RSS

Contact us

Sunday 5 July 2009

Status Anxiety

A high-status Mr Toad lookalike like me is bound to produce more sons than daughters

It’s a boy! This was the news following my wife’s 20-week scan last week. I know it is infra dig to find out the sex of your baby in advance, but Caroline said she needed to be psychologically prepared just in case it was a boy. She wanted another girl, obviously, and she didn’t want to risk bursting into tears in the delivery suite when the midwife held up the little tyke for her inspection.

I take the opposite view. I like girls as much as the next man, but what my wife has failed to grasp is that the entire point of having children is to enhance your social standing. In this regard, boys are preferable. One of the most famous principles in evolutionary bio-logy is the Trivers-Willard hypothesis which states that wealthy, high-status parents are more likely to have male children. The evolutionary explanation for this is that children generally inherit the status of their parents and sons from wealthy backgrounds are likely to have a large number of sexual partners and, therefore, produce lots of children. Over time, those who possessed this genetic trait multiplied, while those that didn’t eventually died out.

The exact biological mechanism that is responsible for this remains a mystery, but it is a well-documented phenomenon nonetheless. Church parish records from the 17th and 18th centuries, for instance, show that rich landowners in Leezen, Germany, had more sons than daughters, while farm labourers in the same region had more daughters. American presidents have more sons, while the Mukogodo herders of East Africa have more daughters. Admittedly, I’m a fairly recent convert to this way of looking at things. When I told Caroline about this hypothesis she pointed out that after the birth of our first child — a girl — I subscribed to the theory that men with high levels of testosterone were more likely to have girls. Five years and three boys later, I now regard this as a ludicrously implausible urban myth — ‘folk science’, as I’ve learned to call it. Alpha males, as I now know, produce a string of male heirs who can go forth and spread their seed.

The downside of the Trivers-Willard hypothesis is that it doesn’t just apply to status. If parents have any traits they can pass on to their children that are better for sons than for daughters, they will have more boys. Conversely, if parents have any traits that are better for daughters than for sons, they will have more girls. Since physical attractiveness contributes more to a woman’s reproductive success than a man’s, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis states that good-looking parents are more likely to have girls — and this is indeed the case. According to Psychology Today, Americans rated ‘very attractive’ have a 56 per cent chance of having a daughter as their first child, compared to the 48 per cent chance possessed by everyone else. It seems that if, like me, you enjoy a reasonably high status but look like Mr Toad, you are more or less guaranteed to produce boys.

There are other advantages to having male children. The men will outnumber the women in our household by two-to-one, which will be useful when it comes to disputes over whether to watch Strictly Come Dancing or Match of the Day. They will eat a great deal, of course, but Caroline will be forced to buy the kind of food that men like — minced meat, sausages, potatoes — rather than the stuff that women like — lettuce, pumpkin seeds, couscous. Even my daughter will benefit. Growing up in such a male environment will furnish her with a high tolerance for men’s disgusting personal habits, something that will be good preparation for married life. My poor wife was brought up with three sisters and, as a consequence, finds much of my day-to-day behaviour intolerable.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of boys is that they’re less of a worry during adolescence. No doubt they’ll stay out late, take drugs and get into trouble with the police — all of which I did as a teenager — but at least they won’t get pregnant. In general, they’re easier to handle than girls — less likely to fight with their parents, less likely to run away, less likely to be the victims of internet predators. In time, I hope, they’ll all settle down and get married — and the best part is that their good-looking, low-status father-in-laws will be forced to pay for their weddings.

Toby Young is associate editor of The Spectator.

More articles from: Toby Young | this section

Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink   |   Comments (3)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved