Ashley Baxstrom: In the department of In Case You Missed It: this week’s issue of National Review features an article from Kevin D. Williamson titled “Like a Boss: When it comes to being a rich guy, Mitt Romney should own it.” But the thing is, the article talks less about Mitt being rich and more about men being essentially and intrinsically superior to women, vis a vis the evolutionary reasons for wealth (in men’s hands, of course). Here’s the breakdown:

What do women want? Rich, successful husbands, duh. Husbands who will comfortably support them and their bountiful brood.

What do men want? Sons, apparently.

The article was first brought to our attention by Omid Safi at Religion News Service. “Yes, the Republican Party does hate women,” he writes, citing the following excerpt:

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.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

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.

Excuse us while we put our eyes back in our head. Safi takes the opportunity to declare the GOP to be “mired in a misogynistic abyss.”

Religion Dispatches was also quick on the uptake, busting out an article which breaks down all the so-called science cited in Williamson’s article. And as pointed out by The Revealer‘s Luce Fellow Nora Connor, the article also makes the assumption that “high-status” can only be a product of extreme (like, EXTREME) wealth. “That’s bad physical and cultural anthropology right there,” she says. Really, all it does is tell us what Williamson wants women to want.

All three articles – even Williamson’s (involuntary-gag-reflex) should be read. Here’s my opinion. Religion Dispatches determines that Williamson’s hypothesis is such: Mitt Romney’s sons make him a stud, and studs should be president. BOOM. Following that same if/then logic…

Kevin Williamson is a misogynist who doesn’t understand women or science, and misogynists should be deputy managing editors of National Review.

Now that makes perfect sense.