Lion of the Blogosphere

Marriage: more evidence of MSM reading my blog?

Back on January 14th I wrote

With the idea out there (created by the De Beers cartel) that men are supposed to spend two months of their salary on an engagement ring, and with the median wedding costing $18,086, marriage seems to be totally out of reach of minimum wage workers. … People who are actually pro-family, maybe religious leaders, maybe Republicans, maybe even Democrats, ought to be out there on the front lines getting out the message that you don’t need an expensive ring and a big wedding to get married. No one should ever feel that they can’t afford to get married.

Richard V. Reeves (who I assume is center-left based on his role at the Brookings Institution) has taken this idea of mine and turned into a feature-length article at The Atlantic:

Most Americans support marriage, most Americans want to get married, and most Americans do get married. Why then is the institution atrophying among those with least education and lowest incomes?

A lack of “marriageable” men is a common explanation. It is clear that the labor market prospects of poorly-educated men are dire. But the language itself betrays inherent conservatism. “Marriageability” here means, principally, breadwinning potential. Nobody ever apparently worries about the “marriageability” of a woman: Presumably she just has to be fertile.

. . .

Perhaps propaganda—or, more politely, social marketing—has a role to play. The elites running our public institutions aren’t abandoning marriage: but maybe they aren’t encouraging it either.

Hopefully liberals in the MSM will get the message.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 16, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Posted in Males and Females

68 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The only issue that will always hit a brick wall in terms of coverage is HBD. It isn’t allowed to exist or even be to be acknowledged. To compensate, all other realism-oriented topics can be expected to get more attention. That’s how balance works in today’s media world. It is why Steven Pinker chose to mock unisex-brain feminism instead of cargo cult anti-racism in his book the Bell Curve. He understood that race is even more important to the Left than sex/gender and anyone who violates the Holy Writs regarding race will be punished severely.

    Curle

    February 16, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    • The only issue that will always hit a brick wall in terms of coverage is HBD. It isn’t allowed to exist or even be to be acknowledged.

      How much longer can the elite hold out as our socioeconomic measures nosedive? Now that middle class whites have fled California, the social engineers are turning on Silicon Valley. e.g., the demonization of Google bus.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      February 16, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    • Pinker wrote The Blank Slate. Herrnstein and Murray wrote The Bell Curve, which was all about race.

      Dan

      February 17, 2014 at 3:44 am

      • Right. Meant Blank Slate. Writing too fast.

        Curle

        February 17, 2014 at 11:14 am

      • The Bell Curve wasn’t all about race; it was about how IQ differentials influenced the socioeconomic fabric of the United States and individual outcomes. It had a few chapters that discussed the implications of general intelligence on race relations.

        Latias

        February 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm

  2. In this week’s NYTimes elite wedding announcements, it looks like the top 3 straight couples this week met via
    1. Match.com
    2. HS sweethearts
    3. College sweethearts

    No cold-approaches/Game for that crowd.

    ATC

    February 16, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    • In other words, if you haven’t met your futures spouse by the time you’ve graduated college, you’re stuck trolling online dating sites.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      • I suspect, from anecodotal evidence, that a lot of elites meet their future spouses in Grad school these days.

        Petr Akuleyev

        February 17, 2014 at 4:02 am

      • aww c’mon lion, dontjaknow the only women worth marrying are 25 year old Polish girls? I’m not talking about mail order, they’re hustlers; you gotta game them in the country of origin, in fact, better off just leaving America and moving to Poland :)

        Ving Almes

        February 17, 2014 at 6:21 am

      • The msm isn’t reading your blog
        To reward you with a gig at The Grey Lady.
        They’re reading it to STEAL your ideas
        And pass them off as
        Theirs

        Firepower

        February 17, 2014 at 7:04 pm

      • Agreed. Those scum.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 17, 2014 at 10:20 pm

      • lotb wrote:
        Agreed. Those scum.

        ha – I’ve detailed it in the past. Your readers won’t understand, but as a writer/blogger you will:

        http://eradica.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/firepowers-hierarchy-of-blogging/

        http://eradica.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/greascycled-blogging-recycled/

        Blogging is The GREATEST Invention for
        hacks with Writer’s Block
        The world has ever seen
        since cuneiform

        Firepower

        February 18, 2014 at 10:23 am

    • I notice that the ones who met in high school were nevertheless 29 when they got married and the college ones were 25 and 26.

      It looks like the hang-up with having financial stability as a prerequisite to marriage affects all classes, it’s just that the upper ones are able to overcome this potential roadblock.

      My buddy from work is finally getting married this summer to a girl he escorted in the senior high homecoming court even though they are now 28. Based on all these anecdota it seems like the optimal strategy is to build social networks with marriageable girls in high school and college and then keep up these connections over time.

      Jokah Macpherson

      February 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm

      • “build social networks with marriageable girls in high school and college and then keep up these connections over time.”

        Keeping up the connections over time: a Facebook effect.

        anon

        February 16, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    • I believe that most of the female profiles on Match.com are fake, especially the attractive ones.

      E. Rekshun

      February 16, 2014 at 7:15 pm

  3. I found it pretty remarkable that Reeves actually acknowledged that the androgynous marriages he favors have little sexual desire (directed towards the betadaddy, anyway), yet he tries to spin it as a feature, not a bug.

    Indeed, there is some evidence that there is less sex in these egalitarian, child-focused marriages. But least for this chapter of the relationship, sex is not what they’re about.

    This, after years of dopey feminist propaganda along the lines of “Come on already, you ol’ lunk, doing the dishes is SEXY now!”

    ATC

    February 16, 2014 at 3:59 pm

  4. Other than the parts you cite, this article is pretty terrible. The adherence to “traditional” marriage values among the lower classes he describes is a joke.

    Jokah Macpherson

    February 16, 2014 at 4:54 pm

  5. i think elites want to discourage policies to push behavior. as the economy grows less dynamic, there is less room for others to move up. so if you’re too stupid to figure out how you should behave, it’s your problem. i think most of the effort is focused on the absolute bottom of the heap because they know it is the least likely to have a result. at least, that’s the only logic that seems to explain things these days.

    lion of the lionosphere

    February 16, 2014 at 5:42 pm

    • That implies devious malice behind the motives of elites. You should never attribute to devious malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 16, 2014 at 6:04 pm

      • The elite believe their own nonsense. If they were motivated by a thought out plan there may be a possibility of bribing them to end immigration in exchange for something else (gay marriage?)

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 16, 2014 at 7:16 pm

      • “there may be a possibility of bribing them to end immigration in exchange for something else (gay marriage?)”

        About half of state-level republican parties and controlled by evangelicals, who would never accept gay marriage, but strongly support mass immigration.

        Mexicans are often very easy converts to evangelical protestantism. There is this stereotype of Mexicans being very Catholic, but they’re not. Mexico has stronger secularism laws than even France, the upper class is mostly socialist and secular, and the Indio lower classes mix Christianity with folk religion.

        Sure, there are still some stereotypical small towns, with a big church in the center, where the entire Spanish-speaking population goes to mass and plays in Church soccer leagues. But this isn’t the reality for Mexico’s huge urban population and huge indian population, and even less so for Mexican Americans.

        Actual Mexican-Americans are, demographically, not that far off from white megachurch-goers, so something like 40% of Mexican Americans who go to church go to a protestant one, even though very few were born into protestantism. Evangelicals are simply not going to support deporting dues-paying members of their congregations.

        tolles

        February 17, 2014 at 12:34 am

      • I suspect most social policies that are destroying the lower classes are based neither on real malice, nor stupidity. It is simply an aftereffect of elites jockeying for status.

        Petr Akuleyev

        February 17, 2014 at 4:05 am

      • @tolles “Mexico has stronger secularism laws than even France, the upper class is mostly socialist and secular.” ————— I thought the Catholic Church controlled most of the universities and elite prep schools? If so, that would suggest the Roman Catholic Church retains a degree of social control nearly equal to that of Cargo Cult Egalitarians in the US and Canada. After all, he who runs the colleges defines what constitutes ‘authority’ and in so doing runs the society, right? How many people are skeptical of HBD simply because they will live the remainder of their lives skeptical of anything that wasn’t given credibility by some professor at some point in their school life? Lion is right about one very big thing, most people grant greater authority to social proof than they do other more demonstrable or measurable forms of proof.

        Curle

        February 18, 2014 at 10:31 pm

  6. “Why then is the institution atrophying among those with least education and lowest incomes?”

    In other words, blacks and hispanics…

    Nambo

    February 16, 2014 at 6:28 pm

  7. MSM reading my blog?

    Given these unprecedented insider connections is it safe to assume you have that guest star role in Californication lined up? Remember to say high to Addison. Both of her.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 16, 2014 at 7:19 pm

  8. Old school solution: bring back mass marriage ceremonies.

    Dave Pinsen

    February 16, 2014 at 7:41 pm

    • The Unification Church isn’t highly regarded in American Culture. At least, they are above the Scientologists.

      Latias

      February 17, 2014 at 2:38 pm

      • The history of mass marriage ceremonies goes back much further than that.

        Dave Pinsen

        February 17, 2014 at 4:10 pm

      • I know; I just associate the Unification Church with mass marriages. It is the first thing I think about when I hear “mass marriage ceremonies”.

        Latias

        February 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm

  9. “A lack of “marriageable” men is a common explanation. It is clear that the labor market prospects of poorly-educated men are dire. But the language itself betrays inherent conservatism. “Marriageability” here means, principally, breadwinning potential. Nobody ever apparently worries about the “marriageability” of a woman: Presumably she just has to be fertile.”

    The disconnect comes from expecting men to have the same breadwinning capability today that they had in the 1950s. But that expectation ignores several sweeping changes since then, among them:
    – Women’s liberation, which increased the supply of applicants for many jobs, thus putting downward pressure on demand (wages).
    – Post-1965 mass immigration, which had a similar effect.
    – America’s transition from running trade surpluses to running chronic trade deficits, which led to more jobs being outsourced.
    – Automation, which has reduced the demand for workers.

    To the extent that women are more likely to work in some fields less impacted by outsourcing and automation (such as k-12 teaching, nursing, government), their breadwinning ability has been somewhat less affected by these trends.

    Dave Pinsen

    February 16, 2014 at 7:59 pm

  10. Aside from certain legal rights (testimony, property, and testamentary primarily), what is the advantage for a man to getting married vs. living together and having children? You are liable for child support whether married or not, however in case of divorce, it is much much cleaner. If you don’t want to have children, there is no reason at all.

    ASF

    February 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    • The only advantage for men is to keep her from nagging you to death about it. Many, if not most, of the things men do in marriages either don’t need to be done or hold no advantage to the male. Think about home remodels. That kitchen from the 1940s probably operates about as well as a remodel with granite countertops and new cabinets. You could live the rest of your life quite happily without changing a thing . . . but, you will change it because it ‘looks old’ and you will learn, once married, that having a house that looks out of date is a really, really bad thing.

      Curle

      February 17, 2014 at 12:03 am

    • “what is the advantage for a man to getting married vs. living together and having children?”

      A classy woman will never have a child outside of marriage. Well maybe you’re such a stud you have young women in the top 5% of class/intelligence clamoring to be your baby mama, but few are so lucky.

      “If you don’t want to have children, there is no reason at all.”

      Women who never have children earn about as much as men, actually slightly more for the under 35 cohort, and even more still if you include the fact they work for places with better benefits and job security. So there isn’t much economic risk, on average, if you never will have kids in getting married.

      tolles

      February 17, 2014 at 12:43 am

    • If you want a traditionist model (the man works to support a stay-at-home wife and several kids), marriage is the only way. Man’s gotta go all in for the woman to go all in.

      Dan

      February 17, 2014 at 3:48 am

      • I hear there are quite a few married women who are working these days.

        1010

        February 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

      • Logic fail. He didn’t imply all married women are stay-at-homes, he said the traditional lifestyle consists of stay-at-home moms.

        CamelCaseRob

        February 17, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    • And more, marriage entails an understanding of a wifely obligation that is directly recited out in most religions. If there is a girlfriend-ly obligation, I am not aware of it.

      Dan

      February 17, 2014 at 3:52 am

      • Wife: “I’m not haaaaapy. I need some time to eatprayloveblog.”
        Husband: “But you took those VOWS. Remember your wifely obligation!”
        Wife: “Holy cow, you’re right. Never mind, I’ll stick around.”
        Husband: *whew…thank goodness I remembered to have her take those VOWS!*

        Fiddlesticks

        February 17, 2014 at 9:13 am

      • It helps to actually go to church together to keep that up. Saying your vows at a hired church is not the same.

        caroljm36

        February 17, 2014 at 4:46 pm

  11. We need a new federal entitlement to promote marriage among the underprivileged. Call it Obamapair.

    Mark Caplan

    February 16, 2014 at 10:44 pm

  12. Good thing, it will put pressure on women as they compete for decent males. They will take care of their appearance better.

    MyTwoCents

    February 17, 2014 at 4:03 am

  13. I see in the article that men in 2011 spend 54 hours a week on paid work, house work and child care, while women spend 53.

    Glengarry

    February 17, 2014 at 6:02 am

  14. This Slate piece (in their “Climate Change” section for some reason?) made me think of your WoW suggestions.

    It says internet commenters are more likely to have Dark Tetrad traits IRL.

    Some sites have responded by withdrawing comment sections, but it seems like keeping people like this glued to their keyboards is MUCH better than them expending their energies on their traditional activities such as abusing animals, vandalizing neighbors’ property, etc.

    Maybe we need to compensate the underemployed for making the most polarizing zingers on comment threads.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

    Fiddlesticks

    February 17, 2014 at 9:58 am

    • Fred Wilson had a post the other day saying that you can get rid of comments but you can’t eliminate discussions, since those will just happen elsewhere.

      Dave Pinsen

      February 17, 2014 at 4:13 pm

  15. Also, giving normal people regular exposure to Dark Tetrad types and their usual methods and tactics gives us sparring practice and helps us be faster on our feet/quicker at identifying them when encountering them IRL.

    Fiddlesticks

    February 17, 2014 at 10:01 am

  16. Widespread education for women reduces mobility since most college educated women are not interested in high school graduate. With genetic base for IQ, the offsprings are less likely showing any mobility. Bimboos are good for short fling unless you are equally dumb. Smart women have real chemistry with educated men.

    Also women with six digit income are less likely interested some with less. This also increase the gap between rich and poor since rich people marring each other futher increase household income for the rich people.

    Equality for women actually creates inequality for society.

    IC

    February 17, 2014 at 10:32 am

    • Those marginally “college-educated” women are educated a bogus community colleges and local bottom-tier state schools, often as “non-traditional” (in other words, older than college-aged) students. These women are indeed interested in men of their own social class who may not have a formal degree.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 17, 2014 at 1:05 pm

      • I think the commentariat here put too much stock in the value of having smart kids, a smart wife and loads of money. Lots of rich people are miserable and lots of guys with prole wives are happy as clams. Sure prole gals can be boring if you are high IQ, but in the end the smart gals can be so neurotic that I tend to think you are money ahead getting your intellectual stimulation from the internet or books and everything else from a Doris Day replicant. I know plenty of guys whose smart neurotic wives or mothers have nearly driven them to madness.

        Curle

        February 18, 2014 at 2:26 am

  17. Poor, insecure l’il Lyin’, wishes the gaystream media would acknowledge his GENIUS. “What a GENIUS that Lyin’ of the Blathersphere is!” they should proclaim. “Pure GENIUS!”

    It’ll never happen, Lyin’. For one, your blog is a troll, and no one with an IQ over 105 wants to be publicly baited by a troll. And also, you say waycisisisisissst stuff, so that renders you unmentionable in polite company. You’ll just have to publicly and privately savor your imagined acceptance by the gaystream.

    sciences with lispses

    February 17, 2014 at 11:07 am

    • Why don’t you fuck off?

      CamelCaseRob

      February 17, 2014 at 3:45 pm

      • Poor, insecure l’il Lyin’, wishes the gaystream media would acknowledge his GENIUS.

        This unbeliever denies Lion’s media prowess. Wait until Lion appears on Californication and Addison Timlin flashes him her hooters. On that day of divine retribution the Lion will laugh at his enemies with righteousness. Or self-righteousness. Either way he wins.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    • Flotsam from CH

      AsianDude

      February 17, 2014 at 5:51 pm

  18. By the way, it occurs to me that your point about spousal income and divorce is very important. If the “gold digger” hypothesis is correct, one would expect that relatively high male income (compared to female income) is a recipe for divorce. But instead, it seems the opposite is true.

    Assuming you have the facts correct, this suggests that wives aren’t seeking divorces as a money-making activity. Which kind of makes sense — probably both parties are usually worse off financially after a divorce if only because they need to maintain two households. Even if the hardship falls more on the man, it’s hard to believe that the woman would be much better off (in the usual case).

    On the other hand, the facts as you present them do support the hypergamy hypothesis, i.e. that married women instinctively lose interest in husbands whom they perceive to be below them in status and money is usually a pretty good proxy for status.

    sabril

    February 17, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    • You failed to take note that gold diggers are as much interested in long term relationships. They’re just very upfront about it.

      On other other side, good looking alphas – sociopaths tend to use women not just for sex, but drain them emotionally and free load them financially on a short term basis. Some guys have no qualms about this and will take advantage of it, when given the opportunity.

      JS

      February 17, 2014 at 6:31 pm

      • “You failed to take note that gold diggers are as much interested in long term relationships. They’re just very upfront about it.”

        I don’t necessarily disagree with you. By “gold-digger hypothesis,” I mean the idea promoted on game blogs that girls get divorced for economic reasons, i.e. so that they can get a nice fat alimony/child support check while living a single lifestyle.

        sabril

        February 18, 2014 at 9:21 am

    • It could be indirect: women who make more money often work with men who are more charismatic than their husbands.

      Dave Pinsen

      February 17, 2014 at 6:49 pm

      • Actually a lot of BIGLAW partners are very nerdy. Maybe high-level executives in corporations are more charismatic. But not rich BIGLAW partners or rich doctors.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 17, 2014 at 6:58 pm

      • Are you saying that you can’t be a sociopath and a nerd at the same time? Steve Jobs is a good example.

        JS

        February 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm

      • I guess value transference is the work of a sociopath, who doesn’t make, but take.

        JS

        February 17, 2014 at 7:09 pm

      • “Actually a lot of BIGLAW partners are very nerdy.”

        C’mon, I watch “Suits” and that’s totally not true.

        Incidentally, why do all the lawyers on TV law shows spend 90% of their time being detectives rather than being lawyers? A topic for another day.

        peterike

        February 17, 2014 at 8:22 pm

  19. Business idea. UMC/TOOS men troll top tier colleges for girls in debt. Pay their debts/bills inexchange for, say, six eggs. Marry an HB8+ (pre-nup!) and implant good eggs into those girls.

    No, implant eggs in girls who aren’t your wife so she keeps her sexy body. BOOM!

    dsgntd_plyr

    February 17, 2014 at 5:45 pm

  20. OT: a couple of Penn kids recently killed themselves and one of them was a cute girl.

    http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1603752#bmb=1

    Robert

    February 18, 2014 at 1:20 am

    • A trend in SWPL elimination?

      JS

      February 18, 2014 at 8:39 am

  21. Slightly OT: Ten-minute video, “The Economics of Sex.”

    http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-economics-of-sex.html

    Nothing that will surprise any of the Lion’s regular readers. Possibly a useful primer for friends or relatives who have never heard of Game or Charles Murray.

    amac78

    February 18, 2014 at 7:28 am

  22. The Atlantic has an article about Susan Patton, the Princeton Mom, about finding a mate:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/princeton-mom-vs-the-facts/283880/

    Susan Patton’s original article:

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303496804579369420198599600

    Average Man

    February 18, 2014 at 10:37 am

  23. Lion – This article talks about the upper middle/upper classes and marriage.

    More importantly, the writer must have read your blog and my take on the Prole vs SWPL thing. He accuses Charles Murray focusing on money when it comes to class. It’s more about education and values. Just because you work on Wall St, doesn’t make you a defacto SWPL or Bobo.

    America is separating into peasants and scholar-gentry

    http://theweek.com/article/index/255925/america-is-separating-into-peasants-and-scholar-gentry

    JS

    February 18, 2014 at 9:53 pm

  24. Lion, this information might be interesting to you and your readers.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-18/worsening-u-s-divorce-rate-points-to-improving-economy.html

    Divorce rate = good economy
    High marriage rate = poverty?
    Wealthy people = really rich person with mind of poor? since divorce is costly in their mind.

    Most true TOOs are like the third category. They might be wealthy. But they are frugal in their behavior.
    Nouveau riche are well know for high divorce rate.

    IC

    February 19, 2014 at 9:00 am


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 228 other followers

%d bloggers like this: