PDA

View Full Version : Study: Women less likely to miscegenate



Lenny
04-21-2009, 01:26 AM
from http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/miscegenation.html

Studies consistently show white women are less willing than white men to date non-whites. A recent example: "Gendered Racial Exclusion among White Internet Daters"

Several studies support the notion that interracial mate preferences are gendered. For example, white women are more likely than white men to state a white racial preference (Sakai and Johnson, 1997) and report more disapproval from family and friends than white males when they date nonwhites (Miller et al., 2004). White males are also more likely to date nonwhites than their female counterparts (Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan, 1995). In speed dating experiments, women have also been shown to place more emphasis on selecting a same-race partner than men (Fisman et al., 2006). These findings may reflect the fact that white men are not as constrained as women in their dating choices, because, in a historically patriarchal society, men’s status is not as associated with their partner (Root, 2001; Spickard, 1989). These findings may also be due to gender differences in dating goals: women may more often be looking for a marriage partner, while men may more often be seeking a casual encounter. Regardless of the cause, based on these studies, we expect to find that white men are more open to interracial dating than their white female counterparts. [. . .]

We collected data from internet dating profiles posted on Yahoo Personals, the most popular national online dating website (Madden and Lenhart, 2006), between September 2004 and May 2005. We randomly selected profiles from people who self-identified as black, white, Latino, or Asian living within 50 miles of four major U.S. cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta. [. . .]

Since daters may select among ten different racial/ethnic groups as preferred dates, our sample includes numerous possible responses to the question of which racial/ethnic groups are preferred (Appendix Table 2 shows the top combinations of racial preferences). To simplify the analysis, we mainly focus on the extent to which each racial group is excluded as a possible date among those with a stated preference. Fig. 1 shows the racial preferences for dates among white women and men.

As previously mentioned, white women are more likely than men to state a racial preference. Consistent with prior research, they are also more likely to prefer to date whites only; among those with an expressed preference, approximately 64% of white women prefer whites only compared to only about 29% of white men. Accordingly, white women are more likely then white men to exclude certain racial groups from dating consideration. Over 90% of white women who state a racial preference prefer not to date East Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians, and blacks. White men with stated racial preferences, in contrast, only prefer not to date one group at levels above 90%: black women. As predicted by assimilation theory, East Indians and Middle Easterners (more recent immigrant groups) are excluded more than Native Americans, Latinos, and Asians, by both white men and women. However, racial hierarchy theories would predict that blacks are the least preferred group, and this is only the case for white men.


Furthermore:

Education is not a significant predictor of Asian exclusion, but college-educated females and males are more likely to exclude blacks than those with only high school degrees. This finding is consistent with racial–economic exchange theories predicting that less educated white women would be more open to minorities of lower racial status.

One of the most striking findings is that white women who describe themselves as slim, slender, athletic, fit or average are nearly seven times as likely to exclude black men as dates as women who describe themselves as thick, voluptuous, a few extra pounds, or large. This finding is consistent with racial–beauty exchange theories in that white women who do not meet conventional standards of beauty (in terms of having a thinner body type) are more open to dating black men, who may be considered a lower status group.

Lenny
04-21-2009, 01:27 AM
So women are a lot more likely to favor in-marriage than men.

Why is this?

Skandi
04-21-2009, 01:29 AM
Because we have more to lose, and have to invest a lot more energy into each child than a man does, it is coded into our genes to be more picky, it is only modern society that tries to remove this.

SwordoftheVistula
04-21-2009, 01:52 AM
So women are a lot more likely to favor in-marriage than men.

Why is this?

The study refers to 'dating', not 'marriage'. It's been my observation in general that women are far more likely than men to discard from consideration entire classes of people, whereas men are more likely to 'try anything', but when it comes down to marriage I don't think there is much difference between the genders.

Æmeric
04-21-2009, 01:55 AM
Over 90% of white women who state a racial preference prefer not to date East Indians, Middle Easterners, Asians, and blacks. What percentage have no preference? The ones who say "Race doesn't matter". And lay down with Negroes or other non-Europids to prove they're not prejudice.

Susi
04-21-2009, 02:50 AM
What percentage have no preference? The ones who say "Race doesn't matter". And lay down with Negroes or other non-Europids to prove they're not prejudice.

Well if they have no stated preference, it doesn't mean they don't have one nor that they refuse "white" men.

Æmeric
04-21-2009, 02:58 AM
But it would seem women with no preference will have relations with non-Whites if the opportunity presents itself. Unless they are racially conscious but are afraid to say they have a preference.

Susi
04-21-2009, 03:14 AM
But it would seem women with no preference will have relations with non-Whites if the opportunity presents itself. Unless they are racially conscious but are afraid to say they have a preference.

Most women who I know who don't express a preference explicitly do have one implicitly. My Punjab friend, despite not explicitly stating it, prefers Indian boys. Big surprise. My Chinese acquaintances, same story, no explicit preference stated but their preferences are clear as day.

I don't express my preferences explicitly despite finding the idea of going with someone who isn't within my explicit boundaries (must be catoid/swantid) disgusting.

It's the same with every girl, we don't see a need to state explicit preferences.

Why do you have to be so negative?

Solwyn
04-21-2009, 03:23 AM
I don't know how accurate this is (white women being pickier) because if I step outside and look around me, there are a hell of a lot of young white women pushing baby carriages brimming with little brown bundles of joy. In fact, most of my female students want mulatto babies because they believe interracial babies to be better looking than white ones. My Asian students don't generally date non-Asians and my Latino (Central and South American) students only date other Latinos but I don't find that same pickiness amongst my students of European heritage, regardless of ethnicity.

I remember shaking my head last summer after reading the blog of a teenaged Korean girl at xanga where I do my blogging. She was being torn to shreds for stating that she only wanted to date boys with the same racial and cultural heritage as her. Her reasoning was quite sound, from language barriers to cultural and religious incompatibility, common interests, family values, etc - but to the multi-culti crowd online she was a raving racist lunatic.

However, I was reading an Elle magazine article from last month's edition which said that while something like 20% or more (I can't remember the exact number) of dating relationships in Canada were interracial, fewer than 3% actually made it to the altar. The article (predictably) viewed this as a bad thing, and cited heritage, culture, traditional values, and of course, ignorance on the part of the couples' parents as the cause of the demise of these relationships. Perhaps all those old babas know something that we don't? LOL.

:cool:

Susi
04-23-2009, 01:03 AM
However, I was reading an Elle magazine article from last month's edition which said that while something like 20% or more (I can't remember the exact number) of dating relationships in Canada were interracial, fewer than 3% actually made it to the altar.

Depends how they define "interracial" because I see that as incredibly unlikely (also, depends on their sample choice). If they define it as simplistically as skin colour, it seems oddly high. Though it could be explained by their definition of "interracial" being more broad (i.e. Anglo-Slavic relations).

Lenny
04-23-2009, 02:26 AM
What percentage have no preference? The ones who say "Race doesn't matter". And lay down with Negroes or other non-Europids to prove they're not prejudice.

I dug through the source PDF and came up with this:


The average age of our sample is around 33 years old , [...]

As stated earlier, the daters in our sample are more educated than average Americans; over 90% state they have completed at least some college schooling and a substantial proportion have post-graduate degrees. The women in the sample appear to be somewhat less educated than the men.6 In general, the sample of those who express an ethnic preference does not differ substantially from the entire sample. Over half of the sample state that they are Christians; this proportion is slightly higher among those who state an ethnic preference, for both men and women. Politically, only about one in five identify as liberal or very liberal;7 the percentage is even lower among those who stated an ethnic preference.

Two key control variables measure how choosy the dater is in general. In addition to ethnicity, daters can express a preference for nineteen other possible characteristics in a potential date, such as age, height, or education. Percentage of preferences is the percentage of items for which the dater expresses a preference. We see that women tend to be choosier about their dates; they express preferences for almost half of the characteristics, while men only express preferences for 36% of the items (54% vs. 42% among those who state a racial preference).8 Daters can express preferences for up to 10 different racial groups; the average number of racial groups preferred is shown for men and women; we see that when white women express a racial preference, it is for fewer groups (1.84), while when white men state a racial preference, they tend to include more groups (3.42).

We also consider daters’ preferences for other key physical and social characteristics, in addition to race, including education, religion, height, and body type. Relative to these other characteristics, race is an important criteria whites consider when choosing dates; 72% of white women and 59% of white men express a preference for race, while only 69% of women and 44% of men express a preference for education, and only 42% of women and 23% of men express a preference for religion. Physical characteristics are also important criteria; for white women, height is especially important; 78% express a height preference, while only 54% of men express a height preference. Body type is especially important for men; 86% of white men express a body type preference, compared to 76% of white women. Relative to all other characteristics,9 ethnicity is the fourth most frequently expressed characteristic by white women (after age, height, and body type), and the third most stated preference by white men (after age and body type). In short, ethnicity is one of the top criteria whites consider when deciding who they want to date.10

Gender Differences in Hierarchies of Racial/Ethnic Exclusion
Since daters may select among ten different racial/ethnic groups as preferred dates, our sample includes numerous possible responses to the question of which racial/ethnic groups are preferred (Appendix Table 2 shows the top combinations of racial preferences). To simplify the analysis, we focus on the extent to which each racial group is excluded as a possible date. Figure 1 [...] {already quoted}

http://paa2008.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=80046

In short, if 72% of white women have a racial preference and 64% of those openly admit that they have a whites-only policy, that means 46% of white women openly state that they will never date outside their race. [.72*.64]

Same statistic for white men: [i]17% :eek::( [.29*.59]

I'd say 46% of white women born from the early 1970s-early 1980s openly stating they would never date a nonwhite is an encouraging sign. They grew up bombarded by P.C. multikulti craziness, after all.

Rainraven
04-23-2009, 03:34 AM
I think women may be less likely to miscegenate because women, right from the start of a relationship, are more likely to be thinking about children. Whereas men more think they can get into a casual relationship with a woman of another race and then end up getting attached and taking it much further.

But then maybe I am being sexist? :rolleyes:

SwordoftheVistula
04-23-2009, 06:40 AM
I dug through the source PDF and came up with this:

As stated earlier, the daters in our sample are more educated than average Americans; over 90% state they have completed at least some college schooling and a substantial proportion have post-graduate degrees. The women in the sample appear to be somewhat less educated than the men.

This probably has something to do with it. Just my personal observation, but it seems to me that most of the interracial relationships I know of that involve white men, they tend to be highly educated, and usually the woman is asian, generally highly educated herself. On the other hand, I see a lot of presumably less educated white women with black & hispanic men, often they meet while working fast food or some other low class hangout. I've seen educated/middle-upper class white women date blacks, but usually this happens while they are still in college and it is not a long term relationship.

Another random observation is that nearly all (perhaps all) of the white man/black woman relationships of which I have come across, the white man is 'conservative' of the Sean Hannity type. I have no idea what is up with this. Perhaps it is in part because if these black woman wanted a relationship with someone who blames all the ills of the world on a global racist-imperialist-capitalist conspiracy, they'd just date a black man, combined with a desire by the 'Sean Hannity type conservatives' to prove to the world that they are 'not racist'.

Revenant
04-23-2009, 09:58 AM
I'd say there's a big difference between the LTR and STRs.

I'm in my city's "entertainment district" about six nights a week and from what I see middle easterners, maoris or paki/curries do very well with white women (blonde Anglos especially). Maybe not the best place to draw any general conclusions from though.:ohwell:

Solwyn
04-23-2009, 04:35 PM
Depends how they define "interracial" because I see that as incredibly unlikely (also, depends on their sample choice). If they define it as simplistically as skin colour, it seems oddly high. Though it could be explained by their definition of "interracial" being more broad (i.e. Anglo-Slavic relations).

The article never stated what the definition was, this is a ladies' magazine like Cosmopolitan, so they won't be getting into any great academic depth, just spicy enough to sell issues and keep readers interested on the morning commuter train. I understood from the article to mean that anyone who was "white" was a born and bred white-skinned Canadian, most likely with Anglo-Saxon heritage. A lot of the basis for the article was based on the work of a counselor in Vancouver who specializes in counseling interracial couples. I have to see where I stashed the article because I want to find out his/her name - whoever it is wrote a book about this and I'd be interested in reading it.

Lenny
05-17-2009, 08:01 AM
Another random observation is that nearly all (perhaps all) of the white man/black woman relationships of which I have come across, the white man is 'conservative' of the Sean Hannity type.

That is just bizarre.

Bridie
05-19-2009, 01:08 AM
I'd say there's a big difference between the LTR and STRs.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what are LTRs and STRs? :confused:



I'm in my city's "entertainment district" about six nights a week and from what I see middle easterners, maoris or paki/curries do very well with white women (blonde Anglos especially). Maybe not the best place to draw any general conclusions from though.:ohwell:I hope you don't mind me asking... but which city is this?

In Perth I do see quite a few "Anglo-Celts" with Maoris and even Indians (yes, from India folks. ;)), but that's about it. I don't think I've EVER seen an Aussie woman with an Arab type thing.

Bridie
05-19-2009, 01:18 AM
These findings may reflect the fact that white men are not as constrained as women in their dating choices, because, in a historically patriarchal society, men’s status is not as associated with their partner (Root, 2001; Spickard, 1989).This is surely not true. Especially in patriarchal societies, where women are more likely to be viewed as commodities (and therefore symbols of status - like an accessory to show off), men's status is associated with their achievements and the quality of their possessions (women falling into the latter category). A man with a good looking, high status woman on his arm will be held in higher esteem and be more respected (due to his virility and ability to "get" what most men could only dream "getting") than a man who has an undesirable woman at his side.

Perhaps men are more likely to miscegenate in our multiculturalist times because they are more vulnerable to conforming to social pressures that determine status and prestige.

Osweo
05-19-2009, 01:38 AM
Perhaps men are more likely to miscegenate in our multiculturalist times because they are more vulnerable to conforming to social pressures that determine status and prestige.

Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? I've seen nothing to indicate that it's happening more among white men than white women.

When I do see white men with foreign women, it is usually, as has been said above, with educated Indians or Orientals. In my schoolfriends there's one who married an Indian ('British' raised), and two who've been with Japanese women (met while working there, one married but quickly divorced). On the streets walking about, I see older men in their midlife crises or later with Oriental uglies on their arms. No kids though. And yet I see hundreds of our women pushing brown babies.

General broadbrush conclusions; women mescegenate early and productively, men later and childlessly.

The particular 'study' in the opening post is about something far too specific and marginal to be of relevance for demographic tendencies.

(Nice to see you, Bridie! :kiss:)

Lenny
05-19-2009, 04:34 AM
The particular 'study' in the opening post is about something far too specific and marginal to be of relevance for demographic tendencies.
It's a fascinating psychological study, but it gives no hard data on births, true. I enquired about this and it turns out women do bear slightly more mixed-race babies, despite being psychologically more likely to favor endogamy.

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html

Of 2,280,259 children born to Non-Hispanic White women, the racial breakdown of fathers is roughly:
89.23% Non-Hispanic White
5.46% Hispanic
3.18% Non-Hispanic Black
2.13% Non-Hispanic Other Races

Of approximately 2,217,946 children fathered by Non-Hispanic White men, the racial breakdown of mothers is around:
92.76% Non-Hispanic White
4.12% Hispanic
0.96% Non-Hispanic Black
2.17% Non-Hispanic Other Races

NOTE: Since about 10% of white mothers where the race of the father is not reported are married, and because I have ignored the (small number of) mothers with race unknown or unstated, the numbers I post above probably slightly overstate rates of interbreeding for white women and understate numbers for white men.
------------------------------------------------------
In sum, based on these numbers--
1) There were about 4.1 million white parents [of newborns] in the USA in 2005.
2) They produced ~2.45 million children.
3) *At least* 2.05 million (84%) of the children they produced were white. (The true figure will include whatever share of the "white Hispanics" who paired with white-non-Hispanics are genuinely white).
4) Assuming a base 1.9 TFR for white-parents (regardless of race of partner); this means the effective-TFR for whites who are continuing their genetic line is at least 1.60 (1.9*.84). That's higher than much of Europe's TFR even without consideration to outbreeding among Europeans; but alas is still quite low and leads to subsequent generations being only 80% as big as the parent generation (1.6/2)



Perhaps men are more likely to miscegenate in our multiculturalist times because they are more vulnerable to conforming to social pressures that determine status and prestige.

I've seen nothing to indicate that it's happening more among white men than white women.

I think it's pretty safe to say that women are much more concerned with social pressures and status than men, on the whole. I think the best explanation is that given by Rainraven in post#12. (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39521&postcount=12)

Lenny
05-19-2009, 05:25 AM
it turns out women do bear slightly more mixed-race babies, despite being psychologically more likely to favor endogamy.

I forgot to add an important addendum:

The data also show that it is wildly disproportionately the lower-quality elements of the white female genepool that are bearing mixed-children. (This was already stated in post#1 but bears repeating). Again see the data at http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html

Bridie
05-19-2009, 05:31 AM
Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? I've seen nothing to indicate that it's happening more among white men than white women. Probably depends on where you are and which mix of races and ethnicities are present.

Thing is, I was directly (and ok, vaguely) analysing the article's content, not coming up with my own conclusions based on what I see outside my window.




When I do see white men with foreign women, it is usually, as has been said above, with educated Indians or Orientals. In my schoolfriends there's one who married an Indian ('British' raised), and two who've been with Japanese women (met while working there, one married but quickly divorced). On the streets walking about, I see older men in their midlife crises or later with Oriental uglies on their arms. No kids though. And yet I see hundreds of our women pushing brown babies.
Well, that's unfortunate for England, for sure. Although you know what they say... anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.;) :p Nevertheless, I'll play the game...

Where I live, it is COMMON to see young, educated (although quite nerdy) Aussie men with Asian (Oriental) wives and a couple of racially mixed kids in tow. Why this generally happens is because of the "brain drain" we experience in my part of Australia (although I think it occurs all over the country)... young males finish university and go straight overseas to find professional employment in the world's business and technological "hot spots". Very often, this means Japan, Singapore and sometimes China. On top of that, mining is a big business in Australia... and it often takes young professionals (mining engineers, geologists, environmentalists etc) to SE Asia. So these young, green guys go over to East Asia for some years when they're in their sexual prime, and surprise surprise, they return to Australia with an East Asian wife and a couple of kids born of the union.

Admittedly, what we also see a lot of now is guys who are in their 30's and 40's who married Asian women and had children with them when they were younger getting divorced and getting together with Australian women. I think eventually the vast cultural distances between inter-racial couples has got to take it's toll. What seems exotic and enticing for the first few years, I suppose can create too much tension and conflict when the "magic" of early love wears off.



General broadbrush conclusions; women mescegenate early and productively, men later and childlessly.
General conclusions...

In areas of the world where there are a lot of negros and Europeans living side by side, there will be plenty of European women with negro men. (I've never seen this myself, but I'm assuming it's the way of things.) In areas of the world where men at a young age go off overseas for whatever reason, on their return to their home country, there will be plenty of mixes of these groups too.



The particular 'study' in the opening post is about something far too specific and marginal to be of relevance for demographic tendencies. Ah well, I didn't even notice that, since I just skimmed over it. Although I have read before that women are more inclined to choose same race partners for marriage. I just assumed that women are more fussy. No surprises there. ;)



(Nice to see you, Bridie! :kiss:)
You too, Gorgeous. *hugs*



I think it's pretty safe to say that women are much more concerned with social pressures and status than men, on the whole.Wrong. Although men and women are perhaps concerned with different types of social pressures... it does tend to be men who are more concerned about having a partner that will make them look like a "winner" or a "stud". :biggrin: Women are generally more concerned with just finding someone who can love her, provide financial security and be a good Daddy. Therefore, men's concerns in this department make them more conscious of how society generally views their choice of mate, and will most likely act accordingly. Women are more concerned with how they themselves, and perhaps their immediate family views their choice of partner.

SwordoftheVistula
05-19-2009, 11:54 AM
I think these two factors:


Where I live, it is COMMON to see young, educated (although quite nerdy) Aussie men with Asian (Oriental) wives and a couple of racially mixed kids in tow.


the vast cultural distances between inter-racial couples has got to take it's toll with time.

Are the cause of this:


I have read before that women are more inclined to choose same race partners for marriage.

Blacks and hispanics have high rates of births to unwed mothers, and asians have low rates. Thus I think it is safe to assume that getting married is more likely to be important to an asian than a black or hispanic, thus the white (usually male)/asian (usually woman) relationships are much more likely to be formalized in a marriage than black&hispanic (usually male)/white (usually female) relationships.

Also, cultural differences are likely to be much greater between a white and black or hispanic high school graduates who are on welfare or employed in menial jobs than between white and asian professionals with graduate level educations.


Although men and women are perhaps concerned with different types of social pressures... it does tend to be men who are more concerned about having a partner that will make them look like a "winner" or a "stud". :biggrin: Women are generally more concerned with just finding someone who can love her, provide financial security and be a good Daddy. Therefore, men's concerns in this department make them more conscious of how society generally views their choice of mate, and will most likely act accordingly. Women are more concerned with how they themselves, and perhaps their immediate family views their choice of partner.

The social pressure on men is on whether or not they have a partner, or on the number of partners they have had, there really is little to no social pressure on men regarding the quality of partner. On the other hand, I frequently observe social pressures on women regarding the quality of partner. "that guy is a loser", "not good for you", "you could do better" etc.

Aemma
05-19-2009, 12:19 PM
The study refers to 'dating', not 'marriage'. It's been my observation in general that women are far more likely than men to discard from consideration entire classes of people, whereas men are more likely to 'try anything', but when it comes down to marriage I don't think there is much difference between the genders.

I believe this to be so as well. It's been my experience as well that once a man is ready to settle down, he tends to finer tune his search criteria for a mate, returning to some instincts towards staying within the parameters of the homogeneous group.

I also think that this study might highlight the underlying difference between the male and female notions of dating. Dating as seen by males might have more to do with the regular notion of playing the field, trying out as many new things and new people but sans the overwhelming responsibility of actually looking for a life mate. Whereas for women dating is usually quite different. It harkens back to what Thrym mentions in terms of women being pickier--always--since they tend to take the exercise of dating with a much larger dose of seriousness. I do believe that a woman's search criteria for a mate are usually much finer tuned at an earlier age than those of a man's.

Cheers!...Aemma

SuuT
05-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Because we have more to lose, and have to invest a lot more energy into each child than a man does, it is coded into our genes to be more picky, it is only modern society that tries to remove this.

I don't think that this could be more elegantly put; or, obviously true: (the 'study') reminds me of all the bullshit Social Psyche classes I sat through as an undergraduate - 'Verification of the obvious', I always called them (never read a single item of text, and aced every course:rolleyes:).


Although, there are men (obviously) that are equally interested in 'pickiness'. - And, I think it these men that are actually less affected by modern society's drive to remove such instinctual barriers, than the women who are affected by forces from without.


Anyway, for me, Thrym's post punctuates the thread.

Men have failed.

To punctuate further, women always have been, and always will be, their own first best line of defense: ergo, the first best line of defense of the course of Human development.

Osprey
03-21-2012, 02:53 AM
I dug through the source PDF and came up with this:



In short, if 72% of white women have a racial preference and 64% of those openly admit that they have a whites-only policy, that means 46% of white women openly state that they will never date outside their race. [.72*.64]

Same statistic for white men: 17% :eek::( [.29*.59]

I'd say 46% of white women born from the early 1970s-early 1980s openly stating they would never date a nonwhite is an encouraging sign. They grew up bombarded by P.C. multikulti craziness, after all.

I think that Men do not miscegenate because they find non whites UNattractive, while women don't because of 'cultural differences'.
Thus more chances of women laying with non whites is more, if it does not involve kids