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.

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.

Yes, if you read what I said, the point is that parents should only have more kids if they, personally, can provide those kids with what they are going to need. Some people have the resources to have 4 kids, sometimes 5. Most do not. It is very rare in a family of 4-5 kids for them all to do well. Usually one or more get neglected. I'm glad that wasn't the case for you.

Having kids until you have the gender mix you want is a bad idea because it will override the most important question, which is whether that specific family has the resources (not just money but time/energy/attention) to have another kid. It's the only question that matters, and people who have more kids because they want a girl, or a boy, or because they "always dreamed of a big family" without considering whether they can give what it takes, do so at the expense of their kids.

I think about this when I see those influencer and celebrity families where they are always popping out another kid -- I think often they do it because they know new babies benefit their image and will drive eyeballs, and it makes me sad. Every kid should be individually wanted, and I hate it when people have kids and then give up on them/discard them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, none of the females embryos implanted though. The first male embryo transferred resulted in their second son.

[Anonymous]

Saw this interesting research result in a Guardian story last week, seems to fit here. The research findings suggest that mothers are much more concerned about sex of children and experience greater stress than fathers do if they don’t get a son. More evidence of internalized misogyny?

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/aug/02/mothers-negatively-affected-three-daughters-no-sons-study-shows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, none of the females embryos implanted though. The first male embryo transferred resulted in their second son.

I try not to judge people but this one’s hard.

[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.

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.

Yes, if you read what I said, the point is that parents should only have more kids if they, personally, can provide those kids with what they are going to need. Some people have the resources to have 4 kids, sometimes 5. Most do not. It is very rare in a family of 4-5 kids for them all to do well. Usually one or more get neglected. I'm glad that wasn't the case for you.

Having kids until you have the gender mix you want is a bad idea because it will override the most important question, which is whether that specific family has the resources (not just money but time/energy/attention) to have another kid. It's the only question that matters, and people who have more kids because they want a girl, or a boy, or because they "always dreamed of a big family" without considering whether they can give what it takes, do so at the expense of their kids.

I think about this when I see those influencer and celebrity families where they are always popping out another kid -- I think often they do it because they know new babies benefit their image and will drive eyeballs, and it makes me sad. Every kid should be individually wanted, and I hate it when people have kids and then give up on them/discard them.

I mean, it could be the dynamic of having such a big family and lack of parental supervision. But it could also just be that statistically speaking, you risk getting a child who is going to have issues with every pregnancy, so the more kids you have, the more likely it is that one of them is going to have some kind of issue, no matter how much attention they receive.

[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?

I disagree. I think here, it is all about getting the girl.

Most people and men want a boy. To carry on the family name.

[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?

I disagree. I think here, it is all about getting the girl.

Most people and men want a boy. To carry on the family name.

This is highly variable by culture and education. In the US, it's basically 50/50 for gender preference which is why things like sex selective IVF aren't generally that problematic and don't have the same outcomes you would see in places with massive preference for boys. Last article I read on this said that there was a slight preference for girls here, but statistically insignificant; like 52 vs 48% preference for girls. Anecdotally, that holds true in my world. The study I read posited that the more egalitarian a society was the more even the gender preference. If you are in a very patriarchal society, males care about stuff like, "carrying on the family name" more and women judge their worth by ability to produce boys for their families. Where gender and opportunity differences are less ingrained (I believe they looked at places like Scandinavia) they did not find an overwhelming sex preference in either direction.

[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.

You don’t? Weird. I know multiple families that refute your premise.
Where did you grow up??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt the parents are saying this in FRONT of said boys.

I was very aware as a young child that my parents really, really wanted their third child to be a boy. They talked about it a lot, and, yes, in front of the two girls they already had. I am sure they aren’t the only parents in history to have done this.

My parents did this and when they got the boy I became superfluous. I always felt a bit unwanted. Kids know whether you tell them or not by the way you behave.

Ah! I had 2 girls and really wanted a third girl. Got a boy and now I am so in love with him that I can’t believe i was disappointed when I first found out the sex.

I do think girls are awesome in many ways, but my boy is the sweetest and most loving child (and super good looking and whiny and spoiled and mine).

[Anonymous]

Statistically, children are much closer to the maternal grandparents… instead of the family name (who cares really) it makes sense to me to want girls because it’s much more likely to have a closer relationship with grandchildren.

Even biologically the maternal grandmother is more important since the eggs in the babie’s ovaries are formed while in the mom’s belly. So what will turn out to be future grandchildren have origin in the grandmother’s belly.

100% true in my family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes, if you read what I said, the point is that parents should only have more kids if they, personally, can provide those kids with what they are going to need. Some people have the resources to have 4 kids, sometimes 5. Most do not. It is very rare in a family of 4-5 kids for them all to do well. Usually one or more get neglected. I'm glad that wasn't the case for you.

Having kids until you have the gender mix you want is a bad idea because it will override the most important question, which is whether that specific family has the resources (not just money but time/energy/attention) to have another kid. It's the only question that matters, and people who have more kids because they want a girl, or a boy, or because they "always dreamed of a big family" without considering whether they can give what it takes, do so at the expense of their kids.

I think about this when I see those influencer and celebrity families where they are always popping out another kid -- I think often they do it because they know new babies benefit their image and will drive eyeballs, and it makes me sad. Every kid should be individually wanted, and I hate it when people have kids and then give up on them/discard them.

I mean, it could be the dynamic of having such a big family and lack of parental supervision. But it could also just be that statistically speaking, you risk getting a child who is going to have issues with every pregnancy, so the more kids you have, the more likely it is that one of them is going to have some kind of issue, no matter how much attention they receive.

Which is actually an argument fir smaller families.

Kids are always a product of both nature and nurture. If every child you have Carrie’s some risk if the “nature” part resulting in more issues, then you should always seek to maximize the impact of nurture.

Having additional kids increases the likelihood that at least one if your children will have higher needs, while simultaneously decreasing the amount of resources you can devote to each child. So choosing to have more children greatly increases the chances of having a child with a bad outcome.

[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?

I disagree. I think here, it is all about getting the girl.

Most people and men want a boy. To carry on the family name.

This is highly variable by culture and education. In the US, it's basically 50/50 for gender preference which is why things like sex selective IVF aren't generally that problematic and don't have the same outcomes you would see in places with massive preference for boys. Last article I read on this said that there was a slight preference for girls here, but statistically insignificant; like 52 vs 48% preference for girls. Anecdotally, that holds true in my world. The study I read posited that the more egalitarian a society was the more even the gender preference. If you are in a very patriarchal society, males care about stuff like, "carrying on the family name" more and women judge their worth by ability to produce boys for their families. Where gender and opportunity differences are less ingrained (I believe they looked at places like Scandinavia) they did not find an overwhelming sex preference in either direction.

Women, we do not have control over this! We provide an X every time. So, for starters, it's on your man's swimmers to give you a Y. And also, can we all stop judging each other for something nobody has control over?!

[Anonymous]

I had two friends growing up who had two older brothers and were the significantly young only girls, and it was very well known to everyone that their moms had them in hopes of having a girl. I always thought that must have made the boys feel terrible.

[Anonymous]

I have 3 boys. We’ve talked about having a fourth, but not because we want a girl. In fact, I would actually prefer a boy if we did have a fourth. I’m sure if we had a girl everyone would assume we just kept trying until we had a girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I disagree. I think here, it is all about getting the girl.

Most people and men want a boy. To carry on the family name.

This is highly variable by culture and education. In the US, it's basically 50/50 for gender preference which is why things like sex selective IVF aren't generally that problematic and don't have the same outcomes you would see in places with massive preference for boys. Last article I read on this said that there was a slight preference for girls here, but statistically insignificant; like 52 vs 48% preference for girls. Anecdotally, that holds true in my world. The study I read posited that the more egalitarian a society was the more even the gender preference. If you are in a very patriarchal society, males care about stuff like, "carrying on the family name" more and women judge their worth by ability to produce boys for their families. Where gender and opportunity differences are less ingrained (I believe they looked at places like Scandinavia) they did not find an overwhelming sex preference in either direction.

Women, we do not have control over this! We provide an X every time. So, for starters, it's on your man's swimmers to give you a Y. And also, can we all stop judging each other for something nobody has control over?!

This is true, but I think this is also where education factors in.