0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 | admin
Do women have stronger same-race dating preferences than men?
According to a study cited in this piece, it appears so.
I am not a scientist, so some of the details of the study are a little technical for me, but it appears that the people in this study were Columbia University graduate students (and that already makes the sample rather atypical) and they were of all races.
A frequent observation (or complaint, depending on the viewpoint of the speaker) is that White women are more prone to date and mate outside their race, as compared to White men. Just in observing couples around the country, it does seem that there is more of this interracial pairing, but it is still, in overall numbers, not that common. But it does seem to be increasing, and no surprise there, given the media's constant promoting of racial mingling.
Overall, though, I've seen far more White male-nonwhite female pairings than vice-versa. And this is a longstanding trend, going back long before the present PC era, when it was far from unknown for White men to marry nonwhite women (Latina, American Indian, or Filipina).
After World War II, the Asian war bride phenomenon was not uncommon.
It does seem that men are more programmed to mate with women they are physically attracted to, and many men do not discriminate when it comes to the primal urges. Women tend to think more long-term with relationships -- often to the chagrin of men -- and will evaluate men as potential husbands rather than just on the basis of sexual attraction.
With men, the trend of mail-order brides is growing, it seems, as discussed here.
When I was a child, there were Asian 'war brides' married to White American men who had served in Korea, Japan, or elsewhere in Asia. I had classmates who had Irish-American or Anglo-American dads and Japanese mothers. It seemed especially common for men who served in the military to marry Filipina women or East Asian women. In some parts of the country, White men not infrequently married Latina women or American Indian women. And this, remember, was in an era where interracial marriage was generally frowned on, if not outright forbidden. But there has always been a stronger taboo against black-White marriages or pairings.
By contrast, I rarely if ever encountered White women married to nonwhite men of any race, with the occasional exception of a Hispanic male-White female or in some areas, American Indian male-White female marriage. But by far, most interracial marriages appeared to be White men with various nonwhite women: Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic or American Indian.
I still think these pairings are more common than any form of black-White pairing. So I do think it's a little unfair to blame women excessively for lack of racial/ethnic fidelity.
Many men who seek out mail-order brides from various parts of Asia and the Pacific blame feminism for their choosing to marry an exotic woman. I think this is in many cases a rationalization for their personal preference for these exotic women. Some term the preference as a 'fetish' and I would say that isn't too strong a word.
Is feminism to blame? Certainly feminism has not improved understanding between the sexes; arguably it has worsened the battle of the sexes in Western countries. But to be fair, not all women are feminists; I often say that feminism has spread to the right, with many 'conservative' women sounding like Gloria Steinem, but traditional women have not disappeared completely. Likewise, I think it is an inaccurate stereotype that the Asian-Pacific women are all frail little lotus blossoms. I've worked with some who are decidedly assertive women, not at all demure and retiring, despite the popular image.
But if a man really wants to maintain racial integrity and fidelity, he would not be inclined to choose a woman of such a racially disparate origin.
As for the women who date or mate interracially, these days, given the 'colorblind' dogma of liberalism, and the fact that most women are politically liberal, it isn't surprising that many women date interracially. Women, unfortunately, tend to be vulnerable to an appeal to their sympathies and their nurturing side. 'Victimhood' awakens the softer feelings of some women. But most importantly, most women don't want to be called 'racist' -- which, trust me, they are called by nonwhites whose advances are not welcomed. The race card is usually played very early on and many weak-minded women give in when the r-word is thrown at them.
It seems to me to be an unfair tactic to use in approaching someone of the opposite sex but it does happen.
Nowadays, choosing to stay within one's own race or ethnicity is increasingly portrayed as 'bigoted' and racist. But it's generally acknowledged that people tend to pair up with those who have commonalities and similarities; the idea that 'opposites attract' is overrated. Men and women by their respective natures sometimes have a difficult time understanding each other; why add ethnic/cultural misunderstanding, racial grievances and guilts, and historical resentments to the inbuilt male-female conflicts?
In the 1957 movie Sayonara, which was really all about interracial love, and the 'star-crossed', misunderstood qualities thereof, the message was that ultimately, love conquers all, and only narrow minds want to bring race or culture into it.
The tagline of the movie was
Worlds apart...theirs was the daring love affair violating every rule, every custom, every centuries-old belief!''
Do you think Hollywood was working the agenda then? There was a spate of these movies during the 50s.
I do remember that near the end of the movie, when Marlon Brando is trying to persuade his Japanese lover, played by Miiko Taka, that she should go against the taboos and marry him, she makes a speech about how their children will be neither Japanese nor American, and asks him where they would belong.
Now, I'm just going from memory here, so please don't chastise me if I remember incorrectly, but I recall that Brando answers with a speech about how that the only thing that matters is Love, not popular opinion, and not even their respective families who might object.
Typical Hollywood cliches, but does that work in real life?
And what about the children? I suspect they would have trouble deciding where they belong. Most likely they would identify more with the nonwhite identity; that seems to be the general rule.
But what could be more natural than wanting children and grandchildren in whom we can see our parents and grandparents? One of the distinguishing marks of family members is that there is a physical resemblance. Family members generally share outward physical traits as well as mental and psychological similarities. I am sure that Japanese grandparents might prefer to have a grandchild with distinctly, identifiably Japanese looks, one who looks like them. Of course they would not be called racist for feeling that way. Only Whites are accused of racism for wanting their descendants to look like them and to be part of the continuity of a family line of the same race.
A family has a dimension in time; our extended family is not just those who are alive at the same time, but those who have gone before us, who gave us life, and those to whom we give life, those who come after us. Why should we not want them to be as like us as possible, and like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents?
We are all part of a continuity which made us what we are today, and we are the result of many generations of holding true; we owe something not only to our living kin but to our forebears and above all, our progeny. Those who choose to ''violate every rule, every custom, every age-old belief' as the movie tag-line put it, are acting selfishly and shortsightedly. They are disavowing both their ancestors and their progeny, who will likely feel little connection to them.
The article I linked yesterday contained the prediction that this country would be completely hybridized in a matter of time. I think it's likely, if present trends continue, that this will be the case. Given that the younger generations seem so programmed to be militantly 'colorblind' or to actually prefer nonwhites, it seems the trend is bound to accelerate with each new generation. That prospect, to me, seems almost tantamount to being told that I will have no progeny, because the people who inhabit this place after I am gone will likely speak another language, honor other traditions, be of an alien religion, and look very unlike me and my forebears, even if they bear some of the same genes. The fact is, they will bear other, very dissimilar genes, and identify as part of that people. And that, in essence, will be the end of my line.
I do think that there will be some who will want to resist being put into the big DNA blender. It may be only a few, but as long as people still have some free choice about marrying and reproducing, at least some will continue do what is natural to us: choose to remain among our own.
According to a study cited in this piece, it appears so.
I am not a scientist, so some of the details of the study are a little technical for me, but it appears that the people in this study were Columbia University graduate students (and that already makes the sample rather atypical) and they were of all races.
A frequent observation (or complaint, depending on the viewpoint of the speaker) is that White women are more prone to date and mate outside their race, as compared to White men. Just in observing couples around the country, it does seem that there is more of this interracial pairing, but it is still, in overall numbers, not that common. But it does seem to be increasing, and no surprise there, given the media's constant promoting of racial mingling.
Overall, though, I've seen far more White male-nonwhite female pairings than vice-versa. And this is a longstanding trend, going back long before the present PC era, when it was far from unknown for White men to marry nonwhite women (Latina, American Indian, or Filipina).
After World War II, the Asian war bride phenomenon was not uncommon.
It does seem that men are more programmed to mate with women they are physically attracted to, and many men do not discriminate when it comes to the primal urges. Women tend to think more long-term with relationships -- often to the chagrin of men -- and will evaluate men as potential husbands rather than just on the basis of sexual attraction.
With men, the trend of mail-order brides is growing, it seems, as discussed here.
When I was a child, there were Asian 'war brides' married to White American men who had served in Korea, Japan, or elsewhere in Asia. I had classmates who had Irish-American or Anglo-American dads and Japanese mothers. It seemed especially common for men who served in the military to marry Filipina women or East Asian women. In some parts of the country, White men not infrequently married Latina women or American Indian women. And this, remember, was in an era where interracial marriage was generally frowned on, if not outright forbidden. But there has always been a stronger taboo against black-White marriages or pairings.
By contrast, I rarely if ever encountered White women married to nonwhite men of any race, with the occasional exception of a Hispanic male-White female or in some areas, American Indian male-White female marriage. But by far, most interracial marriages appeared to be White men with various nonwhite women: Asian, Pacific Islander, Hispanic or American Indian.
I still think these pairings are more common than any form of black-White pairing. So I do think it's a little unfair to blame women excessively for lack of racial/ethnic fidelity.
Many men who seek out mail-order brides from various parts of Asia and the Pacific blame feminism for their choosing to marry an exotic woman. I think this is in many cases a rationalization for their personal preference for these exotic women. Some term the preference as a 'fetish' and I would say that isn't too strong a word.
Is feminism to blame? Certainly feminism has not improved understanding between the sexes; arguably it has worsened the battle of the sexes in Western countries. But to be fair, not all women are feminists; I often say that feminism has spread to the right, with many 'conservative' women sounding like Gloria Steinem, but traditional women have not disappeared completely. Likewise, I think it is an inaccurate stereotype that the Asian-Pacific women are all frail little lotus blossoms. I've worked with some who are decidedly assertive women, not at all demure and retiring, despite the popular image.
But if a man really wants to maintain racial integrity and fidelity, he would not be inclined to choose a woman of such a racially disparate origin.
As for the women who date or mate interracially, these days, given the 'colorblind' dogma of liberalism, and the fact that most women are politically liberal, it isn't surprising that many women date interracially. Women, unfortunately, tend to be vulnerable to an appeal to their sympathies and their nurturing side. 'Victimhood' awakens the softer feelings of some women. But most importantly, most women don't want to be called 'racist' -- which, trust me, they are called by nonwhites whose advances are not welcomed. The race card is usually played very early on and many weak-minded women give in when the r-word is thrown at them.
It seems to me to be an unfair tactic to use in approaching someone of the opposite sex but it does happen.
Nowadays, choosing to stay within one's own race or ethnicity is increasingly portrayed as 'bigoted' and racist. But it's generally acknowledged that people tend to pair up with those who have commonalities and similarities; the idea that 'opposites attract' is overrated. Men and women by their respective natures sometimes have a difficult time understanding each other; why add ethnic/cultural misunderstanding, racial grievances and guilts, and historical resentments to the inbuilt male-female conflicts?
In the 1957 movie Sayonara, which was really all about interracial love, and the 'star-crossed', misunderstood qualities thereof, the message was that ultimately, love conquers all, and only narrow minds want to bring race or culture into it.
The tagline of the movie was
Worlds apart...theirs was the daring love affair violating every rule, every custom, every centuries-old belief!''
Do you think Hollywood was working the agenda then? There was a spate of these movies during the 50s.
I do remember that near the end of the movie, when Marlon Brando is trying to persuade his Japanese lover, played by Miiko Taka, that she should go against the taboos and marry him, she makes a speech about how their children will be neither Japanese nor American, and asks him where they would belong.
Now, I'm just going from memory here, so please don't chastise me if I remember incorrectly, but I recall that Brando answers with a speech about how that the only thing that matters is Love, not popular opinion, and not even their respective families who might object.
Typical Hollywood cliches, but does that work in real life?
And what about the children? I suspect they would have trouble deciding where they belong. Most likely they would identify more with the nonwhite identity; that seems to be the general rule.
But what could be more natural than wanting children and grandchildren in whom we can see our parents and grandparents? One of the distinguishing marks of family members is that there is a physical resemblance. Family members generally share outward physical traits as well as mental and psychological similarities. I am sure that Japanese grandparents might prefer to have a grandchild with distinctly, identifiably Japanese looks, one who looks like them. Of course they would not be called racist for feeling that way. Only Whites are accused of racism for wanting their descendants to look like them and to be part of the continuity of a family line of the same race.
A family has a dimension in time; our extended family is not just those who are alive at the same time, but those who have gone before us, who gave us life, and those to whom we give life, those who come after us. Why should we not want them to be as like us as possible, and like our parents and grandparents and their parents and grandparents?
We are all part of a continuity which made us what we are today, and we are the result of many generations of holding true; we owe something not only to our living kin but to our forebears and above all, our progeny. Those who choose to ''violate every rule, every custom, every age-old belief' as the movie tag-line put it, are acting selfishly and shortsightedly. They are disavowing both their ancestors and their progeny, who will likely feel little connection to them.
The article I linked yesterday contained the prediction that this country would be completely hybridized in a matter of time. I think it's likely, if present trends continue, that this will be the case. Given that the younger generations seem so programmed to be militantly 'colorblind' or to actually prefer nonwhites, it seems the trend is bound to accelerate with each new generation. That prospect, to me, seems almost tantamount to being told that I will have no progeny, because the people who inhabit this place after I am gone will likely speak another language, honor other traditions, be of an alien religion, and look very unlike me and my forebears, even if they bear some of the same genes. The fact is, they will bear other, very dissimilar genes, and identify as part of that people. And that, in essence, will be the end of my line.
I do think that there will be some who will want to resist being put into the big DNA blender. It may be only a few, but as long as people still have some free choice about marrying and reproducing, at least some will continue do what is natural to us: choose to remain among our own.
Labels: American Identity, Ethnic Identity, Ethnocentrism, Social Sciences