Tuesday, September 6, 2016

"Why Women Are Running Out of Men to Marry"

This was written by the English politician Boris Johnson, who is smarter than your average politician. But not by much. It's from the Telegraph.

I was half asleep in the front seat the other day, coming back from some exhausting tour of an educational establishment, and in the back seat were two twentysomething female graduates. They were talking about men, so I tried to focus, while keeping my eyes cunningly half closed. One of them made the eternal feminine complaint. "All men are useless these days," she said. "Yeah," said the other. "The trouble is that they haven't risen to the challenge of feminism. They don't understand that we need them to be more masculine, and instead they have just copped out." I am afraid that, at this point, I copped out myself, and slid into unconsciousness. But before I went under I thought, hmmm, this is interesting; and I think back to that conversation as I read that women continue their astonishing dominance of university admissions.

Look at those girls go! Women now make up 57 per cent of university entrants, and they outnumber men in every subject — including maths and engineering. This thing is huge, and it is happening at every level, and no one seems to be thinking about the consequences.

Most trainee barristers and two thirds of medical students are now women — compared with 29 per cent women in the early 1990s. If current trends continue, most doctors will be female by 2012. It is ludicrous for the Equal Opportunities Commission to keep droning on about "glass ceilings" at the top of corporate Britain, or in the judiciary, when you think how fast this transformation has been.

It is a stunning fact — the biggest social revolution of our lifetime — that far more women than men are now receiving what is in theory an elite academic education. When I was at university 20 years ago, the figures were almost exactly the other way round, with the ratio 60:40 in favour of males. Far more female graduates are coming out of our universities than male graduates — and, in 30 years' time, when these people reach the peak of their careers, the entire management structure of Britain will have been transformed and feminized.

Speaking as an ardent feminist, I expect that this will have many wonderful results: a culture that is more feng shui and emotionally literate and altogether nicer, and an economy that benefits from unleashing the phenomenal energy and talents of British women who are — if GCSEs, A-levels and university entrance results mean anything — currently giving the male sex a good old intellectual thrashing.

Obviously a neanderthal corner of my heart worries about some aspects of the coming feminisation. Will we all become even more namby-pamby, elf-n-safety-conscious, regulation-prone and generally incapable of beating the Australians at anything than we already are? Hmm? And even if the feminist revolution is good and unstoppable (and it is both), we should perhaps consider some of the downsides — and the most interesting is that greater equality between the sexes is actually leading to greater division between the classes. Here's how. Since the emergence of our species, it has been a brutally sexist feature of romance that women on the whole — and I stress on the whole — will want to mate/procreate with men who are either on a par with themselves, or their superior, in socio-economic and intellectual attainment. A recent study shows that if a man's IQ rises by 16 points, his chances of marrying increase by 35 per cent; if a woman's IQ rises by 16 points, her chances of getting hitched decline by the same amount.

Now look at those university entrance figures again, feed in that basic human prejudice, and some recent social phenomena become intelligible. If you have a sudden surge in the number of highly educated women — more women than men — then it is not surprising that you have a fair few Bridget Jones-type characters who are having a tough job finding Mr. Darcy. It is a gloomy truth that 40 per cent of female graduates born in 1970 are likely to enter their forties childless. As a result of the same instinct — female desire to procreate with their intellectual equals — the huge increase in female university enrolments is leading to a rise in what the sociologists call assortative mating. A snappier word for it is homogamy. The more middle-class graduates we create, the more they seem to settle down with other middle-class graduates, very largely because of the feminine romantic imperative already described. The result is that the expansion of university education has actually been accompanied by a decline in social mobility, and that is because these massive enrollments have been overwhelmingly middle-class.

It is one of the sad failures of this Government that relatively few bright children from poor backgrounds have been encouraged to go to university, partly because of weaknesses in primary and secondary education, partly because of the withdrawal of the ladder of opportunity provided by academic selection. Once they have failed to go to university, the boom in the number of middle-class female students only intensifies their disadvantages. Let's put it bluntly: nice female middle-class graduates are either becoming permanent Bridget Joneses, or marrying nice male graduates, and they seem on the whole to be turning up their nice graduate noses at male non-graduates. And when the nice middle-class graduate couples get together, they have the double income to buy the houses and push the prices up — and make life even tougher for the non-graduates.

The result is that we have widening social divisions, and two particularly miserable groups: the female graduates who think men are all useless because they can't find a graduate husband, and the male non-graduates who feel increasingly trampled on by the feminist revolution, and resentful of all these hoity-toity female graduates who won't give them the time of day. What is the answer, my friends? I don't know. We could try fiscal incentives for heterogamy. We could have plotlines in soap operas, in which double first girls regularly marry illiterate brickies.

But the only long-term solution for the "uselessness" of young men, as complained of by my twentysomething colleagues, is to get serious with the education of males in primary schools. And if the Equal Opportunities Commission wants to say something sensible for a change, it should start campaigning for more male teachers.


Robert What? said...

A variation on the 80/20 Rule: 80% of the women are looking for 20% of the men. Although these days probably more like the 90/10 Rule.

Unknown said...

Going to University is like torture for men. College is a rancid festering pool of indignant bland conformity. Conformity appeals to women, they do it naturally with friends and following trends and fashions, but for men this is a cesspool of duplicitous niceties hiding a tyranny of conformist attitudes. Professors no longer have rubrics or course requirements. They prefer little idiots who recite what they are told and do not challenge their phony authority. Our society is imploding as real academics is squeezed out by compliant women and rock dumb minorities. What you are seeing is the unraveling of merit and shameless fake freedom hiding tyrants and committees of Soviet style politburos.

Ras al Ghul said...

"And even if the feminist revolution is good and unstoppable (and it is both)"

Ha ha ha. The guy knows in his Neanderthal heart that it is not good, and he knows that it will be stopped because you cannot sustain a high civilization if the women are credentialed and managing everything (they aren't working they're just doing the bureaucracy) and not breeding.

And he lists many of the reasons why it can't go on and why it is in fact evil.

cecilhenry said...

A useless article by Boris. He genuflexes for feminism and then ignores the real damage, and hopes for more male teachers.


Here is a far more accurate assessment, and honest too.
Sexual Utopia in Power


Kentucky Headhunter said...

I've recently come to think the 80/20 rule is false in that it doesn't go far enough. Women want to be with the top guy, #1. They won't be really satisfied with anybody less. They will use other men as they try to swing to the top branch, but #1 is always the goal.

Boris tried to ingratiate himself with both feminists and MRAs, bit failed on both counts. Nothing he could publicly say would ever be enough for feminists, and meaningless call for more male teachers does nothing to improve conditions for boys/young men.

Unknown said...

All relationships are Associated Mating, which is why that Manosphere Alpha/Beta nonsense is just that - nonsense.

When women by law are promoted over men - and isn't that what feminism is? - then both men and women won't find a mate to marry. Hence the modern collapse of marriage and birth.

These things have happened throughout history and have been one of the reasons civilization after civilization has failed.

Anonymous said...

"A variation on the 80/20 Rule: 80% of the women are looking for 20% of the men. Although these days probably more like the 90/10 Rule."

Men and women are looking for one another to date and mate. This ratio is completely made up on your part. Never go full aspie like Joshua Sinistar, who believes he is the second coming of the Holy Roman Emperor.

John Rockwell said...

''All relationships are Associated Mating, which is why that Manosphere Alpha/Beta nonsense is just that - nonsense.''

Everyone goes for the best they can get.

John Rockwell said...

@Bob Wallace
There is actually a link between patriarchy and fertility: