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