SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
As the number of highly educated women has increased in recent decades, the chances of "marrying up" have increased significantly for men and decreased for women, according to a new study led by a University of Kansas sociologist.
"The pattern of marriage and its economic consequences have changed over time," said lead author ChangHwan Kim, associate professor of sociology. "Now women are more likely to get married to a less-educated man. What is the consequence of this?"
Kim's co-authored the study with Arthur Sakamoto of Texas A&M University, and the journal Demography recently published their findings. They examined gender-specific changes in the total financial return to education among people of prime working ages, 35 to 44 years old, using U.S. Census data from 1990 and 2000 and the 2009-2011 American Community Survey.
Your dreams of finding a Sugar Momma may finally come true.
ChangHwan Kim, Arthur Sakamoto. Women's Progress for Men's Gain? Gender-Specific Changes in the Return to Education as Measured by Family Standard of Living, 1990 to 2009–2011. Demography, 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s13524-017-0601-3
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:49PM (14 children)
Women in the US are getting very fat. Fatness is generally a major deterrent for attraction from men. I would hypothesize that 'lower quality' males may now be able to find women who are generally considered unacceptable, but have other redeeming features. In a way it's probably the same as it was for women in previous times. They were attracted not to the guy who's just piling down the bacon, but the one who's also bringing in the bacon [before piling it down].
In other words I'm curious on the average weight of the women in these relationships compared to the weight of women in relationships where the male is at least as educated. I would hypothesize it's meaningfully higher. A similar hypothesis would be that if one measured simply traditionally attractive females, their would be zero (if not a negative) change in their rate of marrying down.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:41PM (3 children)
I think there's probably a lot of truth to this. The women who are attractive don't have to bother "marrying down", they get first pick; the women who aren't have to choose from the leftovers, which now means "marring down", with the alternative being staying single.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @11:58PM (2 children)
Another option is to get into a relationship with someone without getting married. Why are people not considering that option and acting as if being in a relationship means getting married?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:32AM
Why? The sexual revolution failed.
Personally, I think it was a good idea, but I guess not enough people were comfortable with it. Jeebus, women in the USA still seriously fret about whether or not every woman should have state-funded access to very, very cheap pill!
I predict in 500 years women will be right back where they started. I also predict that just about everybody in this miserable species will be happy with that. Such a damned waste of those brains 51% of their population has. Then again, I'm also predicting that this species doesn't have the brains to get through its filter event without reverting to bronze-age technology. Over, and over, and over again.
Really hoping I get to witness the filter event while I seem to be doing time here. Probability still looks strong for a 2025 date.
Maybe by the year 9595 they might have evolved enough, but it might take a couple more million years and a couple more speciation events.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @05:12AM
Because in today's monogamous society, being "in a relationship" really is almost like being married, just without the legal weight. Back in the "old days" 60+ years ago, people didn't date one person exclusively until they were very close to getting married, as in engaged. Now, it seems you're expected to be exclusive after a few dates or so. Of course, back then people didn't start having sex right away (or at least didn't admit to it), whereas now it's pretty common to start sleeping together after a few dates, if not sooner.
Anyway, we're talking here about women "marrying down", but it isn't just about marriage, it's about getting into a dating-type relationship. Women who don't look that good aren't going to get relationships with better guys by not insisting on marriage; those men aren't interested in dating them, marriage or no. But also, probably a lot of these women *want* marriage because they want kids, so if they're making good money themselves, it probably makes sense for them to hook up with guys lower on the socioeconomic ladder to do that with, and then have them be the house-husbands. These guys are probably interested in the arrangement because otherwise they'll be much worse off financially. It's just like how traditionally women married richer men, but the tables are turned now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:55PM (5 children)
Under-rated post. I wish I could mod this up. So many women need to get off dating sites and into the gym.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:25AM
Or, at least, stay off the bon-bons.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @01:43PM (1 child)
I tried to lead by example, exercising daily and attempting to get my girlfriend to go. Or exercise alone if she thought I'd see the fat jiggle--or someone else might.
Instead, she cries she is fat and eats fatty foods because the healthy stuff isn't filling and doesn't taste good.
I even won fitness awards for contests I was unwillingly pressed into because the people at the gym thought I'd do well, and I was only there to maintain my health... anyway I can tell you this: It is incredibly awkward to get hit on by athletic (and thus by my standards, usually quite attractive) women and say no because I am not single and don't want to even try to manage even a short term side relationship.
And yet I can't get my girlfriend to do more than complain. I wish that burned calories. Some day, I may give in to temptation... and none of these conversations I've had involved a dating site. It's all been in the gym.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @04:56AM
Sounds like you need to dump your girlfriend and hook up with one of these other women who you'll have a more similar lifestyle with. I don't mean to be glib, but a long-term relationship partner really needs to be someone who's also a major activity partner with you, not just a roommate and sex partner. If you're heavily into physical fitness and she's not, that's not likely to work out that well. If you're not married yet and don't have kids together, then you don't really need to stay with her.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)
Oh, and men don't need to?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday September 01 2017, @05:08AM
Oh, and men don't need to?
Most Americans need to, but the situation isn't quite as bad for men as it is for women. Remember, women naturally have more body fat than men anyway; a man in excellent physical shape can have a body fat percentage of well under 10%, but that's pretty close to deadly for a woman. A very thin woman in excellent shape will still be in the mid-teens or so, which for a man is nothing special. Women seem to have an easier time gaining weight (visibly), and a harder time losing it. And women are also usually shorter and smaller, so when they do gain weight, it's more noticeable. 20 extra pounds on a 5'10" guy isn't that noticeable, but on a 5'4" woman it is.
On top of that, women are more valued for their looks than men, by far. Not many attractive men are interested in dating unattractive women. But ultra-hot women are frequently happy to marry ugly older men with plenty of extra weight in the middle, as long as they're rich. Proof: treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin. See here [thesun.co.uk]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by KiloByte on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:20PM (1 child)
Also makeup, piercings and tattoos. If you get past photoshopped "supermodel" weirdness the glossy press tries to push, it turns out that most women in child-bearable age are actually attractive, after you exclude those with self-inflicted ugliness.
Yes, abnormal weight (both body-positive and body-negative) is self-inflicted. So is slobbiness, makeup, etc.
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:40PM
Makeup, piercings, and tattoos can be forgiven if they are attractive enough. Fat not so much. And if someone is fat once, they are likely to stay that way or relapse.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday August 31 2017, @02:13AM (1 child)
The funny thing is, I even like - visually - a little more chunk than average on women, and I would never consider marrying one. What? I want my baby being fed Cheetos and Twix through the womb? They aren't getting big on spinach and rice.
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday August 31 2017, @09:37AM
Here's a thought: You don't have to marry one to knock her up... and you don't have to knock up the one you marry...
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews