It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male.
Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote.
50 comments
I wonder what he makes of Forbes billionaire list families that only have daughters? 60% doesn't sound like every single unit is going to have a son within.
Besides, why is he so fussy about status? What is it about the low-status that's unworthy about them? Weakness? Hardly. Nietzsche himself saw that the weak weren't hopeless--his example was a sickly son in a warrior culture. If he wasn't abandoned, then while remaining behind in the camps or towns, he could dedicate himself to study behind the bulwark of warriors on campaign or raids, and thus get insights that a constantly fighting warrior could never find. Share those insights with the rest of those people, and watch the people benefit greatly.
Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters
Higher statistical chance of his younger sons being gay.
What do you think of that?
Besides, why is he so fussy about status? What is it about the low-status that's unworthy about them?
@Skyknight : the current crop of conservatives (read: right-wing authoritarians) are desperate to be part of a hierarchical power structure based on tradition and fall all over themselves to fellate anyone with more money and power than they have. That's why the obessession with the trappings of status.
"High-status animals"? ??? There are no animals on the Forbes billionaire list. Anyway, just because some irrelevant statistics (assuming you haven't just pulled them out of your ass) say that billionaires are slightly more likely to have sons, why does it follow that people should vote for a billionaire? Or a millionaire for that matter? You sir, are a blithering nincompoop.
"From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote."
Insulting toward women voters.
Kevin D. Williamson want to manage the state as a pack of animals.
I believed they wanted to send the society back to the Middle Age but, in fact, they want to send the society back before the paleolithic .
Both Romney and Obama are "high-status animals", stupid. Plus, statistics concerns groups of people or animals, they can't be used on an individual level.
From an evolutionary point of view, Romney has already reproduced, and is no longer useful. From an evolutionary point of view you need BOTH males AND females, and as males can impregnate several females per day, but it takes nine months for human females to produce an offspring, it's better to have more females than males, than the other way around. Which is what you can see in "high-status animals" if you don't look at birth figures, but at reproductive age figures. More males are born, but more females survive to puberty. Our advanced medical science has skewered this somewhat, and many males who would have died in infancy fifty, or even twenty, years ago, now survive to adulthood.
Political votes have very little to do with biology and species survival, ya know.
The problem is with this arguemnt is that even if you accept the pop evolutionary psychology argument that women always want to be shagged by high status males, THIS STILL MAKES NO SENSE.
Any animal breeder will tell you that younger sires father more males (because Y-bearing sperm are faster swimmers) while older ones sire more females (because Y sperm deteriorate faster with the age of the sire). Other than that, there are both animals and men who produce mostly one or the other kind of sperm.
"From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote."
Where do you people come up with this stuff?
This is a load of fail, but I have to ask: did anyone check if the Forbes list actually has 60% male children?
Checking the top 15, I was only able to immediately find the genders of the children of 11 of them. The breakdown was (50 ± 18) %, so 60% isn't excluded, but it is unlikely.
This bullshit is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology and on an unsupported assertion that seems like to be a lie.
If someone can find the data for the rest of the list and get better statistics, that could be useful.
Oh, you colossal imbecile. There is a nearly perfect 50:50 chance that your child will be male or female, and having one or the other is meaningless to the father's masculinity because A) it's random and B) the process of meiosis produces both kinds in equal abundance.
Having read the OP, the only word I can think of is "hogwash". Total, unadulterated bullshit.
Oh yes, btw, educated people try to avoid silly abbreviations like "Homo sap". That's so 8th grade. When speaking with the adults, please say "homo sapiens sapiens".
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
My father-in-law had three daughters. He's more a man than you'll ever be.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it.
Except for the pesky little fact that the Republican platform tends to be anti-women.
What's telling from this bit of brain-tripe is that he assumes women vote for the guy they want to have sex with. He misses the possibility they may have other motivations.
Also as he's falling all over himself to declare Mitt a Manly Man, me thinks Kevin should see if those walls closing in belong to a closet.
@The Crimson Ghost
Don't worry. If Obama gets re-elected, you'll see a lot more of this. This post will start to look more and more rational by the day, as Teabaggers shake off what little reason they have left in them, finally losing their minds to the point where having an old man arguing with an empty chair at their national convention will seem sensible.
Oh, wait. That already happened.
Silly me, I'm more concerned about a candidate's ability to fix the economy and regain some respect in the eyes of the world than I am about their Y chromosome count.
Whatever was I thinking? Oh wait, it's because I was thinking.
"From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100% of the female vote."
Why, because YOU assume males are superior, you think women feel the same way? From "an evolutionary point of view", it would be stupid and self-destructive on the part of women to feel that way, because it takes both males and females to ensure survival of the species.
Maybe you should check in with rural China, where girl babies have been murdered in such high numbers that many "superior" boys are now left with no one to marry or are actually marrying their own sisters (who are usually forced into it, BTW) to have a mate, if you think girls are so superfluous.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it.
Because supposed evolutionary superiority trumps the fact that he wants to, among other things, take away my right to choose what happens to MY body because my choice might be against HIS beliefs. Please find a fire and die in it.
"Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. "
Interesting, then, that he doesn't. It's almost as if the rest of society have progressed beyond basic lust and primitive knee-jerk reactions, that people base their voting platforms on issues and priorities and what they want their country to be like, and see Mitt Romney as leading it in a bad direction, even if he does have lots of children.
Although I suppose you wouldn't know much about that, would you?
>"It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis "
Okay, stop. If it's a hypothesis, then it's still being tested. It is neither theory nor fact (yet).
>"...high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring"
Henry VIII was pretty high-status, yet had two daughters to one son. He went through three different women to get that son, who died by the age of 16. Ultimately, it would be one of his daughters, Elizabeth, that would bring a long era of peace and prosperity to England.
...I guess Henry deserves a cardigan and Fallopian tubes?
National Review, lol. Clinton also had a daughter and kicked your asses.
IMO anyone who thinks Romney has more sex appeal than Obama is on crack. He's like an asexual robot.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
