There is a Talmudic statement in Sotah 2a which is commonly used as the source that every person has their destined match (the parameters of "destined" is a separate discussion):
והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני בית פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני
for Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Forty days before the creation of a child, a Bath Kol issues forth and proclaims, The daughter of A is for B; the house of C is for D; the field of E is for F! (Soncino translation)
At face value, this statement only speaks from the man's perspective. That is to say, when a man is born Heaven announces his destiny. This "destiny" consists of his destined wife, his destined field and his destined house. However, the Talmud makes no mention of a Heavenly announcement preceding a woman's birth wherein Ploni is destined for the Daughter of Ploni.
Based on this, perhaps the concept of "bashert" only applies to men and not to women. (This would seem to be a big chiddush, as every discussion of shidduchim that I've ever seen appears to be based on the premise that everyone, both men and women, have their destined match.)
Indeed, Tosafos on the spot explicitly notes that the Talmud seems to be discussing the male perspective:
קודם יצירת הולד. נראה לרבי קודם יצירת הזכר בין אם לא נולדה הנקיבה עדיין בין אם נולדה
Prior to the formation of the fetus. It appears to Rabbi [that the Talmud is referring to] prior to the formation of the male, whether or not the female has been born yet.
R. Samuel Eidels, in his commentary to this Tosafos, appears to come perilously close to saying straight out that this only applies to males:
ובתוס' בד"ה קודם יצירת הולד נראה לר"י קודם יצירת הזכר בין אם נולדה הנקבה בין אם לא נולדה עדיין עכ"ל. יראה דמשמע להו הכי דבת פלוני לפלוני דומיא דבית ושדה פלוני לפלוני דביצירתו תליא מילתא ומדקאמר נמי בת פלוני לפלוני משמע דבהריון הזכר שהוא בעולם (ושייך לומר עליו פלוני) תליא מילתא אף שהנקבה אינה בעולם דלא שייך למימר עליה פלונית אלא בת שתהיה לפלוני דאביה הוא בעולם ואפשר שלזה כוונו בפ' המפלת זכר זה כר נקבה נקייה באה ר"ל שהזכר נולד במזלו אבל הנקבה נקייה באה בלי מזל כי כבר נתלה מזלה ביצירת הזכר זוג שלה ועוד כתבנו שם פירוש אחר ע"ש
Meaning to say that the male is born with his destiny, but the woman is clean. She comes without destiny because her destiny has already been made dependent on the formation of her male partner. (Translation of bolded portion only)
In light of all this, is there actually an explicit Talmudic source that women have destined matches as well? Is this issue discussed in Rabbinic Literature (either on this Talmudic passage or elsewhere)? Have any contemporary shidduch discussions noted this?
(Technically, a valid answer could be that the Talmud is not speaking so precisely, and simply did not bother to spell out that the reverse is true as well. However, I am primarily looking to see if any commentators even took note of this issue. If one did and concluded that the whole thing is not meant precisely, that is fine.)
Edit for clarification:
It appears that I might not have done a good job explaining what I am asking. My question is based on two premises.
In my exposure to the Jewish world it seems that everyone takes for granted that there is a concept (sometimes referred to as "bashert") that every (Jewish?) person has a destined mate. This is not to say that everyone will automatically marry this mate, but it is to say that in a sense God has picked out a mate for each person. This concept is often used to comfort/encourage those who are having trouble finding a spouse, and most often seems to be based on the above Talmudic statement.
To me it appears that the simple understanding of the Talmudic statement is that God picks out a woman for every man. It does not seem to say that God also picks out a man for every woman. I cited Tosafos and the Maharsha because they both have comments to this Talmudic statement that indicate that they are aware that the Talmud appears to be speaking specifically to men.
Even before I ask the actual question, one can answer by challenging either of my two assumptions. If either of my assumptions is proven incorrect (either via sources or some other form of argumentation) then the question will never start.
Now here is what I am not asking:
- I am not asking a question on the Talmudic passage.
- I am not asking a question on Tosafos.
- I am not asking a question on the Maharsha.
- I am not asking a question about statistics.
- I am not asking why there should be a difference between men and women.
What I am asking is simply how we justify premise # 1 in light of premise # 2. That is to say, why is there such a pervasive belief about destined matches that is unsupported by the Talmud? Again, someone can answer by saying that I am wrong and there is not such a pervasive belief. Someone can answer that I am wrong and the belief is supported by the Talmud (I believe that is what this answer is attempting to do). Someone can answer that the belief serves a greater purpose so we keep it despite it being unsupported by the Talmud. Someone can answer that the great commentaries have struggled with this very question for hundreds of years. Someone can answer that the belief is indeed incorrect, but it will rarely have a practical impact (due to similar number of boys and girls) so nobody cares that the belief is technically not correct. (Perhaps that is what this answer is arguing.) There are many different ways one can go about answering this question. Of course, answers with sources are very valuable; mere assertions have much less value.
Thank you to those who have already commented/answered. If I have still failed to adequately explain my question, please ask me to clarify further.