Sunday, May 11, 2008

Correction: It's a good thing I don't get paid to do this. After my last post, I was skeptical about the numbers and discovered that a score of 8 does not mean "8+ children" in the ideal number of children question--it means "whatever the parents want is ideal." So my estimates were inaccurate. Here are the corrected numbers (sample sizes are at least 1,100 for each year):


Mean number of children desired--whites

1976
Men 2.48
Women 2.51

1986
Men 2.55
Women 2.56

1996
Men 2.35
Women 2.43

2006
Men 2.37
Women 2.47
Non-Hispanic Men 2.36
Non-Hispanic Women 2.47

This makes more sense. Most whites will give 2 or 3 as the ideal family size, and this has not changed much in more than 30 years. In an earlier post, a reader implied that men want more kids than women, but these numbers do not support that; in fact, it looks like ideal family size might now be a bit lower for men.

Feminists would like us to think that large families are a patriarchal plot against women, but as I've shown before, men like many feminist ideas. What man doesn't want consequence-free sex? What man doesn't want women to be sexually liberated (unless the woman is his daughter)? What man doesn't want a woman to take care of the home and kids and bring home a big paycheck? What man does not want a woman raising her kids alone legitimated?

6 comments:

John Savage said...

This idea that marriage is completely altruistic for men, as you imply in your last paragraph, is really irritating. For movie stars, perhaps, there are no real benefits to marriage. But traditionally, the benefit to marriage for men was supposed to be exclusive sexual access to one woman. For many men, marriage to a traditional woman is still going to get them much better results than a situation in which every woman can choose to only have sex with one of the most desirable men.

You also write, "What man doesn't want a woman to take care of the home and kids and bring home a big paycheck?" That's not a feminist idea. Feminists believe housework is an unfair burden for women. And if they believe there is any benefit to marriage at all, that would be not being required to earn the money themselves. If feminists get married, they expect to have their husbands earn a lot of money so they can do a job that is fun but earns them little, but not sacrifice their standard of living.

The only men who benefit from "feminist ideas" are either homosexuals, or the ones who are attractive enough to practice de facto polygamy.

MensaRefugee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MensaRefugee said...

"What man doesn't want women to be sexually liberated..."

Most of them, by definition, if you accept a large part of the female sex instinct is hypergamous.

Click here to read highly relevant articles on the subject.

John Savage said...

MensaRefugee, I've read the Devlin articles you mention, and mostly agree. But isn't that why the "female sex instinct" has to be reined in if most men are to get a partner at all? Hypergamy means that all females concentrate their interest on a very small fraction of the available males. They would rather have 1/20 of a great man than all of an average one. To make women marry average men, you need a culture that decisively disapproves of polygamy, which is how Western culture traditionally was. "Sexual liberation" means Devlin's sexual utopia for women and a handful of exceptional men, but hell for all other men.

MensaRefugee said...

John,
You seem to be agreeing with me.

"They would rather have 1/20 of a great man than all of an average one."

One comment on that. You might be implying that the above is what women will settle for. I dont think so, they are just incredibly short sighted about their own long term well being. Ive always wanted to make a post on that - I think Men age better than women. Not just looks-wise. But emotionally.

Whatever the case, the current system is a biased one-sided disaster.

"To make women marry average men, you need a culture that decisively disapproves of polygamy"

True, but for sake of not putting women on a pedestal, that should read "To make average women marry average men, you need a culture that decisively disapproves of polygamy" :)

Finally, Im not completely 100% sure that a culture that enforces monogamy is necessary (though this is admittedly nitpicking), but a large aspect of that is a culture that does not give women a free ride, and that in my opinion, is absolutely necessary.

Ill explain what I mean. Devlin refers to something called the Grandmother effect on young females. Imo, females in general are extremely sensitive to the social world, as opposed to the social world and an underlying reality. So they go to college and enforce college as a necessity more so than men just to take one example. All it would really take to get them in line would be... letting reality work its magic on them. We dont need Grandmothers to enforce this per se - just a few women who suffer greatly for not leading the correct lifestyle. Unmarried with a baby? Minimal support from the state should be the result. And damn it to hell if that mean the child suffers too. Too prevent that suffering, is to attenuate the stigma and make untold number of other women willingly choose the same path.

That would act as a "grandmother effect" on thousands of other women contemplating a fling with the dashing young stud of the neighborhood.

As I said, its nitpicking. It may be like saying The Civil Rights Act which assumed no racial disparities were God-given, has no inevitable bearing of a slippery slope down to preferences for Blacks. In a similar vein, Im saying using strict libertarianism may not result in the grandmother effect but achieves similar results.

Ultimately if it is grandmothers, reality, or reality via cause and effect creating grandmothers to make knowledge less expensive may be irrelevant. What is relevant is the bankruptcy of the current system.

John Savage said...

MensaRefugee, I guess we are in agreement. I just thought in your first comment you were saying most men do want women to be "sexually liberated". But I guess you are saying the opposite. Thank you for clarifying.