The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Female Fertility by Educational Attainment and Religious Service Attendance
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From 2000 onward for contemporary relevance, among women aged 40 or older for completed fertility, and restricted to non-Hispanic whites to avoid racial confounding, we have TFRs by educational attainment and religious service attendance:

Religiosity is a strong correlate with fertility. Nothing quite trumps the inverse correlation fecundity has with female educational attainment, a robust relationship holds both within countries and between them, but religiosity comes close. To concisely extract that from the preceding graph, consider that with the exception of high school dropouts, women who do not attend religious services are below replacement across the board. In contrast, women who regularly attend services are, with the exception of post-graduates, all above replacement.

If you didn’t see how free college and fighting climate change are closely related, now you should.

Parenthetically, “infrequent attendance” = between never attending and attending once per year; “occasional attendance” = between several times a year and several multiple times per month but not weekly; “regular attendance” = between nearly every week and multiple times per week.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2018), AGE(40-89), SEX(2), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), CHILDS, DEGREE

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Science • Tags: Children, Fertility, GSS 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. To play the Devil’s Advocate here, a lot of this is probably a causal relationship in the opposite direction: Women stop their education after getting pregnant, rather than getting pregnant after stopping their education. All the women I know who dropped out of high school or college for reasons other than drugs or mental health, did so because they got pregnant.

    Likewise, having children might make one more likely to go to church, rather than going to church making one more likely to have children.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @snorlax


    To play the Devil’s Advocate here, a lot of this is probably a causal relationship in the opposite direction: Women stop their education after getting pregnant, rather than getting pregnant after stopping their education.
     
    I don't think so. Teenage women who get pregnant and drop high school these days are only proles who do not use protection and usually do it out of wedlock with a father that does not stay. Women who pursue an education do it because they want it (or they were told it is more important than marrying and having babies), and because they are smarter about using protection than proles, and because (for some) it is an opportunity to ride the alpha cock carousel, they can always find a beta provider later.

    Likewise, having children might make one more likely to go to church,

     

    I see no evidence of that in the current Western world.
    , @Anonymous
    @snorlax

    Not my mother!

    She completed her master's degree in Atmospheric Science after me and my brother were born.

    , @DRA
    @snorlax

    My wife and I seem to have done a lot of things the "wrong" way. I went straight from HS to work, then after four years got a civil engineering degree, while she went to college straight from HS. We married as she finished her BS, while I still had two years to go, and neither of us attended church regularly. After she graduated with her BS we had five children: three boys and two girls, a full house so to speak.

    As our children became school aged we started attending church full time, if Unitarian Universalist counts. I was never unemployed and my wife only took off a couple of times for a few years. After the children were self sufficient my wife did get a MS, and as a PE I had a satisfying and remunerative career. We are still happily married after fifty year, and happily retired.

    Personally, I am of the opinion that people are their own best judges of whether or not the world would be a better or poorer place without more people like them, so God bless those that think they shouldn't have children.

    If generally less educated or intelligent folks have more children, then consider that in this world that we have created they are more fit, in a Darwinian sense. And no, I don't think that this is sustainable. And when it cannot go on, it will change.

  2. The huge disparity in the Bachelor bracket, specifically, is interesting. My hypothesis: undergraduate is where the most cock carouseling occurs (prime fertility years) and religious observance is a negative correlate with that behavior.

    But man… if you’re a dude and want kids, you definitely want to go for the waitress who dropped out of college, not the biomedical researcher. That’s literally a whole extra kid per couple.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Michael S


    But man… if you’re a dude and want kids, you definitely want to go for the waitress who dropped out of college, not the biomedical researcher. That’s literally a whole extra kid per couple.
     
    That is way overstated. It's not so much that highly educated women have fewer kids, but rather that they are less likely to have children at all. The childless bring down the average of highly educated women. The overwhelming majority of these women were never married.

    Replies: @iffen

  3. Pity you can’t get that next step that shows that higher IQ is the driver of both irregliosity and reduced desire to be a breeding sow.

    It would be significant if the data permitted you could partial out the women whose undergrad and grad study were in fields that require high IQ (STEM, Law, finance).

    You would then and see how disinterested cognitively elite women are – jointly, in both religion and reproduction – relative to those who study some bullshit pseudo-discipline (sociology, psychocharlatanry, climate ‘science’, grievance studies, communications, marketing, PR, HR and so forth).

    Yes, the Smart Fraction is (not-)reproducing itself to extinction, voluntarily.

    Perhaps they see Idiocracy that is being brought into being by the incessant squirting out of seething hordes of obese entitled retards by obese pramfaces.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Kratoklastes

    Educational attainment inversely correlates with fertility more than intelligence does. Women of middling intelligence who get graduate degrees have fewer children than high IQ women who don't go to college do. We have a post about it in the archives, but it could be cleaned up with fresher data. In the queue, thanks.

    With men, both relationships are much weaker. To the extent that 'Idiocracy' is playing itself out, it's among women. This isn't surprising. The boss-secretary pairing is much more common than the high powered lawyeress-assistant office manager pairing.

  4. @snorlax
    To play the Devil's Advocate here, a lot of this is probably a causal relationship in the opposite direction: Women stop their education after getting pregnant, rather than getting pregnant after stopping their education. All the women I know who dropped out of high school or college for reasons other than drugs or mental health, did so because they got pregnant.

    Likewise, having children might make one more likely to go to church, rather than going to church making one more likely to have children.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @DRA

    To play the Devil’s Advocate here, a lot of this is probably a causal relationship in the opposite direction: Women stop their education after getting pregnant, rather than getting pregnant after stopping their education.

    I don’t think so. Teenage women who get pregnant and drop high school these days are only proles who do not use protection and usually do it out of wedlock with a father that does not stay. Women who pursue an education do it because they want it (or they were told it is more important than marrying and having babies), and because they are smarter about using protection than proles, and because (for some) it is an opportunity to ride the alpha cock carousel, they can always find a beta provider later.

    Likewise, having children might make one more likely to go to church,

    I see no evidence of that in the current Western world.

  5. It’s interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, “How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?”are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education. It is my personal observation that the less educated are the most optimistic about the future (young people) and are frequently enthusiastic about having children and helping them in the great game of life. It seems that the people in the best position to influence the politico/economic/social environment are the most pessimistic.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @iffen

    I think this is true, but I don't think it's related to optimism, necessarily. More educated (and richer) people tend to be more concerned about their prospects and about the world in general. For the less educated and poor, having children is just part of life and they think less about the child prospects, also because they are already poor and have less to lose. (For the middle class, children are an expensive investment, for the poor, they may be a help - in the house, etc, or they simply are not as expensive as they are not expected to go to college have lots of possessions etc.)

    Also, I see this type of question about the state of the world, environment, etc, only among white people. Asians and Latinos and Blacks and Arabs are less concerned in general about the world and other abstract worries. They just live. Not that they are necessarily happier. They just exist and procreate and concern themselves exclusively with daily life. Like animals or plants.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    , @Anonymous
    @iffen

    Most of that is rationalization and virtue signalling.

    The kind of over-educated woman who makes a big display of saying something like that, would easily have a passel of kids if some highly successful wealthy man like Tom Brady came along and swept them off their feet.

    In reality, these sort of highly educated, professional women find themselves in a world full of men who are equal or lower than themselves in educational attainment, professional status, income, social esteem and prestige, etc. That's the "world" they're talking about. One in which most men are "losers" and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Medvedev

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @iffen

    When this sentiment creeps into my mind, as it often does, my stoic defense system activates. It tells me my ancestors did much more with much less so I need to suck it up and make it happen.

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen


    It’s interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, “How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?”are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education.
     
    Do you think it's education in general, or certain types of education? I'm suspecting that graduates in fields such as engineering and medicines are going to be less likely to succumb to this type of pessimism. Do you think that kind of self-indulgent pessimism might be most characteristic of graduates in the humanities and pseudosciences?
  6. @iffen
    It's interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, "How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?"are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education. It is my personal observation that the less educated are the most optimistic about the future (young people) and are frequently enthusiastic about having children and helping them in the great game of life. It seems that the people in the best position to influence the politico/economic/social environment are the most pessimistic.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    I think this is true, but I don’t think it’s related to optimism, necessarily. More educated (and richer) people tend to be more concerned about their prospects and about the world in general. For the less educated and poor, having children is just part of life and they think less about the child prospects, also because they are already poor and have less to lose. (For the middle class, children are an expensive investment, for the poor, they may be a help – in the house, etc, or they simply are not as expensive as they are not expected to go to college have lots of possessions etc.)

    Also, I see this type of question about the state of the world, environment, etc, only among white people. Asians and Latinos and Blacks and Arabs are less concerned in general about the world and other abstract worries. They just live. Not that they are necessarily happier. They just exist and procreate and concern themselves exclusively with daily life. Like animals or plants.

    • Agree: John Regan
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Dumbo

    Yes, the woke are right--white people are the problem.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri

    , @dfordoom
    @Dumbo


    Also, I see this type of question about the state of the world, environment, etc, only among white people.
     
    Yep. The state of the world and the state of the environment are white people problems. It's a SWPL thing. It's pure self-indulgence possible only to people who have no actual problems.

    This type of agonising over non-existent problems might be one of the residues of Christianity. Or it might simply be natural to people with too much money. Because worrying about the state of the world and the state of the environment are very much rich white people problems. See Bono for a fine example.
  7. It would be very useful to show, or mention, the distribution across the categories. I imagine that the top category for example is quite small? Without that information it is not possible to describe the implied rate of overall demographic change.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Johnson

    Yes, I came into the comments to suggest that if AE put little n figures on each of the fifteen columns, it would make his chart even more information-rich.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  8. @Dumbo
    @iffen

    I think this is true, but I don't think it's related to optimism, necessarily. More educated (and richer) people tend to be more concerned about their prospects and about the world in general. For the less educated and poor, having children is just part of life and they think less about the child prospects, also because they are already poor and have less to lose. (For the middle class, children are an expensive investment, for the poor, they may be a help - in the house, etc, or they simply are not as expensive as they are not expected to go to college have lots of possessions etc.)

    Also, I see this type of question about the state of the world, environment, etc, only among white people. Asians and Latinos and Blacks and Arabs are less concerned in general about the world and other abstract worries. They just live. Not that they are necessarily happier. They just exist and procreate and concern themselves exclusively with daily life. Like animals or plants.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    Yes, the woke are right–white people are the problem.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
    @iffen

    Huh?
    I don't think they are "the problem" at all, just that they tend to be over-thinkers. I know I am.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @iffen

    I often say that the Left are half right, just not for the reason they think.

    This is a prime example.

  9. @iffen
    @Dumbo

    Yes, the woke are right--white people are the problem.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri

    Huh?
    I don’t think they are “the problem” at all, just that they tend to be over-thinkers. I know I am.

  10. @Michael S
    The huge disparity in the Bachelor bracket, specifically, is interesting. My hypothesis: undergraduate is where the most cock carouseling occurs (prime fertility years) and religious observance is a negative correlate with that behavior.

    But man... if you're a dude and want kids, you definitely want to go for the waitress who dropped out of college, not the biomedical researcher. That's literally a whole extra kid per couple.

    Replies: @Rosie

    But man… if you’re a dude and want kids, you definitely want to go for the waitress who dropped out of college, not the biomedical researcher. That’s literally a whole extra kid per couple.

    That is way overstated. It’s not so much that highly educated women have fewer kids, but rather that they are less likely to have children at all. The childless bring down the average of highly educated women. The overwhelming majority of these women were never married.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    It’s not so much that highly educated women have fewer kids, but rather that they are less likely to have children at all.

    I'm not sure this makes any difference.

    Replies: @Rosie

  11. @Rosie
    @Michael S


    But man… if you’re a dude and want kids, you definitely want to go for the waitress who dropped out of college, not the biomedical researcher. That’s literally a whole extra kid per couple.
     
    That is way overstated. It's not so much that highly educated women have fewer kids, but rather that they are less likely to have children at all. The childless bring down the average of highly educated women. The overwhelming majority of these women were never married.

    Replies: @iffen

    It’s not so much that highly educated women have fewer kids, but rather that they are less likely to have children at all.

    I’m not sure this makes any difference.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    I’m not sure this makes any difference.
     
    It makes a huge difference when it comes to choosing a mate. It's not clear how much of the fertility differential is caused by the most highly educated women refusing to have children without a husband. If you're marrying a woman with an advanced degree, you are taking her out of the barren "never-married" category. Marital status is far and away the most powerful predictor of parity for women. From wikipedia:

    Among women aged 35–44, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married (82.5%) than for married women (12.9%).
     

    Replies: @iffen

  12. @iffen
    @Rosie

    It’s not so much that highly educated women have fewer kids, but rather that they are less likely to have children at all.

    I'm not sure this makes any difference.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I’m not sure this makes any difference.

    It makes a huge difference when it comes to choosing a mate. It’s not clear how much of the fertility differential is caused by the most highly educated women refusing to have children without a husband. If you’re marrying a woman with an advanced degree, you are taking her out of the barren “never-married” category. Marital status is far and away the most powerful predictor of parity for women. From wikipedia:

    Among women aged 35–44, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married (82.5%) than for married women (12.9%).

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    If we accept the eugenicist argument for society, I don't believe it makes any difference whether one educated woman has 8 kids while another has none as opposed to each having 4.

    Replies: @Rosie

  13. I have to imagine that the first grouping contains relatively few women in absolute numbers, as well as the last grouping. The mode is probably clustered around high school-infrequent, which accords well with my impression that total realized fertility shakes out at something just slightly below replacement.

    At least, that was the case for women born between 1960 and 1980. The dismal TFRs of recent years are going to start dragging that number down, too. As always, I like to throw a bone to Chris Hamilton’s Econimica blog, where the coming demographic winter is very extensively chronicled.

    https://econimica.blogspot.com/

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  14. @Rosie
    @iffen


    I’m not sure this makes any difference.
     
    It makes a huge difference when it comes to choosing a mate. It's not clear how much of the fertility differential is caused by the most highly educated women refusing to have children without a husband. If you're marrying a woman with an advanced degree, you are taking her out of the barren "never-married" category. Marital status is far and away the most powerful predictor of parity for women. From wikipedia:

    Among women aged 35–44, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married (82.5%) than for married women (12.9%).
     

    Replies: @iffen

    If we accept the eugenicist argument for society, I don’t believe it makes any difference whether one educated woman has 8 kids while another has none as opposed to each having 4.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    If we accept the eugenicist argument for society, I don’t believe it makes any difference whether one educated woman has 8 kids while another has none as opposed to each having 4.
     
    That's true, but most people are not willing to pick up the slack for free riders.

    Replies: @iffen

  15. Hey, that’s good data here, A.E., and a good bunch of comments, with amazingly, so far, not too much ideology-type politics.

    What I see is that there are not just too many women going to college that have no purpose (for society) being there, but just plain students in general. Really, I think 1/4 of the number of students that go to college now really belong there, for the sake of a good Liberal (old-fashioned sense) or Technical education.

    Now, that was probably not deserving of a reply from Rosie yet, so I will add that the women lean heavily toward the majors that are of no use to society. That is, meaning the way these subjects, such as history, literature, etc, are handled in modern America, not during William F. Buckley’s 1950s (?) American university days. It’s time for States to stop supporting this stuff. It does not help their populations one bit.

    What caused all this over-“education”? The usual suspects did. Note that the Griggs vs. Duke Power decision that put the kibosh on the use of IQ tests (eliminating the need for a 4-year $50,000 piece of proof that one is capable of the job) involved the heavily-government-influenced courts. Note when this decision was made – after the Civil Rites mess.

    Then, there is the US Feral Gov’t’s supporting the attendance of millions of Americans at universities that, again, really don’t need to be there, via the school loan guarantees.

    Oops, there’s that ideology, again, dammit! For the Socialist commenters here, couldn’t you at least admit that government is the cause of nearly every problem there is? Yes, that’s what it comes down to when you dig deep.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Now, that was probably not deserving of a reply from Rosie yet, so I will add that the women lean heavily toward the majors that are of no use to society.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kejX4gBGmk

    , @dfordoom
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Really, I think 1/4 of the number of students that go to college now really belong there
     
    I agree with that. I very strongly agree.
  16. I didn’t want to make that comment too long, so I’ll add this: Once these women get to college, pressure of all sorts is in favor of holding off having any kids for a while. It’s not just the 4 years, maybe 5, 6, or 8, but then, the more time invested there, the more these women will rightfully feel like it’s time to get some use and/or money out of that investment of theirs maybe the taxpayers’.

    OK, so, you can wait until 28 y/o., nah, well I’m kinda used to the business world and the party life, so how ’bout 32, OK 35 max? Mother Nature doesn’t take too kindly to that kind of thing. It’s not me, so lay off, it’s Mother Nature. She’s a mad scientist, Rosie.

  17. @iffen
    @Dumbo

    Yes, the woke are right--white people are the problem.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Almost Missouri

    I often say that the Left are half right, just not for the reason they think.

    This is a prime example.

    • Thanks: iffen
  18. @Peter Johnson
    It would be very useful to show, or mention, the distribution across the categories. I imagine that the top category for example is quite small? Without that information it is not possible to describe the implied rate of overall demographic change.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Yes, I came into the comments to suggest that if AE put little n figures on each of the fifteen columns, it would make his chart even more information-rich.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Almost Missouri

    Less than high school by religious attendance:

    Low -- 288
    Middle -- 131
    High -- 214

    High school:

    Low -- 1325
    Middle -- 797
    High -- 1211

    Junior college:

    Low -- 215
    Middle -- 130
    High -- 190

    Bachelor:

    Low -- 433
    Middle -- 303
    High -- 423

    Graduate:

    Low -- 296
    Middle -- 195
    High -- 270

    I goofed in the graph and underreported the total sample, forgetting to add some columns. It should be 6,452.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Almost Missouri

  19. @snorlax
    To play the Devil's Advocate here, a lot of this is probably a causal relationship in the opposite direction: Women stop their education after getting pregnant, rather than getting pregnant after stopping their education. All the women I know who dropped out of high school or college for reasons other than drugs or mental health, did so because they got pregnant.

    Likewise, having children might make one more likely to go to church, rather than going to church making one more likely to have children.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @DRA

    Not my mother!

    She completed her master’s degree in Atmospheric Science after me and my brother were born.

  20. Anonymous[366] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    It's interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, "How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?"are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education. It is my personal observation that the less educated are the most optimistic about the future (young people) and are frequently enthusiastic about having children and helping them in the great game of life. It seems that the people in the best position to influence the politico/economic/social environment are the most pessimistic.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    Most of that is rationalization and virtue signalling.

    The kind of over-educated woman who makes a big display of saying something like that, would easily have a passel of kids if some highly successful wealthy man like Tom Brady came along and swept them off their feet.

    In reality, these sort of highly educated, professional women find themselves in a world full of men who are equal or lower than themselves in educational attainment, professional status, income, social esteem and prestige, etc. That’s the “world” they’re talking about. One in which most men are “losers” and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anonymous


    That’s the “world” they’re talking about. One in which most men are “losers” and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.


     

    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it's not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.

    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.

    Replies: @Medvedev, @Anonymous

    , @iffen
    @Anonymous

    Yeah, the pickings were a lot better when we kept them un-educated and barefoot.

    , @Medvedev
    @Anonymous

    Shows the idiocy when modern feminism clashes with female instincts to procreate and choose the right mate:
    They are not content with studs who have lower socioeconomic and educational status.
    They are not content with nerds, betas with similar or higher socioeconomic and educational status.
    If you're a beta with low socioeconomic status you get the worst deal of all.
    You're a stud with high socioeconomic status you think you've got a lottery ticket (a lot of women would like to mate with you) ... not so fast. Get 2-3 women pregnant and you risk quickly running out of money or losing your status. One disgruntled female after a side affair will ruin your career.

  21. @iffen
    @Rosie

    If we accept the eugenicist argument for society, I don't believe it makes any difference whether one educated woman has 8 kids while another has none as opposed to each having 4.

    Replies: @Rosie

    If we accept the eugenicist argument for society, I don’t believe it makes any difference whether one educated woman has 8 kids while another has none as opposed to each having 4.

    That’s true, but most people are not willing to pick up the slack for free riders.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    That’s true, but most people are not willing to pick up the slack for free riders.

    Nobody thinks like that concerning having kids. You were trying to mitigate the fact that higher education for women is bad for fertility. I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.

    Replies: @Rosie

  22. @Anonymous
    @iffen

    Most of that is rationalization and virtue signalling.

    The kind of over-educated woman who makes a big display of saying something like that, would easily have a passel of kids if some highly successful wealthy man like Tom Brady came along and swept them off their feet.

    In reality, these sort of highly educated, professional women find themselves in a world full of men who are equal or lower than themselves in educational attainment, professional status, income, social esteem and prestige, etc. That's the "world" they're talking about. One in which most men are "losers" and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Medvedev

    That’s the “world” they’re talking about. One in which most men are “losers” and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.

    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it’s not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.

    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.

    • Replies: @Medvedev
    @Rosie


    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.
     
    This feminist lie was debunked again and again. Once you account for choice of profession the difference is down to 4-5%.
    Men work more hours, take fewer vacation days, fewer sick days, less likely to get pregnant and disappear for 3-12 months and it could be that women are already paid more then men if they do the same work. That is already true for single women

    Young, Single Women Outearn Men
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/09/01/young-single-women-outearn-men
     

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Anonymous
    @Rosie


    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it’s not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.
     
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here, since I thought we were discussing female attitudes about fertility, not racial solidarity.

    At any rate, I looked up the survey you cited, and it said that those with college degrees and higher incomes were less likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-the-alt-right


    Divorced respondents were the only group that broke 10%. We see that white Democrats are very unlikely to express these attitudes, as are those with college degrees and very high incomes.
     
    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/allalltributesfigure2-w640.png

    Replies: @Rosie

  23. @Anonymous
    @iffen

    Most of that is rationalization and virtue signalling.

    The kind of over-educated woman who makes a big display of saying something like that, would easily have a passel of kids if some highly successful wealthy man like Tom Brady came along and swept them off their feet.

    In reality, these sort of highly educated, professional women find themselves in a world full of men who are equal or lower than themselves in educational attainment, professional status, income, social esteem and prestige, etc. That's the "world" they're talking about. One in which most men are "losers" and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Medvedev

    Yeah, the pickings were a lot better when we kept them un-educated and barefoot.

  24. @Anonymous
    @iffen

    Most of that is rationalization and virtue signalling.

    The kind of over-educated woman who makes a big display of saying something like that, would easily have a passel of kids if some highly successful wealthy man like Tom Brady came along and swept them off their feet.

    In reality, these sort of highly educated, professional women find themselves in a world full of men who are equal or lower than themselves in educational attainment, professional status, income, social esteem and prestige, etc. That's the "world" they're talking about. One in which most men are "losers" and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen, @Medvedev

    Shows the idiocy when modern feminism clashes with female instincts to procreate and choose the right mate:
    They are not content with studs who have lower socioeconomic and educational status.
    They are not content with nerds, betas with similar or higher socioeconomic and educational status.
    If you’re a beta with low socioeconomic status you get the worst deal of all.
    You’re a stud with high socioeconomic status you think you’ve got a lottery ticket (a lot of women would like to mate with you) … not so fast. Get 2-3 women pregnant and you risk quickly running out of money or losing your status. One disgruntled female after a side affair will ruin your career.

  25. @Rosie
    @Anonymous


    That’s the “world” they’re talking about. One in which most men are “losers” and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.


     

    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it's not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.

    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.

    Replies: @Medvedev, @Anonymous

    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.

    This feminist lie was debunked again and again. Once you account for choice of profession the difference is down to 4-5%.
    Men work more hours, take fewer vacation days, fewer sick days, less likely to get pregnant and disappear for 3-12 months and it could be that women are already paid more then men if they do the same work. That is already true for single women

    Young, Single Women Outearn Men
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/09/01/young-single-women-outearn-men

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Medvedev


    Once you account for choice of profession the difference is down to 4-5%.
     
    So what?
  26. @Medvedev
    @Rosie


    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.
     
    This feminist lie was debunked again and again. Once you account for choice of profession the difference is down to 4-5%.
    Men work more hours, take fewer vacation days, fewer sick days, less likely to get pregnant and disappear for 3-12 months and it could be that women are already paid more then men if they do the same work. That is already true for single women

    Young, Single Women Outearn Men
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/09/01/young-single-women-outearn-men
     

    Replies: @Rosie

    Once you account for choice of profession the difference is down to 4-5%.

    So what?

  27. Anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie
    @Anonymous


    That’s the “world” they’re talking about. One in which most men are “losers” and a minority of men have higher educational, professional, and monetary attainment and success.


     

    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it's not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.

    As it is, women make 79% of what men make. One wonders how low that would have to go to satisfy these hypergamy hoaxers.

    Replies: @Medvedev, @Anonymous

    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it’s not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, since I thought we were discussing female attitudes about fertility, not racial solidarity.

    At any rate, I looked up the survey you cited, and it said that those with college degrees and higher incomes were less likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-the-alt-right

    Divorced respondents were the only group that broke 10%. We see that white Democrats are very unlikely to express these attitudes, as are those with college degrees and very high incomes.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Anonymous


    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, since I thought we were discussing female attitudes about fertility, not racial solidarity.

    At any rate, I looked up the survey you cited, and it said that those with college degrees and higher incomes were less likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
     
    My point is that people really are dissuaded from having children by a perception that the country is changing in ways they do not like.
  28. @Rosie
    @iffen


    If we accept the eugenicist argument for society, I don’t believe it makes any difference whether one educated woman has 8 kids while another has none as opposed to each having 4.
     
    That's true, but most people are not willing to pick up the slack for free riders.

    Replies: @iffen

    That’s true, but most people are not willing to pick up the slack for free riders.

    Nobody thinks like that concerning having kids. You were trying to mitigate the fact that higher education for women is bad for fertility. I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.
     
    You couldn't be more wrong, iffen. If I am correct that what drives lower fertility among the most highly educated women is unwillingness to have children out of wedlock, then the question becomes not why these women don't have more children, but why they don't get married. Of course, this is when the manosphere creeps start going on about "female hypergamy" and the "cock carousel" and "divorce rape" to blame low fertility on women only.

    AE showed above that highly educated women who regularly attend religious services have a TFR of 1.79, but that figure includes unmarried women. If you look only at married women, I would assume their birth rates would be at least at replacement.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen

  29. @snorlax
    To play the Devil's Advocate here, a lot of this is probably a causal relationship in the opposite direction: Women stop their education after getting pregnant, rather than getting pregnant after stopping their education. All the women I know who dropped out of high school or college for reasons other than drugs or mental health, did so because they got pregnant.

    Likewise, having children might make one more likely to go to church, rather than going to church making one more likely to have children.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @DRA

    My wife and I seem to have done a lot of things the “wrong” way. I went straight from HS to work, then after four years got a civil engineering degree, while she went to college straight from HS. We married as she finished her BS, while I still had two years to go, and neither of us attended church regularly. After she graduated with her BS we had five children: three boys and two girls, a full house so to speak.

    As our children became school aged we started attending church full time, if Unitarian Universalist counts. I was never unemployed and my wife only took off a couple of times for a few years. After the children were self sufficient my wife did get a MS, and as a PE I had a satisfying and remunerative career. We are still happily married after fifty year, and happily retired.

    Personally, I am of the opinion that people are their own best judges of whether or not the world would be a better or poorer place without more people like them, so God bless those that think they shouldn’t have children.

    If generally less educated or intelligent folks have more children, then consider that in this world that we have created they are more fit, in a Darwinian sense. And no, I don’t think that this is sustainable. And when it cannot go on, it will change.

  30. @iffen
    @Rosie

    That’s true, but most people are not willing to pick up the slack for free riders.

    Nobody thinks like that concerning having kids. You were trying to mitigate the fact that higher education for women is bad for fertility. I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.

    Replies: @Rosie

    I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.

    You couldn’t be more wrong, iffen. If I am correct that what drives lower fertility among the most highly educated women is unwillingness to have children out of wedlock, then the question becomes not why these women don’t have more children, but why they don’t get married. Of course, this is when the manosphere creeps start going on about “female hypergamy” and the “cock carousel” and “divorce rape” to blame low fertility on women only.

    AE showed above that highly educated women who regularly attend religious services have a TFR of 1.79, but that figure includes unmarried women. If you look only at married women, I would assume their birth rates would be at least at replacement.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Rosie

    OK, so here are the data.

    Percentage of births out of wedlock by educational attainment among native-born non-Hispanic White Americans:

    < HS: 65%

    HS only: 53%

    Some college: 34%

    College+: 7%

    A massive disparity!


    https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-and-Education

    , @iffen
    @Rosie

    You are incoherent. The education level of women tracks their fertility. It doesn't have anything to do with the puke artists.

    Replies: @Rosie

  31. @Kratoklastes
    Pity you can't get that next step that shows that higher IQ is the driver of both irregliosity and reduced desire to be a breeding sow.

    It would be significant if the data permitted you could partial out the women whose undergrad and grad study were in fields that require high IQ (STEM, Law, finance).

    You would then and see how disinterested cognitively elite women are - jointly, in both religion and reproduction - relative to those who study some bullshit pseudo-discipline (sociology, psychocharlatanry, climate 'science', grievance studies, communications, marketing, PR, HR and so forth).

    Yes, the Smart Fraction is (not-)reproducing itself to extinction, voluntarily.

    Perhaps they see Idiocracy that is being brought into being by the incessant squirting out of seething hordes of obese entitled retards by obese pramfaces.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Educational attainment inversely correlates with fertility more than intelligence does. Women of middling intelligence who get graduate degrees have fewer children than high IQ women who don’t go to college do. We have a post about it in the archives, but it could be cleaned up with fresher data. In the queue, thanks.

    With men, both relationships are much weaker. To the extent that ‘Idiocracy’ is playing itself out, it’s among women. This isn’t surprising. The boss-secretary pairing is much more common than the high powered lawyeress-assistant office manager pairing.

  32. @Rosie
    @iffen


    I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.
     
    You couldn't be more wrong, iffen. If I am correct that what drives lower fertility among the most highly educated women is unwillingness to have children out of wedlock, then the question becomes not why these women don't have more children, but why they don't get married. Of course, this is when the manosphere creeps start going on about "female hypergamy" and the "cock carousel" and "divorce rape" to blame low fertility on women only.

    AE showed above that highly educated women who regularly attend religious services have a TFR of 1.79, but that figure includes unmarried women. If you look only at married women, I would assume their birth rates would be at least at replacement.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen

    OK, so here are the data.

    Percentage of births out of wedlock by educational attainment among native-born non-Hispanic White Americans:

    < HS: 65%

    HS only: 53%

    Some college: 34%

    College+: 7%

    A massive disparity!

    https://cis.org/Camarota/Births-Unmarried-Mothers-Nativity-and-Education

  33. @iffen
    It's interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, "How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?"are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education. It is my personal observation that the less educated are the most optimistic about the future (young people) and are frequently enthusiastic about having children and helping them in the great game of life. It seems that the people in the best position to influence the politico/economic/social environment are the most pessimistic.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    When this sentiment creeps into my mind, as it often does, my stoic defense system activates. It tells me my ancestors did much more with much less so I need to suck it up and make it happen.

    • Agree: iffen
  34. @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, that's good data here, A.E., and a good bunch of comments, with amazingly, so far, not too much ideology-type politics.

    What I see is that there are not just too many women going to college that have no purpose (for society) being there, but just plain students in general. Really, I think 1/4 of the number of students that go to college now really belong there, for the sake of a good Liberal (old-fashioned sense) or Technical education.

    Now, that was probably not deserving of a reply from Rosie yet, so I will add that the women lean heavily toward the majors that are of no use to society. That is, meaning the way these subjects, such as history, literature, etc, are handled in modern America, not during William F. Buckley's 1950s (?) American university days. It's time for States to stop supporting this stuff. It does not help their populations one bit.

    What caused all this over-"education"? The usual suspects did. Note that the Griggs vs. Duke Power decision that put the kibosh on the use of IQ tests (eliminating the need for a 4-year $50,000 piece of proof that one is capable of the job) involved the heavily-government-influenced courts. Note when this decision was made - after the Civil Rites mess.

    Then, there is the US Feral Gov't's supporting the attendance of millions of Americans at universities that, again, really don't need to be there, via the school loan guarantees.

    Oops, there's that ideology, again, dammit! For the Socialist commenters here, couldn't you at least admit that government is the cause of nearly every problem there is? Yes, that's what it comes down to when you dig deep.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    Now, that was probably not deserving of a reply from Rosie yet, so I will add that the women lean heavily toward the majors that are of no use to society.

  35. @Rosie
    @iffen


    I just pointed out that your point amounted to nothing.
     
    You couldn't be more wrong, iffen. If I am correct that what drives lower fertility among the most highly educated women is unwillingness to have children out of wedlock, then the question becomes not why these women don't have more children, but why they don't get married. Of course, this is when the manosphere creeps start going on about "female hypergamy" and the "cock carousel" and "divorce rape" to blame low fertility on women only.

    AE showed above that highly educated women who regularly attend religious services have a TFR of 1.79, but that figure includes unmarried women. If you look only at married women, I would assume their birth rates would be at least at replacement.

    Replies: @Rosie, @iffen

    You are incoherent. The education level of women tracks their fertility. It doesn’t have anything to do with the puke artists.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @iffen


    puke artists.
     
    ?

    Replies: @iffen

  36. @iffen
    @Rosie

    You are incoherent. The education level of women tracks their fertility. It doesn't have anything to do with the puke artists.

    Replies: @Rosie

    puke artists.

    ?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Rosie

    PUA

    Replies: @Brutiss

  37. @iffen
    It's interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, "How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?"are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education. It is my personal observation that the less educated are the most optimistic about the future (young people) and are frequently enthusiastic about having children and helping them in the great game of life. It seems that the people in the best position to influence the politico/economic/social environment are the most pessimistic.

    Replies: @Dumbo, @Anonymous, @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    It’s interesting to me that the only people that I have ever heard posing the question, “How can you wish to bring a child into a world like this?”are educated people. I have no way to show it, but I suspect that that thinking increases with education.

    Do you think it’s education in general, or certain types of education? I’m suspecting that graduates in fields such as engineering and medicines are going to be less likely to succumb to this type of pessimism. Do you think that kind of self-indulgent pessimism might be most characteristic of graduates in the humanities and pseudosciences?

  38. @Dumbo
    @iffen

    I think this is true, but I don't think it's related to optimism, necessarily. More educated (and richer) people tend to be more concerned about their prospects and about the world in general. For the less educated and poor, having children is just part of life and they think less about the child prospects, also because they are already poor and have less to lose. (For the middle class, children are an expensive investment, for the poor, they may be a help - in the house, etc, or they simply are not as expensive as they are not expected to go to college have lots of possessions etc.)

    Also, I see this type of question about the state of the world, environment, etc, only among white people. Asians and Latinos and Blacks and Arabs are less concerned in general about the world and other abstract worries. They just live. Not that they are necessarily happier. They just exist and procreate and concern themselves exclusively with daily life. Like animals or plants.

    Replies: @iffen, @dfordoom

    Also, I see this type of question about the state of the world, environment, etc, only among white people.

    Yep. The state of the world and the state of the environment are white people problems. It’s a SWPL thing. It’s pure self-indulgence possible only to people who have no actual problems.

    This type of agonising over non-existent problems might be one of the residues of Christianity. Or it might simply be natural to people with too much money. Because worrying about the state of the world and the state of the environment are very much rich white people problems. See Bono for a fine example.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  39. @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey, that's good data here, A.E., and a good bunch of comments, with amazingly, so far, not too much ideology-type politics.

    What I see is that there are not just too many women going to college that have no purpose (for society) being there, but just plain students in general. Really, I think 1/4 of the number of students that go to college now really belong there, for the sake of a good Liberal (old-fashioned sense) or Technical education.

    Now, that was probably not deserving of a reply from Rosie yet, so I will add that the women lean heavily toward the majors that are of no use to society. That is, meaning the way these subjects, such as history, literature, etc, are handled in modern America, not during William F. Buckley's 1950s (?) American university days. It's time for States to stop supporting this stuff. It does not help their populations one bit.

    What caused all this over-"education"? The usual suspects did. Note that the Griggs vs. Duke Power decision that put the kibosh on the use of IQ tests (eliminating the need for a 4-year $50,000 piece of proof that one is capable of the job) involved the heavily-government-influenced courts. Note when this decision was made - after the Civil Rites mess.

    Then, there is the US Feral Gov't's supporting the attendance of millions of Americans at universities that, again, really don't need to be there, via the school loan guarantees.

    Oops, there's that ideology, again, dammit! For the Socialist commenters here, couldn't you at least admit that government is the cause of nearly every problem there is? Yes, that's what it comes down to when you dig deep.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @dfordoom

    Really, I think 1/4 of the number of students that go to college now really belong there

    I agree with that. I very strongly agree.

  40. @Anonymous
    @Rosie


    Rubbish. One of the surprising things to come out of the IFS survey on alt-right sensibilities was that Whites without children in the home were more likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. But then, it’s not really surprising when you think about it. Inchoate pro-Whites would be the most likely to be discouraged by demographic trends.
     
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here, since I thought we were discussing female attitudes about fertility, not racial solidarity.

    At any rate, I looked up the survey you cited, and it said that those with college degrees and higher incomes were less likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-the-alt-right


    Divorced respondents were the only group that broke 10%. We see that white Democrats are very unlikely to express these attitudes, as are those with college degrees and very high incomes.
     
    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/allalltributesfigure2-w640.png

    Replies: @Rosie

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, since I thought we were discussing female attitudes about fertility, not racial solidarity.

    At any rate, I looked up the survey you cited, and it said that those with college degrees and higher incomes were less likely to report strong feelings of racial solidarity. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

    My point is that people really are dissuaded from having children by a perception that the country is changing in ways they do not like.

  41. @Rosie
    @iffen


    puke artists.
     
    ?

    Replies: @iffen

    PUA

    • Replies: @Brutiss
    @iffen

    Rosie is right and you're just a retarded cuck.

    You can have strong fertility and female education it just requires the sword

  42. Now for a neat party trick, correlate graduate degrees and regular attendance with membership of the episcopalian “church.”

    • Replies: @anon
    @Mikey D.


    Now for a neat party trick, correlate graduate degrees and regular attendance with membership of the episcopalian “church.”


    The data isn't that fine grained. However it's easy to get anecdotal evidence by visiting mainline churches and count the children. It won't be difficult, since there usually aren't that many. Then visit non mainline churches, where there are more children.

    There's really nothing controversial about AE's graph. The inverse correlation between education and TFR in women has been visible for a couple of generations. The positive correlation between "regular church attendance" and "children" isn't as obvious but it is there.

    Anyone who has ever worked with or around actual upper middle class people such as attorneys, doctors, college faculty, higher level administrators can testify to the increased workload that is associated. A woman who is putting in 50 hours / week as a regular life, with bursts up to 60 or even 70, is not going to bear and raise as many children as a woman working part time.

    Hypergamy is one of the aspects of female psychology that feminists really hate, of course, because it doesn't fit the standard blank-slate feminist propaganda. But it's obvious to those who can see, and so it is no surprise to find women above a certain level of authority divorced or unmarried.

    https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200121-why-promoted-women-are-more-likely-to-divorce

    Evo-bio predicts this. It should be no surprise that in a family where the woman has more prestige and money, friction ensues for a variety of reasons. Feminist ideology makes predictions that don't happen, evo-bio makes predictions that do happen. Choose reality or ideology as you wish, your hindbrain doesn't care.

  43. @iffen
    @Rosie

    PUA

    Replies: @Brutiss

    Rosie is right and you’re just a retarded cuck.

    You can have strong fertility and female education it just requires the sword

  44. anon[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mikey D.
    Now for a neat party trick, correlate graduate degrees and regular attendance with membership of the episcopalian "church."

    Replies: @anon


    Now for a neat party trick, correlate graduate degrees and regular attendance with membership of the episcopalian “church.”

    The data isn’t that fine grained. However it’s easy to get anecdotal evidence by visiting mainline churches and count the children. It won’t be difficult, since there usually aren’t that many. Then visit non mainline churches, where there are more children.

    There’s really nothing controversial about AE’s graph. The inverse correlation between education and TFR in women has been visible for a couple of generations. The positive correlation between “regular church attendance” and “children” isn’t as obvious but it is there.

    Anyone who has ever worked with or around actual upper middle class people such as attorneys, doctors, college faculty, higher level administrators can testify to the increased workload that is associated. A woman who is putting in 50 hours / week as a regular life, with bursts up to 60 or even 70, is not going to bear and raise as many children as a woman working part time.

    Hypergamy is one of the aspects of female psychology that feminists really hate, of course, because it doesn’t fit the standard blank-slate feminist propaganda. But it’s obvious to those who can see, and so it is no surprise to find women above a certain level of authority divorced or unmarried.

    https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200121-why-promoted-women-are-more-likely-to-divorce

    Evo-bio predicts this. It should be no surprise that in a family where the woman has more prestige and money, friction ensues for a variety of reasons. Feminist ideology makes predictions that don’t happen, evo-bio makes predictions that do happen. Choose reality or ideology as you wish, your hindbrain doesn’t care.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  45. @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Johnson

    Yes, I came into the comments to suggest that if AE put little n figures on each of the fifteen columns, it would make his chart even more information-rich.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Less than high school by religious attendance:

    Low — 288
    Middle — 131
    High — 214

    High school:

    Low — 1325
    Middle — 797
    High — 1211

    Junior college:

    Low — 215
    Middle — 130
    High — 190

    Bachelor:

    Low — 433
    Middle — 303
    High — 423

    Graduate:

    Low — 296
    Middle — 195
    High — 270

    I goofed in the graph and underreported the total sample, forgetting to add some columns. It should be 6,452.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Audacious Epigone

    I fixed it in the body of the post, thanks.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Audacious Epigone

    Okay, so if I'm reading this right, and the width of the columns were proportional to the populations, then the sub-high school columns would be tall but thin, the high school columns would be medium height and thick (containing about as much population width as the rest of the chart combined), and the last three sections would be narrow and short.

    Viewed this way (and remembering that the key horizontal axis is the 2.0 fulcrum line rather than the usual chart default of zero) it is even more evident how important the white working class is, and in turn how much the WWC's future (and by extension, whites' future, and Western Civilization's future) depends on religious life.

    While on the chart's left is a small but fecundally [real word?] persistent spoiler class of dropouts, to the right of the WWC are the various narrow tranches of the educated but demographic irrelevants.

    Is it too much to say that the WWC is the swing vote of civilization?

    Indeed, the WWC (with a little help from the religious) seems to be what is keeping the entire show above water. No wonder they are precisely who the suicidal masochists of the Left target axiomatically.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  46. @Audacious Epigone
    @Almost Missouri

    Less than high school by religious attendance:

    Low -- 288
    Middle -- 131
    High -- 214

    High school:

    Low -- 1325
    Middle -- 797
    High -- 1211

    Junior college:

    Low -- 215
    Middle -- 130
    High -- 190

    Bachelor:

    Low -- 433
    Middle -- 303
    High -- 423

    Graduate:

    Low -- 296
    Middle -- 195
    High -- 270

    I goofed in the graph and underreported the total sample, forgetting to add some columns. It should be 6,452.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Almost Missouri

    I fixed it in the body of the post, thanks.

  47. @Audacious Epigone
    @Almost Missouri

    Less than high school by religious attendance:

    Low -- 288
    Middle -- 131
    High -- 214

    High school:

    Low -- 1325
    Middle -- 797
    High -- 1211

    Junior college:

    Low -- 215
    Middle -- 130
    High -- 190

    Bachelor:

    Low -- 433
    Middle -- 303
    High -- 423

    Graduate:

    Low -- 296
    Middle -- 195
    High -- 270

    I goofed in the graph and underreported the total sample, forgetting to add some columns. It should be 6,452.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone, @Almost Missouri

    Okay, so if I’m reading this right, and the width of the columns were proportional to the populations, then the sub-high school columns would be tall but thin, the high school columns would be medium height and thick (containing about as much population width as the rest of the chart combined), and the last three sections would be narrow and short.

    Viewed this way (and remembering that the key horizontal axis is the 2.0 fulcrum line rather than the usual chart default of zero) it is even more evident how important the white working class is, and in turn how much the WWC’s future (and by extension, whites’ future, and Western Civilization’s future) depends on religious life.

    While on the chart’s left is a small but fecundally [real word?] persistent spoiler class of dropouts, to the right of the WWC are the various narrow tranches of the educated but demographic irrelevants.

    Is it too much to say that the WWC is the swing vote of civilization?

    Indeed, the WWC (with a little help from the religious) seems to be what is keeping the entire show above water. No wonder they are precisely who the suicidal masochists of the Left target axiomatically.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Almost Missouri

    If white fertility gets back to replacement, it will be because of them, but what is the cause going to be?

    Replies: @iffen

  48. @Almost Missouri
    @Audacious Epigone

    Okay, so if I'm reading this right, and the width of the columns were proportional to the populations, then the sub-high school columns would be tall but thin, the high school columns would be medium height and thick (containing about as much population width as the rest of the chart combined), and the last three sections would be narrow and short.

    Viewed this way (and remembering that the key horizontal axis is the 2.0 fulcrum line rather than the usual chart default of zero) it is even more evident how important the white working class is, and in turn how much the WWC's future (and by extension, whites' future, and Western Civilization's future) depends on religious life.

    While on the chart's left is a small but fecundally [real word?] persistent spoiler class of dropouts, to the right of the WWC are the various narrow tranches of the educated but demographic irrelevants.

    Is it too much to say that the WWC is the swing vote of civilization?

    Indeed, the WWC (with a little help from the religious) seems to be what is keeping the entire show above water. No wonder they are precisely who the suicidal masochists of the Left target axiomatically.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    If white fertility gets back to replacement, it will be because of them, but what is the cause going to be?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Audacious Epigone

    but what is the cause going to be

    They will do it to save the middle class and UMC class, just like the UMC is making monumental personal and group sacrifices to save the lower classes. Oh--wait--that might not be right.

  49. @Audacious Epigone
    @Almost Missouri

    If white fertility gets back to replacement, it will be because of them, but what is the cause going to be?

    Replies: @iffen

    but what is the cause going to be

    They will do it to save the middle class and UMC class, just like the UMC is making monumental personal and group sacrifices to save the lower classes. Oh–wait–that might not be right.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS