New Study Finds Rich Moms Have Boys, Poor Moms Have Girls
Categories: Pregnancy & Birth, In The News
Poverty may play a role in a baby's gender. Image: Richard Dunstan, sxc.hu
In January 2009, a researcher out of Newcastle University suggested that men have a gene that decides if they're going to father girls or boys. A 2007 study found that stressed out mamas are more likely to give birth to girls. And then there's the Shettles method, which claims that gender can be influenced by timing intercourse a certain way around ovulation.
The latest finding? Women who are poor are more likely to give birth to girls, but women with a higher social standing have more boys. I know, I know: Your well off sister-in-law has six girls, but you've got four boys bunking in a two-bedroom bungalow. We won't notice this influence here in America, because the gap between the rich and the poor may not be wide enough.But in places like Rwanda, where the study took place, the gap is significant. Strong mothers make strong babies, and -- according to this theory -- a strong healthy boy is a mother's best chance at her genes being passed for several more generations. On the other hand, if the mother is weak, sick or malnourished, a girl is a better gamble. Girl babies are tougher (say researchers), so they're more likely to survive and thrive.
This might partially explain why boys are revered in some cultures -- a sign of prosperity, perhaps? Or, it all might be bunk. After all, look at America's version of royalty: In 80 years, only one First Family, the Kennedys, has brought a boy to the White House.
What do you think? Is this theory a plausible one? Or does it just add fuel that old notion that boy children are preferred?
Recent Posts
- Movies May Influence Children's Food Choices, Study Shows (2/09/2010)
- Report Cites 220 Cases of D.C. Teachers Abusing Students (2/09/2010)
- Chicago Candidate Drops Out of Race With Tearful Child On Display (2/09/2010)
- Juicy, But Not Juice (2/09/2010)
- Carrie Underwood Worms Her Way Onto 'Sesame Street' (2/09/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SKL 7-13-2009 @ 1:28PM
I could have told you this without a study. Boys are the weaker sex when they are in the womb, as well as when they are infants. More boys are conceived in every country, but girls have a higher chance of surviving most of the issues that are encountered in vitro and for years thereafter. If you are rich, you can do an ultrasound and see any issues early, which increases the chance of fixing them; you can take time off work and go on bedrest and change your diet and take drugs and pay for procedures to increase the child's chances of being born; you can have a c-section or induce labor at the safest time in the pregnancy, and provide state-of-the-art medical care to the preemie; etc. All this does is chip away at the natural advantage that baby girls have, whether their parents are rich or poor.
On top of that, there are a LOT of illegal gender-based abortions in countries where having a boy is preferred. The poor would not have access to ultrasound and so do not have this option.
Reply
Chrysee 7-13-2009 @ 1:47PM
I was gonna say the exact same things. Males are less likely to survive at any age, so it makes sense that there would be a correlation between SES and male birth rate.
Uly 7-13-2009 @ 1:58PM
EXACTLY what I was thinking, word for word.
kiki 7-17-2009 @ 12:05PM
I guess what I don't understand is why, when women have two X chromosomes and men have an X and a Y, there is so much focus on women determining the sex of the child. A girl has 2 X's, one contributed from mom and one from dad. A boy has an X from mom, and a Y from dad. Only dad can contribute the Y, and therefore the gender is determined by which sperm happens to hit the egg. I guess if the study means that boy babies already in utero are more likely not to survive with a poor mom, that could make sense, increasing the overall number of girls for the poor population. But the environment the mother is in while pregnant can't possibly determine the sex of the child as I understand it.
JEAN 7-13-2009 @ 4:41PM
I WAS TOLD THAT WHEN A WOMAN IS WANT FOR THE MAN, THEN SHE WILL HAVE A BOY. wHEN THE MALE HAS A DESIRE FOR THE FEMALE ARTNER, THEY WILL PRODUCE A GIRL. i BELIEVE THAT BY MY OWN CASE AND THAT OF OTHERS. JKLLDL@AOL.COM
Reply
Heidi 7-13-2009 @ 5:28PM
Did I have girls because I was poor? Didn't think I was back then. Am I broke now because I have two teenage daughters who live at the mall? Absolutely! Paying them to do chores has not turned out to be a great idea. A maid would be cheaper.
Jokes aside, SKL has a good point. Add to that, if you can afford fertility treatments, selective "termination" used to prevent multiples could possibly factor in. And as for third world countries which value boys more than girls, hmmm, China comes to mind.
Reply
pamela 7-14-2009 @ 5:11AM
thats a bunch of bull, im by far not rich , i had a son! thats just jinxing or what ever you call it,iit all depends on the fertility at the time, i tottally dont believe that crap!
Reply