Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

"Why giving birth to sons could be bad for your health" - Are they serious? :s Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    Unless you're joking, you have clearly misunderstood the point. It's not that males are born at all; it's how much energy mothers put into sons (as well as the various other biological factors) that decrease their life expectancy. If there weren't any benefits outweighing this disadvantages to the mother , males would more likely have genes that direct similar development to females (e.g. less muscle), except for sexual characteristics of course.
    So essentially these scientists devised this study to promote an anti-male agenda.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    So essentially these scientists devised this study to promote an anti-male agenda.
    How did you come to that conclusion from my post
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xotol)
    The reason for this is biological, which probably means it has some evolutionary purpose. Males are naturally more physical and muscular on average. Why? Because, back in the day, males hunted and fought. The cost of invested energy and effort from a mother towards the son was probably outweighed by the reward of more food and longer survival (to make more babies and propagate the genes).

    In this day and age, there really isn't as big of a need for that. We have civilisations, infrastructure and machinery, which means there is really no need for the division of labour that was present earlier.

    Overall, I'd say it's the fault of society. Not males (whoop!).
    Who invents, builds and maintains infrastructure? MEN!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by satisfactionatlast)
    I don't know how accurate this "study" is. Thoughts people? Personally, I find it plain bizarre

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...ur-health.html
    I have seen other articles about the cumulative effects of testosterone (from male foetuses) on a mother's system. It apparently has a progressive effect of successive siblings as well, in terms of physical development (eg, measurable things like finger length ratios). More interesting is speculation about whether it could also have an effect on mental development, personality, even sexuality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What the study will actually say is having sons incurs more of a biological cost to the mother or something along those lines. The newspapers will twist this to having sons is bad for your health.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    Same old scientists. Trying to push their ideological beliefs onto the masses.
    More like scientists reporting facts and statistics and the media trying to push their ideological beliefs onto the masses.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    So essentially these scientists devised this study to promote an anti-male agenda.
    Do you understand how science works?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    I have seen other articles about the cumulative effects of testosterone (from male foetuses) on a mother's system. It apparently has a progressive effect of successive siblings as well, in terms of physical development (eg, measurable things like finger length ratios). More interesting is speculation about whether it could also have an effect on mental development, personality, even sexuality.
    hmmmmm interesting
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by assured)
    Same old scientists. Trying to push their ideological beliefs onto the masses.
    Yes those scientists are to blame because biology isn't gender equal
    :facepalm:

    This is hardly a suprise and I really don't know why people are finding it hard to believe. How is it a shock that growing another human inside of yourself puts a lot of stress on your body's resources and changes body chemisty significantly. The focus is entirely on the child, the mothers long term health is insignificant from a biological perspective. In the case of males they not only require a huge input of resources but have very different hormone levels to the female they are growing in.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    Yes those scientists are to blame because biology isn't gender equal
    :facepalm:

    This is hardly a suprise and I really don't know why people are finding it hard to believe. How is it a shock that growing another human inside of yourself puts a lot of stress on your body's resources and changes body chemistry significantly. The focus is entirely on the child, the mothers long term health is insignificant from a biological perspective. In the case of males they not only require a huge input of resources but have very different hormone levels to the female they are growing in.
    I agree. I read somewhere (probably in 'Genome' by Matt Ridley) that the 'selfish gene' paradigm predicts that male and female babies will put the mother under different levels of stress. Natural selection predicts that the mother's genes should favour building foetuses and placenta that don't put stress excessive stress on her own system, whereas male genes (which also contribute to the placenta) have no such incentives. Effectively, the placentas of male foetuses force the mother to expend more of her own resources during gestation. That's probably why gestation is slightly longer for boys and they are born slightly heavier than girls. There are a whole range of other areas where a gene or alleles may be beneficial if found in females but non-beneficial when found in males (or vice versa), and the maths suggest that female genes will always out-compete their male rivals.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 12, 2013
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.