Here’s the link to the original story I read. Basically, women who consumed a higher-calorie and/or more nutritious diet around the time of conception increased their chances of having a boy; women who skipped breakfast or cut calories increased their chances of having a girl. Interesting.
Then I read a blog that completely blasted the study’s findings, calling them sexist, and calling into question researcher bias. I have a different spin.
Biologically speaking, women are more important than men — simply because we are the life-bearers, and it takes so long to produce a healthy child. When times are tough and food is scarce, it’s more important to ensure that more females are born than males. (The following is a statement of fact, not of what should be. I am not advocating harems or polygamy or anything like that.) One man can father as many children in a year as he can find willing females. Since it takes almost a year to grow a baby, a woman can only have one complete pregnancy in a year (but may have twins or more). Exaggerating to prove a point, if the population of the world were suddenly reduced to 1 person of 1 sex and 50 persons of the other sex, which would you rather see — one man and fifty women, or fifty men and one woman? Remember, the survival of our species is dependent on the ability of the female to reproduce. So a lone man could conceivably and easily father 25 children every year, under those circumstances, while a lone woman would be hard-pressed to have one child every year.
See? That’s a much better way of looking at things! When the going gets tough, more females are produced! You go, girl!🙂