Kay Hymnowitz writes in The Daily Caller:
Still, the biggest reason we probably won’t see a lot more college-educated women walking down the aisle with their plumber is one we don’t like to say out loud: they want to have smart kids. Educated men and women are drawn to spouses they think will help them produce the children likely to thrive in the contemporary knowledge-based economy. That means high IQ, ambitious, and organized kids who will do their homework and take a lot of AP courses. The preference for alpha kids is the reason there is a luxury market for Ivy League egg and sperm donors. It also explains why, though we don’t have solid research distinguishing between elite and State U mating choices, Ms. Harvard will probably not accept a proposal from Mr. Florida State. The economist Greg Mankiw has quipped that “Harvard is probably the world’s most elite dating agency.” A glance at the New York Times nuptial pages suggests he’s right.
In this respect, homogamy, at least educational homogamy, has a profound social downside; it increases economic inequality. Educated couples pass on the smarts and habits to their children that lead to good jobs and nice homes with lots of enriching activities for the grandkids, while the children and grandkids of less-educated men and women remain behind.
Americans don’t like to think of themselves as class conscious. But marriage brings out the snob in the most democratic man or woman — for better or worse.
Marriage (and, thus, reproduction) is important enough to bring out the snob in everybody.
Posts
206 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206JSM:
Let's consider two different worlds.
In world one, you and the white woman have one child, and a black couple has another kid. Half your genes go into your kid from you, half your wife's genes go in from her. You share some fraction of her genes F, so the next generation gets 1/2+F/2 of your genes. For simplicity assume the black couple shares no genes with you (not at all true, but it makes the description simpler and doesn't change the result). So their kid adds none of your genes.
In world two, you marry the black woman, and your would-have-been spouse marries the black man. Each couple again has one child. You share no genes with the black woman (for this example--reality isn't like that!), and so your kid has 1/2 of your genes. The white woman has one kid with the black guy, 1/2 of her genes go into the kid, and since you share some fraction F of her genes, the kid gets F/2 of your genes. The next generation gets 1/2 + F/2 of your genes, spread into two different people.
These two worlds are the same in terms of your genes. The difference that may matter to you is that your kids will be more closely related to you if you have kids with someone from the same race (and even more related if they're more closely related to you--an Italian marrying a Ukranian isn't getting the same situation as two Northern Italians from the same village getting married.)
The other side of that is deleterious recessives, like if there's a recessive gene for hemophilia and you carry it. In that case, your kid is more likely to get the double-recessive if you marry someone closer to you genetically. I gather this isn't a big concern unless you're from an ethnic group that went through a very narrow pipe at some point (Ashkenazi Jews) or are marrying your half-sister or first cousin or something (European royal familes).
"But trying to apply it more broadly runs into all kinds of problems, because most of life isn't all that much like picking up women in bars."
Yes, noneoftheabove. It's probably just me. Sometimes to understand such terms, I try and relive the few times I actually went to bars when v. young. But that kind of backtracking is counterproductive to me these days. I'm looking for wiser ways to get through life.
>They don't care about degrees, money, etc., except insofar as they can fool a guy with these things to raise the other guy's kid.<
The two hottest Asian chicks I ever knew pursued precisely that pattern.
They had a loaded Mister Mom at home raising their kids from a previous relationship, and slept around with bad boys from work and from bars. Both disparagingly referred to their kitchen bitch as their "husband" even though it was evident that no legal marriage had taken place. Both women were US-born South Asians, and the men, both white, were not oldsters but in their 30s.
"The heart of woman is dark." This is depressingly true of too many women.
Speaking of the animal world in this connection, I once saw a PBS nature docu that showed a female bird getting poked by a passing male bird, not her mate. The mate or husband showing up immediately afterward and pecked the other bird's sperm out of her. She had no problem with either operation. My ex giggled uproariously while watching this. I have never looked at human females in exactly the same way again.
Walter at 4/19/11 5:05 PM said:
"The ultimate form of marrying down is to marry one outside one's race...simply because by marrying outside one's race one will pass on fewer of his or her own genes."
I don't see how marrying within your race means you will pass on more of your genes. Please explain.
Suppose I marry an educated swpl woman and have the average 1.4 children, and then they have 1.4, etc. Eventually my gene line will die out, like Abe Lincoln's did.
I can forsee a fututre generation where I have just 2 descendants left, and one is gay and the other a spinster, and then it's over.
On the other hand, suppose I have lots of kids with lots of ghetto women, and my offspring turn out to be thugs and welfare queens who reproduce like mad, and in a few generations there are hundreds of them.
It seems to me that if you want to maximize your genetic legacy you should go for quantity not quality.
Stan,
Sperm is cheap. You can, from a strictly biological standpoint, make your 1.4 White kids with your White wife and then knock up 10, or even 100, black women.
But who are you better off *provisioning*? Since it would be impossible to provision them all, you should provision the White kids, since they have more copies of your genes (because your White wife has more genes in common with you than your Black consorts.)
The question here, is, are White WOMEN marrying down? Yes. Because pregnancy and lactation are costly. At best a woman can only have 20 kids. She's more likely to only have 1.4. If SHE crossbreeds, then her own kids carry fewer copies of her own genes to be propagated into the next generation than had the father been White, same as the half-Black kids of a White man, but the White man has the option of having MORE kids to make up for it. SHE does not.
*****
Now, many White men are so mad at White women for feminism that they feel more loyalty to men of other races than they do their own White wives, mothers, sisters.
Those fellas need to understand, NO, you as a White man do NOT have more in common genetically with a man of another race than you do with a White female. Plenty of MRAs make this false statement.
Steve Sailor’s iSteve Blog define the question of women marry down. Educated men and women are drawn to spouses they think will help them produce the children likely to thrive in the contemporary knowledge-based economy.
Post a Comment