I like evolution. It made me the man I am today. But most Americans do not accept evolution, and the percentage is even lower among conservatives. So I was surprised when, on August 27, a deputy managing editor of the National Review—a conservative magazine that has published numerous evolution deniers—cited evolutionary theory as a reason that women should vote for Willard Mitt Romney for president.

Kevin D. Williamson wrote, “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.”

Williamson notes that Romney has five sons, a bunch of male grandsons and is “basically a tribal chieftain.” And Barack Obama? “Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.” Based on the sex ratios of the two men's progeny, he then concludes, “From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama's vote.”

So I called Robert Trivers. Of the Trivers-Willard hypothesis and numerous other groundbreaking propositions that have made Trivers a legendary character in evolutionary theory and “one of the great thinkers in the history of Western thought,” according to experimental psychologist and popular author Steven Pinker of Harvard University.

I told Trivers that Williamson's article tried to make the case from Trivers-Willard that all women should vote for Romney. He responded, “HAHAHAHAHA!”

In their 1973 paper Trivers and Willard sum it up: “Natural selection should favor parental ability to adjust the sex ratio of offspring produced according to parental ability to invest,” with investment including all care for the progeny, from fertilized egg to independence. “The best evidence was in red deer,” Trivers explained on the phone, “where dominant females produce 60 percent sons. But investment in mammals has a simple logic because usually the male ain't doing s—.” In this polygynous species, where a single male's harem can number 20 females, a dominant female's strong sons have a big advantage over weaker males that may spend their lives nookie-free.

When he stopped laughing, Trivers continued, “Maybe the guy should be saying that all women should try to f— [Romney]. Look, the f—er's rich. Can you f— him and get some of the money? Or are you just voting for him? They're two different decisions.”

Just as an exercise, Trivers did some analysis of Trivers-Willard in regard to Romney and Obama: “There's no way of looking at the sex ratios of progeny of these two couples and predicting anything about their relative superiority over time. It would be better put as an evolutionist arguing about the five-versus-two ratio [of the total number of children born to each candidate].

“They [women] should all want a man with money. That's so obvious we don't need to talk about the sex ratio of the progeny. But then he [Williamson] wants to double down: hey, he [Romney] produced five sons, so that proves he's the ultimate on that side of the coin. But by the same logic there's an ultimate on the other side of the coin who's a female specialist. If Obama had five girls, then we could line it up and see that they [the total number of progeny over the long term] are identical.” Williamson's invocation of Trivers-Willard would thus allow for a more balanced analysis if Romney were running for mayor of Anatevka against Fiddler on the Roof's Tevye “I have five daughters” the Milkman.

7 Comments

1. 1. sunnystrobe 09:28 AM 11/2/12

   As a non-American female, I am highly amused by this- not very- SCIENTIFIC American male phantasy about your two presidential candidates.
   If it was a competition between two sperm donors vying for a contribution at a fertility clinic, this point scoring of offspring would make sense; likewise, too, if America was about to vote for a hereditary monarchy to compete with Elizabeth Regina of the United Kingdom.
   But to my knowledge, there is nothing in the American Constitution which would warrant a high female vote for the most fertile candidate.
   In fact,President Truman made it with only ONE daughter, and so did President Clinton!
   I wonder if it would help to associate
   Mitt Romney with a polygamous Mormon forefather..
   If Charles Darwin were still alive, no doubt he would smile up his sleeve; proving his Theory was right!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Derick in TO 11:07 AM 11/2/12

   Romney's basically a tribal chieftain, huh Kev?
   
   Here's a short list of places here tribal leaders are in charge today:
   
   Syria
   Saudi Arabia
   Iraq
   Iran
   Afghanistan
   Waziristan
   
   Shall I go on? These places are not exactly pinnacles of democracy, and probably not good role models for US politics.
   
   Maybe America deserves a leader who's a little more socially evolved. Western civilization outgrew tribalism a long time ago.
   
   Or at least some of us did.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Derick in TO in reply to sunnystrobe 05:20 PM 11/2/12

   Only 2 commenters on this article, and neither of them are American. The hopeless optimist in me chooses to interpret this as Americans being able to see how ridiculous this is, and just ignoring it.
   
   The realist in me knows that this is probably only half of the answer. The other half of the answer is the half of Americans who simply deny evolution outright.
   
   Realism is depressing. I think I'll go back to fantasy for a little while.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. meadi*r 08:05 PM 11/30/12

   I subscribed to SA BS - Before Steve (in fact, BS&M - Before Steve & Michael). I enjoy reading it from cover to cover (skipping some things like chemistry that's over my head.) I always get to the back with mixed emotions. Sad that it is the end of a good read. Anticipation of amusement by S&M.
   
   But this time, I was a little disappointed with your tone. I think Trivers' response - “HAHAHAHAHA!” - was exactly right to an article that appears to have tongue planted firmly in cheek.
   
   Maybe you are a superior mind-reader, and know that Kevin Williamson was actually serious. Even so, your last paragraph was a little heavy-handed, and seems more typical of people who try to build up their own status by tearing down other people. Not quite up to Antigravity standards.
   
   But, keep up the good work.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. dandens 02:23 AM 12/21/12

   My belief has been that if, in a relationship, the woman is dominant the product is mostly sons; if the man is dominant the product is mostly daughters. I have seen this to be true in real life. I wrote to a Valerie J. Grant of New Zealand. Her book is "Maternal Personality, Evolution and the Sex Ratio", published by Routledge of London and New York. This confirms my rather simple theory quite nicely. I just knew that Obama had the right stuff.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Dave Springer 04:53 PM 12/21/12

   "females also contribute genetic material in reproduction"
   
   Sadly for an article appearing in a science magazine only human males carry the Y chromosome which produces a male offspring. Isn't the XY sex determination scheme in humans like 5th grade science?
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. hartson 03:27 AM 5/17/13

   With the world about to go to 9 BILLION people, I think it is irresponsible to have more than replacement children. I stopped at two when I had my sons. That was when the world was at 3 billion people.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this