Lion of the Blogosphere

More educated women more likely to be married

There’s false information floating out there about women and marriage. At “game” blogs, there’s this idea that smart women will just divorce men and take their money. And at feminist blogs, there’s this idea that smart women can’t get married at all because men hate smart women.

So I provide you with real data from the 2012 American Community Survey from the U.S. Census. This report is run for white non-Hispanic women ages 25-50.

In this demographic group, we see that the more education a woman has, the more likely she is to be married and the less likely she is to be divorced. Charles Murray would not be surprised by this chart. He wrote a whole book about how the new upper class still lives according to traditional values and it’s the lower classes who are having social problems like not being able to get married and stay married.

So if you are a man looking for a stable marriage where your wife is least likely to divorce you, try to marry the most educated woman you can find. And because years of education is only a very rough approximation for social class and IQ, you can surely improve your chances that much more by seeking women with degrees from the best universities.


Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 14, 2014 at 10:32 am

Posted in Males and Females

94 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I don’t think game blogs have ever outright stated that smart women are MORE likely to divorce men than dumb women. They just say that divorce is a danger overall, in absolute terms.


    February 14, 2014 at 10:52 am

    • Yeah I never got the impression that anyone has said that smart women are more likely to divorce. The general impression I get is that marriage gives the spouse too much power.


      February 14, 2014 at 1:10 pm

  2. This table doesn’t take into account 1) how long they’ve been married, or if 2) they’ve ever been divorced – only their current marital status. Remember that divorced whites rush back to the altar more quickly than other groups.

    From the below chart, it looks like the most stable couple would be a SAHM and a husband earning enough to put the household in the 3rd quartile of income, probably about $70K.


    February 14, 2014 at 10:59 am

    • That’s a pretty interesting chart in that it shows the more money a woman makes as percentage of total household income, the more likely there is to be a divorce. I suspect that women look down on men who can’t earn as much as them because women secretly like men to be the boss, even though that goes against feminist propaganda.

      Couples in the highest quartile of income have the lowest divorce rate, unless the woman in such a couple out-earns the man, in which case they have the HIGHEST divorce rate.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 14, 2014 at 11:11 am

  3. i would qualify further. women that go to good schools and are not prole (have parents that are married and the parents had at least a moderate level of wealth).

    in my experience, these women are a) more feminine, likely due to their married parents following standard gender roles and giving the child a good role model of femininity to follow b) better with saving / less materialistic.

    however, women from prole backgrounds do make it into good schools. these women are typically very materialistic and less feminine. career path seems to be a good indicator of femininity, etc. as well ie girls choosing masculine professions are usually not very feminine.


    February 14, 2014 at 11:37 am

    • I think this has a lot to do with the recent wave of popular articles about women in the workforce – as late as 1990, a third of American families with children were male breadwinner/SAHM. Concentrated of course towards the higher end of the income spectrum, from whence many of today’s journos and elite bloggers come.

      So these affluent millennials are getting married and going OMG we’re a two-income couple and it’s not easy! I thought my SWPL enlightenment and good intentions would make this easy! They’re just now experiencing the changes that the less-articulate among us endured decades ago.


      February 14, 2014 at 11:52 am

    • ambitious women from prole backgrounds who go to prole schools are more materialistic.


      February 14, 2014 at 12:33 pm

  4. Feminism is an irritant to the upper classes. It breeds discontent and throws sand in the gears of life. But high IQ upper class people work around it, and wealth is a great equalizer (hubby still won’t do the dishes, but Rosella the Maid does them instead).

    Feminism is a corrosive acid bath to the lower classes, freeing them from the traditional bourgeois constraints that are the only thing keeping them from depravity and chaos. Feminism is a big, big part of why the elites continue to distance themselves from the proles and the ghetto. What is happening faster? Elites moving further up, or the lower classes sinking further down? They are both happening, and toxic feminism is a big reason why.

    Feminism — in all its manifestations, including the welfare state which is feminism writ large — hollowed out the ghetto completely.


    February 14, 2014 at 11:53 am

    • NAMs aren’t suffering from a women shortage, tho…


      February 14, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    • Hillary Rodham (who will get rid of her cumbersome married name and soon-to-be ex hubby within 1 month of entering white house, if she can) will end it. Nobody can say Rodham is not a toos, and she hates almost all of the things you just described.


      February 14, 2014 at 12:52 pm

      • I don’t think toos means what you think it means.


        February 14, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      • TOOS (top out of sight) is a term we use in the comments that isn’t perfectly defined, but it sure sounds cool.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 14, 2014 at 2:41 pm

      • Hilarious isn’t toos. Toos don’t come from Park Ridge. My mother went to high school with HR. She told me the woman was totally engulfed in herself and wanted nothing more than to rule the world. I guess she isn’t far off from accomplishing that life goal. Some people are just scary.

        Check out this handler’s edit from Wikipedia, it’s hilarious.

        “As a child, Hillary Rodham was a teacher’s favorite at her public schools in Park Ridge”

        ancestor of scandanavia's dregs

        February 14, 2014 at 3:50 pm

  5. Lion, how old are you and why aren’t you married? Are you actively looking to get married or resigned/content to be single?


    February 14, 2014 at 11:59 am

    • Lion is a Gen X, so that’s midlife crisis now.

      This song from FNM is such a classic. Still very relevant today!


      February 14, 2014 at 12:38 pm

  6. There is a ton of misinformation on the Game blogs about marriage and related topics. For example, the Game devotees all seem to believe that investment bankers are “Alphas” who spend their time sleeping with models and dialing escort services.

    The truth is that if Playboy magazine were to do a photo spread on the “Wives of Goldman Sachs,” no one would buy that issue. As Lion suggests, the typical wife of an investment banker / BIGLAW partner / Fortune 500 executive / successful entrepreneur is a moderately attractive woman — usually a 7 — from an upper middle class family. These women tend to age better than their blue collar peers, since they usually stay thin and have access to better clothes, cosmetics, etc., but the vast majority of the wives of successful men are not smoking hot babes. You do find more 10’s among the very rich but they are still quite rare, most of the wives are well-maintained 6’s and 7’s and there are plenty of 5’s, 4’s and even 3’s among them.

    Someone upthread pointed out that women from UMC and TOOS backgrounds tend to be more feminine. That’s generally true, but you do find female lawyers/doctors/etc. who are the daughters of lawyers/doctors/etc., and are following in their parents’ footsteps. Those women are clearly outnumbered by the stay-at-home mom types, but they do exist. These women tend not to be hyper-neurotic or hyper-competitive, they are just bright, hardworking UMC girls who went through the pipeline of good schools / good grades / prestigious job, etc. and are still in the pipeline because that’s what their parents did when they were growing up, or because they want to lead an upper-middle-class life but can’t do so on one income.

    Women from middle-class families occasionally snag a rich guy, and vice-versa, but generally people tend to marry someone from a family similar to the one that they grew up in. Women from the working and lower classes — no matter how attractive they might be — hardly ever marry rich guys. A strikingly beautiful woman from the South Bronx who works as a sales clerk at Bloomingdale’s has hardly any chance at marrying a hedge fund type.

    I’ve known a couple of decadent rich Boomers who entered into second marriages with working class girls, but both cases the marriages didn’t last, and in one of those cases the girl wasn’t even moderately attractive, she was 30 years younger than her Boomer husband but she was chunky and not pretty at all.

    Lion has an accurate view of how these things really work. There is much a stronger correlation between family background and marrying a wealthy spouse than any correlation between attractiveness and marrying a wealthy spouse.

    I also don’t think – contrary to popular opinion – that things were really so different 50 or 60 years ago. Who did George H.W. Bush marry? Barbara Pierce Bush, the daughter of another wealthy WASP family (her dad was the CEO of a publishing company) who grew up in Rye, NY and attended exclusive private schools. Bush Sr. did not marry Loretta Tomaczak, the daughter of a secretary in Queens, who worked as Rosie the Riveter in an airplane factory during WWII before attending secretarial school after the war. I’m pretty sure that the same is true of most other men of Bush Sr.’s generation.

    The social mobility of that era occurred when Loretta Tomaczak married Michael McCafferty, a guy from another working-class family in Queens, and he went to school on the GI Bill and became a middle manager for Westinghouse and moved up into the upper middle class. When rich guys married the secretary back then, the secretary was someone from a similar family background.

    Joe Schmoe

    February 14, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    • For these BIGLAW / finance types is there still an occupational expectation that they BE married by a certain age? Do they look crass or get deemed unfit for elite get-togethers if they bachelor around for too long?


      February 14, 2014 at 3:08 pm

      • It may look a little crass if they are not married by 40 (men) or by 35 (women). However, there is very little stigma for UMC ppl who choose the single and childless lifestyle compared to the amount of social shaming they will face if they get married but divorce, or if they have children outside of marriage. I myself hold these values. I would never shame a person for being middle aged, never married, and childless. I will shame the hell out of someone who got married and divorced, or who had a child out of wedlock.


        February 14, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    • Funny!

      ancestor of scandanavia's dregs

      February 14, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    • Thank you for your statement. This is exactly how the upper class and the upper middle class work in regards to marriage and family.


      February 14, 2014 at 4:05 pm

  7. Seems it’s about time Lion spent some time reviewing NY Times marriage announcements and giving us his take. Sure enough, you don’t see a lot of “Alpha J. Cohen, Big Law associate, married Mary McCatholic, receptionist at Joe’s AutoBody.” You do see a decent amount of religious cross-marriage, and a reasonable amount of white/Asian, but not much class up/down.


    February 14, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    • Following up myself: here is the current front page married in the Times.

      You Park and Paul Suh
      The bride is an associate at a New York law firm; the groom is an executive at a social media advertising software company in New York.

      Erica Guyer and Daniel Franklin
      The bride is an associate general counsel at the Rockefeller Foundation; the groom is a pollster and a principal at the Benenson Strategy Group.

      Maria Carlo and James McDonald
      The bride is a doctor at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; the groom is a litigation associate at Williams & Connolly in Washington.

      Morgan Satler and Adam Greene
      The bride is a marketing director for Lancôme, and the groom is a partner in a law firm.


      February 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm

      • Park Suh is either an anomaly or Lion is wrong. An Asian woman who graduated from a guido law school (Brooklyn Law School) and gets to work in BIGLAW. She has a Yale undergrad degree, but most BIGLAW candidates graduated from top law schools, not from guido law.


        February 14, 2014 at 3:29 pm

      • No doubt she has poor immigrant parents who thought that the free scholarship she got from guido-law was a good deal.

        Another example of how people with prole parents wind up making big career mistakes.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 14, 2014 at 3:43 pm

      • I like that term, “guido law”. I guess that’s where Vinny is going.


        February 14, 2014 at 3:50 pm

      • “guido-law”

        This is the funniest thread ever.

        ancestor of scandanavia's dregs

        February 14, 2014 at 3:59 pm

      • If you check her profile, she graduated with cum laude at Brooklyn guido law. So I was right, based on my observations, BIGLAW hires top graduates from prole schools.


        February 14, 2014 at 4:07 pm

      • “Park Suh is either an anomaly or Lion is wrong. An Asian woman who graduated from a guido law school (Brooklyn Law School) and gets to work in BIGLAW.”

        Ahhhhh, the smell of affirmative action in the morning! And it’s a twofer: female and Asian. Or maybe they just really needed someone who spoke Korean, or whatever it is she speaks.


        February 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm

      • You Park is still an associate at the age of 36 (lol), which means she’s likely not a traditional case.


        February 14, 2014 at 4:43 pm

      • Good for the groom. If she were a partner making $2million/year, she’d divorce the lowly advertising “executive” who only makes one-tenth her salary, because she’d come to think of him as a loser.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        February 14, 2014 at 5:14 pm

      • “No doubt she has poor immigrant parents who thought that the free scholarship she got from guido-law was a good deal.

        Another example of how people with prole parents wind up making big career mistakes.”

        From the article,

        “The bride’s father retired as the chief financial officer of the American subsidiary of Daewoo Electronics, part of the Dongbu Group of South Korea. Her mother works in Fort Lee, N.J., as the accounts and administration manager at the American power-plant construction division of Doosan, a South Korean conglomerate.”

        Sounds pretty non-prole.

        It may be hard to believe but 99.99% of humanity cannot do the elite school > elite professional school > elite career track that you recommend.


        February 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm

      • Another example of how people with prole parents wind up making big career mistakes.

        Not quite. It’s another example of FOB Asian parents not knowing American college education is about status not good grades.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        February 14, 2014 at 6:16 pm

      • @Lion

        >>No doubt she has poor immigrant parents who thought that the free scholarship she got from guido-law was a good deal.

        >>Another example of how people with prole parents wind up making big career mistakes.

        Wrong. Koreans – immigrants or not – are more keyed into the power of the Ivy league pedigree than anybody out there. That is the primary reason why the Ivys have to enact anti-asian quotas to keep asians from comprising 70% of the class.

        Why did she go to Brooklyn Law? Who knows.


        February 15, 2014 at 12:31 am

  8. She passed her bar on 2009.

    I once worked for a low level partner at Milbank Tweed, who was in his 40s at the time. He graduated from New York Law school, another guido law institution according to Lion.


    February 14, 2014 at 5:26 pm

  9. Do years spent attending college equal intelligence? If you’re familiar with what women learn you know the answer is ‘No’. Women are primarily awarded post-undergrad degrees in fluff fields. Marketing and Management MBAs, ‘education’, ‘therapy’. And so forth. While women with graduate have stable marriages this doesn’t prove they have IQs higher than 130 or that they have particularly untrustworthy personalities.

    To tell which ‘highly educated’ woman might be good marriage material you have to look at what career she’s in, not years of schooling.

    If she’s been on an Ivy League guarded track (BIG finance or BIGLAW) since kindergarten you’ll be dealing with a status obsessed wench. If she wants a graduate degree only to work with disabled children and get a raise then she’s probably upper middle class Mary Jane.

    On a related note, the fact white women overwhelmingly choose fluff is another reason to cut the length it takes to get undergrad and grad degrees. By the time our disabled children administrator gets her piece of paper she’s probably in her late 20s and nearing the end of her fertility lifespan (which drops off rapidly after age 33) before she’s had time to have children. There’s no reason why graduate courses in fluff shouldn’t be finished in less than a year except because colleges extend how long it takes to get the fluff degree with unnecessary courses and outrageous tuition prices.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    February 14, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    • Most SWPL women work for the BS media sector. I say Finance and Law is also BS, but they’re more stressful. Value transference to Lion, is what I call parasitism, and SWPLs are parasitic as NAMs, just in a very different way.


      February 15, 2014 at 9:56 pm

  10. What’s with the game blog hate? This is recent recurring theme. While some poor-ass guys with little life experience who are getting into game (or whatever you want to call it) may think that Wall Street guys and lawyers are banging models, guys who know the score also know that that situation is by far the exception. Most of those investment bankers are pussies at home and bad-asses at work. Same thing happens with men in the military: killers in the field, but their fatty wife rules the roost.

    You want to bang models and’s 8+’s on a regular basis? Become a popular or even semi-popular DJ in NYC. Or become a club promoter. The pussy will flow like water. Please note that I did not say actor. You do not need to go to business school or law school, but it is also not trivial.


    February 14, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    • I see the detritus from Heartiste’s site has wandered over. Ever notice how the comments section of that site is a complete cesspool? That’s what society would look like if everyone followed his advice. It’s like advising people to become hedge fund managers, except worse because finance has a higher barrier for entry.

      brb rearranging my whole life to become a DJ in NYC or club promoter


      February 14, 2014 at 9:01 pm

      • Roissy had (sadly, past tense) one of the absolute best commentariats on the entire internet until a few years ago.


        February 14, 2014 at 10:07 pm

      • Roissy’s best commentators moved on to form their own blogs.

        What ASF said is mostly true though not sure what the issue is.


        February 15, 2014 at 3:45 am

      • Straw man argument. I never said that it would be beneficial for society to follow his advise, obviously it would be highly detrimental to society if everyone did. You can live whatever life you like, I did not suggest you should become a DJ; I certainly am not going into any of the fields I mentioned. You just want to pick an argument because…why? We’re all basically on the same side.


        February 15, 2014 at 1:54 pm

      • “Roissy had (sadly, past tense) one of the absolute best commentariats on the entire internet”

        Is Roissy even Roissy anymore? I thought someone else had started writing the blog at some point (even before the name change to Heartiste).


        February 15, 2014 at 2:38 pm

      • I was a regular commenter at roissy’s starting around ’07 or so.
        His advice and tactics are as good as they always were but there’s the rub:
        There’s only so much you can elaborate on the Y2K Mystery Venusian Arts concept.
        It’s not Aristotlean philosophy. It’s about sex – so it attracts unstoppable waves of intolerably stupid people who erode the excellent commenters.

        If you make excellent comments, your hard work and 400 words disappear down the toilet by some moron chanting “First!” or the inimitable “heartiste is DA MAN!”

        Better to be like LOTB: Post a few words and let 89 geniuses discuss Manhattan lol.


        February 17, 2014 at 11:25 am

    • ASF – Have you ever met Wall St. guys to even make the assertion that they don’t get any? No one said they are banging models, but many of them have dating lives, because they are literally waving money at women. I said guys who are average to below average in looks, wouldn’t make it with women, had they not have a high paying Wall St. job. Further, that’s the reason why women flock to NYC, it’s the media sector and finance guys, which has become a hand in glove scenario. In NYC, there are very few SWPL women who are not in the BS media sector, and finding one with a real job, such as a professional (doctor, lawyer, accountant) is much less common. You might find a few teachers here and there.


      February 15, 2014 at 9:26 am

      • Fair enough, I agree with what you wrote here. Mark it on your calendar…some people are actually reasonable.


        February 15, 2014 at 1:55 pm

      • I know of several SWPL women who are high earning executive assistants. Another form of bs, answering phone calls and checking emails. One of them lost their job and emptied out her 401(k) to pay for expenses. These people are a sack of sh*t. No different from NAMs who live for the moment, and there are many of them.


        February 15, 2014 at 10:04 pm

      • I would imagine that a fair number of Wall St. guys, those who aren’t lookers themselves, are leery of overly attractive women simply because it is better to be in a relationship where the women feels lucky to be in it rather than one where she feels that she got less than she deserved. They are likely to think that anyway, but I suspect the prettier ones think it more often. Go for a girl with pleasant enough looks and a good personality and an obsession for something other than money, like dogs or babies for instance, and life will be reasonably good. Mary Anne over Ginger.


        February 16, 2014 at 4:09 pm

      • Curle – Don’t bet on it. I know couple of guys who are average in looks and their girlfriends are above average, simply because they have a high paying finance job. Some of these women even said “guys go into finance to impress women”.


        February 17, 2014 at 10:44 am

  11. So, I’ve wondered who the ugly or fat daughters of the upper class marry. Their male counterparts can easily marry down the economic scale and get a good looking woman, but do they?


    February 14, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    • Well, three observations here. First, I tend to think that female attractiveness runs along a bell curve. Therefore, 1’s are just as rare as 10’s. The vast majority of women are 4’s, 5′, and 6’s.

      Second, most women who are 5’s are still somewhat sexually attractive, especially when they are in their 20’s and 30’s. I’d sleep with most 5’s. Most guys would. The same goes for 4’s; for example, an average girl (a 5 in baseline attractiveness) who is 30 pounds overweight (and therefore becomes a 4 in actual attractiveness) might, as a result of her excess weight, have very large breasts. I can roll with that. You can find SOMETHING attractive about most women.

      Third, IMO a woman can move herself up the 10-point scale by about 2 points with things like the right makeup and clothing and a pleasant personality. A 5 who is not fat, dresses well, and has a very warm and engaging personality will be a reasonably attractive woman. On a related note, a girl can also move herself down the scale with things like trashy tattoos, lots of extra weight, etc.

      What all of this means is that most rich women are not truly hideous. The uglier ones tend to be 3’s and 4’s rather than 1’s and 2’s, 1’s and 2’s are very rare across all classes. Rich women have access to good clothing and makeup. They generally aren’t fat (or, at any rate, aren’t that fat.); UMC and rich girls face a lot more social pressure to be thin (or at least not fat) than blue-collar girls. Rich girls generally do not mutilate themselves with tattoos or that sort of thing. Most of them have pleasant personalities and good social graces. Many — if not most — UMC girls come from loving, stable families, which means that tend to be nice people and don’t have much emotional baggage. This means that a rich woman who is a 3 or 4 in baseline attractiveness can elevate herself to a 5 a 6 without too much effort.

      Even then, there are fat rich chicks and Amazonian types. But again, they can become 5’s. In my experience those girls tend to find other UMC guys to marry. Some of the really ugly ones marry dorky rich guys, or reach down into the ranks of the middle class to find a good husband. But most plain and/or ugly UMC and rich girls find someone eventually, just like the rest of us. Things tend to work out for them.

      Joe Schmoe

      February 14, 2014 at 9:26 pm

      • 1’s and 2’s are actually common among poor people, especially NAMs – true 1’s and 2’s just don’t register as “female” on the subconscious of the average male brain, and you tend not to notice them. Go to a Wal-Mart and do an actual sample.

        Petr Akuleyev

        February 15, 2014 at 5:27 pm

      • Jesus! You analyze women like it’s a hard science.


        February 15, 2014 at 7:38 pm

      • True dat. The most common type of “ugly girl” in the UMC is a girl who is thin but facially unacttractive. Or someone who is so thin that she has lost her curves. The “ugly girls” in the UMC are nowhere near as ugly as the ugly prole girls, mostly cause the ugly prole girls have obesity/tattoos/piercings/needle scars. The ugly girls of the UMC mainly marry the dorkiest guys in the UMC. The dorky guys don’t mind; they can’t have the pretty UMC girls and if they got a pretty prole girl she would just divorce them and get the $$$$.


        February 17, 2014 at 12:07 am

  12. A new article online that you might find interesting “BLACK PEOPLE IN PORTLAND SAID NO TO A TRADER JOE’S TO KEEP WHITE PEOPLE FROM MOVING IN”


    February 14, 2014 at 7:00 pm

    • It actually was some militant organization that raised the fuss. Most neighborhood residents wanted the store.



      February 15, 2014 at 4:00 pm

  13. “. . .the new upper class still lives according to traditional values.”

    It’s because they can AFFORD to. The moment working/middle-class people couldn’t afford a family on one income was the second the decline started. Two income households are barely households. It’s just two “single professionals” living together.

    Indeed, it was the influx of women into the workforce that halved wages. Feminism (and all the counter culture -isms) are essentially corporate conspiracy to hugely increase the labor market thus decreasing wages. Supply and demand. They DO NOT CARE if they destroy the family in the process. It’s all about profits. Workers are not people; they are chattel.

    Only the men making 250K and higher can have a classic American middle class life-style.


    February 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    • Maybe in NYC. In flyover you can do it for a fraction of that price.


      February 15, 2014 at 2:42 am

    • Not true. In my town, anybody making 150K a year or more can support a stay at home wife and a child easily and still live an UMC lifestyle.


      February 17, 2014 at 12:09 am

  14. Showed my wife your post and we had a good time laughing. Definetely you dont know a lot about women, do you?


    February 14, 2014 at 7:52 pm

    • Nothing he said was untrue.


      February 14, 2014 at 10:05 pm

  15. At “game” blogs, there’s this idea that smart women will just divorce men and take their money.

    Actually the gamers think all women are potential gold diggers. Which is part of their anti-marriage POV.

    A recent study I saw on GL Piggy said the most religious Americans have lower divorce rates than the moderately religious, who have higher rates than us heathens.


    February 14, 2014 at 9:00 pm

    • The other thing the game types miss is that if the wife makes the same as the husband, then goldbigging is basically impossible. The ultimate golddigging occurs when an educated wife starts to stay home for the kids and divorces the workaholic high earner. Not only does the financial gains flow to the ex-wife but she can always go back to work later.


      February 15, 2014 at 5:50 am

    • I notice here in flyover a tendency for divorced and never-marrieds to join Christian churches in order to meet other singles, either directly or originally as part of some 12-step program. So you have a lot of pretty borderline people dropping in and out of the congregations between affairs and relapses.


      February 15, 2014 at 5:12 pm

  16. Lion is an unmarried man telling others to constantly marry.

    He’s like liberals promoting diversity while living far far away.


    February 15, 2014 at 3:53 am

    • Research shows that diversity makes people unhappy and that marriage makes people happy. I’m only passing on the research, and advice that seems pretty good based on that.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 15, 2014 at 8:03 am

      • I think many people who comment on your site are realistically unhappy, after being here for a while. I’m sure most would agree that SWPL insanidom is the one of those diversities which you speak of. The same could be said of proledom.

        Research would show that smart people are less happy, when they are surrounded by too many ignoramuses, and are especially upset when they are arrogant.


        February 15, 2014 at 7:53 pm

      • People who are healthy and more prosperous are better marriage candidates and get married more often. Happiness is a tricky thing to quantify, and the arrow of causation is unclear.

        The fact that there is such a fanatic push to get people married implies that people don’t seem to think it conducive to their well being.

        My guess is that monagamy will be dead in the near future. Marriage will a minority thing in the next 10 years.


        February 15, 2014 at 9:45 pm

      • @delfuego: stable, long-lasting marriages are already rare among proles. Precisely the point Murray is making.


        February 16, 2014 at 6:39 am

    • “Lion is an unmarried man telling others to constantly marry.”

      You don’t have to be a whale to write “Moby Dick.”

      “He’s like liberals promoting diversity while living far far away.”

      Very different. When Liberals promote diversity it ruins other people’s lives. If Lion wants to stay single while promoting marriage, it doesn’t affect any of us.


      February 15, 2014 at 12:13 pm

      • I think it’s helpful for an objective third party like Lion to remark on marriage from the outside. I did the same before I married. What I noticed was that it was the married couples that were the stable influences in my life, who bailed me out of trouble and gave me good advice. I’ve been married 20 years now and it was a tremendously stabilizing experience. Boring, yes, but it caused me to hang on to my job, amass wealth and now retire at a decent age, whereas my single friends will work to infinity because of their years of meaningless hookups and craziness.


        February 15, 2014 at 5:18 pm

  17. Game blogs = Prole


    February 15, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    • What’s interesting about this is that you’re probably right, even though the overwhelming majority of the good commenters (there are a fair number) on those sites are well-educated, well-spoken and intelligent.

      Samson J.

      February 21, 2014 at 8:01 pm

  18. People break out of long term marriages because they are desperate, and they are willing to give up half or more of what they own to do so. The fact that some people have stable, long term marriages doesn’t mean they’re living an enviable life, it migh mean they lack the financial or emotional wherewithal to get out.

    Feel free to point out the obvious delighted, well off couples that are supposed to be the examples for everyone else.


    February 15, 2014 at 9:23 pm

    • According to the General Social Survey, married people are happier.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 15, 2014 at 11:49 pm

      • Marriage seemed to be a great thing for the Old Economy Steve types.

        I was on a project team recently and encountered one of these (he was the PM). Personable, authoritative 50ish guy, though non-technical.

        Talked about how he putzed his way through State U with bad grades until as an upperclassman he got engaged. Suddenly, he was like “Oh Shit. I better get my act together.” Fortunately jobs were plentiful and now, 30 years later, he makes good money as a pleasant business-bro consultant who passes off all the heavy lifting to the nerdz.

        Guys like these used to be a dime a dozen and certainly make up a big portion of the GSS respondents. Marriage gave their life the Narrative it needed for them to get focused.

        I think that era has come to an end.


        February 16, 2014 at 11:02 am

      • Would you consider him a prole or a middle class person?


        It would be interesting to see how the new economy would disintegrate social mores and institutions by depriving men of middling intellect meaningful (as in well-compensated and somewhat prestigious) livelihoods. They are just fungible pieces of labor without any valuable social connections.


        February 16, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    • The marriage rate is the highest for proles, especially in the South and Midwest.

      United States ranks 1st with the highest marriage rate; it being the most proletariat of all the industrialized 1st world nations.

      What does that tell you?


      February 16, 2014 at 9:22 am

      • Do you have a cite for your claim that the marriage rate is highest for proles. Also, do you have a definition of proles so that it will not include 99% of Americans?


        February 16, 2014 at 3:35 pm

      • The Pewy Research:

        US leads marriage when compared to Europe:

        Nevertheless, America is a prole nation. The average American citizen is a buffoon, overweight and provincial.


        February 16, 2014 at 6:27 pm

      • By the way, I think the Pewy research would refute Lion that highly educated women are more likely to get married, since California, New York, DC and Massachusetts have the lowest rates of marriage for women. Flyover prole country has the most.


        February 16, 2014 at 6:37 pm

      • I would have thought the prole/elite distribution was somewhat stable across societies such that no single nation could be more prole than any other. After all, isn’t prole defined in contrast to elites who almost by definition need to be a small subset of the total population? Henry VIII, were he to reappear today, might seem prole to modern eyes, but he certainly wasn’t in his day. He was part of a small elite distinguishable not only by bloodlines but also by training and habits much like today.


        February 17, 2014 at 12:11 am

      • America is predominantly low brow, culturally. That’s enough to scream Prolemerica.


        February 17, 2014 at 12:47 am

  19. OT, for the Guardian, being gay is the one place where genetic determinism is OK. New study finds genetic link to homosexuality in men.


    February 16, 2014 at 11:16 am

    • I am sure that there’s a genetic predisposition to being gay. Most behavioral difference between humans have a genetic component to them.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      February 16, 2014 at 2:38 pm

      • typical misunderstanding not just of lion but of all hereditists. so how smart can lion be?

        the effect of genes on personality, iq, and other “behavioral” traits is not absolute. that is, the genes which make some behavior more likely in one environment may not in another, may, in fact, make some other behavior more likely. look up, “fundamental attribution error”. the same goes for cvd risk factors. a cactus can thrive in Baja and rot in Big Sur.

        the most heritable of binary psychological traits, scz, is unknown among savages, just like cavities and high blood pressure.

        jorge videla

        February 18, 2014 at 9:37 pm

      • and regarding homosexual men, even experts who are also gay admit that exclusive homosexual behavior is unique to humans. that is, homosexual acts are common enough among animals, but the animals who engage in these also engage in heterosexual acts.

        jorge videla

        February 18, 2014 at 9:39 pm

    • I have always doubted the homosexuality was due to genetics. The differences in class, race, and career seem to indicate that being homosexuality is associated with life events. What is the gene that makes gay men love the musical theater and fashion and want to live in NYC?


      February 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      • The same gene that makes women love the same stuff and get into BS careers in NYC, which many gay men are also part of. I guess gay men have testosterone to fend off hypergamous urges!


        February 17, 2014 at 12:50 am

    • Influenced by is not the same as caused by. This could merely represent a genetic predisposition to develop the phenotype in response to infection or some other cause like aberrant hormonal milieu in utero. This result also needs to be replicated before it is taken seriously.


      February 17, 2014 at 9:02 am

  20. Here’s about as comprehensive of an infomercial for the Blue Pill Good Life as I’ve ever seen. You see this kind of narrative on Game blogs all the time, but the below is NOT a parody.

    Marry yourself a 30ish college-educated paperpusher/Helicopter Mom in training, take on androgynous roles, expect meager sexual fulfillment and divert all those energies into living vicariously, I mean enriching your kids, who will surely never pick up on how fucked up their parents are.

    Who knew that the antidote to Stepford Wives was Stepford Couples? Sign me up now!


    February 16, 2014 at 2:46 pm

  21. Chas. Murray, Thomas Sowell & Robt. BORK are THE wellsprings from which all is stolen
    To gently trickle down then in descending order from Krautie to Rushie to Bukie to Foney to piggi
    To pool in the babbling brook of the Babel-0-Sphere


    February 17, 2014 at 7:09 pm

  22. too bad there’s not an ever-divorced category. looking at the harvard ’66 year book there are plenty of divorces. it’s not just a problem of proles.

    jorge videla

    February 17, 2014 at 10:43 pm

  23. […] likely to get married before they’re haggard. IQ and credential fetishists love to write about the low rate of divorce among the overeducated, but what they always fail to […]

  24. […] IQ and credential fetishists love to write about the low rate of divorce among the overeducated, but what they always fail to grasp is that a big reason for this is the decrease in sexual market options among the high IQ that accompanies their later in life marriages. So yeah, you get a more faithful wife with crows’ feet and a saggy butt. Lack of options = stability. Worth the trade-off? […]

    the Revision Division

    March 8, 2014 at 10:03 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: