This is fascinating! I'm not done reading it all yet but I find ti very interesting. I am not here to sway one sex or the other (trying for twins) but I imagine I will be more likely to have boys according to the maternal dominance/ testosterone theory.
I can't work out if I'm more Martha or Mary :D
I have girls so assume I must be a Mary somewhere but reading the two I would have thought myself a Martha :think:
Random thoughts I had reading through these:
I read these with a grain of salt as in "gee that was a fun read but i will not allow these 'studies' to cause me to beat myself up since i have sons"
Trivers willard study:
Only beautiful social butterflies get daughters
Brainiacs with too much testosterone get boys.....i felt this was a boys are monsters mindset study...gonna let that slide off my back like water off a duck ;)
Rashi thought he only had daughters because he couldnt please his wife in bed...or so i read in a book once
My mom loves red meat and sweets
Strangers walk up to me and tell me im beautiful.
I fear these 'studies' could end up Just another mommy war subject to speculate if these things ring true in whether pink or blue...
but both are bundles of joy. And i am blessed to even have children seeing as how im so subfertile.
That one study that said attractive people have more girls really pissed me off. On the one hand I don't give it much stock because it wasn't very scientific--attractiveness was rated by the participants' third grade teachers, not by something measurable like the golden ratio or facial symmetry. Still, it really stuck in my craw because it came out right when we found out we were having a second boy. I felt like people would read about it and start considering me less attractive (which is of course stupid because people could always see and evaluate how I looked). Also, I look like my mom so somehow she was good-looking enough to have a girl but I'm not? Hmmmmm, doesn't sound plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by skillet04
That beautiful people study isn't very significant IMO. Not a well done study IMO and very overhyped.
I don't like that either and don't put much stock in it.
What worries me is that I have OCD tendencies...eekkkk...did I just say that. But mildly. I like my house run a certain, esp with 2 little boys, it can get outta control easy. And I am always on time. It annoys me! LOL. I need to work on these things and relax more about some stuff.
I have full blown OCD. Not mild either. I was medicated heavily for many years.
That must have been really hard on you maiden. Has it gotten better?
I am wondering if we may be having some language or cultural issues going on here because I am not totally following all this. I get an "offended" vibe from your post, skillet, and I am walking away with an offended vibe myself which may or may not have been your intent.
I am simply talking in generalities and not specifics based upon years of research that I have done. I think I am being exceedingly fair and even handed with it. I went to great efforts in that regard. If anyone thinks I am trying to incite mommy wars they are either coming at this from a totally different worldview than I am or we are speaking two different languages (literally)
Beautiful women and daughters, I actually need an essay on this since it got so much attention. The study was a bit hinky (I would much rather they had had a different kind of setup where they had pictures rated by attractiveness by bystanders and not people rated by researchers, I've heard that it was because there is more to beauty than what is represneted on a picture but I still feel it was too biased)
BUT also it was misrepresented in the media because in the study itself, it found that it wasn't that beautiful women have girls, ugly women have boys. The results were actually much more interesting and absolutely in line with TW. Both the most beautiful and the least attractive group had daughters, while the "very attractive, attractive, somewhat less attractive" categories had more sons. This goes along with TW because the idea is that the women/females in poorest condition (and being unattractive can sometimes be a result of being in poor condition) can typically still find a mate, at least for long enough to get pregnant, while a very unattractive, poor condition male simply cannot compete.
Editorial note, if any all-girl moms get mad at me for reporting on this, which has happened once before and this woman was all like "you boy moms can't even let us have THAT!" Please note, I am simply reporting what a study found. If you want to go around happy and superior in the knowledge that "beautiful women have more daughters" please feel free. The boy-mom vs. girl mom crap that used to fly on IG doesn't fly around here so let's everyone don our big girl panties if possible.
Re "smart women have more sons" it wasn't intelligence per se that was measured, it was the types of careers that they picked and I know some VERY savvy women who understand things about interpersonal relationships that would confuse the hell out of Bill Gates or Stephen Hawking so I tend to think that it's more women who are "smart" in a way that is more likely to be recognized by males may have more boys. I think intelligence can be a hard thing to quantify, after all both Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton are pretty darn smart gals but have girls.
Re boys are monsters mindset - I do not include studies that are obvious anti-male hit pieces. Any study that I have read that seems interesting and possibly to be in some way informative, I mention. Does it mean that every aspect will be true for everyone all the time, NO. I am and always have been one of the biggest defenders of boys and men since I showed up on InGender in 2007 so anyone who is accusing me of being antimale has completely misread what I was saying. As for who my daughter will marry, I think that is a totally out of order thing to say and really not appreciated.
Grant's study was simply that women who were more likely to be trying to influence the actions of others tended to have more boys. THe OCD observation is mine and based on my experiences with hundreds if not thousands of women at this point. Something may not be true for you but could still be true across the general population. That one I believe with every fiber of my being. My house is a mess too but I am OCD in other ways.
Being a pushover has absolutely nothing to do with this. I find moms of boys are often very indulgent of their little guys. I do not think you are understanding what I am saying. You can be a very sweet person but are still working to influence the actions of others by being sweet and kind to them.
Woman married to partner has been shown in studies dating back to the 1800's to be more likely to produce sons.
RE promiscuous - I'm not sure I am quite sure what you're even referring to. No one is calling anyone promiscuous. I do find that ON AVERAGE moms and dads of boys tend to have higher sex drives but at the same time more boys are born in monogamous relationships so I do not see how that is calling anyone promiscuous. I don't know who Rashi is, I'm sorry.
I am not saying either Mary or Martha was wrong. They are two different approaches to life, two different strategies. One may work in some cases, the other may work in other cases. NO ONE is really a Mary or a Martha, we both have elements of each in us. I'm sorry you read it that way. Please try to keep in mind that MANY moms of all girls are constantly treated as if they are "less than" because they have no sons, and because of the way Valerie Grant made her argument. I was putting a humorous spin on that not to make boy moms feel bad, but to make girl moms feel good about themselves.
Research has shown that the females of the species have a say in the gender of the baby that they conceive. This has been well documented by science for decades. REgardless of Henry the 8th or what anyone's mom has to say about it.
I would have liked them to take pictures and have them rated by people who were not involved in the study in any other way, and then they could have gone and seen the gender makeup of the ffamily after the "attractiveness" had been rated.Quote:
Originally Posted by trifecta
But, like I mentioned above, the media did not report the study accurately anyway because both "beautiful" and "very unattractive" people had more girls and then all three groups in the middle had more boys.