9 ms·

There are some interesting social trends at work here. One of the most interesting to me is the concept of Assortive Mating. This is the idea that 30 years ag

by nugget 11y ago

There are some interesting social trends at work here. One of the most interesting to me is the concept of Assortive Mating. This is the idea that 30 years ago a physician, for example, would likely marry a nurse, or an executive would likely marry his secretary. Whereas today, the physician marries the executive and the nurse marries the secretary instead. Rather than pair one high and one low income/wealth/status individual together and reduce overall inequality, the gap (financially, socially, and culturally) is now widened even more. And of course this inequality is very likely to impact the next generation because the well educated, high income parents (now with more uniformly high income extended families) tend to give a higher level of attention, resources, and support to their children compared to the children of the poor, working, and middle classes.

gaius 11y ago
They tried to do this deliberately in the early 20th century, incentivise college professors to breed and so on. Events transpired to make eugenics programmes unacceptable however.
- chc 11y ago
  I think nugget's point wasn't about eugenics so much as discouraging the concentration of wealth in specific groups.
- CodeCube 11y ago
  hahaha, really? I'm curious, is there any writings or media on this phenomenon? was it similar to the danish "Do it for mom" campaign (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g)?
beachstartup 11y ago
there is quite a bit of politically impolite theorizing on the internet these days about the rise of women in the academic and business contributing to the decline of marriage and rise in inequality (as a whole). i.e. women don't marry down, and men are falling further behind.
- circlecrimson 11y ago
  The cause of this was the vilification of motherhood by society. Girls needed to be "strong independent women" and the concept of women being a kind and nurturing homemaker was seen as old fashioned, even though these skills are absolutely essential to raising a well grounded, sensible self actuated and well adjusted child. The fabric of our society depends on it and somehow this was allowed to happen.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
    Woa, woa. Wait a second- why is the mother the one that has to stay home and raise the child with her "kind and nurturing" homemaking skills? Why can't the dad stay home with the kids and leave the mom be the "strong independent" woman she wants to be? Society vilifies motherhood? Then all the dads who want to put the borked society back together again can take up the mantle of the caring parent. Be my guests, eh.
    - aianus 11y ago
      > Why can't the dad stay home with the kids and leave the mom be the "strong independent" woman she wants to be? Because the wife won't allow it; it's extremely unattractive to women to be a stay-at-home-husband, or so I've been told (by women).
    - circlecrimson 11y ago
      Women are, in the vast vast majority, far superior at raising children. To deny this is to deny reality.
      - lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
        [citation not found]
  - mikeash 11y ago
    This does not appear to be the case at all. Women are merely encouraged to be both now.
kbenson 11y ago
I'm not sure that's really as much of an income gap as you may think. You are taking modern assumptions, that a woman can succeed in any career, and applying it to a society that it was arguably less true in. It's entirely possible the nurse or secretary of twenty years ago might be a physician or executive if brought up twenty years later. Additionally, I think you are conflating education with social standing, when they are somewhat different, and there have been different levels of social pressure against doing either at different times in history.
- nugget 11y ago
  Here's an interesting paper on the topic: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19829 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19829 I agree that females who would have become nurses and secretaries in the past are now becoming physicians and executives, and without doubt this a good thing. My observation is just that by solving one problem (limited opportunities for women to become professionals) we inadvertently encouraged another (assortive mating on the rise which reinforces inequality). It's also interesting you mention social pressure at different times in history. I am working my way through Downtown Abbey at the moment and it reminds me that throughout history there have been strong pressures for people to marry within their own class/caste systems. Probably for many reasons, but one of them is certainly the maintenance of wealth and power, which has typically been far less equal throughout those historical periods than the US is today. The post WW1 period in the US has been the exception not the norm.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I won't dispute that there is some level of extra assortive mating going on because of more equal opportunities for women. Even if it was just due to more opportunity and exposure, that makes sense. I do question whether in the past if the physician that married the nurse was really providing any sort of opportunity for status change (in either economic or social standing) in most cases, since I imagine the nurse and physician probably came from similar social standings, and thus likely similar economic standings. If the nurse or secretary of 20 or more years ago was "from a good family", what change was really spurred by the union?
vox_mollis 11y ago
because the well educated, high income parents (now with more uniformly high income extended families) tend to give a higher level of attention, resources, and support to their children compared to the children of the poor, working, and middle classes. That's the uncontroversial perspective, yes. The more controversial, but far better-supported-by-evidence perspective is that the estimated 40-80% contribution that genes make to people's intelligence, conscientiousness, and work ethic is much more likely to be at play, here.
- pyrocat 11y ago
  > better-supported-by-evidence hah, ok, go ahead and make that claim with zero links to back it up. Please, tell me more about eugenics.
  - burkaman 11y ago
    Saying genes contribute to intelligence is not eugenics. Here's the first link I saw: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html From the abstract: "Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits."
    - danharaj 11y ago
      Heritability is a relative measurement. You need to know what environmental factors you are controlling for in order to measure it. Because we live in societies that are highly stratified based on attributes that are genetically linked there can be environmental effects on intelligence that are difficult or impossible to correct for that create a correlation between genetics and intelligence.
      - burkaman 11y ago
        I know, that's why I linked to an article written by scientists that understand that, with hundreds of references to actual studies. The article goes into a lot of depth about what they mean by heritability, what genes are involved and how they are involved, what studies have led to these conclusions, etc. The section titled "Intelligence brings (some) genetics to ‘social’ epidemiology" addresses your concerns about environmental factors. I don't think it's very controversial to say genes contribute to intelligence. Genes contribute to everything, how could they not affect intelligence? This isn't eugenics, nobody is saying we should (or could) use this information to selectively breed humans, and nobody is saying intelligence can be correlated to race.
mahyarm 11y ago
I think part of this is driven by workplace sexual harassment laws, conflict of interest policies and relationship disclosure policies in your examples. The risks for dating your assistant or a nurse are higher compared to what it was 30-60 years ago for example. Now it's safer to date someone at the same income level. Or someone in the same social group but outside of work, which will tend to be the same income level again compared to a workplace. The other part is probably driven by how there are more dual income families competing for the same limited resources, such as housing, making the income of your spouse more relevant.
- totalrobe 11y ago
  Well paid DINKs are the only people buying houses where I live (DC metro area)
plonh 11y ago
Going back to feudal times , arranging marriages among aristocracy was a major issue. No princesses marrying peasants.
bluedino 11y ago
>> 30 years ago a physician, for example, would likely marry a nurse Women have mad inroads in the workplace. Women don't necessarily look to 'marry up' and stay home, they can be the executive now. The secretary still gets married, she's just the second wife.

by nugget 11y ago

gaius 11y ago

They tried to do this deliberately in the early 20th century, incentivise college professors to breed and so on. Events transpired to make eugenics programmes unacceptable however.

chc 11y ago
I think nugget's point wasn't about eugenics so much as discouraging the concentration of wealth in specific groups.
CodeCube 11y ago
hahaha, really? I'm curious, is there any writings or media on this phenomenon? was it similar to the danish "Do it for mom" campaign (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B00grl3K01g)?

beachstartup 11y ago

there is quite a bit of politically impolite theorizing on the internet these days about the rise of women in the academic and business contributing to the decline of marriage and rise in inequality (as a whole). i.e. women don't marry down, and men are falling further behind.

circlecrimson 11y ago
The cause of this was the vilification of motherhood by society. Girls needed to be "strong independent women" and the concept of women being a kind and nurturing homemaker was seen as old fashioned, even though these skills are absolutely essential to raising a well grounded, sensible self actuated and well adjusted child. The fabric of our society depends on it and somehow this was allowed to happen.
- YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
  Woa, woa. Wait a second- why is the mother the one that has to stay home and raise the child with her "kind and nurturing" homemaking skills? Why can't the dad stay home with the kids and leave the mom be the "strong independent" woman she wants to be? Society vilifies motherhood? Then all the dads who want to put the borked society back together again can take up the mantle of the caring parent. Be my guests, eh.
  - aianus 11y ago
    > Why can't the dad stay home with the kids and leave the mom be the "strong independent" woman she wants to be? Because the wife won't allow it; it's extremely unattractive to women to be a stay-at-home-husband, or so I've been told (by women).
  - circlecrimson 11y ago
    Women are, in the vast vast majority, far superior at raising children. To deny this is to deny reality.
    - lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
      [citation not found]
- mikeash 11y ago
  This does not appear to be the case at all. Women are merely encouraged to be both now.

kbenson 11y ago

I'm not sure that's really as much of an income gap as you may think. You are taking modern assumptions, that a woman can succeed in any career, and applying it to a society that it was arguably less true in. It's entirely possible the nurse or secretary of twenty years ago might be a physician or executive if brought up twenty years later. Additionally, I think you are conflating education with social standing, when they are somewhat different, and there have been different levels of social pressure against doing either at different times in history.

nugget 11y ago
Here's an interesting paper on the topic: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19829 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19829 I agree that females who would have become nurses and secretaries in the past are now becoming physicians and executives, and without doubt this a good thing. My observation is just that by solving one problem (limited opportunities for women to become professionals) we inadvertently encouraged another (assortive mating on the rise which reinforces inequality). It's also interesting you mention social pressure at different times in history. I am working my way through Downtown Abbey at the moment and it reminds me that throughout history there have been strong pressures for people to marry within their own class/caste systems. Probably for many reasons, but one of them is certainly the maintenance of wealth and power, which has typically been far less equal throughout those historical periods than the US is today. The post WW1 period in the US has been the exception not the norm.
- kbenson 11y ago
  I won't dispute that there is some level of extra assortive mating going on because of more equal opportunities for women. Even if it was just due to more opportunity and exposure, that makes sense. I do question whether in the past if the physician that married the nurse was really providing any sort of opportunity for status change (in either economic or social standing) in most cases, since I imagine the nurse and physician probably came from similar social standings, and thus likely similar economic standings. If the nurse or secretary of 20 or more years ago was "from a good family", what change was really spurred by the union?

vox_mollis 11y ago

because the well educated, high income parents (now with more uniformly high income extended families) tend to give a higher level of attention, resources, and support to their children compared to the children of the poor, working, and middle classes. That's the uncontroversial perspective, yes. The more controversial, but far better-supported-by-evidence perspective is that the estimated 40-80% contribution that genes make to people's intelligence, conscientiousness, and work ethic is much more likely to be at play, here.

pyrocat 11y ago
> better-supported-by-evidence hah, ok, go ahead and make that claim with zero links to back it up. Please, tell me more about eugenics.
- burkaman 11y ago
  Saying genes contribute to intelligence is not eugenics. Here's the first link I saw: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html From the abstract: "Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits."
  - danharaj 11y ago
    Heritability is a relative measurement. You need to know what environmental factors you are controlling for in order to measure it. Because we live in societies that are highly stratified based on attributes that are genetically linked there can be environmental effects on intelligence that are difficult or impossible to correct for that create a correlation between genetics and intelligence.
    - burkaman 11y ago
      I know, that's why I linked to an article written by scientists that understand that, with hundreds of references to actual studies. The article goes into a lot of depth about what they mean by heritability, what genes are involved and how they are involved, what studies have led to these conclusions, etc. The section titled "Intelligence brings (some) genetics to ‘social’ epidemiology" addresses your concerns about environmental factors. I don't think it's very controversial to say genes contribute to intelligence. Genes contribute to everything, how could they not affect intelligence? This isn't eugenics, nobody is saying we should (or could) use this information to selectively breed humans, and nobody is saying intelligence can be correlated to race.

mahyarm 11y ago

I think part of this is driven by workplace sexual harassment laws, conflict of interest policies and relationship disclosure policies in your examples. The risks for dating your assistant or a nurse are higher compared to what it was 30-60 years ago for example. Now it's safer to date someone at the same income level. Or someone in the same social group but outside of work, which will tend to be the same income level again compared to a workplace. The other part is probably driven by how there are more dual income families competing for the same limited resources, such as housing, making the income of your spouse more relevant.

totalrobe 11y ago
Well paid DINKs are the only people buying houses where I live (DC metro area)

plonh 11y ago

Going back to feudal times , arranging marriages among aristocracy was a major issue. No princesses marrying peasants.

bluedino 11y ago

>> 30 years ago a physician, for example, would likely marry a nurse Women have mad inroads in the workplace. Women don't necessarily look to 'marry up' and stay home, they can be the executive now. The secretary still gets married, she's just the second wife.