In my last installment
I broached the (recent) historical example of the Asian country of Singapore
, and it's attempt to address its Spinster Problem.
Longtime commenter and bete noire Deery
, in response to my citations of Singapore's Social Development Unit (later Network), brought in the whole of Asia via a fairly recent article (Aug 20, 2011) that appeared on The Economist website entitled, "Asian Demography: The Flight From Marriage". While the article is an interesting read from a number of angles, it still doesn't address a few key points that I wanted to highlight and which Deery never actually address because, well, she has an agenda.
Not that there's anything wrong with that - I most certainly have one of my own - I just don't respect the intellectually dishonest way in which she attempts to foist such views on me and my readers. We'll get to what exactly are those views and what exactly that agenda is in another post (stay tuned; it'll be dropping today). But for now, let's deal with what Deery has presented on the table in relation to my citation of Singapore...
While Deery is correct to point out that the more traditional role(s) of Asian Women insofar as marriage is concerned presented something of a "raw deal", this wasn't really the focus of Singapore's Founding Father Lee Kuan Yew. I present again his exact words, because we all know that not only is Deery a poor listener, but her reading comp isn't so great either:
"On the night of 14 August 1983, I dropped a bombshell in my annual National Day Rally address. Live on both our television channels, with maximum viewership, I said it was stupid for our graduate men to choose less-educated and less-intelligent wives if they wanted their children to do as well as they had done. . . . It had taken me some time to see the obvious, that talent is a country’s most precious asset. . . .
The implications were grave. Our best women were not reproducing themselves because men who were their education equals did not want to marry them. . . .
This lopsided marriage and procreation pattern could not be allowed to remain unmentioned and unchecked. . . .
I quoted studies of identical twins done in Minnesota in the 1980s which showed that these twins were similar in so many respects. Although they had been brought up separately and in different countries, about 80 percent of their vocabulary, IQ, habits, likes and dislikes in food and friends, and other character and personality traits were identical."
Obviously, LKY is making what is in essence a Eugenics-based argument - just as Prof. Banks has done
(and that's something that I will be addressing in greater detail; stay tuned) - and here the HBDers are correct
- it is much easier to broach such topics in Asia than it is here in the West generally and the USA in particular, mainly for philosophical reasons. It's a fascinating topic for discussion in its own right for a whole host of reasons, but for purposes of the current discussion I point that out because it frames the proper context of what I want to focus in on, Deery's derailments be damned.
The point, in both Yew's case and in the case Banks is attempting to make insofar as Sista Spinsters are concerned, is this - BOTH sets of Women are remaining celibate, not having kids, in essence, from a very real evolutionary perspective, they are literally dying out.
In both cases, it can be argued that such a loss isn't just a personal tragedy, but one that carries grave "big group" proportions
- that the "best and brightest" Women aren't reproducing themselves. The Economist article makes that point quite clear; and both Banks AND Eugene Robinson
, has said as much in both their books and interviews.
But the even more important aspect of all this is what Yew said above, and which drives right to the heart of the point I'm making and that which by the way, seems to really piss Deery off; again, quoting Yew:
"I said it was stupid for our graduate men to choose less-educated and less-intelligent wives if they wanted their children to do as well as they had done. . . . "
Now, Yew is a highly educated and experienced Man; from what I've read about him, he doesn't seem prone to making ill-formed or ill-informed statements. I get the impression of a very precise guy. Contrary to Deery's suggestion that Singapore's "Graduate Men" were simply making the best of an otherwise bad situation by choosing "lesser" Women because Singapore's "best" Women were eschewing marriage due to the "raw deal" Deery described. Yew's contention was that these guys were making deliberate choices OVER the "best" Women - and THAT, is a huge difference.
While I freely admit that Deery has a point with regard to the "raw deal" Asian Women may face when it comes to marriage, what she refuses to even consider, is What Men Want - these are, in the case of Singapore at least, the "best" Men said society has to offer; they would have choices, too. Right? What if they, for what ever reason, simply wasn't interested in the Graduate Women like that? What if there were other reasons - both physical (recall the running joke in Singapore - "Single, Desperate & Ugly") and mental/emotional (higher IQ tends to correlate with diminished social awareness/attunment and increased social awkwardness - something I think Deery might know quite a bit about. More on this point later...) - that these guys simply weren't interested in? Moreover, Deery seems to make a leap in assumptions that suggests that she knows more about Asia in general and Singapore in particular - especially Yew's take on it - that I find particularly disturbing. Deery assumes that, because marriage is such a "raw deal" for these Graduate Asian Women, they have made the choice not to marry at all, leaving such lowly chores to their lesser sisters, and that the guys will just have to live with it. That doesn't seem to be the case at all, since even Singapore's "Graduate Mothers Scheme" showed at least some interest on the part of such Women, and the SDN continues to this day, where the needle has moved, ever so slightly in regard to Graduate Women (finally getting) married (off). At the very least it can be said that Deery doesn't know for certain, what the deal is over there - after all, none of us really knows WHY those Graduate Guys made the choices they did; as is so very common when it comes to these sorts of things, the thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears and aspirations of guys simply don't count.
But since this is a blog that aims to, at least in part, focus on life from an unabashedly (Black) Male point of view, I would like to suggest that the guys Yew was talking about were making quite informed, and assertive decisions
- they were choosing mates based on a set of criteria that doesn't place quite as high a premium on "education" as ladies like Deery would like to think. Other things, like beauty, youth, and submissiveness
, are more important - and I think these are qualities that tend to roll along HBD lines.
In other words, the more "accomplished" the chick, the less "hot" she tends to be; moreover, the more "Mannish" she tends to be as well
(note all the many, many words The Dark Lord
has registered about "ballbusting lawyer cunts" in his native DC, for example). Simply put, guys don't select buy and large for such things - and that takes us to the Banks part of the discussion...
I contend, as I have several times before, that what has happened in many ways to the cohort of Women Banks is talking about, is one, they aren't hot (or young, since they spent their youth engaging in other pursuits) enough to snag the Alpha guys they really wanted, and two, their mannerisms and demeanor is way too mannish for many Men to take (for any extended length of time at least). All of these things, along with the extended years of schooling and the like, have essentially priced them out of the dating and mating market. So, like The Economist's article Deery has made mention of, these Sista Spinsters are likely to face evolutionary oblivion with their Spinster Sisters from the Pacific Rim. A consequence of their freedom, to be sure, for - and any Econ 101 student knows this - there is no such thing as a free ride.
At any rate, it would be really great to get the thoughts of Asian guys as to why they choose the mates they do, and why they don't tend to choose the "best" of the lot. I'm pretty sure gals like Deery wouldn't like the answers...
Now adjourn your asses...