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
Free Speech Funny Guys Pissing Off the Moral Scolds
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

Being an epigone means being a sucker for pithiness, and this line from Rosie is that:

Children depend on their parents until parents depend on their children.

The most unequal power dynamic in human society is the one between parent and child. A child doesn’t choose his parents. He has nowhere to go and effectively almost no one to talk to if they neglect or abuse him. If his position of utter powerlessness is taken advantage of when he is young, he has no moral obligation to treat his parents any better than they treated him when the script flips.

From nebulafox, a lifeline the GOP will either grab on to or drown:

Note to GOP: you are the cultural insurgents now, so start behaving like it-aka, Corporate America Is Not Your Friend Who You Should Give Tax Breaks To and You Have To Be The Irreverent, Impious Pro-Free Speech Funny Guys Pissing Off The Moral Scolds Now. I know this is a very weird place for right-wingers, being the relatively pro-free speech, anti-war party: but you gotta deal with it, it’s a sign of how screwed up things are. The liberals have abandoned their traditional roles, so must you.

DanHessinMD on the polling in Pennsylvania being perfect–too perfect:

Trump barnstormed Pennsylvania in a massive way, holding well over a dozen mega-rallies there including eight in the final week.

That this made no difference to his performance there seems to beggar belief.

Meanwhile he outperformed in Ohio by 7, in New York by 16 and West Virginia by 21? These are all states that border PA.

Enthusiasm for Trump in PA was off the charts — I saw it — he was able to do one mega rally after another to extremely massive crowds every time, amid the pandemic.

And yet none of these shows up in the polls.

He held no rallies in New York and WV and yet his mega-rallies in PA near those states had a big effect. But in PA itself, nothing….

What?

To me this is fishy as hell.

But don’t try to put that commentary on YouTube.

Wolfdogs are formidable creatures, but the Catdog is no slouch either:

Yes, “sacrifice”. That’s what the masks are really about. Whether they work or not is irrelevant. The average prole must be made to make some minor but inconvenient or annoying sacrifice to propitiate the Gods. Like household recycling, mandatory community service hours for high schoolers, setting your phone to airplane mode, and dozens of other useless little rituals, the intent is not to accomplish something to but cultivate the feeling of something being done. That’s why people who have already had Covid are still required to wear masks, and why people who are vaccinated will still be required to wear masks.

People wonder whether or not it was necessary for partisan positions on the Covid question to break the way they have in the US. A novel disease brought in from a foreign country could have been the ultimate crisis for a nationalist, populist president to exploit. This hypothetical hardline response, in turn, should’ve been perfect for his opposition to point to as a thinly-veiled pretense for him to indulge in his inherent nativism and authoritarianism.

For a few weeks in February and early March, in fact, it looked like that is how things would play out. Trump called for travel bans and Democrat pols hugged Chinese people in the streets. But the teams had changed sides by mid-March. There is an inherently egalitarian aesthetic aspect to face masks that is attractive to those on the left, so the mandates are likely to be with us for awhile.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy, Ideology, Science • Tags: COTW 
Hide 63 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. mandatory community service hours for high schoolers

    This was my redpill moment. I didn’t need to be wasting time picking up after disgusting truckers on the sides of highways or being around homeless people that are coming down from some meth or being forced to make small talk with someone else’s grandpa right before the resident nurse comes in cuz he started coughing up blood. I already had enough shit to do as a pimply faced high schooler preparing for an expensive day care like college, trying to get laid with a girl relatively within my range and figuring out what I was supposed to be doing with my life, hoping a war didn’t break out so that my complimentary draft registration that came with my FAFSA rejection didn’t send me off to Buttfuck, Iraq to shoot at brown people I didn’t particularly care about.

    It’s shit like that which made me look at the Holodomor, the Holocaust and the Great Leap Forward in a totally different light. Genocide solves problems.

    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
    @Wyatt

    My Catholic high school (Jesuit) sent my class to Peru for a month to help build a new schoolhouse in some remote, bumfuck valley on the wet side of the Andes. Ostensibly this was for diocesan Christian service but it also managed to meet our state’s community service requirements. Me and several of my baseball teammates took to adolescent hijinks with the village girls at night rather quickly.

    It’s always possible to kill two birds with one stone.

  2. A child doesn’t choose his parents.

    (I actually disagree with this common sentiment for reasons that would take too long to elaborate, but never mind, it doesn’t affect the rest of the comment much.)

    He has nowhere to go and effectively almost no one to talk to if they neglect or abuse him.

    This part is true, legions of useless social workers notwithstanding.

    If his position of utter powerlessness is taken advantage of when he is young, he has no moral obligation to treat his parents any better than they treated him when the script flips.

    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone’s kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn’t particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not. Indeed, Social Security may be the biggest perverse incentive in history. For the previous few million years, your care and provision for your young determined their care and provision for you later. Two generations ago, FDR made everyone’s own kids materially irrelevant to their later selves. Indeed, children became a liability instead of an asset. You will pay to raise them, but they will be taxed to pay for everyone else’s retirement. The material winners are those who don’t have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else’s kids’ taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders’ retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Almost Missouri


    A child doesn’t choose his parents.
     
    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I "had a little talk" with my parents......

    (something like--I didn't choose you, and I don't want anything to do with you now that I have a choice...)

    ;-)

    Replies: @Craig Nelsen, @Rosie

    , @Rosie
    @Almost Missouri


    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone’s kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn’t particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not.
     
    I wasn't really talking about financial support. I was talking about having someone to care for you when you're incapable of living independently. Despite a rough start, my mother has done fine for herself and doesn't need any financial support from me, but she knows that I will care for her as long as I can, and when I cannot, I will visit her regularly in an appropriate nursing home.


    The material winners are those who don’t have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else’s kids’ taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders’ retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.
     
    I wouldn't want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Twinkie

    , @obwandiyag
    @Almost Missouri

    Douchbag lambastes Social Security of all things fer krissake.

    Now there is one textbook example of il-historicity. Not a clue about the past. Not even a crumb of a crumb of a clue.


    What next? Babies? Puppy dogs? Mom and apple pie?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  3. @Wyatt

    mandatory community service hours for high schoolers
     
    This was my redpill moment. I didn't need to be wasting time picking up after disgusting truckers on the sides of highways or being around homeless people that are coming down from some meth or being forced to make small talk with someone else's grandpa right before the resident nurse comes in cuz he started coughing up blood. I already had enough shit to do as a pimply faced high schooler preparing for an expensive day care like college, trying to get laid with a girl relatively within my range and figuring out what I was supposed to be doing with my life, hoping a war didn't break out so that my complimentary draft registration that came with my FAFSA rejection didn't send me off to Buttfuck, Iraq to shoot at brown people I didn't particularly care about.

    It's shit like that which made me look at the Holodomor, the Holocaust and the Great Leap Forward in a totally different light. Genocide solves problems.

    Replies: @Supply and Demand

    My Catholic high school (Jesuit) sent my class to Peru for a month to help build a new schoolhouse in some remote, bumfuck valley on the wet side of the Andes. Ostensibly this was for diocesan Christian service but it also managed to meet our state’s community service requirements. Me and several of my baseball teammates took to adolescent hijinks with the village girls at night rather quickly.

    It’s always possible to kill two birds with one stone.

  4. DanHessinMD on the polling in Pennsylvania being perfect–too perfect:

    Enthusiasm for Trump in PA was off the charts — I saw it — he was able to do one mega rally after another to extremely massive crowds every time, amid the pandemic.

    And yet none of these shows up in the polls.

    He held no rallies in New York and WV and yet his mega-rallies in PA near those states had a big effect. But in PA itself, nothing….

    And, PA is not the only Perfect Storm.

    What about NH? It was not a redistricting election. The GOP flipped the NH State House and State Senate. Trump had a massive coattails impact on the NH state races, but lost the State?

    There were far too many statistical anomalies & they were all in Biden’s favor.

    PEACE 😇

  5. Yes, the pandemic provided Trump an extraordinary opportunity to exemplify the (situational) virtue of strong leadership, but he was betrayed by his glaring lack of competence (or good sense to defer to high specific competence) and, related in character, his special facility of prevarication that had served him well in politics. It’s a tragic tale of Hellenistic proportions, folks. His attention at the outset, setting his course, was given in effort to quash the superficial immediate consequence to markets by talking down public concern. Some things can indeed be swept under a rug by a forceful personality, made to go away; a pandemic is not one of them. Our tragic figure later seemed to follow the lead of the most raucous of his base, those protesting among other things their aversion to masks. This deference to malcontents rather than to competence surely contributed significantly to his political Waterloo. While the value of masks may be unsettled in scientific study, the concept appeals to common sense, moreover the side of consent with the public gesture is the side of prosocial cooperation, and what’s more one observes by way of tv mask mandates in place over the entire world. Our saga winds down with the spectacle of his most zealous supporters raising hell in the Imperial City, calling for the walls to come down.

    Perhaps this pandemic, more broadly than being a severe test of leadership, offers a novel measure over the free world of relative levels of civilization.

    • Replies: @botazefa
    @John Achterhof

    Trump never had a chance. He fundamentally believes in 'America.' He talked about draining the swamp without actually believing their exists said swamp.

    Trump prevaricated boldly and obviously, but is egocentrically blind to actual deviousness in others. He hired John Bolton and Bill Barr, and seems actually surprised when he 'discovered' them to be prevaricating kiss asses only interested in their own careers.

    Ironically, as a lying salesman, Trump trusts more skilled salesmen to be telling the truth.

    In short, Trump is a clever fool. A tool to be wielded by more clever people.

    But he beats the shit out of Biden and if he had four more years I suspect he would have closed ranks and finally seen things in Washington for how they really are.

  6. 4ch has been the home base of right-wing irreverent funny guys since 2012. They are very good at it and produce the spiciest, dankest, free-range organic memes. It’s incredible- as in hard to believe- that the censors haven’t managed to crush it yet.

    That’s because they really *are* the oppressed subculture, and not merely playing at it. No 4ch funny guys will get cable news shows like Colbert and Stewart. They won’t get Netflix stand-up specials. They won’t even be allowed to maintain a popular youtube channel.

    Is a genuine Irreverant Funny Guy really going to overcome an Ireverant Funny Guy™ #432 with ten million dollars of marketting?

  7. @Almost Missouri

    A child doesn’t choose his parents.
     
    (I actually disagree with this common sentiment for reasons that would take too long to elaborate, but never mind, it doesn't affect the rest of the comment much.)

    He has nowhere to go and effectively almost no one to talk to if they neglect or abuse him.
     
    This part is true, legions of useless social workers notwithstanding.

    If his position of utter powerlessness is taken advantage of when he is young, he has no moral obligation to treat his parents any better than they treated him when the script flips.
     
    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone's kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn't particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not. Indeed, Social Security may be the biggest perverse incentive in history. For the previous few million years, your care and provision for your young determined their care and provision for you later. Two generations ago, FDR made everyone's own kids materially irrelevant to their later selves. Indeed, children became a liability instead of an asset. You will pay to raise them, but they will be taxed to pay for everyone else's retirement. The material winners are those who don't have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else's kids' taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders' retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @obwandiyag

    A child doesn’t choose his parents.

    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I “had a little talk” with my parents……

    (something like–I didn’t choose you, and I don’t want anything to do with you now that I have a choice…)

    😉

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
    @Justvisiting


    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I “had a little talk” with my parents……
     
    As someone who read Ayn Rand as a teenager, I believe it should be illegal for teenagers to read Ayn Rand.

    I heard something some time ago that had a big impact. A woman who had worked for something like 40 years in a hopeless cases hospice--a place where people went to die--was asked what it was that the dying most regret. According to this woman, who knew human death as well as can be known to the living, said that, overwhelmingly, dying humans regret not maintaining relationships. They didn't regret not being more thrifty, or not making better career choices, or not being more spiritual, or not being more faithful to God, or not working harder, or not being kinder, or not spending more time in nature, or not doing more charity work, they regretted allowing those relationships they'd had in life to disintegrate.

    The hyper-individualism of Ayn Rand appeals to teens because that is the stage in life we can imagine ourselves as Henry Roarks or Dagny Tabbarts (sp), as it should be, but it isn't a healthy or sustainable life philosophy. There was a reason the novelist had to make Dagny Tabbart single and Henry Roark locked in a loveless marriage. Her heroes weren't quite fully human.

    We see the results of this religion of the individual all around us--the ease with which we permanently disavow loyalty to our siblings, to our parents, and, most fatally, to our race.

    Replies: @martin_2, @Stan d Mute

    , @Rosie
    @Justvisiting


    (something like–I didn’t choose you, and I don’t want anything to do with you now that I have a choice…)
     
    Wow. What did they do to deserve such treatment?
  8. @Justvisiting
    @Almost Missouri


    A child doesn’t choose his parents.
     
    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I "had a little talk" with my parents......

    (something like--I didn't choose you, and I don't want anything to do with you now that I have a choice...)

    ;-)

    Replies: @Craig Nelsen, @Rosie

    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I “had a little talk” with my parents……

    As someone who read Ayn Rand as a teenager, I believe it should be illegal for teenagers to read Ayn Rand.

    I heard something some time ago that had a big impact. A woman who had worked for something like 40 years in a hopeless cases hospice–a place where people went to die–was asked what it was that the dying most regret. According to this woman, who knew human death as well as can be known to the living, said that, overwhelmingly, dying humans regret not maintaining relationships. They didn’t regret not being more thrifty, or not making better career choices, or not being more spiritual, or not being more faithful to God, or not working harder, or not being kinder, or not spending more time in nature, or not doing more charity work, they regretted allowing those relationships they’d had in life to disintegrate.

    The hyper-individualism of Ayn Rand appeals to teens because that is the stage in life we can imagine ourselves as Henry Roarks or Dagny Tabbarts (sp), as it should be, but it isn’t a healthy or sustainable life philosophy. There was a reason the novelist had to make Dagny Tabbart single and Henry Roark locked in a loveless marriage. Her heroes weren’t quite fully human.

    We see the results of this religion of the individual all around us–the ease with which we permanently disavow loyalty to our siblings, to our parents, and, most fatally, to our race.

    • Agree: Daniel H, botazefa
    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @martin_2
    @Craig Nelsen

    I remember a few years ago on the radio a similar question was asked of some very elderly people and some said they regretted working too hard and not spending more time with their family as they were growing up. No-one said they regretted not working hard enough as I recall.

    , @Stan d Mute
    @Craig Nelsen


    We see the results of this religion of the individual all around us–the ease with which we permanently disavow loyalty to our siblings, to our parents, and, most fatally, to our race.
     
    But in fact, we do not do this. It’s been a steady drumbeat of my commentary since forever ago that we are doomed precisely because we refuse to disavow sisters, mothers, daughters, and limp-waisted sons.

    If we only could simply cut off the leftists in our own families, a restoration might be possible. The only leftists remaining with money would be those who are independently wealthy. The parasites would starve and whine to death. And if we took just the one extra step of a total embargo on the food, energy, and manufactured goods we provide to the leftists who’ve inherited money, we’d soon be done with this nonsense entirely.
  9. @Craig Nelsen
    @Justvisiting


    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I “had a little talk” with my parents……
     
    As someone who read Ayn Rand as a teenager, I believe it should be illegal for teenagers to read Ayn Rand.

    I heard something some time ago that had a big impact. A woman who had worked for something like 40 years in a hopeless cases hospice--a place where people went to die--was asked what it was that the dying most regret. According to this woman, who knew human death as well as can be known to the living, said that, overwhelmingly, dying humans regret not maintaining relationships. They didn't regret not being more thrifty, or not making better career choices, or not being more spiritual, or not being more faithful to God, or not working harder, or not being kinder, or not spending more time in nature, or not doing more charity work, they regretted allowing those relationships they'd had in life to disintegrate.

    The hyper-individualism of Ayn Rand appeals to teens because that is the stage in life we can imagine ourselves as Henry Roarks or Dagny Tabbarts (sp), as it should be, but it isn't a healthy or sustainable life philosophy. There was a reason the novelist had to make Dagny Tabbart single and Henry Roark locked in a loveless marriage. Her heroes weren't quite fully human.

    We see the results of this religion of the individual all around us--the ease with which we permanently disavow loyalty to our siblings, to our parents, and, most fatally, to our race.

    Replies: @martin_2, @Stan d Mute

    I remember a few years ago on the radio a similar question was asked of some very elderly people and some said they regretted working too hard and not spending more time with their family as they were growing up. No-one said they regretted not working hard enough as I recall.

  10. Yes, “sacrifice”. That’s what the masks are really about. Whether they work or not is irrelevant. The average prole must be made to make some minor but inconvenient or annoying sacrifice to propitiate the Gods. Like household recycling, mandatory community service hours for high schoolers, setting your phone to airplane mode, and dozens of other useless little rituals, the intent is not to accomplish something to but cultivate the feeling of something being done. That’s why people who have already had Covid are still required to wear masks

    I say it’s just plain stupidity that people who have had Covid are still required to wear masks. It would be trivial to exempt them, just have doctors submit proof of Covid antibodies to the local BMV, which will print badges with photos for people to use. But that idea is simply not going to occur to most people in government, who are too dumb and uncreative to think it up.

    One could add other things to the list of “useless rituals,” like hand-washing, seatbelt wearing, sunscreen, flossing, exercising, and changing the oil in your car. Many people just don’t do these things, requiring immediate negative consequences to spur them to action. Most are smart enough to know that it’s low-class to not do them, so they don’t advertise it. A minority of stupid and psychopathic people, however, loudly proclaim that they are Independent Thinkers who have thoroughly researched the subject just know that this doesn’t work and that they don’t give a s*** for anyone but themselves. The smart psychopath, in contrast, is habitually kind and polite to others, only taking out the knife when he has thought it through and knows he’ll get away with it.

  11. Nobody likes nuance. Maybe the virus is serious enough to require a serious response but also existing government measures are either ineffective and counterproductive. And maybe it’s too easy to maneuver opponents of ineffective and counterproductive government measures into adopting absurd positions like “it’s just the flu”, making it all the easier to dismiss them as cranks. I can think of similar examples.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Jtgw


    Maybe the virus is serious enough to require a serious response but also existing government measures are either ineffective and counterproductive.
     
    Very early travel bans might have been more effective than letting the virus spread and then trying to deal with it. Most transmissions are now coming in personal settings like family visits which is why public mask wearing isn't working in places like Indiana here which have had mask mandates for months. I'm absent minded and get yelled at regularly when I walk into a store or restaurant without wearing a mask after having forgotten to put it on. Almost everyone is wearing a mask, with the exception of some ghetto areas where it can't be enforced, and almost everyone is hostile to anyone not wearing a mask but we still have had a big increase in cases.

    The focus on government measures has also taken the focus too much away from the idea of personal responsibility for your health. 90% of hospitalizations for this disease involve people who are overweight or obese so trying to lose some weight might be a good idea. 80% of hospitalizations involve people who are vitamin d deficient so getting out in the sun or taking a vitamin d pill when it gets too cold to do that is a good idea. Zinc boosts the immune system so eat more zinc rich foods or take a zinc pill. Zinc ionophores like HCQ, quercetin and green tea increase zinc uptake so try one of those. Increase the humidity levels in your house when it is winter and the air is cold and dry. If you are old avoid high risk situations like large family get togethers. Masks may or may not be effective but if you are young be considerate and wear a mask and practice social distancing when around very old people. At the same time, if you are young lead close to a normal life with your same age peers to avoid psychological problems from too much social isolation because that harms your health too.
  12. @Justvisiting
    @Almost Missouri


    A child doesn’t choose his parents.
     
    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I "had a little talk" with my parents......

    (something like--I didn't choose you, and I don't want anything to do with you now that I have a choice...)

    ;-)

    Replies: @Craig Nelsen, @Rosie

    (something like–I didn’t choose you, and I don’t want anything to do with you now that I have a choice…)

    Wow. What did they do to deserve such treatment?

  13. @Almost Missouri

    A child doesn’t choose his parents.
     
    (I actually disagree with this common sentiment for reasons that would take too long to elaborate, but never mind, it doesn't affect the rest of the comment much.)

    He has nowhere to go and effectively almost no one to talk to if they neglect or abuse him.
     
    This part is true, legions of useless social workers notwithstanding.

    If his position of utter powerlessness is taken advantage of when he is young, he has no moral obligation to treat his parents any better than they treated him when the script flips.
     
    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone's kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn't particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not. Indeed, Social Security may be the biggest perverse incentive in history. For the previous few million years, your care and provision for your young determined their care and provision for you later. Two generations ago, FDR made everyone's own kids materially irrelevant to their later selves. Indeed, children became a liability instead of an asset. You will pay to raise them, but they will be taxed to pay for everyone else's retirement. The material winners are those who don't have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else's kids' taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders' retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @obwandiyag

    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone’s kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn’t particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not.

    I wasn’t really talking about financial support. I was talking about having someone to care for you when you’re incapable of living independently. Despite a rough start, my mother has done fine for herself and doesn’t need any financial support from me, but she knows that I will care for her as long as I can, and when I cannot, I will visit her regularly in an appropriate nursing home.

    The material winners are those who don’t have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else’s kids’ taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders’ retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.

    I wouldn’t want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    "i wouldn’t want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough".

    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn't attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society. It would be unfair to punish them further. Those with children are at an advantage right now with generous tax credits. Most middle class and below parents don't pay taxes and get a huge "refund". This is a reason our debt is so high. As saddened as I am that Trump lost I cheer myself up a little by remembering he doubled the child tax credit. That was one of the worst things the government has done in my lifetime, although I blame Marco Rubio more than Trump since it was his idea.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I wasn’t really talking about financial support.
     
    Yes, I understood this right away.

    I was talking about having someone to care for you when you’re incapable of living independently.
     
    You are also right about this. It's very nice for the elderly to have family around, even if they are able to live independently or otherwise have paid help. As people get older, interests in material things peel away little by little for most people, and they mainly care about spending time with their families, especially children and grandchildren.

    As soon as my wife's grandmother passed away, her grandfather basically divested himself of pretty much all material goods and relocated to a very nice retirement home (the kind where he has his own apartment in a building that has healthcare, kitchen staff, car service, etc.) where he had lots of friends (even several of his former colleagues from work). While he enjoyed living amongst his friends and colleagues and even though he didn't want for material comforts, he still appreciated getting visits from his children and grandchildren and also visiting them often. Every time my wife, children, and I visited her parents, we always drove to her grandfather's place, picked him up, and brought him to the parents' house and had dinner every evening. I still remember the twinkle he had in his eyes every time he saw my wife and our children, his great grandchildren. I spent many a hours with him, listening to his war stories (including meeting Ike!) or his early life.

    That man died happily at age 92, surrounded by his family, having lived through the Depression, fought in World War II (ETO), married his college sweetheart, worked up from a paper delivery boy to the senior VP of a media company, oversaw and sustained universities, churches, and charities, and became the revered and much beloved patriarch of a large and prosperous clan. His was a good life. We should all be so blessed.

    That said, I personally do not have much of an expectation of help or support from my children when I get older. As is the tradition in my birth national culture, the role of a parent is to sacrifice for the children. The only thing I ask of my children is not to do things for me later, but to, in their turn, sacrifice for their children, my future grandchildren. That would indeed make me a very happy and proud father. And if I could see my great grandchildren? Well, that would be something, indeed.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

  14. @Almost Missouri

    A child doesn’t choose his parents.
     
    (I actually disagree with this common sentiment for reasons that would take too long to elaborate, but never mind, it doesn't affect the rest of the comment much.)

    He has nowhere to go and effectively almost no one to talk to if they neglect or abuse him.
     
    This part is true, legions of useless social workers notwithstanding.

    If his position of utter powerlessness is taken advantage of when he is young, he has no moral obligation to treat his parents any better than they treated him when the script flips.
     
    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone's kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn't particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not. Indeed, Social Security may be the biggest perverse incentive in history. For the previous few million years, your care and provision for your young determined their care and provision for you later. Two generations ago, FDR made everyone's own kids materially irrelevant to their later selves. Indeed, children became a liability instead of an asset. You will pay to raise them, but they will be taxed to pay for everyone else's retirement. The material winners are those who don't have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else's kids' taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders' retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @obwandiyag

    Douchbag lambastes Social Security of all things fer krissake.

    Now there is one textbook example of il-historicity. Not a clue about the past. Not even a crumb of a crumb of a clue.

    What next? Babies? Puppy dogs? Mom and apple pie?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @obwandiyag

    Looking forward to the obwandiyag manifesto in defense of puppies, mom and apple pie.

  15. @Rosie
    @Almost Missouri


    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone’s kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn’t particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not.
     
    I wasn't really talking about financial support. I was talking about having someone to care for you when you're incapable of living independently. Despite a rough start, my mother has done fine for herself and doesn't need any financial support from me, but she knows that I will care for her as long as I can, and when I cannot, I will visit her regularly in an appropriate nursing home.


    The material winners are those who don’t have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else’s kids’ taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders’ retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.
     
    I wouldn't want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Twinkie

    “i wouldn’t want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough”.

    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society. It would be unfair to punish them further. Those with children are at an advantage right now with generous tax credits. Most middle class and below parents don’t pay taxes and get a huge “refund”. This is a reason our debt is so high. As saddened as I am that Trump lost I cheer myself up a little by remembering he doubled the child tax credit. That was one of the worst things the government has done in my lifetime, although I blame Marco Rubio more than Trump since it was his idea.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.
     
    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt's comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about "incels" and their problems.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @V. K. Ovelund

  16. @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    "i wouldn’t want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough".

    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn't attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society. It would be unfair to punish them further. Those with children are at an advantage right now with generous tax credits. Most middle class and below parents don't pay taxes and get a huge "refund". This is a reason our debt is so high. As saddened as I am that Trump lost I cheer myself up a little by remembering he doubled the child tax credit. That was one of the worst things the government has done in my lifetime, although I blame Marco Rubio more than Trump since it was his idea.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.

    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt’s comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about “incels” and their problems.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    I know a lot of guys like this. They would have made excellent husbands and fathers. They could never compete against the guys who became "baby daddies" often with multiple women. Take a random group of 100 men without children vs. 100 baby daddies and it will be clear who would have made the better fathers. There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn't be happening to the extent it is.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie



    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.
     
    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt’s comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about “incels” and their problems.
     

    Women are not required to care about this problem. In fact, if a woman is normal, it is probably best that she not care about it.

    However, decent men that do not wish their civilization to dissolve are indeed required to care about it.


    It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants.
     
    True, but maybe not that simple. There is a feedback. And your two points are related.

    Replies: @Rosie

  17. @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.
     
    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt's comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about "incels" and their problems.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @V. K. Ovelund

    I know a lot of guys like this. They would have made excellent husbands and fathers. They could never compete against the guys who became “baby daddies” often with multiple women. Take a random group of 100 men without children vs. 100 baby daddies and it will be clear who would have made the better fathers. There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.”
     
    So I keep hearing. I'm still waiting for the evidence I've been asking for several years now.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    , @Twinkie
    @Jay Fink


    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males.
     
    You ought to consider the possibility that a greater fraction of non-college-educated males are r-selected than in the past. In fact, it could very well be that a greater fraction of downscale Americans, male and female, are now choosing the r-selection strategy.

    https://cardi.cals.cornell.edu/sites/cardi.cals.cornell.edu/files/resize/shared/NYM-Fertility-Age_2013-500x298.jpg
    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jay Fink


    Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.
     
    I think it is a mistake to conflate tax credits and welfare. The former is an incentive for the bread-winner and the child-bearer to team up (aka "marriage"), while the latter is an incentive for the child-bearer to inseminate herself from anyone she fancies, so traditional breadwinners are least likely to appeal. Tax credits and welfare are in fact almost opposite. They are both pro-natal, but one encourages natality in the form of a traditional family, while the other encourages chaotic and criminal random spawning.
  18. Pronouns in the bio? Yup.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @Talha

    From "Love and Freindship", emphasis added:


    The noble Youth informed us that his name was Lindsay—for particular reasons however I shall conceal it under that of Talbot. He told us that he was the son of an English Baronet, that his Mother had been for many years no more and that he had a Sister of the middle size. “My Father (he continued) is a mean and mercenary wretch—it is only to such particular freinds as this Dear Party that I would thus betray his failings. Your Virtues my amiable Polydore (addressing himself to my father) yours Dear Claudia and yours my Charming Laura call on me to repose in you, my confidence.” We bowed. “My Father seduced by the false glare of Fortune and the Deluding Pomp of Title, insisted on my giving my hand to Lady Dorothea. No never exclaimed I. Lady Dorothea is lovely and Engaging; I prefer no woman to her; but know Sir, that I scorn to marry her in compliance with your Wishes. No! Never shall it be said that I obliged my Father.

     

  19. There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.

    With fathers doing their jobs, this would not be happening to the extent it is. People should know where the buck stops. No patriarchy worth its salt passes the responsibility along.

    Peace.

  20. @Rosie
    @Almost Missouri


    This part used to be true, and is still morally true, but materially, since the creation of universal government pension systems, it has become irrelevant. The government is going to tax everyone’s kids to pay for your retirement, so it doesn’t particularly matter whether your kids feel like supporting you or not.
     
    I wasn't really talking about financial support. I was talking about having someone to care for you when you're incapable of living independently. Despite a rough start, my mother has done fine for herself and doesn't need any financial support from me, but she knows that I will care for her as long as I can, and when I cannot, I will visit her regularly in an appropriate nursing home.


    The material winners are those who don’t have kids, never drain themselves of the massive child-rearing investment and then get to retire on everyone else’s kids’ taxes. The suckers raise all the kids who then pay for the freeloaders’ retirements. This is an unexamined cause of the Great Antinatalism.
     
    I wouldn't want to see people make a decision about having kids based on their retirement plans, but the childless should certainly pay more. I think they already do, but probably not enough.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Twinkie

    I wasn’t really talking about financial support.

    Yes, I understood this right away.

    I was talking about having someone to care for you when you’re incapable of living independently.

    You are also right about this. It’s very nice for the elderly to have family around, even if they are able to live independently or otherwise have paid help. As people get older, interests in material things peel away little by little for most people, and they mainly care about spending time with their families, especially children and grandchildren.

    As soon as my wife’s grandmother passed away, her grandfather basically divested himself of pretty much all material goods and relocated to a very nice retirement home (the kind where he has his own apartment in a building that has healthcare, kitchen staff, car service, etc.) where he had lots of friends (even several of his former colleagues from work). While he enjoyed living amongst his friends and colleagues and even though he didn’t want for material comforts, he still appreciated getting visits from his children and grandchildren and also visiting them often. Every time my wife, children, and I visited her parents, we always drove to her grandfather’s place, picked him up, and brought him to the parents’ house and had dinner every evening. I still remember the twinkle he had in his eyes every time he saw my wife and our children, his great grandchildren. I spent many a hours with him, listening to his war stories (including meeting Ike!) or his early life.

    That man died happily at age 92, surrounded by his family, having lived through the Depression, fought in World War II (ETO), married his college sweetheart, worked up from a paper delivery boy to the senior VP of a media company, oversaw and sustained universities, churches, and charities, and became the revered and much beloved patriarch of a large and prosperous clan. His was a good life. We should all be so blessed.

    That said, I personally do not have much of an expectation of help or support from my children when I get older. As is the tradition in my birth national culture, the role of a parent is to sacrifice for the children. The only thing I ask of my children is not to do things for me later, but to, in their turn, sacrifice for their children, my future grandchildren. That would indeed make me a very happy and proud father. And if I could see my great grandchildren? Well, that would be something, indeed.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    Love runs downhill. It has to be that way.

  21. @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    I know a lot of guys like this. They would have made excellent husbands and fathers. They could never compete against the guys who became "baby daddies" often with multiple women. Take a random group of 100 men without children vs. 100 baby daddies and it will be clear who would have made the better fathers. There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn't be happening to the extent it is.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri

    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.”

    So I keep hearing. I’m still waiting for the evidence I’ve been asking for several years now.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Rosie

    I’m somewhat agnostic on this, but this may support that notion:

    https://wdi21.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Out-of-wedlock-Chart.png


    [Robert] Putnam further established that most of the children in America are raised by a single parent. He added, “Growing up with two parents is now unusual in the white (as well as non-white) working class, while two-parent families are normal and becoming more common among the upper middle class (both white and non-white). Most Americans are unaware that the white working-class family is today more fragile than the black family was at the time of the famous alarm-sounding 1965 Moynihan report.”
     

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @iffen
    @Rosie

    I’m still waiting for the evidence I’ve been asking for several years now.

    Correlation is causation, don't cha know.

  22. @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.”
     
    So I keep hearing. I'm still waiting for the evidence I've been asking for several years now.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    I’m somewhat agnostic on this, but this may support that notion:

    [Robert] Putnam further established that most of the children in America are raised by a single parent. He added, “Growing up with two parents is now unusual in the white (as well as non-white) working class, while two-parent families are normal and becoming more common among the upper middle class (both white and non-white). Most Americans are unaware that the white working-class family is today more fragile than the black family was at the time of the famous alarm-sounding 1965 Moynihan report.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Twinkie

    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.

    First, unmarried cohabitation. This is particularly likely to occur among working class couples who may be getting welfare benefits that they would not be getting if they were married, such as food stamps. Moreover, neither partner has a job with benefits that would accrue to a spouse. Welfare alarmists' predictions, at least as far as White women are concerned, have never panned out. In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.. Rumors of the traditional family's demise there were greatly exaggerated. There are data on this. I'll post when I find it, but here is an article on a similar trend in Norway.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/one-of-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-does-marriage-differently-from-most-everywhere-else

    Second, the end of the shotgun marriage and the increasing likelihood of unwed mothers keeping their babies. Note: I suspect that many adoptions were coerced in the past, though I don't claim to know for sure. I don't know if the source data for your graph account for adoptions or not.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

    https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-legacy-of-forced-adoption-300000-unmarried-canadian-women-had-to-give-u

    Third, economics. It's probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants. The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family, and simultaneously increased the number of hopelessly depressed young men addicted to drugs.

    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women's power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don't know the answer, but I have my suspicions.

    The premise behind the argument is that women make calculating decisions about romance. I don't know why anyone would think that. Boy meets girl and nature takes it's course, same as it ever was.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

  23. @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    I know a lot of guys like this. They would have made excellent husbands and fathers. They could never compete against the guys who became "baby daddies" often with multiple women. Take a random group of 100 men without children vs. 100 baby daddies and it will be clear who would have made the better fathers. There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn't be happening to the extent it is.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri

    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males.

    You ought to consider the possibility that a greater fraction of non-college-educated males are r-selected than in the past. In fact, it could very well be that a greater fraction of downscale Americans, male and female, are now choosing the r-selection strategy.

  24. @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.”
     
    So I keep hearing. I'm still waiting for the evidence I've been asking for several years now.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @iffen

    I’m still waiting for the evidence I’ve been asking for several years now.

    Correlation is causation, don’t cha know.

  25. @Jtgw
    Nobody likes nuance. Maybe the virus is serious enough to require a serious response but also existing government measures are either ineffective and counterproductive. And maybe it’s too easy to maneuver opponents of ineffective and counterproductive government measures into adopting absurd positions like “it’s just the flu”, making it all the easier to dismiss them as cranks. I can think of similar examples.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    Maybe the virus is serious enough to require a serious response but also existing government measures are either ineffective and counterproductive.

    Very early travel bans might have been more effective than letting the virus spread and then trying to deal with it. Most transmissions are now coming in personal settings like family visits which is why public mask wearing isn’t working in places like Indiana here which have had mask mandates for months. I’m absent minded and get yelled at regularly when I walk into a store or restaurant without wearing a mask after having forgotten to put it on. Almost everyone is wearing a mask, with the exception of some ghetto areas where it can’t be enforced, and almost everyone is hostile to anyone not wearing a mask but we still have had a big increase in cases.

    The focus on government measures has also taken the focus too much away from the idea of personal responsibility for your health. 90% of hospitalizations for this disease involve people who are overweight or obese so trying to lose some weight might be a good idea. 80% of hospitalizations involve people who are vitamin d deficient so getting out in the sun or taking a vitamin d pill when it gets too cold to do that is a good idea. Zinc boosts the immune system so eat more zinc rich foods or take a zinc pill. Zinc ionophores like HCQ, quercetin and green tea increase zinc uptake so try one of those. Increase the humidity levels in your house when it is winter and the air is cold and dry. If you are old avoid high risk situations like large family get togethers. Masks may or may not be effective but if you are young be considerate and wear a mask and practice social distancing when around very old people. At the same time, if you are young lead close to a normal life with your same age peers to avoid psychological problems from too much social isolation because that harms your health too.

  26. @Twinkie
    @Rosie

    I’m somewhat agnostic on this, but this may support that notion:

    https://wdi21.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Out-of-wedlock-Chart.png


    [Robert] Putnam further established that most of the children in America are raised by a single parent. He added, “Growing up with two parents is now unusual in the white (as well as non-white) working class, while two-parent families are normal and becoming more common among the upper middle class (both white and non-white). Most Americans are unaware that the white working-class family is today more fragile than the black family was at the time of the famous alarm-sounding 1965 Moynihan report.”
     

    Replies: @Rosie

    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.

    First, unmarried cohabitation. This is particularly likely to occur among working class couples who may be getting welfare benefits that they would not be getting if they were married, such as food stamps. Moreover, neither partner has a job with benefits that would accrue to a spouse. Welfare alarmists’ predictions, at least as far as White women are concerned, have never panned out. In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.. Rumors of the traditional family’s demise there were greatly exaggerated. There are data on this. I’ll post when I find it, but here is an article on a similar trend in Norway.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/one-of-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-does-marriage-differently-from-most-everywhere-else

    Second, the end of the shotgun marriage and the increasing likelihood of unwed mothers keeping their babies. Note: I suspect that many adoptions were coerced in the past, though I don’t claim to know for sure. I don’t know if the source data for your graph account for adoptions or not.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

    https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-legacy-of-forced-adoption-300000-unmarried-canadian-women-had-to-give-u

    Third, economics. It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants. The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family, and simultaneously increased the number of hopelessly depressed young men addicted to drugs.

    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicions.

    The premise behind the argument is that women make calculating decisions about romance. I don’t know why anyone would think that. Boy meets girl and nature takes it’s course, same as it ever was.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicions.
     
    I'm not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now. Nobody knows because reliable data on the prevalence of prostitution does not exist. My impression is also that in many earlier periods of history prostitution was in practice more socially acceptable than it is today.

    Maybe what has happened is that pornography has taken the place of prostitution?

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.
     
    Due to the many confounding factors, causation is difficult to determine, to be sure. But I offered the graph in support of this part of the other commenter's assertion:

    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males.
     
    And about Scandinavia:

    In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.
     
    Note the term "cohabiting couples." As I understand, in Scandinavia, many cohabiting couples turn eventually to married couples. I don't think that assumption holds in the United States, even just among white couples.

    Your quoted numbers above yields 10% of all births to unmarried, un-cohabiting mothers in Sweden. The corresponding number was about 18% in the U.S. as of 2001 (it's likely higher now): https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Child_Trends-2007_05_14_RB_OutsideBirths.pdf

    In Sweden, per your source (date?), it is 45% of births to married women, 45% to cohabiting women, and 10% to the rest (assume non-cohabiting, i.e. single mothers).

    In the U.S. (as of 2001), it was 64% to married women, 19% to cohabiting women, and 18% to "outside union" (non-cohabiting) women.

    Also, figure 3 in that study is instructive as it slices the numbers by education:

    Less than high school: 68% births to unmarried mothers (56% outside union, 44% cohabiting)
    High school: 53% to unmarried (45% outside union, 55% cohabiting)
    Some college: 32% to unmarried (41% outside union, 59% cohabiting)
    College: 7% to unmarried (43% outside union, 57% cohabiting)

    By simply multiplying these numbers, we get non-cohabiting, out of wedlock birth rates among women by education:

    Less than high school : 38% of births
    High school: 24%
    Some college: 13%
    College: 3%

    In other words, only 3% of college graduates give births as single mothers, but 38% do so among those without a high school degree. I think one can plausibly argue that downscale women do indeed increasingly have babies with "r-selected males" over "K-selected males" since by definition K-selection requires a high investment in the offspring and men who impregnate women they don't even live with is a pretty r- rather than K-behavior (as I already replied to the other commenter, this may also have to do with the reduced availability of K-males to the lower strata women, whether by numbers or for cultural reasons).

    Fourth, pornography.
     
    I am anti-pornography, but I doubt that this plays a strong role in affecting marriage. I can't speak for all other men, but I think the real thing is vastly superior and more desirable to photographic or video images, not to forget the fact that videos can't make kids for you. ;)

    I suspect most men share my sentiment.

    Third, economics... The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family
     
    One thing to keep in mind is that while the ranks of the poor have swollen (mostly from the decline of the non-college-educated lower middle class tier), the size of the upper middle class has increased as well. Although economics undoubtedly plays a robust role in this, at least a part of the explanation is cultural changes leading to assortative marriage. Successful men - compared to those of, say, 50 years ago - increasingly marry successful women (or their educational equals) rather than the pretty daughter of a poorer neighbor. In other words, while doctors used to marry pretty nurses and lawyers pretty paralegals or secretaries in the past, these days they tend to marry other doctors and nurses.

    The implication of this is that, in both the past and the present, downscale males who wish to raise their status have to attain higher education and/or build lucrative careers or businesses while in the past downscale females could look to catching the eye of the higher status males. But that option is increasingly less possible today, and downscale women, too, have to follow the same path as downscale men to rise in status, and can no longer rely on beauty or sexual attractiveness. Put another way (in honor of AE's desire for pithiness), smart men now prefer smart women, not beautiful ones - at least for matrimony and procreation.

    It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants.
     
    Since both men and women have agency, it would be fair to re-state this to there being more male and female miscreants (although I wouldn't personally use the term "miscreants" and instead refer to them as males and females with lower impulse control).

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  27. Fourth, pornography.

    What have you got against “ethically produced consensual non-consent videos”?

    On a serious note…my wife deals with the fallout of pornography on families and marriages in her therapy practice, it is not pretty. There are men that have been so reprogrammed by it that they cannot perform in bed with their wives that would be considered attractive on a normal spectrum. I cannot imagine what it does to a person that may be a 5 or below on the scale.

    The premise behind the argument is that women make calculating decisions about romance. I don’t know why anyone would think that.

    True. The father is the one to lean on that’s supposed to do the calculations.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Talha


    True. The father is the one to lean on that’s supposed to do the calculations.
     
    That works in the more traditionalist societies that adopt that but many modern day American women probably would not support that. What many of them want is to be free to make decisions about who they have sex and children with based on their emotions and then have the men they didn't have sex and children with pay taxes to support a welfare state in case they need it. These men end up feeling like suckers working hard so they can pay taxes to support women they aren't married to and children which aren't theirs. This has caused many younger men to turn into slacker types or try to turn into the baby daddy type of male rather than the provider type looking to be married. Women are not going to be able to force men into doing something that doesn't benefit them and men aren't going to be able to force women into doing something that doesn't benefit them so both sides need to be receiving equal benefits.

    The Swedish system wouldn't be popular if adopted here. The Swedish working class receives more government benefits than the American working class does but also pays much more in taxes. American leftists who point to Sweden as an example to follow are silent about the much higher taxes. Sweden tried high taxes on the rich but it didn't work because the rich left the country, engaged in tax evasion, or worked less to lower their income in order to put themselves in a lower tax bracket. So the current system was adopted.

    The U.S. actually has more income transfers from rich to poor than Sweden does. Blacks here make up 13% of the population but receive 26% of all welfare benefits so the current system is a transfer program from whites as a group to blacks as a group. Blacks know that which is why they vote for politicians who want a large welfare state.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  28. There is an inherently egalitarian aesthetic aspect to face masks that is attractive to those on the left, so the mandates are likely to be with us for awhile.

    There’s also the fact that leftist (women particularly) are hideously unattractive. Look at the arrestees from this year’s riots – these are people who welcome the opportunity to wear a mask.

    We’re governed by the coalition of the circus freaks, we must expect freak-friendly tyranny.

  29. @Talha

    Fourth, pornography.
     
    What have you got against "ethically produced consensual non-consent videos"?
    https://twitter.com/CathyReisenwitz/status/1334894286710587393

    On a serious note...my wife deals with the fallout of pornography on families and marriages in her therapy practice, it is not pretty. There are men that have been so reprogrammed by it that they cannot perform in bed with their wives that would be considered attractive on a normal spectrum. I cannot imagine what it does to a person that may be a 5 or below on the scale.

    The premise behind the argument is that women make calculating decisions about romance. I don’t know why anyone would think that.
     
    True. The father is the one to lean on that's supposed to do the calculations.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    True. The father is the one to lean on that’s supposed to do the calculations.

    That works in the more traditionalist societies that adopt that but many modern day American women probably would not support that. What many of them want is to be free to make decisions about who they have sex and children with based on their emotions and then have the men they didn’t have sex and children with pay taxes to support a welfare state in case they need it. These men end up feeling like suckers working hard so they can pay taxes to support women they aren’t married to and children which aren’t theirs. This has caused many younger men to turn into slacker types or try to turn into the baby daddy type of male rather than the provider type looking to be married. Women are not going to be able to force men into doing something that doesn’t benefit them and men aren’t going to be able to force women into doing something that doesn’t benefit them so both sides need to be receiving equal benefits.

    The Swedish system wouldn’t be popular if adopted here. The Swedish working class receives more government benefits than the American working class does but also pays much more in taxes. American leftists who point to Sweden as an example to follow are silent about the much higher taxes. Sweden tried high taxes on the rich but it didn’t work because the rich left the country, engaged in tax evasion, or worked less to lower their income in order to put themselves in a lower tax bracket. So the current system was adopted.

    The U.S. actually has more income transfers from rich to poor than Sweden does. Blacks here make up 13% of the population but receive 26% of all welfare benefits so the current system is a transfer program from whites as a group to blacks as a group. Blacks know that which is why they vote for politicians who want a large welfare state.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Mark G.

    It's the classic war of the top and the bottom against the middle, but in America's case, there's a certain twist to it. In the last few decades, the upper-middle class has demographically exploded, but it also has gotten hyper-competitive. Moreover, the consequences of declassement are more severe and permanent than they used to have been.

    On the other side of the ledger, those that cannot make it over the hedge into the UMC are being declassed and can expect to pass on worse lives, on average, to their kids. There are still ways around this if you have the confidence to buck social trends, but most people by definition don't, and those ways are becoming harder to access.

    I do not see any way this ends well, when combined with the other problematic dynamics the US is facing. 19th Century China in particular provides a classic example of what happens when you have a lot of angry failed professionals and rootless young men hanging around in tandem with other social tensions, among them thorny questions of tribe (the Dungan/Panthay revolts coincided with the Nian/Taiping for a reason).

  30. @Craig Nelsen
    @Justvisiting


    I had never really thought about it until I was a teenager and read Ayn Rand.

    I kept my mouth shut on that point until I was financially independent, and when that day came I “had a little talk” with my parents……
     
    As someone who read Ayn Rand as a teenager, I believe it should be illegal for teenagers to read Ayn Rand.

    I heard something some time ago that had a big impact. A woman who had worked for something like 40 years in a hopeless cases hospice--a place where people went to die--was asked what it was that the dying most regret. According to this woman, who knew human death as well as can be known to the living, said that, overwhelmingly, dying humans regret not maintaining relationships. They didn't regret not being more thrifty, or not making better career choices, or not being more spiritual, or not being more faithful to God, or not working harder, or not being kinder, or not spending more time in nature, or not doing more charity work, they regretted allowing those relationships they'd had in life to disintegrate.

    The hyper-individualism of Ayn Rand appeals to teens because that is the stage in life we can imagine ourselves as Henry Roarks or Dagny Tabbarts (sp), as it should be, but it isn't a healthy or sustainable life philosophy. There was a reason the novelist had to make Dagny Tabbart single and Henry Roark locked in a loveless marriage. Her heroes weren't quite fully human.

    We see the results of this religion of the individual all around us--the ease with which we permanently disavow loyalty to our siblings, to our parents, and, most fatally, to our race.

    Replies: @martin_2, @Stan d Mute

    We see the results of this religion of the individual all around us–the ease with which we permanently disavow loyalty to our siblings, to our parents, and, most fatally, to our race.

    But in fact, we do not do this. It’s been a steady drumbeat of my commentary since forever ago that we are doomed precisely because we refuse to disavow sisters, mothers, daughters, and limp-waisted sons.

    If we only could simply cut off the leftists in our own families, a restoration might be possible. The only leftists remaining with money would be those who are independently wealthy. The parasites would starve and whine to death. And if we took just the one extra step of a total embargo on the food, energy, and manufactured goods we provide to the leftists who’ve inherited money, we’d soon be done with this nonsense entirely.

  31. @Rosie
    @Jay Fink


    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.
     
    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt's comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about "incels" and their problems.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @V. K. Ovelund

    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.

    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt’s comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about “incels” and their problems.

    Women are not required to care about this problem. In fact, if a woman is normal, it is probably best that she not care about it.

    However, decent men that do not wish their civilization to dissolve are indeed required to care about it.

    It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants.

    True, but maybe not that simple. There is a feedback. And your two points are related.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    However, decent men that do not wish their civilization to dissolve are indeed required to care about it.
     
    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don't. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to "get laid" with a girl "in his range." That doesn't sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn't sound like he's good husband material either. I don't recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.

    I remember AE wrote a blog post about why we don't have sympathy for the "sexually poor." Well, there's the answer. If you offer a truly hungry man a meal, he doesn't ask, is this sandwich good enough for me? Is it in my range? If he did ask that, would you not conclude that he's not actually hungry.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  32. Part of growing up is realizing your parents are humans, not deities, and inevitably made mistakes when raising you. There’s no manual to child-rearing. If you are a smart teenager with good parents, you’ll recognize that they still have more experience than you and should be obeyed/counseled even if you don’t take every word as gospel like you might have as a kid. If you are a not-so-smart teenager or you have parents that suck, this is where the mistakes probably begin that you’ll need to learn from.

    Part of becoming an adult is realizing what an incredibly difficult thing parenting is and realizing how much your parents sacrificed for you: especially if your parents had harder lives when they themselves were kids than than you can possibly imagine growing up, and might be genuinely be struggling to deal with much changed circumstances.

    And part of becoming a fully formed human being is realizing that you can choose the parts of your parents you’d like to emulate, and the parts which you don’t want to emulate, while still fully honoring them and their memory. And don’t be too harsh: your own kids are going to be doing the same some day if you did your job right.

    And finally: how your kids turn out is a legacy that propagates. So make sure you are in it for the right reasons.

    • Thanks: Talha, Audacious Epigone
  33. @Mark G.
    @Talha


    True. The father is the one to lean on that’s supposed to do the calculations.
     
    That works in the more traditionalist societies that adopt that but many modern day American women probably would not support that. What many of them want is to be free to make decisions about who they have sex and children with based on their emotions and then have the men they didn't have sex and children with pay taxes to support a welfare state in case they need it. These men end up feeling like suckers working hard so they can pay taxes to support women they aren't married to and children which aren't theirs. This has caused many younger men to turn into slacker types or try to turn into the baby daddy type of male rather than the provider type looking to be married. Women are not going to be able to force men into doing something that doesn't benefit them and men aren't going to be able to force women into doing something that doesn't benefit them so both sides need to be receiving equal benefits.

    The Swedish system wouldn't be popular if adopted here. The Swedish working class receives more government benefits than the American working class does but also pays much more in taxes. American leftists who point to Sweden as an example to follow are silent about the much higher taxes. Sweden tried high taxes on the rich but it didn't work because the rich left the country, engaged in tax evasion, or worked less to lower their income in order to put themselves in a lower tax bracket. So the current system was adopted.

    The U.S. actually has more income transfers from rich to poor than Sweden does. Blacks here make up 13% of the population but receive 26% of all welfare benefits so the current system is a transfer program from whites as a group to blacks as a group. Blacks know that which is why they vote for politicians who want a large welfare state.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    It’s the classic war of the top and the bottom against the middle, but in America’s case, there’s a certain twist to it. In the last few decades, the upper-middle class has demographically exploded, but it also has gotten hyper-competitive. Moreover, the consequences of declassement are more severe and permanent than they used to have been.

    On the other side of the ledger, those that cannot make it over the hedge into the UMC are being declassed and can expect to pass on worse lives, on average, to their kids. There are still ways around this if you have the confidence to buck social trends, but most people by definition don’t, and those ways are becoming harder to access.

    I do not see any way this ends well, when combined with the other problematic dynamics the US is facing. 19th Century China in particular provides a classic example of what happens when you have a lot of angry failed professionals and rootless young men hanging around in tandem with other social tensions, among them thorny questions of tribe (the Dungan/Panthay revolts coincided with the Nian/Taiping for a reason).

    • Agree: Mark G.
  34. @Talha
    Pronouns in the bio? Yup.
    https://www.twitter.com/nberlat/status/1338586940157927427

    Peace.

    Replies: @RSDB

    From “Love and Freindship”, emphasis added:

    The noble Youth informed us that his name was Lindsay—for particular reasons however I shall conceal it under that of Talbot. He told us that he was the son of an English Baronet, that his Mother had been for many years no more and that he had a Sister of the middle size. “My Father (he continued) is a mean and mercenary wretch—it is only to such particular freinds as this Dear Party that I would thus betray his failings. Your Virtues my amiable Polydore (addressing himself to my father) yours Dear Claudia and yours my Charming Laura call on me to repose in you, my confidence.” We bowed. “My Father seduced by the false glare of Fortune and the Deluding Pomp of Title, insisted on my giving my hand to Lady Dorothea. No never exclaimed I. Lady Dorothea is lovely and Engaging; I prefer no woman to her; but know Sir, that I scorn to marry her in compliance with your Wishes. No! Never shall it be said that I obliged my Father.

  35. @Rosie
    @Twinkie

    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.

    First, unmarried cohabitation. This is particularly likely to occur among working class couples who may be getting welfare benefits that they would not be getting if they were married, such as food stamps. Moreover, neither partner has a job with benefits that would accrue to a spouse. Welfare alarmists' predictions, at least as far as White women are concerned, have never panned out. In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.. Rumors of the traditional family's demise there were greatly exaggerated. There are data on this. I'll post when I find it, but here is an article on a similar trend in Norway.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/one-of-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-does-marriage-differently-from-most-everywhere-else

    Second, the end of the shotgun marriage and the increasing likelihood of unwed mothers keeping their babies. Note: I suspect that many adoptions were coerced in the past, though I don't claim to know for sure. I don't know if the source data for your graph account for adoptions or not.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

    https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-legacy-of-forced-adoption-300000-unmarried-canadian-women-had-to-give-u

    Third, economics. It's probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants. The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family, and simultaneously increased the number of hopelessly depressed young men addicted to drugs.

    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women's power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don't know the answer, but I have my suspicions.

    The premise behind the argument is that women make calculating decisions about romance. I don't know why anyone would think that. Boy meets girl and nature takes it's course, same as it ever was.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicions.

    I’m not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now. Nobody knows because reliable data on the prevalence of prostitution does not exist. My impression is also that in many earlier periods of history prostitution was in practice more socially acceptable than it is today.

    Maybe what has happened is that pornography has taken the place of prostitution?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    I’m not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now.
     
    Indeed, but what we're really talking about is the modern post-War era. It is this time period that reactionaries look back to as the ideal we should strive for, but I don't think that's attainable given current economic conditions combined with the availability of porn, and it's not because of welfare or tax credits or whatever.

    That said, I would predict that prostitution is correlated with higher age at first marriage for men. In the past, women may have been more open to marrying much older men, but if so, they're no longer as willing to do so, for obvious reasons. One doesn't marry to become a widow at 50 and grow old alone.

    As for whether tolerance of prostitution is associated with delayed marriage, I don't have any direct data, but it does appear that men (NAMALT) have a tendency to embrace marriage when female mates are relatively scarce and resist it when they have more dating market leverage. It would seem reasonable to suppose that prostitution has a similar effect, though as I said, I don't have any direct data on the question.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

  36. @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don’t know the answer, but I have my suspicions.
     
    I'm not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now. Nobody knows because reliable data on the prevalence of prostitution does not exist. My impression is also that in many earlier periods of history prostitution was in practice more socially acceptable than it is today.

    Maybe what has happened is that pornography has taken the place of prostitution?

    Replies: @Rosie

    I’m not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now.

    Indeed, but what we’re really talking about is the modern post-War era. It is this time period that reactionaries look back to as the ideal we should strive for, but I don’t think that’s attainable given current economic conditions combined with the availability of porn, and it’s not because of welfare or tax credits or whatever.

    That said, I would predict that prostitution is correlated with higher age at first marriage for men. In the past, women may have been more open to marrying much older men, but if so, they’re no longer as willing to do so, for obvious reasons. One doesn’t marry to become a widow at 50 and grow old alone.

    As for whether tolerance of prostitution is associated with delayed marriage, I don’t have any direct data, but it does appear that men (NAMALT) have a tendency to embrace marriage when female mates are relatively scarce and resist it when they have more dating market leverage. It would seem reasonable to suppose that prostitution has a similar effect, though as I said, I don’t have any direct data on the question.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Rosie

    I don't see any correlation between prostitution and the age of marriage, mainly because prostitution has been omnipresent in every culture in human history regardless of... well, just about everything. It's a constant, going back to Ye Olden Days of Judah on the side of the road or the foster mother of Romulus and Remus.

    On average, men want NSA sex far more than women. Some will be willing to pay for it. And some women, for whatever reason, will be happy to provide it for money. And as many a hooker will tell you, by no means are all their clients single. Or, for higher scale prostitutes, are there necessarily just for sex.

    , @dfordoom
    @Rosie


    As for whether tolerance of prostitution is associated with delayed marriage, I don’t have any direct data, but it does appear that men (NAMALT) have a tendency to embrace marriage when female mates are relatively scarce and resist it when they have more dating market leverage. It would seem reasonable to suppose that prostitution has a similar effect, though as I said, I don’t have any direct data on the question.
     
    These are interesting questions and given our current social problems and demographic collapse they're important questions. And it's amazing how little we really know about the history of love, sex and marriage (amazing when you consider that these things are a lot more important than most things that historians worry about). A lot has been written on these subjects but there's absolutely no reliable data at all. Even prostitution in Victorian London (extensively written about at the time and since) - we have absolutely no idea how many prostitutes there were in London at that time. Estimates range from about 6,000 to about 200,000!

    We can't possibly say whether prostitution has been a great social evil or generally beneficial. We just don't know.

    We really don't know that much for certain about pornography either even though it's a contemporary problem. Survey data on anything pertaining to sex is entirely worthless. And most of those who have studied the subject have axes to grind, one way or the other. And even if they don't, the data (which isn't reliable anyway) is subject to interpretation and the great thing about that is that you can interpret data any way you like.

    Even things like age at first marriage. We know something about that subject for some historical periods but as for the reasons why it might change - we're pretty much making educated guesses.
  37. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie



    Many childless men wanted to be family men but couldn’t attract a mate in this post sexual revolution society.
     
    There should be a tag for bullsh!t.

    See Mr. Wyatt’s comment #1 for a rare moment of candor about “incels” and their problems.
     

    Women are not required to care about this problem. In fact, if a woman is normal, it is probably best that she not care about it.

    However, decent men that do not wish their civilization to dissolve are indeed required to care about it.


    It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants.
     
    True, but maybe not that simple. There is a feedback. And your two points are related.

    Replies: @Rosie

    However, decent men that do not wish their civilization to dissolve are indeed required to care about it.

    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don’t. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to “get laid” with a girl “in his range.” That doesn’t sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn’t sound like he’s good husband material either. I don’t recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.

    I remember AE wrote a blog post about why we don’t have sympathy for the “sexually poor.” Well, there’s the answer. If you offer a truly hungry man a meal, he doesn’t ask, is this sandwich good enough for me? Is it in my range? If he did ask that, would you not conclude that he’s not actually hungry.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie


    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don’t. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to “get laid” with a girl “in his range.” That doesn’t sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn’t sound like he’s good husband material either. I don’t recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.
     
    I see. Well, I'm married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that, so the discussion is out of my league.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

  38. @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    However, decent men that do not wish their civilization to dissolve are indeed required to care about it.
     
    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don't. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to "get laid" with a girl "in his range." That doesn't sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn't sound like he's good husband material either. I don't recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.

    I remember AE wrote a blog post about why we don't have sympathy for the "sexually poor." Well, there's the answer. If you offer a truly hungry man a meal, he doesn't ask, is this sandwich good enough for me? Is it in my range? If he did ask that, would you not conclude that he's not actually hungry.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don’t. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to “get laid” with a girl “in his range.” That doesn’t sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn’t sound like he’s good husband material either. I don’t recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.

    I see. Well, I’m married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that, so the discussion is out of my league.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    if your sons are of age,
     
    We're not there just yet.
    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Well, I’m married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that
     
    I'm in the same boat (only with a different number of children). I married my college sweetheart.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?
     
    I know you asked Rosie, but forgive me for jumping in here and responding.

    I can tell you that I am not releasing my children to "genpop" for marriage. As I often say to others, the best thing one could do for a successful life is to pick the right parents. ;) But the next best thing one could do is to pick the right spouse.

    My family and I belong to a fairly wide network of orthodox Catholic families, and we like to marry our children to those of other such families. My eldest son, for example, has known this one girl since they were seven or so. She is the eldest daughter of a close family friend of mine, also a very obedient Catholic. Both sets of parents are hoping they get married to one another eventually, and, thankfully, both children have confided to their respective parents that they hope to as well.

    I, for one, cannot wait to see their children, who should be my first set of grandkids. I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few. ;)

    Replies: @Talha

  39. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie


    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don’t. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to “get laid” with a girl “in his range.” That doesn’t sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn’t sound like he’s good husband material either. I don’t recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.
     
    I see. Well, I'm married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that, so the discussion is out of my league.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    if your sons are of age,

    We’re not there just yet.

  40. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    I’m not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now.
     
    Indeed, but what we're really talking about is the modern post-War era. It is this time period that reactionaries look back to as the ideal we should strive for, but I don't think that's attainable given current economic conditions combined with the availability of porn, and it's not because of welfare or tax credits or whatever.

    That said, I would predict that prostitution is correlated with higher age at first marriage for men. In the past, women may have been more open to marrying much older men, but if so, they're no longer as willing to do so, for obvious reasons. One doesn't marry to become a widow at 50 and grow old alone.

    As for whether tolerance of prostitution is associated with delayed marriage, I don't have any direct data, but it does appear that men (NAMALT) have a tendency to embrace marriage when female mates are relatively scarce and resist it when they have more dating market leverage. It would seem reasonable to suppose that prostitution has a similar effect, though as I said, I don't have any direct data on the question.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    I don’t see any correlation between prostitution and the age of marriage, mainly because prostitution has been omnipresent in every culture in human history regardless of… well, just about everything. It’s a constant, going back to Ye Olden Days of Judah on the side of the road or the foster mother of Romulus and Remus.

    On average, men want NSA sex far more than women. Some will be willing to pay for it. And some women, for whatever reason, will be happy to provide it for money. And as many a hooker will tell you, by no means are all their clients single. Or, for higher scale prostitutes, are there necessarily just for sex.

  41. @Rosie
    @dfordoom


    I’m not convinced. Prostitution (which presumably has the identical effect of reducing less-desirable women’s power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage) has always been around and was probably much more widespread in the past than it is now.
     
    Indeed, but what we're really talking about is the modern post-War era. It is this time period that reactionaries look back to as the ideal we should strive for, but I don't think that's attainable given current economic conditions combined with the availability of porn, and it's not because of welfare or tax credits or whatever.

    That said, I would predict that prostitution is correlated with higher age at first marriage for men. In the past, women may have been more open to marrying much older men, but if so, they're no longer as willing to do so, for obvious reasons. One doesn't marry to become a widow at 50 and grow old alone.

    As for whether tolerance of prostitution is associated with delayed marriage, I don't have any direct data, but it does appear that men (NAMALT) have a tendency to embrace marriage when female mates are relatively scarce and resist it when they have more dating market leverage. It would seem reasonable to suppose that prostitution has a similar effect, though as I said, I don't have any direct data on the question.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    Replies: @nebulafox, @dfordoom

    As for whether tolerance of prostitution is associated with delayed marriage, I don’t have any direct data, but it does appear that men (NAMALT) have a tendency to embrace marriage when female mates are relatively scarce and resist it when they have more dating market leverage. It would seem reasonable to suppose that prostitution has a similar effect, though as I said, I don’t have any direct data on the question.

    These are interesting questions and given our current social problems and demographic collapse they’re important questions. And it’s amazing how little we really know about the history of love, sex and marriage (amazing when you consider that these things are a lot more important than most things that historians worry about). A lot has been written on these subjects but there’s absolutely no reliable data at all. Even prostitution in Victorian London (extensively written about at the time and since) – we have absolutely no idea how many prostitutes there were in London at that time. Estimates range from about 6,000 to about 200,000!

    We can’t possibly say whether prostitution has been a great social evil or generally beneficial. We just don’t know.

    We really don’t know that much for certain about pornography either even though it’s a contemporary problem. Survey data on anything pertaining to sex is entirely worthless. And most of those who have studied the subject have axes to grind, one way or the other. And even if they don’t, the data (which isn’t reliable anyway) is subject to interpretation and the great thing about that is that you can interpret data any way you like.

    Even things like age at first marriage. We know something about that subject for some historical periods but as for the reasons why it might change – we’re pretty much making educated guesses.

  42. @Rosie
    @Twinkie

    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.

    First, unmarried cohabitation. This is particularly likely to occur among working class couples who may be getting welfare benefits that they would not be getting if they were married, such as food stamps. Moreover, neither partner has a job with benefits that would accrue to a spouse. Welfare alarmists' predictions, at least as far as White women are concerned, have never panned out. In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.. Rumors of the traditional family's demise there were greatly exaggerated. There are data on this. I'll post when I find it, but here is an article on a similar trend in Norway.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/one-of-the-happiest-countries-in-the-world-does-marriage-differently-from-most-everywhere-else

    Second, the end of the shotgun marriage and the increasing likelihood of unwed mothers keeping their babies. Note: I suspect that many adoptions were coerced in the past, though I don't claim to know for sure. I don't know if the source data for your graph account for adoptions or not.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

    https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/the-legacy-of-forced-adoption-300000-unmarried-canadian-women-had-to-give-u

    Third, economics. It's probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants. The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family, and simultaneously increased the number of hopelessly depressed young men addicted to drugs.

    Fourth, pornography. How much has this reduced less-desirable women's power to negotiate an early commitment and marriage? I don't know the answer, but I have my suspicions.

    The premise behind the argument is that women make calculating decisions about romance. I don't know why anyone would think that. Boy meets girl and nature takes it's course, same as it ever was.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.

    Due to the many confounding factors, causation is difficult to determine, to be sure. But I offered the graph in support of this part of the other commenter’s assertion:

    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males.

    And about Scandinavia:

    In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.

    Note the term “cohabiting couples.” As I understand, in Scandinavia, many cohabiting couples turn eventually to married couples. I don’t think that assumption holds in the United States, even just among white couples.

    Your quoted numbers above yields 10% of all births to unmarried, un-cohabiting mothers in Sweden. The corresponding number was about 18% in the U.S. as of 2001 (it’s likely higher now): https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Child_Trends-2007_05_14_RB_OutsideBirths.pdf

    In Sweden, per your source (date?), it is 45% of births to married women, 45% to cohabiting women, and 10% to the rest (assume non-cohabiting, i.e. single mothers).

    In the U.S. (as of 2001), it was 64% to married women, 19% to cohabiting women, and 18% to “outside union” (non-cohabiting) women.

    Also, figure 3 in that study is instructive as it slices the numbers by education:

    Less than high school: 68% births to unmarried mothers (56% outside union, 44% cohabiting)
    High school: 53% to unmarried (45% outside union, 55% cohabiting)
    Some college: 32% to unmarried (41% outside union, 59% cohabiting)
    College: 7% to unmarried (43% outside union, 57% cohabiting)

    By simply multiplying these numbers, we get non-cohabiting, out of wedlock birth rates among women by education:

    Less than high school : 38% of births
    High school: 24%
    Some college: 13%
    College: 3%

    In other words, only 3% of college graduates give births as single mothers, but 38% do so among those without a high school degree. I think one can plausibly argue that downscale women do indeed increasingly have babies with “r-selected males” over “K-selected males” since by definition K-selection requires a high investment in the offspring and men who impregnate women they don’t even live with is a pretty r- rather than K-behavior (as I already replied to the other commenter, this may also have to do with the reduced availability of K-males to the lower strata women, whether by numbers or for cultural reasons).

    Fourth, pornography.

    I am anti-pornography, but I doubt that this plays a strong role in affecting marriage. I can’t speak for all other men, but I think the real thing is vastly superior and more desirable to photographic or video images, not to forget the fact that videos can’t make kids for you. 😉

    I suspect most men share my sentiment.

    Third, economics… The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family

    One thing to keep in mind is that while the ranks of the poor have swollen (mostly from the decline of the non-college-educated lower middle class tier), the size of the upper middle class has increased as well. Although economics undoubtedly plays a robust role in this, at least a part of the explanation is cultural changes leading to assortative marriage. Successful men – compared to those of, say, 50 years ago – increasingly marry successful women (or their educational equals) rather than the pretty daughter of a poorer neighbor. In other words, while doctors used to marry pretty nurses and lawyers pretty paralegals or secretaries in the past, these days they tend to marry other doctors and nurses.

    The implication of this is that, in both the past and the present, downscale males who wish to raise their status have to attain higher education and/or build lucrative careers or businesses while in the past downscale females could look to catching the eye of the higher status males. But that option is increasingly less possible today, and downscale women, too, have to follow the same path as downscale men to rise in status, and can no longer rely on beauty or sexual attractiveness. Put another way (in honor of AE’s desire for pithiness), smart men now prefer smart women, not beautiful ones – at least for matrimony and procreation.

    It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants.

    Since both men and women have agency, it would be fair to re-state this to there being more male and female miscreants (although I wouldn’t personally use the term “miscreants” and instead refer to them as males and females with lower impulse control).

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Twinkie


    Note the term “cohabiting couples.” As I understand, in Scandinavia, many cohabiting couples turn eventually to married couples. I don’t think that assumption holds in the United States, even just among white couples.
     
    This is an important distinction that often gets lost in these out-of-wedlock birth discussions. The hippie-lib canard is, "Hey, those [eugenic] Scandinavians do it, so how bad can it be really?" They forget to mention that the Scandinavian out-of-wedlock births are mostly to couples married in all but name, who may later get the name too. Meanwhile, the canard facilitates the ongoing destruction of black and lower class white families.

    It is much easier to get statistics on out-of-wedlock births than on children raised by cohabiting biological parents so those former data dominate discussions even though it is the latter data that are really relevant. So charts like #45 conflate the neopagan "we don't need no church or license to be married" Scandinavians with the more complicated Americans and Latin Americans.*

    ------

    *My impression is that some of the Latin America's out-of-wedlock births are of the cohabiting parents who may later marry variety (although in Latin America it is more of an economic thing than an ideological thing) but there is a growing amount of the Negro-esque shoot-n-scoot siring as well. There is also, I believe, a growing trend of serial family spawning in Latin America where the children are born in wedlock, but then the father starts a new family with another woman and so the statistically "in wedlock" children become semi-fatherless, which is not captured in the statistics. (Catholic churches won't recognize divorces, but Evangelical ones will, so fathers join the new churches with their new families—and sometimes even rinse and repeat thereafter. This is an unpublicized reason for the growth of Evangelical churches in Latin America: follow the moneysex.)
  43. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Rosie


    Since I have sons, I absolutely would care if I thought there was any truth to it, but I don’t. If you notice, Wyatt made a point of wanting to “get laid” with a girl “in his range.” That doesn’t sound like a sincere family man looking for a woman to start a family with to me, and it doesn’t sound like he’s good husband material either. I don’t recall ever hearing Talha or AE use that kind of language, or Twinkie, who, despite our differences, I can find no fault in as a husband and father.
     
    I see. Well, I'm married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that, so the discussion is out of my league.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie

    Well, I’m married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that

    I’m in the same boat (only with a different number of children). I married my college sweetheart.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?

    I know you asked Rosie, but forgive me for jumping in here and responding.

    I can tell you that I am not releasing my children to “genpop” for marriage. As I often say to others, the best thing one could do for a successful life is to pick the right parents. 😉 But the next best thing one could do is to pick the right spouse.

    My family and I belong to a fairly wide network of orthodox Catholic families, and we like to marry our children to those of other such families. My eldest son, for example, has known this one girl since they were seven or so. She is the eldest daughter of a close family friend of mine, also a very obedient Catholic. Both sets of parents are hoping they get married to one another eventually, and, thankfully, both children have confided to their respective parents that they hope to as well.

    I, for one, cannot wait to see their children, who should be my first set of grandkids. I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few. 😉

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Twinkie


    I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few.
     
    Then others can do it on your behalf; may God grant your children righteous and loving spouses and bring forth plenty of righteous and healthy grandchildren through them. 👍

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen, @RSDB

  44. Also, here is a bit of data for further discussion regarding out-of-wedlock births and such:

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your chart entirely disrupts my notions of the matter.

    Readers: if you have not yet looked at @Twinkie's chart and would like a challenge, do not look yet. Wait a moment. Try this first.

    Rank these eight countries by birth rate out of wedlock: Chile; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Mexico; U.S.

    How did you do?

    My own guess was comically wrong.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @anon
    @Twinkie

    I would have expected Iceland to be ahead of Chile, otherwise there's not much surprising here. Kind of annoying that Brazil, Colombia and Argentina aren't also present.

    In particular Costa Rica doesn't surprise me; some people I know went there a couple of years back, and the married women were warned to leave their wedding rings / bands locked up -- in the US. Because casual street theft was so common that it was all but inevitable someone would assault them just for the ring. Costa Rica has apparently changed a whole lot over a couple of generations along with every other country.

    On the other hand, Mexico has had a form of cohabitation called "free marriage" for several generations, so not much of a surprise there. Mexicans in the US have the same tendency.

    What is /are the correlational factors? Strong social welfare safety nets might be a factor but that's a function of culture, while culture is affected by such policies. Obviously multifactoral, so some part of the elephant for everyone to be totally sure about.

    A remarkable graph. Thanks.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  45. @Twinkie
    Also, here is a bit of data for further discussion regarding out-of-wedlock births and such:

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/chamie-chartPicture1-500px858.png

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

    Your chart entirely disrupts my notions of the matter.

    Readers: if you have not yet looked at ’s chart and would like a challenge, do not look yet. Wait a moment. Try this first.

    Rank these eight countries by birth rate out of wedlock: Chile; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Mexico; U.S.

    How did you do?

    My own guess was comically wrong.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    My own guess was comically wrong.
     
    Comically? Now I’m curious! Share, if you would, please.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  46. anon[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie
    Also, here is a bit of data for further discussion regarding out-of-wedlock births and such:

    https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/sites/default/files/images/chamie-chartPicture1-500px858.png

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund, @anon

    I would have expected Iceland to be ahead of Chile, otherwise there’s not much surprising here. Kind of annoying that Brazil, Colombia and Argentina aren’t also present.

    In particular Costa Rica doesn’t surprise me; some people I know went there a couple of years back, and the married women were warned to leave their wedding rings / bands locked up — in the US. Because casual street theft was so common that it was all but inevitable someone would assault them just for the ring. Costa Rica has apparently changed a whole lot over a couple of generations along with every other country.

    On the other hand, Mexico has had a form of cohabitation called “free marriage” for several generations, so not much of a surprise there. Mexicans in the US have the same tendency.

    What is /are the correlational factors? Strong social welfare safety nets might be a factor but that’s a function of culture, while culture is affected by such policies. Obviously multifactoral, so some part of the elephant for everyone to be totally sure about.

    A remarkable graph. Thanks.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @anon


    there’s not much surprising here.
     
    You are right. But it’s still noteworthy how dramatic the social transformation has been in some developed countries. South Korea and Japan have become exceedingly wealthy since the 1960s, but the birth mores have hardly changed. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain have gone from Catholic cultural bastions (exhibiting birth mores not unlike South Korea and Japan) to having nearly 30% and over 40% out of wedlock births, respectively. I haven’t dug around for the income/education data in these countries and wonder whether they follow the American pattern of such births being concentrated among the downscale or whether they are more “egalitarian” in distribution.

    What is /are the correlational factors?
     
    Beats me. But surely the dramatic transformation of sexual mores and decline of Christian morality must be powerful factors.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  47. @John Achterhof
    Yes, the pandemic provided Trump an extraordinary opportunity to exemplify the (situational) virtue of strong leadership, but he was betrayed by his glaring lack of competence (or good sense to defer to high specific competence) and, related in character, his special facility of prevarication that had served him well in politics. It's a tragic tale of Hellenistic proportions, folks. His attention at the outset, setting his course, was given in effort to quash the superficial immediate consequence to markets by talking down public concern. Some things can indeed be swept under a rug by a forceful personality, made to go away; a pandemic is not one of them. Our tragic figure later seemed to follow the lead of the most raucous of his base, those protesting among other things their aversion to masks. This deference to malcontents rather than to competence surely contributed significantly to his political Waterloo. While the value of masks may be unsettled in scientific study, the concept appeals to common sense, moreover the side of consent with the public gesture is the side of prosocial cooperation, and what's more one observes by way of tv mask mandates in place over the entire world. Our saga winds down with the spectacle of his most zealous supporters raising hell in the Imperial City, calling for the walls to come down.

    Perhaps this pandemic, more broadly than being a severe test of leadership, offers a novel measure over the free world of relative levels of civilization.

    Replies: @botazefa

    Trump never had a chance. He fundamentally believes in ‘America.’ He talked about draining the swamp without actually believing their exists said swamp.

    Trump prevaricated boldly and obviously, but is egocentrically blind to actual deviousness in others. He hired John Bolton and Bill Barr, and seems actually surprised when he ‘discovered’ them to be prevaricating kiss asses only interested in their own careers.

    Ironically, as a lying salesman, Trump trusts more skilled salesmen to be telling the truth.

    In short, Trump is a clever fool. A tool to be wielded by more clever people.

    But he beats the shit out of Biden and if he had four more years I suspect he would have closed ranks and finally seen things in Washington for how they really are.

  48. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Well, I’m married 25+ years with five children and (for better or worse) was never a player even before that
     
    I'm in the same boat (only with a different number of children). I married my college sweetheart.

    If you can answer without delving into the personal and if your sons are of age, does the dating market your sons face resemble the one their father faced in his time?
     
    I know you asked Rosie, but forgive me for jumping in here and responding.

    I can tell you that I am not releasing my children to "genpop" for marriage. As I often say to others, the best thing one could do for a successful life is to pick the right parents. ;) But the next best thing one could do is to pick the right spouse.

    My family and I belong to a fairly wide network of orthodox Catholic families, and we like to marry our children to those of other such families. My eldest son, for example, has known this one girl since they were seven or so. She is the eldest daughter of a close family friend of mine, also a very obedient Catholic. Both sets of parents are hoping they get married to one another eventually, and, thankfully, both children have confided to their respective parents that they hope to as well.

    I, for one, cannot wait to see their children, who should be my first set of grandkids. I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few. ;)

    Replies: @Talha

    I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few.

    Then others can do it on your behalf; may God grant your children righteous and loving spouses and bring forth plenty of righteous and healthy grandchildren through them. 👍

    Peace.

    • Agree: RSDB
    • Thanks: Twinkie
    • Replies: @iffen
    @Talha

    Aah, I just love that warm fuzzy feeling.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @RSDB
    @Talha

    With the reservation that those of your children or grandchildren who are called to the celibate life may find their labors equally well rewarded.

  49. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few.
     
    Then others can do it on your behalf; may God grant your children righteous and loving spouses and bring forth plenty of righteous and healthy grandchildren through them. 👍

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen, @RSDB

    Aah, I just love that warm fuzzy feeling.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    May He grant you many good and healthy grandchildren too!

    I could be like Crazy Talha offering discount deals at Blessings Clearance Warehouse over here!

    "You need your house blessed? Come on down! Car doesn't work? We'll bless that too! Bad credit?! No credit??!! We'll pray you get those credit scores up!"

    Speaking of fuzzy and warm...

    Peace.

    Our Siberian has started to get her wonderful winter coat again (which we have to pay the price for in the spring when she sheds it):
    https://i.imgur.com/hZ0lEZU.png

  50. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    I try not to pray for selfish things, but this is one of the few.
     
    Then others can do it on your behalf; may God grant your children righteous and loving spouses and bring forth plenty of righteous and healthy grandchildren through them. 👍

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen, @RSDB

    With the reservation that those of your children or grandchildren who are called to the celibate life may find their labors equally well rewarded.

    • Agree: Talha, Twinkie
  51. @iffen
    @Talha

    Aah, I just love that warm fuzzy feeling.

    Replies: @Talha

    May He grant you many good and healthy grandchildren too!

    I could be like Crazy Talha offering discount deals at Blessings Clearance Warehouse over here!

    “You need your house blessed? Come on down! Car doesn’t work? We’ll bless that too! Bad credit?! No credit??!! We’ll pray you get those credit scores up!”

    Speaking of fuzzy and warm…

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Our Siberian has started to get her wonderful winter coat again (which we have to pay the price for in the spring when she sheds it):

    • Thanks: iffen
    • LOL: V. K. Ovelund
  52. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie

    Your chart entirely disrupts my notions of the matter.

    Readers: if you have not yet looked at @Twinkie's chart and would like a challenge, do not look yet. Wait a moment. Try this first.

    Rank these eight countries by birth rate out of wedlock: Chile; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; Japan; Mexico; U.S.

    How did you do?

    My own guess was comically wrong.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    My own guess was comically wrong.

    Comically? Now I’m curious! Share, if you would, please.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Comically? Now I’m curious! Share, if you would, please.
     
    Japan (worst/most); Germany; Italy; Mexico; U.S.; Ireland; Hungary; Chile (best/fewest).

    Actually, I have practically no idea about several of these, like Italy and Japan, so my guesses were random there; but Hungary was a surprise and Chile came as a shock. My only correct guess was that the U.S. were a little better than the median. I had everything else wrong.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  53. @anon
    @Twinkie

    I would have expected Iceland to be ahead of Chile, otherwise there's not much surprising here. Kind of annoying that Brazil, Colombia and Argentina aren't also present.

    In particular Costa Rica doesn't surprise me; some people I know went there a couple of years back, and the married women were warned to leave their wedding rings / bands locked up -- in the US. Because casual street theft was so common that it was all but inevitable someone would assault them just for the ring. Costa Rica has apparently changed a whole lot over a couple of generations along with every other country.

    On the other hand, Mexico has had a form of cohabitation called "free marriage" for several generations, so not much of a surprise there. Mexicans in the US have the same tendency.

    What is /are the correlational factors? Strong social welfare safety nets might be a factor but that's a function of culture, while culture is affected by such policies. Obviously multifactoral, so some part of the elephant for everyone to be totally sure about.

    A remarkable graph. Thanks.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    there’s not much surprising here.

    You are right. But it’s still noteworthy how dramatic the social transformation has been in some developed countries. South Korea and Japan have become exceedingly wealthy since the 1960s, but the birth mores have hardly changed. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain have gone from Catholic cultural bastions (exhibiting birth mores not unlike South Korea and Japan) to having nearly 30% and over 40% out of wedlock births, respectively. I haven’t dug around for the income/education data in these countries and wonder whether they follow the American pattern of such births being concentrated among the downscale or whether they are more “egalitarian” in distribution.

    What is /are the correlational factors?

    Beats me. But surely the dramatic transformation of sexual mores and decline of Christian morality must be powerful factors.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    I don't think this is something that could be chalked up to differences in material or political or religious factors. Japan developed and modernized alongside the second wave of Western powers-the USA, Germany, Russia-in the late 19th Century, and the latter two were no less mauled by WWII. The ROK's path to modernity was, suffice it to say, quite different. Japan was a democracy, albeit an imperfect one with an overweening military influence and an ill-defined imperial role at the center that would bring it down, until the Great Depression. And Japan obviously lacks the strong conservative Christian political strain found in South Korea. On top of that, the Philippines is as Catholic as ever, yet the illegitimacy rate there is through the roof: as is the case in Islamic Malaysia and Indonesia.

    So that leaves culture, by process of elimination, leading to blue-collar East Asians having out-of-wedlock norms similar to the UMC in the USA. A specific theory beyond that is out of my paygrade. Maybe social conformity still remains a strong force despite liberalization/globalization?

    Replies: @Twinkie

  54. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    My own guess was comically wrong.
     
    Comically? Now I’m curious! Share, if you would, please.

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    Comically? Now I’m curious! Share, if you would, please.

    Japan (worst/most); Germany; Italy; Mexico; U.S.; Ireland; Hungary; Chile (best/fewest).

    Actually, I have practically no idea about several of these, like Italy and Japan, so my guesses were random there; but Hungary was a surprise and Chile came as a shock. My only correct guess was that the U.S. were a little better than the median. I had everything else wrong.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Japan (worst/most)... Chile (best/fewest).
     
    I see why you used such a strong word ("comically..."). Might I ask you further why you thought Japan would have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate and why Chile would have the lowest?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

  55. @obwandiyag
    @Almost Missouri

    Douchbag lambastes Social Security of all things fer krissake.

    Now there is one textbook example of il-historicity. Not a clue about the past. Not even a crumb of a crumb of a clue.


    What next? Babies? Puppy dogs? Mom and apple pie?

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Looking forward to the obwandiyag manifesto in defense of puppies, mom and apple pie.

  56. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    The problem is all the other factors that are probably contributing to that trend.
     
    Due to the many confounding factors, causation is difficult to determine, to be sure. But I offered the graph in support of this part of the other commenter's assertion:

    There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males.
     
    And about Scandinavia:

    In Sweden, 45% of children are born to cohabiting couples, in addition to the 45% born to married couples.
     
    Note the term "cohabiting couples." As I understand, in Scandinavia, many cohabiting couples turn eventually to married couples. I don't think that assumption holds in the United States, even just among white couples.

    Your quoted numbers above yields 10% of all births to unmarried, un-cohabiting mothers in Sweden. The corresponding number was about 18% in the U.S. as of 2001 (it's likely higher now): https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Child_Trends-2007_05_14_RB_OutsideBirths.pdf

    In Sweden, per your source (date?), it is 45% of births to married women, 45% to cohabiting women, and 10% to the rest (assume non-cohabiting, i.e. single mothers).

    In the U.S. (as of 2001), it was 64% to married women, 19% to cohabiting women, and 18% to "outside union" (non-cohabiting) women.

    Also, figure 3 in that study is instructive as it slices the numbers by education:

    Less than high school: 68% births to unmarried mothers (56% outside union, 44% cohabiting)
    High school: 53% to unmarried (45% outside union, 55% cohabiting)
    Some college: 32% to unmarried (41% outside union, 59% cohabiting)
    College: 7% to unmarried (43% outside union, 57% cohabiting)

    By simply multiplying these numbers, we get non-cohabiting, out of wedlock birth rates among women by education:

    Less than high school : 38% of births
    High school: 24%
    Some college: 13%
    College: 3%

    In other words, only 3% of college graduates give births as single mothers, but 38% do so among those without a high school degree. I think one can plausibly argue that downscale women do indeed increasingly have babies with "r-selected males" over "K-selected males" since by definition K-selection requires a high investment in the offspring and men who impregnate women they don't even live with is a pretty r- rather than K-behavior (as I already replied to the other commenter, this may also have to do with the reduced availability of K-males to the lower strata women, whether by numbers or for cultural reasons).

    Fourth, pornography.
     
    I am anti-pornography, but I doubt that this plays a strong role in affecting marriage. I can't speak for all other men, but I think the real thing is vastly superior and more desirable to photographic or video images, not to forget the fact that videos can't make kids for you. ;)

    I suspect most men share my sentiment.

    Third, economics... The economic devastation caused by globalization reduced the pool of men capable of supporting a family
     
    One thing to keep in mind is that while the ranks of the poor have swollen (mostly from the decline of the non-college-educated lower middle class tier), the size of the upper middle class has increased as well. Although economics undoubtedly plays a robust role in this, at least a part of the explanation is cultural changes leading to assortative marriage. Successful men - compared to those of, say, 50 years ago - increasingly marry successful women (or their educational equals) rather than the pretty daughter of a poorer neighbor. In other words, while doctors used to marry pretty nurses and lawyers pretty paralegals or secretaries in the past, these days they tend to marry other doctors and nurses.

    The implication of this is that, in both the past and the present, downscale males who wish to raise their status have to attain higher education and/or build lucrative careers or businesses while in the past downscale females could look to catching the eye of the higher status males. But that option is increasingly less possible today, and downscale women, too, have to follow the same path as downscale men to rise in status, and can no longer rely on beauty or sexual attractiveness. Put another way (in honor of AE's desire for pithiness), smart men now prefer smart women, not beautiful ones - at least for matrimony and procreation.

    It’s probably true that more women are getting pregnant by miscreants than in the past, simply because there are more miscreants.
     
    Since both men and women have agency, it would be fair to re-state this to there being more male and female miscreants (although I wouldn't personally use the term "miscreants" and instead refer to them as males and females with lower impulse control).

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Note the term “cohabiting couples.” As I understand, in Scandinavia, many cohabiting couples turn eventually to married couples. I don’t think that assumption holds in the United States, even just among white couples.

    This is an important distinction that often gets lost in these out-of-wedlock birth discussions. The hippie-lib canard is, “Hey, those [eugenic] Scandinavians do it, so how bad can it be really?” They forget to mention that the Scandinavian out-of-wedlock births are mostly to couples married in all but name, who may later get the name too. Meanwhile, the canard facilitates the ongoing destruction of black and lower class white families.

    It is much easier to get statistics on out-of-wedlock births than on children raised by cohabiting biological parents so those former data dominate discussions even though it is the latter data that are really relevant. So charts like #45 conflate the neopagan “we don’t need no church or license to be married” Scandinavians with the more complicated Americans and Latin Americans.*

    ——

    *My impression is that some of the Latin America’s out-of-wedlock births are of the cohabiting parents who may later marry variety (although in Latin America it is more of an economic thing than an ideological thing) but there is a growing amount of the Negro-esque shoot-n-scoot siring as well. There is also, I believe, a growing trend of serial family spawning in Latin America where the children are born in wedlock, but then the father starts a new family with another woman and so the statistically “in wedlock” children become semi-fatherless, which is not captured in the statistics. (Catholic churches won’t recognize divorces, but Evangelical ones will, so fathers join the new churches with their new families—and sometimes even rinse and repeat thereafter. This is an unpublicized reason for the growth of Evangelical churches in Latin America: follow the moneysex.)

  57. @Jay Fink
    @Rosie

    I know a lot of guys like this. They would have made excellent husbands and fathers. They could never compete against the guys who became "baby daddies" often with multiple women. Take a random group of 100 men without children vs. 100 baby daddies and it will be clear who would have made the better fathers. There has been a shift, especially among the non- college educated, for women to choose r selected males over k selected males. Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn't be happening to the extent it is.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Twinkie, @Almost Missouri

    Without tax credits and welfare this wouldn’t be happening to the extent it is.

    I think it is a mistake to conflate tax credits and welfare. The former is an incentive for the bread-winner and the child-bearer to team up (aka “marriage”), while the latter is an incentive for the child-bearer to inseminate herself from anyone she fancies, so traditional breadwinners are least likely to appeal. Tax credits and welfare are in fact almost opposite. They are both pro-natal, but one encourages natality in the form of a traditional family, while the other encourages chaotic and criminal random spawning.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  58. @Twinkie
    @anon


    there’s not much surprising here.
     
    You are right. But it’s still noteworthy how dramatic the social transformation has been in some developed countries. South Korea and Japan have become exceedingly wealthy since the 1960s, but the birth mores have hardly changed. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain have gone from Catholic cultural bastions (exhibiting birth mores not unlike South Korea and Japan) to having nearly 30% and over 40% out of wedlock births, respectively. I haven’t dug around for the income/education data in these countries and wonder whether they follow the American pattern of such births being concentrated among the downscale or whether they are more “egalitarian” in distribution.

    What is /are the correlational factors?
     
    Beats me. But surely the dramatic transformation of sexual mores and decline of Christian morality must be powerful factors.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I don’t think this is something that could be chalked up to differences in material or political or religious factors. Japan developed and modernized alongside the second wave of Western powers-the USA, Germany, Russia-in the late 19th Century, and the latter two were no less mauled by WWII. The ROK’s path to modernity was, suffice it to say, quite different. Japan was a democracy, albeit an imperfect one with an overweening military influence and an ill-defined imperial role at the center that would bring it down, until the Great Depression. And Japan obviously lacks the strong conservative Christian political strain found in South Korea. On top of that, the Philippines is as Catholic as ever, yet the illegitimacy rate there is through the roof: as is the case in Islamic Malaysia and Indonesia.

    So that leaves culture, by process of elimination, leading to blue-collar East Asians having out-of-wedlock norms similar to the UMC in the USA. A specific theory beyond that is out of my paygrade. Maybe social conformity still remains a strong force despite liberalization/globalization?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @nebulafox

    I was referring to the difference between 1964 and 2014 in Spain and Italy, not to those between Japan and South Korea, on the one hand, and the former, on the other hand, in 2014.

  59. @nebulafox
    @Twinkie

    I don't think this is something that could be chalked up to differences in material or political or religious factors. Japan developed and modernized alongside the second wave of Western powers-the USA, Germany, Russia-in the late 19th Century, and the latter two were no less mauled by WWII. The ROK's path to modernity was, suffice it to say, quite different. Japan was a democracy, albeit an imperfect one with an overweening military influence and an ill-defined imperial role at the center that would bring it down, until the Great Depression. And Japan obviously lacks the strong conservative Christian political strain found in South Korea. On top of that, the Philippines is as Catholic as ever, yet the illegitimacy rate there is through the roof: as is the case in Islamic Malaysia and Indonesia.

    So that leaves culture, by process of elimination, leading to blue-collar East Asians having out-of-wedlock norms similar to the UMC in the USA. A specific theory beyond that is out of my paygrade. Maybe social conformity still remains a strong force despite liberalization/globalization?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    I was referring to the difference between 1964 and 2014 in Spain and Italy, not to those between Japan and South Korea, on the one hand, and the former, on the other hand, in 2014.

  60. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    Comically? Now I’m curious! Share, if you would, please.
     
    Japan (worst/most); Germany; Italy; Mexico; U.S.; Ireland; Hungary; Chile (best/fewest).

    Actually, I have practically no idea about several of these, like Italy and Japan, so my guesses were random there; but Hungary was a surprise and Chile came as a shock. My only correct guess was that the U.S. were a little better than the median. I had everything else wrong.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Japan (worst/most)… Chile (best/fewest).

    I see why you used such a strong word (“comically…”). Might I ask you further why you thought Japan would have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate and why Chile would have the lowest?

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    I see why you used such a strong word (“comically…”). Might I ask you further why you thought Japan would have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate and why Chile would have the lowest?
     
    Regarding Japan, you are only asking me to explain abject ignorance. My explanation is absurd and uninteresting: I had read that Japanese were having too few babies and I had just seen your photos of non-Japanese east Asians demonstrating for George Floyd, so my imagination tentatively placed a phantom Japan at the wrong end of the scale.

    Regarding Chile, some years ago, my wife and I (who were younger then) seriously considered emigrating. Though my wife has significant aptitudes I lack, an aptitude to speak multiple languages is not among them, so she and I regrettably had to narrow our search to English-speaking countries. However, before I had realized that non-English was not an option, the two non-English countries at the top of my list were Uruguay and Chile.

    So, though I never went there in person, I investigated. I learned a little about Pinochet and about the fact that divorce had until recently been illegal in Chile.

    My investigation was never very thorough, for (as I said) I abandoned it in favor of English, yet it appears that my nonthorough investigation has led me astray.

  61. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    Japan (worst/most)... Chile (best/fewest).
     
    I see why you used such a strong word ("comically..."). Might I ask you further why you thought Japan would have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate and why Chile would have the lowest?

    Replies: @V. K. Ovelund

    I see why you used such a strong word (“comically…”). Might I ask you further why you thought Japan would have the highest out-of-wedlock birth rate and why Chile would have the lowest?

    Regarding Japan, you are only asking me to explain abject ignorance. My explanation is absurd and uninteresting: I had read that Japanese were having too few babies and I had just seen your photos of non-Japanese east Asians demonstrating for George Floyd, so my imagination tentatively placed a phantom Japan at the wrong end of the scale.

    Regarding Chile, some years ago, my wife and I (who were younger then) seriously considered emigrating. Though my wife has significant aptitudes I lack, an aptitude to speak multiple languages is not among them, so she and I regrettably had to narrow our search to English-speaking countries. However, before I had realized that non-English was not an option, the two non-English countries at the top of my list were Uruguay and Chile.

    So, though I never went there in person, I investigated. I learned a little about Pinochet and about the fact that divorce had until recently been illegal in Chile.

    My investigation was never very thorough, for (as I said) I abandoned it in favor of English, yet it appears that my nonthorough investigation has led me astray.

    • Thanks: Twinkie
  62. @Twinkie
    @Rosie


    I wasn’t really talking about financial support.
     
    Yes, I understood this right away.

    I was talking about having someone to care for you when you’re incapable of living independently.
     
    You are also right about this. It's very nice for the elderly to have family around, even if they are able to live independently or otherwise have paid help. As people get older, interests in material things peel away little by little for most people, and they mainly care about spending time with their families, especially children and grandchildren.

    As soon as my wife's grandmother passed away, her grandfather basically divested himself of pretty much all material goods and relocated to a very nice retirement home (the kind where he has his own apartment in a building that has healthcare, kitchen staff, car service, etc.) where he had lots of friends (even several of his former colleagues from work). While he enjoyed living amongst his friends and colleagues and even though he didn't want for material comforts, he still appreciated getting visits from his children and grandchildren and also visiting them often. Every time my wife, children, and I visited her parents, we always drove to her grandfather's place, picked him up, and brought him to the parents' house and had dinner every evening. I still remember the twinkle he had in his eyes every time he saw my wife and our children, his great grandchildren. I spent many a hours with him, listening to his war stories (including meeting Ike!) or his early life.

    That man died happily at age 92, surrounded by his family, having lived through the Depression, fought in World War II (ETO), married his college sweetheart, worked up from a paper delivery boy to the senior VP of a media company, oversaw and sustained universities, churches, and charities, and became the revered and much beloved patriarch of a large and prosperous clan. His was a good life. We should all be so blessed.

    That said, I personally do not have much of an expectation of help or support from my children when I get older. As is the tradition in my birth national culture, the role of a parent is to sacrifice for the children. The only thing I ask of my children is not to do things for me later, but to, in their turn, sacrifice for their children, my future grandchildren. That would indeed make me a very happy and proud father. And if I could see my great grandchildren? Well, that would be something, indeed.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Love runs downhill. It has to be that way.

    • Agree: Twinkie

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS