Last week, some striking data emerged into the political blogosphere, showing that inter-party marriage has become increasingly frowned-upon on both sides of the aisle, but more so on the Republican side. What this shows, of course, is not only that both sides are increasingly upset by the idea of interparty marriage, but also that Republicans are significantly more upset (roughly 50 percent to 30 percent). And there was much fulminating about why--assuming the survey data are correct--this might be the case.It's not at all hard to understand at all. Obama got only 39 percent of the white vote in 2012. He wouldn't get 30 percent today. The Republicans are increasingly the party of White Christian America. The Democrats are increasingly the party of Brown and White Secular America. This supposed distaste for interparty marriage has little to do with politics and more to do with a distaste for interracial marriage and interreligious marriage.
This sudden decline in interparty marriage may be an early sign of America's white population finally beginning to realize that the "melting pot" was always a myth and it is a separate nation unto itself in what has become, post-1965, a multiethnic country.
63 comments:
I am sold on the idea that interracial marriages are an aberration ... interreligious not so much. Think eugenic hybridization: cute, nice and smart Jew or Persan.
What's your take on female IQ? Smart woman + smart man -> smart kid. Might be very hard to find a cute, smart AND nice girl but well if you want your kid to stay in the race (not the rate race) ...
Maybe, but where I'm at this analysis fails the eye test. From my encounters with single white women, they tend to range from slightly liberal to extremely liberal. So if white men are rejecting liberal women, they are rejecting most white women as well.
And actually, now that I think about it, nearly 100% of the women I know with their heads screwed on straight politically are a: married, and b: say that they were liberal till they met their husband. So this may just be part of an increased willingness of single people to remain single, with men more willing than women.
I don't think Obama has anything to do with it. Look at all the other baggage that goes along with being a liberal:
- hairy chested feminists
- degenerate homosexuals
- socialism
- soft on crime
- anti-Semitism
- reverse racism
- aversion to classical marriage
- aversion to public decency
- a growing affinity to fascism
There is a whole passle of chit outside of Obama, Hillary and the rest of those clowns. My feeling is that this is only going to get worse as America polarizes between producers and parasites.
I just don't like dating liberal women. They're always looking for an opportunity to talk about all that's wrong in the world. Miserable creatures.
@ Booch Women are simply and solely looking out for themselves. Solipsistic creatures.
Single women need all mighty Barrack to take care of team female, but as soon as some other patriarchal figure is there to protect and provide, it's full on "me, myself and I". "Why the fuck must my husband spend any money on the general populace, he should only ever care about my so special ass."
It's so apparent in all my married buddies' wives. Girls with minimal education (B.A.) not so cute (5, 6, some are fours) not very smart who act with the most despicable of all social class entitlements (UMC). You should hear them talk about unemployement, as if they were the ones who bought the house and brought home the cash, as if they ever did any real effort to be where they are.
Merely parasites who don't want the State to eat their cake.
The importance of Obama is that he can't hide his contempt for traditional America. Even Hillary made cookies. People who think of themselves as mildly conservative -- definitely not "right-wing" -- are catching on to how much Obama, and by implication the leftists who rabidly support him, really despise and look down on the rest of us. Catholics who thought they could negotiate with the state are starting to realize that they can't, in large part because Obama not only attacks their beliefs and refuses to compromise whatsoever, but follows each victory by telling them to suck on it and like it. It's not so much that "conservatives" are drawing a line, as that they're waking up to the fact that the left has already drawn the line and marched across it shooting.
But yes, a guy who passes on dating Democrats is really using that as a proxy for deeper things, whether he knows it or not. Leftists don't hate him because he's a Republican; they hate him because of what that represents: some deficiency or evil in him that prompts him to belong to that party. His Republican affiliation doesn't prove that he's a right-winger, but it does signal that he's not 100% on board with the left, which makes him an enemy. Once he recognizes their enmity, why would he want to date a girl who's likely to hate his deepest values and try to change them without compromise the same way Obama and company are changing America?
And actually, now that I think about it, nearly 100% of the women I know with their heads screwed on straight politically are a: married, and b: say that they were liberal till they met their husband
Which clearly obviates your first point. This is why you don't attempt to analyze statistical data from an anecdotal position. 100 percent of women are not liberal until married.
they tend to range from slightly liberal to extremely liberal
They say they're liberal, because the prevailing media culture, driving the herd, is liberal. Herd creatures gotta herd.
I don't put much stock in the depth of female political convictions. Their vote is almost always driven by the Female Imperative. When they marry, the may appear more "conservative," but really all that can change in an instant if there's something substantial to gain or not lose.
And here is the money shot... "America's white population finally beginning to realize that the "melting pot" was always a myth and it is a separate nation unto itself."
Not only white Americans, but also Europeans are waking up to this. Even the most completely brainwashed of the multi-cult, diversity-loving Euros instinctively know, within mere minutes, that as a white American male, decently dressed and not covered in tattoos or piercings, I share certain common bonds they are familiar with and can trust in. In a very, very short space of time this plays out. Within moments for most of them. Not so for other races and cultures. They know, instinctively, that were the chips down, I'd be holding a gun protecting my European Christian brethren, their wives, family, and nation against the Other. Were the chips down and they had to make a decision on who to trust their lives with, who would be most likely to stay loyal and respect our ancient traditions and values and ways, it wouldn't be the African or Hindu or Arab standing nearby, they'd pick the white American male who looks like he was raised right. Not because they would trust me 100%, but because the others, outside of some level of intimate personal knowledge, would be far, far riskier propositions. I'd be the safer bet, providing the highest probability and chance of protection, survival, prosperity, and future propagation of their own peoples language, culture, and prized values.
I spent the better part of last night reading GK Chesterton's commentary on WWI. His prescience was amazing, his ability diagnose the spiritual and intellectual ills at the heart of the political and cultural movements of his day, both in England and Europe at large, were beyond impressive.
And what he wrote is still relevant today. More relevant and instructive on what's happening today in America than any claptrap that 99% of today's writers or commentators pump out. Just substitute "Prussian" for "American liberal" and there you have it.
Without quoting the whole thing, from GK Chesterton's "The Appetite of Tyranny." Again, substituting "Prussian" with "American liberal":
"The [American Liberal] is a spiritual Barbarian, because he is not bound by his own past, any more than a man in a dream. He avows that when he promised to respect a frontier on Monday, he did not forsee what he calls 'the necessity' of not respecting it on Tuesday. In short, he is like a child, who at the end of all reasonable explanations and reminders of admitted arrangements, has no answer except "But I. Want. To.""
"... the idea of reciprocity; or, in better English, of give and take. The [American liberal] appears to be quite intellectually incapable of this thought. He cannot, I think, conceive the idea that is the foundation of all comedy; that, in the eyes of the other man, he is only the other man.... But it is the point about the [American liberal] that with him nothing is mutual... The definition of the true savage is that he laughs when he hurts you; and howls when you hurt him.... he cannot get outside the idea that he, because he is he and not you, is free to break the law; and also appeal to the law."
"A narrow and one-sided seriousness is the fault of barbarians all over the world. This may have been the meaning, for aught I know, of the one eye of the Cyclops: that the Barbarian cannot see round things or look at them from two points of view; and thus becomes a blind beast and an eater of men.... He is the man who cannot love--no, nor even hate-- his neighbor as himself."
"Men of two tribes in Africa not only know that they are all men, but can understand that they are all black men. In this they are quite seriously in advance of the intellectual [American liberal]; who cannot be got to see that we are all white men."
Single women perceive a benefit in liberal tax policies through programs, and married women perceive a benefit in conservative policies via lower taxes on their husbands paycheck. It isn't changing values, it is the same value.... what benefits them.
I can't speak for every male, vut wouldn't marry a Democrat simply because their values are contrary to mine. And liberal women are more likely to be bitches and see every disagreement as sexism.
Lines are being drawn.
And liberal women are more likely to be bitches and see every disagreement as sexism.
They're also fat / ugly, or if cute, always do something strange to their appearance, such as oddly-colored pixie cuts.
The interracial marriage stats don't seem to indicate any sort of dip that I have seen though I don't believe there is data since 2010 at this point. There is plenty of room to work with since about 1/3rd of Hispanics and Asians lean conservative/libertarian and 1/3rd of whites lean liberal. Now when the economic collapse occurs I don't think the dominant group is going to be all that discerning when it comes to who to exclude from these groups.
Most the white guys I know that are married to minorities would have an SMV 2-4 points higher if the government $40k/year ATM didn't exist for single moms and divorce rape wasn't an option. The former of which will get solved when the money runs out within 20 years (barring a technological revolution).
From the PsychoToday article:
Republicans are increasingly authoritarian...
Ha!. Yes, it's those authoritarian Republicans who are telling us what sort of light bulb and toilets we can have. It's impossible for a rational person with any sort of awareness of the world around them to make the conclusion Chris Moody makes in his article. He's just living inside his own special little world where everything is as he imagines it to be.
Of course, Moody's just pimping his books, which are the worst sort of liberal wish fulfillment tripe, telling Democrats that they are smarter, nicer, just plain better people than those horrid, horrid conservatives...
Is this inter-party marriage distaste really racial? I'm not sure, but it could be. Democrats have made political affiliation just about the only publically acceptable way to discriminate, maybe people are using it to express their feelings.
I'm guessing most Republicans would rather have a supreme court packed with 9 black secular lesbians who voted conservatively than 9 white Christian males who vote liberally.
There isn't a racist or sexist bone in my body, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact that blacks and women do a lot it damage at the voting booth.
I'm sure there are is a plethora of quiet, non-shaming democrats out there. But by and large, liberal democrats in the media shout a lot and attempt to shame others into silence. They also make excessively weak, laughable, and irrational arguments. Why would a conservative want to enter into a lifelong contract with that? The home is supposed to be a quiet place that holds the absurdly stupid world at bay. There's a lot to be said for the way the media trains us on a subconscious level. More importantly, perhaps, why marry somebody completely at odds with your values--somebody who would mock you for working in a pro-life organization, for example? Some of these issues aren't worth working through with somebody you enter in a lifelong contract with. As a friend who lives in another house--sure. But in your bed? Shudder.
Might be the "melting pot" myth fading, might just be the Balkanization of the country passing the point long term compatibility on the personal level.
"anti-Semitism"
Filth being a shabbosgoy as usual
It's not at all hard to understand at all. Obama got only 39 percent of the white vote in 2012. He wouldn't get 30 percent today. The Republicans are increasingly the party of White Christian America. The Democrats are increasingly the party of Brown and White Secular America. This supposed distaste for interparty marriage has little to do with politics and more to do with a distaste for interracial marriage and interreligious marriage.
I haven't researched any of the recent figures, but, at face value, I doubt attitudes towards interracial relationships/marriages are a significant factor. Now, I may be experiencing a bias due to my personal experience with liberals and Republicans, but the latter tend to be more inclined to entertain interracial LTRs (and marriage) than the former. In fact, I'd argue that the average white Christian Republican couldn't possibly care less about this issue (again, based on personal experience). They've begun to draw lines in the sand, as Swift commented. Race only appears to be a part of the equation so far as it influences the politics that define the lines.
The real drive is more likely to be the realization of the melting pot being mythology. People are finally starting to realize that people with different value systems and world views cannot compete for the same resources. Though race doubtless plays a role in this, the proclivity of Democrats to exploit and intensify divisions within the overall population is a bigger factor. It isn't People of Color™ that Republicans are rejecting. Rather, it's the Paragons of Civilizational Destruction who engineer the decay and their Minions of Justice who are being shown the door.
Now, I may be experiencing a bias due to my personal experience with liberals and Republicans, but the latter tend to be more inclined to entertain interracial LTRs (and marriage) than the former.
Do you notice any sex differences? Anecdotally, it seems to me that white Republican men do indeed marry interracially quite a bit, but most white women who interracially marry seem to be quite liberal. Also, when white Democrat men marry interracially, it's almost always to an Asian woman.
I also wonder if this ties into the sociosexual hierarchy, and what party affiliation differences and interracial coupling differences there are for Alphas, Sigmas, Betas, Deltas, Gammas, and Omegas. For example, I imagine Alphas, Betas, and Deltas to be moderates, Gammas are more likely to be liberal Democrats, and Sigmas, with their aloof attitude from society, to be politically all over the place, with many hardcore commies, anarchists, and far-right-wingers. As far as dating interracially, white Alphas and Betas are least likely to do so, being most tied into their own societies and therefore less likely to look elsewhere for mates; white Gammas and Omegas often end up with ugly Asian women; whereas white Sigmas are most likely to marry a smoking-hot exotic foreign woman (race irrelevant).
It's a matter of faith for me. A young man who believes as I do--that abortion is wrong and that children are best cared for by their mother--can find a spouse of any racial or ethnic group in the churches I attend. However, he will find that almost all of those candidates tend to vote Republican. In the same way, someone who is OK with abortion and daycare is going to be best paired with a Democrat.
It's not exactly rocket science here.
Perhaps self selection. Those willing to marry are conservative, religious and by extension Republican.
The linked article is ridiculous by saying Republicans are authoritarian. I don't think he knows what it means. What he wants isn't by his definition authoritarian.
Do you notice any sex difference?
I'd say the tendency I've observed is for men to marry interracially more frequently than white women, but the women who do so tend to occupy the political poles. That is to say, the women are either overwhelming liberal or overwhelmingly conservative.
More importantly, there seems to be a strong correlation between SMV, SES and interracial relationships. From what I've observed, white males who date or marry non-white females overwhelmingly select women who are physically attractive and behaviorally "white". White women who date or marry non-while males, unsurprisingly, occupy the poles in this respect. If the woman has a particularly low SMV, you'll usually find her with a similarly low-ranking non-white male. By contrast, if the woman is high value, her non-white boyfriend/husband is probably a lawyer, business owner, finance manager, or doctor.
This is more or less why I find Vox's statement hard to believe. From what I have seen with my own eyes, it isn't relations with non-whites that Republicans seem to be rejecting. It's relations with minorities who refuse to get with the program and those who enable their decadence.
My take is that this is Gramsci's long march through the culture nearing its completion.
There is nothing – NOTHING – in America that is not politicized these days. Battle lines are drawn everywhere -- sports, movies, television, music, video games, even chicken sandwiches!
There's nothing that liberals and conservatives can experience and enjoy together without politics, and therefore their political differences, getting in the way. There used to be quite a few things that they could enjoy together, but not any longer.
Speaking of the decline of marriage, at least she has the title right. http://metronews.ca/voices/she-says/1111021/millennial-marriage-ideas-the-good-the-bad-and-the-beta/
Maybe I'm abnormal. (On this question. Let's leave my other opinions and habits aside for now.) I wouldn't be nearly as concerned if I were somehow stuck in an interracial or interreligious marriage as I would be about being stuck in a marriage with a traitor. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the party platform or behavior of Democratic Party politicians and still votes for them is flirting with treason. And the Republicans aren't far behind.
It's not that people who used to be fine with interracial marriage have suddenly become anti-miscegenation, except a very few on the margins. It's just that people are more uncertain about the future, so they're pulling their focus in more tightly to family, friends, church, local community. Since people of all races tend to self-segregate, having them shift from thinking global to thinking local will result in less racial and cultural mixing even when it's not intentional.
It's trends like this one, I think, that make Civil War II increasingly likely.
I could be wrong, but since men tend to be more Republican and women tend to be more Democrat, it may be a gender gap as well. Men are more likely to realize a woman's liberal views indicate a difference in values that may be problematic. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to see a man's conservative views as an asset to her financially and pragmatically. (I.e., rich white guys are mean unless they give their money to her.)
I wouldn't be nearly as concerned if I were somehow stuck in an interracial or interreligious marriage as I would be about being stuck in a marriage with a traitor.
Same diff.
Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the party platform or behavior of Democratic Party politicians and still votes for them is flirting with treason.
Again, if you are white and marrying interracially, your partner is almost certainly a Democrat.
@Rek - you definitely want a woman with something upstairs - and I don't necessarily mean academic smarts. Boys inherit a lot of their intelligence from their mothers (or their mother's father, if you will). A smart man and a stupid woman can still have a smart daughter, but their sons are much more likely to be stupid.
I know a lot of white democrats and I don't see it being an issue of race as much as entitlements. The racial element comes into play (in my opinion) in the racist attitude most liberal whites have toward minorities that basically assumes they can't take care of themselves without government handouts. Same with the misogynistic attitude that women can't take of themselves either without daddy government.
Regardless, I could never marry a man who voted democrat. I could never respect a guy who ignored economics and voted with his emotions. I am 16-years married to a conservative man who makes decisions with his brain. I was raised by liberal parents who voted for tax increases (though continually dodged paying their own taxes) and primarily made economic decisions based on what felt good at the moment. Not surprisingly, my parents are broke and living off of government handouts.
Low status white mail who married an Asian girl here. Of course I should mention there was a shortage of "Christian" women in the US at the time who:
a) actually believed and practiced what is written in the Bible
b) wanted to marry at a reasonable child bearing age
c) were not divorced
d) didn't have children from another man
e) were willing to respect and submit to their husbands
f) could actually apologize when in the wrong (this of course means they were able to understand that they were wrong)
I could go on for some time. Even today I know more Asian woman who make good wives than I do white women, and I know way more white women than I do Asian woman. It's a sign of the times I guess.
mail = male
Kind of apropos - from romaninukraine.com:
The state of marriage in the US July 29th, 2014
The state of marriage in the US. All American men who want respect and responsibility for their own well being should move to Ukraine and start a business:
“The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women,” Venker wrote. With feminism pushing them out of their traditional role of breadwinner, protector and provider – and divorce laws increasingly creating a dangerously precarious financial prospect for the men cut loose from marriage – men are simply no longer finding any benefit in it.
As a writer and researcher into the trends of marriage and relationships, Venker said, she has “accidentally stumbled upon a subculture” of men who say “in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married.”
“When I ask them why, the answer is always the same: women aren’t women anymore.” Feminism, which teaches women to think of men as the enemy, has made women “angry” and “defensive, though often unknowingly.”
“Now the men have nowhere to go. It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry.”
“Men are tired,” Venker wrote. “Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/young-men-giving-up-on-marriage-women-arent-women-anymore
Regardless, I could never marry a man who voted democrat. I could never respect a guy who ignored economics and voted with his emotions. I am 16-years married to a conservative man who makes decisions with his brain.
I wonder if the greater objection by Republicans than Democrats to cross-party marriage is primarily due to aversion to a Republican daughter marrying a Democrat male.
@corvinus-- The idea of daughter marrying a democrat is stroke inducing.
Just out of curiosity, what's everyone's problem with interracial marriage?
I'm genuinely curious here. I'm completely "over" Japanese girls at this point and honest to goodness I'd rather date a decent white girl, so this is purely intellectual for me. I know it's annoying how the media ofter foists interracial relationships on us, but I don't have a problem with it in theory. Particularly if we're talking Christians here, where your shared faith is much more important than your skin color.
Well if you go over to stormfront you will find talk of white genocide. That talk is misguided because even assuming each generation is half as large as the one before it, Whites will be around for 500 years, and they aren't shrinking anywhere near that fast.
Science however is showing that nature is far greater than most people realize, and that the genetic differences between the races are very real and inform culture. Toss in all the social elements and you are not doing your children any favors. In fact, it is unlikely, they will be able to fit in many places as they will not be fully accepted into either culture. The elites realizing this are thus attempting to patch it all over with media demonstrating happy interracial couples the way they have to propagandize homosexuality in order to make it socially acceptable.
That being said, I don't particularly care what people do, however, people are making these decisions without adequately weighing what they are doing. Just don't make with the BS "there aren't enough good white women". If you are 1 MMV point higher than your wife, she will submit.
"Even today I know more Asian woman who make good wives than I do white women"
I think perhaps white women feel the same about non-white chaps.
It's just an anecdote, but I've recently been seeing far more white women with Negro/East Asian/Indian husbands and (half-breed) children than in years past. The females in question are pretty, thirty-something blonde women.
A lot of guys in the Manosphere boast about "going their own way" (MGTOW)--as if somehow their self-exile from the marriage market will punish American women--but from the looks of it white women will simply breed with other races, thanks in large part to genocidal immigration policies.
Nature always finds a way.
In fact, it is unlikely, they will be able to fit in many places as they will not be fully accepted into either culture.
This is more theory than fact, as the "acceptance" rate varies according to class. The biracial kids who experience a tough time are usually those growing up in lower income areas. Places where skin color and implied genetics are the standard unit of measure (see: the hood, the sticks, Democrat conventions, college). As you move into the middle and upper middle class, however, it becomes increasingly a non-issue, on average.
So, more correctly, the timing of little Johnny's introduction to Human Nature 101 is dependent, in large part, on his environment. Many of the race theoreticians seem to gloss over this.
The real adversity, when it manifests itself, is faced by the women who marry interracially. Most men could not possibly care less who a man or woman chooses to marry, but the same cannot be said of females. If a woman marries interracially, she needs to be sure of her decision, because she will eventually encounter members of her primary racial group who are none too thrilled with her decision. And those chicks don't pull punches.
This is more theory than fact, as the "acceptance" rate varies according to class. The biracial kids who experience a tough time are usually those growing up in lower income areas.
Ah yes, like Elliot Rodgers...
I think perhaps white women feel the same about non-white chaps.
It's just an anecdote, but I've recently been seeing far more white women with Negro/East Asian/Indian husbands and (half-breed) children than in years past. The females in question are pretty, thirty-something blonde women.
A lot of guys in the Manosphere boast about "going their own way" (MGTOW)--as if somehow their self-exile from the marriage market will punish American women--but from the looks of it white women will simply breed with other races, thanks in large part to genocidal immigration policies.
Nature always finds a way.
Women still feel the compulsion to have children. Slightly different from men, who have a constant compulsion to have sex, but not that nagging feeling to have children. If she gets well into her 30s without being able to find a man who isn't alpha enough, she'll bed down with Sandeep.
Another explanation is that while white provider-BETAs are becoming very reluctant to marry for fear of frivorce, Asian provider-BETAs haven't had that cynicism beat into them yet, and still think they really can buy a wife with money.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: MGTOWs are primarily BETAs.
Moses was a lower status male? GBFM was right.
Elliot Rodgers isn't even close to being a legitimate counter example. An individual with his magnitude of problems would have experienced the same social difficulties even if he were Smurf in Smurf Village. I'll concede that the normal principles of sexual attraction impact a bias towards one's own kind, and that may have contributed in part to his complete sexual failure, but that's not what we're discussing.
Now, if you can demonstrate that healthy biracial, or multiracial, individuals from middle to upper income families experience, on average, being the odd man out, in spite of sharing significant behavioral and cognitive traits common to one group or the other, inside their own economic group, that's another story. But I have yet to see anyone provide such specific information.
Now, if you can demonstrate that healthy biracial, or multiracial, individuals from middle to upper income families experience, on average, being the odd man out, in spite of sharing significant behavioral and cognitive traits common to one group or the other, inside their own economic group, that's another story. But I have yet to see anyone provide such specific information.
Well, anecdotally, a surprisingly high number of biracial males I know of who grew up in middle or upper-middle income households ended up gay. Biracial daughters seem to have fewer problems, but seem to be somewhat sluttier than average (Belle Knox the Duke porn star being an extreme example).
You're citing anecdotal evidence, highlighting why I am dubious about the general theory of biracial/multiracial adversity that was proposed above. All of the argument I've heard supporting that version of the theory use as evidence either (a) anecdotal examples, (b) significant studies of lower income groups, or (c) significant studies of biracial kids in low-IQ environments. Because (b) and (c) are fundamentally different environments from higher IQ middle and upper-middle income environments, I think it's more than a stretch to say that the same behavioral norms exist. I'd even go as far as to call it absurd, given what we know empirically about the behavioral differences and tendencies between different IQ and income groups. But the big problem is (a). Anyone on this blog or elsewhere can provide from their own limited experience examples of mixed heritage being utterly disastrous, incredibly advantageous, and all manner of things in between. It's window dressing, not substance.
I don't disagree that having a mixed racial background can cause difficulties. To do so would be to brazenly dismiss reality. I'm merely stating that, in most cases, the impact is greatly exaggerated. The relevant variables have not been properly evaluated and we are consequently left with thinly supported speculation. Therefore, the warning given earlier is more theatre than it is reason.
As for your own evidence, I wouldn't use guys ending up gay as an example. I am not up to speed on the relevant science, so correct me if I'm wrong, but homosexuality is usually a genetic trait, is it not? If so, this would only support the theory if interracial breeding increased the probability of that mutation. Increased sluttiness is also a thinly supported conclusion unless you can provide objective SMV averages. What's the average n of a biracial girl relative to the average n of a non-mixed female of identical SMV, background and philosophy (feminist, Christian, etc.)? To do anything other than speculate, we need this information.
Not to shoot my theory in the foot, but biracial children have higher incidents of psychological disorders. You can google for that. Also, biracial children are SOL if they need transplants. Given that there are physical differences between mono and biracial children, evidence is suggestive (though doesn't prove) that the psychological issues stem from genetic incompatibilities.
I am unaware of a study of say light skin biracial children that could pass for say Southern European (Kristen Kreuk) vs. those that are clearly biracial (Halle Berry), which could shine some light on whether culture is a factor. Incidentally, the point about which socioeconomic class you are in is well taken and worth further investigation.
I am in anecdotal territory, but I find in my upper middle class neighborhood none of the children seem to have any problem playing with anybody based on skin color, and none of the parents seem to have any reservations about mixed race children or their parents. But then my eldest just turned 7, so I can't really speak to what happens when the kids start creating social hierarchies, which happened around 3rd-4th grade when I was a kid and is thus still a couple years out.
If you are 1 MMV point higher than your wife, she will submit.
July 29, 2014 at 10:09 PM
I find this difficult to believe when modern western women tend to see themselves a couple of points higher on the SMV then they really are. Plus I have rarely seen an American woman submit regardless of her SMV. I know too many couples where the guy is definitely higher on the scale, yet the girl calls the shots.
I'm guessing most Republicans would rather have a supreme court packed with 9 black secular lesbians who voted conservatively than 9 white Christian males who vote liberally.
While true, I doubt there are 9 black secular lesbian conservatives among the 315,000,000 people in this country.
Well assuming they are all independent variables (Which they aren't)
~44 million blacks
~23 million black women
~3 million secular black women
~810k secular black women age 45+ (sort of a requirement to be on the SC)
~49k conservative, secular, black women age 45+
~972 conservative, secular, black lesbians age 45+
Percentage of the US population that are lawyers 0.36%
972 * 0.0036 = 3.5
and that is a best case scenario that assumes black females are equally represented in law, which they most certainly aren't.
So no, there aren't.
I find this difficult to believe when modern western women tend to see themselves a couple of points higher on the SMV then they really are. Plus I have rarely seen an American woman submit regardless of her SMV. I know too many couples where the guy is definitely higher on the scale, yet the girl calls the shots.
Yes, women (and this includes any minority female that has had any amount of education in the US) tend to over value themselves. But that is something the man needs to take care of prior to "I do" otherwise he is just asking for it. As for many husbands, they incorrectly assume that they aren't going to get shit tests after they marry. The result is they lower their value during the marriage even as their provider status is enhanced. It also doesn't help that the wife invariably has spinster or divorcee "friends" spewing poison in her ear.
so correct me if I'm wrong, but homosexuality is usually a genetic trait, is it not
Homosexuality is a reaction to severe neglect and/or abuse as an infant, or sexual abuse. We know this because homosexuality is comorbid with diagnosable Borderline Personality DIsorder over 90% of the time, and we know that BPD is caused by severe neglect and/or abuse as an infant, or sexual abuse (Basically, it's a very antisocal form of PTSD in which the cause of the trauma is one or more relationships).
Gays have been searching for decades to find a "gay gene" or any demonstration of homosexuality being a heritable trait. If they had found one, the left-wing press would have put it front and center on the news, and the headlines of newspapers and magazines for months.
The fact that no such thing has happened is demonstration, to my satisfaction, that NOBODY has found any link between genetics and homosexuality.
Aaron, is there a heterosexuality gene? Or an intelligence gene? Or a "good looks" gene?
You are asking a wrong question. Is there a point to demanding a "left-handedness" gene?
There is no single gene for "things going awry".
AFAIK, no one has attempted to perform linkage disequilibrium studies regarding incidence of homosexuality, yet. Too little of estimated gain for the resources necessary.
This study (http://goo.gl/3UT3az) suggests that there is one (or more than one) susceptibility gene on the X chromosome.
@Mindstorm
But there's nothing concrete, only vague hints. And yet, the biracial males I know are far more likely to be gay than other males. There's no way to explain that if homosexuality is genetic.
Corvinus, calling something genetic doesn't explain it. Genetics is a very tricky subject. Take this example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_assimilation#Waddington_experiment
Is this effect genetic, environmental, or both? Disclaimer: this example is not related to homosexuality itself.
Concrete results to be produced quickly necessitate unethical, inhumane experimentation regime.
How often do natural experiments result in more than "vague hints"?
For my part, I would, and have, marry an Asian. But I wouldn't marry a leftist (and practically all Democrats are leftists) in a million years. They're disgusting inhuman filth, who represent godlessness, totalitarianism, and moral degeneration in its almost purest form.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.