Chidlessness Among Generation-X Women

Foseti is alarmed that 43% of white-collar American women between ages 33 and 46 have never had a child.

Of course, this is a very large age-bracket, and many of the women in their 30s may yet have children. Age 33 is quite young, yet, here in the 2010s. I am interested in final fertility, i.e. how many children women have had by age 45, the end of their reproductive lives.

— — —

Some investigation into the Census data tells me this:

3-in-10 Generation-X white women
will never have a white child

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that as of June 2010, 20.6% of white non-Hispanic women born between June 1965 and May 1970 — the early Generation-Xers — have never had a child. They are childless, and almost all will remain so, considering their ages (40-44 at time of Census). (See tables 1 and 7 in the dataset “Fertility of American Women: 2010 – Detailed Tables”). [Sidenote: Of those 40-44-year-old white women who have had children, 22% have one child, 44% have two children, 24% have three children, 7% have four children, 3% have more than four children.]

Now, as only ~89% of the babies born in the past decade to white mothers were fathered by white men [see racehist for documentation on this], this means that only ~71% of white women born in the late 1960s have had white children. {100-[(79.4 who have had children*.89 to white fathers)]=70.7}.

So, nearly three in ten have removed their genes from the white-American genepool.

Foseti, in his original post, uses the word “dysgenic”, thereby invoking a sense that the lower elements of the population are outbreeding the higher and more talented elements. Eeach new generation, then, being of poorer-quality, on average, than its parent generation. This is a perennial fear. See here:

Dysgenics in 20th-century Greece, from Richard Lynn

Is the same thing happening in the USA? I have compiled a little table to summarize the relevant Census data.

Fertility and Education, Census 2010

So, yes, smarter women are certainly being outbred by less-intelligent women, but nothing like the palpable and disturbingly-dysgenic figures from 1950s-Greece cited above.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Chidlessness Among Generation-X Women

  1. rightsaidfred says:

    Something noticeable among my female cohorts is the number of adoptions. I wonder if breaking out adoptions would change the numbers. I suppose the final would be some kind of “how many women pass their genetic material into the future.”

    Age 33 is NOT young for child bearing purposes. We really need women to start having babies as soon as they can.

    • Hail says:

      As best I can tell, the Census dataset in question counts children a woman has herself borne, so adoptions are already excluded, at least in theory. What is unclear to me is how the data is collected. If it is based on self-reporting, some adoptions may have slipped in after all, but I doubt it has much of an effect.

      Incidentally, what sort of children are the women that you refer to adopting? I do wonder about the eugenic/dysgenic effects of adoption, in general, even putting aside racial factors.

  2. rightsaidfred says:

    Roughly 1/3 the adoptions are foreign children, 2/3 a standard home grown white kid. Of the foreign, I’m thinking of one from Romania, and one from Mali.

    From what I’ve seen of adoption in my extended community, I agree that it tends towards dysgenic. Down the road from me, an adopted kid (now an adult) is facing life in prison for child porn. Adopted kids around here just tend to be dysfunctional/not high achievers even when placed with families whose extended families show a track record of raising successful kids. I can’t help but think kids are up for adoption partly because they have a chaotic genetic past.

  3. Mark says:

    Have you seen this recent study:

    “Black-White Marriages Increased Rapidly Since 1980, Study Finds”

    Is it reliable?

  4. Mark says:

    So, nearly three in ten have removed their genes from the white-American genepool.

    This is devastating. It’s comparable to the “kill rates” from mass war or severe plague, isn’t it? Perhaps even worse considering that women and their genes tend to survive more than men.

    • Hail says:

      A certain percentage of women will always fail to reproduce, but it is usually more like 10-15%

      For the UK:

      % of Women Childless at Age 45, by year of birth [.]
      1923: 16%
      1943: 11%
      1953: 16%
      1973: 23% [expected]

      I wonder if the 1923 cohort had an artificially-high childless rate due to the war (300,000 young British men killed at arms, heavily of the 1923 age-bracket).

  5. Mark says:

    Have you looked at the figures for white male fertility?

    • Hail says:

      Two must play the game, right?

      The all important “white-female mother with white-male father” fertility metric suggests that “white” TFR in the USA is 1.6-1.7 — which is not bad, compared to much of Europe.

      Racehist has the stats up on outbreeding patterns for white males and females for 2005. I’ll reproduce them here:

      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

      Although these numbers suggest that white-women are more likely to outbreed, in fact — from a eugenic standpoint — it is OK, as those 10-11% of white women are apparently significantly lower ‘quality’, on the whole. (See link for documentation on that).

      • Mark says:

        Do you have an idea of what percentage of white men are having their genes removed from the white-American genepool?

      • Hail says:

        I don’t have statistics on that, but logically, the failure-to-pass-on-genes rate for men is always higher (assuming equal numbers of men and women), because some men have children by more than one woman.

        Imagine a low-fertility monogamous society consisting of exactly 100 men and 100 women.
        – 29 of the women do not procreate. [Thus, 29 of the men are shut out from procreation].
        – 5 of the men have children, divorce, remarry, and have children by another woman. [Thus, 5 more men are shut out from procreation]

        Total women not procreating: 29.
        Total men not procreating: 34.

        One big x-factor, of course, is that men’s reproductive capacity does not end by 45.

  6. rightsaidfred says:

    From Mark’s link: “”Our results point to better race relations in 2008 than 1980, but we still have a way to go,” Qian said. “The racial boundary is blurred, but it is still there.””

    Assumption here is that marrying outside your race equals better race relations, when maybe the opposite is true.

  7. Pingback: Dysgenic Fertility Trends in Generation X? | Hail To You

  8. Eugenicist says:

    Because of regression to the mean it is not the case that smarter women are having uniformly smart children.

    The best way to shift the population mean upwards would be to sterilize those with IQs below 100 🙂

    However, I guess that those less-than-intelligent women who are mating with blacks are hastening the disappearance of their lineages …

    • Hail says:

      “Regression to the Mean”, I’ve always felt, is absolutely ripe for Reductio ad Absurdum. A strict application of RttM would mean that no human group would ever advance, at all. How can higher-IQ be selected for?, if children of high-IQ parents will just “regress to the mean” and be back to square one. See what I mean?

      Francis Galton, in his first work on eugenics, proved that gifted people invariably come from gifted families. It’s common sense.

      Where RttM applies, it does so for the case of true outliers, and on an individual level. The rare pair of IQ 150-ers, from families that are more in the 110-130s range, will unlikely have a child in that range, because they are both anomalies. The child will clearly still be talented.

    • Hail says:

      See this comment by a commenter named David:

      When you’re talking about a person’s kids, regression to the mean doesn’t refer…to the dilution of your passed-on intellect…Instead, it refers to the fact that if one or both of you are freakishly smart (or dumb) relative to your respective families (who are the best estimate of the heritable component of the IQ that you personally possess), your children are likely to have a more average throw of the dice on the random component of their intelligence—i.e., they’ll have an IQ closer to the mean of your respective families than you and your spouse do.

      So if you’re looking for smart kids, go for a spouse that is smart and who has a similarly smart family—i.e., she’s not an outlier in it.

  9. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s