Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

The form and the function. Women abide the form, men abide the function. MagyarFaszALegjobbFasz (i’m as puzzled as the rest of you) has a great comment implicitly tying together the female predilection to act as Tone Police with the overrun of Western societies by Dirt World Dreck.

This is classic feminine TONE POLICE. Ask any married man, he’s heard this shit a thousand times. In her moral calculus that the white knight’s tone is actually worse than the Slav drunkard’s behavior.

“I agree with you but I don’t like the way you said it.”

This comes pre-installed in every women — the question is how high is the dial set to?

1-3 = girl next door
4-6 = bitch next door
7-10 = feminazi shrike

The feminine is all about the form, and has no respect for function. This is why most masculine men find women boring, trite and superficial. It’s why women love credentialism. All surface, no depth.

The mistake the British white knight made is that he paid any attention to her and treated her like an equal/adult and/or expected her to support him.

Never expect courage from the feminine. It happens, but it is rare. Remember, men move to danger, women move away from it. (That is exactly what happened in the clip too.)

She’s a child. She should keep her mouth shut and not interrupt adults. He should have signaled that.

I am sure heartiste et al have strategies to deal with tone police shit testing. Now would be a good time to share them given the obliviousness of the commenters on this post.

The Tone Police, or rather the Crone Police because schoolmarmish tut tutting has the effect of prematurely aging women and robbing them of their tender femininity, is a real problem in the West. Our Western White women are, among the world’s races of women, most severely afflicted by the urge to scold nonconformists to the reigning shitlib orthodoxy. (NonWestern women learn real quick what happens to them when they betray their men for the favors of invaders and effete UN monitors.)

It is inarguable that in general women are the sex more risk-averse, socially conforming, and superficially wedded to universalist norms of behavior. Men concerned with the wholesale abandonment of their homelands to invader ingrates for the pennywise pound-foolish siren call of cheap labor, moral preening, and real estate churn need to have strategies and tactics at the ready to disarm their hovering Crone Police.

As with pickup and Game tactics, the best defense is a good offense. Shit testing Crone Police should be answered similarly to how shit testing bar thots are answered:

  1. Agree & Amplify (“I’M SO SORRY, I want our country to turn into a Third World heaven just as much as you do.”)
  2. State Control (“Thanks. I’ve been working hard to improve my racism.”)
  3. Dismissiveness (“lol you’re gay”)
  4. Shock & Awe (“Shut up, cunt”)
  5. Id Vivisection (“If you want to fuck him, just ask.”)
  6. Amused Mastery (“I’m glad you like it”)
  7. The Asshole Counterattack (“Was I talking to you?”)
  8. Assume the Sale (“This isn’t the time for flirting with me.”)
  9. The Aggro Asshole Counterattack (“Your ugly face offends me.”)
  10. Amused Mastery 2 (“That’s Mr. Racist to you”)
  11. Assume the Sale 2 (“Sorry, I’m not your type”)
  12. The Disregarding Brush-Off (“yup” or “see ya”)

The take-home lesson is that you’ll always be on the winning side as long as you aren’t flustered or defensive. Be vigilant and prepared for the Crone Police, and you’ll never let yourself, nor your country, down.

Read Full Post »

Hat tip, El Kapitan, who writes,

Check out this one. It sums up western Europe so beautifully:

-A rude, aggressive immigrant openly breaking the law.
-A well meaning but completely powerless “native” man.
-A virtue signaling woman, complete with what appears to be a variation of a pussy hat. Prepare to feel organically misogynistic by the end.

Englishmen are the world’s most pathetic White Knights. Even the stronger among them who have the stones to reprimand a drunk migrant on public transit will wilt like summer flowers under the stern gaze of one of their shitlib women.

And just as expected, the Pathetic White Knight receives for his valor the reward of one of his own women coming to the defense of the ingrate migrant. You know how those Western educated shitliberal chicks dig jerkboys! Maybe that’s the problem…Western women don’t want to be their Western men’s women any longer; they want to be the Swarth World’s women.

williamk adds,

My shilling is on limey. Firm, still body language, holds eye contact. Migrant always looks away first and has more random, uncontrolled energy. Would it translate to a fight? Don’t know, but the brit is clearly the alpha of the dynamic here. He even gets up for the “lady” and then swats away her little soliloquoy with total frame control.

Like DNC, I suspect gypsy. Would a “polish” guy be so quick to play the “race” card? I truly don’t know, UK brahs can help – do poles play the racial outsider angle like this? Its fishy.

The drunk looks gypsy or Serb to me, but he could be a mixed ethnicity Pole. Poles have assimilated well in the US, having caused very little trouble historically in this country. I can tell you for sure that if this migrant had been a kebab or cannibal, our Englishman would have taken a knife to the gut as soon as he opened his mouth to complain. But I agree with williamk; the limey has the alpha body language and vocal tone here. Too bad he gives it all away as soon as yon faire maiden chastised him.

“Shut up, cunt,” was the only acceptable response to that fishmouth termagant when she decided to stretch out her piehole and virtue snivel for the assembled.

I can tell you this…White Men of the West are getting pissed off. If the current state of Uppity Phaggotry will ever end, it will be at the hands and by the will of angry White Men.

White men want their White women to stand by them in their fight against the Invasion. Instead, our White women prefer betrayal. They won’t be loyal until White men wield the pimp hand again. And that means White Knights have to be as mercilessly mocked as is civilization’s mortal in-house enemy, the pursed-lip pussyhatter femcunt.

Sanctimonious, virtue sniveling White women who refuse to fight for their nations by standing by their men are mortal enemies of the West. They will only defer to the pimp hand.

***

A pro comment from Scanman:

Note the invader’s assertion that “you have no right to tell me not to drink. Tell the police.”

The idea that rules are something members of a community agree to abide by in order to maintain certain standards and quality of life of the community is a high trust culture idea (Anglo Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian).

In asiatic/Mid East/African cultures, rules are something decreed from the top down to be obeyed solely to avoid punishment. If you can reliably avoid punishment (which this belligerent asshole knew for certain that he could), there is no reason to obey them.

Now keeping this in mind, someone please explain to me how The Bill of Rights survives when the founding Anglo Saxon stock becomes a minority in the US. If you think Guatemalans or Nigerians give two fucks about such things, you are completely deluded. It was something they had to know to pass the citizenship exam. Nothing more.

Society is a genetic construct. Women don’t have to understand it but they sure as hell have to abide by it or we might as well just burn the whole bitch down.

I’d argue it’s a fool’s errand trying to impart understanding of biocultural realities to women; they will only revolt against those realities. Better and more effective to expect women to simply abide social rules. The trick is ensuring that the social rules are created by White men and not by ingrate invaders.

Read Full Post »

Le 56% Four are lionized here.

Related.

***

😆 😆 😆

The real face of the Repeal The 2nd Amendment March is a Democrat Baby Boomer wearing a pussyhat to feel young and hip again. It looks like this:

Still laughing. Gun grabbers aren’t the future; they’re the musty old cat lady boomers of the past.

Watergate Ghost quips,

Who here is shocked that the Democrat propaganda march was filled with the same boots that fill out every other Democrat propaganda march?

These flabby pussyhatter cat lady cows with one foot in the coffin don’t have much of a romantic life, so they have to fill their free time with something other than suicidal thoughts. BOOM ON.

Read Full Post »

Hot off the presses, a criminally patriarchal research paper has concluded that men with higher income and status have more reproductive success than women with high income and status have in industrialized nations. First, to set the table, an excerpt from the abstract:

It is concluded that an evolutionary perspective helps explain reproductive patterns in modern humans and may thus make a valuable contribution in the assessment of urgent contemporary problems.

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all, across space and time.
– Le 156% Heartiste

Female hypergamy, female education, female economic self-sufficiency, low female fertility…choose any four.

In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.

In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.

Low status beta and omega males are bigger losers in this new world order than they were before under the rock solid pre-femcunt patriarchal system, because the women who would be theirs under the old rules have decided to skip past them for a shot at 1. the high status alpha or 2. a tub of ben and jerrys.

The biggest DARWINIAN WINNERS are the charming jerkboy cads and the sociopath hedge funders.

Post-America alpha males enjoy not only reproductive success (in an environment in which widespread use of contraceptives thwarts the ability to convert bangs into bangbinos), but sexual success:

Potential fertility — that’s a nerdy way to say “sexiness”. Men with high social and economic status in industrialized and primitive nations alike — HSMV alphas — monopolize the hottest babes, and probably more than their fair share of the plain janes too. The Pill and condom don’t thwart the sex act; those things just thwart the consequence of the sex act, and incentivize women to liberate their sexuality (which in practice means liberating themselves from beta males). Imagine how many little snot-nosed Heartistes (heartots?) would be running around creating kindergarten mayhem if the Industrial Contraception Complex didn’t exist.

How unequally is sex distributed in industrialized jizztopias? Very:

There are interesting eugenic/dysgenic possibilities to ponder from this knowledge. There is dysgenic selection pressure on high status women — at least as measured by income, social status, and their proxy, IQ — but eugenic selection pressure on their male counterparts, the HSMV alphas who are having more kids.

This isn’t a complete picture, though, because female mate worth is so much more tied into their physical beauty. Those HSMV alpha males are choosing less educated, less wealthy, lower SES “status” women who are younger, hotter, tighter, so by Darwinian calculation the end result is very eugenic: capable sons and pretty daughters. This is evidence that the West is beginning to pursue the patented CH BOSSS strategy of sexual market health and societal reinvigoration.

I’ve been warning about this stuff for a while, and I’m glad to see ¡SCIENCE! finally catching up with Heartistian observations. There was only ever going to be one effective response by men to the emergence of weaponized female hypergamy (and it wasn’t cuddly beta supplication).

Game will save the West….in one respect, by heightening its late stage contradictions and encouraging a change in course.

***

On the silliness of the “wage gap”:

…and the silliness of the feminist narrative about the “patriarchy”:

******

Some juicy excerpts from the paper linked in this post:

religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity…

***

In addition to the fact that close inbreeding carries genetic risks (discussed previously), this may also be the case (p. 485) for distant outbreeding, although the effects of outbreeding are far less clear…

***

…homogamy along certain characteristics has consequences as well. Particularly educational homogamy may be an undervalued risk factor, resulting in less permeability of social stratification and hence a stronger segregation of the social strata. This has negative consequences for “social cohesion,” increasing the tensions within a society.

***

In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”

Word of the day: Homogamy.

It is the secret Truth that shivs miscegenation propagandists dead.

…empirical evidence for a fitness advantage over generations by reducing the number of children and investing more in fewer children is minimal or absent. Evidence suggests that on the one hand, low fertility increases the progenies’ socioeconomic position, but on the other hand, it reduces long-term fitness.

***

In addition, different strategies of maximizing versus optimizing fertility may lead to a conflict between the sexes.

Aka the modren sexual market. The battle of the sexes has never been more pitched than it is now.

Read Full Post »

Theranos.

The tech company is in the news because its celebrated female CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, was just charged with committing “massive fraud” by the SEC for misleading investors with false claims about her company’s tech.

And that little shitlord boy went HA HAAWW!

Watch this video of Holmes speaking in the patois of a souldead corporate diversiwhore automaton.

Wew. The Strange.

Under the skin of every female CEO you’ll find high T, manjawdibles, phallic clits, an excitable infidelity-cuckoldry neural feedback loop, a deep ocean vocal register, and quite often a leftover kippah from her bitch mitzvah.

In other words, a man. Parenthetically speaking.

PS Gaze into the technicolor funhouse abyss of her eyes. Crazy is as crazy glares. We live in the era of autistic psychocunts. #LOSING

Read Full Post »

This is the ideal cat lady. You may not like it, but this is what Peak Resting Bitch Face looks like.

She had her first eggs frozen at the ripe young age of 38. Story here.

Let’s zoom in on those eyes.

Thousand Cat Stare.

Brigitte Adams caused a sensation four years ago when she appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek under the headline, “Freeze your eggs, Free your career.” She was single and blond, a Vassar graduate who spoke fluent Italian, and was working in tech marketing for a number of prestigious companies. Her story was one of empowerment, how a new fertility procedure was giving women more choices, as the magazine noted provocatively, “in the quest to have it all.”

Adams remembers feeling a wonderful sense of freedom after she froze her eggs in her late 30s, despite the $19,000 cost. Her plan was to work a few more years, find a great guy to marry and still have a house full of her own children.

How can an ostensibly SMRT, overeducated woman be so fucking deluded? I doubt artificial wombs or lab-grown eggs, or the egg freezing already available and discussed in this sob story, will have the huge impact on the sexual market that I hear claimed in some quarters. Men don’t fuck frozen eggs or hidden wombs. Men fuck women. A woman’s face and body is what motivates men to fucking or to a bid at fucking. This is why I’ve argued sexbots will be the game-changer, rather than those other reproductive technologies coming down the pike. The sexbot correctly manipulates men by simulating the experience of sex with a younger, hotter, tighter woman.

Our Peak RBF has forgotten the common sense that “younger, hotter, tighter” doesn’t mean “younger, hotter, tighter eggs”. A sexy egg in a decrepit body is still an egg no man would bother fertilizing.

Things didn’t turn out the way she hoped.

The realness of physiognomy applies. What man would want to wife up a prissy schoolmarm careerist shrike with that pleasing face? Surely, one look at her and all men would think, “there’s a feminine lady who would happily cook me dinner and give me blowjobs and have unfaked orgasms”.

In early 2017, with her 45th birthday looming and no sign of Mr. Right, she decided to start a family on her own.

*insert Idiocracy opening scene*

She excitedly unfroze the 11 eggs she had stored and selected a sperm donor.

Was that excitement or panic?

Two eggs failed to survive the thawing process. Three more failed to fertilize. That left six embryos, of which five appeared to be abnormal. The last one was implanted in her uterus. On the morning of March 7, she got the devastating news that it, too, had failed.

Darwin welped.

Adams was not pregnant, and her chances of carrying her genetic child had just dropped to near zero. She remembers screaming like “a wild animal,” throwing books, papers, her laptop — and collapsing to the ground.

The God of Biomechanics wins in the end. (tbh it’s best for the race if her kind drop out of the darwinian arena.)

The story goes on to describe in excruciating detail the low, low odds of women conceiving via frozen eggs, with the odds dropping precipitously every year after age 35, a time in a hopeful woman’s life known as the “fertility cliff”. By age 40, most women should just throw in the towel and become nuns.

In an unfortunate and unfair twist of nature, men are believed to replenish their sperm at a rate of 1,500 a second through most of their lives; there are documented cases of men remaining fertile into their 90s. Age also affects the quality of sperm [ed: overblown risk pushed by aggrieved feminist researchers], according to numerous studies. But the effect on fertility is markedly less dramatic than in women.

Sperm is economical
Eggs are valuable
Men are expendable
Women perishable

The procedure is growing rapidly in popularity: Gina Bartasi, the former chief executive at fertility benefits company Progyny, predicts that as many as 76,000 women could elect to freeze their eggs this year.

Natural selection in real time. The White women of the future will be nothing like the careerist ballcutters of today. Think more “Stepford wife” than “empowered shrike”.

Her own story has a happy twist.

After a dark period of mourning and soul-searching, Adams began IVF again, this time with a donor egg and donor sperm. On a recent weekday afternoon, she was lying on an exam table staring at a computer screen — her first ultrasound.

She is literally an incubator for a child who has no genetic connection to her and was conceived of a father she has never met. Yet somehow, incredibly, she manages, along with a guiding agitprop hand from the media whore, to put a non-dystopian, happy clappy spin on her predicament.

Picking out a sperm donor was fun, she said, like perusing an online dating site to find the ideal mate.

The problem is that she spent too much of her total lifetime in urban slore hell perusing dating sites for men who would ultimately pump and dump her in search of more fertile asstures. And now, looking at her, she’ll be lucky to catch the attention of old black men.

Trying to select an egg donor, on the other hand, was “excruciating,” she says: “You are thinking, ‘This should be me.’ ”

Of course. That’s her bioprogramming telling her she done fucked up.

Adams says she is trying to control her emotions, given the ups and downs of her long journey. But then the doctor comes in and locates the thud-thud of a heartbeat, and her eyes start to water.

The baby, a girl, is due in May.

This is how the West ends
this is how the West ends
this is how the West ends
with a procession of issue-less bangs followed by a single autistic, allergic, Downs-y IVF daughter who will grow up to hate her selfish bitch mother for dying on her before her high school graduation and for denying her a flesh and blood father to love.

***

A big reason why we have an epidemic of overeducated women tragically delaying marriage and childbirth until it’s too late is because of the reality of female hypergamy. When women gain economic, occupational and social status, their mate criteria rise commensurate to the rise in their self-perceived (or more precisely, their self-wished) SMV. The tragedy is that their high SMV left them in their youth.

Read Full Post »

Here’s some news you can rue: 40% of all US births are to single moms, a 700% increase since 1960, (although the rate does appear to have peaked in the last few years….we’ll see if it holds (it won’t if the US de-Whitening continues apace)).

The Social Capital Project, spearheaded by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), decided to investigate why single motherhood has become more common in the last two generations. Since 1960, America’s single motherhood rate has risen from 5 percent to 40 percent in absolute terms—a 700 percent increase in under 60 years.

Too short of a time period for this trend to be the result of genetic disposition alone. Genes may be involved (in that there could be genes which make a woman more or less monogamously inclined), but given the rapid increase in single mommery it’s reasonable to conclude that deep and broad social changes have exerted the greater influence, either by directly altering behavior through a suite of incentives and disincentives, or by providing reinforcing stimuli to genetic triggers that switch on or off depending on environmental inputs.

The report offers explanations for the rise in single mommery that reiterate most of what I’ve written on the topic: namely, female economic independence, State welfare as Daddy substitute, the Pill, and male economic stagnation are the big incentives fueling the increase, largely through the mechanism of reducing the number of fertile-age married women.

To review, the past 60 years have seen more unmarried women and more of them engaged in sexual activity, leading more of them to become pregnant, even as fewer married women today get pregnant or give birth. Shotgun marriage has declined, and over the past 40 years declining rates of unintended pregnancy among unmarried women and rising acceptability of unwed childbearing have led to fewer abortions. Rising unwed pregnancies, declining shotgun marriage, and falling abortion produced more unwed births. All of those trends increased the share of births to unmarried women.

How important were each of these changes in raising the share of births that occur to unmarried women? We can roughly simulate counterfactual scenarios in which some factors changed as they actually did while others are kept at their early 1960s levels. In Figure 14, the top line shows the estimated increase in the share of births that were to unwed mothers from the early 1960s to the late 2000s, an increase from 8 percent to 43 percent. Many people might be inclined to see this rise and attribute it to an increase in pregnancy among single women. But the next line down indicates that this factor is a minor one. It shows that the share of births to unwed mothers would still have risen to 36 percent if the nonmarital pregnancy rate had stayed as low as it was in the early 1960s while everything else changed—the share of women who were married, marital pregnancy rates, marital abortion rates, nonmarital abortion rates, and shotgun marriage rates.

Emphasis mine. The factors driving the massive increase in single mommery are primarily exogenous, ie independent of the single woman pregnancy rate.

In fact, the fall in the marital pregnancy rate appears to be a more important factor; if that rate had remained at its high early-1960s level while everything else changed (including the nonmarital pregnancy rate), the share of births to unwed mothers would have risen only to 32 percent.

Fewer marriages, more later-in-life enfeebled-egg marriages together decrease the marital pregnancy rate. (The marital abortion rate is very low.)

The decline in shotgun marriage has been a bigger factor than changes in either nonmarital or marital pregnancy rates taken individually (and about as important as changes in both taken together).

Shotgun marriage — basically, a woman’s family persuading the father to “man up” and marry the woman he knocked up before she gives unwed birth to the shame of her family — is a lot less common today because severed social bonds which used to make the threat of public shame palpable, and cultural changes in how single momhood is viewed (from less to more positively), have reduced the urgency to provide a conception with the imprimatur of marriage.

The biggest single factor in raising the share of births that were to unwed mothers seems to be the decline in marriage, which has expanded the pool of potential unwed mothers. Had the share of women ages 15-44 who were married stayed at its early-1960s level while everything else changed, just 24 percent of births would have been to single mothers in the late 2000s. The decline in marriage primarily reflects an increase in never-married women rather than divorced or widowed women (not shown).

This is basically the “I don’t need no man, I’m an empowered careerist shrike” phenomenon, which, as you will read, created a premarital sexual market feedback loop encouraging men to demand sex from women without offering marriage in exchange.

The report authors conclude that the cause of the rise in single mommery is NOT primarily a consequence of negative economic trends. Instead, they blame affluence for weakened family stability.

Affluence brought a proliferation of novel ways to enjoy leisure time and fed a growing pay-off to enrolling in higher education. Marrying early, having children early, staying in unfulfilling marriages, and having large families became more costly relative to the available alternative ways to achieve fulfillment, whether through pursuit of a humanities Ph.D. or sexual gratification.41 The result was an increase in the pool of single people and a decline in marital birth rates.

At the same time that women began to demand more educational and economic opportunities, rising affluence facilitated the expansion of the two-earner family. The introduction of more and more labor-saving home appliances and types of processed food reduced the amount of time necessary for housework. As family incomes rose, more and more couples could afford paid child care, meals outside the home, and other services that replaced the considerable work housewives had traditionally undertaken.

Rising affluence also was responsible for the development of reliable contraception. The pill, in particular, allowed women to control their own fertility and facilitated family planning around career considerations. This new ability greatly increased the appeal to women of professional pursuits.

Executive Mommery: Affluence and technology decoupled sex from marriage.

Affluence and technological development facilitated the decoupling of sex and marriage, which increased nonmarital sexual activity and elevated unwed pregnancy rates. Penicillin brought an end to the syphilis crisis that regulated sexual activity through much of the first half of the twentieth century. The pill provided a way to dramatically reduce the chance of an unintended pregnancy. And abortion became safer, fueling rising demand for legal abortion services that culminated in the Roe decision.

As nonmarital sex became safer and its consequences less severe, more single men and women became sexually active. This trend became self-reinforcing. Normative regulation of sexual activity among single men and women loosened. In 1969, 68 percent of American adults agreed that pre-marital sexual relations were wrong. Just four years later in 1973, that number had dropped to 47 percent, a decline of nearly one-third, and as of 2016, only 33 percent agreed that sex between an unmarried man and woman is wrong. What is more, pressure increased on ambivalent single women to engage in sex in order to win and maintain the affection of romantic partners and potential husbands.

When women no longer needed marriage (because women were economically and reproductively self-sufficient), men no longer needed to barter marriage for sex. Now where have you read that before? Oh yeah…..HERE.

As we have seen, despite advances in birth control (or, paradoxically, because of those advances), more sexual activity led to higher rates of unwed pregnancy. While wider use of more effective birth control might have been expected to reduce pregnancy rates, it may be that the greater availability of contraception itself increased sexual activity.

Steve Sailer has made this same point about abortion; paradoxically, the increasing availability of cheap, effective abortion incentivized increased sexual activity, because it’s human nature to do risky stuff if we believe operators are standing by to protect us from the consequences of our risk-taking.

Regardless of the reasons behind this increase, not all sexually active couples used effective methods of birth control or used them consistently. Many couples, in the pre-pill past, would have been poor contraceptors but were not sexually active. But as nonmarital sex became more common, their reproductive fates became more tied to their ability to prevent sexual intercourse from leading to pregnancy. In this regard, relatively disadvantaged women suffered disproportionate consequences from the more general changes in societal norms around nonmarital sex.

Noblesse malice. Or: culture norms matter.

The availability of the pill and legal abortion also affected shotgun marriage, which further contributed to the rise in unwed childbearing. Previously, single women could expect a promise of marriage from their boyfriends in the event of pregnancy. Men, after all, generally would have to make a promise of marriage in any other relationship. But over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, given the diminished risk of unintended pregnancy, more and more single women were open to sex without a marriage promise. That weakened the bargaining power of single women who preferred not to engage in sex without the promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.

Sluts are a chaste woman’s worst enemy. The feminist movement against “slut shaming” is the revolt of less attractive women who can’t compete with prettier women able to convince men to hold out for marriage without the women giving away the bore store.

Further, the availability of effective contraception and abortion may have led many men (and their friends and family) to reason that since women have a degree of control over whether they get pregnant or choose to carry a pregnancy to term, a man who impregnates a single woman is not obliged to marry her.

Feedback loops, I see them. AKA it takes two to tango. AKA men and women don’t exist in a sex-differentiated vacuum.

Finally, affluence also made it more affordable to be a single mother relative to the era before World War II. Socioeconomically advantaged women could better afford to raise children on one income, sometimes with child support from their former partner. Disadvantaged women could draw on an expanded federal safety net that reflected the rising wealth of American taxpayers. That safety net afforded a fairly meager lifestyle on its own, but in combination with their own earnings and assistance from family, friends, and partners, women could increasingly make it work (especially if they had only known an impoverished living standard themselves growing up).

However, the particular way that American safety nets were designed often disincentivized women from marrying or staying married, since benefits were generally even less generous to two-parent families. That led to increases in unwed childbearing too.

There is a contingent of tradcon-ish righties who balk at the idea that the State and the social norming of working women create disincentives for women to marry; but here we are, data in hand showing exactly that.

The report authors conclude that male economic fortunes aren’t the main cause of the decreasing marriage rate (and subsequent rise in the single mommery rate). However, I note that the authors make the critical analysis error of ignoring the reality and impact of female hypergamy. This is a very common flaw in these studies, but it’s a critical flaw because women don’t judge the status of men in absolute terms; women judge the marriageability (the bux) and romantic worth (the fux) of men relative to other men AND relative TO WOMEN. Read on to see what I mean.

The idea that affluence is behind the rising share of births to unwed mothers may sound strange to those who hold a more negative view of the American economy. The prevailing wisdom is that unwed childbearing has been driven by the deteriorating position of male workers. Poor, working- and middle-class men, it is claimed, have seen lower pay over time, reflecting globalization, deindustrialization, and automation. The weak labor market has driven an increasing number of men out of the labor force entirely. Thus, some reason that the reduction in the share of potential male partners who women consider “marriageable,” combined with a persisting value placed on motherhood, explains why women have increasingly chosen to have children without getting married.

There are a number of problems with this position, however. For starters, most of the trends discussed above that have contributed to a rising unwed birth share began or began to accelerate in the 1960s. Nonmarital birth rates were rising in the 1940s and 1950s, and perhaps earlier. The increase in the unwed birth share itself started in the 1950s and accelerated beginning in the 1960s. In other words, these trends generally extend back at least to the “Golden Age” of twentieth-century America—when productivity and wage growth were much stronger than after the 1960s, and when household incomes were rising faster in the bottom half of the income distribution than above it.

Second, rather than seeing declines in pay, men have generally seen flat or modestly rising compensation since the 1960s. That certainly has been a disappointment compared with the strong wage growth of the 1950s and 1960s, but it remains the case that men are mostly doing at least as well as their 1960s counterparts, and so it is unclear why they should seem less marriageable than in the past.

I’ll clear it up for the authors: Hypergamy. As women have seen their career prospects and personal incomes rise, economically stagnating men have been hardest hit by women’s innate desire for higher status mates. A working class man is a catch for a jobless single woman, but he brings nothing to a working woman who already has her basic needs met. And as women rise occupationally and financially, their attraction for higher status men than themselves rises along with their own economic status. This leads to working women choosing men based on non-provider mate value cues, or choosing to drop out of the marriage hunt altogether.

Oh, and obesity. Can’t forget female obesity, which is a big (heh) driver of the low marriage rate. Men don’t want to marry fat chicks. There are more fat chicks since 1960. Ergo, there are fewer marriages.

(Fat men are less of an obstacle to marriage because women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s physiques as men put on women’s physiques.)

Third, to the extent that men’s labor market outcomes have worsened, this could reflect the increase in unwed childbearing rather than the former causing the latter. Research finds that married men have better labor market outcomes than single men, even accounting for the fact that they may be more marriageable.

Genetic confounds.

If partners, families, and society writ large have come to accept single parenthood, it is likely that their expectations of nonresident fathers have diminished as well, which could have reduced the effort those men put into optimizing their economic status.

I’ve mentioned this before: working women disincentivize male resource provision (there are those sexual market feedback loops again), and the corollary to that is economically vulnerable women incentivize male resource provision.

This may be particularly true in disadvantaged communities where single parenthood is common. Alternatively, the legal or moral obligation to pay child support may lead some absent fathers to avoid the formal labor market and rely on family, friends, informal work, and the underground economy.

When the State gets involved in the family formation racket, bad outcomes usually ensue.

Even the “marriageable man” hypothesis ultimately presumes a baseline level of affluence that, historically speaking, is a recent phenomenon. The argument that because men are less marriageable, women are delaying or foregoing marriage but still choosing to have children presumes that many women are able to afford single motherhood. If not for increased female earnings potential relative to the past or a more generous government safety net, it would matter little if men became less marriageable. Women would be unable to afford single motherhood, and rather than seeing rising unwed childbearing we would simply see reduced childbearing.

Ensuring the economic self-sufficiency of women has created the single mom crisis.

Social phenomena are complicated and have multiple causes, but our read of the evidence—and we are by no means alone—is that negative economic trends explain little of the overall rise in unwed childbearing. Instead, we think it is more likely that, as with other worsening aspects of our associational life, rising family instability primarily reflects societal affluence, which reduced marriage and marital childbearing, increased divorce and nonmarital sexual activity and pregnancy, and reduced shotgun marriage.

Mass scaled society is creating a gynarchy (defined by me as a society organized around the primacy of women and their needs, and characterized by social chaos). The Gynarchy is a synonym for Africa. That’s where we’re heading….the blight side of history.

This does not mean we should lament rising affluence. There is no reason we must choose between having healthier families and communities or having stronger economic growth. Indeed, it is possible to imagine a future in which rising affluence will allow more women and men alike to work less and less and spend more time with children, families, friends, neighbors, and fellow congregants.

On this subject, I’m a pessimist. Good times create…and all that. First, there’s the loss of purpose that accompanies the Automated Life. This hits men especially hard, because men, unlike women, don’t primarily get their sense of purpose from raising children and chatting up the neighbors hoping for gossipy dirt. Men get their purpose from work, from achievement, and (yes) from sexual conquest.

Second, there’s the matriarchal nature of “workless” societies in which men are rendered superfluous as resource providers for women and children. This is guaranteed to encourage cock carouseling, alpha fux beta bux, delayed marriage and spinsterhood, and low fertility rate. The end result of affluence will be more time with oneself, rather than with children, family, or friends.

But to date, we have tended to spend additional wealth to pursue individual and personal priorities. That has eroded our associational life—including the stability of our families, especially among disadvantaged families who have enjoyed the fruits of rising affluence less than others have. Continuing to make the same choices with our ever-higher purchasing power threatens to diminish the quality of life for rich and poor alike.

A reader asks, “if the single mom babies are White, maybe it’s not so bad”. I reply: In the short term, sure, not so bad. Single mom White babies >>>>> married mom nonWhite babies. But over the long haul, in a timeline that gene-culture co-evolution can have an impact on behavior by cementing into the code of life a new suite of traits, it’s bad.

And it’s an irrefutable fact that the bastard spawn of single moms do worse in life on just about every measurable outcome than do the kids of married moms. Whether the cause is genetic or social, doesn’t much matter. As long as you can set your watch to the predictability of a single mom sprogson huffing paint under an overpass or sprogdaughter mudsharking by age 14, it’s in the interest of society to keep a lid on the single mommery rate.

The risk of allowing our affluence to normalize a high rate of single mommery is evident: If in the fullness of time our 40% single mom rate metastasizes, there will be YUGE downstream consequences and emanating penumbras from what would amount to the wholesale destruction of the Eurasian family structure that has existed for millennia. Each generation laboring under a grossly high single mom rate will slowly inch the character of our women away from K-selected Euro monogamy and toward r-selected African polygyny/polyandry. What starts as a social selection pressure eventually ends as a genetic selection effect.

PS As usual for current sociological research, from what I can tell none of the data and analysis was controlled for race. Maybe I should expect this glaring oversight from a cucked Utahn like Mike Lee, but the days when everybody ignores the racial elephant in the room are over.

***

I just noticed the stock photo that the National Economics Editorial used as a banner for their single mom story is this:

You CAN find all-White couples and families in the media, as long as the story is about something dysfunctional, like single momhood or volcuckery. White privilege, everyone!

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: