Marriage rates are on the decline because of fewer 'economically-attractive' men as women are focused to choose between remaining single or 'settling' for less successful partners

It is perfectly reasonable and utterly traditional for women to want a competent partner -- and economic competence is part of that.  And it is undoubtedly true that modern-day women experience a shortage of economically competent men. They have been complaining bitterly about it for some years now.  So how come? 

It's all down to feminism.  Political feminism is largely anti-man and their destructive aims do have some fulfilment in various ways.  And the first way is that women are being pushed into traditionally male jobs. And for every woman who gets such a job a man is pushed out and may never get as good a job again.  So the woman can be pleased with her new job but will she be pleased with the reduced availability of appealing partners?

Another way feminism hurts women who want a normal marriage is the feminization of education from grade school on. That feminization tends to push men out of the education system and thus greatly reduces their job prospects.  A majority of graduates are now women. So again feminism damages the economic competence of men.  Once again feminism has hurt female marriage prospects.

Thirdly, feminist activism has created a minefield of politically correct expectations for men.  Normal male reactions to women -- even compliments -- are often deemed unacceptable and may lose the man his job.  And in such circumstance it may be very difficult to get a new job.  Smart men can navigate the verbal obstacles but average men who could be perfectly competent breadwinners in a more permissive age can easily be thrown on the scrapheap.  A considerable range of potential suitable partners will thus not make the cut.

In the circumstances, men can very easily get tired of women from their own ethnicity.  I have seen several high quality men go to the Republic of the Philippines for brides.  Asian women tend to have very little in the way of feminist hangups so very easily take men off the marriage market and promptly have children. Such relationships are not necessarily a bed of roses but the children keep them going, as they do in many Western families. So even women who are less feminist lose out to foreign competition.

And Australia is an interesting example of that.  Australia is fortunate in that its largest ethnic minority is East Asian. About 5% of the Australian population is of Han Chinese ancestry plus there are significant numbers from Australia's other Asian neighbours -- Vietnamese in particular.  Where I shop in suburban Brisbane, about a third of the faces I see are Asian.

And the Han are mostly from Southern China, who are quite short in stature.  So the many young Asian females walking about must feel at times as if they are among a race of giants  Even the Caucasian females walking about are often 6' tall, against the S.E. Asian norm of about 5'. 

So in their own minds the ladies concerned clearly become quite determined that their children will not be such shrimps.  But there is only one way they can have tall children:  They have to get themselves a tall husband.  But there are very few tall Asian males around.  But there is a plentiful supply of tall Caucasian men, including not a few over 6' tall.  So those determined little Asian ladies set out to get one of them.  And being generally smart they get what they want.  If you see a small Asian lady on the arm of a man where I hang out the man will normally be Caucasian, a tall Caucasian.  A couple where both are Asian is much rarer.  And even then the Chinese man concerned will be a TAll Chinese man.  There is no mistaking what is going on

And a major reason why the Chinese ladies snag a Caucasian man so readily is because when the man finds a well presented lady saying  nice things to him instead of feminist crap, it is like water on dry ground. How does "I will do anything for you" sound? It sounds very persuasive to any man. So again feminism has taken an eligible man off the market and feminist-inspired women can go whistle.

I gather that similar things happen in parts ofthe USA where there is a substantial Chinese presence, for instance in the universities.

But perhaps the greatest damage that feminism does is the unrealistic expectations it puts on men.  Women are taught that they should look for female virtues in men. They will often not find them -- particularly in economically competent men, who will usually be independent-minded.  So even if the man is actually economically competent he may well be rejected, producing an ever-shrinking pool of eligibles.


And once a woman has found a man who ticks all her boxes comes the big challenge, getting him to marry her. Thanks to Britain's savage feminist-inspired divorce laws, no well-advised  Englishman would ever marry, and many don't.  About half of all births in England today are ex-nuptial

Political feminism is the dire enemy of normal marriage-minded women.  Many women are feminist but to a much lesser degree than the political feminists -- but it is the politically active feminists who get the attention and dominate the culture


Marriage rates are on the decline due to a lack of 'economically attractive' men with steady jobs for single to women to meet

The study found that married men had incomes that were 58% higher and were 30% more likely to be employed than unmarried men who are still available

Researchers at Cornell University found that women may instead 'settle' for a potential husband or remain unmarried altogether

Black women and other minorities face serious shortages of potential marital partners, as do unmarried women, the study found

Marriage rates are on the decline due to a lack of 'economically attractive' men with steady jobs for single to women to meet, according to a study.

Researchers analysed data on recent marriages between 2007-2012 and 2013-2017 and concluded that there are fewer men with stable jobs and a good income available for unmarried women to match with. 

The study from Cornell University examined characteristics of unmarried women's perfect or 'synthetic' spouses which were comparable to real life husbands of married women. 

Authors found that so-called 'dream' husbands had an average income that was 58 per cent higher than the average unmarried man.

Women's perfect husbands were also were 30 per cent more likely to be employed and 19 per cent more likely to have a college degree than the average single American man, according to the study titled: 'Do Unmarried Women Face Shortages of Partners in the U.S. Marriage Market?.'

As a result, women may instead 'settle' for a match that falls short of their aspirations in a husband, the study suggests.

Women also may struggle to marry if they are of either a low or high socioeconomic status. 

The study also found that women faced serious shortages of potential black or minority marital partners.

The authors also pointed to research which shows that the 'mass incarceration of black men' has depleted the pool of unmarried men in inner-city urban neighborhoods, which has greatly reduced the prospect of marriage for black women.

On average, black men are roughly seven times more likely than white men to be incarcerated.

Race remains a significant demographic dimension of national and local marriage market mismatches, especially as educational and income constraints are amplified within many low-income and segregated minority populations.

It concluded: 'This study reveals large deficits in the supply of potential male spouses. One implication is that the unmarried may remain unmarried or marry less well-suited partners.'

The study reinforced the commonplace view that women in modern society face new marriage trade-offs at a time when finding a suitable match has become more difficult.

Daniel T. Lichter, the study's lead author and researcher with Cornell University, said: 'Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men—men with a stable job and a good income—make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs.

'Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.'

Authors found that traditional patterns of mating have shifted, switching from a tendency in 1980 for women to 'marry up' in socioeconomic status to a current trend of 'marrying down.'

It found that women face overall shortages of economically attractive partners with either a bachelor’s degree or incomes of more than $40,000 a year.

They said the findings reiterated previous research finding that mismatches in the marriage market in the form of shortages of economically attractive men may exacerbate uncertainty and heighten disincentives to marriage.

They said this comes at a time of rising education and growing financial independence among American women.

One solution, the study states, is  that promoting good jobs may be the best marriage promotion policy rather than marriage education courses that teach new relationship skills.

Women who are highly-educated fare worse due to gender imbalances , as they will either increasingly remain unmarried or they will match with men of a lower social status both in education and financially.

The study noted that the average total income of married men is $70,000 compared with $35,000 for unmarried men. Nearly 40 per cent of married men are college graduates compared with only 25 per cent of unmarried men.

Although the difference is small in absolute terms, the relative difference in employment status is large.

About twice as many unmarried women are unemployed compared to married women.   

SOURCE 







Feminist: 'heterosexuality is just not working'

It will come as no news to FrontPage Mag readers that feminism, like every facet of Progressivism, has gone completely off the rails since the triggering ascension of Donald Trump to the White House, but it’s worth an occasional reminder to grasp fully just how desperate and detached from reality feminism is. The latest case in point: a self-described lesbian feminist columnist has declared that pop singer Miley Cyrus, “suicided” sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the mass shooters in Dayton and El Paso are examples of how heterosexuality “is just not working.”

In an opinion piece for NBC News, Marcie Bianco curiously claims that recent trending news stories — Epstein’s downfall; the “toxic masculinity” of male mass shooters; the bisexual Cyrus’s marital breakup; and entertainer Julianne Hough’s public announcement that she’s “not straight” — present “a snapshot of 2019 America” which depicts “an American patriarchy on the edge of a nervous breakdown.”

Bianco – a columnist at the Women’s Media Center, a nonprofit created by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and radical activist Robin Morgan to “raise the visibility, viability and decision-making power of women and girls in media” – observes that Cyrus’ separation from actor Liam Hemsworth and her subsequent dalliance with at least one other woman is more significant than just another failed celebrity relationship. It’s “a blow to the patriarchy.” I am skeptical that it was even a blow to Hemsworth, much less to the entire so-called patriarchy, but the collapse of any marriage, no matter how “consciously uncoupled,” is nothing to celebrate.

Bianco approvingly quotes Cyrus’ redefinition of “what a relationship in this generation looks like. Sexuality and gender identity are completely separate from partnership.” Considering that Hemsworth’s and Cyrus’s “partnership” dissolved, perhaps the lesson here is that indulging a trendy sexuality that is at odds with your partner’s isn’t the best way to redefine a relationship – and doesn’t bode well for this generation. Bianco also praises Julianne Hough’s self-empowering revelation to her husband that she’s not straight. Although Hough’s initially-surprised husband seems supportive of her thus far, anyone who thinks a marriage can survive in which the sexuality of one partner is “completely separate” from the other is living in an ideological fantasy utterly divorced (pun intended) from the reality of human nature – which of course, feminism is.

In any case, both these celebs and their proud proclamations of sexual liberation are evidence for Bianco that “girls and women are challenging heterosexuality, and even absconding from it altogether.” They are “questioning the foundation of the patriarchy — heterosexuality — that has kept them blindly subordinate for centuries.” Clearly, as “the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working,” she concludes.

As evidence, she points to a recent Gallup poll which shows that “a record 4.5 percent of American adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.” Bianco would have us believe that this figure indicates that females are fleeing heterosexuality en masse, when in fact it merely demonstrates the degree to which the cultural Marxists in education, entertainment, and the news media have intentionally and successfully inculcated an anti-family gender confusion in many young people.

For those cultural Marxists, everything must fit the paradigm of oppressor-versus-oppressed. Hence, as Bianco argues, “[m]en need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”

She continues: “Historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate, just as they have been conditioned to believe that their main purpose is to make babies – and if they fail to do so, they are condemned as not ‘real,’ or as bad, women.” This is pure misandrist, feminist poppycock. Bianco is declaring that heterosexuality is unnatural, and that men everywhere, throughout history, have conspired somehow to brainwash women into being attracted to the opposite sex in order to oppress them. This is what poet and lesbian feminist Adrienne Rich – whom Bianco cites – referred to in her influential 1980 essay as “compulsory heterosexuality.”

Bianco goes on to state that lesbians or bisexuals like Cyrus and Hough define their freedom differently from how the word is understood by conservatives, who conflate it “with domination. In this context, freedom is actually possessed by a select few, as it is dependent upon the oppression — rather than the liberation — of disempowered people, particularly women and minorities.” Her sole evidence for this claim is President Trump’s private boast that women will let you do anything if you’re famous. From that she extrapolates that conservatives (whom she equates with white males, of course) believe freedom means their right to oppress minorities. Conservatives (who come in all colors and both sexes, by the way) believe no such thing; indeed, in direct contradiction to Bianco, it is the right that emphasizes the personal responsibilities that come with freedom, while the left promotes narcissistic behaviors literally designed to deconstruct the natural order that has prevailed since the beginning of mankind.

Bianco doesn’t elaborate on how Epstein and mass shooters are emblematic of this failing heterosexuality, except to point out that “[m]en continue to coerce, harass, rape and kill girls and women — and go to extreme lengths to avoid responsibility for their actions” – a grotesque generalization that would draw howls of Progressive outrage if she were referring to any other demographic except for white males. (Imagine if she had made such a sweeping denigration of Muslims or blacks or transgenders. Men, on the other hand, are fair game for the open contempt and bigoted smears of hateful feminists, and have been for decades.)

Epstein was nothing more nor less than a sick pimp for the powerful. He no more represents men in general than Cyrus represents all young American ladies. Neither does he represent heterosexuality, but a perversion of it. As for the mass shooters, there is no indication that their motives involved propping up the patriarchy or punishing lesbianism.

Bianco closes by quoting Adrienne Rich, who wrote that a “feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orientation for women is long overdue.” Bianco triumphantly declares that “It looks like this critique has finally arrived in the mainstream.”

In fact, her cherry-picked instances of celebrity deviance are not anywhere near the American mainstream. Despite the desperate efforts of feminists to eradicate it, heterosexuality is alive and well, as it has been for all of history. Hollywood is not America. Miley Cyrus is not representative of any demographic in the United States other than, perhaps, damaged Disney child stars. If she is an exemplar of anything, it is the degrading libertinism that the misogynist Left encourages in all young women in the name of their “liberation” from the “oppression” of husbands and children. Contrary to Bianco’s claim that the tongue-wagging Cyrus has seized control of her bodily autonomy and sexuality, the former “Hannah Montana” is not and never has been in control of her own life. A young victim of the succubus of fame, Cyrus is simply adrift without a moral center, surrounded by sycophants, a standard bearer for nothing but her own unbounded appetites, propped up by the destructive lies of NBC News opinion pieces.

SOURCE 







World’s top personality test doesn’t really work – should we ditch it?

I have never been a fan of the "Big 5" and have never used it in my research.  Human personaity is far to complex to be whittled down in that way.  It's only a quick and dirty recourse when you don't know what you are looking for. My approach as been to construct tests for the specifc trait you are interested in and go from there.  I have in that way often got unusually high vaidities (Would you believe a validity coeficent of .79?) for what I was measuring

Personality tests are used by researchers, employers and even to shape policy, but a new study has found that the most widely-used test of personality doesn’t seem work for people in low- and middle-income countries. Meanwhile, another study has found that even in Western countries, it may only work for specific age groups. So why are we still using it?

The “Big Five” personality traits are openness to experiences, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The theory goes that all human personality traits fall into one of these categories. They tend to be measured using questionnaires that ask people how much certain statements describe them, such as “I have lots of ideas”.

Since it was developed in the 1980s, this model has become the standard way of measuring personality. It has been used in multiple studies to link personality to income, job outcomes, education level, wellbeing, and even mortality, and companies use it in recruitment.

“Policy makers seem to care a lot about this, and more and more so,” says Karen Macours at the Paris School of Economics in France. “So we want to make sure that it actually works.”

But when Macours and her colleagues looked at survey results across 23 low- and middle-income countries, they found that it didn’t. A set of questions developed to test for a specific trait, such as conscientiousness, would be expected to give similar scores in any individual. But that didn’t happen across the 23 countries studied.

There are plenty of reasons why this might be the case. A person’s culture could influence the way they describe themselves, and differences in language could play a role. The first Big Five tests were developed from an English dictionary search of adjectives that could be used to describe personality. Perhaps not everything translates.

In another study, David Condon at the University of Oregon and his colleagues have found that the model doesn’t even apply to everyone in Western countries. While it seems to work for young adults, it fails in older populations, perhaps because the Big Five model was originally developed by studying university students.

Given all of this, and the fact that an individual’s personality can change over time, some researchers are starting to ask questions about the viability of the Big Five model.

For a start, can human personality traits really be whittled down to five categories, which ignore goals, values and interests? It depends who you ask. Luke Smillie at the University of Melbourne thinks there are “between 4 and 7”. The HEXACO model, which expands on the Big Five by including an additional “honesty-humility” trait is gaining ground. But Condon’s team have developed a model to cover 27 traits.

Simply measuring more traits won’t help, however, as survey responses are also problematic. No one can be expected to give a brutally honest and unbiased assessment of their own personality. Often, researchers corroborate responses by asking the person’s close friends or family members – but these individuals will have their own biases.

Despite this, many researchers still defend the Big Five model. It works in some groups, and has harmonised personality research, allowing academics to share and compare their work, they say. “The question is: to what extent do we need to modify it or be aware of its limitations?” says Erik Gahner Larsen at the University of Kent.

SOURCE 





A Texas Town Votes to End ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’

A city council in Texas has voted to stop renting out space at the local library to public organizations, essentially canceling the town’s ability to have a “Drag Queen Story Time” for children, a move hailed by pro-family advocates.

“These are people who are actually employed at adult nightclubs,” Mary Elizabeth Castle, a policy adviser for Texas Values, a nonprofit organization that promotes faith, family, and freedom, said of the drag queens.

The City Council of Leander, Texas, 22 miles northwest of Austin, voted 5-2 at its Aug. 15 meeting to stop renting out meeting rooms at the library to the public.

“We brought in $1,800 in rental fees and we spent $20,000 in security,” Leander Mayor Troy Hill said, apparently referring to the drag queen event. “That’s not good math to me.”

While “Drag Queen Story Time” didn’t end up happening in Leander due to a scheduling conflict, it came very close.

“Originally the Leander Public Library scheduled a ‘Drag Queen Story Time,’ but that event was canceled by the City Council,” James Wesolek, a communications associate for Texas Values, told The Daily Signal in an email.

“Then a so-called ‘church’ rented the library and scheduled their own ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’; however, the drag queen canceled at the last minute due to an unavoidable work conflict, and the event became a family pride festival.”

The idea of a drag queen event for children in the town of about 49,000 sparked protests, The Austin Chronicle reported.

Castle, of Texas Values, said the drag queens who often headline such events are not family-friendly or child-friendly.

“I’ve done some research and … their day job, without going further into, you know, anything personal, if you just Google them you can find out that they work at adult nightclubs,” Castle said. “And so those people shouldn’t be reading to children.”

Council member Jason Shaw, who voted to end the practice of renting out space, said that doing so was not only economically sound but a socially wise choice.

“I hate that we’re having to do this, to take it away,” Shaw said of the vote to stop renting out space.

“But people are going to attack. If we don’t just make it even across the board, people are going to attack and they’re going to probe,” he said. “It’s going to cost the city and eventually somebody’s going to get hurt. Things are going to escalate and somebody’s going to get hurt.”

Council member Christine Sederquist, who voted against the change, said the new policy is not inclusive.

“We already have things in place to protect our citizens and ensure costs,” Sederquist said during the debate. “There’s no reason to take away something from them.”

Castle told The Daily Signal that the content of the drag queen story hours is inappropriate, but the American Library Association is “pushing” the event.

The American Library Association, Castle said, “has been behind a lot of the story hours along with the national ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ nonprofit and trying to have these ‘Drag Queen Story Hours’ across the country.”

The Daily Signal sought comment from the American Library Association, but it did not reply by publication time.

Castle said the events are woefully inappropriate for children.

“These drag queens are told to read stories, you know, about gender transitioning and about sexual orientation to young kids as young as infant age,” she said.

Leander as a whole also wasn’t too keen on the development, Castle said.

“I think the majority of the city disagrees with these events because of the cost and kind of the chaos that came with having that event,” she said. “I think the city … wants to protect their children, and for the most part they seem to be against the ‘Drag Queen Story Hours.’”

Emilie Kao, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal in an email that the trend of “Drag Queen Story Hours” is doing everything to harm and nothing to help children.

“‘Drag Queen Story Hours’ are contributing to the inappropriate and early sexualization of children,” Kao said. “Parents, communities, and local libraries have the right to protect their children by refusing to host adult entertainment in spaces designed for kids.”

SOURCE 





Australia: Gender-bred lessons for kids

Teens taught biology not tied to sexual identity

NATASHA BITA

TEENS are being taught their gender is not tied to their biological sex, in a controversial "Genderbread Person" lecture funded by taxpayers. Queensland Health is sending a sexual health doctor to some Brisbane high schools to "expand the idea of sexuality beyond the narrow focus of sex and genitals".

The teen sex talk, the "Genderbread Person", is based on a concept by self-described "social justice comedian" Sam Killermann, who has declared that  boys who identify as male are "privileged". Genderbread.org states that "gender identity, gender expression, biological sex, and sexual orientation exist independent of one another". It says gender identity can be anywhere on a scale from "woman-ness" to "man-ness" and includes terms such as "two-spirit", "genderqueer', "amender", "bigender", "third-gender" and "transgender".

"If someone is born with male reproductive organs and genitalia, he is very likely to be raised as a boy, identify as a man, and express himself masculinely," the website states. "We call this identity "cis-gender" — when your biological sex aligns with how you identify and it grants a lot of privilege."

The lecture is presented by Queensland Health's Metro North co-ordinator of sexual health, HIV and hepatitis, Dr Joseph Debattista. In his note to schools, Dr Debattista says he will "pres-ent the concept of the Gender-bread Person as a model for understanding sexuality".

"Firstly, it will be important to expand the idea of sexuality beyond the narrow focus of `sex and genitals', and view it as the innate ability of all humans to share themselves and communicate who they are with others," he states. "To understand ourselves as individuals, we will be looking at the four layers of sexuality as presented in the Gender-bread Model: biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender expression, and exploring the nature and diversity of each layer."

A Queensland Health spokeswoman said two or three schools each year asked for the gender lesson, which "is not part of the Genderbread program". "It's important for young people to learn about sexual health and safe sexual behav-iour," she said. "Young people who identify as LGBTI+ are more likely to attempt suicide. "This education aims to promote understanding and respect for the dignity of all people."

Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the Gender-bread program was banned in NSW schools three years ago. "Suicide prevention and awareness is important, but this discredited politically correct propaganda is not the answer," she said.

 An Education Department spokesman said school principals could request the gender lectures, and parents and students could opt out.

The Sunday Mail (Queensland) - 2019-09-08

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

************************************