Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 89290



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.


Kevin D. Williamson, National Review 49 Comments [9/1/2012 6:48:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 77
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Skyknight

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.

9/1/2012 7:13:04 PM

Percy Q. Shunn

This dumbfuck had two daughters (zero sons) as well... yet you voted for him twice.


9/1/2012 7:14:28 PM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

This must be National Misogyny Month. How'd I miss it?

9/1/2012 7:51:05 PM

Philbert McAdamia

@Skyknight
What is it about the low-status that's unworthy about them?

Romney has stolen/inherited so much money that republican Jesus loves him best.

9/1/2012 8:02:29 PM

Oh My Dog!

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?

9/1/2012 9:49:29 PM

Tempus

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.

9/2/2012 12:30:36 AM

michael3ov

And his oldest son is sterile. What does that say about Willard?


9/2/2012 1:10:49 AM

Leighton Buzzard

Makes sense only if the Presidency is hereditary.

9/2/2012 1:14:32 AM

gravematter

"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.

9/2/2012 2:06:20 AM

Robespierre

There is something creepy about a man celebrating the high status and manliness of another man. It's like, I dunno, vicarious tough-guy-ism.

9/2/2012 2:32:57 AM

JeanP

"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.

9/2/2012 3:16:02 AM

Quantum Mechanic

idiot

9/2/2012 3:17:53 AM

Ebon

I'm sure that made sense in your head but it makes zero sense for us out here in reality.

9/2/2012 3:35:51 AM

farpadokly

I 'member reading this a week or so ago. Pure masochistic bully worship.

9/2/2012 3:47:11 AM

Swede

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.

9/2/2012 4:41:35 AM

Often Partisan

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.
I mean, even on his own premisses this guy is wrong. That's some fail, right there.

9/2/2012 5:08:34 AM

WWWWolf

Do the words "sample size" mean anything to you? Oh, wait, fundamentalist. Of course not.

9/2/2012 5:14:09 AM

Reynardine

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.

9/2/2012 7:17:18 AM

Horsefeathers

"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?

9/2/2012 7:24:20 AM

Evilution Teacher

uh, wat?

9/2/2012 7:25:11 AM

John_in_Oz

Failed attempted humour is still attempted humour. Not Fundy.
Wouldn't belong here except for the darnedist thing, how ridiculous he makes himself appear by proposing Romeny would beat Obama in a sex appeal contest.

9/2/2012 7:30:51 AM



Steve Forbes has five daughters and zero sons - and he's about as "high status" as anyone can be.

9/2/2012 7:30:57 AM

Raised by Horses

Oh, look. It's trying to do science. How adorable.

9/2/2012 7:47:43 AM

Mister Spak

Special Ed Bush? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes

9/2/2012 8:25:30 AM

Anon

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.


9/2/2012 9:52:33 AM
1 2