435
Vance agrees that raising grandchildren is ‘whole purpose of postmenopausal female’
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
435 points (100.0% liked)
News
23287 readers
3340 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I did, and I'm just adding to it to say that there's no reason to try to be charitable here.
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...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.
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.