Female Hypergamy Getting Acknowledged By The Mainstream

How influential is this blog? Well, four years ago, Le Chateau Heartiste was writing about the overlooked social and sexual phenomenon of female hypergamy, and how this innate biological female predisposition has ramifications for a society’s structure and well-being. A term was coined by yer humble narrators for the changes being wrought in America and the West by the advancement of feminism, equalism and corporate globalism: the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse.

A recurring theme here, and one that has gone wholly underappreciated by our elites on the Left and the Right, is how insidiously the culture and the sexual market have changed since the advent of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse. As a helpful reminder, here are the four sirens I’m talking about:

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

As I have written, these changes are slowly, but powerfully, tectonically shifting the courtship playing field. The big winners are alpha males and the big losers are beta males.

Recently, thanks in part to the release of Charles Murray’s new book “Coming Apart“, there’s been a flurry of acknowledgement from the 1% bloggers that female hypergamy is real and its unleashed version may indeed be having tremendous effects on the shitty direction American society is currently heading. Ol’ Cheap Chalupas himself has been getting in on the action with a series of posts examining the issue. The comments are illuminative, particularly the ones from some rascally rogue going by the handle “CH”.

you know, it’s not like we don’t have historical precedent for this sort of sociosexual and cultural dystopia leading to civilizational collapse. the fact that female hypergamy — or other very unPC taboo subjects such as those concerning group population differences in civilizationally advantageous traits — wasn’t even on the smartypants pundit radar until, oh, right about now, should tell us how vigorously the elites in control of our discourse need to be pummeled over the head with the facts on the ground. It’s gonna be funny when, on the night before the long day of the rope, our leading light intellectuals confront the past 60 years of their cherished beliefs and realize it was all a pack of lies and wrongheadedness.

And when they do, they can look back at this blog — when no one’s watching them, of course — and tell themselves “Well, it’s not like we weren’t ridiculed warned.”

Read Full Post »

The Parable Of The Smart Birds

This is not mine. Jim Bowery, a commenter over at The Inductivist (a blog I occasionally indulge), tells the parable of the smart birds manipulated by the genius birds. I link to it because it is very good in that way parables are supposed to be good: by illuminating ancient and immutable dynamics in human social relations and hinting at the lessons therein.

Once there were 3 classes of birds of a feather: Dumb birds, Smart birds and Genius birds. There was also a genius bird of a different feather hanging around. All summer the genius bird of a different feather went around to the smart birds of a feather telling them how ridiculous it was to fly south for the winter — that these atavistic instincts were a terrible legacy from “the bad old days” and gave very sophisticated-sounding arguments that the smart birds of a feather couldn’t quite understand but understood quite well that they’d better pretend to understand lest they be accused of being dumb birds.

Fall cometh. The dumb birds fly south to the derision of the smart birds. The genius birds of a feather think, “I’ve heard the arguments about flying south for the winter being only for dumb birds, but where really do these feelings come from? Could they have survival value? Could the genius bird of a different feather have a conflict of interest?” Even before thinking the answers through, the mere doubts raised were sufficient to motivate flying south. The smart birds of a feather, hearing these doubts raised by the genius birds of a feather proceeded to attack them as “dumb birds”. They felt superior to the genius birds of a feather. Some genius birds of a feather were even injured enough to stop them from being able to fly south.

Winter hits. The smart birds of a feather die. The injured genius birds of a feather die. The genius birds of a different feather turn out to have an adaptation to cold weather. Spring comes. An evolutionary dynamic reveals itself…

The smart bird parable has much to tell us about intergroup competition. “Flying south” is a stand-in for the metaphor of your choice — drug use, single parenthood, mass immigration — and the group can be however you define it, by class, race or religion. It isn’t a precise explication of contemporary social patterns, but what it does well is get at the rudimentary compulsion which drives group antagonism, and the expedient alliances that serve group self-interest and buttress group self-identification.

Read Full Post »

Long-Term Cohabitation Is Just As Good As Marriage

Many conservative, religious, anti-game and traditionalist types like to claim that this blog underplays the advantages offered to men by marriage. They redundantly quote studies purporting to show that married men live longer, healthier lives than single men. We here at Le Chateau have balked at such assertions, helpfully reminding our traditionalist, neoBiblical brethren that the same benefits found in marriage can be had living in long-term, loving relationships.

The reasoning is simple: the pro-marriage studies are conflating the benefit of living with someone under marital contract with freely living with someone who loves you. Sex, love and affectionate companionship don’t feel any more fulfilling when a piece of paper is signed. If you really think about it, it makes no sense that a man’s health would improve and his lifespan increase because he signed on the marital dotted line. Something else is at work here, and that something else is long-term shared love, with or without the imprimatur of a marriage license.

Of course, haters miss the nuance and continue their rampage against the dissolute lifestyle of the “player”, which they mistakenly believe this blog advocates. (In point of fact, this blog advocates learning game and the way of the alpha so that men have the freedom and the options to pursue whichever type of relationship with women they want, whether that be marriage and its attendant risks or frisky one night stands and their attendant, albeit lesser, risks.) “PUAs are wrong! Marriage is good for men!” they wail, refusing to even tackle the debate points to the contrary that crop up on this blog.

The Chateau warned the trads and supposed “realist” thinkers (this post at Audacious Epigone is a good example of the kind of statistical legerdemain I’m talking about) that the studies claiming health, sexual and psychological benefits accruing to men from marriage were comparing the wrong variables. The comparison should not be between married men and single men, but between married men and ALPHA men in unmarried relationships. Single, quasi-celibate betas and omegas bring down the averages for single men as a whole, and make married men look fucking great in comparison.

The claims about marriage benefits disappear once you alter the variables to reflect a fairer comparison:

1. Unmarried men in long-term relationships receive just as many health and happiness benefits as married men. The crucial variable is not the marriage certificate; it’s the love.

2. Unmarried, cohabiting men enjoy the pleasure of thinner lovers than the fat wives enjoyed by married men. Strike one against the notion that men enjoy better sex within the confines of marriage, even if they are getting more of it than single betas. All indicators are that, once married and backed by the long arm of the law, women pretty much let themselves go to pot.

3. Unmarried players are just as desired by women for marriage as beta providers, (but unmarried players just don’t tend to commit to women as readily.) So marriage tells us little about the quality, or alphaness, of the men who willingly take up the shackles.

4. There is no evidence I’m aware of that married men have more frequent sex with their indentured sperm receptacles aka wives than unmarried men *in relationships* have with their girlfriends. That’s the key distinction. My bet, if such data could be extracted, is that unmarried men with girlfriends, and particularly those who cohabit, have more sex than married men. I throw the challenge out to the GSS nerds to unleash the data.

5. Finally, why do pro-marriage anti-gamers always assume that maximizing sex frequency is the desired goal for men? Quality matters. One hundred sex sessions with a seacow will be less satisfying for most men than one session with a knockout. Go ahead, ask any man about his fondest sex memories. That one night with the bombshell will immediately leap to the front of his mind, crowding out the three years of sex with his dumpy wife. Not to mention, many men will gladly trade lots of one pussy for less of many pussies. Variety is the spice of life.

But wait, stop the presses! Look what we have here. Yet ANOTHER study confirming the Heartiste worldview.

A new study, published in the Journal of Marriage and Family reveals that married couples experience few advantages for psychological well-being, health, or social ties compared to unmarried couples who live together. While both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period. […]

Previous research has sought to prove a link between marriage and well-being, but many studies compared marriage to being single, or compared marriages and cohabitations at a single point in time.

This study compares marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time. […]

The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

“We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem. For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth” said Musick.

I think we can at last put to rest the myth that marriage is some kind of uniquely beneficial arrangement for men.* As this blog has been saying for years, you can get all the benefits of marriage in a loving long-term, unmarried relationship, including cohabitation, without the unbelievably shitty risks.** And now science proves it. Of course, most betas will persist in the erroneous belief that they have to lock a girl in by marrying her, but that’s just testament to their inability to view women through anything but a lens of fear.

*Note: Claiming that a particular romantic arrangement is good for individual men is not the same as claiming it is good for society. While cohabitation offers many advantages to single men, it is probably better for a heterogeneous collective and its mutant posterity that society organize itself around the institution of marriage and the two-parent family. That means making marriage more enticing, not less, for the typical shoe-gazing beta stuck in diversityland.

**As more men come to understand the tangible and intangible benefits that cohabitation offers, and embrace the lifestyle, expect to see hordes of feminists and pilgrim johns try to regulate it so that it begins to resemble in burden the same crumbling wreck of marriage that men are abandoning in droves. There’s no way those interests are gonna let a cash cow in the form of transfer payments from men to women just disintegrate overnight. And make no mistake, or be deluded by the sloppy romanticism with which beta males imbue the institution: marriage is a sacrifice for men, and a gain for women. There are no two ways about it. Men have to surrender fealty to their primary directive to spread their seed in exchange for second-rate benefits that can be had just as easily within unmarried LTRs, while women get sustained material and emotional provisioning that more closely aligns with their innate monogamous proclivity. All the sacrifice from legalized commitment, in other words, is born by the man. Cohabitation is an escape clause that no feminist or tradcon, if they give it some thought, can allow to persist unimpeded.

Read Full Post »

How To Destroy The Education Racket

Pop quiz: What’s the one major consumer expense that has been rising at a faster rate than healthcare?

Take a look at this chart:

Academia. What a scam.

In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., in the first and most famous of the disparate impact theory cases, that the use of broad-based aptitude tests in hiring practices was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Around 1978, college tuition costs began to skyrocket, and haven’t let up since.

Coincidence? I think not.

The answer to busting the hyperinflationary tuition cost curve is to overturn the Griggs ruling. Employers, deprived of the opportunity to directly screen job applicants, have turned to the next available proxy tool of judgment: college degrees. Naturally, this initially caused the value of a college degree to rise, a stampede of mediocrities rushed into the hallowed halls, and then the college degree was gutted of its worth as employers began to realize how many useless grads academia was churning out. In the fallout, the game was ratcheted up a rung, tuition costs blew up because academia now had monopoly power over employer screening (think of academia as an entrenched and enriched middleman), and the master’s degree has become worth what the bachelor’s was in the past. And the bachelor’s degree? Well, say hello to communications and women’s studies majors.

Faculty and university admin, of course, hate the thought of Griggs being overturned, and disparate impact cases in general going the way of the dodo. Who could blame them? They know that “disparate impact” is code for “butters my bread”.

Read Full Post »

False Rape Culture

A male reader sounds the alarm:

Recently I’ve been seeing “wanted” papers taped to trees and poles in the neighborhood in the city I live in. There’s a face shot of a black guy and it says underneath “WANTED: For domestic abuse of women”. I think there’s a number to call if you spot the guy. You can tell by the quality of the printout that it’s a civilian, not the police, that is hanging these up. This is scary stuff, if you ask me. What if the guy is innocent? He’s just had his name smeared all over town.

A couple months ago, I saw a similar wanted poster stapled to a kiosk. Photo of a guy who, truth be told, no one would mistake for a choir boy, and an accusation that the guy was a rapist and abuser. It was a low quality print that looked like it was hastily arranged and distributed by an angry ex-girlfriend. Judging by the look of him, I would not be surprised he was guilty of whatever sins against angelic womanhood his ex accused him of. But that’s not the point.

What if this vigilante feminist trend becomes widespread and adopted by aggrieved exes who just want to lash out with a great vengeance and libel the men who dumped them? I could easily see a leafletting campaign of slander by rancid feminists who love assholes but hate getting dumped by them becoming popular. This has the potential to be a growth industry fueled by embittered, man-hating cunts.

Feminists like to talk a big talk about “rape culture”, but the reality is that what the US and other countries of the West are seeing unfolding and growing in social acceptance is the opposite: the false rape culture. Social shaming mechanisms against false rape or abuse accusations, including accusations of abuse stripped of context (Hi, Penelope Cunk!), coupled with social acceptance of these kinds of feminism-inspired witch hunts (or, more precisely, warlock hunts), is leading us down a cultural path where libel, slander and malicious defamation of men become part of the wonderful and vibrant tapestry of society.

In reality, what’s to stop a bitterbitch from making wanted posters of some jerk she still loves who cheated on her? What about a feminist who took an innocent flirtatious gesture the wrong way? Or a girl who enjoyed a few weeks of fun with a player but was disappointed he didn’t want to be exclusive? Are men going to start seeing their mug shots all over town?

This development is so pernicious and ripe for ABUSE that the only way to battle it is to stiffen the penalties for slander, libel and false rape or abuse allegations. The law needs to be updated to reflect the new, anonymous, information-loaded world we occupy. My proposal: any woman who gets caught making a false rape or abuse accusation gets exactly as much time in jail as a man indicted for the alleged rape or sexual abuse would get.

That should nip it in the nip.

But if the law won’t cooperate, there’s another option: mutually assured destruction. A thicket of “WANTED: FOR SLUTTY FUN”, “BEWARE: GOLDDIGGER” and “WARNING: CHEATING HO” posters should turn up the heat enough that it’ll make girls think twice about playing the female game of social ostracism in public venues.

Read Full Post »

Pajamas Feminism

There’s a reason I argue that feminism is anti-standards, and thus, anti-beauty. If girls start taking up the feminist banner in earnest, expect to see ugliness shroud the nation like an advancing orc army spilling out of Mordor. And one sign of that ugliness is women thumbing their noses at feminine fashion. Roosh writes about feminism’s anti-beauty message: “Next thing you know, American women will appear in public wearing pajamas.”

Already too late. Recently walking through what we’ll call ‘Whole SWPLs’ on a weekend afternoon, I noticed a hipster-ish couple groping a selection of gala apples. Both the man and the woman were wearing what looked exactly like pajamas. Loose-fitting, billowy, plaid cotton pajama pants, pilling from too many washings and dryings. They had jackets on, but underneath the girl’s jacket I spied what appeared to be the matching top to her pajamas.

Maybe these were clothes designed to mimic the look of pajamas, but does it matter whether they actually tumbled out of bed and seized the day in their sleepwear, or if they put on clothes that looked like they tumbled out of bed to seize the day in their sleepwear?

That’s it. We’ve arrived. The total neglect of one’s appearance is now a fashion statement. A nation of Dudes and Dudettes. Careful man, I’m holding an iPhone here.

Read Full Post »

Japan’s Glorious Stagnation

Over at Steve Sailer’s, there’s a discussion going on about Japan’s slow economic growth and aging population not reflecting the reality of good living standards on the Japanese ground, something that you will rarely see addressed by mainstream American economists with their corporatist agendas to push. This comment by Anonymous is insightful:

It’s about “Who, whom?” as usual.

Foreign investors i.e. American hedge funds, banks, etc. don’t like Japan because Japan’s real estate and financial markets have been flat. That’s what’s meant by “lost decade”. It’s not that it’s been that bad for ordinary Japanese, what’s been “lost” is the opportunity for these foreign investors to make capital gains and extract more money out of Japan for themselves.

What the foreign investors wanted was for Japan to sell its people out and gin up its real estate and financial markets by things like immigration population growth.

A flat, low real estate and financial market is not necessarily a bad thing for your ordinary citizens. It keeps the costs down for your ordinary citizens to buy.

This applies not only between foreign investors and ordinary Japanese, but also between Wall St. and ordinary American citizens in fly-over country.

Everyone has their interests. Bankers (cue lzzlollzzlol) and realtors rely on the churn created by population growth and demographic shift (in the US’s case, stimulated by massive open borders immigration) to line their pockets beyond any reasonable value they create for society. Academics, as well, profit from the globalist program: hollowing out the status and pay of blue collar, working class jobs by advocating for the importation of millions that will not directly compete with their own elevated sinecures has helped energize a rush of fearful mediocrities into college, diluting the brand but fattening the wallets of the robber profs.

There is no doubt this strategy by the elite (or 1%ers, if you will) has been sound, from their perspective. Undercutting wage labor and inflating real estate values through diversity lending and the exploitation of the ancient human tribal instinct to agglomerate into ever-smaller cordoned enclaves of fellowmen has boosted corporate profit margins and enriched the coffers of institutional investment houses.

A good faith economist — someone who’s willing to buck received wisdom — will question the assumption that economic and population growth is an unalloyed good. Or that human capital isn’t constrained by innate preconditions, on both an individual level and a group level. Or that human behavior often manifests irrationally from an economic point of view, and can’t be “fixed” without incurring hefty costs.

Japan may be aging and they may be naughty for not throwing open their borders to tens of millions of non-Japanese to spur real estate bubbles, but from reports on the ground, it sounds like life over there is pretty good for the average Japanese. Maybe America could learn a thing or two about the benefits of lost decades.

Read Full Post »