+471

Consider this: If a woman has only male children, she is the first woman in an unbroken line of women going straight back to the dawn of humanity to not have a daughter. The reverse is true for fathers having only daughters. amirite?

http://cheezburger.com/6070180864
85%Yeah You Are15%No Way
razorsofts avatar
Share
68 55
The voters have decided that razorsoft is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

"I don't know if you know this, Annie, but I come from a long line of mothers and wives."
"Most people do, Britta."

PinkSponges avatar PinkSponge Yeah You Are +51Reply
@PinkSponge "I don't know if you know this, Annie, but I come from a long line of mothers and wives." "Most people do, Britta."

Ma'am, but yep. It's disappointing that Dan Harmon is leaving, though. Well, forced to leave. It really is an amazing show, and I think some of its soul is going to be ripped out along with its creator.

PinkSponges avatar PinkSponge Yeah You Are 0Reply

So that's why Molly Weasley kept trying for a daughter.

Fred_Weasleys avatar Fred_Weasley Yeah You Are +47Reply

That happens a lot, though.

Anonymous +32Reply

I don't understand it. Please explain, I feel left out not knowing the coolness.

Anonymous +25Reply
@I don't understand it. Please explain, I feel left out not knowing the coolness.

Every woman before her had at least one daughter because her mom had her, her grandmother had her mom, her great-grandmother had her grandmother, all the way back to the beginning.

sparesecondss avatar spareseconds Yeah You Are +36Reply
@spareseconds Every woman before her had at least one daughter because her mom had her, her grandmother had her mom, her...

OHH! I thought it meant all those women also never had daughters. It all makes sense now!

I'm not anonymous i just thought the same thing.

@I don't get the second part, explain please?

It's the same thing but with fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and so on. Every man before him fathered at least one son because it takes a son to make a son to make a son up until the father who has only daughters.

sparesecondss avatar spareseconds Yeah You Are +5Reply

that's pretty cool

It seems like the mods are trying to pick posts for POTD that will stimulate no conversation whatsoever.

Anonymous +24Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1718371

can we make jackets?

Wait a minute, couldn't you just as well say, if there is a person that does not reproduce and have children, they are the first person in an unbroken line of people going back to the dawn of humanity not to have children?

It actually isn't quite so remarkable. Since the dawn of time one woman has had daughters or sons splitting the family name into dozens and eventually hundreds of little branches of that name. Every generation branches are broken by not having girls and branches are created by having daughters who have daughters. Through law of probability many of these branches have to break off every generation. So while your mom having all sons could break this long line of the eternity of your family name, your grandmothers sister may have done the same thing just one generation ago.

... Whoa. I never thought about this before. That's kinda neat!

Chous avatar Chou Yeah You Are +17Reply

i come from a long line of fathers...

names avatar name Yeah You Are +17Reply

AM I THE ONLY ONE BOTHERED BY THIS USE OF " A WOMEN"?
YES?
Okay.

I feel bad for my dad now

Superhippos avatar Superhippo Yeah You Are +11Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1718504

new layout

Anonymous +2Reply

I had to read this more than once to understand it. Interesting though!

notmuchnotmuchs avatar notmuchnotmuch Yeah You Are +6Reply

Not true because all of the women before were not necessarily daughters from the same family line. A lot of them would have been married in from other branches of different families, so not all of the women before would have had a daughter.

@Sledge Not true because all of the women before were not necessarily daughters from the same family line. A lot of them...

Again. You don't trace it through the patriarchal line. You trace it through the mothers. All of the mothers/grandmothers are not related to their husbands, but they are related to their own offspring. Only the women who are direct ancestors of the woman in question should be considered. Not all of them will have had daughters, but those ones are not the ones the post is referring to.

For instance, my mother is a woman who had a daughter. Her mother is also a woman who had a daughter. Her mother is also a woman who had a daughter. It's true that my father is a man who had a daughter, but that doesn't disprove the fact that my mother is a woman.

Anonymous +3Reply

Omg! I never thought of that! That's really cool!

hungergames333s avatar hungergames333 Yeah You Are +2Reply

That woman's great grandmother could have had only sons, who then had daughters. It depends on their family tree. This post could be true in some scenarios, but not all scenarios.

@Eustace That woman's great grandmother could have had only sons, who then had daughters. It depends on their family tree...

It's true for every person ever born. The line of women wouldn't go through the sons of the great grandma it'd go through whatever chick they had their kid with.

@MartellusBoss It's true for every person ever born. The line of women wouldn't go through the sons of the great grandma it'd go...

And the woman who only had sons' sons would marry women and continue having kids, who could be girls. This post doesn't say that her sons don't marry and have kids.

@Eustace That woman's great grandmother could have had only sons, who then had daughters. It depends on their family tree...

But her mother was a woman, and her mother's mother was a woman. The post isn't saying all of the woman's ancestors were women, but that there is a line of women continuing from the beginning of humanity.

Obviously her father wasn't a woman.

Anonymous +4Reply
@Eustace That woman's great grandmother could have had only sons, who then had daughters. It depends on their family tree...

Yes, their sons would marry women, but those kids wouldn't be traced through the sons. They would be traced through their mothers, the sons' wives.

Everyone has a male and female parent. You don't trace the female lineage through the male parent. If you're saying that her sons' daughters disprove the post, that's incorrect. Having only sons has broken the chain of women with daughters. If you have ten pink dots, then one blue, then ten more pink, the chain of pink has still been broken.

Anonymous 0Reply
@Yes, their sons would marry women, but those kids wouldn't be traced through the sons. They would be traced through...

I'm saying that the chain could have already been broken before.

A woman has only sons, so she's broken the chain of women. The sons have sons and daughters. Those daughters have only sons. Are you saying that the chain of women would be broken twice?

For some reason I read this as chicken like hens only have sons or
something. Reading it again carefully I noticed this is one of those mind blowing posts

Juliafaces avatar Juliaface Yeah You Are +2Reply

What about adoption?

@MartellusBoss ADOPTED KIDS STILL HAVE PARENTS!

I was referring to people who can't have kids and so adopt. Say my mom was adopted, didn't know who her parents were, and had me. The line of women bearing baby girls IN MY FAMILY would be broken at my grandma's link, then sort of kind of "jump" to my mom, SORT, since she's adopted.

@StacytheHarlot What about adoption?

Biologically, this is still true. In the case of gay or single adoptive parents, this isn't always true.

Anonymous +1Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1718415

Technically, Ariel has a ton of older sisters, so she isn't the first brotherless daughter in an unbroken line of sons. Her oldest sister is. Hipster Ariel isn't that hipster.

pamplemousse94s avatar pamplemousse94 Yeah You Are +1Reply

I though amirite was a place for questions. This is a statement. It could also be considered a demand.

WTF? SOMEONE PLEASE DUMB THIS DOWN FOR ME! XD THANKS

@Fragments_sissy WTF? SOMEONE PLEASE DUMB THIS DOWN FOR ME! XD THANKS

Sometimes people comment without reading the previous comments.

Anonymous +4Reply
@Fragments_sissy WTF? SOMEONE PLEASE DUMB THIS DOWN FOR ME! XD THANKS

If a woman has a daughter and her daughter has a daughter it makes a line of women until eventually a woman has all sons and the line of women is broken. The same as a father have a son and his son having a son, etc. I know your comment is a month old and you probably get it by now, but I'll say it anyways just in case

@Fragments_sissy WTF? SOMEONE PLEASE DUMB THIS DOWN FOR ME! XD THANKS

Maybe, but I assumed they didn't and chose to answer their question anyways

@Fragments_sissy WTF? SOMEONE PLEASE DUMB THIS DOWN FOR ME! XD THANKS

? that was posted before they said that so they must have seen it and it didn't help

This comment was deleted by its author.
@1697431

They never said it had to be the same family

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.