A reader passes along this bombshell April 2019 study which I missed,
CH, you’ve got to check out this recent study – high school aged girls who are around high-achieving guy are less likely to go to college and more likely to have kids. And the effect is even stronger for girls who go to good schools and have a college educated parent. Of course article is positioned as this is a negative, instead of it saying that even young women want to have kids with top men.
From the abstract:
This paper studies the effect of exposure to female and male “high-achievers” in high school on the long-run educational outcomes of their peers. Using data from a recent cohort of students in the United States, we identify a causal effect by exploiting quasi-random variation in the exposure of students to peers with highly educated parents across cohorts within a school. We find that greater exposure to “high-achieving” boys, as proxied by their parents’ education, decreases the likelihood that girls go on to complete a bachelor’s degree, substituting the latter with junior college degrees. It also affects negatively their math and science grades and, in the long term, decreases labor force participation and increases fertility.
“increases fertility”. The key phrase.
If you want to arrest low White fertility, keep young women away from college and in the company of alpha males.
Game can make White women fertility great again.
We explore possible mechanisms and find that greater exposure leads to lower self-confidence and aspirations and to more risky behavior (including having a child before age 18).
This is written, of course, from an indignant femcunt perspective, but a more honest analysis of the study results would describe the natural desire of women to submit to powerful men, or to men who seem to have the potential to be powerful later in life. Chicks dig dominant men, and the “lower self-confidence” evident in women who are around alpha males is a feature of the feminine template of vulnerable desire to submit to a powerful man, rather than a bug to be removed from the DNA code.
The girls most strongly affected are those in the bottom half of the ability distribution (as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test), those with at least one college-educated parent, and those attending a school in the upper half of the socioeconomic distribution.
The effects are quantitatively important: an increase of one standard deviation in the percent of “high-achieving” boys decreases the probability of obtaining a bachelor’s degree from 2.2-4.5 percentage points, depending on the group.
The alpha male is rarer than the young hottie. Women instinctively know this and grasp this reality of the sexual market, so their bodies and minds promptly reorient to “catch the alpha male’s attention and birth his champions before he finds someone younger, hotter, tighter, and more feminine than a shrewish, careerist shrike” when an alpha male lands in their social circle.
Chasing after college and credentials and a “good career” are only serious considerations for women who are surrounded by uninspiring beta males.
Beta male providers get it coming and going. Women aren’t inspired by beta providers to abjure the credentialist cubicle farm life, and beta providers are made less attractive by the economic self-sufficiency of the women who chose career over love&ovenbuns with a beta.
Greater exposure to “high-achieving” girls, on the other hand, increases bachelor’s degree attainment for girls in the lower half of the ability distribution, those without a college-educated parent, and those attending a school in the upper half of the socio-economic distribution.
Sure. Girls aren’t having sex, romance, and babies with “high-achieving” girls aka spinsters.
The effect of “high-achievers” on male outcomes is markedly different: boys are unaffected by “high-achievers” of either gender.
Chicks dig powerful men.
Men dig beautiful women.
The rest is feminist poopytalk.