Jump to content

Talk:Marriage squeeze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

The sentence "The "squeeze" appears to be exacerbated by two negative social stereotypes that are qualitatively opposite but whose effects quantitatively reinforce each other: On one hand, some non-black men view black women as sexual objects to be "used" and "disposed of" (as opposed to viewing them as whole persons suitable for lasting relationships not limited to sex), and on the other, some non-black men are culturally conditioned a) to unconsciously rule out or not consider the possibility of sexual relationships with black women or even b) to consciously view black women as sexually unattractive." is offensive and unsourced. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.176.82 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

[edit]

Marriage squeeze is not a concept limited to US; see for example discussion in this article: [1]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Asian men

[edit]

You could say a similar thing applies to Asian men as well, Asian women get poached by men of other races whereas the Western media does a terrific job at emasculating the Asian male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.129.56 (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Census data supports the notion of a marriage squeeze for Asian men. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facial attractiveness

[edit]

The section was removed due to censorship. Alliumnsk (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was removed due to long-term spamming and the absence of any credible evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The facial attractiveness hypothesis is one of at least 4 viable explanations. As it exists in the peer-reviewed scientific literature it should be reflected as a recognised hypothesis (not fact) here. Nsxsvn (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not based on the previous source it shouldn't. Guy (Help!) 04:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There points:
1, Wikipedia rules clearly state that primary sources such as peer-reviewed articles can be considered reliable sources of information Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences)
2, The revisions stated that there are a variety of explanations. It does not adjudicate on their truth - only that these explanations have been put forward. This is true regards of what Guy might think.
3, Guy appears to be attempting to censor this topic by only allowing two explanations to be mentioned. Both of these explanations paint African American men in a bad light, either as criminals or a lower caste. The two new explanations are neutral on the status of African American people. By censoring these alternatives the editor prevents more neutral explanations being expressed. As such, one does have to question whether he/she has racist motives.Nsxsvn (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4, I think he intends to combat racism by censoring information about even visible differences as skin color and facial features and blaming the outcomes on culture and/or slavery/Jim crow legacy.Alliumnsk (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a bold edit to eliminate the facial attractiveness section, now relabeled "sexual selection on skin color". Purely on mechanistic grounds the vitamin D hypothesis is a far stronger candidate explanation for the phenomenon of sexual dimorphism of skin color. Indeed it is the only hypothesis mentioned on the Human Skin Color page, where it is asserted as fact and referenced to Jablonski, "Living Color". Add to this that a meta-analysis of anthropometric data failed to support the sexual selection hypothesis proposed by Peter Frost and later Michael Lewis. Moreover the PLoS ONE article specifically purporting to explain the Marriage Squeeze was not peer-reviewed. The PLos ONE article has never been cited in the scientific literature, attracted no media interest, and the only reader comment on the article is this one: "Is this science? The conclusions and discussion alone, never mind the sample size (and participant make up) should have led this paper to be rejected." For me, the sexual selection hypothesis is an attempted explanation for a phenomenon (sexual dimorphism of skin color) that is already explained by a mechanistically complete, empirically supported, and widely accepted hypothesis (greater requirement for vitamin D in adult females than males). Not only is the attempted explanation of the Marriage Squeeze by sexual selection mechanistically incomplete and lacking plausibility, it also lacks essentially any empirical support and has had zero influence on scientific theory in the field. I would characterize Lewis's account of the causation of Marriage Squeeze as a fringe theory propounded by only the author himself, and unworthy of inclusion in a general encyclopedia. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that published theories in respected journals cannot be discussed on Wikipedia pages. Lewis's theory might well be wrong but it is the only theory that doesn't blame the marriage squeeze on activity of black people or write black men off as unmarriable. The current edit perpetuates the idea that black people are an underclass that buy into their own submission. As such, this page is being used to further the white supremacists' agenda. Nsxsvn (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-iterate that the Lewis paper was published in PLoS ONE, which is internet-only content and NOT peer reviewed. That doesn't mean that everything published in PLoS ONE is rubbish, but some dross does get in, and this does not pass the smell test. The Lewis idea is not and never was credible science, and NPOV does not demand its inclusion in Wikipedia.
To be more precise about my claim about NPOV, I just don't see any evidence that the Lewis idea was ever seriously considered by anyone other than a tiny number of social scientists. Of course, this may change in future and the idea could become a genuine topic of scientific discussion rather than what I would characterize as a fringe theory. If this happens then obviously there is an opportunity to revisit this issue. But in my view documenting the hypothesis at this point risks giving it undue weight.
Lastly, I don't see how the notion that women require more vitamin D than men (which is the current scientific consensus) in any way denigrates black people or encourages a negative view of their actions. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While you might think the page (with Lewis' theory removed) is used to further white supremacists' agenda, people removing the theory think that addition of the theory perpetuates WS agenda, because: if blacks are underclass then it's due to all kinds of racism. While admitting one biological difference between races (even as cosmetic as masculinity/femininity) opens door for consideration than personality traits might differs also. That is their logic. Alliumnsk (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marry Up

[edit]

"There is a desire among educated women of all races to marry partners within or above their social and economic class;" This needs some evidence. Is it really stronger than the desire in men? Nsxsvn (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could try picking a commercial romantic novel at random and reading it. Practically all pulp romantic fiction for a female readership consists of fantasies about marrying up. --Ef80 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so that is the level of evidence we are using now. Seriously, the point being made was where is the evidence that women want to 'marry up' more than men do?Nsxsvn (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marriage squeeze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marriage_squeeze&oldid=1210991455"