Demographics and singles: clam bake on the East Coast, sausage party on the West Coast

[Dan]

From http://www.creativeclass.com, a map showing the gender gap between single men and women in various metros across the United States.



What's your take on this? A few observations and thoughts:

• Many of the areas where the ratio of men to women is high are more rapidly growing metros, where there's going to be more transient construction labor. There are some exceptions, though; more WSMs in fast-growing Atlanta and Charlotte, more MSWs in Fort Wayne and Terre Haute.
  
• The difference between Buffalo (more women) and Rochester (way more men): maybe it's because there's more tech-related businesses and industries in Rochester, while Buffalo has leaned towards higher education and medicine/research since deindustrialization.
  
• El Paso is an odd one. With Fort Bliss, I would have expected to see a blue dot there.
  
• Austin? Transient construction and a booming tech sector. Seemed like a bit of a sausage party when I lived there, but the experiences of those who are younger might be different.
  
• When I lived in Denver (big blue dot), the region seemed to attract the outdoorsy/athletic crowd, which could also explain the ratio there. I also lived in Cleveland (big pink dot), but didn't notice a abundance of single women around. Cleveland seemed to be a big family town; like everybody over 25 is married.
  
• In the small town where I now live, which was just classified as a metro in 2010, the ratio of women to men is fairly equal ... under the age of 50. Older than that, and according to both Census data and what I see on the street, the ratio of women to men flies apart. There's just a staggering number of "crunchy garden ladies" here. There's also a large lesbian population, which might explains some of it, but I don't think it accounts for that much.
  

[stroskey]

Well, it is "Go west young man."

Interesting. I am surprised that the Twin Cities is so heavily male.

[WSU MUP Student]

And my best friend complains about not being able to meet women in his new environs of DC.

[Wannaplan?]

The data need to be normalized to account for the larger die-off rate for men - the ages go up to 64. Florida's data can be a little too simplistic for me at times.

[hilldweller]

I have heard Denver referred to as "Manver" so that one wasn't a surprise.

As for Southern CA, I thought with the entertainment industry and the general wussiness of the area that women would outnumber men.

[Blide]

As for Southern CA, I thought with the entertainment industry and the general wussiness of the area that women would outnumber men.

Think some of this has to do with the immigrant situation.

[michaelskis]

I am surprised by this data. I wonder if there where other factors explored too such as percentages of single v heterosexual relation v homosexual relationship and genders of gay couples?

On the other hand, I love how someone posts a graphic map and we all go "wonder why that is" instead of just saying interesting.

[Dan]

I am surprised by this data. I wonder if there where other factors explored too such as percentages of single v heterosexual relation v homosexual relationship and genders of gay couples?

We talked a bit about the differences in gay and lesbian settlement patterns about a year ago. We found that when a city has a high overall gay index according to the data on epodunk.com, the lesbian index will be inversely proportional to its population. A few examples:

Smaller cities with a large gay index:

Ithaca, NY
Gay index: 231
Gay male index: 143
Lesbian index: 322

Burlington VT:
Gay index: 184
Gay male index: 148
Lesbian index: 222

Davis CA:
Gay index: 133
Gay male index: 63
Lesbian index: 205

Eugene OR:
Gay index: 151
Gay male index: 97
Lesbian index: 206

Boulder CO:
Gay index: 138
Gay male index: 98
Lesbian index: 179

Ann Arbor MI:
Gay index: 156
Gay male index: 113
Lesbian index: 200

Madison WI:
Gay index: 183
Gay male index: 133
Lesbian index: 233

Iowa City IA:
Gay index: 142
Gay male index: 90
Lesbian index: 194

Larger cities with a large gay index:

Boston MA:
Gay index: 233
Gay male index: 285
Lesbian index: 178

Denver:
Gay index: 216
Gay male index: 249
Lesbian index: 183

Washington, DC
Gay index: 263
Gay male index: 380
Lesbian index: 143

Chicago, IL
Gay index: 157
Gay male index: 186
Lesbian index: 128

Houston, TX
Gay index: 150
Gay male index: 169
Lesbian index: 131

Dallas, Texas
Gay Index: 196
Gay Male Index: 254
Lesbian Index: 136

Atlanta, GA
Gay index: 299
Gay male index: 419
Lesbian index: 175

Minneapolis, MN
Gay index: 287
Gay male index: 309
Lesbian index: 263

My WAG to this phenomenon: lesbians may be more likely than gay men to be in established relationships, so being in a community with a large dating pool isn't as important. Also, culturally speaking, lesbians may connect better with the crunchy/outdoorsy environment found in smaller cities better than gay men.

The lesbian population here is so large, it's ... well, normal. You don't see rainbow flags everywhere. I frequently walk past SSMs taking place at the clerk's office, and it's just no big deal anymore. What's interesting is that they're all F/F.

The demographic mystery here is that lesbians can't account for the entire gender imbalance in the 50+ crowd.

[Maister]

On the other hand, I love how someone posts a graphic map and we all go "wonder why that is" instead of just saying interesting.

You can tell Cyburbia is loaded with social scientist types based on the way so many of us are not content to look at data and say 'huh, how 'bout that' and let it go. No, instead we're picking things apart, questioning data, and proposing our own possible theories/hypotheses which might explain the data pattern and undergoing a pseudo-peer review. Hey, it's the scientific method at work.

My WAG is those distributions have more to do with economic activities than sexual preferences.....but explaining FL escapes me at present

[dandy_warhol]

WAG - I wonder if some of the larger blue dots are related to military bases?

[Maister]

I'll have to hunt down supporting data later, but I bet you would have found this pattern roughly the same 150 years ago.

[Dan]

WAG - I wonder if some of the larger blue dots are related to military bases?

It might explain San Diego somewhat.

San Antonio has an extremely large military presence, and it's one of the few pink dots in Texas.

Albuquerque has Kirtland AFB and a lot of research-related industries, but it's pink.

El Paso. Fort Bliss, which is huge. Pink.

Hampton Roads area in Virginia. Pink.

I know there's a phenomenon where less-educated single women move to military towns to snag themselves a husband. It could explain why the blue dot in Temple/Killeen is so small.

[dandy_warhol]

It might explain San Diego somewhat.

San Antonio has an extremely large military presence, and it's one of the few pink dots in Texas.

Albuquerque has Kirtland AFB and a lot of research-related industries, but it's pink.

El Paso. Fort Bliss, which is huge. Pink.

Hampton Roads area in Virginia. Pink.

I was thinking it help explains Oahu too. But I can't think of the reason for pink at the other places unless...Was this map released after the repeal of DADT? ba-da-bing!

[WSU MUP Student]

WAG - I wonder if some of the larger blue dots are related to military bases?

It might explain San Diego somewhat.

San Antonio has an extremely large military presence, and it's one of the few pink dots in Texas.

Albuquerque has Kirtland AFB and a lot of research-related industries, but it's pink.

El Paso. Fort Bliss, which is huge. Pink.

Hampton Roads area in Virginia. Pink.

I know there's a phenomenon where less-educated single women move to military towns to snag themselves a husband. It could explain why the blue dot in Temple/Killeen is so small.

I believe that generally, the residents that live on the military bases will be counted as members of the "institutional" population and may not be being counted in the figures being used to calculate the dots. The majority of the folks who live off-base will generally be married so would not be contributing to the size of the dots in either direction since they are not single.

When I see all the big pink dots in many of the upper Midwest/Rustbelt areas like Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Milwaukee and in a couple of the more southern cities like Atlanta, Memphis, and New Orleans, I wonder if that is because of the anecdotal stories that older and poorer industrialized areas may have a disproportionate rate of younger men who have been moved to the institutional population while serving time in prison, leaving those urban areas with a higher rate of single women than you would see otherwise. Basically, it's possible that the gap isn't as wide as it's shown on the map, it's just that many of the men may have been forcibly removed from those areas temporarily. Just a thought...

[Dan]

For the Rust Belt, I was thinking that the pink remains because industrial workers -- predominantly men -- relocated where they could find jobs that fit their skills. Women stayed, because some fields where they were more predominant, like health care, weren't as hard hit by deindustrialization.

[illinoisplanner]

And my best friend complains about not being able to meet women in his new environs of DC.

Yeah, tell him he needs to get out more. This map is spot-on when it comes to DC, at least from my experiences. When I went out to the bars there, the place was crawling with beautiful single women. Last time I was there, I went home with a girl my age that was out of my league within 10 hours of my plane landing...and that never happens to me. And had I lived out there, she had the potential to be great dating material. But since I was on vacation, I took what I could get at the time.

I'm a little surprised with Chicago having more single women. Seems harder to meet women around here, from my experiences. There always seems to be more guys around...and every girl seems to already be in a relationship.

[Suburb Repairman]

Austin doesn't surprise me in the least. The high-tech industry is widely recognized as a sausage fest of guys that aren't necessarily the easiest to date. Also, the businesses they are in (lots of startups, etc.) don't tend to allow for much dating time to address their singlehood. Also, the state government in Texas tends to be male-dominated--moreso than I've heard in state capitols.

[terraplnr]

I believe that generally, the residents that live on the military bases will be counted as members of the "institutional" population and may not be being counted in the figures being used to calculate the dots. The majority of the folks who live off-base will generally be married so would not be contributing to the size of the dots in either direction since they are not single.

I agree, I know that the ACS lumps people living in military barracks with people living in prisons, college dorms, etc. in the “group quarters” population, and the ACS didn’t sample the group quarters population before 2005. I’m not sure about the decennial census.