Vance came in for heat for agreeing that “the post-menopausal female exists to raise grandchildren”
(he was agreeing with Thiel-adjacent full-of-himself superbrain Eric Weinstein in an interview)
I’ve seen this theory of evolutionary biology a lot – it explains why females live decades beyond their reproductive years, when most animals die fairly soon after. As theories go, sure why not.
Vance is getting a kicking for going along with Weinstein’s broad statement, a theory stated as fact
I don’t like Vance and am happy to see him flail. I also don’t like media pile-ons based on misconstruing context, it further poisons the water.
Not a JD fan by any measure, but this is not something to get worked up about.
(I find it helpful in conversations to tell women how they should feel about things BTW…)
Being serious now, it’s one thing to make a definitive statement and another to generally agree with an idea being expressed even if you would choose different language to express it. Mothers generally enjoy being grandmothers; that isn’t controversial. They typically help out with child rearing when possible. American families are probably not the norm when it comes to living arrangements in these scenarios, in that we tend to cohabitate with grandparents less than other cultures around the world. I don’t know if that’s true of Indian families but I suspect it is.
If I were to say “grandmothers live for that” rather than “the post-menopausal female exists to raise grandchildren” no one would take offense. Stated in the authoritative clinical way in which it was expressed, among men who seem to think they know more about women than women do, it hits a little differently.
I am sort of surprised that Vance isn’t a creationist. If one is discussing the value from an evolutionary perspective of living past child bearing age, then one has to buy into the idea of human evolution.
Wienstein is coming at that as purely an evolutionary biology perspective and I think it is super interesting to theorize and try to understand how humans evolved. The male version of that is why males live so much longer after their testosterone levels fall off the cliff and why it evolved that way as a favorable trait. Humans evolved in communal groups. It makes great sense that older non fertile people developed to have a meaningful and productive role in groups and the alpha survival of those tribes, vs maybe other communal groups that cast out non fertile or non virile members to die.
But that has little to do with how current society is or be misconstrued into suggesting what an individuals role should be in today’s society.
Active grandparenting, for both, is a treat that has many benefits for all 3 generations. I am giving him a huge pass here. There is a vitality to be had and a bunch of smiles and laughs.
I am sort of surprised that Vance isn’t a creationist. If one is discussing the value from an evolutionary perspective of living past child bearing age, then one has to buy into the idea of human evolution.
Related, l would love to hear Vance’s views on why human societies have always had so many gay people. Biologists say that it ain’t just chance, i.e., there are solid evolutionary reasons that the numbers are so high.
At least half the US population of males beyond 50 are likely one or two paychecks away from severe financial distress. They likelihood of them attracting a quality woman to have children with is close to zero. It really is only for a few well off men. Beyond 50 the majority of men don’t have much of a reproductive destiny. There probably are lots of men who can delude themselves into thinking that they might though.
It is something like three or four percent. Is that really a lot. And do we really know what percentage of the population was gay 300 years ago? It would be a good trick if we did. Is there a gay gene?
Vance came in for heat for agreeing that “the post-menopausal female exists to raise grandchildren”
(he was agreeing with Thiel-adjacent full-of-himself superbrain Eric Weinstein in an interview)
I’ve seen this theory of evolutionary biology a lot – it explains why females live decades beyond their reproductive years, when most animals die fairly soon after. As theories go, sure why not.
Vance is getting a kicking for going along with Weinstein’s broad statement, a theory stated as fact
I don’t like Vance and am happy to see him flail. I also don’t like media pile-ons based on misconstruing context, it further poisons the water.
so does he deserve it – all’s fair in politics?
The caveat is that most of us no longer live under circumstances where having post-menopausal females around to help raise grandchildren is an economic benefit if not necessity since we aren’t living as hunter-gatherers or even subsistence farmers.
Is if he wasn’t trying to imply that that is what post menopausal women should be doing then I don’t see any harm in agreeing with a fairly widely accepted theory.
It is something like three or four percent.Is that really a lotYes, in an evolutionary sense, that is a huge number. It means that it is an attribute that is being actively selected for. Don’t take my word for it, read what evolutionary biologists say.
And do we really know what percentage of the population was gay 300 years ago? It would be a good trick if we did.Seeing as l did not live 300 years ago, l personally do not know. But biologists have a good idea. Based on literature, historical accounts, and other sources, it is pretty clear that in many human societies, gay people have been notable and not rare for a long, long time in human history.
You are a trained doctor right? I am surprised you’re not educating us about all of this.
Vance came in for heat for agreeing that “the post-menopausal female exists to raise grandchildren”
(he was agreeing with Thiel-adjacent full-of-himself superbrain Eric Weinstein in an interview)
Damn, that is quite an article. For one, l never knew that Vance was raised by his wonderful grandparents. And this:
“In his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, Vance writes that his grandfather was a “violent drunk†and his grandmother a “violent non-drunk.†In one anecdote, he informs readers that his grandmother once tried to kill his grandfather by pouring gasoline all over him when he was sleeping and dropping a lit match on his chest.”
I think it’s fairly safe to say there is no gay gene. I doubt there is any gene for any behavior, there are genes that probably predispose us to behave in one way or another but culture plays an overwhelming role in determining our behavior.
I am sort of surprised that Vance isn’t a creationist. If one is discussing the value from an evolutionary perspective of living past child bearing age, then one has to buy into the idea of human evolution.
Related, l would love to hear Vance’s views on why human societies have always had so many gay people. Biologists say that it ain’t just chance, i.e., there are solid evolutionary reasons that the numbers are so high.
I don’t think there are “solid” reasons, from what ive read. It is a puzzle and evolutionary biologists have theorized as to why. Strictly speaking, evolution did not select homosexuality or “gay”, it selected bisexuality as a possible minor trait.
But males will basically f$%@ anything anywhere anytime. Any hole, any hand, any sock, any pillow or any couch. And do it with vigor and high frequency.
I am sort of surprised that Vance isn’t a creationist. If one is discussing the value from an evolutionary perspective of living past child bearing age, then one has to buy into the idea of human evolution.Related, l would love to hear Vance’s views on why human societies have always had so many gay people. Biologists say that it ain’t just chance, i.e., there are solid evolutionary reasons that the numbers are so high.l don’t think there are “solid” reasons, from what ive read. It is a puzzle and evolutionary biologists have theorized as to why. Strictly speaking, evolution did not select homosexuality or “gay”, it selected bisexuality as a possible minor trait.
You make interesting, if totally unsupported, assertions. Also, I assume you don’t know many gay people? The ones l know and have worked with over the years are as NON bisexual as humanly possible. They are only attracted to their own gender. Also, it is not a huge puzzle, as homosexual behavior is also seen in the animal kingdom.
I kinda guessed that discussing homosexuality as a trait that is actively selected for in human evolution would hit a nerve with a few folks.
Stop being dramatic, we are having a discussion. There are no nerves being struck by anyone ive seen post except maybe you. You are also not making any supported claims.
We are talking evolution here. Logic says that strictly homosexual individuals would not pass on that confined predilection, because you know you have to have sex with the opposite sex to pass along that kind of trait.
I also accept there are many people in today’s society that have strict homosexual preferrence and/or hard coded wiring. No judgment or issues with it from me.
Maybe sexual preference is on a scale with all of us, and absolute homosexual preference is always a possible dice role on that gradient as a possibility.
Evolution also does not have a plan, only consequences in response to pressure. If there is no evolutionary consequence to bisexuality there’s no reason for it to exist, or not exist. Given the complexity of the human organism, male and female common embryological origin, and everything else we know (and don’t) about the mind, homosexuality is as predictable as harmless vestigial limbs or organs.
I am sort of surprised that Vance isn’t a creationist. If one is discussing the value from an evolutionary perspective of living past child bearing age, then one has to buy into the idea of human evolution.Related, l would love to hear Vance’s views on why human societies have always had so many gay people. Biologists say that it ain’t just chance, i.e., there are solid evolutionary reasons that the numbers are so high.l don’t think there are “solid” reasons, from what ive read. It is a puzzle and evolutionary biologists have theorized as to why. Strictly speaking, evolution did not select homosexuality or “gay”, it selected bisexuality as a possible minor trait.
You make interesting, if totally unsupported, assertions. Also, I assume you don’t know many gay people? The ones l know and have worked with over the years are as NON bisexual as humanly possible. They are only attracted to their own gender. Also, it is not a huge puzzle, as homosexual behavior is also seen in the animal kingdom.
I kinda guessed that discussing homosexuality as a trait that is actively selected for in human evolution would hit a nerve with a few folks.
Yes but we nowadays have homosexual as an identity, hard to know if that would have been the case in the past, maybe it was in some cultures but not in others. I know I’ve heard it said that in ancient Rome and Greece there was no such thing despite gay sex being quite common.
