The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
A New Study Starts to Look Into My Dirt Gap Theory
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Here’s an upcoming study that appears to implement part of a research design I recommended back in the previous decade when writing about Affordable Family Formation and the Dirt Gap.

In the six months following the 2004 presidential election, I put forward a number of interrelated theories about the roots of the question of the day: why are some states Red and some states Blue. I showed how partisanship by state is related to fundamental aspects of the human condition such as the price of land, the feasibility of geographic expansion, marriage, and childbearing. (I later discovered that Benjamin Franklin had discovered aspects of my theory in the 1750s, but that his momentous leap forward had been memory-holed in recent decades due to his having put them forward in a pamphlet proposing immigration restriction.)

As I pointed out in 2005, partisan leanings in the Electoral College correlate with whether a state’s metropolis is inland or coastal. Inland cities such as Atlanta can expand their suburbs across almost 360 degrees, so their is much land within commuting distance of the city. Coastal cities, such as San Francisco, are more limited in their suburban expansion possibilities. So, real estate prices tend to be higher in coastal metropolises, which makes affordable family formation less feasible, which correlates more with voting for the anti-Family Values party, the Democrats.

A key variable, I found, for predicting the GOP’s share of the 2 party vote in a state’s presidential election is the average number of years married for white women between 18 and 44. For example, getting married younger and staying married is extremely conducive to voting Republican. I found very high correlations at the state level in 2000 and 2004. These dipped a little in 2008, but came roaring back in 2012 with the Mormon Mitt Romney (before declining again in 2016, due to Trump being the anti-Romney).

One big question this raises is whether the family formation and partisan effects are a result of nature or nurture.

We can use nature to mean both fundamental characteristics of identity, but also where they are from while nurture can mean where they move to.

For example, gays might move to San Francisco because they aren’t intending to have children so they don’t care about the extreme cost of a house with a yard in a good school district. Conversely, however, a heterosexual woman who moves to an expensive city has a higher chance of never having legitimate children, so the GOP’s family values stances might seem to her unappealing and even offensive.

I looked at various pieces of evidence and didn’t see anything decisive in either direction, eventually settling upon a default guess, as usual, that this effect might be 50-50 nature and nurture.

I recommended at the time a longitudinal study of women to see how where they moved affected them. In the ideal version, two identical twin sisters graduate from college together, but one gets a job in, say, a bank in San Francisco and one in a bank in Dallas. How do their lives differ? Who is more likely to get married ever? By age 30? To have legitimate children? To buy a house? To vote Republican?

Now I see that a U. of Chicago-led team of researchers is assembling a longitudinal database that might indeed be able to answer related questions. From their research brief:

Imagine two girls who grew up as friends on the same street, in the same rural town, where they attended the same church and schools, and generally shared the same cultural experiences through high school. Eventually, these two girls become adults and end up living in different places, perhaps hundreds of miles apart. Now imagine two other adult women who live in the same place but who were raised in different places.

What type of life experiences will these women have in terms of the work they do and the wages they earn? Will they get married and, if so, how young? If they have children, when will they start to raise a family? How many children will they have? According to the authors of the new BFI working paper, “The Effects of Sexism on American Women: The Role of Norms vs. Discrimination,” the answers to those questions depend crucially on where women are born and where they choose to live their adult lives.

Good questions!

From the New York Times:

How Sexism Follows Women From the Cradle to the Workplace

New economic research suggests that the attitudes toward a woman when she is born have a lasting impact on how much she works, and earns, as an adult.

By Jim Tankersley
Aug. 19, 2018

White women born in parts of the United States where sexist attitudes are more prevalent grow up to earn less and to work less than women born elsewhere, relative to men born in those same states, new economic research shows.

Here’s the academic paper: “The Effects of Sexism on American Women: The Role of Norms vs. Discrimination” by Kerwin Kofi Charles, Jonathan Guryan, and Jessica Pan.

That impact on career and salary continues even if those women move to less sexist areas as adults, a finding that suggests the beliefs a woman grows up with can shape her future behavior in a way that affects her career and salary.

The research, which will be released as a working paper on Monday from the economists Kerwin Kofi Charles of the University of Chicago,

Professor Charles is a very interesting and independent-minded thinker.

Jonathan Guryan of Northwestern University and Jessica Pan of National University of Singapore, highlights a continued divergence across the United States in social attitudes about the role of women in the work force. It shows how much location — where a woman is born and where she chooses to live as an adult — matters for her work and pay.

Perhaps most strikingly, the study finds that a woman’s lifelong earnings and how much she works are influenced by the levels of sexism in the state where she was born. A woman born in the Deep South is likely to face a much wider economic gender gap than a woman born on the Pacific Coast, the research shows, even if both women move to New York as adults.

Housing is more expensive on the Pacific Coast than in the Southeast in part because cities want to be close to the Pacific or to inland bays (San Diego, Los Angeles, Silicon Valley, SF, and Seattle, with Portland using anti-suburban expansion legislation to artificially act like a coastal city). In contrast, hurricanes make living on the coast in the southeast less desirable. For example, Galveston was the metropolis of southeastern Texas until the 1900 hurricane killed 6,000 residents, after which the economy relocated 45 miles inland to Houston.

“That’s the first shocking thing,” Mr. Charles, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, said in an interview, “just how large and persistent the differences are.”

To make sure they were focusing only on gender, and not racial, discrimination, the researchers studied only white adults. While the researchers expect that the same gender gaps apply to other demographics, they were unsure how much of the disparity could be attributed to racial — versus gender — discrimination.

The economists drew upon decades of statistics from the Census Bureau and the General Social Survey, a poll that repeats questions over time and documents changing American attitudes on a wide range of issues.

The GSS also asks about voting and partisan identification, so much of my research agenda could be within reach of this team.

The researchers tracked responses to eight questions about the role of women in society, including the degree to which Americans agreed that “Women should take care of running their home and leave running the country up to men” and “It is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and women takes care of the home and family.” The more a respondent agreed that women should not work outside the home or participate in politics, or could not effectively juggle career and family responsibilities, the more “sexist” the researchers judged the answers to be.

Alternatively, the more “pro-family” the women tend to be.

Levels of sexism varied widely by state.

“Sexism” is a tendentious term. A more neutral term could be “Traditional,” with could be contrasted with “Feminist.”

They have declined across the board over time, but the differences between states have persisted. The researchers found that sexist attitudes are most prevalent in the southeast and least prevalent on the West Coast. The Midwest varies: Ohio has relatively low levels of sexism, while neighboring Indiana is relatively high.

Cleveland is a coastal city, while Indianapolis is not.

But I think the differences between Ohio and Indiana trace back more to Albion’s Seed differences in original settlers. Much of northern Ohio was settled by post-Puritans from the Burned Over district of Western New York state, a super-reformist center of self-improvers and social moralists. Indiana is more Scots-Irish and Southern Lowland.

A reader sent me a detailed description of one southern Indiana county, Dubois, that was settled by Germans rather than Scots-Irish and still stands out today on various measures of good government and public spirited citizenry.

The census data on the labor market show a persistent gap in what white men and women earn and how much they participate in the labor force, though that gap has narrowed over time. But that gender gap varies by states — and it’s that variation that helped the researchers isolate the effects of sexism, by place.

The researchers looked at men and women who were born in the same state and then moved to the same state, like North Carolinians who moved to New York, or Texans who moved to Colorado. They found that the gap in wages and employment between men and women in those groups was bigger for those who were born in states with higher levels of sexism.

They also find that, compared with women around them who were born elsewhere, the women born in more “sexist” places marry and have their first child “at appreciably younger ages.”

Bingo!

Another recent paper, in which Ms. Pan was also one of the writers, found a sharp decline in employment for women after their first child is born, and also that women’s attitudes toward gender roles grow more traditional after a birth.

Double Bingo.

Mr. Charles, Mr. Guryan and Ms. Pan found that the results held even when controlling for age, education and migration patterns, which is to say, Americans historically tend to move to states close to their state of birth as adults, if they move at all.

The research cannot say for certain why those differences persist. The economists say that women appear to internalize social norms when they are young on issues like when to have children, what tasks are appropriate for women in the work force or even how much society values the work of women. …

My guess is that there is a pretty high correlation between attitudes and the cost of real estate. That could be studied.

Internalizing a culture that does not value women working outside the home, or that makes a woman’s role as a mother a priority, could also discourage women from working longer and less flexible hours. The Harvard University economist Claudia Goldin has found that much of the gender gap in pay comes from differences within occupations, such as law and medicine, where men are rewarded for their disproportionate willingness to work long hours and agree to be on call when they are off duty.

Birthplace matters no matter where women move as adults. But where they settle matters, too, the research shows. …

Her experience tracks with the study’s findings that the sexism in the places where women live and work as adults affects them — but those effects are divided by gender.

Women are more likely to marry and have children early when they are surrounded by other women who hold more “sexist” views on the appropriateness of women working outside the home, the study shows; the views of men don’t seem to matter to that calculation. When it comes to employment and wages, though, women don’t seem to be affected by the views of other women around them.

But when the men around them are more sexist, women work less, and they earn less — an effect the researchers ascribed to old-fashioned discrimination.

Jim Tankersley covers economic and tax policy for The New York Times. @jimtankersley

 
Hide 66 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Housing in oceanside Brooklyn is getting pricey too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_Park,_Brooklyn

    And Lancaster Pennsylvania is about 3 counties over from the ocean, English.

    If you want large families, you can get large families.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @Anonymous
    , @anon
  2. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-weekend-gun-violence-august-20-2018/

    Hurt Gap Theory or Insult Gap Theory.

    The funny thing about the Emmit Till story is that it happens so often among blacks.

    We are told white rednecks OVERREACTED with violence to some black kid just fooling around.

    Well, if you say something ‘wrong’ or look at someone the ‘wrong’way in the black community, it can be BANG BANG you’re dead. Say something about someone’s mama? Look at some bitchass ho the wrong way? Wear the wrong gang colors? BANG BANG. So much of black-on-black violence is about hurt pride over insults or perceived insults.

    And imagine if a white kid in a black community looked at some sexy black mama and called out to her in some funny manner. Imagine what would happen to him?

    The Till story is sort of perversely amusing because a few whites are made out to be eternal villains for the kind of violent behavior blacks practice on a daily basis. So, many blacks in Chicago who are killed were likely Tilled. They said the ‘wrong’ thing and Bang Bang, you’re dead.

    Black touchiness and overreaction can be cute when Arnold does it. But imagine Arnold as a full-grown thug with guns. “What you talkin’ about, mothaf***a?!!!” And then, there was OJ and Nicole and that Jewish guy who was also murdered. Does NYT mention their names over and over, plus the fact that blacks cheered OJ’s release?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  3. J.Ross says: • Website

    So just like the tech trusts being long overdue for busting on both legal and economic grounds and because they are brazenly and aggressively partisan, the various real estate problems could get federal attention for both justice and political survival?
    This presupposes that Republicans have a survival instinct.

  4. J.Ross says: • Website
    @anony-mouse

    Orthodox Jews and Amish people are surely exceptional. You can have whatever you want, but it will be easier or harder to get depending on your location and your will, and the location begins to affect the will. In fact I would say that Portland’s anti-suburb legislation is the real confirmation of this pattern, or at least ominous proof that the other side is thinking along similar lines.

  5. “But when the men around them are more sexist, women work less, and they earn less — an effect the researchers ascribed to old-fashioned discrimination.”

    I ascribe it to old-fashioned nation building.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  6. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Right. A big question is how full the country is. If it’s not very full, such as when postwar prosperity opened up huge suburban tracts within an easy automobile commute of good jobs, women tend to respond by marrying and having children. When the country is pretty full and it’s hard to afford a house with a yard in a decent school district, women tend to respond by not marrying and attributing it to their need to self-actualize career-wise.

    • Agree: Desiderius
  7. J.Ross says: • Website

    OT is Caldron Pool satire? This looks real and the other articles on the site look real.

    http://caldronpool.com/healthline-says-using-the-medical-term-vagina-is-not-gender-inclusive-language-uses-front-hole-instead/

    Healthline has claimed health disparities and higher rates of HIV and STIs observed in LGBTQIA communities are due to discrimination in the sex ed world. So, the California based health information provider has adopted the gender-inclusive term “front hole” in place of the medical term, “vagina” in their latest LGBTQIA safe sex guide.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  8. Need I remind you Detriot is waterfront yet the cheapest real estate in the Nation? And Cleveland vs Indy isn’t as apt as Columbus vs Indy is it?

    An interesting town to study might be Denver where there has been a massive influx of Californians yet buildable land east of the city stretches through Kansas and Nebraska seemingly forever. Expat Californians may become somewhat more traditional after moving to Denver, but they’ve still completely shifted Colorado’s politics toward socialism.

    Another interesting study could be based on proximity to radical leftist academia. Ann Arbor, Madison, and Boulder all have ample surrounding land, how do their family formation metrics stack up to places without communist factories?

  9. @J.Ross

    Caldron Pool got it from HealthLine

    https://www.healthline.com/health/lgbtqia-safe-sex-guide

    Healthline is, apparently, a fairly popular health-related website headquartered in … San Francisco.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @El Dato
  10. Whiskey says: • Website

    Steve, relative attractiveness of men matters also. Post WWII men had higher relative status and plausibly might have killed someone in the War. Even if they were just an office worker an office worker age 30 who killed someone in an epic war beats an office worker who plays World of Warcraft.

    Give War a chance its easy if you try. Peace is over. If you want it.

    • Replies: @Iberiano
    , @Chief Seattle
  11. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @anony-mouse

    Orthodox and Amish fertility is based on indoctrinating women. They depend on getting a pass that most of the rest of society doesn’t get. They also freeride on the rest of society because their way of life is not compatible with a modern industrial economy and military. If everyone in America were Orthodox or Amish, America would collapse or just be conquered by other states.

  12. Beene13 says:

    I assume anyone calling the ”Democrats” of all parties the “anti-Family Values Party” in the age of Donald Trump is snickering to themselves, or maybe outright howling and falling off their chairs? Sorry, Donald Trump exposed the whole “family values” Republican sham for ever and always. It’s ovah.

    Of course, Steve Sailer also referred to Republicans as the party of honour and courage or some other nonsense, perhaps satirically (for who would want to belong to the party that’s anti-courage and anti-honour?).

    Perhaps Republicans are also the party of breakfast, a calory-free diet, and the melodious harmonizing of the chickadee?

  13. @Stan d Mute

    But Denver is rather like a coastal city in that it’s easy to expand suburbs 180 degrees out into the endless prairie, but hard to expand the other 180 degrees up into the Rockies. And most of the advantages of Denver over Peoria or whatever come from living near the Rockies, such as access to recreation and nice views.

    So Denver’s real estate prices are not cheap although not San Francisco either.

    On the other hand, they relocated the main airport way way out on the prairie, and living near a major airport is an important amenity for Frequent Fliers, so there is that.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  14. Flip says:

    We need to get white women married off as early as possible and get rid of no fault divorce.

  15. “And most of the advantages of Denver over Peoria or whatever come from living near the Rockies, such as access to recreation and nice views.”

    They got better Skunk Weed and other MJ products in Denver too. And a whole more Mexican restauantes.

  16. @Stan d Mute

    Is Lake St. Claire actually water?

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  17. @Steve Sailer

    And yet DEN to the front range, say Genesee, is about the same drive time as your house to the Santa Monica Pier.

    And while housing is generally more expensive in Genesee, there are certainly areas like Cherry Hills that buck the trend. Centennial is a bit of a drive to A-Basin and Breckinridge but it doesn’t seem to stop growth there. Go East young man!

    Meanwhile, I’ll be living in my deluxe home in Nederland..

  18. @Steve Sailer

    I live an hour outside Chicago (but close enough to endure the inflated real estate costs) so the women you’re talking about have moved out of here to the city. Based on personal experience, the ones who stay do marry – but a fuller country causing higher real estate prices combined with stagnant wages requires the wife to get a full time job, and the kids end up getting raised by grandparents if they’re lucky or by state subsidized daycare mills.

  19. Iberiano says:
    @Whiskey

    but wait a minute...what if you just turned 16 and a semi-famous, possibly near C-List actress sexually assaults you and then pays you off…then accuses others of rape…

    Does your attractiveness matter then? Even if you were a teen just leveling up on World of Warcraft?

  20. OT-

    New documentary from DW (a German English-language channel, like German Russia Today) on coal mining and life in West Virginia

  21. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    San Francisco
    Or, as Californians call it, the Back Hole.

  22. @Flip

    We need to get white women married off as early as possible

    I think people are generally better off marrying people they grew up with.

    You’ll never have the same intense, coming-of-age bonding experiences with anyone else during your lifetime.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  23. Arrrgh. Studies like this leave me scowling.

    Loaded terms like “sexist” indeed. The entire thing, the whole setup is written from the perspective that “a woman’s place is in the home” is a priori, sexist. There may be some valuable information that can be gleaned from this study, but it doesn’t lie in the direction the authors take it. You, Steve, are on the scent. They are blinded by their urbanity.

    Deplorable people who live in the country do so because they choose to do so. They are not exiles from the glamor of the city–or they don’t look at their life that way anyway. Choosing to do so means that their social arrangements are not “sexist”. Besides holding down a job, the men hunt or fish, the women who probably work part time, help butcher a deer, cow or hog and can the produce they grow in their gardens. This isn’t “sexism”. It’s just normal family life.

    For the love of Mike. City people are so narrow-minded. I grew up in the city, college educated parents, but married a country gal whose parents were high school grads. They were solid people and these types of surveys completely miss the richness of their life, close to nature. They boated on big lakes and rivers, fished, camped and so on. Everyone shared in the fun. This stuff just leaves me shaking my head.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  24. @The Wild Geese Howard

    “You’ll never have the same intense, coming-of-age bonding experiences with anyone else during your lifetime.”

    You got that right. I still miss my first wife. Especially at moments like this, when I’ve cracked open a cask of Amantillado.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @Desiderius
  25. El Dato says:

    But when the men around them are more sexist, women work less, and they earn less — an effect the researchers ascribed to old-fashioned discrimination.

    Better be nonsexist, work more and earn more and let your daughter be hoovered up by grooming gangs and your son do violence and drugs.

    It’s the hot thing right now!

  26. El Dato says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Ways to prevent STIs:
    > frequent STI testing

    Yes.

  27. fnn says:
    @Beene13

    Yeah, but this theory is based on real estate, not ever-shifting and dubious “values.” It’s a strictly materialist theory of family formation, which nevertheless may have fortunate side-effects when it comes to reproducing values more trad than the current Western norm.

  28. (before declining again in 2016, due to Trump being the anti-Romney)

    Proof that Trump is a turn-off to married women with children, then…

  29. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    I guess the number of female Harvard Law grads who decide that practice is just too demanding and go off to write blogs while their husbands work 6-7 days a week would be a confounding variable.

  30. anon[389] • Disclaimer says:
    @anony-mouse

    It’s the Puerto Ricans and Dominicans who move to PA. They’re now majority (or nearly so) in Reading and Allentown, for instance.

  31. Twinkie says:

    In contrast, hurricanes make living on the coast in the southeast less desirable.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/sea-level-rise-is-eroding-home-value-and-owners-might-not-even-know-it/2018/08/20/ff63fa8c-a0d5-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html

    Now, three studies have found evidence that the threat of higher seas is also undermining coastal property values as home buyers — particularly investors — begin the retreat to higher ground.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
  32. DuanDiRen says:

    https://www.curbed.com/2018/8/17/17705594/marriage-divorce-real-estate

    Long term I feel that this problem will solve itself, at least in the US: a hundred years from now there will be enclaves of concentrated Whites, all of them religious, and areas for other groups. Like Brazil, but with more distance between groups.

  33. TheBoom says:

    Given that the researchers start off with the worldview that traditional life is sexist and must be stamped out, the findings of this research will almost certainly be used to demonstrate the need to flood traditional areas with immigrants so that home prices go up and we can have another victory over sexism. If it wasn’t for high home prices all those cat ladies might have husbands and big families (instead of a portfolio of PowerPoint presentations they have made for HR) and that just isn’t who we are.

  34. @MikeatMikedotMike

    Is Lake St. Claire actually water?

    It used to be cleaner than Erie, but the Immigrant Zebra Mussels have leveled the water table..

  35. Anon[347] • Disclaimer says:

    “assume anyone calling the ”Democrats” of all parties the “anti-Family Values Party” in the age of Donald Trump is snickering to themselves, or maybe outright howling and falling off their chairs?”

    Why? Trump has multiple kids, all functional and mostly well-adjusted. What does Leon Podesta have? …oh.

    “Sorry, Donald Trump exposed the whole “family values” Republican sham for ever and always. It’s ovah.”

    Didn’t the democrats just run a feminist who spent the 90s covering for her husband’s philandering? Aren’t you the guy who was ranting about glass houses in another thread?

    “Of course, Steve Sailer also referred to Republicans as the party of honour and courage or some other nonsense, perhaps satirically (for who would want to belong to the party that’s anti-courage and anti-honour?).”

    Weird, obsessed leftist can’t stay on topic. Instead, insults and shifts the subject.

    From a poster above: “Yeah, but this theory is based on real estate, not ever-shifting and dubious “values.” Ouch. Regressives aren’t exactly known for being particularly intelligent.

    “Perhaps Republicans are also the party of breakfast, a calory-free diet, and the melodious harmonizing of the chickadee?”

    Modern democrat party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0uFcf7Cft4

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  36. Anon87 says:
    @Steve Sailer

    We are nowhere near “full”. What is lacking is solid paying jobs. You can build on cheap land, but where are you going to work?

    • Replies: @Aristippus
  37. mr. wild says:

    I showed how partisanship by state is related to fundamental aspects of the human condition such as the price of land, the feasibility of geographic expansion, marriage, and childbearing. (I later discovered that Benjamin Franklin had discovered aspects of my theory in the 1750s, but that his momentous leap forward had been memory-holed in recent decades due to his having put them forward in a pamphlet proposing immigration restriction.)

    In book B of the Politics, Aristotle roasts Plato over conceiving of a state that doesn’t consider the realities of scale, family dynamics, and population.

  38. Anon[269] • Disclaimer says:

    “We are nowhere near “full”. What is lacking is solid paying jobs.”

    Sure, in an absolute sense. But how many people can live in the Mojave? Seems like all these livable places with those solid jobs might very well become full sometime in the future.

  39. @Twinkie

    Now, three studies have found evidence that the threat of higher seas is also undermining coastal property values as home buyers — particularly investors — begin the retreat to higher ground.

    Gee, someone ought to warn the Secret Service, Trump may not be safe on Palm Beach.

  40. Anon[423] • Disclaimer says:

    So what Steve is saying is that this research is pretty well done and interesting, but that it’s presented in a tendentious manner, and interpretations that cast a positive light on the early-marryers is possible?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  41. It’s catching on with the younger generation.

  42. @Anon

    Didn’t the democrats just run a feminist who spent the 90s covering for her husband’s philandering?

    And aggravated rape.

    • Replies: @stillCARealist
  43. But when the men around them are more sexist, women work less…

    …outside the home, spend more time with the children, and are happier.

    This sort of thing must be stopped at all costs.

  44. trelane says:

    Differential fertility may be the end of us as a civilized species

  45. Message from Google Maps:

    “Maps can’t find Dirt Gap”

    Funny, they can find Mouthcard, Kentucky.

  46. @Anon87

    There’s lots of open space, but much of it is undesirable for building a new settlement. Are there any good rivers left that don’t have a city on them?

    • Replies: @27 year old
  47. @Beene13

    Traditional, self-supporting families, an American kind of family. The values that support that, rather than bastards on the ever-growing welfare state.

  48. @Aristippus

    There’s lots of open space, but much of it is undesirable for building a new settlement. Are there any good rivers left that don’t have a city on them?

    Ha! Nice try

    But that idea has been shut down since the 70s by various “environmental protection” laws

  49. @ThreeCranes

    My wife left me, and took the dog. I am sure gonna miss him.

  50. @Steve Sailer

    We have a new Sailer strategy.

    This is your book, Steve. This is a way for the (traditional) nation to come back together without losing face.

  51. @Whiskey

    And most importantly about war, it thins the herd of men relative to women. Which increases men’s scarcity and their relative status. The game “Old Maid” which I played as a child didn’t stop when there were no attractive men left, it stopped when there were none left which hadn’t been taken. Achilles and his crew never complained much about having “a” woman, just about have a particular woman. The loss of war, and to a lesser extent dangerous work, as an instrument to get rid of 10% of the male population has certainly been a big factor in the rise of women’s liberation and subsequent insanity.

    • Replies: @L Woods
  52. @Anon

    He leaves it unsaid purposely, but yes that is the gist.

  53. @ThreeCranes

    That’s a little harsh, though I suppose it would reduce the alimony.

  54. woolrich says:

    Noted sociologist Raymond Douglas Davies has already looked at the Two Sisters theory:

    Sylvilla looked into her mirror
    Percilla looked into the washing machine
    And the drudgery of being wed
    She was so jealous of her sister
    And her liberty, and her smart young friends
    She was so jealous of her sister

    Sylvilla looked into the wardrobe
    Percilla looked into the frying pan
    And the bacon and eggs
    And the breakfast is served
    She was so jealous of her sister
    And her way of life, and her luxury flat
    She was so jealous of her sister

    She threw away her dirty dishes just to be free again
    Her women’s weekly magazines just to be free again
    And put the children in the nursery just to be free again
    Percilla saw her little children
    And then decided she was better off
    Than the wayward lass that her sister had been
    No longer jealous of her sister
    So she ran ’round the house with her curlers on
    No longer jealous of her sister

  55. dwb says:

    What’s funny is that the Dirt Gap is so obviously true that it was hiding in plain site. What you penalize, you get less of; what you subsidize, you get more of.

    I hear – all the time – about how wages have stagnated since 1973, which is true. The causes are ALWAYS pointed to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. This analysis is, as the old physicist saw goes, not even wrong.

    Women started to enter the workforce – told that this is really what they should want – in large numbes in the late 1960s and 1970s. Well, if you increase the number of workers by 50 or 60 per cent, what do you think is going to happen to wages? Add to that the leap in foreign immigration – and lo and behold, it suddenly now requires two incomes to buy a house and a second car. And it is going to cost money for someone to look after the kids, provided there are any.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    The solution is that there are fewer married couples, fewer children, fewer families. And that means we need more young people from somewhere to keep the welfare Ponzi scheme going, so we import young people from abroad.

    To see this strategy on steroids, look no further than California, which is the vanguard of so many wonderful ideas. It’s a state that has grown in the past 20 years by 10 million (from 30 to 40 million residents), and virtually ALL of that growth is due to foreign immigration. Where I live in San Francisco, the median house is closing on $2 million. And only about 1/3 of the households are families. Better still, less than 20% of the households have children. The schools are horrible – so if you want kids, in addition to a big mortgage bill, you’re going to pay tuition from K-12, and then college.

    I suspect that LA is similar (I grew up in Orange County).

    All of these single, childless people are a natural constituency for the Democratic party. And the only people who HAVE kids are immigrants, and they, too, overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

  56. @ThreeCranes

    Me, I’m okay with the term “sexist.” It means the concept of biological sex is still viable.

    Also, kids learn from watching the adults in their lives. When mom works full time there’s less time for the kids or the family in general. Everybody’s harried and hurried. When mom is home full time everybody counts on her and she responds with that foundation of responsibility that makes homes and communities work. part time work is a nice balance and is what most women want. Yes, it can be very selfish at times.

    If mom is working full time at a fancy career, and dad lives elsewhere and is barely seen, what do you think kids are concluding? Yep, a father isn’t necessary to raise a kid. In fact, a mother is hardly necessary, and maybe having no kids is the best solution. I’d say it’s a good bet that liberal parents means no grandchildren.

  57. @DuanDiRen

    wow, that was depressing. What a broken chick that is, and she knows it, and is trying to make money telling everyone about it. I know I shouldn’t blame society, but I just can’t help it. How does someone like this get any respectability at all?

  58. @Reg Cæsar

    The gossip rags aren’t covering it in depth anymore, but apparently he was still wandering throughout the oughties. Who’s he with now? any proof that he’s spent any overnights with Hillary in the last 10 years?

  59. Anonymous[350] • Disclaimer says:

    Internalizing a culture that does not value women working outside the home, or that makes a woman’s role as a mother a priority, could also discourage women from working longer and less flexible hours.

    We live in a world that values work over family.
    Working more hours = good
    Spending more time with your family = bad

    That’s insanity!!!

  60. @Anon

    The funny thing about the Emmit Till story is that it happens so often among blacks.

    This is an excellent point 425. We should crowd source a response like this to every mention of Emmett Till.

    The thing relatively notably about the Till story–aside from being continually mentioned in the NYT 60 years later–is those white guys lackadaisical southern approach. Took a day or two to get moving and then ambled about all night hoping Till would recant his remarks about wanting white women, but he was such a dumb ass he wouldn’t do it. On the South Side it would be just bam-bam, popped a cap in that smart-ass trying to tap that booty.

    • Replies: @Anon
  61. L Woods says:
    @Chief Seattle

    As I’ve said before: a brisk civil bloodletting would solve so many problems

  62. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Every time a black is killed by another black guy over ‘pride’ or touchy feelies, just say the dude was ’tilled’. Black community has lots of tillers.

  63. @Beene13

    Sorry, Donald Trump exposed the whole “family values” Republican sham for ever and always. It’s ovah.

    How can you imply Donald Trump is not a family kind of guy? He’s had three of ‘em for god’s sake.

  64. If these studies had been done anywhere but the western world, “sexism” would have been replaced with “cultural differences”

  65. @DuanDiRen

    Long term I feel that this problem will solve itself, at least in the US: a hundred years from now there will be enclaves of concentrated Whites, all of them religious, and areas for other groups. Like Brazil, but with more distance between groups.

    That could work. It’s essentially the Ottoman Empire approach–separate groups; pay your taxes and don’t cause trouble … or else. It’s the only way that “diversity” has actually ever been successfully managed.

    However, it’s absolutely an anathema to the establishment. It’s precisely what this whole ideology of minoritarianism is designed to stop. Cue all the whining about the golfocaust or Harvard quotas or–less embarassing segregation. The basic rule: majorities are not allowed to have their own stuff.

    You could get away with this if you are a small oddball fringe group–like the Amish, or even something as large as some Mennonite groups. But if some specifically white-Christian community was established and scaled up to be a prosperous economically significant conglomeration that was keeping out blacks, Mexicans, Jews. Forget about it! That is what they simply can not have happen. They’d roll tanks.

  66. @Flip

    We need to get white women married off as early as possible and get rid of no fault divorce.

    That won’t really work unless you’re able to re-stigmatize divorce. Once the stigma, and consequences, are relaxed, even if there must be “fault”–a guilty party–couples will just arrange (make up) a legally valid reason if they want to get divorced. This was going on back in the day before no-fault became pervasive.

    However, there is a big improvement that could be made and actually dovetails pretty well with the left’s narrative that the sexes are arbitrary:

    Joint custody. Default to joint custody–each spouse has the kids half the time–sell the house, divide the assets and no child support or any other money changing hands.

    What drives most “optional divorce”, is the woman isn’t haaaappy and, of course, that’s the guy’s fault. The state dangles this deal where she keeps the kids, the house, the car and a big hunk of her husband’s paycheck but cuts loose all her martial responsibilities. Unsurprisingly a lot of women take the deal. One reason–beyond immigration driving wages and marraige affordability–that marriage rates are still dropping even a full generation after women streamed into and expected to be in the workforce is that young men increasingly realize that neither family, society nor the state are going to in any way hold women to their marriage vows.

    Bring in joint custody and you’ll see divorce rates plument, better behavior from women in a lot of marriages–ergo closer marriages with better sex–and eventually you’ll see an improvement in marriage rates. (Of course you absolutely have to stop immigration if you want to actually turn things around.)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.