Miscegenation

re: hysterical commenter "Euro" at Occidental Dissent

White female/black male I presume.Race realist need to take a cold hard look at womankind.

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, 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.
Black-white couples may be particularly offensive to the eyes, but in terms of sheer numbers of cross-racial pairings, mestizos represent the single greatest (and fastest growing) threat to white racial integrity in the U.S.

30 comments:

Vanishing American said...

This is interesting because it goes against the popular stereotype that there are more women who date interracially (black/white pairings in particular) than men.

Just observation makes me believe that men have actually been mixing over a longer period of time; think of Asian 'war brides' or White men marrying mestiza women or Filipina and Islander women. It's not a new thing but it's been treated as much less taboo than any kind of mixing involving a White woman.

Lenny said...

Great post.



...in terms of sheer numbers of cross-racial pairings, mestizos represent the single greatest (and fastest growing) threat to white racial integrity in the U.S.

I would think the biggest threat in terms of miscegenation is white men pairing with Oriental women? Especially because the product of such matings tend NOT to be absorbed into the Asian community (as in the case of children of black-white pairings, who are typically raised black).

n/a said...

Just to be clear, black-white dating involves more white females than males. But given white men's overall much greater willingness to date non-whites, this simply reflects the extreme unattractiveness of black women rather than greater racial loyalty on the part of white men.

White-hispanic intermixing is more common among both white men and white women, and white men are more likely to be involved with Asians than white women are with blacks.

n/a said...

Lenny,

White-hispanic is by far the most common cross-racial pairing, and can be expected to become even more common as the hispanic share of the population increases. This is probably because hispanics can approach white phenotypes and are to some degree treated as "honorary whites". And the products of these crossings will be even more likely to be absorbed into the white population than white-asian crosses. That said, intermarriage with Asians is also a problem that will increase in frequency as the Asian share of the U.S. population grows. It's possible also (though I haven't checked) that the white men who marry Asians tend to be more intelligent and have more resources than those who marry mestizos, which would be another factor to consider beyond sheer numbers.

Lenny said...

Can you link to the stats on the white-hispanic and other intermarriage/interbreeding rates (the latter is much more valuable if available, since a large share of babies are out of wedlock these days).

Is it possible that some of the mixing between "whites" and "hispanics" involves the white partner being a "white-Hispanic", which sort of skews the numbers for our purposes?

Lenny said...

To clarify: If a "white-Hispanic" man marries a mestiza (non-white Hispanic), that might be picked up in stats as "racial intermarriage".

But "white-Hispanics" have never really been part of the the whiteAmerican genepool, so for all practical purposes it is not intermarriage for our purposes.

n/a said...

To clarify: If a "white-Hispanic" man marries a mestiza (non-white Hispanic), that might be picked up in stats as "racial intermarriage".

Nope: for census purposes, "Hispanic" is an "ethnicity", not a "race". So "white" Hispanics are still classified as "Hispanics".

For marriage and cohabitation statistics, see Figure A1 in the paper linked in the original post. I will try to post some natality statistics later.

Shalmaneser said...

From the study: "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."

This ties in with the White liberal phenomenon. Upper-class Whites are less likely to breed exogamously but still export the "metissage is good" worldview to others. Maybe a study would show a correlation between higher education and higher hypocrisy, at least in White populations.

BTW, yes, poor Whites are the most open route for negrification of our societies. But just because the aggregate numbers say race-mixing a small-scale thing, I still see the flotsam and jetsam of it wherever I go (especially in cities, which is why I avoid those like the plague).

n/a said...

"This ties in with the White liberal phenomenon. Upper-class Whites are less likely to breed exogamously but still export the "metissage is good" worldview to others."

Replace "upper-class Whites" with "Jews" and I could agree. From the paper: "In terms of religion, whites who identified as Jewish were dropped from the analysis of black exclusion because it was a perfect predictor: all white men and women who identified as Jewish and stated racial preferences excluded blacks as possible dates; all Jewish white women with racial preferences also excluded Asian men as possible dates."

Otherwise, please name some of these hypocritical "upper-class Whites".

silver said...

Otherwise, please name some of these hypocritical "upper-class Whites".Do they object to it? Do they describe it negatively? If not, they are acquiescing. And their acquiescence is deafening. Hence the hypocrisy.

n/a said...

To clarify, I don't deny there are plenty of hypocritical "upper-class Whites" (though I can't think of many who promote miscegenation). I take issue with the idea that nameless "upper-class Whites" are more hypocritical or more complicit in the mongrelization of America than wonderful, salt-of-the-earth working/middle-class folks. I think there's more than enough blame to go around, and it's neither accurate nor productive to point fingers exclusively at some ill-defined "upper class".

If we're speaking of the genuine remnants of the old American upper class, in my experience, these types are much less likely to feel the need to demonstrate moral purity on the topic of "racism" than are status-conscious and insecure 1st/2nd-generation members of the upper-middle class.

If we're speaking of Davos types -- high-level politicians and bureaucrats, and upper management of large companies -- these people are predominantly drawn from middle/working class backgrounds. For the most part, they circulate into and out of this elite during their lifetimes. These types are frequently contemptible for sure, but blame the (as it happens, highly-democratized) system that trained and selected them for that, not "upper-class whites", which present international elites for the most part aren't.

TGGP said...

this simply reflects the extreme unattractiveness of black women rather than greater racial loyalty on the part of white men.John Tierney's version is that is black women who are unusually racially selective, with men of all races chasing anything in a skirt. I agree with the commenters at Sailer's site who point out the distinction between mulattoes and darker black women. I think Spike Lee did a movie about that divide though I can't be bothered to watch it. I might read Peter Frost's book some day though.

Somehow I had been under the impression before that Jews were unusually likely to intermarry with blacks (even if their intermarriage rate in general was low). So I learned something here.

What proportion of the non-hispanic white population would you estimate is upper-class or a remnant of the old upper class.

n/a said...

black women who are unusually racially selectiveOther data I've seen and my personal experience don't support that notion.

So I learned something here.Keep in mind this is a tiny sample of Jews and "Jewish" is defined by religion. Considering how infrequently whites marry blacks, it's entirely possible secular Jews marry blacks more frequently. I seem to recall some data indicating Jewish women are more likely to have dated or had sex with blacks, but this probably mainly reflects their late marriage / high numbers of sex partners and urban residence patterns.

Ronduck said...

BTW, yes, poor Whites are the most open route for negrification of our societies. But just because the aggregate numbers say race-mixing a small-scale thing, I still see the flotsam and jetsam of it wherever I go (especially in cities, which is why I avoid those like the plague).I've seen this crap too. I work the graveyard shift and one night when I went in front of my store I saw a low class white women with a Black man. The woman had two children that either were half mestizo or White and a tattoo on the side of her neck. The Black man asked me how it was going and hinted that he may be interested in a job.

We need to be clear on one thing: even if White men are more likely to marry/date other races White men are less likely to marry Blacks than White women. White women are the ones being pressured into marrying Black men.

Of course in my apartment complex I've seen so much miscegenation that I hate to go outside. I've seen a middle age White man with a Black woman, a White woman with a south asian man, and a White women tenderly cuddling up to a negro. And the back half of my complex is almost all Hispanic.

TGGP said...

Other data I've seen and my personal experience don't support that notion.Other data I've seen do support the notion that black women are the most racially selective and asian women the least. No personal experience to speak of, as I pretty much only interact with white nerds.

n/a said...

I'm thinking of the fact that compared to white women greater proportions of black women marry white men, report having dated interracially, etc. Obviously, there are population size differences to consider, but realistically speaking almost any white woman in the U.S. who wants a black man can get one and the same can't be said for black women with respect to white men. I don't doubt black women tend to prefer black men -- just not to a greater degree than white women prefer white men. If surveys say otherwise, you might want to consider the possibility there's an element of sour grapes, on top of distortion attributable to the PC cultural framework that encourages black solidarity and white guilt. As for the speed dating experiment, as the researchers note, the participants "self-selected into participation in a multi-cultural Speed Dating event"; the black and white samples are not necessarily equally representative of their respective populations: college-educated black women have notoriously dim dating/marriage prospects and it strikes me as quite plausible a broader cross-section of this group would be willing to participate in such an event (for a shot at the black males taking part, if for no other reason).

Anonymous said...

Most married black/white couples Im aware of in my area are white men with black women. In the case of white female/black male couples, they are usually not married, and generally the black man concerned eventually goes AWOL - which he would presumably do even if it were a black woman instead.

There is also definitely a class element. The white male/black female couples are nearly all middle class (four out of five that I know of locally).

Anonymous said...

Interesting post.

Okay, so white women are less willing than white men to date outside of their race. But what about actual statistics? I believe that white women are 2.5 times more likely than white men to marry a black person. n/a, do you know how many times more likely white women are to cohabitate with or date a black person? I've heard a few commentators on the internet say that the gender disparity is much greater for cohabitation and dating but can't find any statistics. The best I could find about dating disparities is that white women are ten times more likely than white men to date a black person, which seems to me to be a large overestimate. That stat comes from an old Steve Sailer article:

"The 1992 Sex in America study of 3,432 people, as authoritative a work as any in a field where reliable data are scarce, found that ten times more single white women than single white men reported that their most recent sex partner was black."

http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm

Anonymous said...

Check AE.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/05/marriage-and-cohabitation-rates-by-race.html

Lenny said...

Anon#18, I assume what you really want to know is statistics on births, not marriage (especially because of the high rates of births outside marriage today, the marriage statistic will be almost irrelevant).

Amazingly, those stats are available, and racehist has them:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html

White women are slightly more likely than white men to be the parents of mixed-race children. Both white males and females today conceive with another white partner in over 90% of cases.

The increased fecundity of white-female miscegenators may be due to their lower social status.

lenny said...

The most interesting statistic that I think can be gleaned from the statistics collected on this subject is this: The "white-white" TFR. If the TFR of whites in general is still 1.9 (based on white parentage generally), then subtracting those whose children are of mixed-race, we are left with a TFR closer to 1.6 -- i.e. the white-white TFR is at least 1.6, maybe up to 1.7. See http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html#comment-5641051632757001169

USA TFRs by racial-pairing, as of the late 2000s
1.65 - White-white
1.9 - Black-black
3.25 - Hispanic, Mixed-race couples, and all other races

[These are my rough estimates based on numbers from the linked-to post].

The OP in this post proves that women have more of a racial-loyalty instinct in mating, despite the hystericism of the sizeable misogynist wing of the racialist camp, who claim the opposite.

Let's not make this a male-female issue; the problem is generalized. The real problem is miscegenation generally, which white men engage in nearly as much as women, when it comes to the only statistic that matters: Births. If anything, it is worse when white men do it (see the post linked to above).

n/a said...

(crossposting from elsewhere)

re: black women, I went back and looked at the numbers in the speed-dating paper. Black females say yes to white males 48% of the time, while white males say yes to to black females only 41% of the time, which tends to support my impression that white male-black female relationships are limited more by distaste for black women by white men than distaste for white men by black women. Black females gave yeses to black males 89% of the time (8 out of only 9 cases), which is why they seemed to show greater same-race preference.

In the okcupid data, which I assume Hopefully Anonymous is referring to in this post, black females respond to white male senders 38% of the time, while white males respond to black female senders 32% of the time (despite the fact that, overall, females respond less often). In this sample, black females are more likely to respond to white males than black males, though of course that's probably not representative for American black women in general.

n/a said...

Also from the okcupid data: 54% of white women (40% of white men) say they would strongly prefer to date someone of their own racial background. The numbers for black females and males are 22% and 11%.

TGGP said...

Elsewhere is here.

Judann said...

The statistics have been taken from the racial preferences of someone in speed dating and inter-net dating. But no one has taken into account the character of the persons who engage in these dating services. How many "flakes" are on these services

Anonymous said...

"PLAYBOY: Do black women throw themselves at you?

MAYER: I don’t think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I’ve got a Benetton heart and a fuckin’ David Duke cock. I’m going to start dating separately from my dick."

Anonymous said...

As I contemplate this question, I can’t help but reflect on my own experiences in the world of dating. When I attended USC—which had, and still has, a majority white student body—I felt invisible to white men—completely and totally invisible. It was like I didn’t exist to them, not as a person, let alone as a woman. Of course, there were exceptions. My professors recognized me and knew my name. And a fellow first year graduate student once gave me a lift home on his motorcycle. This time at USC was notable for me because my experience there was in great contrast to some of my experiences when I lived among large populations of blacks; from an early age, I was used to men and boys noticing and admiring me. Any feminist worth her sensible shoes will disavow whistles, but it was an odd, if not unwelcome experience for me to be so ignored. How typical or not was my experience?

If it is typical, it would begin to explain why there are fewer black female/white male romances.

http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2009/01/black-white-interracial-relationships.html

Anonymous said...

"This time at USC was notable for me because my experience there was in great contrast to some of my experiences when I lived among large populations of blacks; from an early age, I was used to men and boys noticing and admiring me."

Well boo hoo to you...

It's because there are millions of white women like you (i.e. too afraid to approach men, so you would rather date a non-white and thus destroy your race), that so many white men are single...

Anonymous said...

Er...it's a black female writing that.

Anonymous said...

It is fairly obvious, just by observation that White women are dating Black men in ever-increasing numbers. I live in New York City and virtually every day I see at least 2 White women with a Black man, and some days that number can approach double digits, whereas many years ago, I could go months without seeing this. I've even seen some good-looking and seemingly intelligent young White women/girls with Black men who didn't seem to have an IQ above room temperature. In White-Black pairings, the woman, far more often than not, is the one who is White. The male is biologically the pursuer in any male-female interaction. Black men pursue White women now that they can; now that the social controls have been lessened. Many impressionable White women will be conditioned by this media to engage in miscegenation. White girls are far more conditionable than White boys. White men are also mixing more with women of other races, but usually not Black women. Here in this city, one reason for it is that there are far fewer White women than ever. Another reason for it is that women from other countries usually are far less feminist than the typical current cosmopolitan White girl with feminist leanings. In other words, they know better - better than many White girls and women - how to ACT like women.