I know it's not productive or original for me to get annoyed at the New York Times's ridiculously elitist tendencies, but, still, this article about the realities of women "dating down" (women in their 20s now make more than men of the same age, on average, in cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis) really took it too far.

Yes, the piece does make some good points about how men and women are expected to react to having money. But the interesting sociological observations are drowned out by stuff like this:

Ms. Rowland, like some other women interviewed, said that she has come to the conclusion that it would be easier to date someone in the same economic bracket.

“I love traveling, going to the opera and good restaurants,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be Per Se, but good food is important in my life. It’s sometimes hard to maintain the lifestyle I’m used to when I’m in a relationship with a guy who makes less than me, since I don’t want to be paying for the guy I’m with all the time.”

That's rough. Good luck with that. I think my fundamental problem with the Times is that I forget that, despite the fact that it's considered a national paper, when it comes to lifestyle reporting it's still catering to New York City and Manhattan in particular -- a Never-Never Land where the average salary is over $75,500.