this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
718 points (98.1% liked)
Political Weirdos
1068 readers
288 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That math doesn't hold up at all unless azalea is like pushing 70 or something. Maybe her mom had her at like 45? I'm 40 and my grandparents weren't even born until the late 30s. And that's without child pregnancies.
I didn't even think about it. I'm 45, my mom had me at 30, my grandfather was old enough to fight in WW2 and he was barely old enough to fight in the war so my grandmother wouldn't have been 12 in the 1920s. Yeah, the math makes no sense.
Just looked it up, she's 34. So even if her mom was the youngest child of her grandma, she would had to have been 60+ when she had her.
I think the math is fine?
2025 - 1927 = 98 (years since grandma was born)
98 - 34 = 74 (years between grandma's birth and OP's)
74 / 2 = 37 (average age of grandma and OP's parent when OP's line was born)
Note that OP's parent could be her father (assuming the research didn't reveal it was her mother), which means that one generation might not need to avoid menopause age. Grandma could have had OP's father at 27, and then father could have had her with a 27 year old (when he was 47) and it would all work out. Hell, even at the extreme, gma has father at 12, then father has OP at 62 with someone of any age.
Not saying it's right; 12 year olds should be playing anything other than baby factory and housemaid to some old fuck. But the math seems fine to me.
Saying it that way seems more reasonable, but still rather far fetched. Maybe she meant great grandma?