This is kind of a startling map--all the men appear to be west of the Mississippi river, and all the women are east of it. The head count doesn't really tell the story though. Its not just how much of a gender surplus there is, but the quality of men and women represented in that surplus.

In Utah, were kids get married very young relative to the rest of the country, the surplus of males is commentary on the rise of slackerdom as an acceptable lifestyle. My unmarried and dateless daughter observes that she meets plenty of nice, attractive men--all of them married in their early twenties. The ones who aren't? Well let's say she prefers catching up on American Idol than to spending time with losers.

I was fascinated by a recent interview (Donnie Deutsch) with Patti Stanger, host of Bravo TV's Millionaire Matchmaker, who characterized Los Angeles (vastly more men than women...) as nigh to a wasteland for women looking for a good man. The east coast was 'better' in her estimation because the men are culturally disposed to treat women better.

Could be.

The implications of that perspective are pretty dire though--in spite of the larger number of single men in California, its still a wasteland for eligible women.

I'll take a flyer here and muse as to whether the relentless institutional favoritism for girls and feminist educational theory hasn't produced a lost generation of young men and spinsterhood for a great many young women.

UPDATE: John Hawkins.

Because I work in politics for a living, I know a lot of women who live in D.C. and I've always been surprised at how hard they say it is to get a date in that town. I mean, we're talking about personable, successful, attractive women here -- exactly the sort you'd think would be in heavy demand.