Lion of the Blogosphere

Why are so many children born out of wedlock?

41% of children are born to unmarried mothers, up from less than 5% in the 1940s. (Source: CDC. ) And this is a trend that shows no signs of improving. Unless we do something to turn the tide, one can expect this rate to pass 50% in the relatively near future.

Some commenters will blame this troubling trend on women being slutty so men don’t need to get married in order to have sex, or on there no longer being a stigma attached to being an unmarried mother. But neither of these explanations really explain anything. What caused women to become slutty and what caused the stigma to decline? It’s a chicken and egg type of situation.

Women have a biological urge to have sex and babies, so if for some reason, factors having nothing to do with women being slutty causes the marriage rate to decline, then it’s expected that women will have sex and babies outside of marriage. Thus it’s impossible to say if slutty women cause bastard children, or if women became slutty because marriage is no longer a realistic or expected option for so many women.

In trying to think about the root causes, I came up with the following:

  • Economic reasons: (a) increasing income for women; (b) declining income for men; (c) welfare.
  • Bobo nonjudgmentalism
  • The Christian Right’s anti-abortion crusade.

Economic reasons

The first set of reasons are all related to the fact that women no longer find it economically necessary to get married. It was traditionally thought that a male income was necessary to support a family. But ss a consequence of the woman’s liberation movement, income for white women age 25 to 34 has been rising and peaked in 2007 just before the recession. It may exceed the 2007 level sometime in the near future. Such is not the case for white males aged 25-34. Their median income peaked back in 1973 and has declined since then. Declining income for men plus rising income for women means that men are no longer financially necessary. And on top of that, we have the welfare state which provides better economic benefits to single mothers than a man with a low-wage job.

At the same time, housing prices have also risen. As you can see from this chart of the Case-Shiller home price index, home prices bottomed out in the period between the end of World War I and the end of World War II. Since then prices have been rising. Perhaps they haven’t risen quite as much as you might think after you adjust for inflation and ignore the huge uptick and downtick that happened in the 2000s, but the index is still about 17 points higher (136.8 vs. approximately 120) than it was in the early 1970s. A 14% increase in home prices combined with declining income for young men means that fewer young men can afford to provide a place to live for a wife and children. It is hardly surprising that the percent of young men still living at home has been increasing.

I used to wonder why single women find men who live with their parents to be so disgusting, but I see now that in our culture, a man having his own place demonstrates the readiness [economically and psychologically] to raise a family. But this seems to happen at a subconscious level because women would never explain it that way if asked.

Bobo nonjudgmentalism

I owe this insight to Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart. Murray is right, a key bobo value is nonjudgmentalism towards the lower classes. In the past, the upper classes would look down on the lower classes for their transgressions against proper morality. But today this is no longer considered acceptable. One is not allowed to shame women for being “sluts” or call kids bastards if they are born to an unmarried woman.

The philosophy of nonjudgmentalism has sadly infested the Republican Party as strongly as it has the Democratic Party. Remember the 2008 election when Sarah Palin marched around her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter? Instead of being disgusted by the Palin family’s poor morals, she was praised as being able to understand the problems of regular Americans. And this is a great segue to the next topic:

The Christian Right’s anti-abortion crusade

This blog seems to attract a lot of conservative-Christian types, and they seem to be blind to the damage being caused by the Christian Right’s anti-abortion crusade.

For starters, anyone with common sense, and no preconceived notion about abortion being a great evil equivalent to murder or racism, would assume that abortion would decrease the number of children born to unmarried women because it gives women a valuable tool to prevent an accidental pregnancy from turning into a bastard child.

Only fundamentalist Christian types would try to argue the opposite, that abortion causes more bastard children because it causes more women to have sex and then the women who get accidentally preganant who wouldn’t have had sex in the first place in the absence of legal abortion don’t bother to actually get an abortion. The problem with this argument is that it just doesn’t hold up. There has been a very significant drop in the birth rate since the time before abortion was legal, and the birth rate continues to fall. See for example this Economist article. Furthermore, the birthrate has dropped most among teenage women. To quote an article from Time Magazine published less than a month ago:

Teen birth rates in the U.S., which have been declining for two decades, have reached a record low, with significant drops in almost every state.

The report, from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that teen birth rates fell at least 15% in all states with the exception of West Virginia and North Dakota during the years 2007 to 2011.

. . .

Teenagers have a greater number of methods of contraceptives to choose from,” says Bill Albert, the chief program officer of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “The menu of contraceptive methods has never been longer.”

It’s a validation for public health programs that have advocated safe sex messages and sex education in schools; critics of that strategy raised concerns that such efforts would only promote more sexual activity among adolescents and drive up teen pregnancy rates.

So we see, the problem isn’t that women are having more babies than ever. They are having fewer babies than ever, thanks to contraception and abortion, but they choose to have them outside of marriage because marriage is no longer economically necessary and there is no longer any stigma to being an unmarried mother.

But even more pernicious than the Christian Right’s attempt to take away abortion, a valuable tool to prevent births of unwanted babies to unmarried women, the Christian Right is actively encouraging such births as part of their mission against abortion. Thus unmarried women who give birth, instead of being shamed for their behavior, are instead “celebrated” for being “courageous” in not having an abortion. Which takes us back to the 2008 election. Republicans should have been disgusted by Bristol Palin, but instead she was praised for her bold decision to choose life.

The solution: Mayor Bloomberg

As we see, the Republicans, dominated by the Christian Right, are not friends to those who would like to see a reduction in unmarried births. The savior is Mayor Bloomberg, a no-nonsense bobo who has shown his willingness to abandon the bobo principle of nonjudgmentalism in order to force better behavior out of the proles Most notably, as I previously blogged about, Bloomberg was behind New York City’s anti-pregnancy campaign. And on top of that, Bloomberg is a strong supporter of abortion rights.

If Mayor Bloomberg runs for president in 2016, it may the first time I vote for a Democrat, especially if he runs against some moron who believes in Creationism (such as Marco Rubio).

UPDATE

Iceland vs. Japan

It has been pointed out to me that Iceland has the highest percentage of births to unmarried mothers.

Obviously we can’t blame non-white minorities for Iceland’s problem. Iceland is a very white nation.

What does make Iceland different is that it’s considered the “best” country for gender equality:

Iceland remains the country that has the greatest equality between men and women, according to an annual report by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

It is the second year in succession that Iceland has topped the foundation’s Global Gender Gap Report.

Nordic nations dominate the top of the list of 134 countries, with Norway in second place and Finland third.

The report measures equity in the areas of politics, education, employment and health.

Not surprisingly, some of the other most-gender-equal nations, Norway and Sweden, also have a very high percentage of births to unmarried women.

In contrast, Japan ranks extremely poorly for gender quality, and has a very very low rate of nonmarital births

The conclusion is clear. When women are equal to men, they have no desire to marry them. (Or possibly men have no desire to marry their equals, but I don’t think that’s the case because men just want women to look hott.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 19, 2013 at 8:41 am

142 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The problem with simply treating the symptoms (pregnancy) rather than the problem (fornication) is that women don’t build pair bond’s effectively if they have enough sexual partners. Thus, the solution offered would reduce the teen’s bastards, but would leave the massive issue of lack of family formation, so the older women whose biological clocks have become klaxon alarms would still have out of wedlock children with many of the same issues.

    massivefocusedinaction

    June 19, 2013 at 10:47 am

    • Actually, your approach is treating the symptoms. By encouraging sluts to have abortions their fertility is reduced, and their contribution to the gene pool diminishes. Encouraging them to not be sluts would result in them having more children, thus you end up fighting against their slutty DNA in every generation.

      T

      June 20, 2013 at 12:05 am

  2. I am being serious here. I think routine infant circumcision plays a role in this. It has been confirmed that sex is less pleasurable for both parties when the guy is circumcised. This then probably reduces the level of bonding, which then results in lowered desire to get married.

    bobo

    June 19, 2013 at 10:55 am

    • Confirmed? How did they do that?

      Buzzcut

      June 19, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    • If the study that “confirmed” the results involved female orgasms in anyway, it’s probably worthless. Researchers have conceded that most female orgasms had under research auspices are probably faked.

      islandmommy

      June 19, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    • Then why does Iceland (which doesn’t perform routine circumcisions) have a higher rate of bastards than the US (which, until recently, had fairly routine circumcision rates)?
      This is cultural, through-and-through.

      Half Canadian

      June 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    • So I guess we should see none of this playing out in Western Europe, where basically nobody is circumcised.

      Renault

      June 19, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    • Then why do circumcised Jews and Muslims tend to marry and uncut Western Europeans don’t? And if women don’t get pleasure from circumcised men, why do French, Swedish and German women flock to have sex with circumcised Turks, Algerians, and Africans?

      Peter the Shark

      June 20, 2013 at 4:02 am

    • Let’s look at different ethnic groups within America to see what effect circumcision plays on out of wedlock births. Jews tend to have few children out of wedlock. Hispanics, who are seldom circumcised, have increasingly higher amounts of out of wedlock births. White and black Americans are frequently circumcised, though blacks less often, and blacks have far more out of wedlock births than do whites. Koreans are very frequently circumcised, and I’ve heard of no reports that they have more out of wedlock births than do Chinese or Japanese couples. In short, there appears to be almost no correlation between circumcision and out of wedlock births, at least in the American context.

      Sid

      June 20, 2013 at 1:53 pm

  3. I used to wonder why single women find men who live with their parents to be so disgusting, but I see now that in our culture, a man having his own place demonstrates the readiness [economically and psychologically] to raise a family.

    I have three buddies who overcame this. A bro who lives with his parents and has Game gets better results than a beta with his own place (unless the bro’s parents happen to be uptight and controlling).

    And what about guys with roommates? That can sometimes be even grosser, but again I haven’t seen it hurt the outcomes of some of my buddies.

    I think more and more, basic middle-class stuff like having your own place is a -meh-, unless it’s a place at One57, which when completed will be the tallest residential building in the Western Hemisphere.

    Fiddlesticks

    June 19, 2013 at 11:13 am

    • “And what about guys with roommates? That can sometimes be even grosser, but again I haven’t seen it hurt the outcomes of some of my buddies.”

      I can’t really get into women’s brain, but if I were a woman, I would be more grossed out by a guy living with a bunch of other guys, than a guy with his parents.

      I noticed that among woman of more traditional cultures, a prospective mate living with his parents is not the huge turn-off it is for American women.

      markus

      June 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm

      • Agreed. My former doctor was Indian and she praised me for continuing to live with my parents past age 18. She said it was wise to live with ones parents instead of renting an apartment because if I get married in the future I will be able to contribute more money to buying a house in a good town. I actually have more respect for men who live with their parents even if they have finished university and earn decent money. Because those men will be able to save the money they would have spent on rent and use it to buy a house in a good town in the future.

        And yes, these men I have noticed to tend to come from more traditional cultures…lots of Irish or Polish as opposed to WASP. I would include East Asians and South Asians in here but there are very few of them in my area.

        SC

        June 19, 2013 at 3:39 pm

      • One needs to ask, what makes America and anything American remotely worthy of admiration these days? Culturally and socially, America has been a broken record. Financially and economically, it’s heading in that direction.

        JS

        June 19, 2013 at 4:05 pm

      • Living at home to save money for a house? Hah. A crappy place with roommates will cost you 4-6k a year in most places besides the elite coastal cities. Saving 40-60k over 10 years with inflation is not that much when considering to buy a good house in a nice neighborhood.

        Chris P.

        June 19, 2013 at 6:18 pm

      • @SC

        I also find it interesting that so many people speculate that living at home as an adult is associated with low IQ. When I was 18, my friends who were dying to get out of the house were the types who thought that making $10/hour was “good money” and who mostly wanted to get away from their parents so that they could party,drink, and have premarital sex all the time. I see prematurely moving away from home as an act that stems from low future-time orientation for most people.

        I also think that living with your parents is a convenient way to get a home-based business started. There is no way I would have been able to start my current business if I had moved right out of my parents’ house after college. I would have had to work over 40 hours a week at a job just to cover my living expenses and would not have had the time to invest to get my business started properly. Most of my peers who moved into their own place right after graduation are either underemployed or reliant on jobs they can’t stand because they need the money. So, I think it was a good move to just move back to my parents’ house when I was first building my client base.

        AE

        June 19, 2013 at 8:54 pm

      • @Chris P. But I do live near an elite coastal city. Therefore in my zip code it is far better to live with one’s parents until one gets married. The Indian doctor I used to see was right. She and her family are right about a lot of things.

        SC

        June 19, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    • “unless it’s a place at One57, which when completed will be the tallest residential building in the Western Hemisphere.” — haha!

      rivsdiary

      June 19, 2013 at 2:28 pm

      • One57 is for super-rich foreigners.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      • Not every One57 tenant will be a foreigner. Some homegrown CEOs will take up residency when it is completed.

        JS

        June 19, 2013 at 3:56 pm

  4. I read somewhere that the rise of out of wedlock births is caused by the socio-cultural shock of effective birth control. For the first time in mankind’s history the developed world is now able to control its reproduction in ways unimaginable for the other 49,960 years. Because of this, men and women’s view of each other, of marriage, reproduction, and the resulting children have all undergone paradigm shifts that have yet to be settled. In other words we have possession of a technology that we really were not prepared for in a broad sociological or evolutionary sense, and out of wedlock births are the fallout (or the boon, depending on your view) of our collective ham-handedness.

    In “The Abolition of Marriage” Gallagher does point out the irony of the christian right erasing the stigma of single motherhood but I don’t think the religious lobby is an influential in the rise of out of wedlock births as you suggest. Very few women are swayed out of an abortion by pro-life rhetoric and the progressive counter-cultural derision of the traditional family is by far a greater juggernaut than right to lifers brandishing fetus signs. But the root cause is likely more ephemeral.

    islandmommy

    June 19, 2013 at 11:15 am

    • I agree with this. We as a species have only begun to adjust to birth control. It used to be that people who had more sex pretty much automatically had more children, but that is no longer the case. A beta who has a stable marriage and has 3 kids is going to pass on his genes more than the cad who had a lot of partners but had no kids. Natural selection may even select for people who morally object to birth control.

      “The conclusion is clear. When women are equal to men, they have no desire to marry them.”

      I agree with this as well. When the male birth control pill comes, though, that might reshuffle the deck again. There might be fewer unmarried baby daddies.

      John

      June 19, 2013 at 7:34 pm

  5. “The first set of reasons are all related to the fact that women no longer find it economically necessary to get married.”

    Basically yea… However, there is a missing economic component. Many studies have pointed out the fact that children who grow up under pair bonded couples will economically out perform their counterparts who were raised by a single mothers.

    Why wouldn’t a woman consider this? It seems many of them are not considering this.

    Velvet Contrarian

    June 19, 2013 at 11:43 am

    • Also note the research that marriage stability is correlated with IQ and so is children’s life outcomes

      XVO

      June 19, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    • Because she is a special snowflake, so her special snowflake bastard will defeat the odds – just like on her favorite TV show / movie.

      theoak

      June 20, 2013 at 12:28 pm

  6. Welfare explains the bulk unwed mothers problem; the other sited reasons are trivial factors. Follow the purse. Single moms receive TANF, Medicaid, WIC, utility assistance, section 8 housing, earned income tax credit, child care credits, free and reduced school lunches, Head Start, subsidized child care. However, she must have a baby first, to qualify for these goodies.

    Tell me the income cut off for a county’s Medicaid maternity benefits, and the counties’ average household income, and I’ll tell you the rate of unwed motherhood.

    rockford

    June 19, 2013 at 11:57 am

    • I’ve screened tenants for section 8 housing. A woman with three kids gets a pre-tax income o $50-60,000 in benefits from the state.

      map

      June 20, 2013 at 2:59 am

      • The government has made it so it’s actually the rational thing to do for any female making less than $50-60,000 yearly to have multiple children out of wedlock. She’s better off when she does it. It won’t end until the whole country is like central Detroit and there are no more taxpayers to mulct.

        Mark

        June 20, 2013 at 12:21 pm

  7. “Only fundamentalist Christian types would try to argue the opposite, that abortion causes more bastard children because it causes more women to have sex and then the women who get accidentally preganant who wouldn’t have had sex in the first place in the absence of legal abortion don’t bother to actually get an abortion. The problem with this argument is that it just doesn’t hold up. ”

    I don’t recall ever hearing or reading that argument, except as a strawman, like here.
    The bastards are born because of the values instilled through 40 years of sitcoms and movies.

    Redneck Joe

    June 19, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    • This is the truth. Propaganda goes a long way towards deceiving people about “normal” behavior. This in turn leads to more behavior that would otherwise be abnormal.

      Just as an example, on the dating website OKCupid there are a number of questions that people can answer that are used to learn more about people. A couple of these questions are along the lines of, “If your potential match had slept with 14 people how would you feel?” or, “Have you slept with at least as many people as your age, halved?”

      You can tell a lot about people’s realities by looking at their answers to this. The average number of sexual partners for most people is actually in the 2-3 range (looking at actual social science surveys). However a significant number of girls on sites like these think that having 14+ sexual partners is “normal,” even though that is the top 10% of all sexually active women.

      No, it’s not normal, but pervasive propaganda disguises this fact.

      Xcel

      June 20, 2013 at 1:33 am

  8. I owe this insight to Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart. Murray is right, a key bobo value is nonjudgmentalism towards the lower classes. In the past, the upper classes would look down on the lower classes for their transgressions against proper morality. But today this is no longer considered acceptable. One is not allowed to shame women for being “sluts” or call kids bastards if they are born to an unmarried woman.

    They are judgemental about pleeeeenty of other prole behaviors.

    The solution: Mayor Bloomberg

    Oh Gawd…. the “solution” is a complete moron who is behind any number of idiotic crusades.

    Let me know when Granny Bloomberg gets off her composting hobby horse and does something no-nonsense and effective about something that actually matters like the illiteracy rate.

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-most-nyc-high-school-grads-need-remedial-help-before-entering-cuny-community-colleges/

    When is he going to start shaming the proles into studying harder?

    Tarl

    June 19, 2013 at 12:41 pm

  9. Fantastic essay, Lion. This why I keep coming to this site.

    As for Bloomberg, the only problem with him running for President is that he hasn’t been elected to statewide office yet. If he is serious about running for the Presidency, he should run for Governor of New York or as a Senator from New York.

    Jay

    June 19, 2013 at 12:56 pm

  10. People don’t have to be “conservative-Christian types” to think that abortion is baby-killing, and to dislike baby-killing intensely.

    Zarf

    June 19, 2013 at 12:59 pm

  11. I like Akerlof’s argument for this, which can be found here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof

    His basic thesis is that the decrease in shotgun weddings (men marrying the woman in case of pregnancy) is the biggest reason for the increase in out-of-wedlock births. It’s not just fundamentalist Christian talk. The data (at least through the first decades of abortion) shows that “although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of “shotgun marriages.”

    I think most of his conclusions are actually in-line with manosphere thinking:

    “The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships.

    Advances in reproductive technology eroded the custom of shotgun marriage in another way. Before the sexual revolution, women had less freedom, but men were expected to assume responsibility for their welfare. Today women are more free to choose, but men have afforded themselves the comparable option. “If she is not willing to have an abortion or use contraception,” the man can reason, “why should I sacrifice myself to get married?” By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.”

    If “sexual activity without commitment” became the norm, then one could even argue that abortion was much more beneficial for men than it was for women.

    MCUOfficial

    June 19, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    • But what about the “shotgun” part of shotgun wedding? what do you think has stopped the practice of the girl’s dad and brothers kicking the cad’s face in?

      anon anon

      June 19, 2013 at 7:03 pm

      • Increasing beta behavior out of men.

        ScarletNumber

        June 19, 2013 at 10:53 pm

  12. Many people also blame, in part, the high cost of weddings. Women get pregnant, and plan to get married, but want to delay it so they can have the right wedding (which is expensive). Then the kid and the rest of their life costs money, so they don’t have the wedding. Then in many cases, the guy wanders off.

    GMR

    June 19, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    • Someone really needs to lobby against expensive weddings.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 19, 2013 at 1:15 pm

      • In India, people have been lobbying against expensive weddings for many years (unsuccessfully). The rich want to flaunt their wealth, and the poor want to mimic them. When the rich decide that simple weddings are “cool,” the proles and peasants will simplify their weddings too.

        Blog Raju

        June 19, 2013 at 5:22 pm

    • I watch a ton of classic movies (pre-code, 40’s, 50’s) mostly and weddings are so much more simple than the ridiculousness that pervades our society today.

      uatu

      June 19, 2013 at 5:34 pm

      • In the old days weddings were a license to have sex, so you can imagine how important the actual ceremony was, and how quickly the bridge and groom wanted to get away from their friends and relatives so they could Do It. Nowadays people usually get married long after the initial sexual fever in the relationship has passed. Having sex on your wedding night isn’t that big a deal – so people overcompensate with 3-4 day long expensive affairs to try add some consequence to what has become a fairly meaningless ritual.

        Peter the Shark

        June 20, 2013 at 4:07 am

  13. The correlation with the rise of birth control is really the only one that matters. You had one generation with some cultural inertia in favor of marriage, followed by a sudden and dramatic decline in marriage, and an equally sudden and dramatic increase in divorce and out of wedlock children. All the other reasons went into affect after the trend started to try to take some of the edge off, but decoupling sex from marriage via birth control set the whole things off.

    Jefferson

    June 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm

  14. Children out of wedlock doesn’t mean that the father is not around. I know lot of couples who are not married and have children. But still they have lived decades together just like any family. I live in scandinavia though. I don’t know how common this is then in US.

    tmmm

    June 19, 2013 at 1:33 pm

    • That’s still “marriage”, though, just a common law marriage. Historically, this has been how most folks have been married. The State and the Church were uninvolved in formalizing marriage for much of human history.

      What is different in the US is boyfriend churn. These unmarried woman go through boyfriends like fat chicks go through large size bags of dorritos (and a lot of them do both!).

      Buzzcut

      June 19, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    • I think Buzzcut had it right. From everything I’ve read about the decline of marriage in the Scandinavian countries, there are still long term relationships with traditional parental roles. For the children, there isn’t much difference between that and a legal marriage. In those countries that are based on English common law, that would be a common law marriage. After a certain period of time, shacking up becomes a marriage in the eyes of the law.

      In the US, in an out of wedlock birth, the dad is usually gone within a year or two of the birth so the woman is at square one in getting and keeping a man, over and over again.

      Mike

      June 19, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    • Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Finland have the lowest rate of single mother households in the world, despite having a relatively high on-paper out of wedlock birthrate?

      And no, I’d say this scenario isn’t common in the US. The people having children out of wedlock here tend to live less stable lives, generally speaking. And couples who live together before marrying are far more likely to divorce, once married, even when you adjust for attitudes about marriage, education level, etc.. Not sure if that is the case in Scandinavia.

      islandmommy

      June 19, 2013 at 7:25 pm

      • That’s the people of color doing most of that…

        JayMan

        June 19, 2013 at 10:24 pm

      • “That’s the people of color doing most of that…”

        Yes and no. When broken down by education level (a college degree being the barometer), the single mother rate of whites is very small, about 10%, and chances are some of those women are the “single mother by choice” variety (financially comfortable women having children by donor sperm). Yet for white women without a college degree, the single mother rate is 60%, which is higher than hispanics and almost as high as blacks. Those are household rates, not “marriage on paper rates.”

        It would be interesting to see how many of those white single mothers had their children with men of other races. The single mother featured in the nytimes article on this topic (“Two Classes Divided by I Do”) had her children with a black man (or black men plural, I can’t remember).

        islandmommy

        June 20, 2013 at 7:02 am

      • “Yet for white women without a college degree, the single mother rate is 60%, which is higher than hispanics and almost as high as blacks. Those are household rates, not ‘marriage on paper rates.'”

        Interesting. What is your source?

        JayMan

        June 21, 2013 at 10:02 am

  15. Lion —

    As for your view of abortion, you need to take Russia into consideration. According to recent figures, there are approximately 2 abortions per live birth there, which is something like six times the US rate. The USSR was the first nation in the world to legalize abortion in the 1920s and they also have a right of out-of-wedlock childbearing.

    Dan

    June 19, 2013 at 2:03 pm

  16. Check out out-of-wedlock childbearing across different countries.

    http://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF2.4_Births%20outside%20marriage%20and%20teenage%20births%20-%20updated%20240212.pdf

    Tons and tons of liberal, abortiony countries have much higher out-of-wedlock rates then the US, which is only in the middle of the back, in spite of US demographic diversity.

    Dan

    June 19, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    • Japan and Korea, where there are no Christians, have super-low out-of-wedlock birth rates. So Christianity is obviously causing the problem.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      • ***Korea, where there are no Christians***

        Uhh….

        Samson

        June 19, 2013 at 3:23 pm

      • “Of the South Korean population in 2005, 46.5% were classified as Irreligious, 22.8% were Buddhist, 29.2% were Christians (18.3% are Protestants and 10.9% were Catholics), and the rest adhered to various minority religions including Jeung San Do, Daesun Jinrihoe, Cheondoism, Taoism, Confucianism and Won Buddhism. A smaller minority of Koreans also professed Islam.[1]”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Korea

        bobo

        June 19, 2013 at 3:26 pm

      • Yeah, Lion really whiffed that one.

        Half Canadian

        June 19, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      • Actually Korea is slowly succumbing to that disease too. There are more and more people who become unwed mothers.

        Korean women are little different from Western women, and many men who could never attract other Korean women seek mates from Southeast Asia (whose residents were treated like non-Asian minority in North America till only a few years ago).

        Japan has more social pressures against ‘going against the norm’, and it never had a stigma against abortion (indeed the government believed in ZPG even during the 18th century and state-run abortion mills were everywhere). But I do notice it also has more teen mothers and unwed births, particularly in the lower classes.

        Colmainen

        June 19, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      • Whiffed big. Asian Christians are the most gung ho Christians I know.

        asdf

        June 19, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      • Koreans are very much like Republican Americans. The dudes tend to make macho and unafraid of confrontation. They have lots of pride and are willing to die to live in shame with dishonor. The dudes have an even higher rate of circumcision than American dudes. There’s also a high incidence of domestic violence that’s kept hush hush and the father husband is the ruler of the family unit. I think compulsory military in South Korea causes Korean dudes acting very much like religious right dudes from Texas.

        bobo

        June 20, 2013 at 5:19 am

  17. before i even read the comments, just want to say, excellent post lion! you are getting back in top form.

    rivsdiary

    June 19, 2013 at 2:26 pm

  18. also, off topic, this guy talks about what you talk about, the winner take all economy. i think he mentions value transference too. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/jaron_lanier_the_internet_destroyed_the_middle_class/

    rivsdiary

    June 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm

  19. the more social benefits we give to single moms, the more single moms we get. it’s a clear case of increasing incentives and rewarding a specific behavior.

    with the system we have now, women can fuck all the alphas they want, then have his baby, have the “victim” drama and glorification when he disappears, and then have the state — meaning beta men — pay for the alpha baby, without the hassle of actually having to deal with and compromise with a husband.

    women are essentially children, and they are acting like kids in a candy store, because no one is stopping them or shaming them. in fact, like i said, they are being encouraged and glorified for their slutty, irresponsible behavior.

    rivsdiary

    June 19, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    • “they are being encouraged and glorified for their slutty, irresponsible behavior”

      Even by Christians who laud them for the courage of not having an abortion and choosing life (as if it requires courage to live off welfare).

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 19, 2013 at 2:36 pm

      • Find me a conservative Christian who lauds women for keeping their bastards.
        Laud them for putting the kids up for adoption? Sure. Being a single mom? Haven’t heard it.

        Half Canadian

        June 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm

      • HC; didn’t the Bristol Palin example work for you?

        uatu

        June 19, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    • One of the problems is that we’ve arbitrarily conflated human control of reproduction with female control. The debate in the country is almost entirely between those who want to leave matters to nature/god and those who want to give control to women despite the fact that both those positions lead to intolerable outcomes.

      reynald

      June 19, 2013 at 9:27 pm

  20. Bloomberg and Rubio are on the same page when it comes to immigration: the more poor, unskilled people they can invite into the country, the better. For Bloomberg, it means a steady supply of docile workers to keep the greens watered at his golf club. He doesn’t worry about what happens when those workers have kids who, as Jason DeParle noted don’t want to do their parents’ menial jobs and don’t have the skills to get better ones.

    Bloomberg doesn’t care because he can use gentrification plus aggressive policing to push the poor out of NYC. But those people are still in the US. Bloomberg’s policies don’t work on the national level.

    Dave Pinsen

    June 19, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    • In the unlikely event that there’s a strong anti-immigration candidate, I will vote for him or her.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 19, 2013 at 2:37 pm

      • I would have voted for Romney had I believed him when he claimed he’d deport all the illegals.

        Jan Smuts

        June 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    • Bloomberg actually pretends to like non-Asian minorities, unlike Guiliani who comes off as a person who doesn’t. Bloomberg is a Republican version of Chicago’s Rahm Emmanuel. Jews at least did show sympathy towards Blacks in the past, where as Italians did not. This being said, Bloomberg will not be the guy who initiates any moves to eliminate the undesirables out of NYC, like the ruthless house cleaning that we witnessed during the Giuliani days.

      Gentrification in Manhattan will not push Blacks and Hispanics out of NYC. At least 1/2 of Manhattan’s land belongs to them (via housing projects).

      JS

      June 19, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      • Giuliani was indeed the most Alpha mayor in the 20th century of any big American city has ever witnessed. He was the only city bureaucrat that went against anybody who dared cross his policies, and his offensive on crime was not only the most hardcore, but the most impeccable. Police brutality towards non-Asian minorities was at its heyday during his reign, and his clamp down on them was indeed the Gestapo of NYC. Just look up the Million Youth March involving Black Separatists and how Giuliani took care of them, and his firm stranglehold of all the Hispanic gangs that plagued the streets.

        Bloomberg is only riding the coattails of his legacy. He soft polices of Boboism could in fact undo what this great mayor has done. Again, Bloomie is demo at heart, not a real Republican.

        JS

        June 19, 2013 at 9:29 pm

  21. Also, marriage rates are low. Therefore, there are more children born out of wedlock. The concept of marriage is becoming obsolete. Scandanavia has super high rates of couples co-habiting long-term mostly because in their minds, getting married is just some stupid piece of paper that leads to drama when it comes to possibly nullify that piece of paper.

    bobo

    June 19, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    • Which explains why it is SOOOO important that gays be allowed to marry.
      Actually, when marriage doesn’t matter, why does it matter how its defined?

      Half Canadian

      June 19, 2013 at 4:05 pm

      • Exactly. The gay marriage “thing” is motivated by homosexual self-hatred. They need acceptance because they can’t accept themselves.

        I’m no homophobe. Gay men, at least, seem to be very “good people”, but…the gay man or lesbian is like a midget or a mute IMHO.

        It all follows from the “post-Christian” denial of disability and inferiorty.

        Post-Christian and post-socialist MUST DENY that some are SIMPLY inferior.

        Jan Smuts

        June 19, 2013 at 7:43 pm

      • Gay marriage lobbyists should organize door to door campaigns in neighborhoods with high rates of single mother households. They can share statistics on the importance of marriage and lecture single moms on the socio-economic perils their offspring will face. They could also run the inner-city school circuit doing presentations and awareness programs about the value of 2 parent households.

        islandmommy

        June 19, 2013 at 8:18 pm

      • Right Half Canadian. Its far too easy to get divorced, but the ultimate problem is the culture.

        The divorce rate in Italy is basically zero, but my bet is many more still married husbands and wives live apart permanently.

        Jan Smuts

        June 20, 2013 at 5:07 pm

  22. Why is single motherhood / unmarried mothers a problem?
    I thought women were independent!
    For the past 2 generations feminists have told us:
    “A women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”

    I think the “solution” is to let women get what they deserve. Let them live their life according to the principles they have preached so loudly and if it means a life of poverty so be it. When they see the error of their ways and admit to it, then we can have a discussion of what to do next. In the meantime it is my job to sit back from a safe distance.

    Ode

    June 19, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    • If they’re childless, sure. When children are born, these problems tend to extend beyond their lives.

      Half Canadian

      June 19, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    • Blah, blah, blah…

      The problem isn’t women or feminazis or male chauvinist pigs.

      THE PROBLEM IS CIVILIZATION.

      Jan Smuts

      June 19, 2013 at 7:46 pm

    • The main reason it’s a problem is that two incomes is now usually necessary for a middle class life. Only 6% of individuals make > 100,000 but about a third of two income households make > 100,000.

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:10 pm

  23. Lion, I would like to know if proles pose a serious problem in the evolution of America.

    JS

    June 19, 2013 at 3:03 pm

  24. “This blog seems to attract a lot of conservative-Christian types, and they seem to be blind to the damage being caused by the Christian Right’s anti-abortion crusade.”

    Zzzzzz. Your blog is becoming a must-not-read

    “For starters, anyone with common sense, and no preconceived notion about abortion being a great evil equivalent to murder or racism…”

    Wait murder is equivalent to murder? Shocking.

    I like to see you articulate what your prohibition against murder is philosophically based on. I’d be willing to bet its shocking flimsy.

    Lion of the Turambar

    June 19, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    • Abortion is not equivalent to murder, and even “pro-life” people don’t really act like it is. If abortion is murder then pro-lifers should be calling for the prosecution and jailing of any woman who has an abortion, yet very few pro-lifers will take that step.

      Peter the Shark

      June 20, 2013 at 4:12 am

  25. There are also cultural reasons. If you are middle class or higher, it is NOT PROPER to marry before _both_ spouses have graduated college, or before you have been “dating” for *at least* a year, at the bare minimum. I don’t have any data to confirm this, but here are some representative examples.

    -The boyfriend is a senior in college, girlfriend is a sophomore. Boyfriend graduates and starts working. They don’t *marry* until she completes her Masters, five years later. But they’ve been living together whenever possible, monogamously, and generally functioning as a household the entire time. This is a bit of an extreme example, but exemplifies the overall fact of UMC twentysomethings basically living as a married couple until some landmark event (usually an advanced degree) occurs in their life.

    -A smart handsome military officer has been dating a smart beautiful girl for four months and is deployed for a year. She sticks around Now it’s four months after he gets back, and both of these people, who are completely compatible, have spent nearly two years in a relationship without getting married. They’re (or at least the guy, I don’t know her that well) literally just waiting for it to not seem weird for them to tell everyone they want to get married, *and then* they’re going to get engaged, *and then* of course it will take at least another six months for them to actually be married. Notice that this is basically Susan Walsh’s story: she and her husband decided to get married, and then basically did, but they had to wait a socially acceptable period of time before acknowledging their relationship. If they didn’t, everyone would automatically assume that they were either dangerously impulsive, religious fanatics, or both (NOT COOL).

    Why is this a problem? Because the middle class people who’ve been through this absurd mating dance can’t tell the proles that superficially similar practices are bad, since that would be _hypocrisy_, one of the cardinal sins. Some of them may even be naive enough to believe the similarities aren’t just superficial.

    ivvenalis

    June 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm

    • Six month engagement? Lol, in Kansas it’s more like two years. I swear, people here are engaged longer than they date before they get engaged.

      cannibal

      June 19, 2013 at 11:44 pm

  26. Frankly speaking there are also less reasons for men to marry too. Divorces are expensive. There is always the danger that the woman might have someone else’s child, and in many states the husband has to pay no matter what. The cost of wedding is another matter as well.

    Not marrying the mother of the child reduces a lot of these dangers.

    Colmainen

    June 19, 2013 at 5:06 pm

  27. Lionidas:
    “1. Economic reasons: (a) increasing income for women; (b) declining income for men; (c) welfare.
    2. Bobo nonjudgmentalism
    3. The Christian Right’s anti-abortion crusade.”

    You’re right on #1 and #2, but whiffing on #3. Sex education doesn’t have much to do with teen pregnancy rates once you control for race and other social factors. The link between abortion and bastardy is tenuous, and there is evidence supporting both positive and negative correlations, so this issue is still open to interpretation. Your own link shows that birth rates were dropping before abortion was legalized, so the availability of abortion can’t be the causative reason for the secular decline in birth rates.

    The theory behind abortion + contraceptives = more single moms is not that complicated: They’re cheat codes that circumvent the socializing and normalizing force of marriage by severing the link between sex and procreation. It’s entirely conceivable that a culture with plenty of abortion and contraception might encourage more extramarital and premarital sexual activity, and discourage marriage. Before this severing, women faced a very real fear of pregnancy from any screwing around they did, and this fear likely acted as a brake on their impulses. When the braking system occasionally failed, shotgun marriages stepped in and filled the void.

    Now it may well be that when everything is tallied, legal abortion has had a mild eugenic effect since it was introduced. Or, more precisely, it’s had a mild anti-dysgenic effect, alleviating an even worse dysgenic trend that would result in the absence of legal abortion. But the question is far from being adequately answered.

    just another arid, sexless upper class marriage necessitating mistresses and pulp romance

    June 19, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    • Interesting name. I suppose the truth that LotB and his commenters don’t understand: it’s not that women are turned on by a rich man, it’s that they’re turned off by a poor man.

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm

  28. I think the Christian Right’s influence on abortion is far smaller than you seem to think. Many years ago I worked in social services and one of my jobs was interviewing newly pregnant women who had applied for Medicaid coverage for maternity care and delivery. Medicaid covered far more people for that than as a traditional healthcare coverage for the poor.

    Only a tiny minority who got to that point to sign up for services actually got rid of their babies, but those who did were usually older, if not professionals, at least had decent jobs, but couldn’t face up to the prospect of raising a child alone. The ones who kept them? Teens, drop-outs, and general dummies who had no idea what they were in for or needed kids as a gateway to services and a life of never having to work.

    Mike

    June 19, 2013 at 5:24 pm

  29. “Men just want women to look hot”

    Not true of any man I’ve ever known, but some women do get off on being inferior. It’s gross.

    In Scandinavia, but to a smaller extent in the US, the “bastard” may be the “legitimate” child of a so-called “common-law” marriage. I’ve known one UPMC couple and one bobo couple like this. The sanction of the state or the church for the relationship is considered irrelevant.

    Jan Smuts

    June 19, 2013 at 5:30 pm

  30. One point you are missing has been the rising divorce rate. A huge percentage of children born to married parents, see there parents divorced before they grow up. Children who grow up with divorced parents tend to see much less value in the institution of marriage as the core of the family.

    If men and women are going to change partners several times during a typical life span, then marriage just gets in the way. A divorce can be very expensive, usually for the man, but sometimes for the women too.

    People who grew up with divorced parents, and saw what they went through, may well think that not getting married is a better option.

    One interesting question is how many women are “living” with the child’s father at the time of birth?

    mikeca

    June 19, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    • It also hasn’t been mentioned that serial monogamy is more “natural” for human beings than life time monogamy. This isn’t just of men.

      Humans lived in bands of 75 or fewer for most of the species’s history. The village/band DID raise the children.

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:18 pm

      • Serial monogamy wasn’t the norm in ancient India – monogamy was. There is no discussion of socially normalized serial monogamy in ancient Indian texts. I suspect you’d find the same if you looked at Ancient China. Not sure about Ancient Greece but I suspect you’d find the same there – you know, the advanced ancient civilizations, not the primitive tribes.

        shiva1008

        June 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm

  31. None of this is new it’s why patriarchy was formed initially.

    The Garbage Generation by Daniel Amneus explains it well.

    http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

    Conquistador

    June 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm

  32. Let me point something out. “Gender equality” in industrialized societies measures not merely equalization of earning power (the fact that women can do many factory or office jobs about as well as men), but the forced redistribution of economic resources from men to women outside the institution of marriage. “Welfare” payments nearly all go to women but they are financed more by men (partly because women are eligible to collect welfare payments in the name of children and men mostly aren’t, and partly thanks to progressive taxation interacting with the fact that while both men and women can do low level jobs, the higher up you go, the more the women fall by the wayside for genetic reasons). So when we say any industrialized country has more gender equality, we are saying it has a more complex and pervasive taxation-and-redistribution scheme which is biased toward women. You can check this using measurements of welfare-statism and reading back toward gender bias and find the correlation is the same no matter which angle you approach the question from. So while industrialization and the equalization of opportunities for men and women to earn a living from solo work plays a big part in the decline of marriage (and indeed, the decline of the birthrate among the more intelligent, as women substitute the joys of accomplishment at work for those of motherhood), the influence of welfare state policy also looms large. At least part of the marriage crisis could be addressed simply by getting the government to stop subsidizing (only) single motherhood. Never-married and no-fault-divorced moms should be ineligible for subsidies. Only widows and adjudicated victims of serious spousal crimes should get welfare (yes, this means “the children would suffer,” except they wouldn’t, because mothers wouldn’t get many children into such a situation without the incentive of government payments for single-motherhood).

    Just the Facts

    June 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    • And while the US is circling the drain, Scandinavia is doing fine. Why?

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      • Because they have a lot of wealth from natural resources for a small population.

        shiva1008

        June 22, 2013 at 3:44 pm

  33. Check it out: Japan has nearly the highest labor-force participation rate for women, including mothers, but still doesn’t have “gender equality” because men earn much more on average. A decade ago, Japan intentionally reformed its welfare scheme to discourage divorce by cutting welfare payments to divorced moms. Most Japanese subsidies to poor children go to intact nuclear families. Source http://japanfocus.org/-Fujiwara-Chisa/2623

    Just the Facts

    June 19, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    • Americans stop their ears when they hear other countries (all other developed countries) are less shitty than their “city on a hill”.

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:21 pm

  34. Don’t fully agree with your abotion logic.

    Remember, advocates of the pill said it would lead to less abortions. It lead to more.
    Then the advocates of abortion said it would lead to less bastards. It lead to more.

    Not to say that I’m anti-abortion (especially if it eliminates “future criminals”), but the whole sexual/social dynamic is a slippery slope that we’ve slipped to the bottom of.

    fakeemail

    June 19, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    • And ever obedient girls graduate from college at a higher rate, though in useless subjects more frequently.

      But the problem isn’t feminism, per se. It is rather that women understand themselves in a way which has been handed down to them. A ruggedly masculine, but not pimply boy, society would have a role for women.

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:24 pm

  35. I see Bloomberg is also a voice of reason on letting the NYPD use racial descriptions when reporting crime suspects. Blacks on the city council are trying to pass another “racial profiling” ban which will only increase crime rates back to the Dinkins era in NYC.

    Bernie

    June 19, 2013 at 7:30 pm

  36. Not surprisingly, some of the other most-gender-equal nations, Norway and Sweden, also have a very high percentage of births to unmarried women.

    Those countries have high rates of what sociologists call virtual marriage where officially ummarried couples behave in ways indistinguishable from married ones. My impression is that for all of the nordic countries’ feminist rhetoric and policies their general commitment to both the men and the women of their working classes has prevented the emergence of the kind of male obsolescence and marginalization that plagues the bottom 60% of the US population.

    reynald

    June 19, 2013 at 9:31 pm

  37. LotB and I have previously disagreed over whether there’s a stigma to premarital sex, illegitimacy, etc. I think there’s a reduced stigma because they’re not the scandal they once were. Neither is divorce. But there’s still a stigma. Just as there’s a stigma to being an alcoholic, drug addict, obese, etc.No one is ever proud of it. And in spite of well-wishers many think the same thing — whore.

    Regardless, the reduced stigma is a result of the reduced risks of pregnancy. Just like anything else, if you reduce the cost of an activity more people will buy it. It follows that the more people do something the less stigmatized it becomes. Since birth control lowers the risks of illegitimacy it increases the rate of premarital sex and lessens the stigma to those caught with their pants down..

    In this case, there’s a lot more premarital sex now than before the pill and abortion. But the illegitimacy rate is roughly the same. So have birth control and abortion really reduced illegitimacy? No. So what have they done? Increased fornication and divorce and reduced fertility for the brightest segments of the population.

    Now, LotB wants to criticize those who criticize birth control and abortion. He thinks he’s socially shrewd. Yet he fails to distinguish between my views and others’ behavior. Now, my views will influence my family’s behavior which is a good thing. But they won’t influence others’ behavior. If that were the case they wouldn’t be whoring around in the first place.

    destructure

    June 19, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    • Birth control isn’t going to disappear.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 19, 2013 at 9:54 pm

    • Wait, so all of your bullshit about people always making the rational decision for themselves and how the best outcome for society is just every individual doing as they please is entirely limited to the economic sphere?

      reynald

      June 19, 2013 at 9:59 pm

      • Those would be excellent points if I’d ever said either of those things. But since I haven’t they’re straw men. Also, you should learn the difference between voicing an opinion and using the power of the state to impose it on others.

        destructure

        June 19, 2013 at 11:49 pm

      • In all of our conversations I proposed numerous examples where I think that group and individual interests conflict or where people fail to rationally pursue their own individual interests. You accepted only one of the former (free trade where you also advocated government intervention) and not a single case of the latter.

        I also didnt say anything about you contradicting yourself as to the role of government.

        reynald

        June 20, 2013 at 12:55 am

      • In all of our conversations I proposed numerous examples where I think that group and individual interests conflict or where people fail to rationally pursue their own individual interests.

        Good for you.

        You accepted only one of the former (free trade where you also advocated government intervention) and not a single case of the latter.

        Actually, I considered three of your suggestions — limitations on free trade, limitations on immigration and making birth control a condition of receiving welfare. I rejected lowering the number of hours an employee is allowed to work and giving tax benefits for employing people. If you’d like to discuss why some of your suggestions are reasonable and others not we can.

        I also didnt say anything about you contradicting yourself as to the role of government.

        I never said you did. I said, “YOU should learn the difference between voicing an opinion and using the power of the state to impose it on others.”

        destructure

        June 20, 2013 at 4:08 pm

      • destructure doesn’t really believe anything reynald. The “Oh, but you misquoted me” bs is typical.

        Jan Smuts

        June 20, 2013 at 5:29 pm

  38. Why would anyone expect that giving women more control over whether or not they give birth would make men more likely to be committed to their children? I can see why you expect women to be. But it is very difficult to argue that men should be committed to children they don’t want when women with unwanted children can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption.

    reynald

    June 19, 2013 at 9:55 pm

  39. The fertility rate in those Scandinavian countries is also much higher than it is in Japan. So…

    JayMan

    June 19, 2013 at 9:57 pm

  40. there are some good points made here but i feel that lion is committed to abortion as an unalloyed good. steve sailer has written a lot about abortion and provides a number of interesting stats to make his points. here is what i found from sailer’s articles using google:

    1) going back to the abortion-cut-crime theory: there is evidence that legalized abortion directly contributed to the decline in marriage rates. here is sailer:

    “Why did the abortion rate and the illegitimacy rate both skyrocket during the ‘70s? Isn’t abortion supposed to cut illegitimacy? Roe largely finished off the traditional shotgun wedding by persuading the impregnating boyfriend that he had no moral duty to make an honest woman of his girlfriend since she could get an abortion. The CDC noted, “Among women aged 15–29 years conceiving a first birth before marriage during 1970–74, nearly half (49 percent) married before the child was born. By 1975–79 the proportion marrying before the birth of the child fell to 32 percent, and it has declined to 23 percent in 1990–94.”

    http://www.amconmag.com/articles/pre-emptive-executions/

    2) I have also posed the question whether voluntary abortion is dysgenic because only smarter women have the future time orientation to think to abort. lion seems to think that because smarter people are far less likely to accidentally get pregnant, and while that may well be true of the top quartile of IQ (who have suppressed birthrates for many other reasons) it seems less true of the bottom 75% and certainly less true of the bottom 50%. freedom to choose means freedom to make bad decisions. again, here is sailer (quoting from a commenter):

    “I am surprised that there isn’t more research examining the predictors of abortion. I wonder if academics avoid it because the truth takes away from the “Cider House Rules” myth of abortion-users being incest victims. What little research I can find portrays abortion as a choice of an economically-minded woman. … Kathy Trent looked at 500,000 pregnancies and found that risk of abortion rises with education among single women… She did find that, whereas unmarried blacks keep their babies more than unmarried whites, married black women are more likely to get an abortion than married whites. Trent suggests that married black women are more likely to be breadwinners than married whites–babies get in the way of bringing home the bacon. These findings do not seem consistent with Levitt’s assumption that abortions are concentrated among those people most likely to produce criminals. […]

    Second, analysts, I being one, have tended to overestimate the selection effects associated with abortion. A careful examination of studies of pregnancy resolution reveals that women who abort are at lower risk of having children with criminal propensities than women of similar age, race and marital status who instead carried to term. For instance, in an early study of teens in Ventura County, California between 1972 and 1974, researchers demonstrated that pregnant teens with better grades, more completed schooling, and not on public assistance were much more likely to abort than their poorer, less academically oriented counterparts (Leibowitz, Eisen, and Chow 1986).

    Studies based on data from the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) make the same point (Michael 2000; Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders 1999). Indeed, Hotz, McElroy, and Sanders (1999) found that teens who abort are similar along observed characteristics to teens that were never pregnant, both of whom differ significantly from pregnant teens that spontaneously abort or carry to term.

    Nor is favorable selection limited to teens. Unmarried women that abort have more completed schooling and higher AFQT [the military’s IQ test for applicants for enlistment] scores than their counterparts that carry the pregnancy to term (Powell-Griner and Trent 1987; Currie, Nixon, and Cole 1995).

    In sum, legalized abortion has improved the lives of many women by allowing them to avoid an unwanted birth. I found little evidence to suggest, however, that the legalization of abortion had an appreciable effect on the criminality of subsequent cohorts.”

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-facts-undermining-freakonomics.html

    lion of the lionosphere

    June 19, 2013 at 10:09 pm

    • ABortion is the smart choice for an unmarried woman.

      But because smart women are good at avoiding getting pregnant in the first place if they don’t want to, stupid women are disproportionately represented among women who get abortions.

      Don’t believe what you read in conservative propaganda, which is based on belief that abortion is Evil #1 rather than a dispassionate analysis of the facts.

      • You haven’t presented any data or facts, you’ve just proposed the existence of an effect and an explanation for that effect you personally find plausible.

        reynald

        June 20, 2013 at 12:43 am

      • Speaking of faith-based interpretations – you aren’t responding to the substance of what was posted (sailer’s comments), just restating what you already believe to be true. The data points to a high liklihood that the stupidest of the stupid are the ones having babies and any striver is having the abortion. This is dysgenic. Also, there is evidence that abortion directly contributed to the decline in marriage rates,before income equality could take hold. But by all means, let’s speculate wildly on why this could not be the case.

        lion of the lionosphere

        June 20, 2013 at 8:02 am

      • You’re missing the fact that the stupidest of the stupidest are a lot more likely to get accidentally pregnant in the first place and therefore need an abortion. High-IQ women rarely get pregnant by accident. I am SURE that the average potential IQ of an aborted fetus is less than the population average.

        Did you know that non-Hispanic white women accounted for only 36% of abortions in 2008? 42% of women having abortions had income below the federal poverty level.? http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 20, 2013 at 9:08 am

      • LOTB, in the guttmacher report you link it shows that the number of college-degreed women getting abortions has increased from 2000 to 2008. this suggests that there is a dysgenic effect associated with abortion that is beginning to occur which may counteract any potential eugenic effect. now you will say that the women getting college degrees probably don’t deserve them, but the fact that they are able to grind through four years (minimum) indicates they have the future time orientation so beloved of HBDers.

        also, you have been proven wrong in your rather bigoted assertion that christianity, the religion of europe during its rise to world greatness, is “causing the problem” of single momhood. Korea is 30% Christian and they don’t experience nearly the same dysfunction that white Americans experience. it is common knowledge that you are jewish, correct? perhaps you should reflect a little on why you have this knee-jerk distaste for christianity. the emotions that well up in you when you muse on jesus’s flock may not be so rational after all.

        just another arid, sexless upper class marriage necessitating mistresses and pulp romance

        June 20, 2013 at 10:50 am

      • The number of young people with college degrees have increased, as I recently blogged about. So that’s why their share of abortions have increased.

        We live in an era when even proles go to college, so it’s not as exclusive a club as it once was. “JWOWW” from the Jersey Shore has a college degree. No doubt it’s the less intelligent college graduates who are getting accidentally pregnant, not the Harvard graduates.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 20, 2013 at 2:21 pm

      • “You’re missing the fact that the stupidest of the stupidest are a lot more likely to get accidentally pregnant in the first place and therefore need an abortion. High-IQ women rarely get pregnant by accident. I am SURE that the average potential IQ of an aborted fetus is less than the population average.”

        But those same stupid women are going to get pregnant again soon enough and carry to term. Abortion isn’t keeping down “stupid people” birthrates and it certainly isn’t containing out of wedlock births (except among high IQ and MC/ UPC women).

        “Did you know that non-Hispanic white women accounted for only 36% of abortions in 2008? 42% of women having abortions had income below the federal poverty level.?”

        Yet they still manage to reproduce copiously while fertility rates remain inverse to IQ and education. One’s moral view of birth control and abortion aside– the fact remains that both have a dysgenic effect on fertility rates.

        islandmommy

        June 20, 2013 at 11:12 am

      • Birth rates have been declining for all demographic groups.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 20, 2013 at 2:20 pm

  41. I owe this insight to Charles Murray’s book Coming Apart.

    Actually, he owes his book to you since he swiped so much material about proles from your paws.

    But today this is no longer considered acceptable. One is not allowed to shame women for being “sluts” or call kids bastards if they are born to an unmarried woman.

    We need more cultural incentives to prevent the white lower classes from misbehaving. Prole drift is now affecting middle class and even UMC whites. We can see this now with the tattoo epidemic.

    I used to be a libertarian on social issues, but now I realize cultural conservatism has an evolutionary foundation that keeps weaker willed whites from slipping off the rails. The bobo whites don’t realize those less intelligent than them are not intelligent enough to be allowed complete social autonomy.

    The Christian Right’s anti-abortion crusade

    The Christian Right has made zero progress stemming abortion (which I, as a moderate eugenicist, am pleased about). Anti-abortion campaigning is used strictly to turnout the GOP base. The Yuppie-Preppie Republicans don’t care about the issue. The country club GOP is focused on economic issues. Our mission must be to convert them to biorealism as we have successfully done with James Taranto, Coulter, and others.

    The solution: Mayor Bloomberg

    Classic Lion troll bait.

    I’m afraid though few commenters latched on to it.

    We’re onto yer schemes, Lion…

    The Undiscovered Jew

    June 19, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    • which I, as a moderate eugenicist, am pleased about

      What are some eugenics related policies that you find too extreme?

      reynald

      June 20, 2013 at 12:57 am

      • Turkmenistan is practicing eugenics today. Is that where KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN came from? Ricardo Montalban as a Paki.

        Jan Smuts

        June 20, 2013 at 5:35 pm

      • Should have been KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

        Khan was the result of a eugenics campaign (in Pakistan I suppose).

        Jan Smuts

        June 20, 2013 at 5:36 pm

      • What are some eugenics related policies that you find too extreme?

        Forcible sterilization of anyone except, maybe, criminals. Also would oppose killing for the purposes of eugenics. I generally prefer giving incentives to get sterilized.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 20, 2013 at 9:59 pm

  42. While people have mentioned the pill and gender equality, I don’t think anyone has connected the two. The Pill ushered in women’s lib. Females could delay pregnancy/marriage, go to school, start a career. It also meant they could sleep around, and here’s where small changes can lead to big differences. You do not need 90% of women on birth control to make men less commitment-oriented. Anyway, this is consistent with Marx’s insight that technology drives history.

    Vince, the Lionhearted

    June 19, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    • Yes! That was Marx’s greatest insight. The history of the world IS the history of techne, not the history of ideas or politics and war.

      AND, female sexuality in the civilized world is totally f—ed up. Go back 10k years and they behaved a lot more like gay men. In some tribes they still do!

      Jan Smuts

      June 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm

  43. NOOOO they are becoming desensitized to the stigma. TURN UP THE DIAL

    .

    June 20, 2013 at 1:16 am

  44. Down with the bobos, judge judge judge

    .

    June 20, 2013 at 1:18 am

  45. GO JAPAN

    .

    June 20, 2013 at 1:20 am

  46. Christians need to realize that abortion is thrown in their faces as an eff-you. They vote against this eff you.

    What Christians needs to realize is that the vast majority of abortions are committed by democrats. Democrats need to produce fewer children. Abortion does just that. Christians should be okay with that. It means fewer democrats in the future.

    Christians also need to realize that Democrats are not worthy of Bible teaching so they are not objects upon which the lord’s grace operates. After all, one does not cast pearls before swine.

    To address Sailer’s issue, abortion should be mandatory.

    map

    June 20, 2013 at 3:35 am

  47. Lion,

    Abortion is first an act of self-annihilation. The female, literally, kills a part of herself. So when one says that they “believe” in abortion then they are telling the world that they believe in female self-annihilation. Alt-righters for some inexplicable reason “believe” they can run to their stats? And so it gets even deeper when we talk about nerdy “white boys” who “believe” in abortion. They run to their to stats. Again. But alas, they must confront the consequence of their self-annihilating advocacy. If you can’t even define marriage — or better yet, think “marriage” is the stuff of Secular State — then who is really a “bastard?”

    If it was perfectly acceptable for your mother to have perpetrated an act of self-annihilation somewhere around 1 second to 9 months after YOUR conception, what has you “believe” that your thoughts on maintaining civilization had any merit?

    What do we call those that perpetrate blatant acts of self-annihilation and those who “believe” in the efficacy and necessity of those acts?

    Self-annihilators?

    Isn’t that the problem?

    “White man” got too many self-annihilators???

    “Marriage” is down because some Gen Xers had no desire to contract with the Secular State thereby granting said State an automatic degree of control over any future children one might bring into this world.

    The reality is that the percent of unmarried females with children is much much higher when you understand that no real oath was taken and only a unilateral concession of autonomy was voluntarily surrendered in all these State recorded “marriages.”

    thordaddy

    June 20, 2013 at 5:17 am

  48. People are against abortion because of its dehumanizing affects. Your dealing with a profound ethical issue.

    asdf

    June 20, 2013 at 9:36 am

    • This is something that only evangelist Christians have an ethical issue with. For normal people, it’s not dehumanizing because the fetus is unseen, just a lump in a woman’s belly.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 20, 2013 at 9:51 am

      • If that were the case really one would expect that the most sophisticated women had the most abortions.

        Even the most “hardened” bobo is against infanticide. If the fetus is recognizably human in shape there is some revulsion.

        I for one am in favor of infanticide for the most extreme deformities, like anencephaly.

        The Spartans through their deformed babies of cliffs. I’m sure this is the custom among all primitive peoples.

        Jan Smuts

        June 20, 2013 at 5:44 pm

      • threw their babies off cliffs.

        Jan Smuts

        June 20, 2013 at 5:45 pm

      • And by “normal” I take it you mean emotionally compromised. Whether or not someone can see the baby determines whether the emotional switch in their heads is flipped. That’s why everyone goes “aaaaawwww” when they see a little baby or cute cuddly kitten. Emotions should play no role in ethical questions.

        destructure

        June 20, 2013 at 6:47 pm

      • They do? (This is in reply to the ‘aaaaawwww’ comment below which for some reason I can’t reply to.)

        .

        June 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm

  49. When people talk about children “ born out of wedlock” what they really mean are children “born to single mothers”. In most countries the two categories line up pretty well. In Scandinavia on the other hand, the tradition of marriage is not as entrenched in the culture. Many couples live together monogamously in long-term relationships but never marry. In Swedish a partner like this is called a “sambo” (“sam” is same and “bo” means to live). So many of those Scandinavian children born out of wedlock are actually also being born into stable monogamous relationships that just haven’t been blessed by a state or church.

    Torn and frayed

    June 20, 2013 at 10:50 am

  50. We’re subsidizing single mothers via social benefits – and so we’re getting more of them

    dood

    June 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm

  51. This is something that only evangelist Christians have an ethical issue with. For normal people, it’s not dehumanizing because the fetus is unseen, just a lump in a woman’s belly.

    Which is to say self-annihilation is mainstream. Self-annihilation is the status quo. Alt-righters are, at the end of the day, status quo. Radical liberationists.

    That some “normal” individuals only see “lump” is not indicative of sophisticated thinking, but rather, evidence for de facto homo-nature, i.e., the most primitive self-annihilating “nature.”

    thordaddy

    June 20, 2013 at 4:53 pm

  52. And for those who read this, mouse over the cartoon here: http://xkcd.com/1227/

    .

    June 21, 2013 at 6:02 pm

  53. Bloomie is going to be a grand daddy soon.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52328190/ns/local_news-new_york_ny

    Apparently, his daughter is not married and will be giving birth. Does this scream prole for a Bobo Mayor? Or bobos are at a downward spiral as well?

    JS

    June 27, 2013 at 6:24 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: