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: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:49AM (2 children)
I hardly believe that nonsense, I would say if that was the case the evolutionary pressure on men would be extreme and we would all be super athletic 7 feet tall muscle hunks with a jaw-line chiseled in stone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @07:54AM (1 child)
Only if DNA had a male half and a female half. It doesn't. Apart from the very small (compared to the rest) Y chromosome, everything is shared among men and women. Your claim would likely also result in women being "super athletic 7 feet tall muscle hunks with a jaw-line chiseled in stone", and the selection pressure is more likely to be AGAINST that.
Which, btw, may also be why the whole "homosexuality must be a choice, if it wasn't, natural selection would have gotten rid of it" falls on its face. If we assume that gay men are simply men with genes for "extra feminine" (and vice versa for lesbians), we have selection pressure FOR extra feminine women, and those women will have a 50% chance of passing that gene onto their sons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 31 2017, @03:16PM
Yes, but same genes express differently in men and women (the horrors!). For example if I look at (most) men I do not know if they carry the genes for supple or saggy tits.
So in the end the reasoning would rather be that reproducing success was more of a factor of luck for the men, which I could buy due to nature of ancient warfare. This would mean that roughly random distribution of genes would be passed on, rather than specific genes for handsomeness and muscle tone.