431
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Vance also seemed to agree when a podcast host suggested that having grandparents help raise children was a ‘weird, unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman’

JD Vance agreed with the notion that raising grandchildren was “the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female,” an unearthed 2020 podcast shows.

Vance also seemed to concur when the host suggested that having grandparents help raise children was a “weird, unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman.”

It's the latest in comments from the Republican nominee for vice president about women and "traditional" roles that have drawn ire. Vance has faced intense criticism in recent weeks for previous sexist comments, including his remarks about "cat ladies."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

To be fair, this is a legitimate scientific hypothesis (the Grandmother Hypothesis) that attempts to explain why human females, unlike almost every other species, have a lifespan that outlasts their reproductive cycle. It's just hypothesis, and even if it's correct, drawing conclusions about women's role in modern society based on a trait we developed before agriculture is just stupid, but what he's saying isn't as crazy as the headline is implying.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

“It takes a village”

The single family unit isolated from outside help, whether it be community or extended family, while raising children is a pretty modern phenomenon.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, pretty much nothing in our biology has prepared us for late stage capitalism.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

evolutionary biology doesn't dictate my purpose as a man, nor should it dictate the purpose of a woman.

we're not raping and murder machines and they're not child rearing machines.

there's no "to be fair"

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

evolutionary biology doesn't dictate my purpose as a man, nor should it dictate the purpose of a woman.

Maybe you should have read all the way to my second sentence, where I made that exact point.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

I did, and I'm just adding to it to say that there's no reason to try to be charitable here.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

There absolutely is. Vance is describing how his mother-in-law took a sabbatical to help with their first child, and this specific interaction becomes the focus of the article:

“That’s the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female in theory,” Weinstein said at the time.

“Yes,” Vance agreed.

That's...mostly correct. He should has said, "hypothesis," instead of, "theory," and it's certainly oversimplification, but otherwise, that's a correct assessment of the Grandmother Hypothesis.

Now, it's fucking weird to apply that hypothesis to modern society. It's very strange how Vance can only analyze his mother-in-laws actions through the lens of traditional family values vs. free market capitalism. It's also pretty telling that Vance ignores the racist comment the interviewer makes when he calls this, "a weird, unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman." But the article glossed over those comments and goes out of its way to make the, "postmenopausal women," statement sound crazy, without even acknowledging the Grandmother Hypothesis.

It'd be like if Vance said, "You know, if multiverse theory is correct, there may be an Earth where couches have vaginas," and I wrote an article about how Vance has this crazy belief that there's more than one Earth. That's actually not that crazy, and it really shouldn't be the focus.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

That's fair, I don't think the nuance really changes how inappropriate his comments are (nor do you) but perhaps I was too harsh to say there's no need to be charitable.

He's a scumbag regardless, and I could understand not confronting the other person in the moment but afaik he hasn't distanced himself from these comments since, but you weren't making excuses for him as my reaction implied.

[-] Shou@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Males absolutely are. The reason men aren't, is because we couldn't afford the infanticide, conflict and lack of genetic diversity. We have a lot of adaptations to navigate and reduce male aggression. From women killing their own newborns, to periods and ambryonic wasting, to monogamy, to a great theory of mind, to vindictiveness, to working together, to crying/smiling... it goes on.

The only reason you aren't like the average ape, is because men adopted female ape behaviour. Ever read about just how much estrogens influence the development of the human brain? It gives us a lot of aspects that makes humans cool.

Male apes couldn't care less about their offspring, but men express prolactin after their baby is born in order to take care of it. It's why you don't try to maul other men to be the only option left. It's why rape is actually pretty rare in humans. It's why rape is almost exclusively a matter of exerting power. Rather than a reproductibe strategy.

Men and women outlast their reproductive years. Though it is harder to reduce men's fertility completely, it still occurs in the form of andropause. Since count and quality are important for sucess. If this wasn't the case, men wouldn't live as long as they do. (Just look at orca's) Death is needed to prevent parents competing with their own offspring. It's why we age.

this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
431 points (96.1% liked)

News

23634 readers
2132 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS