2012 March 20 Tuesday
Heartiste Criticizes Charles Murray Over Female Hypergamy

Heartiste is disappointed that Charles Murray, who has rather courageously written so much to bring people to a more accurate view of human nature (and gotten heavily attacked by leftist ideologues for his troubles), still shrinks from fingering female hypergamy as the biggest cause of the decline of the family. Heartiste points out that Murray is contradicting himself.

Look, I have no problem with shaming men who donít want to work, or who canít muster the motivation to at least try to find work. Itís not like the existence of self-destructive male bums is unheard of. But Murray DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS his proposed shaming solution with his explanation for the bleak male employment scenario just a few paragraphs above in the very same article! Once more:

Simplifying somewhat, hereís my reading of the relevant causes: Whether because of support from the state or earned income, women became much better able to support a child without a husband over the period of 1960 to 2010. As women needed men less, the social status that working-class men enjoyed if they supported families began to disappear.

Where, pray tell, in that explanation does it follow that men are primarily to blame for their poor employment numbers? Doesnít the exact opposite conclusion ó that womenís mate choices are to blame for men dropping out ó seem more obvious? Shouldnít it be the case then, that single working women on the fast track to single motherhood and alpha cock carouseling are the ones deserving of shame?

Seems obvious to me anyway.

Has Murray missed the hypergamy debate? I still see too many commentators who, while willing to be realistic on IQ and other aspects of human nature, still shrink from looking at human sexuality without sentimentality. This is foolish because natural selection gave us mating strategies that have huge influence on how we behave. Any attempt to explain social pathologies without taking into account differences in female and male mating strategies will reach many serious errors when attempting explanations or to form policy recommendations. We need unsentimental realism about all aspects of human nature.

Murray, like most pundits, is deathly afraid of confronting female hypergamy. For to confront it in full, with all the consequences that entails, would mean arousing the ire of every dim-witted, aggressively stupid feminist, mangina and talk show snarktard with a sympathetic media at its instant disposal. To confront female hypergamy would be to confront the very foundational rationale for the sexual revolution and the fifty year program to equalize social and economic outcomes between men and women.

In one of his greatest accomplishments Heartiste's own writings on hypergamy have influenced mainstream writers. Hypergamy has entered the debate on single motherhood and drop-out males. The decline in benefits that males, especially lower class males, get from marriage has demotivated males toward getting married and working. But lower class male prospects for marriage are due in large part to female preferences for higher class males who they can manage to bed but not get to commit. Females basically playing out of their league have brought upon us the decline of marriage for the lower class and many social pathologies that have come as a result.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2012 March 20 10:02 PM  Human Nature Mating


Comments
Steve Sailer said at March 21, 2012 3:27 AM:

I noticed that the SPLC didn't dare call out Heartiste / R. in their latest scaremongering about the corner of the Web that he's the leader of. I suspect the SPLC made the strategic decision that even with a quarter of a billion stashed away in the Cayman Islands and other bank accounts, they couldn't afford to get into a war of words with this guy.

999 said at March 21, 2012 5:07 AM:

This is my favorite bromance, ever.

FredR said at March 21, 2012 6:17 AM:

Since female hypergamy and male promiscuity both lead to the decline of the family, why doesn't Roissy want to shame "Alpha Males" as well as hypergamous females?

painlord2k said at March 21, 2012 6:53 AM:

@FredR
Because alpha male promiscuity and female hypergamy could only work in a society with an oversupply of female sex.
If the supply is limited and not enough, the female will be able to lock in the male (limited time pussy offer) but will be also be pushed to keep him if he is not a total failure (because all other good males are taken).

FredR said at March 21, 2012 8:40 AM:

That doesn't make any sense to me but I'm very open to the possibility that I'm just being stupid here.

Shouldn't a lower demand for female sex also encourage women to settle?

Half Sigma said at March 21, 2012 8:58 AM:

I know that Murray was a dork about women when he made some really ridiculous comment about Sarah Palin a few years ago.

"Iím in love. Truly and deeply in love." is what he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/magazine/21wwln-Q4-t.html

solaris said at March 21, 2012 12:17 PM:

I just don't buy the idea that what is at work here are different "female and male mating strategies". As a matter of government policy we encourage women to have children but not to get married. Not surprisingly, many of them then do so. No speculation about what might be "hardwired" into human nature, no fanciful theories about "alphas" and "betas", no conjecture about "female hypergamy" is necessary to explain any of this.

solaris said at March 21, 2012 12:27 PM:

>"In one of his greatest accomplishments Heartiste's own writings on hypergamy have influenced mainstream writers. Hypergamy has entered the debate on single motherhood and drop-out males. The decline in benefits that males, especially lower class males, get from marriage has demotivated males toward getting married and working. But lower class male prospects for marriage are due in large part to female preferences for higher class males who they can manage to bed but not get to commit. Females basically playing out of their league have brought upon us the decline of marriage for the lower class and many social pathologies that have come as a result."

That strikes me as being an overly-complicated and somewhat ass-backwards way of saying "we need to end so-fault divorce", which a lot of people have been saying long before Heartiste appeared on the scene. But if saying things in that fashion helps you to persuade people who would otherwise ignore that message as being too "socially conservative", go for it.

Mercer said at March 21, 2012 12:50 PM:

"Females basically playing out of their league have brought upon us the decline of marriage for the lower class"

I don't think sex preferences have changed for either gender. What has changed is the job market demand for low skilled men has fallen and has risen for women. This is what is causing marriage to decline. Some of the males plight is inevitable because of automation. Government policies in immigration, trade and affirmative action are increasing the problem. I have not heard Murray criticize any of these policies. He just wants to call the men bums instead of slackers. I doubt this will make any difference in marriage trends.

Prof. Woland said at March 21, 2012 3:53 PM:

It looks like Charles Murray is a believer in IQ but not hormones.

chris said at March 21, 2012 6:13 PM:

Cad vs Dad societies

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/1/10.full

Dubious said at March 21, 2012 9:04 PM:

So it is the smart girls, not the dumb ones, who say screw it to marriage, dating, fidelity and lifelong monogamy while they are in their primes, and who are more open to fucking around, casual hook ups, cheating and, ahem, serial monogamy.

Oh heaven have mercy. We're supposed to trust a single, 2-year-old Penn State study - of which only the abstract is provided - by two (femninist?) women over what we've seen both from far larger studies and, just as importantly, with our own eyes? What we know: dumb women sleep around more. Dumb women get divorced more. Dumb women are far more likely to have children out of wedlock. Dumb women have higher abortion rates. Dumb women have higher STD rates.

Do a lot of smart women forgo marriage, because their life provides them with more professional option? Yes. Do those women sleep around while single? Almost certainly. Do they sleep around more than dumb single women? Not likely. In all likelihood when they're having sex it's more likely to be with long-term boyfriends, not one-night-stands.

The smart women who do have children are far more likely to be married when they have them, and they're far more likely to stay married. Which means that, in all likelihood, they aren't sleeping around after marriage.

Newphone Guy said at March 21, 2012 9:30 PM:

This is off topic, but I just got a new cell phone provider (T-Mobile) which uses a service called Web Guard that is supposed to restrict access to "adult-themed (18 or over) Web sites." Tonight when I tried to visit your site on my phone it was blocked.

Web Guard can be turned off at the T-Mobile site, although mine were never supposed to be on to begin with, but I decided to test a few other sites to see if they were blocked. La Raza wasn't blocked. MeCHa wasn't blocked. The Wikipedia articles on "masturbation" and "erection," with copious pictures of each, weren't blocked. I assumed Steve Sailer would be blocked, but he wasn't. A couple of other "racist" websites were blocked.

Juniper said at March 22, 2012 1:18 PM:

Quants like Agnostic(GNXP), Audacious Epigone, Inductivist, Man Who Was..., etc. have been very critical
of many of Heartiste's facts. Malloy refuses to criticize, but he'll flail others for saying
the same things as Heartiste. Razib seems to look down on the guy, but seems to want to stay far
away from the controversy. Heartiste responds by calling his critics Aspie nerds.

Steve's right. The SPLC is afraid of that guy; they can't go all Gregory Cochran on him so they
just ignore him.

Winifred said at March 22, 2012 2:10 PM:

The Slate article you linked to contradicts what Peter Frost has found, unless they are only talking about college campuses.
Frost found that men outnumber women and thus the rise of the PUA movement.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-are-women.html

This interactive chart has to be seen to be believed:
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-is-tipping-point.html

BTW, nobody has ever explained why it has taken two generations for feminism to cause hypergamy and all these other ills.
In fact, men had it made from the mid-60s until the earliest 90s, the height of the feminist-abortion-divorce era, in complete
contradiction of PUA theories.

Frost and the other scientists are right: the ratios began to favor women. And it is the timing of this that correlates with the PUA movement.

These men have been coming up with these overwrought theories about hypergamy, as if it is something new and bad, in the EXACT same manner
that feminists did a couple decades ago about men wanting "dumb" women. "Hypogamy", if you will.

But the ratios explain their frustrations best.

Mercer said at March 22, 2012 2:50 PM:

Winifred

The 2009 post you link to says:

"Yet all dating agencies now have more male than female members, except in the 40+ bracket."

Here is what a dating site says about its members:

"A woman's desirability peaks at 21, which, ironically enough is the age that men just begin their "prime," i.e. become more desirable than average. Following that dotted line out, statistically speaking, a woman's desirability
peaks at 21you can see that a woman of 31 is already "past her prime," while a man doesn't become so until 36. "

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-case-for-an-older-woman/

Audacious Epigone said at March 22, 2012 5:41 PM:

Juniper,

Critical (selectively so) of his assertions, with that criticism based upon actual facts, is how I'd put it.

Randall,

Females basically playing out of their league have brought upon us the decline of marriage for the lower class and many social pathologies that have come as a result.

Where is the actual evidence for this? Women who end up as single mothers tend to congregate at the bottom of society, as do the men who impregnate them and then don't stick around. It's not like Ryan Gosling is going around the trailer park knocking up prole women left and right.

gcochran said at March 23, 2012 11:28 PM:

" they can't go all Gregory Cochran on him "


Copyright issues.

kodell said at March 26, 2012 9:18 AM:

There are many drivers of social change - my list of what has shaped lower class employment/marriage would include:

Technological Change
Globalization
Immigration
Decline of Religion
Rise of welfare state
Feminism, change in divorce laws
Racial politics
War on Drugs/drug use
Dysfunctional union/management relationship
Sclerotic government, NIMBY, environmental laws
State of education
Popular culture


Female hygergamy might be a piece of the puzzle - I think it's an interesting concept, and explains some of what I see in our culture, but to use it as an all-purpose explanation of everything that's gone wrong in society seems to be going down the path of the crank.

Terms like "mangina" supports the view of sites like "Heartiste" as misogynistic. If you disagree with any aspect of their
theories you're some sort of low-grade zeta "deathly afraid of confronting female hypergamy".

My personal view is that technological change alone has rendered the bottom 20-30% of the bell curve superfluous (and change has effected
men more then women, as the male competitive advange of greater strength has become mostly irrelevant). Add in globalization/off shoring of manufacturing jobs & competition with immigrants for the remaining low-skill jobs and I think you can probably account for the much of blue collar unemployment.

In my opinion, you could equally explain the decline of marriage by viewing females as rational economic actors that have no interest in forming a partnership with someone who would be a net drain on household resources.

HC said at March 27, 2012 12:04 PM:

The Revolution That Never Happened

http://m4monologue.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/the-revolution-that-never-happened/

James Bowery said at April 4, 2012 8:01 AM:

Here's the problem:

We're unconsciously northern European-centric in the US since that is the founding stock. As Frost has plausibly pointed out, strong sexual selection occurred among northern Europeans acting, primarily, on female phenotypes due to the high male mortality rate. What is often ignored is that this unusually high female to male sex ratio (also the lack of much payoff for polygyny due to limited male provisioning) also had its, secondary effects on northern European male sexuality. When agriculture hit northern Europeans, things changed dramatically and northern European male sexual characteristics became threatened because provisioning could support polygyny at the same time male mortality plummeted. I suspect one adaptation, adopted by northern Europeans to this catastrophe, was an increased emphasis on natural duel between males as a substitute for the pre-agrarian male mortality. The remnants of that culture(or rather, the war-tattered representations of that culture at the frontiers of civilization) were observed by Caesar and Tacitus, as well as re-emerging in the frontier expansion of northern Europeans into the new world's less populated, hence more natural (less civil), environment.

Obviously natural duel is not compatible with civilization since any male may go up to a king (or president or any civilization-synthesized "alpha"), and demand that they "go to the island" (aka holmganga) as King Arthur challenged Flollo. The notion of "The King's Champion" to protect the King from challenges, as well as other social restrictions on natural duel, were essential outgrowths of the domestication of the northern European culture in various waves (the most recent domestication being JudeoChristanization).

What many don't understand about northern European males is that their "wimpishness" when it comes to psychotically rampaging northern European females is an essential outgrowth of the pre-civil sexual selection. Before agriculture, they did not require jealousy -- only hunting competence. With agriculture the option of natural duel provided a socially sanctioned outlet for male aggression. JudeoChristianization, for example in the writings of St. Paul on the role of females in the early churches, had to oppress northern European females as the attempt to domesticate northern Europeans was critically dependent on suppressing the natural duel outlet of conflict resolution for its males.

So the JudeoChristianized northern Europeans had a meta-stable situation for many centuries, where both female and male predilections were oppressed so that synthetic "alphas" could exist -- hence civilization.

Removing the oppression of northern European females -- allowing them to freely choose the sires of their children -- while retaining the oppression of northern European male natural duel destabilized that meta-stability. Everything is now going to a lower energy state that appears to have no bottom given that the Africanization of world culture is relentless. African culture is entirely alien to the meta-stability of JudeoChristianity's socially imposed monogamy. As it does not sanction natural duel of betas to alphas, African culture is also alien to any possible reversion to northern European agrarians' sanctioning of natural duel as a couter-balance to treating females as "goddesses"( to use Tacitus's descriptive of the way pre-JudeoChristian northern European males treated their females).

whiskeysplace said at April 5, 2012 1:23 PM:

This theory is not supported by the evidence of European very low population density before, during, and after the Roman Empire in the West. Tacitus remarks that the Germans were very low in population, and got nervous when they saw a neighbor's fire, because the land would not support high-density populations, even with agriculture. The Roman Empire in the West was always far lower in population than the East, meanwhile the Mediterranean civilization could and did muster great resources with all those slaves, and free men, in massive armies.

Even with the introduction of the mold-board plow around 800 AD, it took until the 1200's to return to Western Roman Empire circa say, 100 AD levels of population. From say, AD 300 to AD 800, most cities were reduced to towns, people got a foot shorter, coins no longer circulated, towns became abandoned, mortality vastly increased, and stayed that way. Coinage was absent in Britain until 800 AD or so when Alfred the Great started minting them.

In short the Europeans even after agriculture and metals, remained so thin in population that polygamy was simply impossible: not enough resources, principally food, to support it, much less the slave, serf, lower freedman, and aristocrat that forms that society (think Egypt, Babylon, Persia, etc.) Provider selection remained strong save the Western Roman Empire, circa 50 B.C. to the late 200's AD, because the main problem for Europeans was getting enough food to eat. You can see this in how Europeans process food; unlike most cultures there is a huge amount of processing, particularly baking, to store/preserve food during the lean months (late Winter, Spring) known as the Starving Time when only food stores and fishing provide any appreciable amount of food.

Even after the moldboard plow made European lands more productive, frequent famines, terrain (rivers, mountains, mud), and social organization made Europeans fractured, and feudal. This only changed when firearms and cheap training led to recreation of Roman Era massive armies.

I would argue that Northern European women were dependent on mate-selection and monogamy because the basic constraint that Europeans faced was STARVATION. Hence the inordinate selective pressure on a man who would stick around, and insure offspring survived. Frequent plagues only increased that selection. Famines only became a thing of the past in Europe in the late 19th Century, with modern industrial technology and critically, global importation of food and modern fertilizer production.

whiskeysplace said at April 5, 2012 1:37 PM:

As far as the quant criticism of Roissy/Heartiste theories, they don't account for the marginal utility a male wage earner brings to a marriage.

A Blue Collar woman, under current economic theory, should prefer marriage to a faithful provider (these men ARE to be found even in blue collar areas) since that marginal extra money can propel economic advance, particularly for children. Investing in private tutoring, "Tiger Mom" style SAT coaching, etc. All of which takes extra marginal resources. Heck even normal child-rearing (kids get sick, need someone to care for them, etc.) requires an extra hand. Child care and child rearing favor choosing a provider male.

Yet women have rejected this, spectacularly, among working class women, less so among Middle Class women, and not at all by the upper class women, according to Murray's own data. Assuming that all women are subject to the same basic desires and decision making process, something else must be propelling the women to abandon provider mate selection at the lower levels of income and status.

That to me looks like a straight trade-off for sexiness in favor of providership. That women are abandoning the advantage of increasing their kids ability to move upward, in favor of sexy men, because they feel there is no more upward ladder anyway, or that they won't pay a penalty (their kids will remain poor but they'll have more of them and they'll reproduce).

Even a woman with a marginal male provider, ends up with more household money, and another child care partner, than a woman alone. To me this seems to scream that Roissy/Heartiste is correct, women are choosing sexy over kids, basically. Because both modern welfare and female earnings put a floor under female income and guarantees child survival. Exhibit A: Levi Johnson, kid with Bristol Palin and another woman, age 20, some child care worker. Or, Kevin Federline, five kids in all, with beautiful women who have their pick of men.

This points to the failure of the quant model, in that the models do not take into account ALL decision making factors. A comparison of blue collar White women vs. say, female celebrities, in child bearing, mate selection, and the like would be instructive, to find the delta outcomes. As would the blue collar to upper class deltas.

James Bowery said at April 6, 2012 10:05 AM:

Jutland was noted for its high population density due to agriculture:

In the period before 1000 B.C. the Germanic tribes lived in Scandinavia and the land between the Elbe and Oder Rivers... Population growth was forcing migratory expansion. When the western Germanic tribes, those originally from the Elbe-Oder region, ran out of territory that could easily be acquired their social and economic structure had to be modified. The area of north central Europe at that time was largely covered by forests. The herder-hunters needed areas relatively clear of forest. In the face of population growth there were only a few things that could be done:

* conquest of new territories on the border of the old territory

* adoption of agriculture in order to feed more people from the existing territory

*clearance of forest to provide more pasture for the tribal livestock

These are listed in their order of difficulty. The western Germanic tribes ran out of territory because they impinged upon the Roman Empire on the west and the south. In the east they faced the descendants of the migrants from Scandinavia (who hereafter will be called the eastern Germanic tribes). The western Germanic tribes adopted agriculture.

My argument relies only on there being a change in areal food calories to the Germanic peoples -- and it is simply outside the realm of evidence that agriculture did not have that effect. Statements of yours like:

...it took until the 1200's to return to Western Roman Empire circa say, 100 AD levels of population.

are specious as they don't even pertain to Germanic culture.

James Bowery said at April 6, 2012 10:15 AM:

This comment is particularly humorous:

Tacitus remarks that the Germans were very low in population, and got nervous when they saw a neighbor's fire, because the land would not support high-density populations, even with agriculture.

That's reflected in the American frontier rugged individualism as well:

I like to think of Daniel Boone as the Godfather of Rugged Individualism. With his cry of "Elbow room!" (it appears he did actually say something like this) Boone epitomized the view that the best neighbors were no neighbors. Apparently if he could see his neighbor's chimney smoke from his front yard, it was time to move.

By your argument, we're supposed to believe that the reemergence of natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing on the American frontier had nothing in common with that mode of dispute processing among the Germanics.

This is a genetic predisposition present in Germanics and it has profound implications for the relatively individualistic societies they found.

TechTushar said at September 10, 2012 2:06 AM:

Yet women have rejected this, spectacularly, among working class women, less so among Middle Class women, and not at all by the upper class women, according to Murray's own data. Assuming that all women are subject to the same basic desires and decision making process, something else must be propelling the women to abandon provider mate selection at the lower levels of income and status.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©