One of the more interesting facets of the current american election cycle is just how little enthusiasm the vast inhuman republican party machine has for its designated candidate.

It adds a certain ludicrousness to events, especially when that negatively enthused inhuman party machine has to produce pro-romney guff. And remember that there are literally employment contracts that legally require the various human vacuum tubes in the republican political machine to fluff Romney.

Which I assume is why someone writes nonsense like this:

It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) 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. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

I've skipped over the bits where the writer, in a rather convoluted attempt to deny the existence of granny shaggers, explicitly calls Mitt Romney a bishop. Because wut.

But the evo-psychical bit was what caught my eye. For those who don't know, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis is the one that runs from the observation that red deer does in "good condition" (read: better fed/lower parasite load than their peers, which in some species thereby donates the higher social status of the animal) tend to give birth to disproportionately more male offspring than female – a fact that then leads to a supposition that this is an evolved trait, wherein successful mothers essentially zerg rush their genes across the local population via male offspring, who can obviously get multiple partners pregnant while female mammals experience a reproductive bottle neck due to the biological fact of pregnancy.

The trouble of course in applying all this to humans, especially to a human who believes that all sexual relationships should happen within marriages and also that marriage is naturally and normally only between one man and one woman, is of course the issue of gender.

Note that in my explanation of the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis, I've talked in terms of male and female animals while the vacuum-tube is instead rather coy about specifying the sex of the "high status" animals who give birth preferentially to male children... because obviously it's female animals that actually provide evidence for the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis, in large part because zoologists have a hard time verifying the paternity of animals while the maternity is obvious. But so married to his weird attempt to gve "scientific" support for this notion that Mitt Romney possesses superlatively manly virility, that not only do we get this weird sexless discussion of breeding patterns when the sexes of the breeders in question matters quite a lot, but that this all then leads into an assertion that Mitt Romney, in some Kronar-esque (nsfw) fashion, has given birth to 5 sons.

The slight problem is that, as with any other attempt by republican pundits to find a criteria by which to judge Romney and find him acceptable to vote for (not an easy task when core republican voters are fundamentalist protestants and their candidate is a wooden mormon), you hit the snag that there is always someone nearby who better fits whatever criteria you try to make Mittens Romney fit, with left-conservatism or mormonism it was Huntsman, with business history and sheer unashamed "I am a rich man and that's great"-titude it was Herman Cain, for woman hating funditarianism it was Santorum, for "generic republican candidate"-titude it was Perry, for political experience it was Bachmann, and for reproductive and sheer Boss-dominance it is of course Ann Romney.

Because remember; The logic here is that the number of male children = dominance BECAUSE, evopsych says that dominant females give birth to more male offspring, and remembering from evolutionary biology 101 that male offspring are ultimately nothing but competition for their still fertile fathers, evopsych logic dictates that male doms should produce more female offspring if they had control of sex ratio. However, as the female of the species is the one detirmining the sex of the offspring, and as the social position of the mother is what ultimately detirmines the sex ratio of offspring, the only mechanism by which fathers could affect the sex ratio is to so thoroughly dominate their female mates that they actually cause their mates to experience a loss in social standing that makes them preferentially produce girls.*

Which leads us to my main counter-point to the vacuum tube's piece:

Ann Romney is the Alpha Mammal of the Romney household and Mitt Romney is her omega bitch.

Now there's no actual proof for that point, but it's a scientific fact. This means however that no woman would ever vote for Mitt Romney, for as evopsych emeritas John Norman makes clear; women need to be dominated by males and find submissive/socially inferior males detestable.

Obama by contrast, with his all female progeny, is clearly the alpha male of not just the Obama household, but also the United States of America (and clearly is stealing Michelle's food).

But the evopsych logic doesn't stop there, oh no no, for you see, Ann Romney has had FIVE male offspring, and as five is a larger number than two (at least until Sarah Palin becomes president in 2016), this means that if Ann Romney were to run for president, she is mathematically guarunteed to be so superior to Obama as to have an actual chance at winning if the criteria that determined presidential elections were in fact intrarelationship dominance, unlike her wimpy husband, who I feel I have shown will, scientifically speaking, find himself compelled by his weak biology to phone Obama up come november and submissively urinating on himself over the phone as his way of accepting defeat.

* at this point I need to step out of "character" here and make it clear that while that line of reasoning does seem to provide an evopsych reason for guys being negging jerks to women (even if it actually argues against the whole "women prefer jerks" thing), the problem is that the Trivers-Willard hypothesis runs from the "condition" of the breeders rather than the "status", condition just correlates closely enough with status in some species that you can conflate the two if you particularly want to be sloppy, like I in fact do in this instance. Evopsych logic means that, in reality, if the trivers-willard hypothesis was a major detirminant of human psycho-sexual issues we'd actually see both men and women innately attracted to parasite infested starving waifs with no teeth. SO MY FETISHES ARE EXPLAINED AND EVERYONE ELSE IS THE WEIRDO Y'HEAR *gets back to masturbating to medical reports of people with consumption*