Are you pretty? Study claims you will have more daughters than sons
Evolutionary psychologist concludes that attractive men are a dying breed.
Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM
About to give birth and don’t know the sex of your baby? Look in the mirror. If you’re a beautiful woman, a researcher out of London claims you are more likely to give birth to a girl. Msnbc.com reports on a new study from Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa that the more attractive you are, the more likely your offspring will be female.
Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics who claims that attractive parents are more likely to have daughters. Further, in a study to be published in Reproductive Journal, Kanazawa asserts that this means attractive men are a dying breed on our planet. The study is a follow-up to his 2007 book with Alan Miller, “Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.”
Kanazawa came to this conclusion by tracking a survey of 17,000 British babies born in March 1958. When these children were 7 years old, their looks were rated by their teachers. When researchers checked in with the same students at age 45, the “more attractive” former students had more daughters. This means that the former students who were deemed less pretty had more sons.
But parents of boys may take heart. Via YourTango, experts are quick to point out the flawed logic behind the survey on which the study is based, including the fact that the concept of beauty changes over decades. Also, beauty is entirely relative and children can grow into, or out of, their looks. But Kanazawa and Miller assert that beauty is an evolutionary tool that benefits women, so it’s “natural” that it would be passed down to daughters. As Kanazawa and Miller conclude, via Msnbc.com, "So physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women's reproductive success than to men's."
Ultimately, Kanazawa is no stranger to stirring up controversy. In an article for Psychology Today titled “Why We Are Losing this War,” Kanazawa writes, “Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost. Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.” This was written in 2008 when Hillary Clinton, incidentally a mother of a daughter, was running for president.
For further reading: