Sunday, December 12, 2010

The George Clooney Effect: Female Hypergamy Confirmed

In a story that might as well be titled, "Beta Males Can't Win," Science Daily reports on a new study of women's mate preferences. To the utter surprise of no one, older, higher earning women don't want beta males, or even for that matter hot young guys (they certainly cannot get them, Demi Moore no exception). Nope, they want in effect, George Clooney. Men even older than themselves, and even more successful. This preference makes sense.

Women, no matter how much they protest, don't want or need equalist marriages or want a partner of roughly equal attractiveness and status and age. Women with options (their own independent earnings) confirm this with their choices:

The finding suggests that greater financial independence gives women greater confidence in choosing their partner. Instinctive preferences for material stability and security become less important, physical attractiveness becomes more important, and the age of partner women pick also increases.

"The behaviour of men and women does become more similar as women earn more, but only in terms of the importance of physical attraction," Dr Moore added. "But the similarities stop there: greater income makes women prefer even older men, and men prefer even younger women."



As women now out-number men in the workforce, and out-earn them, this means even more soft-harem forming. Women, as they age out of the younger bad boys, pursue the George Clooneys as they start to earn serious money. Unsurprisingly, the beta male age-peers, who are the same age, same level of attractiveness, and so on, are simply invisible. Or, quite likely, an annoyance given interest that is not shared. Certainly, women don't find men who are the same as they are in status (which includes, looks, wealth, power, and age) exciting.

What matters to women most when choosing partners unconstrained by money/social pressure, is power. Power that comes from social dominance, fame, money, or anything else that a George Clooney type would possess. Including, looks. For which almost anything can be excused. Even Gay Rosie O'Donnell makes excuses for John Edwards, saying he suffered the most, instead of his late wife Elizabeth Edwards. Consider Charlie Sheen. A man who has a questionable history with women at best, considering the accidental shooting of then-girlfriend Kelly Preston, the allegations of abuse and violence by ex-wife Denise Richards, the arrest for putting a knife to his second wife's throat on Christmas Day (and threatening to kill her), and the account of the woman (a porn star) terrified of Sheen in his hotel room rampage. One would think this record would make Sheen toxic to the female audience, but his series Two and a Half Men is hitting new ratings highs. Sheen remains the "good looking bad boy" women aim to tame.

If China has a long-term problem on its hands, with a lot of men who will never marry, and won't as Mark Steyn notes, being turning into the world's first Gay Superpower since Sparta, the US similarly has a problem. Lots and lots of beta males, who even if they strive hard are not even the preference to their female peers, will be at loose ends. With, quite likely the power of the internet and sites like Roissy's and others to explain the reasons why (things worked out so differently for them than their fathers), a built in incentive to change things. So that they are Alpha.

Call it another Silverado Moment.

If the reality of illegal immigration is such that, the only way to create a balanced budget in the States, and not have taxes be so sky-high that they are confiscatory to average working people, is simple deportation of illegals (and their children) regardless of anything else, well then the same holds true for the position of beta males. If it is all about the money (and it always is), then public outlays decrease radically for education, health, welfare, and prison/corrections by simply deporting illegals (and their children, even if they are US citizens) back to Mexico. Eventually States will start doing it, not the least of which is that rule of law cannot exist with some laws not applying (to Mexican nationals) and all other laws applying to a selected few on the bottom of the PC totem pole (Whites and particularly Straight White Beta guys). If the law does not exist, for Mexicans entering the US illegally and working illegally and putting their families on the taxpayer's support, but does exist for those expected to pay out that support, ultimately the law does not exist at all. And Mexicans, eventually, will be deported, one way or another. As White guilt fades and Lifeboat Economics moves to the forefront.

But just as certain is that the same Beta Males are unlikely to stop there. If the problem is the equalist status between men and women, a few will certainly follow PUA guru advice and move to become an Alpha Male. By changing their posture, clothes, personality, and essentially lie about everything:

In the relationship that ended three months ago, I had made the mistake of taking women at their word when they say they want you to be honest about your feelings. Well, I guess women aren’t exactly lying when they say this; it’s more that they just don’t mean it the way you assume. Women do in fact want you to be honest about your feelings, but it’s not so they can love you better—it’s so they know whether to dump your pathetic ass. Women want you to be honest about your feelings the way the IRS wants you to be honest about your finances. What I realized too late was that it was totally within my power to keep that relationship going. All I would have had to do was lie about what I’m really thinking every moment for the rest of my life.


Yes, women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males (you knew it was coming, didn't you?) They'd prefer that they all be Gay, or gone from the planet. This is almost entirely because, yes, most men are their equal, or indeed inferior in power and status. A few men can make the leap (which has considerable cost as seen above) into Alpha Male status, basically a performance that implies superior status due to superior social power, or network, or looks, or any combination. Even fewer men are lucky enough to be born natural Alphas, the Tom Bradys and such. Early maturers, physically, gifted at Athletics, dominant in some way, so that they have women throwing themselves at them from age 15 onwards and never look back.

Everyone else is likely to come to the same conclusion. It would be better for them if their status were higher. And the only way to do that is to make most women's status lower. By destroying the female job-base: health, education, welfare, marketing, corporate finance, advertising, media, etc. Remaking the economy into one dominated by men: resource extraction, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, engineering. Or, in reality TV terms, destroying the Kardashians and making all of America look like Ice Road Truckers or Axe Men.

If China has a built-in pool of angry young men looking for an outlet of aggression and figuring it would be a very good thing for China to conquer Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, and other places with attractive women nearby, so maybe they can get a girlfriend (by the age old method of killing the boyfriends of said women in the near-abroad), the US has its own problem. Beta males by and large are unattached to most women. A married man would never contemplate destroying his wife's livelihood -- she brings in home money required to run the household, and live better. A single man, contemplating the hard hurdle to become in effect, George Clooney (not in the cards for about 90% of all Beta Males, or about 81% of all men), can figure its better to simply remake the economy so HE is in effect George Clooney by taking down the earnings and income and social position of most of his age peer (and younger) women.

Gone would be jobs in media, in entertainment, in government, in most health and education and welfare roles. Gone would be jobs in corporate HR, or diversity, or any such thing. Welfare for single mothers? Why? Not their kids. Corporate finance and HR and marketing jobs? Move to trim them (by taxing them). Put costs right on top of the entertainment industry to make it a broken shell. The same for media companies, and fashion, and the like.

Now, this effort is unlikely to be successful, in and of itself, but it will certainly be attempted. Men are not stupid, and the bigger the group of beta singletons, unattached (and thus uncaring) towards women (and a particular woman), and the longer that cohort ages, the more they will push for this policy. It won't be labeled as such. The measures will be "fiscally responsible" or "work to welfare" or "improving productivity" or "revenue neutral" but there will be a sizable group of beta men wanting their own preferences by pushing down their female peer's.

Beta males cannot become George Clooney (which is what their age peers in their thirties and older seem to want). Only a select few can create that wealth/power/looks premium that women demand. Even Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's wealthy billionaire founder, has less social power and attraction than say, Grade Z actor Jared Leto. While Sorkin's movie was completely untruthful about how Facebook was created and developed ("the Social Network") he did capture one unpleasant truth: when women have their own money, power, and status, only the most massively dominant of men are attractive. Mere money and brains makes one an afterthought, even at Zuckerberg's levels. The dog that is not barking there, is the complete lack of women throwing themselves at Zuckerberg. Compared to even fairly pathetic guys like … Charlie Sheen or Ashton Kutcher.

Nope. Beta males won't be able to remake themselves into Clooney. Or Sheen, or even Kutcher. But they can reduce their female peers, or at least try to. In this, they are likely to be helped by the "Rendezvous with Scarcity" that Ed Driscoll has predicted. In a later post I will identify the factors driving scarcity of almost everything, from investment capital, to natural gas, to oil, to food, and clothing. But suffice it to say that even marginal improvements in China's average income means a lot more competition for scarce resources, and the likelihood of economic autarky and trade bloc moat building. India and Russia have already banned sugar and wheat exports, respectively, due to bad harvests and the politically sensible desire to keep domestic prices as low as possible. The whole female-dominated super-structure of marketing, advertising, corporate finance, HR, fashion, and the rest including the Kardashians and Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus is coming to an end in a long-lasting age of scarcity and massive international resource competition.

As Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's right hand man says, the power of incentives in shaping human behavior is massive. If Beta males cannot become George Clooney, and are not tied to women's income (single men) they are likely to demand their own status become much higher by remaking the economic and social order in any crisis coming to hand. And the new international system hard-wiring instability globally into the US and the West guarantees there will be no lack of shocks and crisis.

If the social order can muddle through, without any real stress, if the economy magically recovers, everyone goes back to work, and the old social-economic-political alliance of White Women, various non-Whites, and connected White social elites, reasserts itself by producing economic good times, of course there is zero chance of Beta males remaking the system. But in a crisis, the old values are upended. New ones come to the fore, when its to the lifeboats. In J.G. Ballard's "Empire of the Sun," pickpockets and thieves rule the Japanese run internment camps for the British and other Western Whites, not the old elites who have no ability to provide food and survival in a brutal new environment. If the markets decide that the US Government cannot repay the implied debt of the States and localities on top of its own debt, without massive inflation or repudiation (same thing), or oil, gas, food, cotton, and money shocks occur, or war breaks out somewhere sensitive (Korea, the Persian Gulf), then it is to the lifeboats. Events themselves will drive survival, and the "thieves and pickpockets," the lowest of the low, (beta White males) are unlikely to return to old ways of deference and social order once one storm has passed and another gathers.

But clearly, everything has its cost, everything is connected, and everything in turn has an effect on everything else. Women's choices in men, preferring George Clooney, are in turn inexorably driving the 81% of all men that excludes into behavior designed to make them that powerful. One way or another.

35 comments:

Gendeau said...

That's all very well, but what about the 'tragedy' of older, succesful women 'preferring even older, more sucessful, men'?

It's a DAMN shame that those men (and all others) prefer ever younger and prettier women.

LMAO

Feminists must find it endlessly annoying that reality never matches their desires.

Still you can always lobby more laws, eh GRRRLZ?

namae nanka said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7787661/Chinese-hiding-three-million-babies-a-year.html

"It should be noted that I consulted the China Statistical Yearbook as well, but found that according to their, the 18-34 population actually has a tiny surplus of females, not males."


http://www.mutantpalm.org/2007/10/30/chinas-future-clockwork-orange.html

Anonymous said...

Another thing is that the majority of these women, whether they admit it to themselves or not, want an even more successful man so that work then becomes optional for them. Hardly any work full-time until retirement age.

It's not an MRS degree now, but an MRS "career," which after marriage is kept only for as long as is personally fulfilling.

These "careers" are mirages, which is why most women who can't catch an alpha will "settle" for a beta provider eventually.

Kendama said...

That reminds me; I found this article via Instapundit:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1336905/Jet-set-housewives-Id-daughter-marry-rich-man-career.html

I think it also lays bare the reality of female hypergamy. Look carefully -- the women throw the entire notion of a "fulfilling career" under the bus in favor of alpha-providers (the "losers," of course, are the ones that marry betas and thus have to do housework.)

Anonymous said...

I get what you are trying to say but...this is horribly written. It's all over the place, and the sentence structure...yikes.

Roissy does it much better

Matt said...

Men standing up to feminism: http:manhood101.com

Matt said...

Men standing up to feminism: http://manhood101.com

nullpointer said...

Good analysis about the hypergamy effect, but as always you take a bias shot at those damn illegal immigrants that keep coming over our border.

Except that all the money getting spent on educating illegal immigrants is going to white middle class (mostly liberal) females. Pretty much all the services provided to illegal immigrants that are raising costs are creating white middle class jobs. Imagine what happens if thousands of white social workers, teachers, police, firemen, public outreach specialists, and civil engineers were laid off.

You seem really smart, but I keep getting this weird vibe of bitter resentment not genuine concern for the future of this nation.

To quote a few famous people:
"The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects" - Francis Bacon

"I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives." - Leo Tolstoy

LushFun said...

Its sad in a way that this is how it is, once intrinsically structured to be inelastic this type of thing goes hand in hand with the income distribution being less and less equal. Eventually things become a bit unbalanced and we get a diffusion of the distortion through other means.

Whiskey said...

Nullpointer -- the Costs of Illegals is quite high. Cheap labor is not cheap when you factor in the other costs.

Consider California's budget. CA is $26 billion in the hole, over the next 18 months. The 2010 budget includes $37 billion for K-12, and $37 billion for Health/Welfare. Prisons/Corrections cost $9 billion. About 40% of all K-12 parents cannot vote (they are illegals).

The overhead required to "carry" illegals and create jobs for White teachers (itself a fantasy, what is being created is a K-12/Health-Welfare system dominated by Latinos/Mexicans) is tremendous. You could probably cut close to 40% off the three biggest category items in the CA budget by deporting illegals. Which would also then allow you to cut Welfare further because "living wages" for low skilled workers (Blacks, Native Latinos, non-HS grad Whites) responds to a drop in supply.

Thilo Sarrazin decried low-skill, non-native, non-assimilating workers in Germany from a cost perspective (they consume wealth and don't create it). Like Sarrazin, I'd much prefer a few high-wealth creating folks to a massive wave of what amounts to Mexico's peasant poor.

The 14 year old Sicario who beheaded those folks in Mexico for the Zetas is a US citizen. He is far more representative of the cost (of K-12/Health/Education) of social spending than just the salary of a low-skills Latina teacher.

Anything and everything that increases US wealth and social cohesion I am for. If Colin Powell finds illegal aliens handy because they do chores cheap around his house, I don't care. I can see their costs.

My challenge for you: show how cheap, Mexican labor helps create wealth in the US, and raise competitiveness vs. low-cost China and India, while not negatively impacting social cohesion.

You can't do it. Because the costs are so massively high, and the quality of the workforce imported so low, along with (critically) ruthless competition from China and emerging nations, Mexicans are a disaster for America.

Whiskey said...

Let me add, Mexicans do not bring in investment capital (like Taiwanese immigrants do). They come in massive numbers and create high crime areas where no English is spoken and displace natives out to distant, high cost Exurbs (Temecula, Oceanside, etc.) Mexican women are not women like Salma Hayek. Mostly they are short, fat, and dumpy. They don't add to the "beautiful women" quotient and besides, Mexicans do not intermarry much (a crucial mark of assimilation).

This makes Hypergamy even more prevalent, on the low end, and increases thuggishness. Mexican labor killed the mostly White drywaller's union in SoCal thirty years ago. Now, we have low wages for most construction/building trades, because of the massive influx of illegal aliens. Even if White guys (and Black guys) without a few high-demand skills wanted to be Beta Providers the economics prevent it. While pandering to the desires of White upper class women as illustrated by the friends of Sandra Tsing Loh, to "outsource" Kitchen Bitch chores to cheap nannies and maids.

America can't and won't win on low-cost labor. China and Vietnam and places like that will ALWAYS be cheaper. America's only win is fewer, not more workers, highly skilled, using lots of capital investment, to create globally competitive products.

That means Cesar Chavez's dream of a border fence and a few highly paid workers running automated robotic strawberry pickers (they way New Zealand and Chile do with grapes and citrus and apples) not hordes of disposable, low cost labor. It means a "German style" protectionism and government help to dominate things like Aerospace or machine tools that can leverage highly productive labor that is cost-competitive with low productivity low cost labor.

Is importing half of Mexico going to result in anything but Mexico's crime rates, poverty rates, productivity rates, technology implementation rates, and industrial productivity rates? Does crossing the border sprinkle magic pixie dust on border-crossers and make them smarter, more prone to value education, more skilled, and more sober and restrained?

Wealth production, keeping the labor supply limited and high-skilled, limiting female hypergamy (Brazil and Mexico as the models), all are aspects of the same thing: preserving the nuclear family and Anglo-Saxon wealth creation. The bubbles are over, its time to get serious about wealth and stability in a US without any idea of how to create and sustain either.

nullpointer said...

First, let's clear up the visible fiscal costs. FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), an extremist anti-immigrant organization did a study to figure out just how much illegal immigration is costing America. Nationwide, the number they came up with is $113 billion dollars per year. About half of that is for educating the children of illegal immigrants. The US budget deficit for FY 2010 is about 1.7 trillion dollars. That works out to only a 6.7% reduction in the annual deficit if we kick out all the illegal immigrants.

Assuming we could somehow pull it off. What happens to all the farms and Americans dependent on those farms for their food? All the meat packers?

You don't have to worry about amnesty for illegal aliens, because then they can't be paid below minimum wage. They don't have to worry about deportation, because then companies would have to pay fair wages. I digress though, the point is that fiscally speaking inflated government salaries (held by mostly educated white folks), sometimes referred to as welfare for the educated, are a bigger problems than those illegal immigrants.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html

So now onto the hidden costs. The hidden costs are indeed high. What kind of shock do you think food commodities dependent on immigrant labor would experience? Even with the takeourjobs campaign, there was a handful of people that actually signed up. I think Colbert was the 17th person to do it.

I don't know what to do about the crime. Just like terrorism, it's a side-effect of our abuse of other societies for our gain. Where does the demand for drugs come from? The biggest cocaine dealership in my neighborhood was a domino's pizza in Great Falls, VA run by high school student at Langley High School. You think the police ever busted their operation living in the suburbs/exurbs of 5 million dollar homes? Pfft. Drugs are a supply and demand thing.

Legalize drugs, regulate and tax them, and you'll solve a large part of the problem in the ghetto and Mexico. However, I doubt that's an acceptable solution to many.

I think in the end illegal immigration is a symptom. I'm actually opposed to illegal immigration as by definition it is illegal. I think all the undocumented migrant worker PC bullshit is a bunch of crock. That said unless we build a fence 50 ft deep and 50 ft tall, with automated machine gun turrets along the perimeter along the entire length do we have a chance in hell of stopping illegal immigration. That doesn't even address water routes or more sophisticated tunnels (imagine how money you could make via drug trade/human smuggling). We need to figure out a sustainable system for determining wealth distribution that is not as egregious as this winner takes all casino capitalism with crony government enforcers. Only once we smooth out the societal arbitrage and start enforcing environmental equality tariffs on our trading partners will be able to have a competitive 21st century economy.

nullpointer said...

First, let's clear up the visible fiscal costs. FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), an extremist anti-immigrant organization did a study to figure out just how much illegal immigration is costing America. Nationwide, the number they came up with is $113 billion dollars per year. About half of that is for educating the children of illegal immigrants. The US budget deficit for FY 2010 is about 1.7 trillion dollars. That works out to only a 6.7% reduction in the annual deficit if we kick out all the illegal immigrants.

Assuming we could somehow pull it off. What happens to all the farms and Americans dependent on those farms for their food? All the meat packers?

You don't have to worry about amnesty for illegal aliens, because then they can't be paid below minimum wage. They don't have to worry about deportation, because then companies would have to pay fair wages. I digress though, the point is that fiscally speaking inflated government salaries (held by mostly educated white folks), sometimes referred to as welfare for the educated, are a bigger problems than those illegal immigrants.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703766704576009350303578410-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwMjExNDIyWj.html

So now onto the hidden costs. The hidden costs are indeed high. What kind of shock do you think food commodities dependent on immigrant labor would experience? Even with the takeourjobs campaign, there was a handful of people that actually signed up. I think Colbert was the 17th person to do it.

I don't know what to do about the crime. Just like terrorism, it's a side-effect of our abuse of other societies for our gain. Where does the demand for drugs come from? The biggest cocaine dealership in my neighborhood was a domino's pizza in Great Falls, VA run by high school student at Langley High School. You think the police ever busted their operation living in the suburbs/exurbs of 5 million dollar homes? Pfft. Drugs are a supply and demand thing.

Legalize drugs, regulate and tax them, and you'll solve a large part of the problem in the ghetto and Mexico. However, I doubt that's an acceptable solution to many.

I think in the end illegal immigration is a symptom. I'm actually opposed to illegal immigration as by definition it is illegal. I think all the undocumented migrant worker PC bulldung is a bunch of crock. That said unless we build a fence 50 ft deep and 50 ft tall, with automated machine gun turrets along the perimeter along the entire length do we have a chance in hell of stopping illegal immigration. That doesn't even address water routes or more sophisticated tunnels (imagine how money you could make via drug trade/human smuggling). We need to figure out a sustainable system for determining wealth distribution that is not as egregious as this winner takes all casino capitalism with crony government enforcers. Only once we smooth out the societal arbitrage and start enforcing environmental equality tariffs on our trading partners will be able to have a competitive 21st century economy.

madmax said...

Whiskey,

Just curious about something. What is your definition of liberty? Do you have one?

madmax said...

Another thing Whiskey. Nearly every economic problem that you document over and over has to do with the confiscation and redistribution of wealth; ie socialism in one form or another (today's watered down socialism is the welfare state). Why would you advocate more economic intervention and regulation to address a problem that was in fact cause by economic intervention and regulation?

You tell us that Mexican illegals are costing billions. But those costs are for public education and free health care. So, why not advocate the end of public education and free health care? Why not advocate that everyone pay their own way? Why advocate taxing certain professions so as to do away with "hypergamy" which is a dubious concept when applied to humans?

Look, I see the same things you see. Its just your solutions seem insane to me. You do know that Frederick Bastiat destroyed economic protectionism over 150 years ago? Just read his reducto ad absurdum of the Candle makers petition to stop the rays of the sun.

Mahoney (the keyboard warrior) said...

Whiskey you like to go on and on about how women fall over themselves to be with minorities who are supposedly so dominant. Not saying this disproves what you say, but I'd like you to take a look at least one exception to your rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2U-ZBVoNs0

I don't know if this young man is his own worst enenmy or not, but either way his attitude is tragic.

Roughneck Jase said...

Very good posts, madmax.

What you said made more sense than Whiskey's rants. I agree that the welfare state in the Anglosphere and the Western World should be rolled back in certain areas (with exemptions in areas like public education because most people can't afford to send their kids to a private school).

Whiskey,

Let me remind you that it is not only white males that are getting the short end of the stick from feminism and women in the Anglosphere and the Western World. A lot of men from different racial, religious and ethnic groups are equally as affected by the impact of modern Western feminism and the misandry it dishes out.

In closing, Whiskey. Check out this link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChlYKE2s2SY

It goes to show that ALL men, regardless of race, religion, and ethnicity are negatively affected by modern feminism in the Anglosphere and the Western World.

Polichinello said...

So, why not advocate the end of public education and free health care?

It's politically untenable. What you're talking about here is a libertarian wet dream. Moreover, the more immigration you bring it, the less likely it'll ever occur. Illegal and legal immigrants generally come from demographics that favor government largesse, so they (or their children) will always vote for the bigger government party.

That was the obvious, ginourmous flaw in Dubya and Rove's dreams of winning a Hispanic majority through amnesty. The GOP will always be outbid by the Democrats, because the GOP, as the self-labeled small government party*, cannot piss off it middle-class, tax-paying base.

Polichinello said...

I've come to find Two and a Half Men more and more unwatchable. Sheen's character is actually becoming more pathetic than John Cryer's Alan. I mean, really, ladykillers don't exactly spend thousands on whores, as his character does almost every episode. He's starting to look pretty haggard, too. There's only so much make-up can do.

I wonder if Lorre having a goof on his audience--especially the women--trying to see what it will ultimately take to turn them off on Sheen.

Anonymous said...

Namae nanka;

According to Reuters: "'BARE BRANCH' BACHELORS: For every 100 baby girls born in China, there are about 119 baby boys. By 2020, China could be short 30 million women, leaving millions of 'bare branches'(trees that don't bear fruit), young men, without partners."
The problem is real, and it's only really beginning to show up in the 18-34 age bracket.

Tschafer

namae nanka said...

30 million was the old number, it's already been revised to 24.
The "bare branches" study was by two women who well, hate hate hate beta males and their conclusions were not as well supported as they claim to be. Read the second link in my post.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, you keep saying betas can't get women, but they certainly can when they get in their 30s. The issue is that the women they get have 10-15 years of riding the alpha-cock carrousel behind them. Betas resent being "settled" for by women who will never feel about them the way they did their previous lovers.

ray said...

"The measures will be "fiscally responsible" or "work to welfare" or "improving productivity" or "revenue neutral" but there will be a sizable group of beta men wanting their own preferences by pushing down their female peer's."


this would only occur under ideal/naturalistic (non coerced) economic and social conditions

the reality is that we already live under a highly controlled and artificed matriarchal police state.... any attempt to "push down females" would be met, quickly, with even more laws and prison construction (often cited in Medea as "salvation" for economically strapped small/medium u.s. towns)

think lifeboat market conditions would prevent this? dreem on

women would not be the inmates of such a gulag, any more than they are now -- as now, they increasingly would be the guards and administration, overseeing along with select manginas the cheap labor

"Or, in reality TV terms, destroying the Kardashians and making all of America look like Ice Road Truckers or Axe Men."

the sane solution, but where is sanity?

Destroying the Kardashians -- fine title for a book or movie

ray

Whiskey said...

Madmax -- Bastiat did not have deal with China. China changes the whole equation.

America (and every other nation) NEEDS protectionism otherwise VERY PROTECTIONIST CHINA will simply obliterate all native industries: including the car parts industry, aerospace, and (critically) machine tools. The experience of de-industrialized UK, has not been a good one.

Services in a global economy gravitate to the lowest cost: India and China. Do you want the standard of living to fall to that level?

There has never been anything like completely free trade. Great Britain as a free trader leveraged wage/productivity/industrial advantages against pre-Industrial nations. As soon as Germany was an industrial rival the advantages of "free trade" fell apart. Rest assured CHINA is not a free trader in any sense of the word.

Liberty is defined by homogeneous groups in the rule of law, and the open-ness to periodic leveling and change. Haiti and Russia have fine constitutions, but their people are unsuited and unable to grasp liberty, because laws are not enough. The PEOPLE must be suited for it and not all are capable of exercising it or KEEPING IT. In the breadth of human history only a tiny segment of peoples and time have had liberty or anything approaching it. The typical human condition is big man Tyranny.

Whiskey said...

Anon re betas, yes that is my point. But the study suggests that women's preference in their thirties is not their beta male peers but a George Clooney type a full 15 years their senior. Handsome, successful, many women behind him, basically Warren Beatty to Annette Benning. That is not sustainable, as it leaves the betas out in the cold given the rise in single motherhood and among the upper classes, late age single motherhood through surrogacy.

Whiskey said...

Roughneck --

I am dubious about pan-racial gender alliances because they do not work. The current political system pits Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Women, and elite Whites against ordinary White men and some married White women.

Paying for the college education (at elite universities) for the kids of illegals by folks like myself is in the interest of illegals, certainly. It is not in my interest.

There is nothing in it for me. Nor is being last on the totem pole of PC, nor is being cleansed, ethnically, from places where Americans used to live, in favor of Mexican colonization. I don't want and need an army of cheap labor to do household chores, hence my interest is not the same as an illegal or those who employ them (like Colin Powell).

Whiskey said...

A note to readers -- Google's Spam Blocker can occasionally put comments in the spam filter. I check periodically to un-spam them. Google added it automatically, and this blog is getting tons of spam. So bear with me on this if your comment does not appear right away -- its Google not me.

Nullpointer -- I think FAIR severely undercounts the cost of illegals. Not the least of which is the costs of educating their kids (who come from illiterate, non-english speaking families that don't value education and have chaotic arrangements characterized by high rates of illegitimacy). The costs then of welfare and prisons is very high. The costs of illegals don't cease once they have kids here (who are by law US citizens even though most consider themselves Mexicans due special privileges, not Americans, hence the US flag verboten on Mexican-presence schools). The costs increase.

Australia, New Zealand, and Chile use highly automated farming and meat-packing. Cheap labor is substituted for capital, as it has already with wheat, corn, and other crops. The Japanese have a robot that can pick strawberries by ripeness via color and soon, "sniffing" -- that's more sensible than importing cheap labor with massive prison, assimilation, and other costs. Assuming a 40% Whack off the California budget categories of K-12, Health/Welfare, and Prisons due to kicking out illegals, CA goes from $26 billion in the hole to surplus. By recreating the demographics of 1960's California.

McCain said no one would pick lettuce for $20 an hour. He got booed off the stage, and there were huge lines at a place in Arizona hiring at just that rate, Colbert's idiot stunt notwithstanding. Former Project managers for Fiber Optics manufacturers are taking $9 an hour jobs at Best Buy. Rest assured there is a big native labor supply ready to take those jobs.

Food price shock? Lettuce, Tomatoes, and the rest would rise (far less than due to energy costs to transport them and store them) but the rise would be temporary as capital replaced labor. Machines are ALWAYS cheaper and better than people in the long run.

And we can stop illegal immigration, for the most part. A big fence, real employment enforcement, mass deportations, will all work to make the problem a tiny fraction of what it is now.

But the biggest issue is population replacement. Unless the kids and (likely) grand-kids of illegals are deported, much of America will be defacto Mexico. With an over not underpopulated America, struggling to re-industrialize, and transition from cheap and unskilled labor to China-beating "German-style" labor.

If Mexicans cannot compete with China's labor force, how can they magically win against them when they all move to the US, and remain, well, Mexican? Which in fact they do?

Whites, Blacks, and long time Hispanic natives can vote themselves a massive goody bonus in forms of lower taxes and bigger benefits by voting people off the island. This is familiar to anyone watching "Survivor."

In hard times, don't bet on the milk of human kindness, elite status-mongering, or anything else but the realization that the split goes further the lesser its cut.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the women avoiding you beta males in droves, instinctively sense how much you hate them.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous: We betas don't hate women -- quite the contrary! But we don't want to be viewed as second-best by women who are themselves second best but think otherwise because they can get laid by alphas.

And Whiskey, the study only said that women who are financially independent want these George Clooney types. Most women in their 30s are really just getting by, financially, especially if they have children.

Vincent Vega said...

Whiskey I hope you solve your google comment trouble by expanding an already great site.

THINK BIG!!!! (As you so often admonish the rebellion to do!!)

Novaseeker said...

The most hilarious aspect of this, of course, is that, by and large, the George Clooneys of the world are *not* interested in being with average-looking, overachieving professional women in their 40s. Look who Clooney himself dates -- it isn't average-looking but high achieving women over 40. Less famous versions of Clooney -- anonymous yet attractive and successful older men -- also are dating much more attractive, and much younger, women than the kinds of women this article is describing.

Basically what they are saying is that as a woman's own status advances, her hypergamy adjusts with that -- which is kind of an obvious statement. She's still hypergamous, but her hypergamy adjusts to be based on some factors more than others, due to her lessened need for a man to provide economic security. She she still wants a high(er) status man -- good looking, preferably -- but the economic part is often less important. Query, however, how many female exec types are married to significantly older, very good looking men who have many dating options yet are not financially successful. Not many.

It's another example of how women are setting themselves up, in many ways, for dissatisfaction. George Clooney (and his anonymous peers) do not want to marry Bossy Bessie the 45 year old Execubitch. They will date women who are younger and hotter, because they can. And they likely have enough financial wherewithal by that time in their lives that they aren't looking for some average looking Sugar Momma to mooch off of. The kinds of guys who are in the market for that tend to be young men who are not really well established -- like Ashton Kutcher was, to some degree, when he met and married Demi Moore (who, of course, unlike Jane Average the Executive is quite well above average looking for her age). The Cougar thing has some legs to it provided the woman is somewhat attractive and can throw cash into the relationship, and she understands that this is part of her appeal to the generally younger, hotter guy. Trying to pull that off with an established older very good looking Clooney type is an exercise of pissing into the wind, it seems to me, and a recipe for extreme frustration for many women.

Anonymous said...

Strawberry Picking Robot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4HnFgqvIKk

Anonymous said...

No matter how much you want it to be, it will never be 1950 again. Change is the way of the world.

Sack Lunch said...

No. This just 'proves' that older women who are successful aren't pathetic enough to fall for "GOLD-DIGGERS" whereas a successful rich dude will (Hefner? HELLO?)

Ana Baptist said...

Maybe for marriage, but not for getting laid. Look at all these women getting knocked up by broke losers, and these cougar female teachers banging their high school students.