I love reading about any study involving babies, so a recent article in the UK’s Daily Mail caught my eye. Apparently, a team of researchers studied gender and birth patterns and concluded that attractive couples have more daughters than sons. The researchers claim that women need beauty to succeed in life more than men do (men succeed with strength and status). Biologically-speaking, humans naturally pass on their most beneficial traits to their offspring, thus, attractive couples pass on attractiveness. And since women need good looks more than men, attractive parents are more likely to conceive girls.  Similarly, couples who are strong and ambitious are more likely to have sons.

This is me with Flavor Flav in 2007. My husband and I happened to run into him while we were on our honeymoon!

It’s very interesting, though I’m not sure I buy it (especially since the article mentions another researcher who analyzed beautiful famous couples and came to the opposite conclusion—that they actually have more sons), but it’s fascinating to think about!  

Of course, even if true, the results only comment on society at large—not particular individuals. We can all think of unattractive couples with daughters and gorgeous couples with sons. After all, Gisele Bunchen has a son, and the Beckhams have a trio of boys, yet the less attractive Steven Tyler has two daughters and the homely Flavor Flav has more daughters than sons.

So, while the conclusions of this study may or may not be true, it’s interesting to ponder the implications of the next generation filled with beautiful girls and ambitious boys!

I love watching Pudge play with his toys and wondering if he’ll be right or left-handed. Since genetics plays a large role in handedness, and since my husband and I are both righties, I assume our son will be right-handed as well. However, my brother is a lefty born to two right-handed parents, so who knows?

It’s been interesting to watch my son use each hand to grab for different toys, and I often try to figure out whether he’s favoring one hand over the other. According to Baby Center, babies may display signs of a dominant hand as early as 6 to 9 months, but most kids’ handedness won’t be solidly confirmed until the child is 2 or 3 years old. Some children even remain somewhat ambidextrous until they reach kindergarten age.

Interestingly, if a baby displays heavy favoritism for one hand over the other too early, it could actually be a sign of neurological problems. It may indicate that the child’s motor skills are not developing properly.

For now, I’m enjoying watching Pudge play and guessing about his handedness. While part of me is hoping he’ll be a righty for his own ease (since the world is basically built for righties—desks, scissors, etc.), five of the last seven U.S. presidents have been lefties, so I suppose lefties aren’t doomed for life.

It’s hard to believe the horrific events of 9/11 happened more than nine years ago. Clearly, that day took a monumental toll on our country (and even the world). But interestingly, those of us who were alive to witness the event weren’t the only ones affected by it. A recent study examined the effects of 9/11 on women who were pregnant at that time, and it came to a fascinating conclusion. The study showed that women who were pregnant with boys had a higher rate of miscarriage in the year following 9/11 than those pregnant with girls.

In general, female fetuses tend to be heartier and stronger than male fetuses. Thus, when a crisis—whether personal or societal—occurs, the mother’s increased stress level can cause her to miscarry a male baby more easily. Scientists say that the higher rate of miscarried boys may be an evolutionary effect: in times of dire crisis, more girls would be needed to help populate (or re-populate) the world, but only a few boys would be needed. The study’s researchers said that fewer boys than girls have been born following many major societal crises, including wars and recessions. In times of prosperity, male fetuses thrive as well as female ones.

This post is not in any way intended to scare women currently pregnant with boys. While the cited study states that the increased number of miscarried male fetuses after 9/11 is statistically significant, the percentage is still very, very small compared to the number of males carried to term and born alive and well. No one needs to be concerned on an individual basis, but it is interesting to think about the societal effects of fewer boys following major crises.

Because I follow a long line of brown-eyed family members, I always assumed that I would have children with brown eyes. I figured I have such a small chance of having a recessive blue or green gene after all those generations of brown-eyed parents. Even though my husband has blue eyes, I assumed my dominant brown genes would win out. However, I’ve been perplexed by the fact that my son has bluish green eyes so far. I know they still have time to change color, but it got me thinking—is eye color as simple as we think? 

As it turns out, it’s not. We know that two brown-eyed parents each with a recessive blue gene can have a blue-eyed child, but interestingly, it is also possible for two blue-eyed parents to have a brown-eyed child. Very generally, determination of eye color boils down to what we learned in school—a child gets a gene from each of his parents; brown eyes are dominant, so a child would need two recessive blue genes to have blue eyes. However, genetics is actually much more complicated than that. Eye color is the result of several interacting genes and is ultimately determined by the strength of certain genes. Blue-eyed people can carry weak blue genes that give way to latent brown genes resulting in a brown-eyed child. I don’t know about you, but this concept turns everything I thought I knew about genetics upside down! USA Today provides a more technical explanation here.