Saturday, March 24, 2012

Roissy, Randall, and Charles

Reacting to Roissy's chastising of Charles Murray, Randall Parker makes an assertion I've seen repeated in various forms and in various places:
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.
I wonder where the actual evidence for this is. 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.

Seems to me that erasing the social stigmas that used to be attached to the debased behaviors of the lower classes, men and women alike, as well as the dire financial problems that used to almost inevitability arise as a consequence of such debased behaviors, is the biggest reason we find America's lower classes in the state that they're in today.

Roissy accuses Murray of dereliction in his failure to assign more blame for the decline in marriage rates on women who go cock carouseling with alpha they can't convince to stick around. But the putative alphas who are tagging these women are low status men from the bottom of society, just as are said women being tagged.

That, indeed, is exactly Murray's point--the shaming strategies Roissy suggests employing apply mostly to low status women. SWPL women pretty much behave exactly as they did two generations ago. Parenthetically, Roissy highlights the abstract of one study by two University of Michigan feminists that appears to contradict the data marshaled by Murray in Coming Apart. Roissy proceeds to imprudently claim that "in one fell swoop, a cherished feminist and beta male shibboleth gets crushed into dust and blown away", not least because far from crushing a foundation of modern feminism, it endorses it. The opening vignette might as well include this feminist favorite.

Roissy's female shaming complements Murray's male shaming. Ideally, Murray would've included some variation of them in the WSJ article Roissy points to, in outlining his desire for a broader cultural shift among those in the upper-middle- and middle-upper classes away from haughty non-judgmentalism and towards censuring the degenerate behaviors of the working- and underclasses.


B.R. said...

By Roissy's definition, a woman who cannot snare a man for a long-term relationship, especially marriage for when a child is involved, is playing out of her league.

I don't really get what you're trying to say here, except that both sexes need to be shamed.

The point is to increase the cost to women bearing bastards, so that women are more circumspect about who they sleep with. If there was no welfare, no infrastructure for subsidizing bastard-mongers, and stigma instead, women would sleep with more responsible men, use contraception more reliably, or not have sex at all. All of which are probably eugenic.

Thursday said...

It's not like Ryan Gosling is going around the trailer park knocking up prole women left and right.

I have to say this is a total strawman. A guy can be totally out of a woman's league sexually and still have the same SES as her. Common sense.

Anonymous said...

Alpha doesn't have to mean mean rich or successful. It means dominant. In prole terms that mostly means muscular thug. If you look at who these women are sleeping with they are alphas of the prole variety.

BTW, SWPL women don't act like they did two generations ago. Two generations ago they married at 22 and had three kids. Today they marry at 35 and have 0-1 kids. The problem with SWPLs is they aren't having enough kids to replace themselves. They aren't having enough kids to replace themselves because SWPL women ride the cock carousel before settling down post 30. Wearing a condom doesn't change that.

Prole women may be having to many kids they shouldn't have, but SWPL women are having fewer kids then they ought to. Both will cause decline in the gene pool.

RR said...

I think you misunderstood Roissy’s point. The guys impregnating lower class women don’t have to be like Ryan Gosling. They just have to engage in alpha like behavior, as Roissy outlined in his "Sixteen Commandments of Poon".
These exhibited behaviors are IQ and income independent. And these behaviors seem to be attractive to women across the IQ spectrum, especially in settings where the sex ratio is skewed in favor of men (which is precisely the situation one finds on most university campuses).

I agree that there isn’t a lot of data backing up the “women playing out of their league end up riding the cock carousel” theory. The seduction profiles of baby daddies haven’t been studied with any rigor to my knowledge. We do know that guys who get laid a lot have a greater probability of fathering children out of wedlock than guys who don’t get laid as often and having lots of sexual encounters is an alpha characteristic. Perhaps smart women are just better at avoiding pregnancy or childbirth than less intelligent women. We do know that among college educated black women who bear children, 45% of them do so outside of marriage. This despite the fact that college educated black women are even more likely to be married than their less intelligent sisters than educated white women are (as compared to less educated white women).

Jokah Macpherson said...

I think the feminist shibboleth Roissy is claiming is being crushed is the idea that education/intelligence frees women from the need for men whereas this study seems to suggest that smart women still need men as masturbation tools, figuratively speaking (one could argue that the feminists don't think this use "counts", though). Either way, it's hard to tell what the study really says from just the abstract. Anecdotally, my smartest female friend, who has a PhD in a science field, is a virgin at 27 to the best of my knowledge. She is cursed to have a wide body frame whereby she can never really become slender even if she loses weight but all the same she doesn't strike me as the type to go slutting it up even if she were more desirable.

Regarding the other commenters' points, I thought back to your post on monogamist men having more children. I went back to the GSS and limited the population to only single men and got a vastly different picture. Among those who never marry, the alpha cads with stratospheric parter counts really are significantly more fecund than their bretheren of more modest prowess at getting laid. Given the marriage rates in the lower classes that Murray has pointed out, this is not a trivial group.

Olave d'Estienne said...

Jokah, are you going to ask that woman out? (I'd threaten to ask her out myself, but I'm married. Also I don't know her number of likely live next to her.)

Audacious Epigone said...


Pretty much what you're saying, except I'm skeptical of the claim that prole women really would like the men who knock them up to stay around if only they could get them to do so. Many of them don't care if the guys stay around or don't want them around at all and don't need them to be because of the welfare state and permissive social attitudes.

If the assertion RP makes is true, I guess we should expect a widespread eugenic effect in terms of sexual desirability to be taking occurring right now. Maybe, maybe not. But I'd like to see evidence of it.


Absurdity for the purpose of communicating the point. I obviously (at least I hope it's obvious, and if it's not, that's a reflection of mediocre writing abilities on my part) don't think RP is arguing that.


True. In terms of marital stability, sex frequency, number of lifetime partners, and the like, things haven't changed much, but in terms of procreation, they certainly have.


I'm not really disagreeing with him, just critiquing his rhetorical excesses (shut up, Thursday!). Some of his suggested shaming techniques apply primarily to SWPL women, but that's not where the problems are.

Audacious Epigone said...


Interesting, though not really surprising. I would expect among single guys, those who have more partners end up having more kids than those who don't have many (or any), especially among the lower classes. The question is, are the single proles playing the field outbreeding the married guys? From the post you're referring to, it doesn't look like they are.

chris said...

As women become financially independent they shift to short-term mating strategies.

Audacious Epigone said...


Those are all pay-gated, but the abstract of the second shows that the less financial support women need from men, the more interested they are in a man's physical attractiveness than they are in his earning power. That seems obvious, but it doesn't say anything about mating strategy duration. The third says the same thing in a different context. Not seeing the relevance of the first (of course, I'm only reading the abstract).

I wonder why marriage (that is, a long-term mating strategy) rates increase as a woman's SES increases, then?

Jokah Macpherson said...


No, for reasons I explain in my previous comment. Nature is cruel.


I may try combining the GSS numbers with census data to figure out just who is outbreeding whom and by how much. Your previus post does strongly suggest it is the married men.

Cool new background, by the way. I know you were trying to prove Kansas isn't flat but I had no idea it was like this.

Audacious Epigone said...


Haha, what if I tell you I can see the Rockies from here? (I'd be lying, of course).

Steve Sailer said...

Perhaps the problem is the word "hypergamy," which traditionally implies upward social class mobility (e.g., among castes in India), but Roissy is using it in a different sense.

O.R. said...

Perhaps the problem is the word "hypergamy," which traditionally implies upward social class mobility (e.g., among castes in India), but Roissy is using it in a different sense.

Extremely good point. But what is that sense? Even when looking at our dna, our father's line will nearly always go back to an ethnicity or group that is higher class than our mother's. Another question is why is this now a bad thing when it is an ancient drive. We've always respected it (unless its huge), so why don't they?

Anonymous said...

Even when looking at our dna, our father's line will nearly always go back to an ethnicity or group that is higher class than our mother's.


Anonymous said...

The exasperating thing about the game boy crowd is that they use all sorts of words in non standard ways.

Their use of "alpha" and "beta" is far removed from its anthropological roots, and many of them use "polyandry" and "polygamy" in a non-standard fashion. I've come across some of them who insist that a woman who is married to more than one man in her lifetime is engaging in polyandry.

And they are very resistant to learning the proper meanings of words.

Steve Sailer said...

It might be useful to devote some effort to developing a precise vocabulary. It's real useful to have words for complex concepts.

Audacious Epigone said...

Precise and well-articulated, as in the Steve's definition of race.

Anonymous said...

I think that the precise vocabulary already exists. The true meaning of "polyandry" is crystal clear, for instance.

The problem is that the game boy crowd take a rather leftist approach to language.

What they describe as polyandry would be better called "serial monogamy". But most people have no strong aversion to serial monogamy, so the more emotionally charged "polyandry" is employed instead.

If you've spent time around this crowd you'll have noticed that coming up with new terms, and using old terms in new ways, is an activity which they engage in obsessively. They have constructed an incredibly elaborate taxonomic hierarchy, one which contains "greater betas" and "lesser betas", and thetas, and gammas.

o.r. said...

Steve said, "It might be useful to devote some effort to developing a precise vocabulary. It's real useful to have words for complex concepts."

I agree with anonymous; they have a Leftist's approach to vocabulary and concepts. The onus should not be on us to understand those abusing the language and premises, but on those altering them.
I've seen them try to respond on the definitions of alpha, beta, etc., but the rewriting of history vis a vis society's view of hypergamy has never been dealt with. They further made up out of whole cloth that not only is it bad, but the sexual revolution cause it... with a delayed reaction of almost forty years?

If you have a problem and you're trying to understand it, science is your friend, not something to manipulate to get results that boost your ego, but do little else.

Anthony said...

"I wonder why marriage (that is, a long-term mating strategy) rates increase as a woman's SES increases, then?"

Because higher SES is nice to have, and a) having child(ren) out of wedlock is an instant major hit to one's SES, and b) reduces the potential future SES of those children by some amount.

Anonymous said...

Lower class women are having kids out of wedlock. Upper class women are promiscuous. Neither of these scenarions are good. Both are feminists in nature, just in different versions.

Audacious Epigone said...


The data don't show an increase in promiscuity. Many measures suggest that, if anything, the opposite is occurring.