Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Female sex: only negative associations?

64 replies

Appleinthepark · 29/12/2023 22:07

I mostly don't think about this but when I do, I get so upset.

I have 3 DCs and I have children of both genders. When expectong my DD I came across scientific papers on offspring sex ratio. Most of them claim that:

-more girls are born in stressful times like during a famine or war
-poor, short, starving mothers have more girls
-stressed mothers have more girls
-fathers with anxiety history have more girls
-billionaires have more sons

I found these facts so upsetting and still do. Boys are associated with all the good stuff: they are walking indicators of wealthy, dominating, well nourished, condident yet relaxed parents. Those who have girls are worse off.

I know they are just scientific papers but I actually got quite offended first, then sad: I generally find it difficult to think I am not capable of something and those papers make me feel like being a woman or having girls is somehow an indicator of being less worthy or not being the best version of yourself.

How do others feel about such scientific papers? Any woman here who does not feel like these statements get under your skin?

OP posts:
AhBiscuits · 30/12/2023 09:29

This should make you feel empowered if anything. When chips are down what do we need? More women.

Spendonsend · 30/12/2023 09:29

It makes me feel like women are more valuable as thats what nature puts it effort into when things are tricky and its not such a good investment to have a boy. Then boys come along when it doesnt matter either way.

Carouselfish · 30/12/2023 10:41

Looking at the biology of things, girls are a more valuable resource - I think girls born at more stressful times might be due to this. Ie. 20 girls and one boy can have 20 babies, 20 boys and one girl can have 1 baby. As a species survival thing makes sense to produce more girls for better chance.

Desecratedcoconut · 30/12/2023 10:43

Carouselfish · 30/12/2023 10:41

Looking at the biology of things, girls are a more valuable resource - I think girls born at more stressful times might be due to this. Ie. 20 girls and one boy can have 20 babies, 20 boys and one girl can have 1 baby. As a species survival thing makes sense to produce more girls for better chance.

They'd all be playing banjos with a few generations though.

Carouselfish · 30/12/2023 10:43

@Desecratedcoconut for best post and username.

Carouselfish · 30/12/2023 10:44

@Desecratedcoconut I meant your earlier post but that too. Excellent cross posting!

Desecratedcoconut · 30/12/2023 10:45

😁 Thanks.

ChihuahuasREvil · 30/12/2023 11:10

How did you fail OP? You said you’ve got DC of both sexes.

as a Goadie post this one’s falling short of the mark for all the reasons PPs have explained. On the very off chance that this isn’t an epically failed attempt to start a bunfight, do you usually get personally offended and upset by biology and population analysis?

PostItInABook · 30/12/2023 11:17

Honestly, the things people choose to be offended at nowadays just gets more and more ridiculous.

begaydocrime42 · 30/12/2023 11:32

Appleinthepark · 30/12/2023 07:21

It just makes me feel like I failed: I was not dominant or relaxed or confident but in a "poor state" and then becomes obvious to anyone and to yourself when you have a girl. It is like an indicator that you cannot hide 🫤

Show quote history

What?? Are you happy you’ve had a girl? If so why do you give a flying fig how anyone else sees it?? I’ve one girl and I’m beyond happy she is in existence. If anything she’s more likely to continue my bloodline than a male.
honestly it sounds like there’s something going on in your life to feel like this, maybe some buried feelings at the time of having the baby, do you regret having a girl?

begaydocrime42 · 30/12/2023 11:33

Desecratedcoconut · 30/12/2023 10:43

They'd all be playing banjos with a few generations though.

Show quote history

🤣🤣🤣

ErrolTheRednosedDragon · 30/12/2023 11:53

This may be one of the things the OP was referring to.

www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10331

It is titled 'Hungry mothers give birth to more daughters'

But if you read it, the effect of one of the worst famines in history was merely to dent the excess of boys from 109:100 down to 104:100

Yes, that's right - hungry mothers still had more boys, just not quite as many more as normal. Not sure if anyone knows why, maybe just a higher rate of loss of the more fragile male foetuses?

C1N1C · 30/12/2023 11:57

Interesting if true.

I'd liken it to most plants, Cannabis is a good example. When stressed (day lengths) it goes onto flower. Many insects (e.g. aphids) do the same; when there are environmental stresses, they push out offspring, usually female.

I haven't read the papers, but this would suggest males (sperm) are the deciding factor, which is already well known, but whether the sex ratio of those sperm can be controlled is news to me.

ErrolTheRednosedDragon · 30/12/2023 12:01

I haven't read the papers, but this would suggest males (sperm) are the deciding factor, which is already well known, but whether the sex ratio of those sperm can be controlled is news to me.

My bet would be on embryo/foetus survival rates more than differences at the point of conception.

keeyartheseagull · 30/12/2023 12:24

I bloody love having girls and I'm proud of them and of me.

We are resilient and bloody amazing.

Allthatglittersisntart · 30/12/2023 12:29

It’s more of a positive thing. When things are worrying outside, the world needs more women. We really don't need that many men to continue the human race. Just enough for genetic diversity.

Eekmystro · 30/12/2023 12:51

How interesting. I’ve never heard of that before.

I do not find it offensive. Seems a bit odd to find the outcome of research offensive, unless you think the outcomes are biased and not accurate.

I have a DD and I don’t find it upsetting either. Just because infant girls are more common under some circumstances doesn’t mean that every girl is born because of those circumstances.

Willyoubuymeahouseofgold · 30/12/2023 12:57

Really not sure that's all based on evidence. Women don't determine the sex of babies and some facts there imply attributes of women are linked to predetermining the sex.
If there is a change in ratio then I'd be pretty happy mother nature is adjusting to environmental factors.

Butchyrestingface · 30/12/2023 13:03

It just makes me feel like I failed: I was not dominant or relaxed or confident but in a "poor state" and then becomes obvious to anyone and to yourself when you have a girl. It is like an indicator that you cannot hide 🫤

You DO seem fragile though, such that you've framed an evolutionary adaptation so negatively and admit to feeling "so upset" whenever you think of it.

Desecratedcoconut · 30/12/2023 13:20

Butchyrestingface · 30/12/2023 13:03

It just makes me feel like I failed: I was not dominant or relaxed or confident but in a "poor state" and then becomes obvious to anyone and to yourself when you have a girl. It is like an indicator that you cannot hide 🫤

You DO seem fragile though, such that you've framed an evolutionary adaptation so negatively and admit to feeling "so upset" whenever you think of it.

You should see the op's other thread, there she is oppressed by a patriarchal system that judges her for perfectly ordinary things that women do now that may have been frowned upon fifty or more years ago.

Neitheronethingnortheother · 30/12/2023 13:26

As the daughter of sheep farmer it's always made sense to me that men are evolutionarily disposable

It's the same as all the "men were so important because they hunted the big animals" when (apart from the fact research shows women did too) if this was the case it was because men were more disposable not because they were more important

After all we only need a few rams for 100s of sheep to keep the herd going...

Butchyrestingface · 30/12/2023 13:29

Desecratedcoconut · 30/12/2023 13:20

You should see the op's other thread, there she is oppressed by a patriarchal system that judges her for perfectly ordinary things that women do now that may have been frowned upon fifty or more years ago.

Show quote history

Can't see any other threads for that username in my advanced search.

Desecratedcoconut · 30/12/2023 13:32

That's so weird, it was definitely there this morning.

Original poster
Appleinthepark · 30/12/2023 13:56

Eekmystro · 30/12/2023 12:51

How interesting. I’ve never heard of that before.

I do not find it offensive. Seems a bit odd to find the outcome of research offensive, unless you think the outcomes are biased and not accurate.

I have a DD and I don’t find it upsetting either. Just because infant girls are more common under some circumstances doesn’t mean that every girl is born because of those circumstances.

Thank you - I know that it cannot be black and white. How would one otherwise explain boy/girl twins or triplets with both sexes?

I think it is the weakness/worse off aspect that disturbs me. I like girls' and women's company and love pink, and I adore and am inspired by many female leaders (who have daughters). I prefer female doctors cause I think they are often more competent and precise. So this is quite embarrasing really!

It is only that having weaknesses has always been scary to me. Dominance and confidence are hard to measure and they cannot be seen and I easily feel lagging behind and "less" and maybe these scientific papers sort of underline my occasionally low self esteem?

OP posts:
ErrolTheRednosedDragon · 30/12/2023 14:07

I'm not sure I see 'dominance' as being a positive trait!!