Fewer baby boys due to stress creates more stress

I will soon file a class-action lawsuit against the world on behalf of my gender.

But when I say "against the world," I don't mean against everyone. I don't even mean a majority of people. I mean against the Earth.

Stanhope, et al vs. Earth.

The reason for my legal action is a recent study out of Japan that revealed that there's a link between temperature fluctuation and male births. The takeaway? Fewer boys are born in areas with external stress factors.

Ask yourself: Where are there external stress factors?

Answer yourself: Everywhere!

And then stop talking to yourself. It's unseemly.

The study examined births in Japanese areas hit by high-stress environmental events, such as the Kobe earthquake of 1995, the earthquake and nuclear disaster in 2011 and the Kumamoto earthquake in 2016. In each case, the proportion of male babies declined within nine months.

The takeaway: Where people were stressed by the weather, the infant population shifted female.

The study's authors said they believe major stress affects gestation, which alters the newborn sex ratio. They added that events caused by global warming might have a similar effect.

There is a history to this. A previous study looked at the population of Northern European nations in the late 1800s and early 1900s and found that colder years resulted in fewer males being born.

Wait! So global warming decreases the number of boys born and cold years have the same effect?

We need Goldilocks weather (not too hot, not too cold) for there to be an equal number of boys born?  Hoo, boy. Literally. Hoo, boy!

More stress equals more baby girls.

In publications discussing the study, there were  scientific explanations of what happens, involving chromosomes, the term "in utero" and other nonsense that I don't understand. Some articles went further into the gestation process from conception to delivery, which went over my head. I searched the articles for the word "stork" and couldn't find any mention, so this study is obviously incomplete.

But still.

Boys are born at a lower rate when the stress is higher. It's another blow from Earth to the male of our species.

Consider other significant anti-male events of recent decades:

• The invention of the remote control, which while great also eliminated an estimated 40 percent of male exercise (walking from the couch to the TV and back).
• The reduction of manual transmissions in vehicles. Women probably do this as well or better than men, but most men believe they are superior, which gave them a confidence boost and extended their lives during the manual transmission age.
• "Science" concluded that Top Ramen is unhealthy, taking away 30 percent of men's meals.

Now we learn that stressful situations result in fewer boys being born. How are men supposed to handle that – doesn't the mere fact that stress reduces the odds of more boys create stress? Isn't this some sort of endless loop that ultimately will result in a world filled with women, where men will be considered amusing freaks of nature?

On behalf of my side of the species, it's been a good run. We've always had more power, honestly, than we've deserved.

Perhaps our demise will create less stress for women.

Wait a minute. Couldn't that lead to our comeback?

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.