Maternal Dominance Hypothesis and Priviledged Daughter Hypothesis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2boysJustOneGirl

This all makes total sense! Explains my personality and 2 boys and why I cannot let go of not getting what I wanted...a girl. This pushes me towards GS with IVF as I don't know that I can let go enough to influence a sway for a girl. Can I change who I am? My two boys have helped me loosen up a bit for sure, but enough? Who knows. And if all of this is true, what will happen if I choose GS with IVF, get the daughter I always wanted only to realize I am not "Mary" enough to raise her right. What if the Martha types are best suited to raise men? Should I mess with my own fate?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE WHO YOU ARE. That is not what I am trying to get you guys to take away from this. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do that and you only end up replacing one set of worries/anxieties for another, and then I end up seeing people freaking out because they feel a little stressed out or something, versus freaking out over tracking their temps or pH levels.

You are not going to be able to change the fundamental nature of your personality. That's not going to happen, and worrying about things that are of your essence and unchangeable, only feeds the beast. What I want you to focus on is the EASILY controllable side of it. The tangible stuff. Don't view swaying as a game you can win, don't make up flow charts or 10 point plans or test your pH 20 times a day, don't decide now is the time to take up roller derby or enter the Pillsbury bake off, that kind of thing. But also don't, don't, a thousand times don't, go over your whole entire life worrying about stuff that is just who you are.

Re whether you are "suited" to raise a daughter, I think that part of this theory is frankly bullshittery. I do think we may need to make some adjustments when we get an opposite but honestly, I've had to make adjustments to my parenting style for each individual boy as well. Every kid is different and comes with different parenting challenges regardless of what they have between their legs. the whole human race hasn't swelled to 8 billion of us swarming the face of the planet by being inflexible and unable to adapt to new situations!!

I love how you have pointed out that you had to change parenting style for each boy there atomic. I so often am told "you got it right, all those boys, girls are such hard work. Much worse than boys" or "blimey you got your hands full, boys are such hard work!" By people with 1 of each so have taken their child's individual personality and blamed all their differences on their gender. My boys all have to be approached in different ways and dealt with in different ways.
I am trying for patience, I find some of my biggest stresses come from things like the 356211689055 times I have to tell my eldest that if I can hear him singing then I know he isn't brushing his teeth and that everyone else still needs to use the bathroom and there's 10 minutes till we need to be out the door!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My mum and I were just chatting on Skype and she wondered whether there could be an issue with my husband's X sperm? We have now had two missed miscarriages and five healthy boys. Could those miscarriages have be initiated by defective X sperm?

Also, has anyone read this http://phys.org/news148226702.html before? Atomic? It talks about men inheriting their tendency to produce more boys or girls. It's very interesting...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no reliable scientific evidence that men can "only make boys" and in fact very sensible and sound reasons why it's highly unlikely. I have discussed that "study" in other places online and actually just discussed it in another thread, I'll see if I can dig it up and repost it here

Yes found it here

Long story short, this is a misleading study and the way it was reported on in the media is even more so (suggesting that there is a gene involved, when no such gene has been found).

What the study found was that yes, there are some families that seem to be more boy or girl heavy than the 50-50 expectation would have us believe. WELL DUH. That could be down to lots of different things - llifestyle, social status, other genetic factors such as height or muscle mass, and to jump to the rather shocking and utterly unproven conclusion that this is down to genes, is silly and not supported by the facts.

It makes the most evolutionary sense for people to be able to make both boys and girls based on cues from the environment about which gender has the best odds of survival to pass down genes to future generations. If there were some gene that made people more likely to have sons, firstly it puts those families at a huge genetic disadvantage right at the start because of all the men who ever existed, only 40% have surviving descendants whereas 80% of all the women who have ever existed have surviving descendants. And secondly, whenever there was a war or other conflict where predominantly males were killed which has happend again and again across time, people who had all their "eggs in one basket" and had only sons, could easily have had their entire genetic contribution wiped out in one fell swoop. Evolution does not favor genes that put you at a 50% disadvantage from the start and then run the risk of being total dead ends at any time.

So just to share our family history, my husband's grandpa was one of three sons and those three sons did happen to go onto have quite a lot of sons. But DH's grandpa (had 5 boys, 4 lived, and then one girl), his kids all had 50-50 boys and girls. And then those kids (my husband's generation) all had 50-50 boys and girls. They all had pigeon pairs and my husband has a little sister, no brothers whatsoever. Except us, who had 4 boys and then one girl. So that would be one hell of a selective gene, that affected two generations, then skipped two generations, only to settle on just us, yk? But if a researcher looked at this family and counted up B vs. G, it may very well be the case that on paper it appeared to be more boy heavy than girl heavy (and it is, in terms of numbers alone) but that doesn't mean that there was any such gene involved.

Sorry to but in again but your hubby's family sounds like my hubby's family. His grandad was one of 6 boys. He had 3 boys. His eldest son (dh dad) had 1dd and 2ds, dh uncle had 1ds and 2dd and his other uncle had 3ds. Of the 9 grandchildren, all the boys had only daughters, except BIL who had a pp and dh who has 4 ds.
In fact it's a point of pride with FIL that out of all the grandchildren, only his boys had boys to pass on the family name. Guess someone had to do it.
I love hearing about families that are boy heavy and then get a girl though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually out of my my grandFIL's 4 sons, only my FIL had two sons. Two of his brothers have one of each and the youngest brother has 4 daughters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am a mom to four boys and my name is actually Martha...I guess I should be expecting to hear another boy in 8 weeks :)lol

Hey, Mary can be a nickname for Martha! (both Martha Stewart and Martha Washington had daughters!!!)

This came at a good time. I've been spending too much time reading other's sways. My attempt is in a week or so. Time to go relax, watch the bachelorette, and paint my nails.

OMG - I am SUCH a Martha!! I can´t belive it :bigsmile:

I really have to relax and stop thinking of my perfect swaying plan.