quadibloc on June 04, 2011, 06:12:25 pm
The problem is hypergamy.  Less than ten percent of the males are screwing sixty percent of the females, and about ten percent of the males are fathering spawning (but not fathering) fifty percent of the children.  The solution to hypergamy is restraints on female sexuality, that is to say, patriarchy.  Societies that do not restrain female sexuality fail to reproduce culturally and physically and eventually disappear, due to lack of male investment in children.  Observe that the Mormons are the only whites that are reproducing above replacement.

White males are dropping out of the workforce because they lack wives and children, not the other way around.  Or to state the problem another way, they are dropping out of the work force because getting ahead is not rewarded by good quality virginal pussy the way it used to be.
I know that there is certainly a fraction of the white female population that got pregnant in high school, and thus is staying home with diminished marriage prospects.

But I had thought that this form of hypergamy was much more of a problem for black people in the slums than for the middle class of any color. Although it's still significant, I would suppose, but it's still a minority of white males that can't find a childless woman to marry - a minority, though, that can cause trouble out of proportion to its numbers even without resorting to crime.

sam on June 04, 2011, 07:07:23 pm
The problem is hypergamy.  Less than ten percent of the males are screwing sixty percent of the females, and about ten percent of the males are fathering spawning (but not fathering) fifty percent of the children.  The solution to hypergamy is restraints on female sexuality, that is to say, patriarchy.  Societies that do not restrain female sexuality fail to reproduce culturally and physically and eventually disappear, due to lack of male investment in children.  Observe that the Mormons are the only whites that are reproducing above replacement.

White males are dropping out of the workforce because they lack wives and children, not the other way around.  Or to state the problem another way, they are dropping out of the work force because getting ahead is not rewarded by good quality virginal pussy the way it used to be.
I know that there is certainly a fraction of the white female population that got pregnant in high school, and thus is staying home with diminished marriage prospects.

But I had thought that this form of hypergamy was much more of a problem for black people in the slums than for the middle class of any color.

If you read women's blogs about dating, or listen to young female lawyers from ivy league universities and the like, twenty somethings going on thirty something, they complain that only one guy in thirty is barely acceptable, and all the rest are just no good.

But since most of the other women also think that only one guy in thirty is just barely acceptable, and since they all seem to have active sex lives, it follows that that one guy in thirty is mighty busy, and that these childless lawyers are going to become cat ladies when they reach a certain age, as one of my nieces has.

The typical hypergamous woman is not a black in a ghetto with five kids by five different men. it is a divorced woman with alimony and one child, child by the lover that caused the divorce, who thinks that the pool boy is her boyfriend and the kid's new daddy - but the pool boy thinks he screws old broads to get bigger tips in his pool cleaning work and is entirely unaware that some of the old broads he screw have kids.

Although it's still significant, I would suppose, but it's still a minority of white males that can't find a childless woman to marry - a minority, though, that can cause trouble out of proportion to its numbers even without resorting to crime.

Fifty percent of households with children under eighteen have no adult male regularly present.  I cannot find data on what proportion of households with children under eighteen have the natural father present, but I would guess it is substantially lower than that, probably around a third or so.

It follows, conversely, that the great majority of males are unable to form a family - and a small minority, that one guy in thirty, has too many options to do so.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 07:48:48 pm by sam »

J Thomas on June 04, 2011, 07:21:02 pm

I know that there is certainly a fraction of the white female population that got pregnant in high school, and thus is staying home with diminished marriage prospects.

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/teenpregnancy.htm
I did nothing to confirm how good a source this is.

They claim that the pregnancy rate was about 2% for nonhispanic girls age 15-17 in 2004, and 8% for age 18-19. Another source claimed about half of them were carried to term. The rates for black girls were 8% and 20%. Rates for hispanic girls were 8% and 21%.


sam on June 04, 2011, 07:26:21 pm
They claim that the pregnancy rate was about 2% for nonhispanic girls age 15-17 in 2004, and 8% for age 18-19. Another source claimed about half of them were carried to term. The rates for black girls were 8% and 20%. Rates for hispanic girls were 8% and 21%.

Among upper class females, sexual immorality results in delayed childbirth, and often no children at all.

Among whites, sexual immorality is is not exemplified by a sixteen year old getting pregnant - such girls often wind up marrying their high school sweetheart, the first man they slept with, which is as chaste as you can possibly be.

Rather, sexual immorality is exemplified by the wife who gets pregnant with her lover, without her lover's intention or knowledge, then gets a court order requiring her husband to stay at least one kilometer away from his home, in the hope that this will result in her lover visiting her more frequently so that she can break the news to him, but instead he disappears as soon as she tells him she has gotten rid of her husband.  Subsequently she believes the pool boy is her boyfriend and her child's new daddy, even though the pool boy will not screw her unless she tips him.



« Last Edit: June 04, 2011, 07:52:49 pm by sam »

mellyrn on June 06, 2011, 06:56:45 am
Quote
Societies that do not restrain female sexuality fail

Well, that's the basic pro-government argument -- "They" need to be controlled so that "we" can live the best way.

If you (whoever "you" are) offer arguments for why you (personally) need to be controlled by someone else, I'm interested:  you are, as it were, putting your money where your mouth is.

When you (whoever) start to argue why "they" need to be controlled, I figure you're just afraid of the big bad scary world around you.                                                                       

J Thomas on June 06, 2011, 09:10:59 am
Quote
Societies that do not restrain female sexuality fail

Well, that's the basic pro-government argument -- "They" need to be controlled so that "we" can live the best way.

If you (whoever "you" are) offer arguments for why you (personally) need to be controlled by someone else, I'm interested:  you are, as it were, putting your money where your mouth is.                                                             

If you look at Sam's old posts you will find a wide variety of arguments why he ought to be controlled or perhaps put down.

They are not stated in the form "I'm begging for help in controlling myself because I'm personally out of control and need somebody to make me do the right thing" but it's one of the more plausible interpretations. Sam is making a coded cry for help.

sam on June 06, 2011, 06:22:28 pm

Quote
Societies that do not restrain female sexuality fail

Well, that's the basic pro-government argument -- "They" need to be controlled so that "we" can live the best way.

Societies that do control female sexuality do not use government to do it.  Indeed, it is difficult to see how government could do it.

Butte Bill on June 07, 2011, 12:22:30 am
Speaking as a long ago ex-Randroid, I've always wanted a college sweatshirt from John Galt's old alma mater, Patrick Henry University of Cincinnati...PHUC!

And I'm sure those were aspens.  Any one who says otherwise is a dirty rotten son of a birch.  Спокойной ночи, гражданин.

quadibloc on June 07, 2011, 03:41:04 am
Societies that do control female sexuality do not use government to do it.  Indeed, it is difficult to see how government could do it.
Well, government first has to set the groundwork by giving the pater familias the ability to initiate force against his wayward daughters.

Aside from rejecting patriarchy in theory, if not in spirit, as an aggression against the individual rights of women - that is, while I think the law should guarantee the equality of women, social norms derived from a patriarchal background seem natural and sensible enough - my real problem with your position is different.

I don't think that female sexuality is the problem. Historically, patriarchy has been so omnipresent that we have had no chance to even know what female sexuality is.

Instead, it seemed to me that patriarchy developed to handle the problem of the male propensity for violent physical aggression, combined with male carnal lusts. A male who doesn't mate, like one who doesn't breathe, consume fluids, and eat, is eliminated from the gene pool, so it's not surprising they treat mating as if it were a necessity.

One part of patriarchy is fair - if women expect their partners to support their children, then they had better not commit adultery. The rest of it, though, is slavery for women: it is ensured that every man have a sexual partner either directly (arranged marriages) or indirectly (through reducing women to abject economic dependence).

Banning polygamy as, in effect, a sumptuary law is reasonable enough.

That patriarchal societies claimed that women were wanton creatures who led men to destruction... the feminist claim that this was just a story made up to blame the victim, and justify aggression against women, seems consistent with the historical evidence.

That being said, though, it is not too surprising that women today are perhaps unrealistic in what they seek from a man. A man seeks a woman who is young and pretty. There are many of those around, even if some men would have to settle for less.

A woman would like a man who is three things:

A good provider.
Kind and gentle.
Fit, young, and healthy.

All reasonable things to seek.

Even without patriarchy, unless the government has a big maternity leave program imposed on employers, women get removed from the labor market for a while when pregnant and with small children. So men do need to be providers.

Even without patriarchy, men typically have greater upper body strength than women, so one doesn't want one that comes home drunk and angry.

But in a competitive economy, to be a "good provider", a man needs to be somewhat aggressive, or at least assertive. Also, he can't be all that young - it takes time to establish a career.

It's because what women want is somewhat contradictory that the ideal man is rare. But that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that almost all women prefer an "ideal" man as a fleet-footed lover to a real man who stays around. For most women, that would be clearly irrational. Career women in college are still a small minority, and I would suspect that not even all of them yield to their impulses in such a way.

mellyrn on June 07, 2011, 09:00:05 am
Quote
Even without patriarchy, unless the government has a big maternity leave program imposed on employers, women get removed from the labor market for a while when pregnant and with small children. So men do need to be providers.

Not necessarily.  Consider lions:  the males aren't good for providing much more than genetic material.  The females can and do babysit for one another, so that some can go out hunting.  Women could do much the same:  aunts, grandmothers, friends and older children can mind the babies while the moms work, and/or work on behalf of the whole group.  A small number of gay women in the group?  So much the better.

Quote
Societies that do control female sexuality do not use government to do it.  Indeed, it is difficult to see how government could do it.

"Society", "government" -- either way, you are asking for someone/thing other than the individual female to do the controlling.

Tell me how the community will be enhanced if someone/thing controls your sexuality/preferences/greed/sloth/whatever, instead of you yourself . . . unless of course you propose that you are the cynosure for humanity.

sam on June 07, 2011, 07:54:16 pm
Societies that do control female sexuality do not use government to do it.  Indeed, it is difficult to see how government could do it.
Well, government first has to set the groundwork by giving the pater familias the ability to initiate force against his wayward daughters.

The pater familias naturally has that ability.  The government has refrain from taking it away.

When the British government set about suppressing patriarchy starting around 1830 or so, the rationale was that the pater familias was unduly biased towards his sons in law and against his daughters, which is obviously absurd.

What the paterfamilias wanted was someone else to support his daughters, and father his grandchildren, so he insisted on his daughters behaving in ways that would attract such support, thus the marital contract enforced by patriarchs balanced supply and demand.

Aside from rejecting patriarchy in theory, if not in spirit, as an aggression against the individual rights of women - that is, while I think the law should guarantee the equality of women

There is no more right to equality in marriage than equality in commercial contract.  The terms of marriage have to balance supply and demand.  When the government sets a fair price for bread, there will be very little bread, and when it sets fair terms for marriage, there will be very little marriage.  A society with very little marriage fails to reproduce itself physically or culturally, and will in due course disappear.

I don't think that female sexuality is the problem. Historically, patriarchy has been so omnipresent that we have had no chance to even know what female sexuality is.

You need to read some old books.  They knew what female sexuality is for the same reasons they knew what volcanic eruptions are.  Flood control does not attempt to stop a river in full flood, but to direct it to less destructive channels, and similarly patriarchy did not attempt to stop female sexuality, but to direct it to less destructive channels

The Victorian myth of female asexuality was part of the attack on patriarchy.  Supposedly there was no need to control female sexuality because there supposedly was not any.  Today, supposedly there is no need to control female sexuality because supposedly it is rational rather than destructive.

it is ensured that every man have a sexual partner either directly (arranged marriages) or indirectly (through reducing women to abject economic dependence).

Suppose we don't guarantee that most men have sexual partners.  Then we also do not guarantee that most women have relationship partners - leading to failure to reproduce culturally and physically.

That patriarchal societies claimed that women were wanton creatures who led men to destruction

Not what patriarchal societies claimed.  They claimed that women were wanton creatures who would screw the most attractive male passing by, no strings attached, without regard to the consequences for their parents or children, as in the legend of Medea.

... the feminist claim that this was just a story made up to blame the victim, and justify aggression against women, seems consistent with the historical evidence.

The historical evidence that women are apt act badly is overwhelming, but let us rather look at today's evidence.  As I said earlier:
If you read women's blogs about dating, or listen to young female lawyers from ivy league universities and the like, twenty somethings going on thirty something, they complain that only one guy in thirty is barely acceptable, and all the rest are just no good.

But since most of the other women also think that only one guy in thirty is just barely acceptable, and since they all seem to have active sex lives, it follows that that one guy in thirty is mighty busy, and that these childless lawyers are going to become cat ladies when they reach a certain age

When it comes to sex, a woman can score a male that rates much higher than herself in attractiveness, and if unrestrained, is notoriously apt to promptly do so, but when it comes to relationships, the boot is on the other foot.  So if everyone pursues their individual self interest, there is lots of screwing by all the females with a small proportion of the males, but few relationships.  To remedy this problem, the patriarchy imposed contracts for relationships with terms that balanced supply and demand, thereby guaranteeing relationships for almost everyone, at the cost of making marriages severely unequal.

A woman would like a man who is three things:

A good provider.
Kind and gentle.
Fit, young, and healthy.
Then why are they screwing stony broke asshole thugs?  When someone is on death row for abducting, raping, and murdering young women, he gets propositions from hot chicks in the mail.  When someone lands the accounting contract for a big corporation, no propositions in the mail.

You are subscribing to the Victorian myth that women are looking for relationships, while men are looking for sex.  There is a grain of truth in that story, in that women are hard up for relationships and not hard up for sex, while men are hard up for sex.  Today we see women fantasizing that they are in a relationship with some guy they are having sex with, who calls them by a frequently changing petname because he cannot remember their real name, and they refrain from telling him that they believe they are in a relationship with him out of well founded fear that he would run like a startled rabbit.  In this sense, they are looking for relationships in all the wrong places the right place being a kind and gentle good provider.  

But that is not where they are looking.  Nice guys finish last.  If you want score chicks, or even keep your wife from straying, you have to learn to be an asshole.

There is a lot more truth in what the patriarchy told us: that the women are apt to blow their chances of a relationship by screwing the wandering thief or the minstrel.

What a woman would like to do is marry the guy who lands the big accounting contract in a great big fancy wedding, while screwing the guy who beat up the guy who landed the big accounting contract.

But that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that almost all women prefer an "ideal" man as a fleet-footed lover to a real man who stays around. For most women, that would be clearly irrational.

I have news for you.  Women are clearly irrational.

They are apt to be overwhelmed by their immediate short term interest at the expense of their long term interest, and their immediate short term interest is to bang the hottest male in sight like a dunny door in a high wind, no strings attached.

Unfortunately, if women pursue their immediate short term interest, we get a social order where males do not invest in children. Humans just do not reproduce successfully in such a social order, in part because males are a major source of material support, in part because males are the major path of cultural transmission.  Fatherless children, especially fatherless male children, tend to grow up feral.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:16:02 pm by sam »

sam on June 07, 2011, 09:13:00 pm
Consider lions:  the males aren't good for providing much more than genetic material.  The females can and do babysit for one another, so that some can go out hunting.  Women could do much the same:  aunts, grandmothers, friends and older children can mind the babies while the moms work, and/or work on behalf of the whole group.

Human children require more investment than kittens.

They also require more socialization than cats.  Fatherless kids grow up feral.  Cats have reliable instincts.  Humans, not so much.

Quote
Societies that do control female sexuality do not use government to do it.  Indeed, it is difficult to see how government could do it.

"Society", "government" -- either way, you are asking for someone/thing other than the individual female to do the controlling.

Marriage is a contract.  Contracts have to be made to stick.  In a patriarchy, it is a contract between the family of the bride and family of the groom.  Consider your hypothetical group of women sharing childcare.  What is going to make them stick together?  Ann helps Carol when Carol's baby is completely helpless, then Ann gets pregnant, and Carol says, "Hey, I have my own kids to look after"

Lionesses do not in fact help each other out all that much.  Any time you see a group of humans cooperating in their common interest, that cooperation is male mediated.  Women, like cats, do not in fact stick out for each other.  Sisterhood is not only not powerful, it is near nonexistent.

Humans are obligate omnivores, and have been so for around four million years.  A strictly vegetarian human without vitamin supplements, special foods, and such, will die, and will quite likely get sick and weak even with vitamin supplements.  Females have never hunted.  So for four million years or so, male involvement in raising children was one hundred percent essential, which meant that for four million years or so, male control of female sexuality was one hundred percent essential.

This has left females with sexual instincts that are inappropriate to an environment where male control of female sexuality is weak or absent - hence the tendency for females to screw assholes, thugs, and males who are clearly unlikely to be around for very long.

J Thomas on June 07, 2011, 10:52:08 pm

If you read women's blogs about dating, or listen to young female lawyers from ivy league universities and the like, twenty somethings going on thirty something, they complain that only one guy in thirty is barely acceptable, and all the rest are just no good.

But since most of the other women also think that only one guy in thirty is just barely acceptable, and since they all seem to have active sex lives, it follows that that one guy in thirty is mighty busy, and that these childless lawyers are going to become cat ladies when they reach a certain age, as one of my nieces has.

You show a surprising blend of cynicism and naivete.

You listen to women lawyers, and you believe them!  ::)

Women who say that only 3% of the male population is acceptable, are telling other women that "See, I'm so superior, I can get pretty much anybody I want. I'm holding out for the very best.". And the acquaintances also make the same claim, because why should they accept low status?

And then when one of them is found with a man who clearly is not part of that 3%, what does she say? One possibility is "Oh, it's love, I love him so much I don't care about any of that.". That isn't practical because then what happens if he dumps her? Far better is "Well, no, he isn't really a keeper, but the sex is so good....". Sometimes it might even be true, but it's a far more convenient lie than to admit "I'm willing to consider 40% of the guys because I'm not as elite as you claim you are.". You want to draw sweeping conclusions, but they're only lying to each other.

A lot of your conclusions may be atypical and due to the baby boom. Back in the good old days there were a few rich older men and a whole lot of young boomer women, and those rich older men could snag a few of the young women. Life was good for them.

But now we have a bunch of aging boomer women who make nearly as much money as their decrepit men, and they don't have a whole lot of use for those men. And we have a whole lot of not-so-rich aging boomer men who want to hit on a fairly small number of post-boomer young women. The young women naturally consider them kind of creepy, but some of them will whore out to the richest old men at premium prices.

What important conclusions arise from all this? Not much.

quadibloc on June 08, 2011, 12:34:50 am
Well, government first has to set the groundwork by giving the pater familias the ability to initiate force against his wayward daughters.

The pater familias naturally has that ability.  The government has refrain from taking it away.
Irrelevant. Since "that ability" constitutes an ability to initiate force, taking that ability away does not constitute an initiation of force.

First, it is to be ensured that no one shall be able to initiate force with impunity. After that, social issues may be addressed.

Now, because I am not an AnCap follower, I am willing to consider certain exceptions to this rule, such as allowing the members of a community to organize by majority vote to initiate force in certain limited ways, such as levying fair and equitable taxation, and even conscription in time of war. But allowing a whole group of people to initiate force at will against members of another group, simply because of which group they belong to, is clearly going much too far.

sam on June 08, 2011, 01:23:22 am
Well, government first has to set the groundwork by giving the pater familias the ability to initiate force against his wayward daughters.

The pater familias naturally has that ability.  The government has refrain from taking it away.
Irrelevant. Since "that ability" constitutes an ability to initiate force, taking that ability away does not constitute an initiation of force.

Possibly not, though in practice any real life state intervention into a family's internal relationships does look like initiation of force, because the state unavoidably and necessarily does this in a fashion that is incompetent, clumsy, disruptive, and brutal. 

But supposing it is not initiation of force for the government to intervene, the absence of intervention is not "setting the groundwork", for inaction is not action, the absence of intervention is not a form of intervention - indeed all recently existent societies that plausibly resembled anarcho capitalism were patriarchal.  Outsiders did not feel they had the right to intervene in other people's family matters, and if any of them thought they had a right, they lacked incentive.

 

anything