Cognitive ability and fertility in Swedes

aka a select population of white people.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359

We examine the relationship between cognitive ability and childbearing patterns in contemporary Sweden using administrative register data. The topic has a long history in the social sciences and has been the topic of a large number of studies, many reporting a negative gradient between intelligence and fertility. We link fertility histories to military conscription tests with intelligence scores for all Swedish men born 1951–1967. We find a positive relationship between intelligence scores and fertility, and this pattern is consistent across the cohorts we study. The relationship is most pronounced for the transition to a first child, and men with the lowest categories of IQ scores have the fewest children. Using fixed effects models, we additionally control for all factors that are shared by siblings, and after such adjustments, we find a stronger positive relationship between IQ and fertility.

Furthermore, we find a positive gradient within groups at different levels of education. Compositional differences of this kind are therefore not responsible for the positive gradient we observe—instead, the relationship is even stronger after controlling for both educational careers and parental background factors. In our models where we compare brothers to one another, we find that, relative to men with IQ 100, the group with the lowest category of cognitive ability have 0.56 fewer children, and men with the highest category have 0.09 more children.

There are a lot of new readers who don’t seem to know how I roll.

  1. I am right.
  2. When in doubt, see rule one.

My assumptions have statistical backing. Read up or FO.

Oh, look, it’s the military! [coughs in K-type]

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eugenic-economy/

My brain doesn’t instantly become thick because you dislike an opinion it produces.

If you’re not smart enough to know what’s science, what’s speculative and what’s satire, go elsewhere.

I’ve spent years proving myself on here, with a variety of good predictions (the refugee crisis, African demographics, Brexit, Trump etc). Your incredulity is not required.

Brain size of males by race

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/brain-size-race-and-iq/

includes this

The third piece of evidence is that the racial gaps have existed for a long time. In fact, based on the data from the tables above, the White/Black brain size gap doesn’t seem to have gotten any smaller during the 20th century.

Long before your 60s immigration acts.

The first thing to note is that brain size in the general population has a heritability of 87%. Thus, almost all the differences between individuals in brain size are caused by genes.

Secondly, we should note that racial brain size differences are present at, and even before, birth.

Keep blaming women though, that’ll help.

We need more direct studies like this. Gestation length and other variables must be accounted.

Menarche and other variables like WHR vary by race in the women too. More studies! MORE!

The manosphere is based on a myth of equalism, it was destined to fail.

Fourthly, racial brain size differences have been found all around the world. For instance, the Beals and Smith data set previously referred to features skulls from over 100 populations world wide. Many of the autopsy studies previously cited were done in East Asia, as were two of the MRI studies. This makes any gene independent cultural explanation less likely.

Fifthly, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934Bean, 1906). This finding has been established on multiple occasions and is what a hereditarian hypothesis would predict since mulattoes are half White and half Black genetically speaking.

Do studies for other mixes.

Sixth, many traits which tend to co-evolve with larger brains also differ racially in a way that mirrors the body size adjusted brain size patternRushton and Rushton (2003) looked at 37 anatomical features which 3 textbooks on human evolution identified as tending to co-evolve in the hominid line with larger brains. For instance, larger pelvic size tends to co-evolve with brain size so that mothers can give birth to larger brained infants.  Rushton then utilized 5 forensic anthropology textbooks to look at racial differences in these traits. These traits followed the East Asian>White>Black pattern in 25 out of 31 cases. The probability of this happening at random is .000000001.

WHR is important.

Follow the tag, there are racial differences in studies.

And East-Asian isn’t a race, at best it’s a sub-group, do more studies. Properly.
Asians fail more often on IVF, also posted about that.

Similarly, Rushton (2004) showed that, across 234 mammalian species, brain size correlates with longevity, gestation time, birth weight, litter size, age of first mating, body weight, and body length. Various studies have shown that each of these variables also differ between the races in a way that, based on what we find across the animal kingdom, would predict the body size corrected brain size differences we observe (Rushton, 1995Templer 2006Rushton and Templer, 2009;).

Longevity – must look at averages e.g. not Danes for all whites nor Japs for all Asians.
Gestation – we know this varies.
Weight – control confounds.
Litter size – look at natural rate of twinning.
Virginity loss is r-select, do not want.
Body weight – vague.
Length – we already know racial height. Still, add to the rest, I guess.

Thus, we have six lines of evidence all of which would be predicted by a hereditarian view on racial differences in brain size. While each line of evidence on its own may not be compelling, the combination of all six seems to strongly imply that racial brain size gaps are partly heritable.

It is worth noting that the racial brain size gaps are probably not entirely attributable to genes. Some authors, including Richard Nisbett, have plausibly argued that nutrition also plays a role. However, there explanations are not mutually exclusive, no environmental variables has been shown to account for the majority of the gap, and,  as we have seen, there are many separate lines of evidence indicating that genes also play a role

A confound, in weight.

I suggest seafood consumption.

There is good evidence that the races evolved different brain sizes in response to climate. Specifically, various studies have found that a population’s brain size correlates with climate related variables. For instance, Pearce and Dunbar (2011) ‘s data set produces a correlation of .74 between a population’s brain size and its latitude. Similarly, Ash and Gallup (2007) found a correlation of .48 between the size of 109 fossilized human skulls and the latitude at which they were found. Further still, Bailey and Geary (2009) analyzed 175 skulls ranging in age from 10,000 years old to 1.9 million years old and found a correlation of -.41 between brain size and winter temperature and -.61 between size and latitude (larger brains were found in areas more distant from the equator).

How dare you use science.

The weebs might reee!

Lynn (2015) used Smith and Beals data set of 20,000 skulls from 122 populations to estimate that roughly 30% of the African-European IQ gap can be statistically accounted for by brain size differences. By contrast, brain size differences would actually predict an Asian-European IQ gap 35% larger than the one that actually exists. Thus, brain size is probably one of many factors, both biological and environmental, which account for racial intelligence differences.

Can ya rig the test?

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/intelligence-and-corruption/

Easy, who’s the most innovative?

Especially before colonialism spreading info. Right?

You can rig IQ tests and college transcripts, not more advanced farming equipment when the other group invented it centuries prior.

Link: Outbreeding Depression

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/genetic_structure_and_outbreeding_depression

This phenomenon can occur in two ways. One way is by the “swamping” of locally adapted genes in a wild population by straying from, for example, a hatchery population. In this case, adaptive gene complexes in wild populations are simply being displaced by the immigration of genes that are adapted to the hatchery environment or to some other locality. For example, selection in one population might produce a large body size, whereas in another population small body size might be more advantageous. Gene flow between these populations may lead to individuals with intermediate body sizes, which may not be adaptive in either population. A second way outbreeding depression can occur is by the breakdown of biochemical or physiological compatibilities between genes in the different populations. Within local, isolated populations, alleles are selected for their positive, overall effects on the local genetic background.

Due to nonadditive gene action, the same genes may have rather different average effects in different genetic backgrounds—hence, the potential evolution of locally coadapted gene complexes. Offspring between parents from two different populations may have phenotypes that are not good for any environment. It is important to keep in mind that these two mechanisms of outbreeding depression can be operating at the same time. However, determining which mechanism is more important in a particular population is very difficult.

beige people, blandifying selection traits

In other words, genetic structure, aka, genetic correlation structure is more than additional ethnic genetic interest—it can be function, hence loss of that structure results in loss of function resulting in outbreeding depression.

….

Evidence for outbreeding depression is much less extensive than evidence for inbreeding depression, but outbreeding depression is nevertheless a general genetic phenomenon. One problem in studying outbreeding depression is the number of generations that may occur before outbreeding depression reveals itself. The effects of outbreeding enhancement due to the masking of deleterious alleles and outbreeding depression due to hybrid breakdown may cancel each other in the first generation after crossing individuals from two populations. So the effects of outbreeding depression may not be apparent for a few generations.

They just know that inbreeding is more of a problem than outbreeding—and that’s why they’re “justified” in imposing outbreeding on populations with government force and technologically amplified panmixia.

Quotes and sarcasm, deserved.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/kinship_and_fertility

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5864/813

This paper demonstrates that, in an analysis of Icelandic couples born between 1800 and 1965, there is a “significant positive association” between kinship and fertility; maximal reproductive success was observed for couples with kinship relatedness at the level of third or fourth cousins.

The authors conclude that these differences in reproductive success (i.e. fitness*) have a “biological basis” – that is, a genetic basis.

Strikingly, however, our results show that couples related at the degree of third to fourth cousins exhibited the greatest reproductive success.

In order to maximize fitness, therefore, one doesn’t have to move that far from the endogamous extreme.  Just a few rungs upward on the kinship distance ladder produces benefits superior to that of both extremes.  It’s totally irresponsible and mendacious to use the fitness costs of obvious incest to argue for reckless hybridization (**) with the most genetically distant organisms with which individuals are cross-fertile.

“It could be argued that in human populations there is a point of balance between the disadvantages associated with inbreeding versus those with outbreeding,” said Alan Bittles, director of the Center for Human Genetics at Edith Cowan University in Western Australia.

Therefore, not only is it unlikely – as has been asserted on this blog previously – that any putative “hybrid vigor” can compensate for lost parental kinship, but it’s also highly unlikely that “hybrid vigor” exists to any significant extent for most human populations past the “second cousin” level.  Defining fitness in the proper biological sense, the recent deCODE findings suggest that increased hybridity past an optimal point may in fact reduce reproductive fitness above and beyond the real losses in genetic interests due to foregone parental kinship.

From the Udry study discussed by J. Richards in a previous blog post, to the lack of any evidence of enhanced reproductive success of mixed couples and their offspring, to these latest deCODE findings that reproductive success may be maximized by closer kinship, it would seem that when in doubt, one should err on the side of increased endogamy (to the level of “third cousins” only, of course).

Duh.

When even deCODE – which decided to sift through James Watson’s ancestry and make public their dubious findings because of a politically correct distaste at what they perceived as Watson’s (presumably “racist”) comments on African intelligence levels – publishes findings that show a biologically based enhanced fitness for mating at high levels of kinship relatedness, then one must wonder how any scientifically objective individual could possibly still peddle the idea that cross-racial mating is somehow a biologically preferable choice.

Fetishes.

An important point: it’s really not so important that high kinship actually enhances reproductive fitness, or the mechanisms whereby that occurs.  More important is the lack of evidence for the contrary view: that increasing levels of exogamy leads to “hybrid vigor” and enhanced fitness.  The findings from this study constitute yet more evidence that “hybrid vigor” is not an important force – if it is one at all – for humans.

It doesn’t exist in humans, we’re not racehorses.

Prized, rare (or unique) traits like genius, maybe, but that’s kin-related, subrace max.

In the absence of such “hybrid vigor,” parental kinship takes “center stage.”  The possibility that endogamy may actually raise fitness per se, as suggested by deCODE, is just “icing on the cake,” hammering home the point that mating “between the lines” of genetically distant groups is not required for enhanced fitness.

*Reproductive success and the maintenance/expansion of distinctive genetic information are the reasonable measures of biological fitness, not whether “Tiger Woods smells better on the golf course,” or any other inane commentaries that spew forth from the addled “minds” of certain hysterical proponents of objectively maladaptive inter-racial couplings.
An example of maladaptive inter-racial hybridization is found here.  Again, that’s not even considering reproductive fitness or parental kinship, but merely negative health consequences of introducing one race’s genes into another race’s genome.

**Responsible researchers and conservationists are beginning to understand the consequences of reckless hybridization and outbreeding depression.  Some quotes, and my comments:

the available data suggest that risks of outbreeding, particularly in the second generation, are on par with the risks of inbreeding.

If there’s no advantage for hybridization in the long run, then what’s the point?  Note that this paper is talking about decisions to “intentionally hybridize” animals – we are not concerned with parental kinship when considering animals, only the relative “quality” of the resultant phenotypes.  Even with that, hybridization is questionable.  However, we are humans, and as such, have concerns above and beyond these considerations – such as kinship issues.  So, everything said about hybridization in animals holds true for humans, but, for humans, the underlying cost of hybridization – foregone parental kinship – is something additional that concerns us in dealing with mating choices.

Meanwhile, managers can minimize the risks of both inbreeding and outbreeding by using intentional hybridization only for populations clearly suffering from inbreeding depression…

Yes.  This is the conservative approach.  While Ashkenazi Jews can be said to “clearly suffer” from “inbreeding depression” the same cannot be said of European ethnic groups, or Europeans as a whole (or, for that matter, Africans, Asians, etc.).

The low IQs of Eastern Europeans are inbreeding depression.

Again – and this cannot be stressed enough – that’s not even considering parental kinship (or genetic interests in general).  The Ashkenazim may have preservationist considerations that may lead them to reject hybridization independent of whatever “benefits” genetic mixing may bring, and the cost/benefit ratio may very well favor that rejection.  However, given that Europeans are not “clearly suffering” from “inbreeding depression” there is no reason to follow Ziv’s advice and destroy our genetic interests for non-existent “benefits” to “solve” a non-existent “problem.”

Destroy yourself now because you might, at some point, destroy yourself!

….nah

….maximizing the genetic and adaptive similarity between populations…

In other words, if, for some reason, hybridization is decided upon, one should pick for the hybridization a population as genetically similar to the original population as possible.  One does not pick the most genetically distant populations possible!

…and testing the effects of hybridization for at least two generations whenever possible.

to ensure fertility, not the liger issue

Yes – instead of promoting widespread human panmixia based upon how Tiger Woods might smell on the golf course.  Of course, one may look at highly admixed populations throughout the world and use those for “testing the effects.”  Even leaving kinship concerns out of the picture, the results with respect to positive traits have not been encouraging.

While the data on outbreeding depression are dwarfed by those on inbreeding depression, the few studies that exist suggest that concerns over outbreeding should be taken seriously, as the effects can in some cases be as damaging as severe inbreeding.

Yes, taken seriously, instead of making juvenile comments about which male celebrity may be better able to “induce orgasm” in which female celebrity.  Again, given the costs for humans of foregone kinship, where are the “benefits?”

As a start, managers should strive to do no harm.

What should we think of those who, seemingly, wish to maximize harm?

That is, we should intentionally hybridize populations only when there is hard evidence that a population is suffering from inbreeding depression.

Speculation about how Tiger Woods might smell after a round of golf does not constitute said “hard evidence.”  There is no “hard evidence” that European populations (or Africans, Asians, etc.) are “suffering” from inbreeding depression.  Other small populations may be “suffering;” in that case, let those groups decide to balance the costs and benefits of hybridization – and a “pro” choice hardly means choosing the most distant groups possible as mates.

…low levels of gene flow are predicted to have disastrous effects on populations vulnerable to outbreeding (Edmands & Timmerman 2003).

Yes.

As a final postscript, readers may be interested in an alternative viewpoint with respect to the function of sexual reproduction – which stresses species and chromosomal stability over “increased genetic diversity.”

By diversity they mean the healthy range.

Unhealthy is culled by natural selection.

Also:

“Well, South Asians are the product of mixing between several Caucasoid and Asiatic people, and problems with their racial classification notwithstanding, the fact remains that European Caucasoids and East Asians clearly belong to different races.  In a classic example offered by Arthur Jensen, different bands of a rainbow blend into each other, yet this does not mean that a rainbow doesn’t contain different color bands that are easily distinguished from each other, except at the boundaries. ” marriage post (so not really gene heavy)

Genetic distance studies. Forensic skull analysis. Actually, you can clearly see group and case boundaries.

Averages matter

No moving the goalposts.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/eurasians_more_attractive_than_ugly_caucasians_not_average_caucasians_a_rep/

“blending pictures of Caucasians and Asians to form a hypothetical Eurasian composite”

not how miscegenation works

The authors wrote:

The disadvantage of computer-generated mixed-race composites is that they may not precisely capture the appearance of mixed-race individuals.

Damn right!  However, the major problem is not one of precision but of accuracy.  Caucasoid/Mongoloid hybrids generally look more Mongoloid than Caucasoid because: 1) Mongoloids have retained more ancestral traits such as robust cheekbonesrobust mandibles, and various primitive (ancestral) indices of facial flatness [American Journal of Physical Anthropology 111:105-134; year 2000]; 2) some trait variation is due to dominant and epistatic genes; and 3) the genes associated with primitive features likely comprise of an excess of dominant genes with respect to the newer mutations behind the more-recently-originating facial features disproportionately found among Caucasoids.

One quibble: Broad cheekbones are robust but not attractive.

They’re flat. Very very flat.

“However, in contrast to the first two experiments, the hypothetical Eurasian composite was not rated as more attractive than the Caucasian composite, a result that has been previously reported in a different study.”

When you didn’t skew your method enough to be PC.

“Therefore, the individuals that went into the average female Caucasian likely disproportionately included ugly, obese white women (possibly of mostly Irish ancestry).  In this case, the blending appears to have improved the attractiveness rating from ugly to unattractive.”

Yeah, that’s a fair test.

Figures 5 and 6 below show the pictures used in the third experiment.  One reason behind the attractiveness of the actual Eurasian composites (EurasianAV) in Figures 5 and 6 is the narrower face due to less prominent cheekbones, narrower than even the Caucasian!  The Eurasian facial breadth should be in between the European (narrow) and the Asian (broad).

They do that on purpose to rig the finding.

Supposed Cauc75 looks Celtic, ancient Briton type.

Fuck-all to do with even Eastern Europe!

Their upper fake average is noticably more white than the actual lower pic average.

Again, fellow Brits have more good looking people by volume than other European countries.

So-called Cauc75 looks like my relatives, so I know it’s full of shit to call that a mix.

Genetic isolation from the invasions of European landmass preserved our features.

That’s why so many models are from our isles over Denmark/France/Germany/Poland etc, same reason applies to Asians with Japanese models, more sought after (by genes) and have a higher volume of Lookers than Asia mainland.

They also rig what data they release, omitting profile data.

Notice that Gillian Rhodes has not addressed the attractiveness of facial profile (side view).  I’d be damned if Caucasians consider facial flattening resulting from Mongoloid admixture as more attractive than the attractive Caucasoid norm.  Additionally, how can the following traits resulting from Mongoloid admixture among Caucasians be considered more attractive than the norm among Caucasians: reduced height, less muscularity in males, slanted eyes, flatter buttocks, smaller breasts in females, relatively shorter limbs, relatively longer trunk, and a smaller penis?

How dare you know statistics.

How DARE you.

Flatter faces in whites are considered by neonate doctors a sign of genetic disease. If they spot it in a newborn white, they do other tests for specific things, most of which are linked to retardation of the mind too.

Nasal bridge low, flat midface, short nose – Eurasian traits.

Williams Syndrome nose:

Our gut reaction as white people against mongrelization (in this case, Eurasian mixing) is an aversion to severe genetic disorder.

It could be a coincidence or not, who knows? What does it matter, since an aversion is there?

And has every right to be.

As for the eyes….

Look up downies, harsh but true.

Similar eye shape, tilt angle and placement on face to the Asians without monolids too.

So… there’s that.

Whites don’t find flat faces or stretched, narrowed eyes attractive.

even in fellow whites like Cumberbatch (for the eyes).

Technically, it isn’t about race but avoiding deformed offspring (or deformed looking, who’ll meet the same sexual selection ‘success’).

Caucasoid v Mongoloid skull

Health of mixed race discussed here:

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_health_consequences_of_race_mixing

The authors controlled for age, sex, verbal IQ, grade point average, family structure (living with one or both parents), and family education

On the other hand, there exist several examples in the animal literature where matings between more genetically distant individuals within the same species/different races result in offspring that are less healthy than the parents, on average, [30-37]  and this cannot be blamed upon struggle with identity formation.  There also exist examples of hybrid vigor, but nothing remotely close to hybrid vigor is seen in Udry’s data. 

Udry’s data are compatible with the likelihood of race mixing improving one or more parental traits in some mixed-race offspring, who may be better off than both parents on multiple counts, provided that a greater number of mixed-race offspring are overall worse off than both parents.  The former possibility is surely not implausible given that the tremendous racial and species diversity out there implies that nature does not rule out equally-well functioning/better functioning novel genetic correlation structures, which could be brought about by race mixing, though the chances of improvement would typically be slim if more distant races are involved.

it’s selfish

the parents improve their own DNA at the expense of the child

It is seen in Table 2 that those identifying as mixed race have worse health than even populations known to be highly admixed (American black, Native American, Hispanic).  This could be accounted for if one assumes that first-generation hybrids who have the worst health/behavior problems would disproportionately not be very successful in reproducing, i.e., the healthier mixed offspring could, within a few generations, set up a mixed-race population that is healthier, on average, compared to the first-generation hybrids, but for this mixed-race population to approach or exceed the overall health of the original single-race populations, it would take many generations of [naturally] weeding out the unhealthy and settling toward a novel population-typical genetic correlation structure that corresponds to good health (more on this and on hybrid vigor in a subsequent post). 

Nature’s laughing at all of us, really. That time never exists.

This also assumes the mixed race want kids – no or fewer than average, from what I read and talking to them.

Zero or below replacement level, and lower numbers for kids they actually have.

To conclude, it is irresponsible for any scientific organization to pretend that race mixing has no adverse health effects and it is obviously inappropriate to portray race mixing as desirable or virtuous.

30. Aspi J: Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity 2000, 84 (Pt 3):273-282.
31. Edmands S, Feaman HV, Harrison JS, Timmerman CC: Genetic consequences of many generations of hybridization between divergent copepod populations. J Hered 2005, 96:114-123.
32. Garnier-Gere PH, Naciri-Graven Y, Bougrier S, Magoulas A, Heral M, Kotoulas G, Hawkins A, Gerard A: Influences of triploidy, parentage and genetic diversity on growth of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas reared in contrasting natural environments. Mol Ecol 2002, 11:1499-1514.
33. Miller LM, Close T, Kapuscinski AR: Lower fitness of hatchery and hybrid rainbow trout compared to naturalized populations in Lake Superior tributaries. Mol Ecol 2004, 13:3379-3388.
34. Neff BD: Stabilizing selection on genomic divergence in a wild fish population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004, 101:2381-2385.
35. Peer K, Taborsky M: Outbreeding depression, but no inbreeding depression in haplodiploid Ambrosia beetles with regular sibling mating. Evolution Int J Org Evolution 2005, 59:317-323.
36. Thornhill R, Moller AP: Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 1997, 72:497-548.
37. Livshits G, Kobyliansky E: Lerner’s concept of developmental homeostasis and the problem of heterozygosity level in natural populations. Heredity 1985, 55 (Pt 3):341-353.

comment

Charles Darwin on race mixing; more here (don’t take this very seriously):

These latter facts remind us of the statements, so frequently made by travellers in all parts of the world, on the degraded state and savage disposition of crossed races of man. That many excellent and kind-hearted mulattos have existed no one will dispute; and a more mild and gentle set of men could hardly be found than the inhabitants of the island of Chilce, who consist of Indians commingled with Spaniards in various proportions. On the other hand, many years ago, long before I had thought of the present subject, I was struck with the fact that, in South America, men of complicated descent between Negroes, Indians, and Spaniards, seldom had, whatever the cause might be, a good expression.(1) Livingstone,- and a more unimpeachable authority cannot be quoted,- after speaking of a half-caste man on the Zambesi, described by the Portuguese as a rare monster of inhumanity, remarks, “It is unaccountable why half-castes, such as he, are so much more cruel than the Portuguese, but such is undoubtedly the case.” An inhabitant remarked to Livingstone, “God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made half-castes.”(2) When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the progeny seems to be eminently bad.

Sixth commandment…..

thou shalt not adulterate

Thus the noble-hearted Humboldt, who felt no prejudice against the inferior races, speaks in strong terms of the bad and savage disposition of Zambos, or half-castes between Indians and Negroes; and this conclusion has been arrived at by various observers.(3) From these facts we may perhaps infer that the degraded state of so many half-castes is in part due to reversion to a primitive and savage condition, induced by the act of crossing, even if mainly due to the unfavourable moral conditions under which they are generally reared. 

nurture has been debunked (adoption studies)

[1] Journal of Researches, 1845, p. 71.
[2] Expedition to the Zambesi, 1865, pp. 25, 150.
[3] Dr. P. Broca, on ‘Hybridity in the Genus Homo,’ Eng. translat., 1864, p. 39.

A study on cruelty would be interesting.

Female medieval English skeletons study

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119392

“However, the period of ‘youth’ in medieval England, before the achievement of full social adulthood, may have extended well past physical adolescence, and the age of 25 years is often used as the cut-off point.14″

Louder for the pedos at the back.

“but for most medieval young women physical adulthood did not equate to social adulthood.16″

Obviously.

“Instead, puberty may have marked the beginning of the phase of ‘maidenhood’ rather than adulthood.17”

We now call it teenagehood but I prefer that name for women.

“Lifestyle changes for the teenager, in particular the onset of formal work, may have marked a further step away from childhood, particularly if this involved a move away from the parental home. That the 14th-century poll tax was levied on all those aged 14 years and above suggests that young women were expected to be earning their own money by this age.18

HA. Yeah, the guys who say women should sit at home all day twiddling their thumbs waiting to marry are 1. wrong and 2. have put too much stock in middle-class novelist Austen.

Like today;
“Although exact numbers are impossible to calculate, it is clear from the documentary evidence that a significant proportion of young women migrated to urban centres such as London and York to obtain employment, most commonly a service position.19″

Exactly like today:
“This move would have been a dramatic, and potentially a traumatic, change in lifestyle for young women. Although it may have brought greater freedom and responsibility, it does not seem to have conferred full adult status; there is evidence that young women in service were always viewed as ‘girls’ regardless of their age, just as young men were not viewed as full adults before the completion of an apprenticeship contract.20″

So they didn’t marry for money, they were already economically independent.

If you actually read history and here, forensics.

“in reality, marriage at such a young age was largely restricted to the nobility, with the average age at marriage in the general population estimated at 20–25 years,22
and perhaps even later following the Black Death.23
This would provide a very late age of achievement of ‘adulthood’ by modern standards. However, although marriage was very much the expected path a significant minority of women — perhaps around 15% — never married.24″

Who is dumb enough to have never looked this up?

I keep seeing Americans who make sweeping fictional statements about what ‘we’ Europeans did and it’s like… no. That’s never happened. Citation? Statistics? They are liars. Even in their revenge fantasies of ‘oppressing’ women from work (oh joy, welfare on the backs of random men? can’t win, can we?) then they assume all women would marry off (literally never happened in human history), all women are fertile and their children all magically survive (LOL) and that all men want to marry and got to choose who (LOL no). The economy also needs young workers, part of the immigrant problem is caused by not allowing teens to work.

They’re in bloody La La Land.

Extended maturation is K-selected, the men and women were tougher as a result.

Just realised my grandmothers might be in here.

Almost certainly. Yeah, don’t lie about my nana/s.

“Alongside these dramatic but infrequent events, most young medieval females would have experienced everyday hardships and hazards.”

” The average femoral diaphysis length recorded for the medieval 14-year-old females (354 mm) is closest to that recorded by Maresh for 20th-century 10-year-olds (348 mm). The average figures for medieval 15- and 16-year-old females (365 mm and 366 mm respectively) are still lower than for 20th-century 11-year-olds (367 mm). These data suggest that growth in medieval England fell well below modern standards, perhaps reflecting the lower standard of living medieval children would have experienced.”

If it was that hard on the girls, you don’t wanna go back to that, guys.

“It does not necessarily follow that medieval women were considerably shorter than their modern counterparts. When compared to dental formation, epiphyseal fusion in the female adolescent skeletons from our sample was delayed by two to three years in comparison to modern standards, allowing them to ‘catch-up’ their growth during the pubertal growth spurt.27 This pattern of extended growth appears to have been common in the medieval period;”

The English are tough.

” Only very slight differences in stature were noted between the women of Lincolnshire, London and Gloucester, although the London females had greater diversity in adult height.”

“This may suggest that girls who experienced poorer conditions for childhood and adolescent growth were more likely to die around or before the age of 25 years.”

K-selection. Stunted or shorter women likelier to die. Same with men.

“It has been suggested that female height may have suffered in comparison to male height in medieval Europe due to preferential feeding and care of male children,33causing greater sexual dimorphism in growth and final stature between the sexes. By comparison, the average stature of young men at our sites (156 individuals) was 169.5 cm (5 ft 7 in). This may simply be the result of sexual dimorphism as such comparisons are similar for modern western populations, and therefore does not support the hypothesis that girls experienced poorer nutrition and living standards than boys.”

K-types invest well in all offspring.

“According to these indicators, it appears that all of the individuals studied had entered the pubertal growth spurt by the age of 14 years. In the modern western world girls tend to begin puberty around the age of 10 years,37 and so this result would fit with modern expectations. “

Puberty begins then takes a few years, 14-18/19 matches what I read elsewhere about menarche (posted here).

The ‘modern’ data is skewed by non-whites, especially Asians and Africans, with much lower menarches.

The African is nine, measured in America, as I recall.

“More information can be gained from examining the epiphyseal fusion of the hand phalanges, a process known to occur during the deceleration phase of the pubertal growth spurt, and correlated with first menstruation in modern females. Although the age at which this event occurred varied in our sample just as among modern girls, fusion appears to have occurred most frequently between 15 and 17 years (Fig 2). At 14 years, only 36% of girls display fusing or fused hand phalangeal epiphyses, but by 17 years this figure has risen to 84%.”

Still not 100%, K-types have a later range of menarche.

“A second skeletal event known to be associated with first menstruation, the ossification of the iliac crest of the ilium, was also only found in girls aged at 15 years or over. Interestingly, this is roughly in line with the average age at menarche suggested by the few available documentary sources.38 An average age at menarche of between 15 and 16 years would be much later than the modern British average of just under 13 years.39In addition to their shorter stature, this finding adds weight to the argument that environmental factors such a deficient diet and disease were having a negative impact on medieval female growth and development. Interestingly, however, this average age at menarche is below the age of 17 years recorded for mid-19th century females,40indicating that urban conditions were not as detrimental as those experienced during rapid industrialisation.”

The female body takes YEARS to develop, periods often occur too early to carry a child to term. Hollywood lies, because it’s full of creeps.

Men shouldn’t be discussing a reproductive system they cannot understand.

“The evidence for medieval England, however, shows a delay in the achievement of this milestone, which appears to have fallen between 17 and 18 years for most girls, based on 247 individuals with this bone surviving (Fig 3). Complete fusion of the iliac crest of the ilium, which signals the end of pelvic growth, was only seen in a minority of women aged below 20 years, based on the 277 individuals “

They’re K-types, it isn’t a delay, it’s NORMAL. Modern people are aberrant.

17-18 periods stabilize (this takes years, I have spoken to doctors about it).

The pelvis keeps growing to carry and support a child though, only when this is done (about 21, spinal plate fusion) is the woman actually sexually mature with a low risk of still birth, miscarriage or death.

Modern medicine is allowing a lot of non-white thots to survive a process Nature is telling them is fatal. Do not confuse that with Nature’s approval.

These data suggest that puberty was extended into the very late teens for young medieval women, pushing back the timing of achievement of full physical adulthood. This extended period of physical adolescence indicates that living standards for young medieval women, at least in the urban and small town environments, were considerably poorer than those of modern British adolescents. Some variation between the sites was noted, with pubertal development most advanced in the small town of Barton-upon-Humber, and most delayed in the urban hospital cemetery of St Mary Spital, London. This presumably reflects the harsher living conditions experienced by the girls living and working in London.”

Nah, hard work and low fat diet. Treating the women like men will delay them more.

“It is believed that the demographic changes caused by the Black Death may have led to increased opportunities for many women to migrate and work.43

Although less documentary evidence is available for women than for men, there is evidence for female servants much younger than 12 years in urban households,44and some migration may have occurred at a very young age. Although legislation was passed to regulate the minimum age for apprentices — 13 years in the early 14th century, rising to 16 years by the 15th century — apprenticeships were rarely available for girls, and no such legal minimum age existed for servants or casual workers. The available evidence suggests that girls started formal work away from home at a younger age than boys.45

This concept of female laziness is really American.

” a degree of personal freedom; the latter is perhaps most clearly indicated by the large number of migrant women recorded as making ‘merchet’ payments for the right to choose their own marriage partner.46 On the other hand, moving away from home, particularly to a town or city, could bring with it new challenges and hazards, such as sexual predation, mistreatment, injury and disease.”

Americans are so wrong it hurts.

” this result indicates that much greater numbers of women living and dying in London were actually suffering from tuberculosis.”

“Again, the numbers are too small for statistical analysis, but this may provide further evidence for girls having a more indoor lifestyle than boys in the medieval period.”

Forcing women to sit at home is literally bad for their health.

We aren’t mole people.

On the whole, the women actually had it harder than men.

“There can be little doubt that this extensive workload was exhausting for many women, but osteological study can provide further direct evidence for the impact that this had on young women’s bodies.

A wide range of trauma has been recorded on the skeletons of young medieval women, including fractures of the upper limb and finger bones, cranium and ribs, lower limbs and feet.57 However, the prevalence of fractures of each type is lower than among males, suggesting that girls were exposed to (or exposed themselves to) fewer risks of injury than boys.”

We hadn’t evolved for that labour, men did.

“It is notable that, of the 48 cases of trauma reported in the grey and published literature, cranial, rib and jaw injuries, suggestive of interpersonal violence, only started to appear in women aged 17–25 years, comprising 18.6% of the 43 fractures for this age group. This suggests that the risk of violence rose as girls turned into young women, perhaps reflecting domestic violence after marriage.58″

That would explain the death rate. Stress and fractures – no healthy baby.

There is one area of the skeleton where young women seem to have suffered virtually the same frequency of fractures as young men, the vertebral column. By far the highest prevalence rate for vertebral fractures (4.7%, n = 9) was found at St Mary Spital suggesting that female workers in the capital, or at least the poor workers buried in this hospital cemetery, were undertaking the activities most likely to cause spinal injury. The majority of these fractures were compression fractures, often caused by falls from a height, although avulsion and hyperflexion injuries were also present.59

The men sitting at a desk in an apprenticeship had it easy.

“Schmorl’s nodes are common, often asymptomatic, depressions caused by herniation of the nucleus pulposus on the superior and inferior surfaces of the vertebral bodies. Their aetiology is complex, although spinal trauma caused by vigorous activity and flexion and extension of the spine is most commonly associated with their formation.60 The age of their occurrence is not clear, but they generally appear before the age of 18 years.61Plomp et al argued that males are more susceptible to these lesions due to the size and shape of their vertebrae.62 In our study, medieval women had a higher prevalence of the lesions). Analysis of the location of Schmorl’s nodes on the vertebrae revealed that the lumbar vertebrae were affected far more often among women, and the central thoracic vertebrae among men. This mirrors vertebral fractures where in the women all of the fractures occurred in the lower thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, while in young men the central thoracic vertebrae were affected. This may suggest different activities; strain on the lumbar vertebrae, in particular, may be caused by bending and lifting.63″

aka back breaking labour, which could cause…

“Further evidence for stress being placed on the spines of young medieval women is provided by cases of spondylolysis. This describes the partial separation of the inferior facets on the neural arch from the vertebral body, usually between the ages of 10–12 years. The condition results from microtrauma in low grade stress on the lower back due to bending and lifting strains, or a fall from a height,64 but may have an underlying congenital cause. This injury was present in 4.4% of the female skeletons examined. This is higher than the prevalence of this condition found by the authors among young medieval males (2.9%), although the numbers involved were too small for statistical analysis. Again, the area involved is the lumbar region of the vertebral column. In addition, three young women, two aged at around 21 years and one at 22–25 years, display early degenerative joint disease of the vertebral column.”

Forcing women into labour like that kills them, reminder.

What emerges from the osteological evidence is that the workload of many young medieval women appears to have been literally backbreaking, and these early injuries may be expected to have led to significant back problems and pain in later life. It seems likely that these early spinal problems were caused primarily by carrying heavy loads at a time when the spine was still forming and vulnerable. Research from the grey and published literature reveals that rates of spinal injury were higher in urban than rural women65 and suggests that the workload of the young migrant women in service was harder than that of the young women who remained in the country or in small towns with their families. For example, the prevalence of vertebral fractures, spondylolysis and Schmorl’s nodes was lowest at Barton-upon-Humber, a wealthy small town.66″

Marriage, Sexual Activity and Childbirth

There is considerable evidence to suggest that marriage was a defining moment in the medieval female life course, marking the transition into true social adulthood.67 It is notable, however, that there was a significant gap between the legal age at marriage (12 years) and the average age at marriage (20–25 years even before the Black Death) in medieval England.68 The new analysis of pubertal development in medieval England discussed above suggests that the average age at menarche was 15–16 years. Full fertility, in terms of the likelihood of conception, carrying a healthy pregnancy to term and surviving childbirth, would only have followed several years after menarche with the completion of pelvic growth,69 which in our medieval sample appears to have been rare before the age of 19 years.

aka what I already typed, dammit

The fact that many young medieval women would not have been fertile before their 20s may be one reason for the relatively late average age of marriage during this period.70 It also suggests that marriage at the legal minimum age of 12 years would rarely have been fruitful, and any pregnancy that did ensue would have carried significant risks for the mother. We know of several medieval legal cases of the marriage of young girls where the ‘physical readiness for marriage’ of the girl in question was debated.71

This don’t go to college because you get periods thing from America is pig ignorant on female anatomy.

There is evidence to suggest, however, that the majority of cases of marriage before 15 years were confined to the nobility.72Today, girls of higher socio-economic status, with a considerably better standard of life, mature earlier than average. For example, high caste girls in 20th-century India have an average age at menarche over a year younger than low caste girls.73 The average age at menarche for noble girls in medieval England may therefore have been younger than the average age of 15–16 years described above.

more r-selected by men, explains eventual decadence and homosexuality rates, especially in the French

Even so, a pregnancy before the completion of pelvic development would have been dangerous; a famous example of this is provided by Margaret Beaufort, who appears to have been rendered sterile by a difficult first birth (of the future king Henry VII) at the age of just 13 years.74 An understanding of these risks is demonstrated by several contemporary authors,75 and was reflected in the Jewish rule that contraception (banned by Christian teaching) could be used to prevent pregnancy if the bride were too young to safely bear a child.767

The guys trying to force women to reproduce young would ironically render their own wife sterile via their stupidity. Good riddance. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

In theory, marriage coincided with sexual initiation for young women, and if the Church’s remonstrations to remain celibate until marriage were universally followed, it would indicate a relatively late age of sexual initiation. In reality, premarital sex among betrothed couples seems to have been common,77

that links to this study, no, they weren’t slutty

seems*

no

and sex with other partners, in not all cases consensual, was far from rare.

Are you really counting rape?

Evidence for this is provided by the erratic enforcement of ‘legerwite’ or ‘leyrwite’ fines on serf women who engaged in premarital sex.78

What about the men.

Premarital sex is thought to have been particularly common among young girls and women living away from home, for example in service roles, due to the greater freedom and availability of partners as well as the risk of sexual predation or pimping from employers.79 The sexual exploitation of girls in service appears to have been a frequent problem based on the legal record,80 and many young women must have lost their virginity in these circumstances. The extensive focus of many writers on admonishing young women to stay celibate until marriage may be taken as further evidence that premarital sex was seen (at least for women) as a significant societal problem.

Rape isn’t sleeping around, WTF.

Pedophiles raping virgins don’t really count as premarital sex, a choice, does it?

Two aspects of osteological analysis may shed light on sexual activity among young medieval women. The first is a sexually transmitted disease. Venereal syphilis, a treponemal disease, affects the skeleton in its tertiary stage, causing distinctive skeletal lesions.81 From the end of the 15th century, syphilis is believed to have been endemic in urban areas of England, although recent work has suggested that it may have been present at a much earlier date.82

Men spread that, sailors caught that. Your point?

If a virgin woman married a man with it, she’d get it. That can happen after marriage.

These female authors really want to present all women throughout history as sluts. Cui bono?

Among the 14–25 year old female individuals examined, four probable cases of treponemal disease were recorded, based on the presence of characteristic gummatous lesions in the cranium or long bones.83 Three of these were found in the young women from London (Fig 5), and one was found in York, at St Helen-on-the-Walls. One further case is known from Blackfriars, Gloucester;84 no cases were identified in the rural or small town sites consulted in the wider survey. The two youngest women to show signs of treponemal disease were aged at just 16 years. It is difficult to rule out congenital syphilis in these cases, as the presentation of the two conditions can be very similar, although none of these skeletons display the typical dental deformations of congenital syphilis.

So their fathers were sluts, so?

If the disease is the venereal form of treponemal disease, or syphilis, this would suggest the girls were very young when first infected. Syphilis generally takes several years to cause such destruction in the skeleton.85 Although the number of cases recorded is small, given that only 10–20% of individuals with tertiary syphilis experience skeletal involvement, and that skeletal lesions take several years to develop,86 it seems likely that much greater numbers of young women were affected by this disease.

To imply they wanted to be raped by syphilitic men is a bridge too far though.

The spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis was exacerbated by the problem of prostitution in medieval towns and cities. Karras argues that regulations of the Guilds limited women’s access to the normal labour market, forcing them to turn to prostitution out of necessity.87

Assuming that was a mistake.

There is little direct evidence that apprentices were procured as prostitutes, but one extant record from London City and Ecclesiastical Court (ad 1423) attests that one Alison Boston took apprentices who she hired out for the ‘horrible vice of lechery’.88 There are also accounts of men taking young girls (invenculae) to the London stews and selling them as prostitutes, suggesting the types of danger faced by young unskilled immigrant women. Goldberg89 cites the famous references from medieval York in ad 1482 that place prostitutes within the legal realm of ‘lepers’ and pigs in the hazards they caused for the local population.

Enslaved children.

She does not discuss the age at which women may have turned to prostitution, but suggests widows and daughters of labourers, known as ‘spinsters’ and ‘seamstresses’ (sempsters), needed to work several jobs to make ends meet, including petty theft, illegal ale retailing and prostitution. Goldberg argues that although full-time, ‘professional’ prostitutes were rare, many women were forced into occasional prostitution in hard times.90

Contradiction, Goldberg.

also why we have the welfare state

This would have been a particular risk for a migrant girl away from the safety of her family.91 Although it is impossible to state that any of the young medieval women examined were forced into this profession, this must be considered in the cases where possible syphilis is recorded.

No shit, nobody would choose that. The excuses these women make for rape are appalling.

A second consequence of sexual activity, pregnancy, may also in exceptional circumstances be visible in the archaeological record. In total, eight cases of young women buried with fetuses in utero have been recorded from medieval cemetery contexts. These burials represent ‘obstetric catastrophes’ with the death of both mother and child in late pregnancy or childbirth. Although there was a Christian injunction in place in medieval England for infants to be removed from their mother’s womb before burial,92 this does not appear to have been rigorously obeyed.

Yeah, who wouldn’t choose to die like that? I guess they were all just happy sluts, huh Mizz Feminist?

All of the individuals buried with a fetus in utero in medieval cemeteries have an estimated age at death of around 20 years or over, and thus none represent particularly young ‘teenage’ pregnancies.

Because they rarely got pregnant. Look at the evidence.

This may support the idea that in the medieval period teenage girls were not falling pregnant, as first pregnancies are often seen as the most hazardous.93

May? It’s anatomical.

It also fits with the known late pattern of marriage in this society. However, it is by no means certain that all of these women were married. The two examples from St Mary Spital may have represented extramarital pregnancies as the hospital was known to accept unmarried women in pregnancy or childbirth.94 It may be significant that neither of these women received an individual grave or any grave ornamentation. In contrast, the elaborate nature of one young mother’s burial at Barton-upon-Humber, in a coffin within the church and with a cloth of gold artefact,95 surely indicates that this woman was married and held a position of substantial social standing.

Clearly, their situation was a choice.

Given the high mortality rate of women in childbirth in the medieval period revealed by documentary sources,96s it is clear that these rare burials represent a dramatic under-estimation of the real levels of maternal mortality. In many cases, the churches prohibition on burying fetuses in utero may have been observed. In a large proportion of births, too, the child may have been saved, leaving little clue as to the cause of death of the mother.

But doctors (when sane) will elect to save the mother because she can have countless children later but an orphan baby is already financially a goner. Remember this, America.

Conclusion

The period of social adolescence for young medieval women seems to have been an important life stage, encompassing the growth to full physical adulthood and fertility, the adoption of adult working roles and, for most young women, the move from legal dependence on a father to legal dependence on a husband, with perhaps a few brief years of relative independence in between. The comparative absence of young women from documentary sources means that osteological information plays a vital role in our understanding of this group, and it can reveal a great deal about the way in which medieval girls grew into women, the living conditions they enjoyed or endured, the work they did and the health problems they faced.

Many of the conclusions drawn from osteological analysis of this group articulate with and illuminate the documentary evidence. The average age at which full fertility appears to have been achieved, around 20 years, is substantially later than in modern England, but ties in well with the known average age at marriage in this society. The greater susceptibility of young women to respiratory infections, from the relatively benign maxillary sinusitis to the deadly serious tuberculosis, chimes with the picture drawn from documentary sources of an indoor lifestyle for women, close to the smoky fire, and of the cramped living conditions that helped to spread disease. The backbreaking work clearly undertaken by many young women paints a clearer physical picture of their daily lives than that provided by documentary sources alone, and the development of signs of venereal disease in very young women hints at the problem of girls being driven to prostitution in England’s medieval cities.

Gang rape, we still have it. They are driven to it, slave-driven.

Americans married in their 20s, historically

Anyone wanting a huge age gap to ‘marry’ a minor is just a pedo in denial.

It’s the same reasoning that considers women or wives to ‘expire’. Only to a pedo. Marriage is lifelong, that’s why pedos hate it.

Age gaps 10y+ greatly increase divorce risk for a reason.

Another case of “pedos are wrong in every possible way”.

At no point are teenagers the norm!

https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878

Here are the statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau of the median age at first marriage and a graph of the data going back to 1890.

Year Men Woman
2018 29.8 27.8
2017 29.5 27.4
2016 29.5 27.4
2015 29.2 27.1
2014 29.3 27.0
2013 29.0 26.6
2012 28.6 26.6
2011 28.7 26.5
2010 28.2 26.1
2009 28.1 25.9
2008 27.6 25.9
2007 17.5 25.6
2006 27.5 25.5
2005 27.1 25.3
2004 27.4 25.3
2003 27.1 25.3
2002 26.9 25.3
2001 26.9 25.1
2000 26.8 25.1
1999 26.9 25.1
1998 26.7 25.0
1997 26.8 25.0
1996 27.1 24.8
1995 26.9 24.5
1994 26.7 24.5
1993 26.5 24.5
1992 26.5 24.4
1991 26.3 24.1
1990 26.1 23.9
1989 26.2 23.8
1988 25.9 23.6
1987 25.8 23.6
1986 25.7 23.1
1985 25.5 23.3
1984 25.4 23.0
1983 25.4 22.8
1982 25.2 22.5
1981 24.8 22.3
1980 24.7 22.0
1979 24.4 22.1
1978 24.2 21.8
1977 24.0 21.6
1976 23.8 21.3
1975 23.5 21.1
1974 23.1 21.1
1973 23.2 21.0
1972 23.3 20.9
1971 23.1 20.9
1970 23.2 20.8
1969 23.2 20.8
1968 23.1 20.8
1967 23.1 20.6
1966 22.8 20.5
1965 22.8 20.6
1964 23.1 20.5
1963 22.8 20.5
1962 22.7 20.3
1961 22.8 20.3
1960 22.8 20.3
1959 22.5 20.2
1958 22.6 20.2
1957 22.6 20.3
1956 22.5 20.1
1955 22.6 20.2
1954 23.0 20.3
1953 22.8 20.2
1952 23.0 20.2
1951 22.9 20.4
1950 22.8 20.3
1949 22.7 20.3
1948 23.3 20.4
1947 23.7 20.4
1940 24.3 21.5
1930 24.3 21.3
1920 24.6 21.2
1910 25.1 21.6
1900 26.1 22.0
1890 26.1 22.0

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the figures reported for 1947 to 1999 are based on Current Population Survey data. The figures for years prior to 1947 are based on decennial censuses. A standard error of 0.1 years is appropriate to measure sampling variability for any of the above estimated median ages at first marriage based on Current Population Survey data.

The further you go back, THE OLDER THE BRIDE AND GROOM ARE.

Either you never looked it up (stupid) or you’re lying.