I read the article in Nymag, and was struck by the values her parents put into the mate search. Kind? Compassionate? Non-violent? Integrity and values? Not addicted to anything? Loves kids? Heterosexual? Um, no. Doctor or engineer. And: "My father excludes “non-veg” suitors. There is, however, a loophole for meat-eaters who earn over $200,000."

In his search for a son-in-law, this man set a sterling example of largely shallow criteria. Welcome to tradition!

To be fair, American traditional parents could be just as bad. For a while, my mother was defending my ex-husband on the ground that he didn't hit me. To her, only physical violence counted.

So I'm not picking on another culture, I'm picking on traditional values. Personally, I never thought they amounted to much, because they screened for superficial things. That high-earning doctor might not be a very good husband or father. He might, but in the time it takes to arrange a marriage, you're not going to find out. However, that time frame is what it is because these things don't matter. Making the family look good does.

I can see why Jain might be having a really tough time, and I wish her the best. It just strikes me that she might be taking refuge from one form of shallowness in another. Okay, dating in NYC might not be conducive to finding a compatible mate, but neither is weeding out any man who isn't a doctor or an engineer.

If you are even still reading this thread....

The conclusion at the end of my last post is drawn from ALL of my posts on this thread. I made the same point about randommness in my very first post (before you had posted at all, I believe) where I mentioned all the other ways couples have gotten together.

My story about my friend in the rural area who did nothing in particular to meet a man but still did was posted IN ADDITION to the many posts in this thread (and on Salon generally) that say stuff like "My friend tried ballroom dancing and met a great guy, so maybe you should try that?" as if the activity were somehow the key to finding the relationship. There's always someone who says "I've done ballroom dancing for 6 years and never once met any dating prospects". And so on.

Why are there so many stories of people trying the same strategies but getting wildly different outcomes? Because this stuff is random.

I like my friend's story because it involves ZERO strategies. No one ever recommends doing f**k all to meet a mate, but it worked for my friend!

I agree that the process of meeting a partner, or even a friend, is completely random. You can meet someone on your first try with an activity, or you can try twenty clubs and activities before you find one that is promising in terms of friends or romance. I can meet thirty people from online dating before I find one that "sticks" as either a friend or someone I go on more than a couple of dates with.

After a while, you get tired... at this point I'm weighing whether it's better just to abandon the search and snuggle up with cable TV!

Anonymous_Too blasted parents for not using the following as factors:

"Kind? Compassionate? Non-violent? Integrity and values? Not addicted to anything? Loves kids? Heterosexual?"

Frankly, the above things are all very important, but I think it is assumed that most people have these qualities. They are a given, not distinguishing features.

"But I'm a nice guy" isn't enough, anymore than "But I'm a nice girl". 99% of people are nice human beings. Using those as qualifiers is a bit like saying "carbon-based, alive, genus homo sapiens". Being nice doesn't make you compatible with everyone. Distinguishing factors do.

Of the above, even "loves kids" and "heterosexual" are assumed, since these are guys looking for arranged marriages.

First do the math. There is no man shortage -- not in the US, not in NYC, not in the entire world. In third world countries like India and China, there is a man SURPLUS, as Ms. Jain notes. But there also is one -- a much smaller one -- in the US.

Contrary to Parson Troll...er, Parson Jim...most American men do get married. There is no big demographic of wildly screwing, never-married straight men. There is also no large percentage of American men who marry mail order brides -- it is a teeny tiny percentage and even then, the vast majority end miserably in divorces. It's hard to marry someone of another culture and language, though it can be done -- but it takes maturity, patience and compassion, qualities entirely lacking in men like Parson Jim who want to turn women into comodities you can order online like takeout food.

If a young single woman asked me how to AVOID marriage and remain single and celibate for as long as possible, I would tell her that there is NO BETTER WAY than to move immediately to New York City (or LA or San Francisco, Boston, Washington DC, etc.) and get a job in a glam industry like publishing. You reduce your normal odds of meeting someone by about 75%! These cities are MECCAS for ambitious, educated white people who prize career over family, with the result you get a disproportionate amount of educated white women, as well as gays and lesbians. The remaining educated white men immediately figure out they can manipulate this situation to have as much no-strings sex as they want, until they are about 45 and decide to "settle down". That's fine, but women need to KNOW THIS before they commit to living in such areas.

EVERY OTHER PLACE in the US has plenty of men, great communities and are not so fervently anti-marriage. Our laws against gay marriage ensure that we are not meccas for those "creative class communities" that gays like to live in (re: Richard Florida), hence we have mostly straight men available.

The other advice I'd give is: be too snotty and "romantic" to consider online dating (cuz you have to "meet cute" in some movie-like situation and fall instantly in "lurv"). Online dating is a FABULOUS method of meeting people, and meeting people is the SECRET OF FINDING A RELATIONSHIP (a necessary step before marriage). You need to meet a lot of people, unless you look like Brad or Angelina, and I find that most people who swear "it didn't work", actually turn out to have given up after just 5 or 6 meetings....you have to be far more persistant than that if you want success. Don't look at every date as "the one", and try to just relax and have fun and be yourself. And be patient. Rome wasn't built in a day.

I met my husband in the dinosaur days before the internet, when personal ad dating consisted of actual newspaper ads and phone listings -- it was VERY expensive compared to most online sites -- and no picture, and just a dozen or two words to describe yourself. Still, besides me, I know many who met that way. I've been married for 15 years next February.

It's clear Ms. Jain problem is she thinks she will meet a Mr. Big-type (only Asian) and she hautily dismisses any man who isn't handsome or rich -- who can't be shown off like her Harvard pedigree. She's status shopping, not husband shopping. An arranged marriage won't work any better, either. They can end in divorce and unhappiness too. Nothing will help her until she gets of her high horse and gets some priorities -- not to mention, if you have spent a decade in NYC, and can't click with that dating scene, you won't EVER (she's too old now anyhow for clubs and bars), so maybe it's time to ditch the snobbery over medium sized cities and places, where your odds go up about 300%.

Seriously -- Atlanta and Phoenix and Miami and Cincinnati and Chicago are ALL BENEATH HER but she's willing to MOVE BACK TO A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY? Give me a break.

This also sounds like a contrived way to get a book deal, a thing that is not at all uncommon these days. A classy woman who wanted to marry would be discreet -- she wouldn't be blasting her problems all over the media.