Keep having kids until a girl is born

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

+1. I don’t know any family with 4-5+ adult children where all children are fully functioning adults with good jobs in emotionally healthy and stable relationships. They all have at least one who is screwed up in some way or estranged.

It doesn't take a big family to have this be the case, though I'm sure it doesn't help the situation. But my BIL is one of two and he's a mess of an adult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a girl, then a boy, then another boy. People were so confused why I would have another when I already had the “perfect pair,” ha.

Yup. We had a boy and a girl and I would talk about maybe going for a third and so many people looked at me confused and would say, "Why?! You have a boy and a girl!" Like as if most people are doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t imagine wanting a child of a particular sex. It is pretty disgusting.

I think people who pretend it doesn’t matter are liars.

I think there truly are some people who don’t care. Though probably the majority have a slight preference, but most are fine in the end with whatever they get.

My husband 100% did not care. I wanted a girl. We had a boy. Loved him to pieces and then wanted a second boy because loved having a boy so much. Had a girl. Loved her to pieces and was glad it all worked out how it was meant to be. But truly think my husband would have been happy with ANY combination.

[Anonymous]

Not going to lie, I would have done this too. I always wanted a girl - and we ended up with two. After our second was born I felt so incredibly lucky.

But now, after we've put the baby years behind us, I get a twinge of sadness that we will never have a son. I think my husband also feels sad about it sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a girl, then a boy, then another boy. People were so confused why I would have another when I already had the “perfect pair,” ha.

This was my cousin, although her 3rd was a girl. People are very weird about the gender breakdown of families. I’ve got 3 boys and I really think some people don’t believe me when I say I was at no point trying or hoping for a girl (or boy)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

+1
I'm the neglected middle in a family who kept trying for a boy.

It's super common in large families. I don't get why it's not discussed more. I guess it might be because some members of large families thrive (often the oldest and youngest kids, who have the firmest identity growing up and get the most attention/resources as bookends) so it's easy to say "ah well, some people do great, some struggle, that's just how it goes." But I cannot tell you how many middle children in large families I know who just have major issues, often linked to insecurity and low self-esteem, and it's just very obvious that if you grow up feeling invisible to your parents, it's going to be harder to develop a strong sense of self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

+1. I don’t know any family with 4-5+ adult children where all children are fully functioning adults with good jobs in emotionally healthy and stable relationships. They all have at least one who is screwed up in some way or estranged.

There are two kinds of families:

1. Keep having kids until they get a good one

2. Keep having kids until they get a bad one.

Sometimes there's a lag of a few years until I they know if one is good or bad, so their might be an extra one or two at the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

I’m one of four kids and we’re all high functioning. Im not as successful as my siblings who are uber successful, but im typical dcum UMC. There are a lot of factors- financial resources help (my parents are modest but are well-off; my mom stayed home while we were young and then had a full time but flexible career) and we are also all 2.5-3 years apart which my parents felt was a good gap. I knew a lot of families like ours with 4-5 kids growing up in the 90s/early 2000s. We were in private school, took 1-2 good vacations a year, sleepaway camps, and all had extracurriculars and whatever tutoring we needed. I wouldn’t be able to afford the same standard of living today for 4 kids and I think that matters.

I only know a few people from very large families (6/7+ kids) and those experiences were more mixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand people who keep having kids until they have a girl. I know two separate who have done this. And then the mothers whine about how hard it is “with so many kids.” What about how the boys feel?

I think it’s fine to feel some gender disappointment. I am currently pregnant with my second boy and was quite bummed. My mom sent me some study that showed that the people who are leash happy are those that try for a boy after two girls and end up with another girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

I think it depends on (1) amount of parentification that takes place (2) relationship the siblings have with each other (3) age spread amongst the kids.

I know two families in the 5-6 kid range who are super happy and the kids are all successful. I know one in the 10+ range (former neighbor of my parents). Their adult children are thriving and the younger ones are all really sweet and awesome kids. But the mom homeschools them all so spends a lot of time with them and the dad chr back his hours to also spend time with them. I will say the mom always looked worn out and miserable. And I know another family with 9-10 (went to same church) and the mom was not equipped emotionally or financially to deal with them (the dad died) and the oldest daughter had to leave college and help raise her siblings and the oldest brother got on drugs and OD-Ed.

I do wonder about a generational split as many people’s grandparents were from large families. My paternal grandfather was one of 8 and always spoke fondly of his parents, childhood, and loved all his siblings very much. When he was dying he told me one of the things he was looking forward to the most was seeing his brothers and sisters again.

[Anonymous]

Despite everyone seemingly wanting a girl, I read that in the US population it’s actually more likely the last child is a boy (ie, that people keep going till they get a boy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

+1. I don’t know any family with 4-5+ adult children where all children are fully functioning adults with good jobs in emotionally healthy and stable relationships. They all have at least one who is screwed up in some way or estranged.

There are two kinds of families:

1. Keep having kids until they get a good one

2. Keep having kids until they get a bad one.

Sometimes there's a lag of a few years until I they know if one is good or bad, so their might be an extra one or two at the end.

....and
3. Keep having kids until they get 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More often it is the reverse; keep having kids until the boy is born. If you can afford it, why not?

No one with a lot of kids wants to hear this, but neglect is common in large families, even those with considerable financial resources. Children do better with more one-on-one time with caregivers, especially parents (nannies do offer good one-on-one time but in very large families even this is shared). At some point in having kids, it is simply not possible to truly know all your kids well. There WILL be a child or children who don't get enough attention or emotional support, and it will screw up that kid.

Certain resources (especially time and attention) are finite. Some families can extend the number of kids they can feasibly have if they have more adults involved (very involved grandparents, for instance) or can really pay for more one-on-one time. So it's not like there's a set number, like don't have more than 2 or don't have more than 4 -- some people can handle those numbers. But there IS a number at which the family will be overtaxed and some or all kids will experience some form of neglect. Thus, having children until you get a specific gender actually is a bad idea, because it will no doubt push people past whatever their particular max on kids is in order to get the girl.

I know of families with 8 or 9 children where the last child is opposite gender of the others -- one or both parents was clearly waiting on their boy/girl. Every one of these families has neglected kids and bad outcomes as a result. It's a terrible idea.

+1. I don’t know any family with 4-5+ adult children where all children are fully functioning adults with good jobs in emotionally healthy and stable relationships. They all have at least one who is screwed up in some way or estranged.

I'm the middle, second girl, of 3 children. I'm distant and at times was estranged. I'm probably the most successful but really had to separate from my dysfunctional family. My parents told me they wanted a boy when they had my older sister and when they had me, then finally they got their boy. He was tall, athletic, good looking, and by far the favorite. My sister and I were just a resource drain. We all struggled with mental health at some point. Now in mide age, I've worked through the issues and am happy, successful, and well adjusted. I can't say the same for my siblings, even the golden boy struggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like IVF with sex selection is the best option for these people. They call it "family balancing."

This, but sometimes it still doesn’t go according to plan.

I have friends who desperately wanted a girl. They got a boy. Then turned to IVF to get their girl, but none of the female embryos took. They settled for a second boy to get their desired age gap instead of wasting more time trying for a girl. They plan to try IVF one more time to get their girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like IVF with sex selection is the best option for these people. They call it "family balancing."

This, but sometimes it still doesn’t go according to plan.

I have friends who desperately wanted a girl. They got a boy. Then turned to IVF to get their girl, but none of the female embryos took. They settled for a second boy to get their desired age gap instead of wasting more time trying for a girl. They plan to try IVF one more time to get their girl.

So they did ivf for the second? I am considering this but for a third.