Star
Gold Member
- Apr 5, 2009
- 2,532
- 614
- 190
"Indeed, Williamsons story is such an effective rebuttal of evo-psych nonsense, its hard not to wonder if National Review has just trolled itself. Or us." ~ David Futrelle
Macho sperm?
Gosh, I didn't even know that conservative rags like the National Review believed in the science of evolution -- my bad!
National Review: Hey, ladies! Romneys a total rich guy alpha. Why arent you lining up for some of that? « man boobz
National Review has delivered unto us a puckishly paleoconservative cover story with a very Redditesque headline: Like a Boss. Which is perhaps appropriate, in that the story that goes with the headline uses the faux logic of evolutionary psychology (always popular on Reddit) in order to argue that Romney, a true alpha male, should be getting something like 100% of the female vote rather than trailing Obama by ten percent in this rather important demographic.
The article, by Kevin D. Williamson no, not the Dawsons Creek dude starts off terrible:
So why arent the ladies lining up for him?
Well, Williamson suggests that despite his wealth, Romney doesnt act as rich as he really is. Indeed, hes been known to ride coach on airlines! Williamson urges Romney to fully embrace his inner pimp, because Americans love rich people.
Still, despite Romneys failure to live as large as he could, given the amount of money hes got in the bank, Williamson still thinks hes pretty darn alpha:
Could it be that people dont actually act the way that the cavemen and/or animals in evolutionary psychology just-do stories do? That, perhaps, those stories are bullshit?
✄snip>
Macho sperm?
Gosh, I didn't even know that conservative rags like the National Review believed in the science of evolution -- my bad!
National Review: Hey, ladies! Romneys a total rich guy alpha. Why arent you lining up for some of that? « man boobz
National Review has delivered unto us a puckishly paleoconservative cover story with a very Redditesque headline: Like a Boss. Which is perhaps appropriate, in that the story that goes with the headline uses the faux logic of evolutionary psychology (always popular on Reddit) in order to argue that Romney, a true alpha male, should be getting something like 100% of the female vote rather than trailing Obama by ten percent in this rather important demographic.
The article, by Kevin D. Williamson no, not the Dawsons Creek dude starts off terrible:
What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status thus the commonness of younger womens pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse.
And it only gets worse from there.
The Demi MooreAshton Kutcher model is an exception the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men.
So, yeah. As Williamson evidently figures it, Romney oozes status, so therefore women should adore him. No, really.
You want off-the-charts status? Check out the curriculum vitae of one Willard M. Romney: $200 million in the bank (and a hell of a lot more if he didnt give so much away), apex alpha executive, CEO, chairman of the board, governor, bishop, boss of everything hes ever touched.
Heck, even his sperm is macho:
It is a curious scientific fact
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.
But Obama, meanwhile, has got the sperm of a girly man:
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
With so much going for him, Williamson wonders, why isnt Romney doing better with the ladies?
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obamas vote.
Because all women are inherently golddiggers. Its SCIENCE!
Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romneys net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obamas net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romneys tax bill in a good year. If he hadnt given away so much money to his church, charities, and grandkids, Mitt Romney would have more money than Jay-Z.
Hes big pimpin, yo!
So why arent the ladies lining up for him?
Well, Williamson suggests that despite his wealth, Romney doesnt act as rich as he really is. Indeed, hes been known to ride coach on airlines! Williamson urges Romney to fully embrace his inner pimp, because Americans love rich people.
Still, despite Romneys failure to live as large as he could, given the amount of money hes got in the bank, Williamson still thinks hes pretty darn alpha:
Look at his fat stacks. Look at that mess of sons and grandchildren. Look at a picture of Ann Romney on her wedding day and that cocky smirk on his face. What exactly has Mitt Romney got to be insecure about?
A lot, really. Do you actually follow the news? If Americans particularly American women love rich guy alphas so much, theres not a lot of evidence of this in the current presidential race. Heck, every time Romney acts like the rich person he is you may recall his comments about his good buddies the NASCAR team owners he becomes the butt of jokes.
Could it be that people dont actually act the way that the cavemen and/or animals in evolutionary psychology just-do stories do? That, perhaps, those stories are bullshit?
✄snip>