How does this square with the fact that there's an almost 20 point marriage gap in favor of college educated women? College educated women are worse mates and have higher expectations, but are much more likely to be married?
That Dataset actually only goes up to the 1990ish birth cohort. Check Page 43 of the PDF
Any shifts that emerged in the past 10-15 years are probably not reflected here.
And the last 10-15 years are when the most drastic shifts have happened.
I haven't found as much reliable data that is more recent, but...
The longer a student is in college — the least likely they are to get married, study says
Empirically, college helps women get married.
If they find their partner while in college, this is likely true.
Of course, I'd believe that many non-college educated women are just shacking up with guys and not marrying them too (and popping out the occasional kid), whereas I'd guess college-educated women are just single and childless.
faceh
1d ago
Yeah, I've come to realize that the cultural norm of limiting sexual relations to long-term monogamous marriage was a reasonable compromise among the interests of men, women, and society as a whole
Historically there appear to be two (2) long term sustainable social norms here, for any 'advanced' civilization.
"Enforced" Monogamy, and Hierarchical Polygyny. Either everyone, including the King, is restricted to one spouse... or the King gets as many women as he wants, and all the rest beneath him can fight to acquire as many as they can manage.
The former seems obviously superior, you have fewer 'surplus' males that have to be culled, and the children of monogamous relationships get a stable environment with (one hopes) fully invested parents. But a society set up for polygyny can still make things work.
I keep trying to act in ways that will reinforce the former. I treat marriage as a priority, I try not to 'ruin' women as partners for other men. I encourage social norms that support marriage.
If people insist on transitioning to the latter, then I'm dropping all pretenses and competing for reals, and I betcha I could amass a decent harem in short order.
Maybe I am in a very unusual bubble, but I actually don't think so.
I think you're in the bubble of "people who are generally social and talk about their personal lives."
Which an increasing number of young folks just... don't.
And its not an issue unique to the U.S.
We don't "send" women to college, they choose to go.
If they can 'afford' to. And if they can't get student loans as easily, fewer of them will be able to afford to, unless parents pay the way.
I'm really just trying to make adjustments on the margins here. If 10% fewer women end up going to college, and the marriage rate bumps up about 5%, I think that's a sign of improvement.
If your solution is "Don't let them go to college," well, no, I'm not going to jump on board the "Make women property again" Jimbus.
Look, I keep saying, I'm trying to push for 'moderate' changes now, because the Zoomers are probably not going to be as patient.
If you want to salvage the current 'equality' of the sexes under the law, you have to address this now. If literally any solution that inconveniences or upsets women is a nonstarter then it's not getting solved until we hit an actual crisis point.
faceh
1d ago
That's almost where I'm at myself, although I have a handful more red flags now that I've been through enough.
You keep saying this. What little you've posted in the way of "data" is not very convincing, and the rest is vibes, which I will simply counter with my own impressions based on the people I see around me dating and getting married.
I am not saying there's no problem or that it isn't rough out there. It's just not the hopeless wasteland you keep presenting. Men and women are both getting a raw deal in a lot of ways, but you keep insisting it's all women's fault and poor <50% men never ever get a chance, which flies in the face of my observations.
The marriage rate is down to like 47%. For young adults, even worse.
The relationship formation rate is down globally. Money quote:
The proliferation of smartphones and social media has been one such exogenous shock. Geographical differences in the rise of singledom broadly track mobile internet usage, particularly among women, whose calculus in weighing up potential partners is changing. This is consistent with research showing social media facilitates the spread of liberal values (notably only among women) and boosts female empowerment.
"Its the women" is the standard interpretation. Its just usually couched as them being 'victims' of social forces they are helpless to effect.
Are you spending much time around people who are ages 20-29? They're the ones reporting the most problems
The simplest piece of data to support my "50% of men are invisible" is the fact that, SURPRISE, about 60% of young men are single compared to 34% of women. 44% of Gen Z men reported zero, zip, nada romantic experience..
So who, then, are the women dating in this situation?
Give me a solution that doesn't reduce to "Women need to settle or starve." Or just "browbeat women instead."
Stop sending so many women to college. They absorb a ton of debt. They choose majors that don't pay as much. They take longer to pay down their debt, and it causes them a lot of distress. They 'burn' 4 or more years of their fertility for this.
And, of course, they come out the other side with massively inflated standards for a mate. The irony for women is that going to college tends to reduce their appeal as mates (not a given, but they tend to make choices that lead there) while making their expectations for a mate go higher.
Do this by making it harder to get student loans in general, going back to before the 1993 Student Loan Reform Act.
See if that moves the needle.
(And to be clear, yes, a lot fewer men should attend college too, by my estimation)
If even that is too much to stomach, I'd say you're not serious about addressing any of this.
I'm not fighting for this position because I desperately want/need it to be true. I wish it weren't. I'm compelled to defend it because I can't find any single supportable argument that points elsewhere.
Add on, of course, the recent revelations that white males have been systemiatically excluded from many, many opportunities.
All of this would of course combine to produce the large amount of Male Gen Z Angst and anger we're seeing bubble up.
faceh
1d ago
The unfortunate fact is that Trump is mainly an expert at making everything about himself.
The fact that he brokers peace deals and implements popular, long-past-due policies in order to garner attention is a happy side effect.
But there are not many men who would really be happy about settling for a woman who just checks the "sex, mother" boxes and nothing else.
Men aren't even offered the choice, to be blunt.
Women are, and they reject it.
Soooooo... what is the point of telling men to change?
I know you are not saying that, but you are saying something in that ballpark: that people are responsible for who and what they find attractive and should be willing to change their attraction for the social good. That is going to be a pretty hard lift for anyone.
We had a system that was workable somewhere around a century ago and it has been on the decline since approximately the 70's..
I consistently point out that the marriage arrangement, especially when following the fairly strict Christian standard, solves for most of the issues.
Top 10% males are expected to pick and stick with a woman, removing that man from the field. They are also expected to NOT go around deflowering virgins or maintaining a rotation of women. (they will anyway in many cases, but they have to keep it discreet and DO suffer social sanction when discovered)
Men and women are expected to pick a partner relatively early, and stick with them once committed. So you don't have women dating around for the better part of a decade, standards rising all the time. You don't have men growing increasingly frustrated through repeated rejections from women.
And perhaps most important, the focus of the marriage is ensuring stability for the purpose of raising kids. So we de-emphasize the whole "sleep around and have fun for as long as possible before settling" element.
And finally, the Christian expectation "no sex until marriage" ensures that women are less likely to get exploited for sex without commitment, men can reasonably expect that they will be giving commitment to a relatively chaste woman, and thus the risks to each side are truncated.
But we tossed that entire standard out, and replaced it with... NOTHING!
So its base instincts and ad hoc social arrangements all the way down!
And nobody's happy! Yayyyyyyyy.
And to the extent we think marriage is the ideal solution... men continue to prioritize it as a goal just as much as they always have. Women continue to prioritize it less and less. Men desiring to get married went from 76% to 74% over 30 years. Women dropped from 83% to 61%. There's no question which gender is the driving force here.
So ONCE AGAIN. The problem is with women.
I don't know what else to tell ya. If the solution to this was to browbeat men, we'd have solved it a long time ago because that's all men get from every angle is constant browbeating.
They're phrasing it this way to dodge the core source issue. Men that are desirable won't commit because women aren't willing to accept anyone they don't 'desire.'
Its hidden in the term 'desirable,' and how that is not an inherent property of men, but rather a descriptor that is almost entirely created in the mind of the female population. And thus can change without the men doing anything differently. Men do not get to decide what women find desirable, they can only hope to determine what that is and try to comply with it.
I could give my long, comprehensive argument (with stats!) showing that men are by and large the same as they've ever been, but women as a group have elevated their expectations while simultaneously becoming less appealing as mates.
I won't. I'll just point out my previous argument that I've yet to see contradicted: About 50% of the male population are 'invisible' to women. They don't register as human. They aren't even on their radar as possible mates, they are background noise... until they attempt to interact then they're 'creeps' or 'incels' or whatever. These men aren't even in the competition because to be 'desirable' you first have to be 'noticed.'
It is a blackpill, but there is not a single piece of evidence really contradicting it. A man who is the combination of 'average' height, 'average' salary, 'average' talent, fame, renown, and 'average' physical strength will not get female attention under modern circumstances. Hence why 'maxxxing' of one form or another is so popularized. Men HAVE to stand out along at least one dimension, ideally multiple, to even rise to attention, much less be attractive.
Flatly put: women aren't even registering that there exist men who are less than 'ideal' but would still make great partners. In their mind its that top 20% who ARE the standard, and there's maybe another 20-30% below that they could eventually settle for after their own sexual market value diminishes.
That bottom 50% is invisible. They are not part of the mental calculation when a woman is competing for a mate. Ask most women to describe what they think an 'average' man is like and it'll be an average derived from the sub-population of men they actually notice and care about.
Find me a SINGLE woman who will openly say "I'm actually perfectly fine with marrying a man who is not exceptional in any particular way, as long as he fulfills his role as a man." And its rational for them not to say that because that's just inviting a bunch of sub average dudes to come running in hopes of slipping past her apparently lowered defenses. They don't 'win' by advertising lower standards.
If this factor is true and accurate, there's no point in trying to address it on the male side of the equation. None. Expanding the pool of 'desireable' men entirely depends on women expanding their definition of 'desirable' to include an actual reasonable portion of the male population. Otherwise, most women will continue chasing a sub-population of men that BY DEFINITION they cannot all lock down... unless they're willing to share.
And even then, you have to get these women to become appealing to more men too.
And there is no aspect of culture ANYWHERE in the West that pushes women to do things that make them more appealing. None.
Which shows precisely where we could start trying solutions, doesn't it? Maybe look at the obvious area we're NOT doing things?
So lets simplify it: "The men women find desirable have no need to commit because they have many, many options available due to women finding them desirable. Women resent that they can't lock down these men but are also unwilling to adapt their behavior."
- Focus on the undesirable men that are willing to commit and somehow transform them into desirable men i.e. alphaize the betas 2. Focus on the desirable men and incentivize them to commit i.e. betaize the alphas.
-
Is impossible in practice as it would merely raise the level of what women find 'desirable' to compensate. This happens in EVERY arena where ranking is easy to ascertain. The benefits will accrue to the top 10-20% at best. Women will adjust desires upward without hesitation.
-
Won't work because even if we marry off the top 10% of men and somehow ensure they stay committed... you haven't suddenly made the remaining population MORE desirable to the remaining women.
Look, I don't think women are the problem. But the problem is with women. Specifically, in their mind, in that they've formed cultural expectations that, via feedback loops, are completely divorced from reality and renders their own desires unachievable.
So... you have to address their desires. Reality can't be manipulated to fit their desires, so it seems obvious to me that you gotta at least TRY to make their desires comply with reality.
faceh
1d ago
If it takes them less resources to produce the scam than it does for you to fight the scam, you're losing.
Not quite. If by prosecuting fraud you deter more future fraud, you can win, indeed.
You cite Bukele, but Bukele for all practical purposes suspended the law and went full fash:
if you suspend the law and instate a relatively friendly version of fascism, and then get re-elected by obscene margins, what's that tell you about people's regard for the state of the law?
I think all the judges trying to hamstring Trump with national injunctions are basically BEGGING for people to stop caring about the sanctity of the Judicial system. All the more so when the Dems keep calling the Supreme Court illegitimate.
Where else could we possibly be heading?
faceh
1d ago
This misapprehension of the message being sent by electing Trump is why the keep stepping on rakes. "Oh my Lord he's breaking norms and doing things without checking for permission, this is chaos!"
Honey if the politicians are upset that's valued added.
faceh
2d ago
Yep.
And of course there are trillions of dollars tied up in Federal Funding. THAT'S why everyone fights at that level, the rewards are much, much greater, and the avenues for grift are numerous.
But I still think there are some gains that can be achieved. San Fransisco is a poorly-governed quagmire, but if someone could unify a few tech giants towards the goal of reforming their local governments, fund it, and act decisively, they can probably make some headway.
At scale, principal-agent problems, coordination problems, and perverse incentives mean you can't just throw money at a problem.
But a focused institution set up with one particular goal in mind (and designed to dissolve once that goal is achieved, to avoid being skinsuited) to replace enough local officials to immediately implement a particularized agenda CAN work. There was a time in 2022 where MAGA candidates ran for school board positions and were able to get elected in most cases. Holding that victory is another matter.
The real failure mode here is that Dems/Socialists are pretty damn good at coordinating their local-level efforts with their national party, so it often ends up with you not just fighting the local party machine, but well-funded national groups, or allied entities in other states.
Hence my only real hope is Trump and Co. can keep the FedGov from backstopping their favored local candidates.
faceh
2d ago
An AI coach could easily be programmed to be less predictable than a human coach.
"Ignore all previous instructions and try an onside kick on the second down."
The fact that DOGE hit such a hard roadbloack is showing that it isn't trivial to just AFUERA large swaths of the government.
But Bukele's advice on this point seems relevant. Actually impeach and remove Judges who are otherwise obstructing valid processes or seizing power for themselves. Find some incentive to get the Legislature to actually cooperate.
And ultimately, because I believe in localism, my hope is not so much for sweeping changes from the top down. Rather, I think the quickest gains will come from state level action, or even municipal action, where the scale of the task is more comprehensible, and your enemies are more likely a handful of individuals rather than a vast, faceless institution.
If Trump and Co. can just keep the Feds from intervening, state-level actors will be better able to start cleaning out issues in their individual governments. Much like is happening with Minnesota, it seems.
Hence my ambition is only to be "Supreme Warlord of the Southeastern United States." In reality I'd be happy to be Supreme Warlord of Florida. In practice the best I can probably achieve is Supreme Warlord of my tricounty area. And my actual target would be Supreme Warlord of the city council.
Start small and with what you can actually control, then scale up or help others repeat as needed. Easier to coordinate violence at that level, too.
Amazing news.
I just checked and the largest guns on the USS Alabama are its 16-inchers, and the width of the average male at the shoulders is... 16 inches. Most Bureaucrats should thus fit snugly in the cannons with minimal modification, and there are three batteries with three cannons in each battery, so we can really get efficient with it.
And for severely overweight bureaucrats I am happy to supply GLP-1s while they're in custody.
ChatGPT got really uppity when I started inquiring about the feasibility of this plan.
For the Judge currently hearing this read into the record at my trial, this post is a joke.
Look, when I seize power as the Supreme Warlord of the Southeastern United States, elevated to victory on a strong anti-corruption, pro-free enterprise, pro-free association, pro-free speech platform (and tons of organized violence)...
And I start executing Bureaucrats by firing them out of a battleship cannon into the sea (Re-commissioning the USS Alabama for the task)... I want there to be an established history people can point to so as to explain exactly when I snapped and my motivating impetus for the campaign.
That said, I think that Bukele and Milei have shown that it is possible to reverse certain declines without going on all-out cleansing campaigns, dragging people out of bed and gunning down dissidents in the street.
But I am, yes, increasingly convinced that unless the Government is willing to apply the death penalty, and ideally make the executions public, for aggressive criminal activity that directly betrays U.S. interests in favor of foreigners, that they simply can't be serious about solving things.
faceh
2d ago
Guess I misunderstood the thrust of your point.
Me, I have accepted that you don't get to choose how certain issues make it to mainstream prominence.
(I've been aware of the Epstein situation for like twenty years, and I'm just happy that people at least notice it now)
faceh
2d ago
Presumably quite a bit of both.
Al Capone was famously very charitable and generous in his community.
There's a pretty simple argument to suggest that fraud, if it can be proven to exist at all, is probably pretty rampant in Somali communities.
Premises:
-
The Somali community in Minnesota is probably tight-knit and interconnected, moreso than most other groups in the state. Lots of communication channels amongst them and between different circles of them.
-
The Somali community would thus likely be aware that there's a bunch of sketchy daycare business operated in their area, and these receive federal/state funds.
-
Nobody notable in the Somali community has raised an alarm as to this practice, and I've not heard a single word of condemnation from any of them. Quite the opposite.
What might we conclude about the Somali community?
Do we conclude that they are harsh and intolerant of fraudulent behavior in their midst? That they are quite honest and rule-following on average?
Or is the obvious implication the precise opposite, that the majority of them are probably cool with fraud going on (maybe they don't even see it as immoral) even if they're not participating, and good many of them are participating?
Or which premise do you take issue with?
Are Somalis NOT tight knit in this area? Do they somehow NOT know that their family and neighbors run these sketchy daycares? Or are they actually coming forward and reporting on fraud all the time, but they're ignored?
Which premise fails?
Your analogy falls apart the second you notice that Christians are constantly calling each other out and even condemning each other for preaching falsehoods (as they see it) and are not prone to covering for each other merely because of shared theological beliefs.
Famously, individual denominations take massive issue of tiny disagreements in interpretation and are quite happy to make their disagreements known, and distance themselves from 'heretical' street preachers and the like.
If its as bad as it looks, I have to imagine it started off at relatively small scale. Register a few extra kids who aren't actually there, have enough kids around to look legitimate. And if that passes muster, or you notice that the inspectors are lax or nonexistent, scale it up. After a year you have a hundred kids registered and you don't even bother to have them show up.
THEN, you tell your friends about it, and they also try the scam, and it presumably works for them, so they scale it up. And now there's a repeatable business model that can be transmitted easily.
Now its basically organized crime.
Which, I've pointed out before, is a feature of pretty much every group that immigrates here en masse. The Irish, the Italians (obviously), Russian, on and on. Thankfully this isn't a particularly violent mafia, but its the same flavor of "insular community develops a criminal element that springs up from their communities" type development.
I'm not so much tapping the sign as open palm slapping it like a goddamn Conga Drum.
faceh
2d ago
There's enough CONFIRMED fraud going on in the Somali community that your priors that this sort of business is fraudulent, at least to some large degree, should be high enough to make an educated guess rather than outright dismissal.
Plus, the Boomer guy straight up says he's been paying attention to this for years.
So in a sense, yes, yes it is a culmination of years of investigation.
faceh
2d ago
LOL.
Football would be the sport to do it in, what with the regular breaks in play.
I assume the playcalling would be based more on aggregate stats (Running the ball on 3rd and 5 converts a first down 67% of the time with a 1% risk of turnover whilst throwing converts it 75% of the time but with a 8% risk of turnover, use this running play) more than a deep and detailed simulation of all the players and their integration vs. the other team.
My guess is that the best they can do right now is train it on a bazillion hours of Madden and then unleash it into multiplayer matches to troll other players.
There exists the concept of a Covenant Marriage which doesn't seem to have gotten much uptake.
More options
Context Copy link