Having a big brother...

OMG, the Dailymail (you know, that pronatalist english rag that rarely posts antinatalist comments) actually posted my comment!

Please read the article, it's about how having a big brother cuts your chances of having kids of your own and THEY POSTED MY ANTI-NATALIST REMARK *bounces off the walls*

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087131/Having-big-brother-cuts-chances-children.html#comments

This comment made me chuckle:



"Then how come my dumb younger sister can't stop getting pregnant? Me and my four brothers want to know!"
- Adam, New York, USA, 19/11/2008 9:04

Just added a comment myself!:sw

Studies, schmudies. more rot from the Daily FAIL.

Heh. I have 3 older brothers. Does that mean I'm completely infertile? (PRAYING)

Huh, I thought the article was going to say something like having brothers leads to less children because the sisters grow up seeing what lazy useless-around-the-house asses many men are, and therefore choose to be childfree!

Arctic_Fox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Huh, I thought the article was going to say
> something like having brothers leads to less
> children because the sisters grow up seeing what
> lazy useless-around-the-house asses many men are,
> and therefore choose to be childfree!

^^^ I like it aLOT!

I don't even have a brother. Should I start worrying now?

".....It is thought the phenomenon has its roots in the womb - and that the physical cost of carrying a boy may take so much out of a woman that the health of her next child suffers.
Sheffield University researchers made the link after looking at birth, marriage and death records of three generations in pre-industrial Finland...."


Pre industrialized Finland? Well, with that type of extensive research with carefully documented data available, I am certain that the results were nothing less than 100% accurate. Uuuummm, possibly for Finland, for that particular famblee, and during that particular time period, and based on their limited data sources, possibly. I HATE it when "researchers" make claims that are preposterous and liken their findings to undisputed facts. I'd also like to know what they base the claim on regarding a male baybee "taking so much...." out of it's moomie as opposed to a girl-grat and where on God's green earth they get the idea that subsequent births would be less healthy due to that. Also, if having a golden boy takes so much out of moomie, would this not then affect ALL kyds born after ANY boy-kyd, regardless if he was a first born? None of this "research" even makes any sense for the time period that they "studied", and even if it did it has NOTHING to do with modern society.

My guess would be that the data was incomplete, at best. It's highly likely that acquiring a first born "golden boy" was more important then than it is now and that other births and deaths, ESPECIALLY of girls-brats, very likely went undocumented. It kills me how a reputable university could allow such shit to be published and call it "research". Some professor must have been due to be published in order to keep his tenure or something.