Same college, same sorority, many of my prettiest sorority sisters did not marry well. Who did?

[Anonymous]

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Same college, same sorority, many of my prettiest sorority sisters did not marry well. Who did?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster has, for whatever reason, gone on a Facebook safari to check the current marriage and socio-economic status of her sorority sisters. Twenty years after graduating, the original poster finds that many of the prettiest women fared poorly in marriage. On the other hand, average looking women who attended "ritzy private day schools and boarding schools" all seem to have married well and been successful in their lives, both financially and personally. She asks, "Is there something to this?" To put it mildly, the original poster's observations were not received warmly. She was accused of being shallow, stuck in 1953, and being on drugs. Some posters pointed out that she really had no idea what was actually going on in someone else's marriage and finances. Others asserted that this was nothing more than wealthy people marrying other wealthy people and, hence, no big surprise. One poster who said she came from a wealthy background explained that social and peer pressure naturally led to what the original poster describes as "good marriages", though the poster was not convinced such arrangements were actually "best" for everyone and recognized that there are multiple paths to happiness. Other posters contributed stories of their own experiences and observations. But, frankly, this thread couldn't keep my interest past the second page. So, I can't comment on anything beyond that point.

'Facebook safari' lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to an expensive private school that catered to political families and all the men went on to marry equally educated, well-traveled, bilingual women. They aren’t particularly beautiful women but they share the same life experiences and fit in their families. This is a well-studied phenomenon btw, assortative mating is the reason for increasing, permanent gaps in IQ distribution across the population.

This is a public health & safety crisis that is going to require government intervention in the coming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an expensive private school that catered to political families and all the men went on to marry equally educated, well-traveled, bilingual women. They aren’t particularly beautiful women but they share the same life experiences and fit in their families. This is a well-studied phenomenon btw, assortative mating is the reason for increasing, permanent gaps in IQ distribution across the population.

This is a public health & safety crisis that is going to require government intervention in the coming years.

This and the PP are implying the private school educated young women have higher IQs but there's nothing to suggest they do. In regards to this specific thread, they ended up at the same average university as their non-prep school sorority sisters. If anything, it seems far more to do with "pedigree" than IQ, no? Many are from the same exact affluent towns. Local private day school over the local excellent public implies a higher IQ? Not to me, especially if they all ended up at the same party college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an expensive private school that catered to political families and all the men went on to marry equally educated, well-traveled, bilingual women. They aren’t particularly beautiful women but they share the same life experiences and fit in their families. This is a well-studied phenomenon btw, assortative mating is the reason for increasing, permanent gaps in IQ distribution across the population.

This is obvious basically everywhere except on DCUM.

DCUM is basically the only place I've seen where men push this, "guys like a happy, pretty barista from a trailer park who flatters them over someone nice and similarly educated from a good background" narrative.

Which I find particularly weird in DC, which in my circles is like THE land of assortative mating. Besides IQ, it's also why class mobility is at an all time low. Statistically, no, men are not marrying the baristas and high school educated secretaries no matter how many here crow about it being the law of the land. It doesn't bear out in reality.

I can't think of any professional I know who married someone who didn't have at least a college degree. Back before women started attending college in large numbers, it was common for, say, a lawyer to marry a secretary. That hasn't really been a thing for several generations now.

It's bizarre that anyone would claim that a significant number of men are looking to marry someone with a significantly lower level of education and socio-economic status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were about 160 sisters in my sorority over 20 years ago. Looking back, while some of the prettiest classic beauty sisters married well, frankly, many of them did not. They frequently complain about finances, many are on second marriages, and some are single divorcees dating much older men. A handful never married and have no children – they seem to have successful careers. With the benefit of hindsight, who seems to have married the best? As crazy as this probably sounds, I double-checked this on Facebook last night and literally all of my sisters who went to ritzy private day schools and boarding schools married well. Literally 100%. All of them are married to either successful MDs, law partners, business executives, or entrepreneurs. No divorces. All of them have children. They live in elegant homes, especially for our age range, in premier neighborhoods. And for the sake of total honestly, these sisters were and are largely average appearance-wise. I am not saying that to be cruel or out of jealously, I was also average if not below average for our chapter, and I went to public school.

Is there something to this?

Yes, their families had enough money to send them to private schools and boarding schools, and their potential boyfriends were interested in women with family money or a certain background. Doesn't apply if you are a scholarship or financial aid student at those schools though, or if your parents pay full tuition and have to sacrifice to do so.

A story: I attended a private school but my family scrimped and saved to send me there and it was obvious; never was able to date anyone at my private school, the guys just weren't interested, even though we were friends so I assumed I was not attractive to them or too shy and studious. Attended a decent college on scholarship, lost contact, and then was accepted to a masters degree program at a much more prestigious university, of which my female private school friends were aware.

*One month* after attending the name brand U, I was getting contacted by all three guys I had crushes on in high school. Went out once with two, and it became apparent that *prestigious U* was the reason I was now considered dateable, and took precedence over my more humble family origins. By that point, I had no interest in either of these guys. I have been happily married to my dh for 20 years and he is also from lower middle class family, successful, and we met at work.

OP, many guys are in this for the money or prestige (or their parents want them to be) and it doesn't matter so much how pretty you are, sometimes your background matters more to certain people.

This is the best comment in this thread and got the least amount of responses.

You’re probably hit a sore spot because many umc people are putting their children in this position. UMC people like to conflate themselves with the actual wealthy and it’s sad af.

This country would be a lot better off if educated upper middle class people saw themselves closer to the working class and poor than ultra high networth individuals.

Contrary to popular belief— men do care about status and now more than ever men AND women are looking at the financial background of their partners (both gay and straight).

Op sounds like a little girl who grew up believing in fairy tales.

And everyone is correct that most affluent women are average and basic looking. and might i say- a good number of them are unattractive. They’re just rich.

This is true. The two "old row" desirable (always alum) sororities at my DD's school are chased by every single frat guy. The guys from family money only date these girls and vice versa, as my DD says, I can't blame with of them, I'd want their gene pool for my children too! Lol.

You really don't. Being old money doesn't say much about the "quality" of your genes. It just means that someone back in your family tree was able to make money. Look at some of the oldest of old money families, such as the English royal family. Not a particularly smart or attractive group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were about 160 sisters in my sorority over 20 years ago. Looking back, while some of the prettiest classic beauty sisters married well, frankly, many of them did not. They frequently complain about finances, many are on second marriages, and some are single divorcees dating much older men. A handful never married and have no children – they seem to have successful careers. With the benefit of hindsight, who seems to have married the best? As crazy as this probably sounds, I double-checked this on Facebook last night and literally all of my sisters who went to ritzy private day schools and boarding schools married well. Literally 100%. All of them are married to either successful MDs, law partners, business executives, or entrepreneurs. No divorces. All of them have children. They live in elegant homes, especially for our age range, in premier neighborhoods. And for the sake of total honestly, these sisters were and are largely average appearance-wise. I am not saying that to be cruel or out of jealously, I was also average if not below average for our chapter, and I went to public school.

Is there something to this?

Yes, their families had enough money to send them to private schools and boarding schools, and their potential boyfriends were interested in women with family money or a certain background. Doesn't apply if you are a scholarship or financial aid student at those schools though, or if your parents pay full tuition and have to sacrifice to do so.

A story: I attended a private school but my family scrimped and saved to send me there and it was obvious; never was able to date anyone at my private school, the guys just weren't interested, even though we were friends so I assumed I was not attractive to them or too shy and studious. Attended a decent college on scholarship, lost contact, and then was accepted to a masters degree program at a much more prestigious university, of which my female private school friends were aware.

*One month* after attending the name brand U, I was getting contacted by all three guys I had crushes on in high school. Went out once with two, and it became apparent that *prestigious U* was the reason I was now considered dateable, and took precedence over my more humble family origins. By that point, I had no interest in either of these guys. I have been happily married to my dh for 20 years and he is also from lower middle class family, successful, and we met at work.

OP, many guys are in this for the money or prestige (or their parents want them to be) and it doesn't matter so much how pretty you are, sometimes your background matters more to certain people.

This is the best comment in this thread and got the least amount of responses.

You’re probably hit a sore spot because many umc people are putting their children in this position. UMC people like to conflate themselves with the actual wealthy and it’s sad af.

This country would be a lot better off if educated upper middle class people saw themselves closer to the working class and poor than ultra high networth individuals.

Contrary to popular belief— men do care about status and now more than ever men AND women are looking at the financial background of their partners (both gay and straight).

Op sounds like a little girl who grew up believing in fairy tales.

And everyone is correct that most affluent women are average and basic looking. and might i say- a good number of them are unattractive. They’re just rich.

This is true. The two "old row" desirable (always alum) sororities at my DD's school are chased by every single frat guy. The guys from family money only date these girls and vice versa, as my DD says, I can't blame with of them, I'd want their gene pool for my children too! Lol.

You really don't. Being old money doesn't say much about the "quality" of your genes. It just means that someone back in your family tree was able to make money. Look at some of the oldest of old money families, such as the English royal family. Not a particularly smart or attractive group of people.

Yeah and also look at the newer money ones. See the “good family” thread. Look at the children of the Trumps, Bidens, Kennedys. I don’t see too many Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts or DuPonts running around nowadays.

[Anonymous]

How many first kids (presidential) are doing nearly as well as their fathers? Did you see any work of significance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an expensive private school that catered to political families and all the men went on to marry equally educated, well-traveled, bilingual women. They aren’t particularly beautiful women but they share the same life experiences and fit in their families. This is a well-studied phenomenon btw, assortative mating is the reason for increasing, permanent gaps in IQ distribution across the population.

This is obvious basically everywhere except on DCUM.

DCUM is basically the only place I've seen where men push this, "guys like a happy, pretty barista from a trailer park who flatters them over someone nice and similarly educated from a good background" narrative.

Which I find particularly weird in DC, which in my circles is like THE land of assortative mating. Besides IQ, it's also why class mobility is at an all time low. Statistically, no, men are not marrying the baristas and high school educated secretaries no matter how many here crow about it being the law of the land. It doesn't bear out in reality.

I can't think of any professional I know who married someone who didn't have at least a college degree. Back before women started attending college in large numbers, it was common for, say, a lawyer to marry a secretary. That hasn't really been a thing for several generations now.

It's bizarre that anyone would claim that a significant number of men are looking to marry someone with a significantly lower level of education and socio-economic status.

I think gross old guys on wife 3+ are looking for that, but they also usually get foreign wives from developing countries. Most college educated men who have been upper middle class+ for a few generations would never wife up the poor but cute waitress, day care worker, etc. Their lives would, in all likelihood, never interact to any significant degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were about 160 sisters in my sorority over 20 years ago. Looking back, while some of the prettiest classic beauty sisters married well, frankly, many of them did not. They frequently complain about finances, many are on second marriages, and some are single divorcees dating much older men. A handful never married and have no children – they seem to have successful careers. With the benefit of hindsight, who seems to have married the best? As crazy as this probably sounds, I double-checked this on Facebook last night and literally all of my sisters who went to ritzy private day schools and boarding schools married well. Literally 100%. All of them are married to either successful MDs, law partners, business executives, or entrepreneurs. No divorces. All of them have children. They live in elegant homes, especially for our age range, in premier neighborhoods. And for the sake of total honestly, these sisters were and are largely average appearance-wise. I am not saying that to be cruel or out of jealously, I was also average if not below average for our chapter, and I went to public school.

Is there something to this?

You need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many first kids (presidential) are doing nearly as well as their fathers? Did you see any work of significance?

Beau Biden had accomplishments, and Barbara Bush seems to be doing good things in public health

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many first kids (presidential) are doing nearly as well as their fathers? Did you see any work of significance?

Well, if one of your parents is President, you're going to have a tough time topping their accomplishments. That's a pretty high bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many first kids (presidential) are doing nearly as well as their fathers? Did you see any work of significance?

Doing nearly as “well” as…Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many first kids (presidential) are doing nearly as well as their fathers? Did you see any work of significance?

Well, if one of your parents is President, you're going to have a tough time topping their accomplishments. That's a pretty high bar.

One of the advantages to being rich is that you can buy your child time away from the real world

Chelsea Clinton has a laundry list of degrees; perpetual student. Kushner has at least 3. The Obama girls spent 5 years each from high school graduation to college graduation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an expensive private school that catered to political families and all the men went on to marry equally educated, well-traveled, bilingual women. They aren’t particularly beautiful women but they share the same life experiences and fit in their families. This is a well-studied phenomenon btw, assortative mating is the reason for increasing, permanent gaps in IQ distribution across the population.

This is obvious basically everywhere except on DCUM.

DCUM is basically the only place I've seen where men push this, "guys like a happy, pretty barista from a trailer park who flatters them over someone nice and similarly educated from a good background" narrative.

Which I find particularly weird in DC, which in my circles is like THE land of assortative mating. Besides IQ, it's also why class mobility is at an all time low. Statistically, no, men are not marrying the baristas and high school educated secretaries no matter how many here crow about it being the law of the land. It doesn't bear out in reality.

When that topic comes up it’s not that men marry baristas. But it’s not that they are getting excited over the law partner or the ceo either. They are marrying women from good backgrounds that have interesting or flexible careers, but don’t bat an eyelid if they quit later to be SAHMs if they are elite men.

I think it often settles with the above, but the barista narrative is still very prevalent despite it being basically a fairy tale. I agree with you, it is not uncommon for people to marry others of similar backgrounds who make different career decisions nor are people turned on by a CEO per se, but those people were generally at some point fairly "equal" in status even if they divided labor up differently long term.

I do suspect a lot of the DCUM men pushing the barista narrative are the same guys who drone on and on about being in their 50s, super hot and desirable and how undergrads just love boning them because they are so much better than other options. Maybe they have an outsized presence here, but again, I also don't see a ton of this personally.

Or they are women who saw Pretty Women and still hang on to the fantasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an expensive private school that catered to political families and all the men went on to marry equally educated, well-traveled, bilingual women. They aren’t particularly beautiful women but they share the same life experiences and fit in their families. This is a well-studied phenomenon btw, assortative mating is the reason for increasing, permanent gaps in IQ distribution across the population.

This is obvious basically everywhere except on DCUM.

DCUM is basically the only place I've seen where men push this, "guys like a happy, pretty barista from a trailer park who flatters them over someone nice and similarly educated from a good background" narrative.

Which I find particularly weird in DC, which in my circles is like THE land of assortative mating. Besides IQ, it's also why class mobility is at an all time low. Statistically, no, men are not marrying the baristas and high school educated secretaries no matter how many here crow about it being the law of the land. It doesn't bear out in reality.

I can't think of any professional I know who married someone who didn't have at least a college degree. Back before women started attending college in large numbers, it was common for, say, a lawyer to marry a secretary. That hasn't really been a thing for several generations now.

It's bizarre that anyone would claim that a significant number of men are looking to marry someone with a significantly lower level of education and socio-economic status.

I think gross old guys on wife 3+ are looking for that, but they also usually get foreign wives from developing countries. Most college educated men who have been upper middle class+ for a few generations would never wife up the poor but cute waitress, day care worker, etc. Their lives would, in all likelihood, never interact to any significant degree.

That's a good point. And it's really frowned upon, if not explicitly against company rules, to fraternize with someone on a lower corporate rung. Sure, in the Mad Men era, executives could dip into the secretary pool, but that's a no-no these days.