Maternal Dominance Hypothesis

[atomic sagebrush]

Here are some links to studies supporting the Maternal Dominance Hypothesis

You can read my complete thread on the idea here: https://genderdreaming.com/forum/gender-swaying-general-discussion/33517-maternal-dominance-hypothesis-priviledged-daughter-hypothesis.html

[atomic sagebrush]

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep06147160.pdf

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep0196107.pdf

[atomic sagebrush]

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-baboons-20110715,0,4391984.story (this is interesting and shows that high-ranking primates really DO have higher testosterone.)

[Lilian78]

Very interesting!

[queen-of-harts]

Ugh that really makes me feel hopeless....my testosterone just kicked in and im anxious now lol

[atomic sagebrush]

DON'T feel hopeless! Swaying can counteract all that stuff by making your body "think" you are dropping in status!

[queen-of-harts]

I think the stuff like hip ratio and less likely to be divored stuff gets to me because we cant change our hips and most would not divorce just to see if it helped our sway lol and i always wondered and now it seems true that are girl moms just more loving and maternal and all that? Maybe lowering my T will make me more affectionate and mellow?

[zanacal]

You know, I haven't wanted to say this, because it makes me sound like a bad mother to begin with, but I feel far more cuddly and loving towards the boys these past couple of weeks. Of course I always cuddle and love them but my patience doesn't last very long when they're making a fuss over something like a broken toe nail (rather than a 'proper' injury!) and in general I'm not a touchy sort of person. I've wondered whether this is a positive effect of all the stuff I'm doing to lower my T. I guess I feel more maternal.

[queen-of-harts]

I love my kids with evey ounce of my soul but im not the huggy kissy type.i find it easier to be affectionate when they are babies but as they get older its harder because i just want them to behave and be quiet and give me my space ugh i sound horrible.It HAS to be the hormones that effects the way we interact with our kids.The weird thing is that i get choked up easy like when i watch a sweet commercial or movie and i cry...after the birth of all my kids i cried like a baby i was soo happy they were born. Does our bodies sense that female babies need more tenderness so they can grow up and nurture their children and if we are less nurturing and more domineering a boy may be a better bet since they are usually not the ones who need to raise the babies so they can be less affectionate? Does this make any sense? Im sorry if i am offending anyone and we are all good moms but there is no denying we all interact with our kids differently and i wonder if this sends some sort of message.

[zanacal]

Aww, queen-of-harts, that made me cry! No matter how many boys or girls I have in the future I'm going to make it my mission to be more tender and touchy with them every day - the difference is subtle, I'm being just a little more patient, cuddling a little more often and I'm a little less likely to say 'never mind, you'll be alright' and to sympathise instead. These are qualities I want them to have (their future wives will be grateful I'm sure!) and it's how I want them to remember their childhoods and what their mummy was like. Aww, I've gone all mushy, I love my boys so much :D

[Layla]

You know, I haven't wanted to say this, because it makes me sound like a bad mother to begin with, but I feel far more cuddly and loving towards the boys these past couple of weeks. Of course I always cuddle and love them but my patience doesn't last very long when they're making a fuss over something like a broken toe nail (rather than a 'proper' injury!) and in general I'm not a touchy sort of person. I've wondered whether this is a positive effect of all the stuff I'm doing to lower my T. I guess I feel more maternal.

Ladies I am not sure you being cuddly or not towards your boys has anything to do with the maternal dominance hypothesis (which I thought was pretty much proven in animals anyway). If it makes you feel beeter my mother had 3 girls and she was not an affectionate person. I have 2 girls and I go out of my way to be more affectionate towards them because I was missing that from my mother. Also there was a doco that I was watching but can't remember the name. They did this experiment where they left different adults for 5 min with a baby dressed in blue. All the adults were like hello fellow aren't you a tough little boy, look at those big tough cheeks and they were practically throwing him in the air and playing tough with him. Then they got the same baby and dressed it in pink and left the adults with "her." All the adults were like hello beautiful girl aren't you sweet, singing lulaboies to her and cuddling her. In other words we are socialised to raise boys tough and raise girls affectionatelly. Thus, I am sure the fact that you feel you are not very affectionate towards your boys will not stop you from having a girl or will stop you from being affectionate towards her. GL sending you lots of pink dust.

[queen-of-harts]

You know i always said i would be more affectionate when i had kids since my mom was not supper huggy kissy with us but i kinda ended up the same way as she was and here is what i think.My mom is sooo awesome she had 5 kids 3b2g and dealt with my dad who was a cheating fool who would leave my mom for weeks at a time with little food for us and when he did come back he would bring his skank and want my mom to make them something to eat.When he was home he was violent and beat my mom alot and would put us kids against her "who do you love more mommy or daddy? and so i really think my mom was so busy being a parent and making sure she got day to day life accomplished that she never had time to just enjoy being a mom,and now i feel im wrapped up in being busy that i do the same thing but i have a wonderfull husband so that is not a issue.I really am so focused on getting through the day that before you know it the day is over.My kids are very loving and sweet even with each other so i cant be that bad but i do strive to be more affectionate with them.

[zanacal]

Thanks Layla - I was talking about a change in myself and how I am which I thought may be related to the diet and supplements I'm taking to try and lower my own T - it may or may not be related and may be real or completely imaginary :D

Hugs queen-of-harts, that sounds so tough x

[Layla]

:HH: to both of you. I meant to add that neither one of you sound to me like you are not affectionate towards your boys. GL with your pink sways I also look at all sorts of things and wonder (or more like it hope) that they are a sign of increased T levels in me. :bigsmile:

[Sassy]

Zanacal - I can totally relate to what you're saying. I am a VERY affectionate mum to my two boys...loads of kisses and cuddles. But I can be hard on them too and my patience gets thin fast and I can end up screaming before I know it. Since beginning my supps (well, about a week into them) I noticed a definite shift in my 'demeanor' in terms of being more patient and tolerant. I put it down to the supps working and lowering my T. Not sure if it fits with the hypothesis here but I do recognise a change.

[zanacal]

Let's put it down to that together then sassy - positive thinking together :D I'm not sure it's anything to do with this hypothesis either, it's just where the subject came up!

Thanks Layla!

[atomic sagebrush]

My puter is not working well this morning (hubby infected it with a virus yesterday and I couldn't get it to work at all) and it's taking forever to load up the "reply with quotes" so I'll do it this way.

QOfH said: "I think the stuff like hip ratio and less likely to be divored stuff gets to me because we cant change our hips and most would not divorce just to see if it helped our sway lol and i always wondered and now it seems true that are girl moms just more loving and maternal and all that? Maybe lowering my T will make me more affectionate and mellow? "

Well, you CAN change your W to H ratio through diet and exercise and with the divorce thing, you have to keep in mind that it's not getting a divorce that sways, it's much more likely that the personality of people who are more likely to have boys are just more likely not to divorce. Maybe from sheer stubbornness, who knows??? It's coincidental, not a cause and effect. If you were to get a divorce, you would not suddenly be more likely to have girls, because your fundamental personality would remain the same.

I do not believe for 5 minutes that girl moms are more maternal and loving than boy moms are. I have Grant's book and that really isn't what she's saying at all. According to her research, boy moms were more interactive with their children than girl moms were. The boy moms were constantly initiating interactions with their sons while the girl moms hung back and let their daughters begin the interactions, at which point the moms responded to them. Grant is a mom of 3 boys herself and if anything, her book and some of her conclusions were kinda derogatory to the girl moms and actually left a bad taste in my mouth because of that (which is why I don't go around suggesting people read it.)

My own personal take on this is as follows. (and this is in no way meant to be offensive to anyone.) I do think that there ~may~ be slight differences in the way boy moms and girl moms interact with their kids much along the lines of what Grant observed. I suspect that boy moms are a little more proactive and girl moms may allow their kids more space and opportunities to handle things on their own. But BOTH of those can be good parenting strategies depending on the child.

As those of us who had very controlling parents might attest, having a mom or dad who is really micromanaging every aspect of your day-to-day existence and demanding perfection, can be a bit soul-crushing for a more sensitive kid (and on average, girls tend to be a bit more sensitive than boys do). Whereas with a more self-reliant and confident kid (and on average, boys tend to be a bit more...I don't even have a word to desribe it but it's the opposite of sensitive, yet not "insensitive"), not only do they not put up with too much of that nonsense, but with a real firecracker of a kid, sometimes you NEED to be a little bit OCD with them, constantly monitoring every little thing they do because otherwise they'll get themselves into trouble. It just makes a kind of evolutionary sense for kids that are a little more shall-we-say, labor-intensive (and there are both boys and girls that fit into this category) to have moms that are able to rise to the challenge of that. Otherwise every kid who came along with a penchant for getting into mischief (again, perhaps more likely boys but there are plenty of girls who are high-maintenance as kids and teens as well) would have died before reproducing themselves. Being a mellow mom with a kid who needs a firm hand is just not going to work for that kid.

That DOES NOT mean in any way, shape, or form, that because as Grant puts it, a person is overall better "suited" towards raising a kid of one gender and so those of us with a lot of one gender should just give up and pack it in. I believe with all my heart and soul that the world NEEDS a variety of people and the human race has survived for a million years with kids of both genders being born to all kinds of women. Remember, just because we have more boys or girls on average than some other women do, if we had 10 kids at least SOME of them would surely be opposites. (Remember the Duggars and their 6 boys in a row and now 4 girls in a row...a lot of us are throwing up our hands in the air and thinking we're set for producing only one gender after 2 in a row LOL!!!)

We are all very flexible human beings with a wide repertoire of skills and behaviors in our mommy arsenal and ALL of us are totally capable of tweaking our parenting style in response to a child of different needs. A mom who is maybe a little more passive will find herself rising to the challenge of a more intense kid, and a mom who is a little more in-your-face will find herself backing off if she sees that a sensitive child doesn't respond as well to that strategy. My third son is a spitfire and needs a firm hand sometimes, while my 4th is sensitive and gets upset easily. I find that I respond to DS 4 totally differently than I did DS 3. Different kid, different response. In no way are we only "suited" to raise a kid of one gender or another. That is silly nonsense and I HATE it that Grant sullied her otherwise sound research by drawing a conclusion that is just patently ridiculous.

[atomic sagebrush]

I love my kids with evey ounce of my soul but im not the huggy kissy type.i find it easier to be affectionate when they are babies but as they get older its harder because i just want them to behave and be quiet and give me my space ugh i sound horrible.It HAS to be the hormones that effects the way we interact with our kids.The weird thing is that i get choked up easy like when i watch a sweet commercial or movie and i cry...after the birth of all my kids i cried like a baby i was soo happy they were born. Does our bodies sense that female babies need more tenderness so they can grow up and nurture their children and if we are less nurturing and more domineering a boy may be a better bet since they are usually not the ones who need to raise the babies so they can be less affectionate? Does this make any sense? Im sorry if i am offending anyone and we are all good moms but there is no denying we all interact with our kids differently and i wonder if this sends some sort of message.

Oh thank goodness it's working properly now!!! Yay.

That is EXACTLY what I believe. We tweak our parenting in response to the needs of each individual child and there are plenty of girls who are firecrackers and need a more proactive parent just as there are plenty of boys who are sensitive and need a gentler response. We aren't programmed automatons acting out some ancient script. Parents and kids are two separate human beings interacting with each other in myriad ways.

Please, no one despair over these ideas. They are only that, ideas - the ideas of ONE person and although it is backed up by some interesting research, the conclusions drawn do not necessarily follow (see above post). I honestly think that the world NEEDS girls born to mostly-boy-moms and boys born to mostly-girl-moms!!!

I want to share the story of a "hypothetical" person (she actually exists and some of you will know exactly who it is but I she isn't on this board and I feel weird talking about a friend in the third person without her permission!!! I am sorry but I do think it can help people.:() Anyway this hypothetical person had a son who passed away as a baby and then 7 daughters in a row. Her last daughter is a little spitfire and has temper tantrums non stop and then after dealing with this situation for several months, she got pg again and lo and behold, it was a boy!! So it seems to me well within the realm of the possible that the interactions she had with her last, most difficult daughter, actually may have caused the kind of response that altered her hormones in such a way that she finally was able to conceive a baby boy.

My point is, our bodies respond to the needs of our kids and can even change our hormones according to our children's needs. No one should get frustrated or decide that maybe they don't "have what it takes" because we ALL have what it takes. If we didn't, if we couldn't alter our emotional response to our children depending on their needs, the human race would have died out a long time ago!!!

[atomic sagebrush]

Ladies I am not sure you being cuddly or not towards your boys has anything to do with the maternal dominance hypothesis (which I thought was pretty much proven in animals anyway). If it makes you feel beeter my mother had 3 girls and she was not an affectionate person. I have 2 girls and I go out of my way to be more affectionate towards them because I was missing that from my mother. Also there was a doco that I was watching but can't remember the name. They did this experiment where they left different adults for 5 min with a baby dressed in blue. All the adults were like hello fellow aren't you a tough little boy, look at those big tough cheeks and they were practically throwing him in the air and playing tough with him. Then they got the same baby and dressed it in pink and left the adults with "her." All the adults were like hello beautiful girl aren't you sweet, singing lulaboies to her and cuddling her. In other words we are socialised to raise boys tough and raise girls affectionatelly. Thus, I am sure the fact that you feel you are not very affectionate towards your boys will not stop you from having a girl or will stop you from being affectionate towards her. GL sending you lots of pink dust.

Well, Grant's research dealt with actual human beings and not animals and she did a lot to differentiate between socialization and actual differences between boy and girl moms.

My q regarding "socialization" is, do people socialize boys and girls differently just for fun/patriarchy or because there are real genetic differences between boys and girls and boys may NEED to be treated like a big boy and girls may NEED a more tender approach??? Couldn't socialization have developed over the ages as a response to the needs of different-gendered children and not because gender is a social construct?

I used to believe that all gender stereotypes were artificial and even bought my older sons a Barbie and she ended up naked on the floor with her head ripped off inside of 5 minutes LOL.

[atomic sagebrush]

To share my own personal experience, I am a pretty tough mama with very high expectations (too much sometimes) and yet I am still very affectionate..I like to think the affection mitigates the toughness to a certain extent. Even my grown son still hugs and kisses me and my MIL has always remarked on how lucky I am because neither of her kids, son or daughter, is at all affectionate to her. I think that it's partly my own personality and upbringing, but at the same time DS 1 and 3 have always just sort of needed a more firm-yet-loving approach. I really do think there is a chicken-egg situation where we respond to the needs of the child at hand regardless of their gender...it's just that on average, more boys need firmness and more girls need TLC. NO ONE is only suited towards raising a kid of only one gender!!!!

[Layla]

Well, Grant's research dealt with actual human beings and not animals and she did a lot to differentiate between socialization and actual differences between boy and girl moms.

My q regarding "socialization" is, do people socialize boys and girls differently just for fun/patriarchy or because there are real genetic differences between boys and girls and boys may NEED to be treated like a big boy and girls may NEED a more tender approach??? Couldn't socialization have developed over the ages as a response to the needs of different-gendered children and not because gender is a social construct?

I used to believe that all gender stereotypes were artificial and even bought my older sons a Barbie and she ended up naked on the floor with her head ripped off inside of 5 minutes LOL.

I don't think gender differences are purely a social construct at all, I think it is a mix of both and definitely chicken and egg question. I also tried giving my dd1 boy toys and she would not have a bar of them. Everyhting has to be pink or she will not touch it. DD2 was only 11months when she started admiring and picking flowers, have never seen a little boy do that esp at that age.
Honestly atomic I think Grant is offensive. As such I cannot agree with anything she says. I was talking about the other studies mentioned that were looking at animals. I am also tough with my girls even though I am affectionate. All that I was trying to say was that every mum has to be both otherwise they will either walk all over you (if you are not tough) or will turn into psychopaths (if you are not at all affectionate). Parenting is damn hard we all hope we are doing the right thing but who knows. I hope my girls continue to give me hugs when they grow older but who knows. DD1 is only 5 and already I have to remind her to give me hug...

[atomic sagebrush]

I'm sorry, not trying to imply that YOU thought that gender is a social construct, but I do feel that the researchers who designed that study were trying to prove that gender was a social construct.

I understand that Grant might rub some people the wrong way but data is data and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water...her data is valid even though many of her conclusions aren't. Just like the data of the people who did the pink/blue study you mentioned - people really DID treat babies differently based on how they were dressed but their conclusions were off.

Anyway I think we basically agree totally, moms have the potential to raise a child of either gender and it's poopy to suggest otherwise!!

[Layla]

I don't know atomic. I think it is more than the mere conclusions that were wrong about her study. I really don't want to get into an argument with you, but this Grant woman annoys me.

I do agree with you that parents adapt their parenting to the temperament of their child, but I actually disagree with you about girls needing more affection than boys from their mums. Boys are more physically active when little, but intelectually (and here I am talking on average and hope I am not offending anyone) they are much slower and way behind girls. This is why I think boy mums get more active with their boys because they not only need taming but they also need guidance. Girls are stubborn and too clever too soon. My 5 year old already thinks she is smarter than me. I have tried to lead her in her play but she is not interested. She always wants to do something else from what I want to do: "nooo mum not like that, like this.... oooh muuummmm :rolleyes: (which clearly shows she is thinking silly mum)" So I let her lead. Because that is how you raise a girl with self-confidence that will not end up being someone's punching bag I think.

The majority of my friends and family have mixed gender children. Usually GB or BG, a few GBB and one or two GBG. They say this exact thing about their kids. They say their boys love the attention they get from their mums while their girls (especially if there is 2 of them) are always the sneeky trouble makers :-). They always pay more attention to their boys because their boys start talking later, start reading later, start learning math later and it takes them longer to get it. So they need more attention and more guidance then their girls do. They all say that girls are way harder if not impossible to control especially when they get to be teenagers. If girl mums were having it "easy" when the girls were babies, boy do they have it tough when they get to teenage years. You have to be a very tough and strong mum to raise 3 or more girls.

Another thing that I don't like about her study is this new type of blame the parents for everything thinking. There is just way too much of this going on today. I am not talking here about willfully neglectful and abusive parents (and unfortunatelly there is a lot of this going on as well). I am talking about this attitude of blaming hard working parents that are really trying their best to do the best they can for their children. Her "data" showed that boy mums were more controlling and involved in their kids play. So what does she do rather than thinking "or it depends on the temperament of the child" or "it is because girls need more affection (which is what you think)," or "it is because boys need more guidance (which is what I think)," she goes and blames the parents. No it is because boy mums are more domineering and girl mums are more caring. What a bunch of crap seriously. As we both have agreed parents adapt their parenting depending on their child and usually (if they are good caring parents) it has nothing to do with their personality.

About the doco that I was talking about. It was a BBC one and a very good and balanced one. I only told you about one of the experiments that they did, but there were a lot more all of them looking at the development of children from 0-6 years. It did say that gender AND personality AND intelligence were all a mix of genes and socialisation and other external things that happen to the child (for example like the experiment I told you about how adults other than their parents treat them everyday). This is the type of thinking about child raising that I like.

[atomic sagebrush]

Ok, I think we're getting very far afield here and I just want to state very clearly that this is not boy-moms vs girl-moms, nor do I believe that boys do not need affection from their mothers. I don't think that's what Grant was saying either at the heart of it...I did read her book which was much more in depth than a study, and she went to great lengths to differentiate between dominant and domineering.

It can be hard in the space of a study or even a series of posts to clearly explain what one really believes and thinks. I apologize if I've explained badly or seemed insensitive to either boy moms or girl moms.

[atomic sagebrush]

Oh and I did want to share with everyone something kinda interesting that happened at church last week. The pastor's wife has 6 girls and then of course I was there with my 4 boys and I overheard her talking to her oldest daugher, who's an adult with kids of her own. Her little girl (the granddaughter of the pastor's wife) had a bag of gumballs and was handing them out to the other kids before the service started so then all the kids in the audience were chawing on a big wad of gum, kinda distracting and I'm sure not good for the cleanliness of the church upholstery either. The pastor's wife asked about the gumballs and what the deal was and then she just sighed and shook her head and told her daughter, "But not at church, baby, not at church!" in a very gentle way and then let it go.

Now if that had been me, I would have responded a lot more harshly than that even to my adult child - but then again I'm not sure I would have even NOTICED the gumballs to begin with or worried about them. I had just read this thread and it made me wonder, is this difference in parenting the reason why we have all girls/all boys or is it a result of raising them for 20 years?? Who knows, but I did think it was kinda interesting.

[purplepoet20]

I have been having the more materal feeling too.... I was very loving, caring, and overprotective mom for DS1. Didn't put him down for the first 6mths, I think mostly because my oldest sis died of SIDs at 1mth and I was afraid of loosing another baby. When DS2 was born I was a little sad so I did put him down more but I still held him a lot. But as he got close to a year old I started to get very sad because I wanted another baby and hubby didn't say anything yet about wanting another baby... In the last few mths I have started to feel more comfortable with that fact that I am planning a baby for once and I really want a girl but if the sway fails then I will be ok with it. I am trying to not fully believing in my dreams yet.

Everyday I have dancing time with the boys, a few exercise video time, several storytimes, our walks, outside playtime and tons of cuddling and kisses. I think that since I started to do research and realize how I got boys I understand and hope changing everything will get me a girl. I feel in control since I am doing everything I can to make my dream happen.

[purplepoet20]

My hubby is a very emotional man... if the boys are hurt and crying he cries too. Everyone that knows him is surprised he has only boys. My boys are 100% boys but they also have a soft side. They have liked flowers and dolls since 9mths old, they hug and kiss each at any given time, and they still roll around and wrestle. I think gender set rolls are closely related to how the parents treat their child... If you give a girl dolls and calm girly toys they are more likely to have a gentle side. If you give a boy cars and tools they are more likely to do boyish things. If you give a child of any gender cars, dolls, play kitchen, tools, and whatever you more likely to see an "actively gentle child".

Gender roles are set by the way parents raise a child... The child will grow into a certain type of adult based on the way they were raised in early childhood! An adult can choose to change a few things about themselves but they have to know what to change... Like me being abused, neglected, and starved I choose what to change and worked at changing it. I see the difference in my parenting to my brothers parenting.

[Layla]

You and your husband sound like fantastic parents purplepoet and I do hope you will get your girl soon.

Atomic I really do not beleive that personality type sways at all. I was being provocative with you on purpose. I am a very careing and attentive mother to my beautiful girls, but I have a job in which agression and being argumentative is part of the position description. So my personality type does not fit this sway thinking. I beleive in the Trivers Willard stuff only from a diet perspective because boy babies need more nutrition to survive the 1st year of life. I do not beleive for a second that a mother is more likely to have boys because she is more controlling or promiscuous or the father is more of a lateral thinker. Or that a mother is more likely to have a girl because she is beautiful or caring. I think all those psychological studies that you have up in the Trivers Willard stuff are a bunch of crap. They stereotype traditional "male" and "female" characteristics in a very patriachal way and they are offensive to all women and men is what I think.

Sorry I think very highly of you and I hope that you do not take this personally as you did not do those studies. But they really struck a nerve with me and personally I do not think they should be publicised anywhere. I find this type of thinking really disturbing and have spent most of my life fighting discrimination.

I really wish you do not put those "studies" up and definitely do not provide any support for them at all, but I do get the feeling that on some level you do. I am sorry if I have misunderstood you. Maybe you are trying to think of a reason why your sway did not result in pink last time and are looking for answers outside of diet. Reading your sway you ate a lot on dtd and O day. My understanding of the Oxford study is that you must eat a lot around the time of ovulation to get a boy and even then it is only 65% chance. So there is still 35% of nature trying to maintain itself in times of good and bad. I do not beleive for a second that your personality or how you were feeling at the time of conception is what made you have another boy at that time. But that is my opinion and I could be wrong.

Keep your fingers crossed for me as I attempted couple of days ago and was not eating as much as I have been on day of O and dtd so I am strongly thinking I will have another girl if I am pregnant at all. I will be thrilled with another girl but disappointed that I and especially my very caring and attentive DH will not experience what it would be like to have a son. For me stress of any kind = less food = girl sway. When I am winning I do not eat because I think aha also I am too busy to eat so I will also look great as well as do great. The association with food is very difficult concept and it is psychological and it is connected to how food makes one feel and this is what sways blue or pink for people is what I think.

[atomic sagebrush]

Ok, well, we shall just have to agree to disagree on that because I feel strongly that ALL the evidence needs to be looked and and examined!

Wishing you the very best of luck as I do everyone for your sway.

[Layla]

I agree with you that all the evidence needs to be presented, but only evidence that has been empirically conducted and is not based on discriminatory presumptions about human behaviour. For example the promiscuous women have more boys study gave mothers of uni students a diary in which to record their day to day ins and outs. Those that had blanks in their diary were assumed to be promiscuous !!! Is that right did I read that correctly, I am not sure? I will go back and re-read the stuff and present the evidence that I think shows that these studies were not properly conducted and data collection and conclusions drawn were wrong. When I have the time. I will ask my friend who is a psychologist to help me out as well. I will just put the data from time to time in the spot where they are if you do not mind. I think that would be useful. Something to distract myself with in the 2ww.

[Layla]

Btw atomic how cute is your bub. Ohhhh how I want one just like him :kiss:
I hope you are enjoying our :fight: as much as I am. You are a :superhero: you know I think that. You are a caring and loving and passionate person. According to all those awful studies you should have at least 10 girls.

[atomic sagebrush]

I agree with you that all the evidence needs to be presented, but only evidence that has been empirically conducted and is not based on discriminatory presumptions about human behaviour. For example the promiscuous women have more boys study gave mothers of uni students a diary in which to record their day to day ins and outs. Those that had blanks in their diary were assumed to be promiscuous !!! Is that right did I read that correctly, I am not sure? I will go back and re-read the stuff and present the evidence that I think shows that these studies were not properly conducted and data collection and conclusions drawn were wrong. When I have the time. I will ask my friend who is a psychologist to help me out as well. I will just put the data from time to time in the spot where they are if you do not mind. I think that would be useful. Something to distract myself with in the 2ww.

Well, I don't have the time or the means to go through and perform all these studies myself in a manner that I think is best. I'm just throwing 'em out here and then chatting about them, in the spirit of "Could this be true and if so what does it mean for gender swaying" and not in the way that you are apparently taking them. I am SPECULATING and nothing more than that.

If you would like to debunk them, that would be great and actually that's why I wanted this section to begin with - as a place to rationally talk about these studies in a sort of dispassionate way without hurt feelings.

[atomic sagebrush]

Btw atomic how cute is your bub. Ohhhh how I want one just like him :kiss:
I hope you are enjoying our :fight: as much as I am. You are a :superhero: you know I think that. You are a caring and loving and passionate person. According to all those awful studies you should have at least 10 girls.

I always enjoy a good scrap and I can fight tooth and nail with a person and then be the best of friends with them the next day, I don't hold grudges or anything like that about anything at all ever. In fact NBP (the site owner) and I were always getting into it on the IG site, occasionally in epic fashion, but I am quite happy to call her friend and have a home here on this fab site she made for all of us.

In the name of honesty I must admit I am not digging the personal comments and if you could take that down a notch it would be very appreciated.

[Layla]

Done with personal comments. I am going through the studies as we speak (when DH is not watching). Have recovered and will keep it all official and "dispassionate" as much as I can while going through why I disagree with those studies.

Also I am not a dr so my observations will be purely from a sociological/anthropoligical perspective with some regard to statistics.

[XXdreaming]

The more I read things the more I wonder if the "problem" is really me, could it be dh? I read high testosterone I don't match that, my dh does lol, I am a mellowed out calm very patient person, I lovey dovey all over my boys until they are old enough to eww and push me away lol I am calm, I never yell, but I am constantly telling dh to chill because he jumps and yells at the boys, the whole gotta toughen them up, don't need to be sissy mumbo jumbo lol their my babies they can whine to mama lol and he dominance take charge kind of person, I am a follower I couldn't lead anything if I wanted to lol he also fits the boy diet perfectly lol so could dh be the problem? And not really me? Or does it have to be me? Am I trying to "fix" the wrong person?

[Layla]

The more I read things the more I wonder if the "problem" is really me, could it be dh? I read high testosterone I don't match that, my dh does lol, I am a mellowed out calm very patient person, I lovey dovey all over my boys until they are old enough to eww and push me away lol I am calm, I never yell, but I am constantly telling dh to chill because he jumps and yells at the boys, the whole gotta toughen them up, don't need to be sissy mumbo jumbo lol their my babies they can whine to mama lol and he dominance take charge kind of person, I am a follower I couldn't lead anything if I wanted to lol he also fits the boy diet perfectly lol so could dh be the problem? And not really me? Or does it have to be me? Am I trying to "fix" the wrong person?

Melinda I have always wondered this too. :think: Both my dh and I have pretty much the same diet though very low testosterone raising type, but still it takes 2 to tango right? Thinking back when both dd1 and 2 were conceived I was doing very well at work. I was promoted just before dd1 and I had a really supportive boss just before dd2 that pretty much let me run my own show. On the other hand DH was having trouble at work before dd1 and was going through a really stressful situation before dd2. Otherwise my DH is very calm, caring, loving considerate person, so that would fit the dad of girls description. One of the first comments that I was going to make about these "studies" is the emphasis on the mother too much. Women always get the blame for everything right? An australian study recently found that children of fathers over 50 had a lower IQ and higher instances of serious mental illness such as bi-polar and schizofrenia. The age of the mother made no imapct on IQ whatsoever. So much for good and bad eggs theory right. I have to find that study and post a link by the way. It might be a good thread discussion to have. I bet there are no other studies like this though as everybody always blames mum.:rolleyes: They should do them though as it is the man with the X and Y sperm not the woman.

[atomic sagebrush]

Done with personal comments. I am going through the studies as we speak (when DH is not watching). Have recovered and will keep it all official and "dispassionate" as much as I can while going through why I disagree with those studies.

Also I am not a dr so my observations will be purely from a sociological/anthropoligical perspective with some regard to statistics.

Sounds great! Looking forward to reading it.

[atomic sagebrush]

The more I read things the more I wonder if the "problem" is really me, could it be dh? I read high testosterone I don't match that, my dh does lol, I am a mellowed out calm very patient person, I lovey dovey all over my boys until they are old enough to eww and push me away lol I am calm, I never yell, but I am constantly telling dh to chill because he jumps and yells at the boys, the whole gotta toughen them up, don't need to be sissy mumbo jumbo lol their my babies they can whine to mama lol and he dominance take charge kind of person, I am a follower I couldn't lead anything if I wanted to lol he also fits the boy diet perfectly lol so could dh be the problem? And not really me? Or does it have to be me? Am I trying to "fix" the wrong person?

There was some interesting speculation about this on IG as well which I could not find due to monkeys but it went on for like 12 pages, and there were two trains of thought.

~~~Cannot stress enough that this was speculation and some people's limited observations and not meant to offend anyone.~~~

1) One group of boy moms were married to absolute pussycats and this seemed to support the Maternal Dom. Hyp. The thinking was, in a marriage, it usu. works best (seems like anyway) when one party is a little more in charge and the other party is a little less so. This went along with something that some of us had noticed, that really super macho men in masculine professions tended to have a lot of girls and that could even be taken as evidence in favor of the MDH ~~~IF~~~ their wives were a little less in charge of the relationship accordingly.

2)Some of us (and I fall into this camp) had husbands who are a wee bit more feisty than that and we all had boys too. Like Posh and Becks - "power couples" gag. haha. My husband bosses me around but I'm pretty bossy too (NOT that boy moms are bossy and girl moms aren't - that's just the dynamic in OUR relationship. ;) This would seem to support the MDH as well because even if the woman has someone above her on the totem pole, if she has a high-t personality in her interactions with others, then the net result would still be higher T.

Honestly though, doesn't that cover just about EVERYONE??? ;)

I really really think that aside from dominance this and testosterone that, that it's something INSIDE our bodies that is doing the actual heavy lifting of swaying. So there will always be tons of exceptions and people who don't seem to fit the "rule", it's just that on average, statistically speaking, more women who fit a higher-T profile also tend to have more boys and vice versa. That psychological profile associated with higher-T translates to some biological or chemical event in the body that then sways. So if you have that biological or chemical event happening without having a higher-T profile, you would still have more boys.

PS - Melinda, please don't think of it as having to "fix" anyone. In a more natural living situation like on an African savannah somewhere, these mechanisms worked very well for your ancestors and brought them both boys and girls. I believe that for some of us, modern life with its stresses and easily-available food sources, just 'convinces' our body that we should have kids of all one gender (aside from sheer luck - some of us are just blessed with 4 heads in a row!) These are good, time-tested mechanisms, we just have to learn how to harness them so we don't have to "Duggar-it-out" to get a baby of the opposite gender.

[atomic sagebrush]

Melinda I have always wondered this too. :think: Both my dh and I have pretty much the same diet though very low testosterone raising type, but still it takes 2 to tango right? Thinking back when both dd1 and 2 were conceived I was doing very well at work. I was promoted just before dd1 and I had a really supportive boss just before dd2 that pretty much let me run my own show. On the other hand DH was having trouble at work before dd1 and was going through a really stressful situation before dd2. Otherwise my DH is very calm, caring, loving considerate person, so that would fit the dad of girls description. One of the first comments that I was going to make about these "studies" is the emphasis on the mother too much. Women always get the blame for everything right? An australian study recently found that children of fathers over 50 had a lower IQ and higher instances of serious mental illness such as bi-polar and schizofrenia. The age of the mother made no imapct on IQ whatsoever. So much for good and bad eggs theory right. I have to find that study and post a link by the way. It might be a good thread discussion to have. I bet there are no other studies like this though as everybody always blames mum.:rolleyes: They should do them though as it is the man with the X and Y sperm not the woman.

I really don't think anyone is approaching this puzzle out of a desire to "blame" the woman. Rather, they are trying to explain why it is that men can make 50-50 X and Y sperm (which they do - http://genderdreaming.com/forum/showthread.php?552-GUESS-WHAT-MEN-MAKE-50-50-X-AND-Y-SPERM!!! ) and yet 140-160 males are conceived for every 100 females (more male fetuses are lost, ending with a ratio of 105-100 or so.). It is perfectly reasonable to investigate female factors in gender determination, even though traditionally the conventional wisdom has held that it's all up to the guys and the luck of the draw, because the data seems to point that way. No one wants to return to the days of Anne Boleyn, they are just following the evidence wherever it seems to take them.

Also, there are deeper reasons why female factors are probably much more important for gender determination than males are. Pregnancy for starters...females, esp. female humans, risk their very lives to have offspring while males make a deposit and leave (or at least they CAN leave even if they choose not to), so it makes more "sense" for females to have some biological mechanism that selects for the gender with the best "shot" to hand down their genes. Male fetuses need more nutrition and are more fragile from day one. So it would be a good "gamble" for a mom in optimal condition with access to ample resources, and/or a mom who is socially dominant and will probably have access to ample resources in the future by virtue of that dominance, to have a boy - he'll eat more and is more likely to die, but if he makes it to adulthood, he has the potential to spread his genes near and far. Whereas a mom with less access to resources and/or who may not have access to resources in the future, it makes more sense for her to have a girl - she eats less and is more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce, even though she'll prob. only have 2 or 3 offspring. It is a bad "gamble" for a mom to conceive a male fetus only to lose it, expending resources on maintaining a pregnancy that isn't going to make it and even risking her life in the process (I hope it is obvious that animals/humans aren't making these decisions and calculations consciously, it's that some mechanism(s) have evolved in our bodies that perform that function.)

Secondly, most primates live in harems, with one male and several females (and it's reasonable to assume that at one point proto-humans did the same, and those genes have lived on in us and perform some sort of function, even if it isn't identical any longer due to our different living conditions). ALL the babies, boys and girls alike, are all fathered by the same dad, and it's the social structure of the female hierarchy that determines where a particular female falls on the pecking order and what kind of access to resources she has - so there is much more pressure for the female's body to alter gender ratio than the male's body, because he's fertilizing EVERYONE. Why should he have any mechanism to alter gender ratio if he has a lot of opportunity to father both boys and girls?? (not saying he doesn't, just that he doesn't ahve the same motivation as a female who only gets 2 or 3 shots at handing down her genes.)

Thirdly, in this type of harem, the males who aren't able to reproduce kinda just hang out and bide their time, hoping to get a shot as the man in charge. Only the biggest and strongest males (as controlled by diet and testosterone levels!!!) ever get that chance. So again, for a mother who only gets a handful of chances to hand down her genes, if she "wastes" resources conceiving, carrying, and raising a male baby without enough food to allow him to grow up to compete for mates, is a bad gamble. She just has much more motivation for evolving a mechanism to control gender ratio than a male does.

This is equally true even in traditional human societies - older, richer, more established men tend to monopolize the available females, either through true harems, polygamy, or serial monogamy, while young, poor males have to bide their time and accumulate resources (not so much physical size like other primates, but wealth and reputation) before they can even dream of getting a wife. Throughout human history, only 40% of men who have ever lived, reproduced...60% of all human males died without having a single child. Whereas the genes on the Y chromosome of Genghis Khan are present in 8% of all living Asian males and he is believed to have 16 million descendents (he also had a lot of brothers so they were prob. doing major some reproducing themselves.) Genghis Khan's mother gambled on a boy and got a big payoff, because everywhere that Y chromosome shows up, some of her genes are right there as well!!

PS - this is an aside but there are tons of studies out there linking older dads to all kinds of genetic illnesses.

[Layla]

Thanks atomic. All good arguments none of them making me feel good about being a girl mum even though I love being a girl mum and have only ever imagined myself as being a girl mum in the future.

I find the whole Genghis Khan thing disguisting though. I would have hated to be his mum. Maybe there lies my problem?

[queen-of-harts]

Thanks atomic. All good arguments none of them making me feel good about being a girl mum even though I love being a girl mum and have only ever imagined myself as being a girl mum in the future.

I find the whole Genghis Khan thing disguisting though. I would have hated to be his mum. Maybe there lies my problem?

Layla are you not planning to sway for a boy?

[Layla]

Layla are you not planning to sway for a boy?

LOL that made me lough so hard queen you are so funny.

[queen-of-harts]

LOL that made me lough so hard queen you are so funny.

I really was asking a serious question,not trying to be funny,i was confused as to whether you planned to sway or not.

[XXdreaming]

......so I am strongly thinking I will have another girl if I am pregnant at all. I will be thrilled with another girl but disappointed that I and especially my very caring and attentive DH will not experience what it would be like to have a son. .....

I believe she is swaying boy, could be wrong :)

[Layla]

I really was asking a serious question,not trying to be funny,i was confused as to whether you planned to sway or not.

Oh I am really sorry queen I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant better get used to boys thinking about "conquests" if I am going to sway blue. I am actually swaying blue. I have started FGD as of today and intend to attempt in October. I did try following my own version of the High Everything Diet before this, but have thought it all through. The girl FGD was what i mostly ate before I started swaying so I though why not try the blue version it might work for me.

Tell me with so many georgeous boys what is your diet secret (or point me to a thread where you have set it out already).

[queen-of-harts]

[QUOTE=Layla;64028]Oh I am really sorry queen I must have misunderstood you. I thought you meant better get used to boys thinking about "conquests" if I am going to sway blue. I am actually swaying blue. I have started FGD as of today and intend to attempt in October. I did try following my own version of the High Everything Diet before this, but have thought it all through. The girl FGD was what i mostly ate before I started swaying so I though why not try the blue version it might work for me."That is ok i just could not remember if you were planning to sway lol I really eat alot of salty high calorie,processed foods,im not big into sports or competition but if im having a conversation with someone on a certain subject like example my dh was saying the daddy long leg spoder was the most poisonous spider but it didnt have strong enough teeth to bite lol i had to go online and dissprove that by searching,so thats my personality so maybe that ups my T? I think those things maybe pushed me towards having boys.I will say my boys are all different,some are loud,some quiet,so test their limits and others listen the second i speak,some climbed on furniture as toddlers and others would never dream of that and while some of them love cars others liked drawing or legos much better and two of them perfered baby dolls over the others.I think the whole "conquer and destroy" things is a personality trait more than a gender trait and my boys surprize me daily what wonderfull young men they are,i really think adding a boy to your family would bring alot of joy just as adding a little girl to mine would.I wish you luck with your sway and may the perfect child for you join your family soon whether that is a boy or girl :)

[queen-of-harts]

Not sure wth happened to that last post of mine lol

[Layla]

I think the whole "conquer and destroy" things is a personality trait more than a gender trait and my boys surprize me daily what wonderfull young men they are,i really think adding a boy to your family would bring alot of joy just as adding a little girl to mine would.I wish you luck with your sway and may the perfect child for you join your family soon whether that is a boy or girl :)

Thank you queen for your information. I so totally agree with this that you said. In fact I had just posted pretty much the same words on the other thread without seeing your post here first. Best of luck to you too. Hope you also get your next wonderful child very soon.

[atomic sagebrush]

Thanks atomic. All good arguments none of them making me feel good about being a girl mum even though I love being a girl mum and have only ever imagined myself as being a girl mum in the future.

I find the whole Genghis Khan thing disguisting though. I would have hated to be his mum. Maybe there lies my problem?

But your genes don't know that you find the Genghis Khan thing disgusting. Your genes just want to LIVE as much as they possibly can and they want to hitch their cart to whichever pony will get them there.

I really don't get why this makes you feel badly about yourself. TBH, it makes ME feel bad as a boy mom because I feel like with sons I have no guarantee of grandchildren whereas if I had had daughters, I would rest easy in the belief that I would get at least one grandchild. Girls are a sure thing and boys are a gamble. I don't even feel confident with 4 sons that I will ahve any grandchildren at all and that will be the end of my line because my grandma only had one son and my dad only had two daughters and my sister by my dad is not going to have any children. My 4 boys are it and they are it for my husband's family as well. I would much rather have at least ONE sure thing than a Genghis Khan who might get killed before having any children and even if he did, there is no guarantee that they are even his!!!

[XXdreaming]

I know lots of girls way back in high school that got pregnant and the boy would have nothing to do with them, now that would hurt me unreal if my grandbaby was in some girl and I will never see it, that's what I think about, I am hoping that I am raising my boys right so that will never happen, even if the relationship doesn't work then at least be friends so I can be apart of the childs life...

[lindi]

I read this whole thread from the beginning, and the big question which arose in me is: in what ways does testosterone affect the brain? How is a person with high T's brain different from a person with low T? Now, this article will probably touch a nerve with left handed people, but it sort of touches on male and female fetuses and their reaction to testosterone in the womb: http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/24/science/left-vs-right-brain-function-tied-to-hormone-in-the-womb.html interesting food for thought.

[atomic sagebrush]

That is interesting, thanks for sharing!! My youngest seems to be left-handed.

There is a large body of data on how testosterone affects the brain, but unfortunately quite a lot of it is politically skewed...people with agendas who are trying to show that men are aggressive and basically the source of all evil.

[indigoviolet]

Sooo interesting!

[begonia]

Fascinating! I am super curious about left-handedness bc DD2 is left hand dominant for sure. We had a good idea even when she was a baby, because whenever she reached for things, or manipulated toys, it was ALWAYS with her left hand. And now that she is 2 she uses her left for eating, drawing, high-fiving :)

DH is a hybrid, like the article mentions on the first page ... he uses his right for writing and eating, but his left for anything sports related, plays ball left handed, golf/tennis left handed, etc. Has decent penmanship with his left but is more comfortable using his right.

Thanks for posting the link Lindi!

[envisioned]

Sadly this theory is an epic fail for me. LOL! But a lot of them are for me and I don't know why.

Every time I read an article on Gender Theory/Swaying/Preferences it all screams that I should have had boys. I fit the protoype of the High Testosterone Mom to a tee and I have 2 girls. Where's my facepalm emoticon??

[atomic sagebrush]

We don't have all the answers unfortunately. Lots of people smoke like chimneys and never get lung cancer, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a link between the two.

I personally believe the "Fertility Theory" outweighs the Maternal Dominance Hypothesis and the diet as well. If your fertility is lower for ANY reason, it doesn't matter if you're more dominant or following a boy-friendly diet, you're more likely to make girls because THAT'S what sways. Maternal Dominance (higher T levels) and diet can send a message to your body that times are good and a son has a better chance of survival, but the signal it sends is improving fertility. The opposite is also true, if you and your husband have less than optimal fertility (or at least you did during the months you conceived) then it doesn't MATTER if you are dominant and eat a blue diet, your body is getting a different message because of the lower fertility.

Don't overlook the luck factor too, even if someone was set to produce boys 90% of the time, there is still a possibility of a girl with every conception.

ALL of us can have kids of both genders at any time (and if we have enough kids, we WILL). Whatever-it-is that sways, it's just not this absolute, black and white thing, it's a gentle variation that we may not even notice going on.

[begonia]

I'm totally pulling my hair out lately over this stuff, because it absolutely drives me nuts. Like Envisioned mentioned everything I read points to my having boys. Even the diet and fertility things; we get pg just by winking at each other :rofl: In all honesty I believe a large part of the reason I have such a hard time with having girls (when I always saw myself with boys) is that truly my very nature (see Maternal Dominance Hypoth) is geared more towards raising sons, hence why having daughters feels so ... unnatural to me.

And yet here I am, pregnant with DD3. I don't get it. And I don't feel like I can possibly try a 4th time because if everything says I should have sons, yet I still have 3 DD, how on earth can I believe for a second that my next child would be a boy? It's tough, because I'd like to believe that I *can* produce a son, especially given how I can't find a single bit of research to the contrary. Yet my personal experience is that even with much in my favor, I can't. Granted I've tried only 3 times not 10, but I also don't see how if my coin is supposedly weighted to blue, I wouldn't have had one by now. But enough about my personal situation since after all, I'm one person, and studies look at far more than that .. clearly I'm either an outlier or completely incorrect about myself.

I have a couple of questions on MDH ...one thing I wonder about is why, if supposedly the woman's biology primes the egg for X or Y prior to conception, things like sperm spinning still have a good success rate... at least for girls, it's pretty high though certainly not close to 100%. And IVF ... not that I know a ton about that (I am sure others can offer insight here) ... wouldn't the eggs retrieved from the same cycle lean heavily towards being fertilized by mostly X or mostly Y, if it was the egg that held some "key"? You would expect the eggs from the same cycle to be receptive to the same type of sperm, so to speak. Or do all the hormones in IVF somehow override the woman's natural environment?

And the other thing I wonder about with MDH is dominance is supposed to be an inherited trait, particularly if we're talking dominance that runs deep enough to impact a woman's biological process. So one would expect that if non-dominant females produced females, they too would be non-dominant ... and produce females. And so on. But if I think about friends I know (small sample of course) who are from all girl families ... they seem to have equal numbers of male/female children.

In all honestly I wish I'd never learned about any of this stuff because I spend far too much time on it, and I can't change the fact that I have 3 DD so it's wasted energy. I think I was better off (mentally, lol) when I chalked my kids gender up to all out chance :shrug:

[fresas]

My maternal grandmother was definitely dominant and had two girls. My mother is also dominant (although my dad is, too) and they had 1 girl, 2 boys. My aunt and uncle are both relatively passive and have 1 girl, 3 boys. A childhood friend's mom was extremely dominant, but her husband was also extremely masculine (he hated boys - unresolved childhood issues) and they had 4 girls.

I guess I could be considered dominant, but I literally have too much testosterone thanks to the PCOS so I'm not sure how much of it is personality or how much of it is hormonal. I really dread both of my parents domineering ways so I have very actively tried to balance out my personality and tendencies as an adult.

I tend to believe that every child has natural tendencies, but nurture has a big part in how children find their way in the world.

I think that while the female body can tend to give preference to certain types of sperm, I am also think there is a male component that cannot be ignored. Whose body chemistry is more important? I don't know.

[xokatietatie]

I am a very dominant person. I always have been, even as a child. I just hope my sway will be enough to give me a daughter and not a fourth son.

[purple sky]

I am a very dominant person. I always have been, even as a child. I just hope my sway will be enough to give me a daughter and not a fourth son.
Me too :( Normally I would think this is a good thing *Girl power right lol I just wish for the love of wanting a daughter I could totally change my personality

[rainbowflower]

perhaps dominant personalities also have high stress levels, and the stress hormones are known to lower fertility. Studies have shown that those women with high-stress careers (which included being a stay at home mum!) have more daughters too.

[begonia]

Rainbow are you talking about this stress study? BMC Public Health | Full text | Mother's occupation and sex ratio at birth (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/269)

It did show SAHM as "stressed" at 8 of 10 but also used it as a 2 out of 10, since it is such a subjective category (personally my SAHM life is FAR less stressed than my career) ... I thought it was interesting though that no matter how they rated SAHM, the study outcome wasn't really changed. The numbers of SAHM in their sample were apparently pretty small.

Then there was another one I remember from this fall that only had like, 330 women, but measured their cortisol and adrenaline levels around ovulation, and those with high cortisol (associated with stress) had daughters.

I think the link between dominance and testosterone is strong though; and in times of chronic stress (war, famine, etc) women's testosterone has been shown to rise. Studies that look at that show more boys born during/post a period of chronic stress, so in that situation, stress would sway boy. Some of Grant's work (on MDH) also looks at the idea that, since TW indicates dominance usually includes access to resources, the dominant have less stress since they DO have access to resources, and in that situation, they have boys. Which, in conjunction with the other study, to me makes sense since the women with high cortisol were typically concerned about job/financial pressures (according to questionnaires they filled out during the study), and providing for their families. Concerns such as that would indicate not being in an environment of plenty, which would then (according to TW) lead to daughters. And in that study, it did.

It seems like from the variety of studies on it stress is such a tricky one! I think the type and duration of stress (and the mother's personal reaction to it) is key to how stress impacts the ratio.

Anyhow for me I'm not sure I'll ever be able to figure out WHY I personally have daughters. I can't find anything that I'm like, AH-HA! That makes sense! It seems like so many swayers feel like they "fit" the boy/girl mom category and I just don't. I can't figure out what to change if I was to sway again and it makes me feel like I need to give up on the having a son thing.

[zanacal]

The fact that you can't stop analysing the facts and doing your research fits in with the 'boy mum' image begonia! I don't know the answer (obviously). I find how dominant I am changes the older I get (and the more children I have!) - both those things make me less likely to want to control everything and more likely to go with the flow and let things go. Maybe this is why we've seen a few ladies with a girl after 3 boys lately - you can't even pretend you're in control with my 3 little monsters!

I would hypothesis that sperm count has a lot to do with it - but you had multiple attempts in your fertile window and I guess your DH was taking supplements and so on and if your DH's count was on the lower end of normal, I wonder whether you would keep getting pregnant quite so quickly? It's sh!t luck I think honey.

[begonia]

The fact that you can't stop analysing the facts and doing your research fits in with the 'boy mum' image begonia! I don't know the answer (obviously). I find how dominant I am changes the older I get (and the more children I have!) - both those things make me less likely to want to control everything and more likely to go with the flow and let things go. Maybe this is why we've seen a few ladies with a girl after 3 boys lately - you can't even pretend you're in control with my 3 little monsters!

I would hypothesis that sperm count has a lot to do with it - but you had multiple attempts in your fertile window and I guess your DH was taking supplements and so on and if your DH's count was on the lower end of normal, I wonder whether you would keep getting pregnant quite so quickly? It's sh!t luck I think honey.

LOL Zan :) You make me smile about the can't pretend you're in control with the little monsters! We've certainly not tested DH's sperm count but yes .. every single pregnancy (3) has been OHW for us. Odds are he's probably fine?

And I agree really ... on some level it just comes down to a large part luck, and I HATE luck :rofl: I can't control LUCK for crying out loud :)

It's funny too because part of me doesn't even want to consider IVF/PGD because there's an element to this that I know, for me, is PROVING that I can conceive a son, KWIM? I am so ridiculous.

[Out of the Blue]

And I agree really ... on some level it just comes down to a large part luck, and I HATE luck :rofl: I can't control LUCK for crying out loud :)

It's funny too because part of me doesn't even want to consider IVF/PGD because there's an element to this that I know, for me, is PROVING that I can conceive a son, KWIM? I am so ridiculous.

OMG, B...Zan is right...You are SUCH a :DS: mom! :p I can feel the T coursing though your post, lol.

[nuthinbutpink]

Begonia- I am a "boy" mom through and through. I have never been, am not now a girly, girl. I was writing on that karma thread a bit ago and there is a quote from Steve Jobs that says you cannot connect the dots looking forward, only at the end when you look back can you connect them and see how you ended up where you are.

I have learned lately dealing with my DD's issues that things that happen to me, when life happens, it just makes me who I am. Through her issues, I have learned to have more empathy towards families with special needs children and I think I would have looked past them before or at least not stopped and said hi when I saw them. Things that happen to us, people that come in and out of our lives just make us the person we are destined to be. There just is no other explanation for it. No reason why. It's just life.

[XXdreaming]

you know sometimes I wonder if you can be too much of a boy mom or girl mom so therefore your body(or universe or God whatever you believe) feels like you need to be leveled out some, so you get the opposite lol, I have a family member that is very boyish, she actually prefers boys clothes, but she had 4 girls and oh my has she learned alot about girls, her girls are girly girl and her oldest is 12yr now and is giving her mom lessons on how to be a girl lol, painting her nails and doing her toes, I find it very funny lol and then theres the girly girl moms who for the 1st time in their life got muddy with her boys (to only run real quick to clean up becuase even though it was fun it was gross lol I dont know if I would do it again lol) I dont know but it is weird though how you can be surprised to find someone had so many girls or boys when its the complete opposite of their personality

[lindi]

Begonia, you were wondering about in IVF shouldn't the gender split be weighted towards one side or the other if the egg priming thing has any merit... well, if you look at the girls doing IVF it really does seem that they get more embryos of the gender they already have!
I am so much a "boy mom" from the MDH, the personality, the hormonal make-up and yet I had a pretty even gender split with my embryos. (I did however do the low-everything diet for a good portion of the 3 months before I did IVF where my eggs were developing...not on purpose for IVF I was going to sway).
Dr H and I think another RE- Dr Sher was it? think the sperm have a lot to do with it. It could be that most of the time dominant women attract a kind of man where the Y are more dominant in getting to the egg... it really could be all about the man, who knows. Its crazymaking.

[atomic sagebrush]

I'm totally pulling my hair out lately over this stuff, because it absolutely drives me nuts. Like Envisioned mentioned everything I read points to my having boys. Even the diet and fertility things; we get pg just by winking at each other :rofl: In all honesty I believe a large part of the reason I have such a hard time with having girls (when I always saw myself with boys) is that truly my very nature (see Maternal Dominance Hypoth) is geared more towards raising sons, hence why having daughters feels so ... unnatural to me.

And yet here I am, pregnant with DD3. I don't get it. And I don't feel like I can possibly try a 4th time because if everything says I should have sons, yet I still have 3 DD, how on earth can I believe for a second that my next child would be a boy? It's tough, because I'd like to believe that I *can* produce a son, especially given how I can't find a single bit of research to the contrary. Yet my personal experience is that even with much in my favor, I can't. Granted I've tried only 3 times not 10, but I also don't see how if my coin is supposedly weighted to blue, I wouldn't have had one by now. But enough about my personal situation since after all, I'm one person, and studies look at far more than that .. clearly I'm either an outlier or completely incorrect about myself.

I have a couple of questions on MDH ...one thing I wonder about is why, if supposedly the woman's biology primes the egg for X or Y prior to conception, things like sperm spinning still have a good success rate... at least for girls, it's pretty high though certainly not close to 100%. And IVF ... not that I know a ton about that (I am sure others can offer insight here) ... wouldn't the eggs retrieved from the same cycle lean heavily towards being fertilized by mostly X or mostly Y, if it was the egg that held some "key"? You would expect the eggs from the same cycle to be receptive to the same type of sperm, so to speak. Or do all the hormones in IVF somehow override the woman's natural environment?

And the other thing I wonder about with MDH is dominance is supposed to be an inherited trait, particularly if we're talking dominance that runs deep enough to impact a woman's biological process. So one would expect that if non-dominant females produced females, they too would be non-dominant ... and produce females. And so on. But if I think about friends I know (small sample of course) who are from all girl families ... they seem to have equal numbers of male/female children.

In all honestly I wish I'd never learned about any of this stuff because I spend far too much time on it, and I can't change the fact that I have 3 DD so it's wasted energy. I think I was better off (mentally, lol) when I chalked my kids gender up to all out chance :shrug:

Begonia, I'm sorry you're feeling this way and let me attempt to answer your q's to the best of my understanding and ability. I want to say very clearly that DESERVE has nothing to do with gender ratio. Our bodies just take note of things and many of these things are utterly out of our control. It's sad because the boy moms feel they don't deserve to have girls, the girl moms feel that they don't deserve to have boys, but the simple fact is that this is all a matter of cues from the environment and not anything we did or didn't do. We can only control a very small amount of these cues.

First of all, I DO think there's something to the MDH. There has to be some reason aside from diet why some women have girls and others boys because in cultures/animals where everyone eats the same exact diet, some people are still having girls and others boys and there MUST be an explanation for that, if everything else is equal. The data on women with Master's Degrees, who work in male dominated fields, etc. also cannot be chalked up to diet.

That having been said, "something" is not everything. Whatever it is about dominance that sways in some way, MUST have a physical manifestation within our bodies that is doing the swaying. Whether it's CM, "egg priming", ions or whatever, the physical aspect is what is doing the swaying and NOT the lifestyle factors. The lifestyle factors make a person more predispoised to having the physical aspect, but it's the physical aspect that is doing the swaying, SO a person who has the physical aspect is still "set" to produce a child of a particular gender and this is true regardless of lifestyle. We all know that being obese contributes to heart disease, but I know of many people who are rail thin and have heart disease too. Because it's NOT obesity that makes heart disease, it's cholesterol, triglycerides, etc that is the physical manifestation of the cause of heart disease, and even tho most obese people tend to have higher cholesterol and triglycerides, than most thin people do, there are thin people out there who have these things too and they are more likely to develop heart disease regardless of their weight or lifestyle.

Point being, whatever is swaying, if THAT is working pink for you, you'll have girls even if you fit every criteria for diet and dominance that ever existed. I think there are tons of things that could affect those physical aspects that we are not even aware of. It could be experiences we had in childhood or teenage years. We may have undiagnosed illnesses (and there is a not-small subset of illness that actually sways BLUE, not pink) or have or have recovered from an illness that "wants" us to conceive babies of mostly one gender because IT survives better that way (and yes, two such illnesses do exist, both sway blue). It could even be that our diets/chemical exposures as babies or in our mother's womb is controlling this somehow. If we ever severely depleted our bodies or our T levels plummeted for any reason at any point in our lives, it may have activated some mechanism that sways strongly one way or the other - I can envision scenarios where previous depletion/lowered T levels could sway either pink or blue - if your levels dropped so low that they never managed to recover, you would be "set" for pink regardless of anything you did in the future, and if they dropped but recovered somewhat, you might be more "set" for blue even tho your physical condition/T levels were still lower than average. We don't KNOW how our bodies track and register improvements in condition.

Not even getting to what our partners contribute to the equation which may be considerable and I agree with the PP who wondered if maybe sometimes dominant moms ~may~ attract guys who are more likely to shoot blue to begin with. This is OBVIOUSLY far from any kind of universal truth and if you're a dominant gal who has attracted a guy more likely to father daughters, your dominance may not even enter into the equation. Maternal dominance may be a red herring.

When I talk about the fertility theory, I don't mean that women who conceive girls can't get pg or have any difficulty, I mean that if you picture fertility as a continuum with super fertility on one end, infertility on another, I suspect that couples who fall towards the less fertile end of that continuum are more likely to conceive pink. They may never have fertility issues, it's jsut that they're more likely to have whatever physical aspect is swaying pink - be it pH, sperm count, whatever else. You can be very fertile and still conceive girls and some women who struggle with infertility do have boys because of other physical aspects that they have going on (PCOS is one example.)

The hard truth is that you DON'T know that you can have a boy naturally without going HT. None of us do. But if you fit the MDH criteria and you do the right things in terms of diet, supps, etc. then I can say that you have a heck of a lot better chance than someone who doesn't, and doesn't do any of those things.

1)Re "egg priming" I don't believe in egg priming - I don't like any theory that relies on a totally made up hypothesis to explain itself (also why I don't like "ions"). Unless I SEE an egg "choosing" a particular sperm and know what mechanism does it, I put zero stock into this idea. I also think that IVF does not support this idea - even tho some couples do seem to get more embies than should be statistically expected, a lot of other couples

That's how I came up with the fertility theory/sperm numbers theory to begin with - a way to explain gender swaying without resorting to things that do not exist - and I think it explains it as well as anything.

2) Re sperm spinning - actually sperm spinning doesn't have that great of success rates. I know a woman who got a boy with a 92% girl sort and there have been some other opposites as well. Aside from that, people had quite dismal pg rates. Some people have chalked this up to sperm being depleted, but it may also have to do with the idea that some men's X or Y sperm are just BETTER from the very start and getting rid of the one gender leaves only lower quality sperm, the woman's body may actually attack sperm of a particular gender, and/or that the woman's egg is "set" for one gender or another.

3)I do not believe dominance to BE genetically inherited or determined - at least, not in any way that cannot be overridden by environment. People/animals must be very flexible in order to survive, and survival at all other times in history from amoeba on up has been much less a sure thing than it is now. So if a person/family's entire gene pool was inherently "SET" for dominance, the first time their tribe was taken over by a stronger tribe, if you couldn't/wouldn't learn to submit and FAST, you would prob. be killed, or driven off, which is basically the same thing because people couldn't survive on their own back then. If your ancestors couldn't/wouldn't bow to Genghis Khan/Og the Caveman/Bubbles the Chimp, you would not even be here to be discussing dominance on this website LOL. Both submission and dominance are in our genetic heritage and when the cues are right, we shift modes.

I am a pretty dominant chick in a lot of ways but I do notice that in some circumstances I become very submissive to people in authority - almost annoyingly so. Like, I physically can't meet their eyes at times, I desperately want them to like me, and I am not very forthcoming with information I think could get me into trouble (even tho I really don't CARE and I will never even see or speak to the person again). Some ancient program gets activated and it's within all of us, because everyone who couldn't hail to the chief when they needed to, died out at the hands of said chief and all of us have the genetic blueprint of the ones who COULD bend when they needed to bend.

4)Re all girl families - This is just a general observation and not meant to be offensive in any way. I know of a surprising number of women from 3 girl families where all three sisters have all or mostly boys OR two sisters have all boys and then the "black sheep" sister has girls. This also seems to hold largely true in 2 girl families as well - black sheep has girls, superachiever has boys. Perhaps even in mixed gender families - in my family, both girls highly achieving and total of 5 boys, boy is a black sheep and has a girl.

I think there must be something with a pecking order in an all girl family where some/all of the girls fall into a pecking order, birth order, or "mom always liked you best", and some form of the MDH comes into play. That's what I mean when I say some of these things that may have affected our dominance/testosterone levels is a result of things that occured during childhood and not anything about our adult personalities, and certainly nothing we have done "wrong" or can control in any way.

[begonia]

Begonia, you were wondering about in IVF shouldn't the gender split be weighted towards one side or the other if the egg priming thing has any merit... well, if you look at the girls doing IVF it really does seem that they get more embryos of the gender they already have!
I am so much a "boy mom" from the MDH, the personality, the hormonal make-up and yet I had a pretty even gender split with my embryos. (I did however do the low-everything diet for a good portion of the 3 months before I did IVF where my eggs were developing...not on purpose for IVF I was going to sway).
Dr H and I think another RE- Dr Sher was it? think the sperm have a lot to do with it. It could be that most of the time dominant women attract a kind of man where the Y are more dominant in getting to the egg... it really could be all about the man, who knows. Its crazymaking.

Thanks Lindi, that's exactly the information I was wondering about. Fascinating!

It's funny you mention the dominant woman/Y sperm thing ... I was telling DH all about the MDH and he just started laughing. We're both very competitive people (board games at our house are a nightmare!) and he was like, well, of COURSE if your egg is signaling it only wants a Y sperm, my sperm is going to give it an X just to show it who's the boss around here ;-) I think he has finally figured out our personal problem, LOL.

[begonia]

Atomic, thanks for taking the time to explain all of your thoughts on this; I appreciate the level of detail and it is a lot for me to consider. I've actually been reading a book on birth order and another on the nature/nurture influence; trying to get my mind to focus on things other than swaying, but it's funny how both of those topics (especially after reading your post) potentially tie back into swaying.

The girl family observation is interesting. I didn't come from all girls. My mom came from 3 girls (herself and a set of twins) and they each had a PP. Most of my friends who came from all girl families ended up with a mixed set. I definitely do not think gender runs in families. I honestly think a huge part of it is just chance... I mean really, even if someone is "set" blue or pink 90% they can STILL get that 10% opposite every.single.time.

Anyhow, there's no way to explain it or reason it or find out why we all have what we do. I love the kids I have, I'll love this one too. But there's no doubt in my mind that I will always be sad DH and I never had a son and that's just something I have to live with now ... even if I understood WHY it wouldn't make the desire go away, KWIM? I'd still want a son and making sense out of why I have daughters won't change that. So it just doesn't matter really ... I think for a while I thought maybe I could figure something out that would make another sway "work" for us, but that's not realistic and I really need to let this go. Which is not easy for me to do, obviously :)

[Alice]

I think there must be something with a pecking order in an all girl family where some/all of the girls fall into a pecking order, birth order, or "mom always liked you best", and some form of the MDH comes into play. That's what I mean when I say some of these things that may have affected our dominance/testosterone levels is a result of things that occured during childhood and not anything about our adult personalities, and certainly nothing we have done "wrong" or can control in any way.

Interestingly enough I was just talking with DH about MDH last night and despite having read nothing about it he theorized that my own dominance stems from being the eldest and having responsibility for my little bro, and also for my cousin (she spent a lot of time with us as kids)

Begonia that is us too - my husband loves to quote me from years ago as saying 'EVERYTHING is a competition!' (He likes to say this if he is 'beating' me at something innocuous. My Dad refuses to play Scrabble with us because it gets so argumentative. There's no hope for our girl LOL

[atomic sagebrush]

RE girl families - nothing is 100% of course, just an observation from my days back on IG (before I ever even GOT into gender swaying and was only doing gender disappointment) AGain, it's like the physical aspects vs. lifestyle thing...totally possible to have a physical aspect that sways, even if you don't have the lifestyle that seems to contribute to it. I totally agree that gender DOES NOT run in families, but I do think there could be circumstances within families or even in your mom's body when she was pg with you, that could predispose you. I wish I had unlimited resources to do studies, I think we could bust this wide open in a year's time. We know all the right q's to ask now but no one wants to study it.

Also to state again because I notice I never finished my thought in my earlier reply...the majority of women get embies of both genders via IVF. Plus, that and things like Jon and Kate + Eight and boy-girl twins to begin with, make me totally doubt the theory of egg priming, KWIM??

Me too on being the oldest and caring for lots of LO's and also on the uber-competitiveness - I actually dislike myself when I play games because I would knock over my grandma to win at a game and I get really mad when I lose for reasons outside of my control. Interestingly, that is one thing that has changed for me the last 2 years since having my last son - a few weeks ago we were playing Wii and I was just doing terribly and I really did not care at all - so I do know it can change all on its own without swaying.

[begonia]

AS your comment re: environment of the mother's uterus earlier brought to mind an article I read forever ago. My DD1 is 100% tomboy ... the girl has been into boys things since before she was 2. She would walk into a store and pick out trucks and never bat an eye at princess stuff; wouldn't wear a skirt/dress from the time she was old enough to object. At preschool and kindy she has always chosen to be friends with the boys. I always thought it was fascinating because she didn't have an older brother or some male cousin or anything, it's just been part of who she is. She's not at all gender confused in case anyone was wondering that though; she's completely comfortable with the fact that she is a girl, she just says "I'm a girl who likes boy stuff."

Anyhow, I had mostly forgotten about this study I read, but it says that "tomboys are born and not made" ... basically, the level of maternal testosterone during pregnancy might influence the gender-role behavior of preschool girls. It's pretty fascinating to me in particular, because I would say that DD1 (who was a BCP-fail baby) was conceived during one of the times in my life that was undoubtedly a very high T time.
Study Suggests That Tomboys May Be Born, Not Made (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021112075626.htm)

[Alice]

Sometimes it seems like there are so many elements at play that there is no point in swaying :( The more I read the more complicated our bodies seem! Talk about a can of worms....I guess all we can do is try to influence the things we know about and hope for the best...

[atomic sagebrush]

Sometimes it seems like there are so many elements at play that there is no point in swaying :( The more I read the more complicated our bodies seem! Talk about a can of worms....I guess all we can do is try to influence the things we know about and hope for the best...

I know it feels that way sometimes but we DO KNOW that gender swaying is possible and that diet in particular can sway gender quite a bit, with a good deal of reliability. Info, while it can seem contradictory and overwhelming at times, only helps us to figure out the mystery as we eventually begin to put it all together in a framework that makes sense.

[atomic sagebrush]

AS your comment re: environment of the mother's uterus earlier brought to mind an article I read forever ago. My DD1 is 100% tomboy ... the girl has been into boys things since before she was 2. She would walk into a store and pick out trucks and never bat an eye at princess stuff; wouldn't wear a skirt/dress from the time she was old enough to object. At preschool and kindy she has always chosen to be friends with the boys. I always thought it was fascinating because she didn't have an older brother or some male cousin or anything, it's just been part of who she is. She's not at all gender confused in case anyone was wondering that though; she's completely comfortable with the fact that she is a girl, she just says "I'm a girl who likes boy stuff."

Anyhow, I had mostly forgotten about this study I read, but it says that "tomboys are born and not made" ... basically, the level of maternal testosterone during pregnancy might influence the gender-role behavior of preschool girls. It's pretty fascinating to me in particular, because I would say that DD1 (who was a BCP-fail baby) was conceived during one of the times in my life that was undoubtedly a very high T time.
Study Suggests That Tomboys May Be Born, Not Made (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021112075626.htm)

She sounds awesome! :)

It is interesting that she was a BCP failure tho because BCP makes very hostile CM (would sway pink) and so it is entirely within reason to me that if you did have higher T levels, if not for the CM you might have conceived a boy in that instance, but due to the CM/BCP, she's "a girl who likes boy stuff!" :agree:

[zanacal]

I have a boy who should have been a girl - he loves wearing dresses and prefers to play with girls (though he's also mean with a sword or a bow and arrow!). I wonder what that means?!!

[atomic sagebrush]

Zana, my older boys were exactly like that when they were little (as is my 3 year old now). Painted nails with markers, wore heels and makeup, and always wanted necklaces and bracelets. My personal experience is that a lot of the "gender" stuff comes not from the kids themselves or even from moms and dads, but from OTHER kids - so if they're not around other kids who tell them "that's for girls" or "that's for boys" then they don't really KNOW and just sort of experiment around with what they see their parents do.

[zanacal]

Ha ha - believe me he's around an older boy who makes fun of anything girly!! You're right though, he's still very young.