The difference between female traits that men value in wives and daughters

[spokepoker]

No.
If a father only has sons or only has daughters, and it runs in his family (no sisters or aunts on dad's dad side), then that is genetic.
Otherwise it's a toss up.

 

[Kabal]

A while back someone around here proposed the idea that dominant (high testosterone) fathers are more statistically likely to have sons, while less dominant fathers are more likely to have daughters. Supposedly, this ties in to women being more genetically resilient (two X chromosomes vs.X and Y), as well as women more likely to reproduce than (non-dominant) sons of non-dominant men.

I can't find the original.

Does this have scientific merit?

There's a book, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, that discusses this.

The notion that individuals of lower status and/or fitness may have more daughters and those of higher status and/or fitness more sons, as females have low variance and males high variance in reproductive outcomes, is known as the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis.

The "scientific merit" is mixed.

 

[Kabal]

Characteristics I'd prefer of a daughter:

1) Unconceived.
2) Aborted.

I don't believe having a daughter is such a bad thing really as long as you raise her in a stable family environment.

A son has way more base potential in the world but given all things equal (good parenting) it doesn't matter that much. As a red pill father the advantages are you'd be able to identify the social problems. You'd know immediately what it's about if she's straying far off the right path and if there are issues to deal with it.

The problem is when very beta guys have hot daughters. They can be either too strict or too permissive. They just don't know how to handle the opposite sex which ends up in disaster. They are also willfully blind about their own daughter's behavior and pedestalize their own female children just like they did women their entire life.

This all ends badly, red pill guys should know better.

Daughters are like writing an option: if things go well, it's not too bad. If things go poorly, they go really poorly.

Sons are closer to buying an option: if things go well, it's a huge pay-off. If things not so well... oh well.

I like positive convexity; a best case of "not too bad" doesn't strike me as too tantalizing, when that best case also comes with a lot of potentially really bad cases. If it's the choice of son or daughter, I'm going to choose son every time.

That's the one benefit of marriage I see: Having the opportunity to plan a kid, and leverage technologies like preimplantation genetic diagnosis to guarantee sons.

It's easy to write-off bad daughters as the result of blue pill fathers or broken families, and I'm sure these things contribute disproportionately to the population of awful daughters, but the reality is that there are tons of daughters from good families who engage in behavior that would make me consider Titus Andronicus'ing a hoe. There's a non-trivial degree of luck.

Of course, I'd prefer if everyone had more daughters to make it better for my sons.

And, of course, I'm sure this means I'm going to have a bunch of daughters out of wedlock.