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.

Non-white births down in America

The sky isn’t falling you fecking idjits.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

[Marriage is also a factor. Unmarried women don’t want a baby.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/no-ring-no-baby ]

I am shook. Women don’t wanna be lumbered with the baby of a man who doesn’t care enough to be a husband and father?* They aren’t attracted to feckless manchilds?

Those bitches!

“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”

FEATURE

NOT. A. BUG.

Chart for the lazy people:

Look at the actual data before whining.

That’s called a selection pressure, children.

Men won’t marry? Women won’t breed.

Who wins? [women, their relatives breed]

But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women.

Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist”

Telling them to be breeding sows isn’t?

Hey, what exactly are they claiming these women should do?

Get back in the maternity ward? Pump out future Dem voters?

*If you really “care” (virtue signal) about Western birth rates, Chicken Littles of the internet, ask MGTOW why they’re complaining about the birth rate but not marrying. You don’t get to complain if you’re causing the ‘problem’.

https://www.rt.com/usa/us-white-births-census-613/

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage/

A problem you cause is a CHOICE.

[GDP will go up in a generation with fewer lower IQ drains on its system.]

Other data article:

For the lazy:

“That is, most long-run change in fertility can be accounted for by changes in the marital composition of society.”

Marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

HALF OR MORE.

Meanwhile, student loans must be written off if you care about IQ.

“It’s possible that debt may also reduce fertility, independently of marriage. Some studies do show that student debt has a strong effect on delaying fertility. The economic rationale is simple: having and raising children costs money, and student debt gobbles up a share of income right off the top of the budget. Crucially, even income-based repayment doesn’t fix this, as it resets with higher incomes: a debtor can’t earn their way out. As income rises, so do debt payments. At some high threshold, of course, the debtor can exceed the required payments and can advance the date of final repayment, but the point is that student loans, no matter how they are structured, divert money that might have gone towards planning for a child. It’s even possible that student loans delay marriage because they cause debtors to change their childbearing anticipations: maybe debtors realize they won’t be able to afford a child for a long time, and so they postpone marriage until they are (financially) ready for a child.”

Men can’t afford to marry, have kids unless loans are much lower.

Loan control would be a conservative policy, boosting high IQ fertility.

More babies being born are born to high IQ, educated parents.

Again, actual data.

“Finances, and student debt, specifically, aren’t the only reason for delayed marriage. Most unmarried people who want to get married say either that they are too young and unready for marriage, or else they haven’t found the right person. It may be that part of the problem is the decline in “marriageable men.” At the metro area level, the imbalance in sex ratios can sometimes be enormous.”

“The simple fact of the matter is that marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

ACTUAL. DATA.

Women want to have kids, it’s the mens’ fault.

“Combined, it turns out that a combination of marital status, age, and fertility ideals is a pretty good predictor of individual-level fertility. In other words, marital status serves as a circuit-breaker on fertility aims: married people get close to achieving their aims, while never-married people generally don’t.”
“But one vital driver of birth rates is marriage. And as long as the average age of first marriage rises and the number of prime childbearing years the average woman spends married falls, we can expect to see fertility linger at low levels. Therefore, any policy supporting childbirth—however generous it may be—that does not also somehow impact marriage trends is unlikely to boost long-term fertility.”

It isn’t women’s fault they won’t man up.

The data is loud and clear.

White bachelor men are cucking themselves.

Mixed race divorce and domestic abuse

I’m back. I decided to qualify the end of the last post. For shiggles.
Yes, there is data. I’m cracking down hard on the weebs.

“Marital Dissolution Among Inter-racial Couples”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183451/

“Increases in interracial marriage have been interpreted as reflecting reduced social distance among racial and ethnic groups, but little is known about the stability of interracial marriages. Using six panels of Survey of Income and Program Participation (N = 23,139 married couples), we found that interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, but these findings did not hold up consistently. After controlling for couple characteristics, the risk of divorce or separation among interracial couples was similar to the more-divorce-prone origin group. Although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution.”

This is like saying cars don’t kill people, brakes do.

“As the U.S. population has grown increasingly diverse, it is important to update prior research to include interracial marriages involving Asians and Hispanics, especially given that they are more likely to intermarry (with non-Hispanic Whites) than are Blacks”

so if you’re so concerned about race, screeching at the weebs is your duty. Mudsharks already hate themselves. Asiaphiles are oddly proud of it.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asiaphile
“The term applies to a non-Asian person particularly a white man who has yellow fever. Thinks all Asian chicks are hot, usually can’t tell the difference between a homely and a cute one just as long as she is Asian.”

I’ve posted about that before. Dick-blind.

It’s the baby prostitute of Mean Girls fame!

Thousands of years of evolution down the drain. Bet his WW2-fighting grandparents would be proud.

“In their study of multiracial identification among those with Black, Asian, or Hispanic backgrounds, Lee and Bean (2007) found that those with Black backgrounds more consistently identified as Black and not multiracial (similar to the “one-drop” rule as applied in the past), whereas those with Hispanic and, especially, Asian backgrounds exhibited more flexibility and choice in racial/ethnic identification and were more likely to identify as multiracial. Lee and Bean (2007) concluded that these patterns illustrated the salience of the color line that continues to divide Blacks from non-Blacks in U.S. society.”

So the existential risk to team white is team yellow.
If you’re being scientific.

“The homogamy perspective predicts that interracial marriages will be less stable than same-race marriages. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Black or White endogamous marriages; similarly, Asian-White marriages are expected to be more likely to divorce than either Asian or White endogamous marriages. The homogamy perspective further leads to the expectation that the stronger the racial boundary of the two groups represented in the couple, the greater the risk of divorce. Thus, Black-White marriages are expected to be at greater risk of divorce than Hispanic-White or Asian-White marriages.”

Although there is a speculated convergence (I’d guess once you control for class/money) that is similar to mixed race IQ being the mean of both sub-par parents (and so dragged lower).

“For example, he found that Chinese-White couple divorce rates fell somewhere in between divorce rates of Chinese and White endogamous marriages.”
“Similarly, Hispanic-White and Asian-White marriages would be expected to be more likely to dissolve than Hispanic or Asian endogamous marriages but less likely than White endogamous marriages”

But that hypothesis isn’t what actually happens and it’d be a more dramatic shift if you removed the religious couples from consideration, only counting those who could be allowed to divorce.

Atheists are more likely to divorce overall, but it’s hard to find studies.
Are they more likely to race mix? Probably.

OT

“Therefore, according to the ethnic convergence hypothesis, immigrant-native marriages would be expected to have divorce risks that fall between those of immigrant-immigrant marriages and native-native marriages. Also, if Hispanic and Asian interracial marriages are less likely to divorce, this could be because so many of these marriages involve immigrants. After controlling for immigration characteristics, the effects of interracial marriage should diminish for these couples”

Another thing to control, desperation to retain citizenship.

“To assess the homogamy and ethnic convergence hypotheses, it is important to control for correlated factors. Individual-level socioeconomic and demographic characteristics are associated with interracial marriage and are important predictors of divorce.”

Gold diggers gonna dig.

“Finally, while having young child(ren) has been shown to increase marital stability, this effect often decreased as the child(ren) grew older (Cherlin, 1977).”

Babies won’t protect you (actually they stress a marriage, especially if had too soon).

“In addition to the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of individuals, it is critical to control for couple-level characteristics.”

Dare you to count 10-score sexual attractiveness compared to their in-group.

That would burn.

“The homogamy perspective stresses that partner differences in any socially significant characteristics—not just race—may increase the risk of divorce, and spouses in interracial couples may differ on multiple characteristics. For example, Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1990) found that the age gap was larger for interracially married couples than other couples. Partners in interracial couples may also differ with respect to nativity and citizenship. Interracial marriages between immigrants and U.S.-born natives may be at greater risk of divorce because of partner differences in their reasons for entering the relationship.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Prostitution is a reason.

Kalmijn et al. (2005) found that larger cultural differences between the husband and wife increased the risk of divorce.

Breaking news: water, wet.

In addition, marriage to U.S. citizens may serve as a legal means to immigrate for many foreigners.

For that reason, no, it isn’t legal, and the other spouse has also broken the law by using that to gain power too. Technically the marriage wouldn’t count, since it was conditional as duress to defraud their nation (so also treason).

Such marriages may be motivated by the desire to obtain U.S. citizenship rather than love or companionship, as evidenced in many cases in France (Neyrand & M’Sili, 1998) and the Netherlands (Kalmijn et al., 2005).”

I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digger.. but she reaching for that green card n—er.

“Finally, group-level characteristics, such as marriage cohort, region of residence, religion, and women’s changing status, may be associated with divorce or separation (Trent & South, 1989). For example, interracial marriage has been more prevalent in the West than other parts of the country (Tucker & Mitchell-Kernan, 1990), and marital instability has been more common in the West than other regions, although this relationship has varied by race (Sweeney & Phillips, 2004) and has weakened over the years (Castro Martin & Bumpass, 1989).”

Because less get married in the first place!

The majority (93.5%) of the couples in our sample were endogamous, including 77.4% White-White, 6.4% Black-Black, 7% Hispanic-Hispanic, and 2.7% Asian-Asian couples. The remaining 6.5% of couples were interracially married (including 1% White-Black, 3.5% White-Hispanic, and 1.4% White-Asian pairings, as well as 0.6% of all types of minority-minority marriages combined).

There are far more total Asian-White couples than White-Black, if you’re going to criticize anyone.

1% mulatto vs. 4.9% genetic Asian admixture. Who’s the, ahem, “race traitor?”

Consistent with prior studies (e.g., Qian, 1997), there are distinct racial/ethnic differences in being in an interracial marriage (results not shown). Blacks are substantially less likely than Hispanics or Asians to have a White spouse (10.1% vs. 23.5% and 24.6%, respectively).”

Africans aren’t stealing da white wimmin.

Statistically. This isn’t the 19th century. Your assumptions are outdated.

Over one third of interracial couples (34.5%) involved a foreign-born person married to a U.S. native compared with just 4.2% of endogamous couples.”

Yeah. She a gold digger.
Isn’t that slave ownership?

Most slaves are sex slaves.
Made obvious in the final study here. What happens when a slave gets out of line?

“Consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis, interracial marriages are less stable: 13.7% of interracial couples compared with 9.9% of endogamous couples broke up during their SIPP panel.”

Duh.

“The descriptive results also confirm the second homogamy hypothesis in which mixed-race couples involving the most socially distant groups (e.g., Blacks and Whites) were most likely to break up: nearly 20% of Black-White couples divorced or separated compared with 13.5% of Hispanic-White couples and 8.4% of Asian-White couples.”

Hispanics are genetic Asian, that data is rigged.

Total Asian-White divorce should be 10.95%.

They should also break down by sex, so Asian Male, White Female or White Male, Asian Female for specific divorce risk per individual by demo.
If they controlled for IQ distance between the couples, that’d explain most of the divorce. Hard to steer a marriage when one party is pedaling backwards.

“For Asians, however, the results were consistent with the ethnic convergence hypothesis”

No you tortured the statistics into excluding most of the Asian population in America.
Shell games don’t impress me.

“Roughly 8.3% of Asian-White couples separated or divorced, a level that falls between the relatively high rates for White couples and the relatively low rates among Asian couples (1.4%).”

You said 8.4 earlier.

8.4/1.4 = 6x (times) the average intra-racial Asian divorce risk thanks to Asian-European miscegenation?
And they think that’s a good finding. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining Zhang.

So this isn’t even good for the Asians with white fever. Since they’re marrying the dregs. They can’t even say it’s better for waifu.

“This may be a consequence of potential problems facing interracial couples including stress, social disapproval, and cultural differences. Furthermore, interracial couples differ from endogamous couples in important ways that may elevate the risk of divorce (such as greater age and education differences between spouses). To test this idea, we turn next to the multivariate hazards models.”

Nothing about racism and the urge to control, how weird.

Almost like they’re encouraging mixing whatever the cost.

“In general, younger age of first marriage, age and educational differences among the spouses (particularly when the husband is more than two years younger or less educated than the wife); lower levels of education (less than college); lower income; and having no or fewer young children were significantly associated with marital instability.”

So lower quality individuals choose to mix.
Groundbreaking.
Stupidity, poverty, atheist fertility predict their divorce (and decision to have wed in the first place).

“Interracial couples tend to have higher incomes and older ages at marriage (both of which are associated with lower rates of dissolution), so these characteristics cannot explain their higher levels of divorce or separation.”

I smell bullshit.
If they wed, bed and divorce like idiots…
could they be idiots? Why u no publish IQ data?

“Although, mixed marriages are also more likely to involve larger differences in age and education between spouses (consistent with the first homogamy hypothesis), which could partially explain their higher risks of marital dissolution.”

There we go.
Backpedal central.

Almost like marrying a virtual child (age gap) is unpleasant, too.

“Unexpectedly, however, the addition of controls for nativity/citizenship status did not alter the hazard ratio associated with interracial marriage.”

Huh.

“Thus far, the results support the first homogamy hypothesis, though the support was rather weak.”

Despite your best efforts to obscure it? Sure Zhang.

Interracial marriage was positively associated with marital dissolution net of couple characteristics, but this relationship was only marginally significant (p < .10).”

Still science.

“We presented the hazard ratios for race/ethnicity only, although the full models are available to interested readers upon request.”

What cover-up?

For a laugh:


All four hazard models.

“Nevertheless, the results were consistent with the second homogamy hypothesis in that the risk of marital dissolution was highest among Black-White couples, followed by Hispanic-White, minority-minority couples, and finally, Asian-White couples.”

Kek.

“Among Asians, the hazard of divorce or separation for interracial couples fell between that of Asian and White endogamous couples but the difference from White couples was not significant, thus failing to fully support Hypothesis 4. We had also hypothesized that nativity and citizenship between spouses of Hispanic and Asian interracial couples may help explain their higher risks of marital dissolution (Hypothesis 5). This idea was not fully supported because interracial marriages involving Hispanics or Asians did not experience elevated hazards of dissolution (so there were no significant differences to explain). Nevertheless, nativity and citizenship did help explain the relatively low risks of instability among Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples. When we added controls for nativity and citizenship in Model 4, the hazards for Hispanic and Asian endogamous couples increased, thereby narrowing the difference from both White couples and interracial couples. In fact, the difference between Hispanic-White and Hispanic-Hispanic couples became insignificant after controlling for citizenship and nativity in Model 4”

In short, when Trump lets the waifus out and relieves them of their fraudulent green cards, expect a lot of divorce.
MAGA.

Then again… there are other kinks to iron out.

“Among Hispanic-White couples, Hispanic husband-White wife were no more likely to dissolve than White or Hispanic endogamous couples.”

You see why religion must be controlled for.

“The contribution of this study is that it examines the instability of interracial marriage among Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in contemporary American society, an era marked by increasing diversity and increasing prevalence of interracial marriage. Overall, although marital dissolution was found to be strongly associated with race/ethnicity, the results failed to provide evidence that interracial marriage per se is associated with an elevated risk of marital dissolution. “

No, you failed to provide evidence. You.
Shit methodology, son.

Our results do show that, on the whole, interracial marriages are less stable than endogamous marriages, even after controlling for couple characteristics.”

Uhuh.

“When we divided the results by race/ethnicity, the results were only partially consistent with the homogamy perspective.”

Despite your best efforts to minimize, consistent.
They should also study second-generation race-mixing, since the mixed tend only to reproduce with one another.

“Rather, the most consistent result was that the risks of divorce for interracial couples for all combinations (Black-White, Hispanic-White, and Asian-White) were not significantly different from those of the higher-risk origin group.”

That’s still divorce. More divorce. Quit trying to spin it.

“Even after pooling six SIPP panels together, the number of interracial couples was small, which may have contributed to the insignificant findings.”

True.

They are very abnormal, Hollywood lies.

“In our study, the effects of certain racial/ethnic combinations were similar for both men and women once controls were introduced into the models (e.g., among Asians and Hispanics).”

Appealing to “alpha” won’t work on this one.

Now for another paper I’m sure cannot be biased by one “Choi”…

Race mixing and re-marriage.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300087/

Plot twist: The modern mudshark is a statistically divorced man remarrying Asian.

I wonder why they never mention this.

“The two most frequently crossed boundaries – those involving White-Asian and White-Hispanic couples – are more permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Boundaries that are crossed with less frequency – those between minority groups and the White-Black boundary-are less permeable in remarriages than in first marriages. Collectively, these findings suggest that racial and ethnic sorting processes in remarriage may reify existing social distances between pan-ethnic groups. Racial and ethnic variations in how the relative permeability of boundary changes between first and higher-order marriages underscore the importance of considering a broad array of interracial pairings when assessing the ways in which changes in family structure and marital sorting behavior promote integration.”

Promote integration…

From the male (decision) side:

So white men are the race traitors.
Interesting.

White genocide, blame Yellow Fever.

Statistically.

“Tabular results also reveal that for Hispanic and Asian women, intermarriage rates are higher in remarriages than in first marriages. One-third of Asian women wed non-Asian men in their first marriage, but over half did so in remarriage”

Because they couldn’t get a white woman (again).

Hit that Wall hard, huh? Study adiposity, come on.

And it’s obvious white fever in the Asian’s case, a third!

It isn’t the race-mixing white women.
“Eight percent of White women cross ethno-racial boundaries in first marriage, as compared with 6 percent of White women who remarry.”
They seem to learn their lesson.

Table 4 shows the college brainwashing.
They definitely won’t spy on you.
“better-educated women are more likely than their educationally disadvantaged counterparts to cross racial and ethnic boundaries in marriage”
The women are brainwashed too. But it’s also seeking IQ parity, upper-class women typically went to college to find husbands, so more studies are needed and more white men allowed in the Western universities that are their birthright.

“It is conceivable that White-Hispanic and White-Asian marriages likely become even more common in remarriage when third party controls weaken following the dissolution of a first union

They ignore their family’s wishes, bad sons should be disinherited.

and previously married individuals face experience limited availability of co-ethnic potential partners (Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

LOL

Can’t get a white woman!

Right there! Ouch.

“Other scholarship claims that cultural dissimilarities between spouses increase marital conflict and instability by reducing the basis for spousal consensus and mutual understanding between spouses (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013; Zhang and Van Hook, 2009).

resentment

Presumably, couples that exit minority-only interracial marriages avoid similar unions in remarriage, preferring instead to form remarry endogamously, to wed a White partner the next time around, or forego marriage entirely.”

Using white people, again. So the white people are also getting dregs in the arrangement.
It’s like the marital equivalent of busing kids in to improve test scores.

“Descriptive tabulations show that one-in-three women who remarried wed never-married husbands, but only one-in-ten first time brides wed previously married men.”

Yeah if he failed as a husband once, why bet on a lame horse?
He didn’t keep his vows the first time. What a catch! (Throw it back!)

“These analyses, which indicate whether in couples’ mixed marital experiences biased the estimates of boundary crossing in first and subsequent marriages, reaffirm the reported results.”

So in many mixed re-marriages, the previously married party is the dregs of their group.

“base the analyses on recent unions” K.

“Partly this resulted because many large government surveys, such as the decennial census, stopped collecting information about marital order.”

Because it makes men look bad.

“In the context of rising intermarriage and remarriage rates, our study underscores the importance of disaggregating marriage order to clarify whether, in what ways, and for which groups changes in coupling behavior promote integration. Collecting data that permits these distinctions is necessary to avoid conflating potentially divergent intermarriage trends in first and higher order unions, some of which are driven by racial and ethnic differences in divorce rates.”

Oh, they know.
Most starter marriages are male-led affairs, they think (wrongly, QED) they can always trade up later (not to be entered into lightly….) and abandoning wife #1 has no social consequences.
So re-marrying men are largely to blame for the huge divorce rates. Good to know.

This explains why they rarely make it male-led data.

“This pattern, which is consistent with past findings, suggests that low barriers to social interaction across racial and ethnic groups when coupled with suboptimal marriage market conditions and weakened third party control can facilitate interracial remarriages for these groups (Aguirre et al., 1995; Fu, 2010; Kalmijn, 1998; Schwartz, 2013).”

Random re-marriage should be illegal, it’s like flunking a driving test but serious. A society that lets adults (who should be mature enough to commit) re-marry capriciously like infinite respawns is condemning the culture, religion, spouses and children to the misery of an insecure life. What a betrayal.

They bitch about masculinity, when comes the manning-up? Men were respected when they stuck out their duties. Don’t take it on if you don’t mean it.

“Prior studies suggest that cultural dissimilarities between partners diminish grounds for spousal consensus, leading to conflictive, unstable marriages at high risk of dissolution (Hohmann-Marriott and Amato, 2008). In remarriage, previously married men and women from mixed-race unions may revise their mate criteria to avoid similar forms of partner incompatibility (Dean and Gurak, 1978).”

Except stupid white guys with yellow fever.
I wonder if they’re more likely porn addicts. That would be an entertaining study.

“Stated differently, intermarriage studies restricted to White-Black couples render an incomplete portrayal of mate selection behavior in the context of an ever more diverse society.”

They may not be getting married but they’re having more children than the white guys with Yellow Fever. It’s typical atheist sub-fertility so given the standard, limited dating patterns their grand-kids will be a quarter black.

“In similar fashion, although prior work shows that characteristics of spouses interact in shaping mate selection behavior (Fu, 2010), our data do not permit consideration of the joint distribution of spouses’ characteristics. We report analyses based on intermarriage patterns pegged to wives’ characteristics; however, auxiliary analyses based on husbands’ attributes yielded similar conclusions.”

Since the male proposes, it should be male-led data.
Look for r-selection traits and that’ll resolve most of it.

“How the mate selection behavior of widowed and divorced individuals is largely uncharted and certainly warrants investigation.”

Women are more likely to be widowed, men divorced, that’s why they don’t look for it – it makes the men look heartless.

“marriage confers legal rights and obligations, many of which are not extended to cohabiting couples (child support is a notable exception)”

It shouldn’t be, don’t have kids with someone you haven’t married first, or at least don’t expect the authority of a husband over a woman you didn’t yoke yourself to. If a man wants “his” kids so much, he should be taking primary care of them – not fobbing them off on a foreign nanny like some high-powered executive (daycare is abusive). The low IQ nanny normalization may be responsible for divorced children’s lower IQs.

“Specifically, racial and ethnic profile of former cohabiting partners are seldom recorded in US data suitable for analyzing inter-racial coupling behavior (e.g., ACS, Census, NSFG).”

coincidence

“The exclusion of interracial cohabitation will understate the extent to which couples cross ethnic and racial boundaries in forming co-residential interracial unions given that interracial unions are more likely than same-race unions to start and remain as a cohabitation (Kreider, 2000; Rodriguez-Garcia, 2015).”

Study separation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315595/

The variable nobody wants to discuss.

“Despite the growing number of interethnic marriages in the U.S., few studies have examined intimate partner violence (IPV) in interethnic couples. This article examined past-year occurrences of IPV across interethnic and intra-ethnic couples and tested correlates of IPV specifically in interethnic couples. Data were from a national survey of couples 18 years of age and older from the 48 contiguous states. Interethnic couples (n = 116) included partners from different ethnic backgrounds, including black-white, Hispanic-white, and black-Hispanic couples. White (n = 555), black (n = 358), and Hispanic (n = 527) intra-ethnic couples included partners with the same ethnicity. Data analyses were prevalence rates and logistic regressions. The analyses showed that interethnic couples were comparatively younger and had shorter relationships than intra-ethnic white, black, and Hispanic couples.

Male partners in interethnic couples had higher rates of binge drinking and alcohol problems compared to male partners in intra-ethnic couples.

So much for happy mixing. Stock photos lied to me?

Still no mention of racism, so a white male hitting a non-white is okay if you’re married to them? Surely it’s more racist to treat them like breeding sows and sexual concubines.

Past year prevalence rates for any occurrence of IPV and acts of severe IPV were higher for interethnic couples relative to intra-ethnic couples.

Why isn’t this mentioned in Sex Ed?

Most occurrences of IPV for interethnic couples were mutual.

Obedient waifu trope is a myth.

Factors predicting IPV among interethnic couples included marital status, couples’ age, male alcohol problems, and female impulsivity.

Mounting evidence points to interethnic couples as a high risk group for IPV.

Why aren’t there PSAs?

Interethnic couples may be at greater risk for IPV because of their younger age, binge drinking and alcohol problems.

You can’t blame the drink. They drink to have an excuse.

Future research could build on this study by examining cohort effects and regional differences in IPV for interethnic couples, and the risk for IPV across interethnic couples of different ethnic compositions.”

Note: no (non-Hispanic) Asian-White data in this one tested. Hmm.

However, found this:

“Fusco (2010) used county police reports to examine interethnic and intra-ethnic couple differences in IPV for a more diverse community sample of whites, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Interethnic couples were more likely than intra-ethnic minority and white couples to have a prior history of IPV and to experience mutual IPV in which both partners were determined by police to be equally involved in perpetrating violence.

No world for submissive waifu.

I guess that’s what happens when you marry someone with higher T than yourself (those manjaws).

White women don’t look like such bitches now, huh?

Victims of IPV in interethnic couples were also at greater risk of being injured during the violence when compared to intra-ethnic couples.

Wages of sin?

Logically, you wouldn’t hold back with the out-group. It’s unconscious.

Diversity + Proximity = Domestic violence, in this case.

This may suggest that interethnic couples engage in more severe acts of partner violence relative to intra-ethnic couples, although Fusco (2010) did not specifically examine partner violence severity.

Wonder why.

So the white guys really do hate their waifu, deep down.
And the Asian woman does hit back (unlike whites).
Why don’t the MRAs ever mention this? Their mutual violence trope is racial, not sexual!

“Couples that included Asian partners or partners from ‘other’ ethnicities (n = 43) were also excluded due to their small sample size in the dataset.”

convenient, considering

For example, white-Asian marriages make up a large percentage of interethnic marriages (Hattery, 2009), but we were not able to include them in this study due to the small number of Asians surveyed.”

I smell bullshit. So they abuse one another but they don’t talk. To save face.

Enough for now. I’ve proven my point.

Suicide and low IQ

http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/suicide-and-iq-does-it-take-smarts-to.html

Bet you won’t hear the manosphere explain one of its pet victimhoods.

You can’t make a silk’s purse out of a sow’s ear.

The findings of a 2005 study out of Sweden contradict Lisa’s assertion:

In one of the largest studies on suicide ever conducted, researchers found that men with especially low scores on intelligence tests are two to three times more likely than others to kill themselves.

Duh?
Average IQ men aren’t overwhelmed.
Look at EI/EQ too. The emotionally disturbed ones suck on that but denies its existence.
As you’d expect.
The study was carried out in Sweden, which, along with other Scandinavian countries, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
good design
Epidemiologist Finn Rasmussen at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and two colleagues monitored nearly 1 million Swedish men, measuring their IQ when they entered national service at 18 and following them until age 44.
They should also do a study of bachelors. (see end)
In that time, 2,811 men committed suicide, with the highest rate found among those who scored lowest on the logical component of the IQ test.
Suicidal people make bad decisions, really.
Men academically in over their heads–those with low IQs who had received at least some higher education–were the most likely to commit suicide.
The “women shouldn’t be allowed to attend Uni, even if they qualify” crew literally want to increase male suicides. Most of you aren’t smart enough to go! Same goes for women! We need less people attending overall!
End
Unemployed and divorced men had a consistently higher RR in each year analyzed.
A protective effect of marriage has been observed in a number of previous studies and this article updates figures up to 2005. The article shows that despite changes in marriage  patterns over the last 25 years, those who are married still have the lowest risk of suicide, and there has generally been no obvious decline in the difference in suicide rates between those who are married and those who are not.
Reminds me of the quote “A bachelor’s life is a fine breakfast, a flat lunch, and a miserable dinner.”

Low birth rate caused by birth control, explained

If we’re talking evolution and society, we need to review everything in light of r/K.

Slut shaming was prosocial. Bring back bachelor tax (we already have it in welfare parent tax for non-parents).
http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-birth-control-basilisk.html

More sex than ever, fewer babies. Doesn’t take a genius to work out.

It tends to cull r-types, birth control was designed for married K-types to curb in line with their natural instincts and environmental needs.
“3. People have a very strong, uncomplicated desire to love and care for the children they have.”
K-types only.
It’s impossible to discuss sex without sexual strategy.

And yet people do.

” A strong desire to have sex ensures children are produced with fairly high regularity, because birth control is either non-existent or unreliable. ”
R-types only.
Ks limit their sexuality for monogamy, once pair-bonding has been achieved with a suitable mate. In human terms, after marriage.
Most of the sub-replacement fertility in Europe is due to the low marriage rates. It’s good that people aren’t reproducing out of wedlock.

“The whole idea of it being a contentious question whether you chose to have kids or not is, as far as I can tell, a shockingly recent question. If the only way you could so choose would be to either a) not get laid, or b) rely on methods that require practice, discipline in the heat of coital moment, forward planning and/or health risks, the discussion would be largely moot.”

Still no mention of marriage as related to procreation.
This, from a traditionalist.
People are that decoupled. Thanks, sexual revolution!
Birth control is K-selected, the problem is that it didn’t account for the Revolution that messed with marriage.
If everyone having sex is married, it becomes a matter of family planning.
If anything with marriage goes awry, the r-types win out because the Ks aren’t even hopping the first hurdle of the big white wedding day. Plus they’re limiting.
The man who invented The Pill intended for it to help spouses who wanted to enjoy sex but not bankrupt their pre-existing families. We could also limit birth control to those who’ve already bred like it used to be but that’s too sensible. Chemical BC causes many health problems in women, there’s medical grounds to restrict it.
The Pill as a theory is K-enforcing since it imposes their pattern on the r-types.

Never including IQ as a factor in to who is/should be allowed birth control by the state is also an issue.
Age to a lesser extent. You don’t finish developing until your twenties.

Woman of the future 1900

http://clickamericana.com/media/newspapers/the-woman-of-the-future-1900
“This boasted civilization of ours falls to pieces when stripped of its veneering and reveals man’s innate evil propensities in all their hideousness….”

The original good intentions of feminism – to contribute and prevent war deaths.

And by contribute to the workforce, I mean improve everyone’s lives.
AKA the purpose of capitalism.

http://clickamericana.com/eras/1890s/the-woman-who-invented-the-dishwasher-1892

Half a century later.
http://clickamericana.com/topics/love-marriage/census-indicates-romance-on-the-rise-1950
“There are fewer unmarried men at large than there have been for years and years.”
“Women are more likely to marry men about three years their senior.”

Many people lie about these time periods but cannot provide a scrap of conclusive evidence that these people were the way they claim.