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.”

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      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.

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.