While appearing on “The Portal” podcast in April 2020, Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) agreed with host Eric Weinstein’s claim that “postmenopausal females” exist just to help take care of children.
The grandmother hypothesis is actually a thing in human evolutionary biology, with some studies suggesting that having a grandmother helped ensure survival of her grandchildren. After all, humans are the only primates who go through menopause, and we also have much more complicated birthing and longer child rearing periods.
But it has some significant criticisms, and like most uses of evolutionary biology it ignores the fact that we no longer spend our days walking naked in nature and eating wild edibles.
Thank you! I’ve read a few articles saying the same, and it makes sense. My wife is well past menopause and has been a great asset to her children and grandchildren. I imagine such relationships were far more important to our ancestors, even recent generations.
But FFS, saying shit like this out loud, given his past statements… My god the man can’t read the room. Does he really imagine this is winning hearts and minds?!
Exactly: saying that postmenopausal females contributing to childcare is a purpose, in an evolutionary biology context, is one thing. Saying it’s their “whole” purpose is entirely another. And doing the latter in a political context? Holy shit, that’s like a Chinese military parade’s worth of red flags.
it just reminds me when I was five I was told molars are for chewing plants so I started chewing on plants in my yard until somebody stopped me. Except JD Vance is like a 50 yr old man who hears something like a speculative theory about fitness is like “this sounds like the truth better make it into a law or something”.
it ignores the fact that we no longer spend our days naked through walking in nature and eating wild edibles.
Yes, we have advanced brains, and with it comes the ability to spit in evolution’s eye and do whatever TF we want. Appealing to nature is never a good argument. If it were, I’d expect the person saying it to go hunt sewer rats for their next meal.
I’ve read a few hypothesis regarding our gay population. You have to ask yourself why a fair chunk of the population that doesn’t reproduce is/was anything but a detriment. This is, I think, why so many view homosexuality as unnatural. (Y’all. Spare me the evidence of mammalian homosexuality, I am well aware.)
A moment’s thought may clear things up. We have a small percentage of people who are not burdened with child care, yet are able to contribute to the tribe. Just like a grandmother? Gays are a force multiplier.
So no, I’m fine with appeals to nature, given context and education. Helps us to understand who we are and how we ended up as we are.
(For those that may not get the force multiplier statement, I’m drunk and want to write more!)
Imagine you’re trying to survive in a group that consists or 20 hetero couples. Maybe a woman or two is pregnant, maybe there are already kids tagging along. As a cis male, bring on the gays! They’re happy screwing each other, no jealousy issues from the majority of us, no fights that reduce our fitness. A gay man can haul just as much firewood as I. A gay woman can feed a child (even lactating without children of her own!) as well as any other. Why the hell would you not wants gays in your group?
Tying being gay to evolution would require it to genetic, which isn’t the case. Additionally, if it was, it would likely select itself out of existence because helping other people raise children may be great for the community and humanity as a whole, but negatively impacts passing down your own genetics, which is counter to the mechanism of evolution.
same sex coupling happens a lot in nature, especially in social animals. I think its often that communities benefit from having a number of extra adults nearby to socialize stray children when their parents are eaten and it reduces often violent contests for heirarchies. so maybe its more likely to happen in heirarchical societies like monarchies or oligarchies, or ones with extensive private property rules.
Or just to rephrase it, communities benefit from having certain ratios of adults to children and gay coupling is one of many evolutionary tools to help adjust that.
The grandmother hypothesis is actually a thing in human evolutionary biology, with some studies suggesting that having a grandmother helped ensure survival of her grandchildren. After all, humans are the only primates who go through menopause, and we also have much more complicated birthing and longer child rearing periods.
But it has some significant criticisms, and like most uses of evolutionary biology it ignores the fact that we no longer spend our days walking naked in nature and eating wild edibles.
Thank you! I’ve read a few articles saying the same, and it makes sense. My wife is well past menopause and has been a great asset to her children and grandchildren. I imagine such relationships were far more important to our ancestors, even recent generations.
But FFS, saying shit like this out loud, given his past statements… My god the man can’t read the room. Does he really imagine this is winning hearts and minds?!
Exactly: saying that postmenopausal females contributing to childcare is a purpose, in an evolutionary biology context, is one thing. Saying it’s their “whole” purpose is entirely another. And doing the latter in a political context? Holy shit, that’s like a Chinese military parade’s worth of red flags.
Well, he’s a Senator,.so lots of folks presumably happy with this weird shit.
deleted by creator
it just reminds me when I was five I was told molars are for chewing plants so I started chewing on plants in my yard until somebody stopped me. Except JD Vance is like a 50 yr old man who hears something like a speculative theory about fitness is like “this sounds like the truth better make it into a law or something”.
Using evolutionary biology to tell people what to do is something these chuds do all the time
Yes, we have advanced brains, and with it comes the ability to spit in evolution’s eye and do whatever TF we want. Appealing to nature is never a good argument. If it were, I’d expect the person saying it to go hunt sewer rats for their next meal.
I’ve read a few hypothesis regarding our gay population. You have to ask yourself why a fair chunk of the population that doesn’t reproduce is/was anything but a detriment. This is, I think, why so many view homosexuality as unnatural. (Y’all. Spare me the evidence of mammalian homosexuality, I am well aware.)
A moment’s thought may clear things up. We have a small percentage of people who are not burdened with child care, yet are able to contribute to the tribe. Just like a grandmother? Gays are a force multiplier.
So no, I’m fine with appeals to nature, given context and education. Helps us to understand who we are and how we ended up as we are.
(For those that may not get the force multiplier statement, I’m drunk and want to write more!)
Imagine you’re trying to survive in a group that consists or 20 hetero couples. Maybe a woman or two is pregnant, maybe there are already kids tagging along. As a cis male, bring on the gays! They’re happy screwing each other, no jealousy issues from the majority of us, no fights that reduce our fitness. A gay man can haul just as much firewood as I. A gay woman can feed a child (even lactating without children of her own!) as well as any other. Why the hell would you not wants gays in your group?
Tying being gay to evolution would require it to genetic, which isn’t the case. Additionally, if it was, it would likely select itself out of existence because helping other people raise children may be great for the community and humanity as a whole, but negatively impacts passing down your own genetics, which is counter to the mechanism of evolution.
same sex coupling happens a lot in nature, especially in social animals. I think its often that communities benefit from having a number of extra adults nearby to socialize stray children when their parents are eaten and it reduces often violent contests for heirarchies. so maybe its more likely to happen in heirarchical societies like monarchies or oligarchies, or ones with extensive private property rules.
Or just to rephrase it, communities benefit from having certain ratios of adults to children and gay coupling is one of many evolutionary tools to help adjust that.