I don't care for articles like this one.
Realistically, few single women can ever afford a house, meaning a stick house on a lot, practically everywhere in the United States. That is because of sexism in the workplace and the outrageously inflated home prices in areas of the country where realtors, beginning in the mid-1970s, started jacking up the prices figuring all homeowners had two-incomes. That is why home prices are so totally out of whack. These "single" women typically had assets from a marriage and are either widowed or divorced, or else they are women who were born into privilege or were lucky enough to take jobs in the public sector and have careers of 20, 25, 30 years or more. Few women have "glamorous" careers where they can live a two-income lifestyle on one income. Most who do are married. Many single women have to shack up with men or take on roommates. They may have inherited a home from their parents. It is hardly satisfactory.
It's like the author doesn't truly understand that just because a handful of women are "becoming first-time home buyers" that there is any kind of trend at all. Virtually no woman alone can break into owning real estate. A man's income is essential for the vast majority of women to "own" a home. Period.
The women depicted are not typical of single women as a whole.
What homes single women can buy are either condos or manufactured housing (the latter I intend to do eventually, and I am in my sixties and never owned any real estate in my life), which are better than renting a place, but they aren't stick houses on a lot and don't hold their value as well. The article says as much about women "preferring" condos. That doesn't impress me in the least. The few who can afford a stick house on a lot are living in parts of the country where nobody wants to live. There is a reason homes in the midwest and deep South tend to be less expensive.