Of
course, each parent is expected to represent its own interests and not
those of both parents, so there will be maternal manipulation and
paternal manipulation, and in turn possible conflict between the two
representations in the offspring. What is more to the point is that
maternally active genes in the offspring are expected to be receptive to
maternal manipulation and vice versa for paternal genes. Thus, parental
manipulation should coevolve with imprinted genes in progeny, each
reinforcing the other. This strengthens the case for a "maternal voice"
and a "paternal voice," each based on effects from the same-sex parent
as reinforced by imprinted genes.
I Recently Came Across This Picture While Opening The Fridge, Looking For Something To Eat. This Is The 1st Time I've Seen Sophia Since My Father's Funeral And The First Time I've Seen Her With A Boy. Well, At Least She's With An Attractive White Boy. I'd Rather See Her With A White Boy Than A Nigger Or Beaner Or Flip Or Nip Or Chink Or Gook. Anyway, This Doesn't Apply To Sophia Because She Never Really Identified With Her Hawaiian Or Filipino Genes, But People That Breed Outside Of Their Race Tend To Score Low On Ethnocentrism, Low On Xenophobia, Low On Traditionalism (High On Openness). In Other Words, They Don't Have A Strong In-Group Identity And Strong In-Group Loyalty. In Regard To My Older Siblings, They Were Raised In All-WHITE Neighborhoods (They Were The Only Colored Kids In Just About Every Community They Lived) And Primarily Associated With WHITES, So They Identified With WHITES And Showed Preference To (Were Bias Towards) WHITES. This Is Why All Of Them Have Dated WHITES At Some Point In Their Life And Most Of Them (4 Out Of 6) Have Had Children With WHITES.
ADIOS! WE DON'T NEED THOSE TRAITS!
"CUZ I LUV IT" - Knocturnal Emissions (Peeping Uncle Tom)
"I Ain't Fuckin' Wit No Nigga That Don't LOVE ME, Mitch!" -Sugar E
"NO LOVE Foe Niggas That Don't Got NO LOVE Foe Me!" - Lynchum (Lichee)
Contrary to women, high-status males still convert economic success into reproductive success in modern societies. https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315634203.ch7 …
"Unlike motherhood, which is relatively evenly distributed across the female status hierarchy, men with higher lifetime earnings, higher net worth, higher educational attainment, and higher leadership skills have more children over their lifetimes"
Even in the most gender‐equal society in the world, women give more weight to earning potential in the opposite sex and are far more likely to marry up than men. ftp.iza.org/dp12185.pdf
Sex differences in mate preferences, with women more set on earning capacity and men on physical attractiveness in the opposite sex, did not lessen in countries with greater gender equality. psyarxiv.com/mtsx8/
"Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects... Additionally, women indicated slightly higher preferences for kindness, intelligence, and health in a long-term mate." journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117
"On average, women have a stronger preference than men for wealth and status in a mate. This difference has been found in virtually every society where we’ve looked for it. It’s even found among women who earn top-tier salaries, and thus who don't need..."
The results are striking. An African-American man would have to earn $154,000 more than a white man in order for a white woman to prefer him. A Hispanic man would need to earn $77,000 more than a white man, and Asian man would need, remarkably, an additional $247,000 in additional annual income.
So do women value ethnicity over income in a mate? They certainly seem too. If income was the more important factor in mate choice these numbers would be small; it would take very little additional income to entice a woman to date a man of a different race. The fact that the numbers are so large suggests that a man’s race is significantly more important than his income.
I'M UGLY!
"Chinese women...show stronger preferences for partners with higher income, better family background, higher education, housing property ownership than men. For Chinese men...place greater importance on their potential partner’s physical attractiveness"
Looks are so important to men that...the physical attractiveness of a wife is a better indicator of a man's occupational status than any of her other qualities: better than her intelligence, her socioeconomic status, or her education. (Decoding Love)
In Other Words, A Guy Has To Acquire/Accumulate A Decent Amount Of Wealth If He Wants To Attract And Develop A Long-Term Relationship With A Young, Healthy, Highly Attractive Female. The Inverse Of This Is That If A Male Has An Unattractive Wife Or Girlfriend He Must Not Be Very Wealthy And/Or Have A High Status Job Or Even High Status Overall.
Real-world evidence that women place more weight than men on earning ability in a mate: Men with higher incomes are more likely to get married, stay married, remarry, and have kids. Not so women. (US; N = 55,281) sciencedirect.com/science/articl
"wives’ well-being is compromised when they earn the same or more than their husbands...Even where egalitarian views are normative (e.g., in the Scandinavian countries), wives who earn more their husbands are more likely to file for divorce" pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.128
Despite women earning more college degrees the tendency for women to marry up in income has remained stable
Career women freeze their eggs because they have trouble finding a worthy mate
James Unworthy
(0:44 That Guy's The Best Of The Bunch!) Many Of These Liberal Students Say The Politically Correct Thing (That They Don't Take Race Into Consideration When They're Choosing A Mate And That They'd Be Willing To Date And Mate With A Person Of Any Race), But Their Actions And Behavior (e.g. Who They Actually Develop Relationships With) Says Another Thing. And What Does It Say? It Says, "I Only Date And Mate With My Own Kind!" So, Their Unconscious Thoughts And Motives Are Temporarily Being Overriden By Their Conscious Thoughts While Their Being Interviewed In Public!
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/02/11/onlinedating/
“Those who said they were indifferent to the race of a partner were most likely to be young, male and black,” said Gerald Mendelsohn, a UC Berkeley psychologist, professor of graduate studies and lead author of the study, which will soon be submitted for publication.
Overall, he said, “Whites more than blacks, women more than men and old more than young participants stated a preference for a partner of the same race,”
The reluctance of whites to contact blacks was true even for those who claimed they were indifferent to race. More than 80 percent of the whites contacted whites and fewer than 5 percent of them contacted blacks, a disparity that held for young as well as for older participants.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/07/why-does-race-matter-for-women/#.VM6bV2K9KK1
1) Black women at Columbia are really open to dating black men. Take a look at the sex ratios there.
2) Asian dudes are really screwed. Not only are non-Asian women not impressed, but Asian women aren’t reciprocally racially discriminatory to level the playing field.
3) Women care a lot more about race than men. Though there is some variation in the male acceptances by race, but as I said most of the differences were not statistically significant. To make this concrete, black women were three times as likely to say yes to a black man as they were to an Asian man (though white women were the most repulsed by Asian men clearly).
...
First, Asian guys are screwed, obviously. I mean, look at how strongly Latinas have an aversion to Asian guys! Secondly, I don’t actually buy their dismissal of different goals. I’ll get into that later.
You might ask here if the differences are simply due to objective differences in attractiveness. In other words, are Asian guys just ugly, explaining their rejections? The short answer is to some extent. The authors find that some of the rejection rate for Asians in general seem to be explainable as a function of the judgment that they’re just not as attractive.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/color/articles/sailer.html
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/30/247530095/are-you-interested-dating-odds-favor-white-men-asian-women
(0:44 That Guy's The Best Of The Bunch!) Many Of These Liberal Students Say The Politically Correct Thing (That They Don't Take Race Into Consideration When They're Choosing A Mate And That They'd Be Willing To Date And Mate With A Person Of Any Race), But Their Actions And Behavior (e.g. Who They Actually Develop Relationships With) Says Another Thing. And What Does It Say? It Says, "I Only Date And Mate With My Own Kind!" So, Their Unconscious Thoughts And Motives Are Temporarily Being Overriden By Their Conscious Thoughts While Their Being Interviewed In Public!
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/02/11/onlinedating/
“Those who said they were indifferent to the race of a partner were most likely to be young, male and black,” said Gerald Mendelsohn, a UC Berkeley psychologist, professor of graduate studies and lead author of the study, which will soon be submitted for publication.
Overall, he said, “Whites more than blacks, women more than men and old more than young participants stated a preference for a partner of the same race,”
The reluctance of whites to contact blacks was true even for those who claimed they were indifferent to race. More than 80 percent of the whites contacted whites and fewer than 5 percent of them contacted blacks, a disparity that held for young as well as for older participants.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/07/why-does-race-matter-for-women/#.VM6bV2K9KK1
1) Black women at Columbia are really open to dating black men. Take a look at the sex ratios there.
2) Asian dudes are really screwed. Not only are non-Asian women not impressed, but Asian women aren’t reciprocally racially discriminatory to level the playing field.
3) Women care a lot more about race than men. Though there is some variation in the male acceptances by race, but as I said most of the differences were not statistically significant. To make this concrete, black women were three times as likely to say yes to a black man as they were to an Asian man (though white women were the most repulsed by Asian men clearly).
...
First, Asian guys are screwed, obviously. I mean, look at how strongly Latinas have an aversion to Asian guys! Secondly, I don’t actually buy their dismissal of different goals. I’ll get into that later.
You might ask here if the differences are simply due to objective differences in attractiveness. In other words, are Asian guys just ugly, explaining their rejections? The short answer is to some extent. The authors find that some of the rejection rate for Asians in general seem to be explainable as a function of the judgment that they’re just not as attractive.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/color/articles/sailer.html
Interracial marriage is growing steadily. From the 1960 to the 1990 Census, white - Asian married couples increased almost tenfold, while black - white couples quadrupled. The reasons are obvious: greater integration and the decline of white racism. More subtly, interracial marriages are increasingly recognized as epitomizing what our society values most in a marriage: the triumph of true love over convenience and prudence. Nor is it surprising that white - Asian marriages outnumber black - white marriages: the social distance between whites and Asians is now far smaller than the distance between blacks and whites. What's fascinating, however, is that in recent years a startling number of nonwhites -- especially Asian men and black women -- have become bitterly opposed to intermarriage.
This is a painful topic to explore honestly, so nobody does. Still, it's important because interracial marriages are a leading indicator of what life will be like in the even more diverse and integrated twenty-first century. Intermarriages show that integration can churn up unexpected racial conflicts by spotlighting enduring differences between the races.
For example, probably the most disastrous mistake Marcia Clark made in prosecuting O. J. Simpson was to complacently allow Johnny Cochran to pack the jury with black women. As a feminist, Mrs. Clark smugly assumed that all female jurors would identify with Nicole Simpson. She ignored pretrial research indicating that black women tended to see poor Nicole as The Enemy, one of those beautiful blondes who steal successful black men from their black first wives, and deserve whatever they get.
The heart of the problem for Asian men and black women is that intermarriage does not treat every sex/race combination equally: on average, it has offered black men and Asian women new opportunities for finding mates among whites, while exposing Asian men and black women to new competition from whites. In the 1990 Census, 72 per cent of black - white couples consisted of a black husband and a white wife. In contrast, white - Asian pairs showed the reverse: 72 per cent consisted of a white husband and an Asian wife.
Sexual relations outside of marriage are less fettered by issues of family approval and long-term practicality, and they appear to be even more skewed. The 1992 Sex in America study of 3,432 people, as authoritative a work as any in a field where reliable data are scarce, found that ten times more single white women than single white men reported that their most recent sex partner was black.
Few whites comprehend the growing impact on minorities of these interracial husband - wife disparities. One reason is that the effect on whites has been balanced. Although white women hunting for husbands, for example, suffer more competition from Asian women, they also enjoy increased access to black men. Further, the weight of numbers dilutes the effect on whites. In 1990, 1.46 million Asian women were married, compared to only 1.26 million Asian men. This net drain of 0.20 million white husbands into marriages to Asian women is too small to be noticed by the 75 million white women, except in Los Angeles and a few other cities with large Asian populations and high rates of intermarriage. Yet, this 0.20 million shortage of Asian wives leaves a high proportion of frustrated Asian bachelors in its wake.
Black women's resentment of intermarriage is now a staple of daytime talk shows, hit movies like Waiting to Exhale, and magazine articles. Black novelist Bebe Moore Campbell described her and her tablemates' reactions upon seeing a black actor enter a restaurant with a blonde: ``In unison, we moaned, we groaned, we rolled our eyes heavenward . . . Then we all shook our heads as we lamented for the 10,000th time the perfidy of black men, and cursed trespassing white women who dared to 'take our men.''' Like most guys, though, Asian men are reticent about admitting any frustrations in the mating game. But anger over intermarriage is visible on Internet on-line discussion groups for young Asians. The men, featuring an even-greater-than-normal-for-the- Internet concentration of cranky bachelors, accuse the women of racism for dating white guys. For example, ``This [dating] disparity is a manifestation of a silent conspiracy by the racist white society and self-hating Asian [nasty word for ``women''] to effect the genocide of Asian Americans.'' The women retort that the men are racist and sexist for getting sore about it. All they can agree upon is that Media Stereotypes and/or Low Self-Esteem must somehow be at fault.
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html
So
dating is our last refuge of overt racism because … preferring people
based on race isn’t racism if its for dating, especially if minorities
do it?!
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good
racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better
enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they
care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests
allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people,
including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which
might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate,
etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers
of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
So
dating is our last refuge of overt racism because … preferring people
based on race isn’t racism if its for dating, especially if minorities
do it?!
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people, including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate, etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.epsvlCTg.dpuf
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people, including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate, etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.epsvlCTg.dpuf
Asian
women responded to white men who “yessed” them 7.8% of the time, more
often than they responded to any other race. On the other hand, white
men responded to black women 8.5% of the time—less often than for white,
Latino, or Asian women. In general, men responded to women about three
times as often as women responded to men.
Unfortunately
the data reveal winners and losers. All men except Asians preferred
Asian women, while all except black women preferred white men. And both
black men and black women got the lowest response rates for their
respective genders.
Perhaps most surprising is that among men, all racial groups preferred another race over their own.
Most men prefer Asian women (with the exception of Asian men,) while all women (except black women) are most drawn to white men, according to the research.
Interestingly, it found men from all racial groups tend to prefer women from races other than their own.
The study said Asian women seem to favour advances from white men, as they responded to ‘yes’ messages almost eight per cent of the time – more than any other race.
The data suggests that men are least likely to respond to ‘likes’ from black women and did so 7.5 per cent of the time, which is less often than for Asian, Latino and White women.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/single-female-seeking-same-race-male/?_r=0
African-American women said yes about 30 percent less often to Hispanic men; about 45 percent less often to white men; about 65 percent less often to Asian men.
White women said yes about 30 percent less often to black or Hispanic men, and about 65 percent less often to Asian men.
Hispanic women said yes about 20 percent less often to black or white men, and 50 percent less often to Asian men.
Asian women didn’t discriminate much by race (except for showing a very slight preference for Asian men over black or Hispanic men).
BLACK FEMALES ARE THE LEAST PREFERRED FEMALES BY MALES OF ALL RACES. BLACK MALES ARE THE LEAST PREFERRED MALES BY FEMALES OF ALL RACES. WHY? IT MAY BE BECAUSE BLACKS ARE A LOW SOCIOECONOMIC RACIAL GROUP AND IT MAY BE BECAUSE BLACKS ARE PERCEIVED AS LESS PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE THE LEAST PREFERRED RACE WHEN IT COMES TO SEXUAL RELATIONS.
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good
racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better
enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they
care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests
allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people,
including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which
might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate,
etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers
of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good
racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better
enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they
care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests
allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people,
including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which
might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate,
etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers
of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good
racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better
enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they
care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests
allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people,
including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which
might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate,
etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers
of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpuf
Of course its racism, if anything is. But is it good
racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that people better
enjoy mating when they better like their mates, and people think they
care about the race of their mates. But this same reason suggests
allowing racism by firms, schools, and clubs. Firms are full of people,
including employees, customers, suppliers, and investors, any of which
might care about the race of folks they must deal, mingle, associate,
etc. with. At schools, the teachers, students, and ultimate employers
of those students may also care about race.
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpu
Yes people may be mistaken about how much they care about the race of their associates, and perhaps this justifies government policies forbidding overt racism at firms, schools, or clubs. But why doesn’t this apply just as well to mating? Sure it is impossible to legislate away all racism in dating, but the same is true for hiring etc. Why don’t we at least forbid overt mating racism, such as race-based searches? We could even collect stats on the race of folks that people contact at dating sites, just as we check now on rates rates in hiring at firms, etc.
One explanation is that we naively think that imposing rules on firms only hurts those abstract entities, not the people associated with them. Or we think such rules only hurt investors and managers, who we don’t care about. Perhaps we only dislike racism that changes incomes, not happiness — yet mates often change income a lot. Another explanation is that we only don’t care about racism in the “personal” sphere, though this just changes the question to what exactly is “personal” and why do we care differently about such things. What do you think?
- See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/mate-racism.html#sthash.dFxw5kiD.dpu
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article/new-research-umass-amherst-sociologists
Lin and Lundquist found that when Internet daters search for potential mates, they are more likely to approach those of the same racial identity as themselves, and a clear racial hierarchy dominates the response process. White daters’ messages are likely to elicit responses from daters of other groups, but white women respond mostly only to white men. Black daters, particularly black women, tend to be ignored when they contact non-black groups, even though they respond to other races no less frequently. Asian and Hispanic daters seem to be at the middle of the racial hierarchy; they are responsive to whites, members from their own respective races, and to some extent each other, but not to black daters. Their findings all hold true even after taking into account differing demographic, physical and personality characteristics among the daters.
“Simply stated, white women prefer white men overnon-white men, while white men prefer non-black women over black women,” they write in their paper, Mate Selection in Cyberspace: the Intersection of Race, Gender and Education. “Being black on the dating market—particularly being a black female— means that one’s invitations are most likely to be ignored. The only group that responds regularly to black men and women are one another.”
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/tvepisode/dating-race
FURTHER READING:
http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2010/usintermarriage.aspx
http://www.science-of-love.org/racial-exclusion-of-partners
http://www.comparativecognition.com/Burke%20et%20al%202013.pdf
"AND DON'T DATE NO NIGGAS!" - MR. FREE
"STILL GOIN' ON DATES TRYNA WIN HER HEART, BUT I'M FAT FREE MITCH AND I'LL TEAR IT APART!" - Mr. Free Separatin' That Bitch!
No comments:
Post a Comment