Why the right wing should thank party girl reverts today

They’re the ones having more than two kids, more often.  Many of them are the women starting their baby-having in their 30s.  Late marriage ages have not completely crashed birth rates because married party girl reverts are willing to have a third or fourth child despite starting in their 30s. And the ones who had a couple of kids in their 20s are having a few more in their late 30s once they have teenagers to help them out.  They aren’t “red pill women” though, since nearly all of those mysteriously stop at two kids, if they have any.  They aren’t the divorcers, they aren’t the childless careerists.  They’re the ones rearing the next generation with great difficulty while childless conservative men sit around flapping their hands about reduced birth rates in America among the “right” people.

Brought to you courtesy of the world of vital statistics microdata.  It’s a sick day at our house and this curiosity in the data charmed me.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Why the right wing should thank party girl reverts today

    • They aren’t all that way, but there is enough correlation that you can see them in the data. Late marriage+church attendance+college attendance and some other stuff, like geographic details. There are several groups of women driving the higher fertility among 30ish white women, and this is one of the groups.

      Like

      • Could you link the data? What I’ve seen is the late marriage+post-Bachelor’s degreed data. A lot of those women aren’t having children. Does college attendance include degree-holding women, or attendance?

        Liked by 1 person

        • no, the data is in the public microdata files from several sources. one of the reasons i’m desirous of getting all this down in book form is that constructing demographic profiles involves weeding through many different pieces of data from the cdc, census and some nonprofit groups that “clean” some of the government data for analysis.

          college attendance is just attending, not degree holding though.

          Like

  1. Gee, why do you think all these childless conservative aren’t married? Might have something to do with Party Girls ignoring them [edited for profanity by blog owner].
    Shrug, like I said, you should thank them, they’re the ones having conservatively oriented children being raised by SAHMs or women working part-time with a focus on the home.

    Like

  2. TPC said:

    “They aren’t “red pill women” though, since nearly all of those mysteriously stop at two kids, if they have any.”

    You’re a funny, funny lady.

    More seriously, when daddy is as much work as a toddler, it could easily have a suppressive effect on fertility. This is probably more or less what you see in Southern European countries like Italy and Spain that tend to have a TFR of 1.4/1.5 or so. When daddy is just like another baby (but hers to care for for life), mommy doesn’t want to have another real baby.

    (Speaking of which, the “make me a sammich” stuff is ridiculous. You have two hands, buddy, and your internet activity schedule strongly suggests that you aren’t working 12-hour shifts in a coal mine.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great point. If a man can’t expect his wife to even consider his needs once she has a single child, why should he enter into the arrangement to begin with.

      Yes, I can make my own sandwich and cook better food than 90% of the women I know. And it’s much easier to do for one, especially when it doesn’t include an ungrateful and nagging wife.

      Like

      • Then, um, DON’T enter into such arrangements. What is WITH these ‘spherian types who complain about these detestable women, when detestable women are detestable? It’s arguing a non-issue.

        Like

      • In my house, everybody over 3 makes their own sandwich. To insist on having that done for one is to basically declare oneself a functional toddler.

        Like

      • AR10308 said:

        “Do you bring funds into the home? If someone else does that life-consuming task for you, then you can do something for them.”

        When my husband and I were first married, we were both employed, made very similar pay, and I was working long hours. That was true for the next several years, so I never got into the habit of treating him as if he had two broken hands or was feeble-minded. And then after that, we had actual babies and kids that needed a fair amount of care. (The menfolk from my family of origin did often get lunches made for them, but that would often be after a hard morning spent sloshing around in liquid manure under 40 degree rain or pitching 50 pound hay bales for hours. My husband, bless his heart, doesn’t do that sort of thing.)

        I do, come to think of it, make a very occasional sandwich when my husband is on his way out of the house and needs an extra pair of hands to avoid being late to work, but our house rules are that normally everybody takes care of their own breakfast and lunch (which is where sandwiches would), and then dinner is often a joint effort. We’re in the process of bringing our school age kids online as fellow cooks and kitchen helpers and the oldest is already quite skilled and helpful–oddly enough, she’s a GIRL. I believe another of our posters also has GIRLS that are skilled and helpful at home.

        In general, asking other people to do stuff for you that you could do just as well for yourself often produces a bad impression. You may have noticed this when women ask you to do stuff for them that they could do just as well…

        Our general principle (which I strongly recommend), is that employment status aside, there should be a certain rough justice to the amount of leisure at home for husband at wife. If the new mom is toting around a colicky baby all day, maybe she shouldn’t also have to make daddy a sandwich? Or maybe daddy can hold the baby while she makes the sandwiches? If the kids are all at school all day, perhaps mommy can do grocery shopping then and pick up daddy’s dry cleaning? If mommy has to get up much earlier than daddy every week day, perhaps mommy can have a nap on the weekend?

        There are a lot of moving parts in a household with children, and the more children, the more moving parts.

        When you grow up, hopefully you’ll learn something about how much work goes into a functioning household, and how much need there is for everybody to pitch in to make things work.

        Again, in developed countries where everything is solely the wife’s responsibility, there isn’t a lot of enthusiasm for having even two children.

        Liked by 1 person

    • ” This is probably more or less what you see in Southern European countries like Italy and Spain that tend to have a TFR of 1.4/1.5 or so”

      then why is that the same TFR everywhere else urbanized? It’s even lower in some places where manbabies aren’t a normal part of the culture landscape.

      Like

      • You Know Who said:

        “then why is that the same TFR everywhere else urbanized? It’s even lower in some places where manbabies aren’t a normal part of the culture landscape.”

        I think any developed country that puts heavy non-child tasks on women tends to wind up with few children. Of course, high cost of living and high density don’t help.

        Like

  3. Whew! Contentious conversation. I make my husband’s sandwiches and quite gladly for the most part. Not sure what serving others has to do with age and sex. He serves me too, just in different ways. I would not trade my service in the home (including making his sandwiches and ironing his clothes) for his service in the marketplace. I find such comparisons and debates miss the entire point.

    To the original post: My initial thought was the same as Maea’s. How do we know these are party girl reverts? But I think TPC is more than likely right in her assessment given the typical trajectory of the middle class young adult woman. The words “party girl” could cover a wide range of behaviors but I think I have an idea what she means.

    I had a chuckle at your description of “had a couple of babies in the early 20’s, then in the mid-late 30’s when there are teenagers to help out.” I was 1) not a party girl, and 2) never planned to have our children spaced this way (certainly no forethought of older kids being used as help), but this is how our kids are spaced.

    However, I don’t know ANYONE else personally with this kind of spacing and our current life affords me the opportunity to interact with a lot of moms. Many started having babies later (30+) but none with this kind of spacing within the same marriage that the first kids were born into. People used to often assume SAM was my second husband. We’re actually sort of odd.

    Like

    • Elspeth – We have awkward spacing as well. Had our first two while in our late 20s, one more mid-30s, and the 4th in our early 40s. There is 15.5 years between first and last. However, my parents’ spread was worse – 4 kids with 17 years and 8 months between oldest and youngest (me). My oldest brother graduated from high school when I was 9 months old. I swore I was never going to have kids spaced far apart. God laughed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • My family of origin is widely spaced as well. 13 years between my oldest sibling and me. Our kids are like two groups. The first three (21, 20, 20 -with 11 months between the first and the twins), and then the last two (7 and 9).

        Our older kids also swear that they are not going to have their children so far apart. They’d rather slog through 3 or 4 back to back then face the prospect of starting over after a decade+ long break. I tell them I agree that their plan is much better, LOL.

        Like

  4. Yes, that is the plan when/if a husband shows up in time to implement it. Contrary to popular sphere rhetoric potential husbands don’t line up around the block vying for the hand of a young virgin woman jjust because they say so.

    Like

    • “Contrary to popular sphere rhetoric potential husbands don’t line up around the block vying for the hand of a young virgin woman jjust because they say so.”

      Amen to that.

      On Dalrock, I’ve often seen the advice that young women should marry their best offer immediately upon reaching 22. I think there’s a lot wrong with that advice, and here’s a shot at why.

      1) As you mention, potential husbands are not lined up around the block for 22-year-old virgins. A lot of the time they’re busy…elsewhere.

      I got married relatively early (and more or less on the Dalrock schedule), but there wasn’t a big mob of appropriate applicants. There were several unsuitables and one good prospect, and they each came one at a time, generally with big breaks. It was such a rare thing that I never knew which one was going to be the last one. Fortunately for me, I was crazy about the good prospect.

      The Duggars have lovely sheltered daughters, are famous, etc., etc.–but they just married a daughter off to a 19-year-old semi-employed guy. That suggests that the pickings are pretty slim for more average young women.

      A woman is very lucky to get ONE good offer during the course of her entire life–and that offer is not necessarily going to happen at 22. In fact, the odds are very high that it won’t be.

      2) There’s no effective and tasteful way to advertise virginity in our culture.

      3) In our culture, a 22-year-old woman is just embarking on full adulthood, particularly if she has just finished college. Before that, she has most likely been around young men who are not ready for a family. 22 is often her first year of being around actual working professional single adult men.

      So it’s really DUMB to make that the last year of eligibility.

      4) Trying to scare women into grabbing the first guy that’s handy at 22 violates the Dalrock guys’ own rule about avoiding women that are desperate and just settling. Scaring women into marrying earlier just pushes the fear-driven “wall” half a decade earlier.

      Dumb, dumb, dumb.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I got married in the window too (I was 22), but I short-cutted by doing all the things a wife should do for my husband before I was his wife.

        I totally agree that just latching on to any guy who comes along and is willing for the sake of getting a husband “before it’s too late” is a horrible idea and my husband would never stand for it if he thought our girls were taking that tactic.

        Like

  5. The threading is SO BAD man so I don’t know if AmyP is going to see this but

    “I think any developed country that puts heavy non-child tasks on women tends to wind up with few children. Of course, high cost of living and high density don’t help”

    Asian high class, urban women have maids. They still don’t have more than 1 *even when they can afford to*. There’s something else going on.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree completely. Women don’t limit family size based on whether or not they have to do more work around the house that is not child care related. I’ve never seen anything to indicate that, and your example of wealthier families with hired help having fewer children is a good one.

      People limit their family size almost primarily due to financial concerns if ill health isn’t a factor. The more children you have, the more resources (and the opportunities they afford) are split between the children. It’s easier to maximize every opportunity for 1 child or 2, then it is for 3 or more. There is also the ability to have more time for a life of one’s own if there are fewer children to attend to.

      Like

      • I agree that economics is the major factor in determining family size – and I’d also offer that it’s as huge a concern when you have two parents working outside the home as when you have a SAHW/M – and that’s because the cost of childcare is absolutely out of this world (if you want any sort of quality). When the cost of childcare can take up 1/3 or more of a parent’s take-home pay (and that’s conservative), then you really start thinking about exactly where that threshold of pain lies – and it’s not enough to say, well, just have Mom stay home. That may not be the feasible if Mom’s the one carrying the insurance, for instance; or if there are already financial commitments which cannot be met by a single income.

        Like

    • “Asian high class, urban women have maids. They still don’t have more than 1 *even when they can afford to*. There’s something else going on.”

      But high class or not, they’re packed in like sardines, right? I was just looking at an article that talked about half a million dollar 180-square-foot homes in Hong Kong.

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-hong-kong-the-apartments-are-fit-for-a-mosquito-1433237582

      You’d have to be awfully rich in that environment to afford enough square footage where two kids and a maid wouldn’t be deafening and continually underfoot.

      Also, isn’t it true that child-rearing is viewed as a total 18+ year commitment in much of developed Asia in a way that it isn’t here (even by very involved parents)? Tiger Mom madness aside, I was recently talking to a Korean immigrant friend of mine with two school-age children. She was fretting about the fact that she would really like to do some sort of career work, but didn’t feel that she ought to until her youngest was safely into COLLEGE in 8 years.

      I’m actually a bit of a Tiger Mom myself (ask my kids!), but even I don’t feel like my kids need that level of commitment from me.

      When I mention non-kid demands on women, I’m thinking more globally of what is expected of the wife, not just housework. Here are some examples:

      –sandwiches on command
      –sex on command
      –being thin and toned all the time
      –being a sharp dresser
      –housework
      –childcare

      TPC made a very interesting point about the scarcity of 3+ kid families in the manosphere, and I think there are some major practical conflicts between those things, and keeping the number of children at 0-2 is one of the most obvious ways to have some sort of success in each area. A small family makes sandwiches-on-command less onerous, it makes getting exercise, keeping a diet, and staying thin more practical, it makes a nice wardrobe, hair and makeup more achievable, it reduces the cooking and cleaning burden, and of course it reduces the childcare load (lower intensity and fewer years of it).

      Back to our upper class Asian moms–I suspect that while the expectations of family size are lower for them, some of the other expectations are probably a lot heavier than on the middle-class American mother–for instance being thin and being a sharp dresser.

      With Asia, I don’t have a lot of personal knowledge, but I do have strong ties to Germany and have heard a lot of colorful stories. One of my relatives was an exchange student to Germany. One of her more eye-opening experiences as an exchange student/house elf was cleaning the kitchen floor for 45 minutes, feeling proud of how clean she’d got it, and then her host mom telling her, “That floor looks like you’ve only worked on it for 45 minutes!” Needless to say, that family had only one school-age kid.

      Like

  6. When I mention non-kid demands on women, I’m thinking more globally of what is expected of the wife, not just housework. Here are some examples:

    –sandwiches on command
    –sex on command
    –being thin and toned all the time
    –being a sharp dresser
    –housework
    –childcare

    I know that was what you meant, and I still think you’re wrong. There are very few men who put the kinds of demands on their wives that you read in the manosphere. I have a husband who is more demanding than most and he doesn’t even have expectations at the level you read in the mansophere.

    I truly don’t believe these things factor into family size near so much as the fact that you can provide more extras for 2 kids than you can for 4.

    Like

    • Elspeth said:

      “There are very few men who put the kinds of demands on their wives that you read in the manosphere. I have a husband who is more demanding than most and he doesn’t even have expectations at the level you read in the mansophere.

      “I truly don’t believe these things factor into family size near so much as the fact that you can provide more extras for 2 kids than you can for 4.”

      The full-strength manosphere husband is probably blessedly rare, but the tradeoffs are quite visible in other cultures where they prioritize a higher level of investment in each child (much of Asia) over having more children, sexiness and care of husband over more children (Southern Europe), and a high level of housekeeping (Germany) over more children. (Apologies for grossly overgeneralizing here–all factors probably do play a role to some extent.)

      I’m pretty sure that it’s not just a money issue in the US with having just two children–there are all sorts of qualitative issues that kick in. I noticed this when we went from 2 to 3–the school paperwork and logistics that had previously been just tolerable suddenly turned into a nightmare. I realized at that point that the level of demands made by “good” contemporary US schools are premised on the assumption of a two child, two parent family, ideally with one parent working no more than half time and keeping the school plates in the air. I’ve been faking it pretty much ever since we had our third. The big kids seem to be doing basically OK, but I never know when some thing I let slip is going to come and smack me hard.

      So, part of the price of having more than 2 children with kids in school is losing a sense of confidence that I’m on top of things and not screwing up.

      A lot of women would find that an intolerable price to pay (see, for example, Amy Chua).

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.