The difficulty that I'm having with your arguement is the assumption that all non-married, non-monastic people are necessarily embroiled in career and lifestyle issues. Not so! I know monastics and married people who are just as, if not more, embroiled in those very same issues. In those cases they are just as non-spiritual and possibly sinful as when the person is not married and not a monastic.
It seems self-evident to me that married people have to struggle with the issues of the world necessarily. Hence, the Apostle Paul suggested living as a virgin allows one to focus on the things of the Lord rather than pleasing his wife. That is part of the cross of the married life, to have to successfully navigate career, family, and the Church, and do so without compromising your faith.
Monastics don't get a carte blanche... they are accountable to their Abbot/Abbess and have to renounce their ties to the world. It is the so-called royal path.
What I am reading is that the only cross one is expected to bear is keeping one's pants zipped? Is that correct? One would think that singles arguing for "equal rights" and things of the world should indeed be held to a higher standard even than those who are married. Where is the cross of obedience for such individuals? In the case of a male, he isn't responsible for the spiritual well-being of his wife and children... so, what gives?
Two issues aren't being confused here. The issues are coupled in a very important way. And the sexodus is a growing issue in which males are abandoning both marriage and monasticism in droves for the so-called "third path" that explicitly omits the rigor of both commonly accepted paths. Most of the criticism of the exodus indeed comes from females and so-called "white knight" males.
In the case of females, the canons of the Church explicitly deny avoiding marriage because of aversion ("hatred") of sex or because of the desire of eve, to "rule over your husband" which in our modern world has become ubiquitous. The alternative, as I understood it, was monasticism. However, I am detecting this one caveat that seems to entice a lot of people to circle the wagons and protect females, giving them a carte blanche to live according to their self-will. Nobody will bring that up for fear of being labeled a misogynist.
So, I specifically asked for Patristic support to even clarify that a third path is blessed by the Church. Contrary to cobbling a Procrustean bed, I am simply looking for what the trade-offs are of each path so I can explain it to my own children as well as seekers, family members who are hostile to the Faith, and others who ask me to give an account for the Faith that is in me.
If what is being described by so many contributors to this thread is true, then Orthodox Christianity is apparently not rigorous as long as you keep your pants zipped (even if you didn't keep them zipped up to that point) and stay out of a monastery. Somehow, this just seems to violate the spirit of the Scripture and the Fathers.