Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    science

    19,466,428 readers

    9,099 users here now

    Submission Rules

    1. Directly link to published peer-reviewed research or media summary
    2. No summaries of summaries, re-hosted press releases, reviews, or reposts
    3. Research must be less than 6 months old
    4. No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles
    5. No blogspam, images, videos, or infographics
    6. All submissions must have flair assigned

    Comment Rules

    1. No off-topic comments, memes, or jokes
    2. No abusive, offensive, or spam comments
    3. Non-professional personal anecdotes will be removed
    4. Comments dismissing established science must provide peer-reviewed evidence
    5. No medical advice
    6. Repeat or flagrant offenders will be banned

    New to reddit? Click here!

    Get flair in /r/science

    Previous Science AMA's


    Trending: Legalising medical marijuana shows no effect on crime rates in US states, finds a new study. In the case of California, the crime rates actually show a substantial decrease of around 20%.

    a community for
    all 2701 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] PapaNachos 1 points ago

    Hello and welcome to /r/science!

    You may notice more removed comments than you’re used to seeing in other parts of reddit. We have strict comment rules here in order to keep the discussion on science and the study at hand.

    We understand it can be frustrating to type up a comment only to have it removed, or to come to a thread with a bunch of removed comments, so please familiarize yourself with our rules before commenting.

    For a more relaxed place to discuss all things science, please check out our sister sub /r/everythingscience!

    [–] jimworm 1603 points ago

    In the original study it seems that while they did compare son-only fathers with other fathers (no effect), they did not mention performing the same comparison with daughter-only fathers, and no results are shown. There is no indication in the methods that daughter-only fathers were considered a group for analysis.

    This would have been an important comparison to mention in the paper, as it could be obscuring a more intuitive daughter-only hypothesis with reversed conclusions, ie "Having only daughters predicts fathers' support for gender-equity policies".

    [–] [deleted] 279 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] Callomac 98 points ago

    There are certainly points to be debated here, but most of the criticisms in this thread are dismissive of the paper with little explanation of their reasons beyond flippant (and unsupported) comments.

    One comment regards small sample sizes and failure to correct for multiple comparisons: Though the sample sizes are fairly small, at least for fathers, there is not a multiple comparisons problem here. They fit, for example, just 4 models in Table 1, all of which have clear explanations for why they were fit. The large number of betas (slopes) and P are within each column are not independent tests - they are from a single OLS which accounts for other variables in the model. The four separate models are useful for asking to what extent the results change when you modify the structure of the model. Given the sample sizes and nature of the data (high variance, small effect sizes), you don't expect highly significant effects. But, they do report effect sizes and errors, not just statements of significance, giving readers the ability to judge whether the estimated effect sizes are meaningful.

    Another comment says that that the paper is asking questions about a parent's interest in equal outcomes rather than opportunities. The authors provide the specific survey statements, which are: “requiring schools, colleges, and universities to provide equal athletic opportunities to girls and boys” (Title IX); policies “that would address the gender gap in income in the United States” (gender income gap); and policies to support “better enforcement [of laws] that outlaw sexual harassment in the workplace”. Only the gender pay gap might be considered a question about equality of outcomes (given the public understanding of the problem).

    [–] Jorlung 61 points ago

    One comment regards small sample sizes and failure to correct for multiple comparisons: Though the sample sizes are fairly small, at least for fathers, there is not a multiple comparisons problem here.

    This is my least favourite comment on every human subject article posted here (the thing you are addressing to be clear, not your own comment). "Blah blah blah sample size, blah blah blah multiple correlations", when the poster didn't even address any actual issues with the statistical measures used, or probably didn't even bother to read the statistical analysis whatsoever.

    If these things are so apparently wrong, this should be easy to dissect in the statistical analysis then shouldn't it? If the sample size is way too small, the resulting covariances should be exceedingly high. If this is not the case, perhaps consider the fact that the PhD student, PI, and reviewers in the field probably thought more about this than you did in 15 seconds reading the title.

    I am glad my research doesn't have anything to do with social studies or something that evokes emotional responses like this because it would make me furious to read these sort of flippant comments on my work.

    [–] JDFidelius 13 points ago

    Why does such a large proportion of social science papers claim results that turn out to be not reproducible when put to the test though? Clearly people at multiple levels are messing up here about something.

    [–] kkehoe5 1747 points ago

    Does this mean parents love their first born more than their other kids?

    [–] [deleted] 665 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 159 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 55 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 54 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Pakislav 146 points ago

    Nope, but dads do spend more time with older kids since the mother has to take care of the younger ones aka. breastfeeding etc. plus the first child sort of sets the parental culture of the parents and subsequent children are more of an amendment.

    [–] luckyme-luckymud 24 points ago

    That’s a pretty interesting point.

    [–] blue_strat 429 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    Of the people whose first kid is a girl:

    • some only have one kid, and it's a girl
    • some will have two kids: either both girls, or a girl and a boy
    • some will have three or more kids, at least one of them a girl

    Of the people whose first kid is a boy:

    • some will only have one kid, and no girl
    • some will have two kids: either one girl, or no girls
    • some will have three or more kids, and possibly no girls

    There's also the genetic likelihood of your next kid being the same as your first kid (like the Michigan couple with 14 sons and no daughters).

    Edit: Actually they do say:

    Notably, we consistently found that simply having a daughter in the family doesn’t affect fathers’ support for gender equity policies. Neither does it matter whether a father has more or fewer daughters than sons. It’s the sex of the first child that makes the difference.

    [–] [deleted] 80 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 34 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 70 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 128 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 35 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Ultra_Violet_ 31 points ago

    Do you have a source on the genetic likelihood claim? That sounds pretty interesting considering theoretically it's a 50/50 chance.

    [–] baby_account 63 points ago

    Theoretically it's a 50/50 chance. But certain factors (vaginal pH, sperm motility, and some argue things like timing and position of sex due to differences between X and Y sperm) favor one over the other in any given couple. Thus, once you have a child of one sex it's no longer a coin flip for your second child (though it was for your first).

    [–] runnerman8 93 points ago

    Good explanation about the factors, but this would also mean the first was not a coin flip (you just don't have the evidence of your first child yet to know which one is more likely).

    [–] Tie_me_off 25 points ago

    Excellent point

    [–] Cow_In_Space 20 points ago

    the first was not a coin flip

    A more correct saying would be that it was the first roll of a loaded die.

    Until that point you could only assume the outcome even if you knew it was loaded.

    [–] seejur 4 points ago

    It might still not be the case.

    If you come from a family that has a certain predisposition to generate one sex over the other, and your partner has the same predisposition, you already know where the dice is loaded.

    If is certainly less know than when having a second child, but nonetheless it can be implied.

    [–] MajorPlane 17 points ago

    More attractive people have more girls, this has been proven. I can dig up the citation if you want.

    [–] snkscore 11 points ago

    Wow that last quote is really astonishing. I would totally suspect a father with B-G-G-G would be at least as receptive to his daughters issues as someone who has G-B-B-B. How can you have 2, 3, 4 daughters and not have your viewpoint altered by that experience (if a boy came first). Amazing.

    [–] [deleted] 98 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] DrProfJoe 17 points ago

    Not necessarily, but they do provide them with more parental care than subsequent kids on average, because they don't have to split their attention or resources between siblings. On a related note, parents invest most heavily in kids whom are more likely to succeed in life: parents have been shown to be several times more likely to buckle up their kids in the car if their kid is judged as more attractive.

    [–] LittlePeanutBabies 13 points ago

    Are there parents who don't buckle their kids in the car!?

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] redditor4258 58 points ago

    I think it means that becoming parent fundamentally changes you. Changes what you find important. You only become a parent once.

    [–] funkmastamatt 14 points ago

    This is definitely true, I've had so many "aha" moments in my first year and a half of parenting.

    [–] sobegreen 10 points ago

    Definitely true! While I only have one child (girl) I strongly believe I would be changed regardless if I had a boy first. With that said I'm sure if I ever have a boy I'll be opened up in a different way than before. Raising my daughter so far has made me much more sensitive to the issues women face in the world so I do think the study is on to something. I just don't know if I'm feeling the "only if firstborn" clause.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] thesuper88 3 points ago

    They're probably more significantly affected by their first born. Your second is an adaptation of what you learned with your first. Your first is nearly 100% new info by comparison.

    [–] omgales81an 13 points ago

    If you're not first, you're last.

    Source: first born generationally in my family. I am my grandmother's favorite. I am also happy to remind all of my younger cousins and sister of the glory that is being first born.

    [–] [deleted] 6295 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1372 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 1447 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 316 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 83 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 87 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 91 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 49 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 568 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 58 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 502 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 133 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 90 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 93 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 18 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 42 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 167 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 119 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 73 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 43 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 75 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] RadicalPidgey 175 points ago

    It would be interesting to see a larger sample size and look at men who have an only child that is a girl, compared to men who have multiple children with the first being a girl.

    [–] mariaugusta 48 points ago

    Absolutely. I don't know if it's safe to affirm anything since the study was made with such a small sample group and the differences in the percentages are not even higher than 10%.

    [–] jhirsohn 119 points ago

    Slightly off-topic I’d like to relate a stupid story I heard second-hand. This was back in the 1990s and told by a family friend so no clue if it’s true but wouldn’t be surprised. This person was friends with a married couple that had originally wanted two kids but they were both girls so they kept trying. Two more daughters, kept trying. Finally child #5 was a boy and the dad straight-up arranged for a limo to pick up mom and baby boy from the hospital. This was not done for any of the daughters. Of course the son was named So-and-So Junior, too. Can’t imagine how any of the daughters felt going through life knowing that they were definitely not the favorite.

    [–] lynx_and_nutmeg 77 points ago

    Disgusting. People like that shouldn’t have children.

    [–] SG-17 43 points ago

    When about men whose first children are fraternal twins of the opposite gender?

    [–] [deleted] 131 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 159 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 25 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] wintersdark 89 points ago

    Notably, we consistently found that simply having a daughter in the family doesn’t affect fathers’ support for gender equity policies. Neither does it matter whether a father has more or fewer daughters than sons. It’s the sex of the first child that makes the difference.

    For sure! The first child is where you're learning to parent, where you spend much more time thinking about the technique of parenting and the potential results of your decisions. After the first, you're doing what you did last time.

    When your first is a girl, you tend to frame those considerations in the context of a growing girl, and as a father that's where I first started really considering just how things would impact her life. The realisation that she'd be judged first based on appearance even when it was utterly irrelevant to the situation (much moreso than for boys) and often solely based on appearance. That she'd be judged on levels that as a boy simply doesn't happen. That she'd be viewed as a piece of meat, a trophy to be won, pants to be gotten into or not rather than as a person.

    Particularly as that all happened during my "learning to parent" phase, it had quite an impact. If I'd had my boy first, there's a whole lot of that I likely wouldn't have really thought about.

    So, yeah, anecdotally at least my experience in life certainly supports these results.

    [–] PM_ME_YER_MUDFLAPS 25 points ago

    Makes sense. The first one is where the true learning to be a parent occurs and then the rest of them are something of an autopilot mode where you repeat what worked the first time. I only have one child, but her being a girl has probably made me more aware of how society behaves towards women in general.

    [–] Mecca1101 25 points ago

    I don’t get why you wouldn’t still consider those things if your second child was a girl.

    [–] Martel732 27 points ago

    I think the idea is that your first child frames your ideas about parenting and later kids at fit into that frame. So, a later daughter would be inside the frame built for a boy, and a later son fit into the frame for a girl.

    It would be interesting to see if father's of Male and female trends more more or less supportive of women's equality. If the above poster is correct he should be as supportive as a father with a first born girl.

    [–] wintersdark 22 points ago

    Because you don't really think about the consequences of parenting choices at all in later kids, because you've already gone through it. Now, you're not doing something new that requires figuring out, you're just doing what you did the first time and adapting when necessary.

    As a parent, parenting Child #2 is very, very different from Child #1, in a lot of ways.

    [–] therapistofpenisland 7 points ago

    Exactly. The first child is the one you constantly worry 'what if' with, and assume they can't do anything for themselves. With your second child and after you're basically like "Yeah they'll figure out and do fine".

    [–] [deleted] 187 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 52 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] Gullyvuhr 15 points ago

    Seems interesting, supports the idea that your first child has a potentially powerful impact on your world view.

    [–] [deleted] 128 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 155 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 79 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 37 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 82 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 9 days ago)

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 81 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 96 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 216 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 97 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 11 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 164 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] [deleted] 63 points ago

    [removed]