Ponderings

[siercia]

ali_redux posted a link to this article over in thegirlproject. It's interesting... apparently, some economists have found a link between divorce rates and the genders of the children being raised in the marriage, with between a 5 and 10 percent increase when marriages have only daughters. That's interesting all on its own, and deserves further pondering.

One of the statements made by the author regards the prefence that couples have for boys over girls. Now, maybe this is one more way I'm out of step with the mainstream, but I've never wanted boys. I hoped from the moment I found I was pregnant that Widget would be a girl, and Wiley seemed to feel the same way (I mean, I wouldn't have tossed a boy out with the bathwater, but I *wanted* a girl). Most of my real life friends also seem to feel the same way - I know that at least my female friends seem more interested in raising girls than boys. I also know that if Wiley and I were to have another child, I'd still be hoping for a girl. So now I'm curious about what the rest of my friend's list thinks on the subject. Not statistically relevant, but perhaps it'll satisfy my curiousity. Hence, a poll.

[Poll #199683]

Personally, I suspect that, at least in the US, the effect is partly based on beliefs about what kind of parenting and role models daughters and sons have, paired with the fact that children more often a raised primarily by the moms after a divorce. I'm particularly curious about the remarriage rates for moms of girls vs. moms of boys. I'd be curious to seem a similar study of dads who end up with sole/primary custody of daughters vs. sons. I'd expect, if my thoughts about gender role models is on the mark, that you'd see a reversal or the rates. I'm also curious about the briefly mentioned study indicating that mothers of sons are happier than mothers of daughters. He mentions that the study was statistically suspect, so perhaps it's not that valuable, but I'd still like to check it out.

Comments

[sarahparah.livejournal.com]

I knew I wanted a girl too. J was ambivalent - he had two girls before (marriage ended in divorce, btw!), and would have liked a boy but was thrilled with another girl too.

I think my preference stems from having absolutely ZERO experience with little boys. I was a little girl. I had two little sisters. I wouldn't know what to do with a boy!

[siercia]

I had two little brothers, but I still feel like I'd have no idea how to raise a boy. I think that's a big part of why I wanted a girl.

[kayre]

To be fair, these questions are very 'past tense' for me. I wanted a girl, had a girl, she's almost 19 now. Would not have 'tried again' if we'd had a boy.

I've never seen the 'keep trying' approach yield happy results. Either they end up with more children than you wanted, and still not the "right" gender... or when the "right" gender child finally arrives, it is spoiled to the detriment of all involved.

[siercia]

Yeah, it's never been something I've understood either. It doesn't seem to stop some people from trying though. I could maybe see it being a factor if you wre already on the fence as far as how many kids you wanted - if you'd be happy with 1 or 2 kids, wanting a different gender would be one more reason influencing the decision to have one more. Another reason to be glad I got want I wanted the first time, eh?

[cfred.livejournal.com]

It's curious that in the rational planning for having kids, our objective is to have at least one boy. (Euro-American cultural issues here. I'm the last male descendant of the family line, at least going back two or three generations up the tree, so there's some self-imposed pressure to carry on the family name/bloodline.) The target is one of each, but stop at three if it's three of the same gender.

That being said, in any of the casual discussion of kids, the presumed child-to-be is always a girl. Maybe it's just that we have a good name picked out for the girl, but not for the boy. :)

[siercia]

Well, one thing the author said in his follow-up article was that given the size of the study population, the "rule of large numbers" would dictate that given a sample size this large, dividing the group by any randomly occuring phenomenon (such as the sex of their child) would yield two groups that are otherwise statistically identical, thus removing questions of economic status, education levels, and race as being factors. I don't know enough about statistics to know if his argument has any worth.

[rupie-zum.livejournal.com]

I actually asked my Dad to take a look at this study - he's an actuary - and let me know if it's sound and what he thinks.

And as for the girl/boy thing... I initially said I wanted a boy, because it's so hard to grow up female in this world. Then I realized what a cop-out that was. I (and Michael) could not be more thrilled to have a daughter - because things will be different for her.

[siercia]

I'd be interested to hear what he thinks of the soundness of the study.

I think I wanted a daughter because as hard as it is to grow up female in this world, I at least know how to help her find the tools that she needs to deal with what she'll have to face. I know (most of) the problems, I know how to deal with them, and how to help her find the tools she'll need to combat the world.

I have .no. idea how to do that for a boy. When I think about how hard it would be to raise a boy who would be the kind of man I'd want to have raised, without raising a boy who'd be constantly picked on and beat up or what have you, I can't even imagine it. I think it's nearly as difficult to grow up as a boy, albeit in different ways, and I'm not at all equipped for that job.