the parameters of the study, I guess it stands to reason that there would be a lot of young 'well off' men unavailable. And yet I couldn't help but wonder what to make of this study. Are we supposed to believe that Money and (Gross/Nett) Salary are the most attractive things that women find in men?
I went online to see what the average annual income is in Australia and I came across this list of "non-managerial" Sector positions, many of which are probably held by males ages 25-34, who do not qualify as 'eligible' in Mr. Salt's study. As I figured it was sufficient for my purposes, I didn't read any further than this one section of the document.
Real Estate Sector
I think it safe to assume that there are plenty of available young men in Australia aged 25-34 who are 'heterosexual', 'metrosexual' or whatever prefix now gets placed in front of the word 'sexual' (excluding 'homo') to qualify as 'available marriage partners'.
If Mr. Salt's report is meant to imply that women are not interested in 'available heterosexual' men under the age of 34 years - only 'well off available men', then I think that I would have to agree with Fr Tony Kerin, episcopal vicar for justice and social service in the Archdiocese of Melbourne, and say that women are getting too choosy.
P.S. Yes I did find the upper age limit of 34 years to be discriminatory.
R.P.BenDedek (pseudonym) is the Author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' (http://www.kingscalendar.com ), and is a guest columnist and stand-in Editor at Magic City Morning Star News. An Australian, he has been teaching Conversational English in China since 2003.
Writers Journal Kingscalendar
"The King's Calendar" is a chronological study of the historical books of the Bible (Kings and Chronicles), Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah, and the (Essene) Damascus Document of The Dead Sea Scrolls.