Whoa, prepare for some serious feather-rufflng in the world of parenting: an expert from London School of Economics has made the pretty controversial claim that beautiful women are more likely to have girls.
Dr Satoshi Kanazawa tracked down 17,000 women born in 1958. When they turned 7 years of age, he asked their teachers to rate them on attractiveness.
He tracked them down again when they were aged 45 and found the women who’d been rated most good-looking at 7 years had given birth to girls.
Dr Kanazawa goes on to say: “Young Americans who are rated ‘very attractive’ have roughly a 44% chance of having a son for their first child (and thus a 56% chance of having a daughter).
“In contrast, everyone else has roughly a 52% chance of having a son (and thus a 48% chance of having a daughter) for their first child.
“Being ‘very attractive’ increases the odds of having a daughter by 36% or decreases the odds of having a son by 26%.”
He also says that: “Physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women’s reproductive success than to men’s.”
Now, we can see a fair few flaws in this study, as we’re sure you can too.
Who exactly were those teachers who rated the girls on their looks for a start? And how on EARTH were good looks (for 7 year olds!!) decided on?
What about women who have girls and boys? How does the theory hold up for them?
And how does the doc explain those gorgeous women who have boys (models like Miranda Kerr, Gisele Bundchen, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and, obvs, some of you lot, too?
Part of us wonders if this study’s just been put out there to grab the headlines and cause a bun fight… so we’ll just give it a bit of an eyeroll ?
We’re guessing most of you will, too ?