Classism is Inenvitable

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A nit:

Inevitable

[/ QUOTE ]

I spelled the title wrong? *self-flagellates*

[ QUOTE ]

I think using kids in school as a parallel to the "real world" presents some problems, mainly because kids will be influenced by the behavior of their parents, and their parents will be influenced by their status and situation in the "real world", so I don't think you can really assert that the school is an isolated egalitarian society in any meaningful way. Confident parents have confident kids. Rich parents are more likely to be confident. Etcetera etcetera. There are some interesting trends with the alpha/omega stuff, but I don't think it stands up that well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a matter of degree, imho. I agree that, all other things being equal, a child from a wealthy family will be more popular than a child from a poor family. Similarly, an adult male who successfully competes in sporting events will be more attractive than one who does not. The point is, though, that this is not particularly high on the females' selective criteria.

Think about it this way. Let's say that your priorities in selecting a job are as follows, in order of decreasing priority: 1) Salary 2) Lack of stress 3) Closeness to home. If these are what you value, then it is quite possible that you will take a job with a big salary, even if it is somewhat stressful and requires a bit of a commute. If you're paid enough, these inconveniences will be compensated for. Now let's say that heavy socialism comes along and all jobs pay nearly equal amounts. Salary ceases to be a priority; it is controlled for. Now your other priorities take the forefront. Chances are now that you don't want that job you wanted before. Your first priority now is lack of stress and your second is proximity to home. Why would you want a stressful job that requires a commute? You will select something else under the new circumstances.

Logically, if we assume economic status to be the first (or one of the first) priorities in a female's selective basis, and looks to be the second (or codominant), we would expect selection under communism to favor the good-looking more. Suddenly the average-looking upper management yuppie fellow is much less attractive than the rugged, good-looking construction worker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guarantee you based on some of Sklansky's girlfriends (or mine for that matter) looks are most definitely not co-dominant!

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

I guarantee you based on some of Sklansky's girlfriends (or mine for that matter) looks are most definitely not co-dominant!

[/ QUOTE ]

That just helps my point then.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so happy I don't live in the same world as you AC folk.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? This discussion has nothing to do with AC. You choose to attack all of us for a non-AC related comment stated by one? WTF?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.

Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this?

Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage.

[/ QUOTE ]


While females do have to compete for males, I think it is safe to say that males are far more competitive in the sexual market than females are, and for good reason. A male can reproduce in phenomenal quantities, but a female can only reproduce in small quantities. It is theoretically possible for a male to father hundreds or thousands of children in his lifetime; a female, on the other hand, is incapable of reproducing more than a dozen or so times. Because of their reproductive limitation, females must be much more selective than males in their choice of partner if they want to maximize their reproductive potential. The result: males must compete much more fiercely than females for reproduction. (They are both competing, but to different degrees)

This is very similar to the job market, actually. Employees are far more plentiful than employers, so the employer is usually much choosier than the employee. The employer must still offer a competitive wage, but the employee competition is much more apparent (this is why many leftists are inclined to believe that the employers are not competing for the employees at all.) This becomes even more apparent during times of employee shortages. For example, there is a pretty significant shortage of hospital nurses in the country at the moment, and my aunt (an RN) is making an awful lot more money right now than she was several years ago. The more limited the selection becomes, the more fiercely the selectors must compete for them.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be contradicted by the incredible premium women in postindustrial societies place on superfluous wealth. A woman does not, in any meaningful way, risk her or her kids starving or going without shelter when she marries a guy who makes 50k a year. Then why is she MUCH more attracted to the guy who makes a million a year?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's irrelevant if she's still breeding with the guy making $50K.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


Again all of your arguments only point out that decreased migration and decrease pressure via "natural selection" (that is the ease of providing enough food to get you and your offspring to reproductive age) will slow down the evolutionary process, not stop it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Good because I never said it would stop it. I said specifically that it "could" or "can" occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhh- right

[ QUOTE ]

One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration

[/ QUOTE ]

You said it, not me.