Rich women bear sons, poor women bear daughters

Wait, doesn't this go against everything we learned in biology? I thought that the chromosomes that determine the baby's sex (X or Y) come from the sperm. Am I wrong?

Agreed... I think there's a false correlation here. Maybe "rich women" marry men who are more prone to produce the Y chromosome?

So now we know !

Bull-crap.

....
Haven't you ever seen Malcolm in the Middle lol

Yes and no. The magic is in the very last line of the article. Look at the amount of difference they are claiming as significant. It's really tiny. This is a statistical study which means there is a margin of error. Whether you think this error either proves or disproves the supposition is based entirely on how great the margin of error is in the study.

One thing is for sure though: If the answer to the study is that there was no difference it wouldn't be news would it.

Another possibility might be that senior wives have been married to the man longer. We do know that a woman who has an orgasm is slightly more likely to have a male child. Maybe it's just that the older wives were married to the man back when he was still young enough to get their motor going.

Could it be that even in our so-called "enlightened" first-world, Western culture that some of the wealthy would prefer their property be handed down to a male heir, thus resulting in the selective abortion of female fetuses?

Might also be due to the fact that wealthier women tend to bear children later in life and therefore do a lot more planning, ie. timing their cycles to try to conceive at the most fertile time. Male sperm are faster so if conception is "scheduled" - more boys.

What an absurd study. The fact that people actually receive money in order to research and support these outrageous claims sickens me.

How dumb! Explain all the boys in 'poor' areas.

Another nonsense study.

this is stupid. sounds like eugenics

it's some type of relativity

Ring ring.

Hello?

Hi, I'm calling BS.

Lifestyle does not change the odds of conceiving a girl vs a boy, that is ridiculous since the sex is determined by the sperm. However, not ridiculous is the fact that girl babies are truly tougher and have a slightly higher chance of surviving than do boys. Of course poor people don't have as good health care as rich people because our health insurance system is currently for-profit (unfortunately), so I would suppose that poor women would lose more babies in general, and since girls are tougher, they'll have more girls than boys, while rich women will more likely be in better health and lose less babies overall.

"According to evolutionary theory, when conditions are good, and babies are likely to be healthy, a mother's best chance of passing on her genes to another generation is to have boys."

This quote is misleading and it gives us a clue that the author of this article isn't too bright. This quote would only make sense if men typically go out and get multiple women pregnant. Further, this quote makes absolutely no evolutionary sense whatsoever. There is no evolutionary adaption to change the fact that the sex is determined by the sperm.

Also, if in some magical world where scientific facts don't matter, there was some sort of adaption to have more boys than girls, or if you consider China where they abort baby girls in favor of boys, the gender ratio would get out of whack and it wouldn't be beneficial to the species. Too many dicks and not enough chicks, to put it crudely. In that case, the advantage switches to females, as they would be more likely to have offspring than men. Some of the men wouldn't be able to find a mate, but most/all of the women would.

The article is dumb.

This is a fallacy. Scientifically, the sex of the offspring is determined by the father. The mother's sex chromosomes XX versus the father's XY.

Interesting scientific tidbit, but this is not to say that later on a rich woman could become poor, or a poor woman or her children to become rich later! ...at least, this is my optimistic commentary.

Rich women also bear high beams, as if to say "You will never get this, you will never get this!"

HOGWASH!!!! hahaha that is the most "creative" news piece I've read in awhile. Does that include wealthy aliens from another planet?? haha

I have three sons and three grandsons. I already know I'm "rich" from all of them, but its not in a monetary way!

And look at Theresa from the NJ Housewives! She's a millionaire+ and she has three daughters!

Just by reading the article you can tell that the possibility of bearing a boy vs a girl is so small it might as well be dumb luck

its amazing how they come up with all this stuff

I don't know about all that, but Victoria Beckham's body is BANGING!!!!! that tight ass dress leaves little to the imagination. so hot

Humans can give birth to BEARS?! I'd love to have a bear son. I'd feed him all the honey he wants. Or am I confusing this the way I did when I read about the right to bear arms?
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/9/9b/Right_To_Bear_Arms.jpg

This is just a correlation not a causation. The news does this a lot, it's sick. Headlines: "WINTER CAUSES CRIMES!" Just because more crimes happen in the winter doesn't mean that it causes it.

i think it's arm bears. anywayl it's been found (by i forget who) that mothers can develop an allergy to boy babies if they have had too many boys. the article i read was about why the 3rd son has a high chance of being gay.

My mom was poor as poor can be in America, and a minority (black). She had two sons who still aint rich.