July 26, 2014
Why are daughters preferred to sons?
Apparently, based on "Why daughters might be better than sons," it's plain old self-interest — a prediction about who's more likely to take care of you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
56 comments:
I have two of each. As far as I'm concerned, that's perfect, and indeed being their dad has been my most significant accomplishment and greatest joy in life.
Because people are shitty that way is another option,...
Your son is your son 'till he takes a wife.
Your daughter's your daughter for the rest of her life.
It'd be interesting to see how this trend correlates with hypergamy.
Does the need to create a base of support for the creation of their own family unit result in sons being less available to "take care" of their parents, either financially or with labor and attention?
Only in the West. In Asia it's sons. As Mark Steyn says about abortion - "In the West it's a choice - in Asia it's just girls."
Daughters are usually preferred after the father has a son. In more primitive cultures, sons were additional laborers on the farm or in the subsistence economy. In India, daughters mean dowries. A negative.
Why does the left always boil things down to dollars and cents? This is a very complicated cultural and human question that a tired old state run legacy media company can't begin to comprehend.
I plan to be the nicest of mother-in-laws.
The only actual data in that article says that the ratio of boys to girls in China is 11 to 10. Which means that the Chinese are not practicing sex selective abortion quite as much as they used to, but they are still aborting more girls. The rest of it is about what someone somewhere replied when some idiot asked them some idiotic question.
I am not sure how this fits in with your idea that differences between men and women must always be expressed in a manner that makes it appear women are superior to men.
Because men have been denigrated for a couple of decades now.
id think that women making the same calculation that a baby should be aborted because she can't afford it, or it would be inconvenient would make a calculation that her parents who are old and senile are inconvenient and so, not useful. Quality of life probably sucks.
I know a family that has an aunt living with them. She suffered a stroke and so can't talk anymore but they help her with everything. We were talking about it and she made that point that it's family so you just have to take care of them. She is also pro life. I'd think the two go hand in hand.
In china girls certainly aren't.
Yes, parents breed for selfish reasons, which is why the childfree should not be taxed to support the breeding and the education of those kids who are there to serve the selfish interests of breeders.
Just like horse breeders, parents should be required to finance their breeding project, from conception to adulthood, then recover their fair share of the wealth they've produced on the free market.
Which is why fathers should pick the girls husband!
Just kidding, I have no daughters, only sons, and I'm OK wth that.
Spend some time in a few nursing homes, as I have (not a resident) and watch the gender breakdown for caregivers. I'm not talking visitors. Daughters are prized by those later in life (not to say all carry the burden).
"parents should be required to finance their breeding project,"
Until you need them to fund your Social Security.
I prefer parents' adult daughters to their adult sons, for adult reasons.
Who sez?
Idiots.
I have a daughter and three sons.
My daughter is easy to care for. So selfishly I'd rather have a daughter in that respect. She doesn't make a huge mess, is responsible, caring, considerate, mature, smart, etc.
My boys? They are three little terrors. If my wife didn't home school them they'd probably be on medication. Always fighting, conflict, immature, unable to sit still, loud, obnoxious, etc.
And yet, they are great too. Just different than my daughter. They love hard and they play hard. And someday they will be good men.
But this is probably why people prefer daughters. Daughters are docile. Boys are rambunctious. Aot more time and attention is needed for boys.
Meh. I have two of each. People say girls are quieter, which is only a little true. Boys are noisy, but it's a consistent, dull roar that can be tuned out and worked alongside pretty well after a short adjustment. Living with little girls is living with intense quiet, interrupted by moments of eardrum-splitting, peace-shattering shrill shrieking. The shrieks never stop shocking and are harder to tune out and recover from.
Fathers favor daughters, and mothers favor sons; both because they think the other sex is mysterious and special, while their own - "I've been there, so don't give me any of that jazz!"
Michael K,
Nobody needs expensive Amerikan kids to fund Social Security, which is an obligation of the gummint to SS contributors. The obligation can be satisfied in many ways, one of which is to encourage young immigrants from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala.
Perhaps there are social or economic incentives. I wonder how prevalent this preference actually is. I like sons and daughters equally. Although, I can readily observe that the culture favors select women.
jimbino:
Exactly. The invasion serves several purposes, including to compensate for the consequences of mass abortion and contraception. Too many people are blissfully unaware that sacrificing their progeny has invited a solution which displaces and replaces them. The pro-choice and libertine advocates are overjoyed with the compliant Dodos.
I think men tend to think they want a little version of themselves, a little boy, and women, similarly think they want a girl, but in both cases, it's easier to have the opposite sex child, that is, not the little you. It's less complicated.
"I think men tend to think they want a little version of themselves, a little boy, and women, similarly think they want a girl, but in both cases, it's easier to have the opposite sex child, that is, not the little you. It's less complicated."
Not necessarily. I have two boys, and while they're not "little versions of myself" (thank God), from the time they were small I've been able to look in their eyes and fairly accurately intuit their hopes and fears. Because I was once a little boy and an adolescent boy myself. In some ways that ability has made me a better parent to them than my wife, and helped create a bond that has nothing to do with fishing or playing catch.
I've seen too many examples of daughters being better caregivers to their elderly parents to doubt the truth of it, but I wouldn't trade the experience of raising sons for an army of dutiful daughters. And it's creepy that anyone would make the calculation of the relative future benefits of having daughters or sons. Your children didn't ask to be brought into the world and all the obligations and responsibilities lie with the parents. Any reciprocation is the fruit of loving parenting.
" The obligation can be satisfied in many ways, one of which is to encourage young immigrants from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala."
I assume you are going to personally collect those taxes.
What we are importing is a permanent underclass that will be acting as maids and day laborers for several generations and will be extremely difficult to collect taxes from. You are either naive to a pathological degree or are not speaking honestly. I have spent years dealing with illegals and know that these illiterate folks and gangsters are not going to fund your Social Security.
Not very perceptive n.n.:
This country has to determine:
1. Whether it's worth continuing the race while devastating the planet, and if so
2. Whether we want to continue foolhardy benefit plans like SS, and if so
3. How many kids we need to fund those SS benefits, and then
4. What is the best source of those kids.
I maintain that Amerikan kids cost a fortune to deliver ($10,000+)and a fortune to mis-educate ($150,000+) in public funds alone; in the end, you can't even find one anymore who knows how to mow the lawn, for chrissake.
The many Central Americans, Mexicans and Cubans I've hired are potty-trained, speak two languages, are literate and know how to "work like a Mexican."
Nope. Daughters are easier to care for if you have a career and limited time. Just drop the cute little dolls off at day care, and dress them up to show off on Sunday at church or to relatives.
Of course, once they are teenagers they pay you back, but that's another problem.
I have two sons.
I plan to be the nicest of mother-in-laws.
I have a wonderful mother-in-law.
The icing-on-the-cake is that she always brings her credit card.
Interestingly, adoptive parents overwhelmingly prefer girls. Boys wait much longer to be chosen by families. In the China program now which is mostly children with medical needs and not healthy baby girls, couples still choose girls and will wait over a year to adopt a girl rather than adopt the many boys already available.
I have three girls and two sons and they are all fun in their own way. Honestly, though, my two sons are more nurturing than all but one of my daughters. The other two daughters are absent-minded professor types.
1985. Day 60. Phoebe Cates says her Mother taught her to be Topless: that if boys could do it so certainly could the girls. Phoebe is topless more than any guy I know.
1985. Day 61. Phoebe Cates tells me how she tried to go to High School topless but was always sent to the principal's office. It's not what you are thinking: the principal was a lesbian.
1985. Day 61. Phoebe Cates tells me she does not understand men's preoccupation with breasts. She tells me this as she is vacuuming the carpet of my apartment, topless: she never vacuums under the couch.
1985. Day 62. Here's the thing: I have seen Phoebe Cates breasts everyday, for hours on end, for sixty-two days. The breasts were the same on day one as on day twenty-three as on day forty-five as on day sixty-one. They are indeed magnificent but they aren't helping me make my car payment.
1985. Day 64. Phoebe Cates asks me if her breasts are big enough. I tell her I'm sure any baby she has will be happy.
1985. Day 65. Phoebe Cates' mother shows up at my apartment with coffee cake, then -- into the kitchen -- topless. Phoebe and her mother sit topless on the couch and tell stories of Phoebe's grandmother, who would go to the pier and see the boys off on their sailing ships to Europe to fight in the Great War. Phoebe's mother would wave and sing to them, topless. It seems this is a family thing.
Surfed got it right.
1985. Day 65. Phoebe Cates' mother explains how she first taught the teenage Phoebe to ice her nipples to attract a man. I did not think I could be more uncomfortable, but I was mistaken.
1985. Day 65. Phoebe Cates' mother tells me that men cannot appreciate a woman's freedom until women can be topless in front of a man and the man does not then think That Thing. Paying rent is hard enough, I can't handle this level of thinking. I hope they don't start eating ice cream again.
1985. Day 65. Phoebe Cates' mother tells me that I am a gentleman, letting Phoebe stay at my apartment, topless and free. Me: topless and helping with the rent would be nice, I think.
1985. Day 66. Phoebe Cates hugs her mother good-bye for the evening and their naked breasts push together like hamsters in a snow globe. I think I am woozy. I am starting to think that I haven't actually slept since the Seventies. When Farrah Fawcett-Majors kept staying at my dad's apartment, day after day after topless day. It is a long story.
jimbino:
You live an insular life. There is a larger American population which you seem happy to ignore. It may be your experience that your family, or neighbors, or coworkers are corrupt, but they are not representative of Americans. Perhaps a large minority, or even a majority; but, it is no where near universal. There are still Americans who respect individual dignity, recognize intrinsic value, and the necessary outcome (i.e. morality) of reconciling those qualities among millions of people.
No, you are the problem. You perceive and treat human life as a commodity. Is that what your faith has lead you to conclude? Do you monetize everything including human life?
You're an odd fellow. Is your character a product of cynicism? Is there no one in your life who you can trust? Has everyone betrayed you? Unfortunately, it seems you are not alone. There are many people, both women and men, who have been broken by worldly experiences, and have responded by seeking to break or exploit others.
As for the cost of education and medical care, those children are as much victims of dreams of instant gratification, and their political exploitation, as they may one day become part of their continuance. However, you are mistaken if you think that low-skilled and knowledge immigrants will continue to sustain your standard of living. The process by which they entered and are sustained in this country have already corrupted them. They are not seeking refuge. They are here to exploit you.
1. You have a deeply prejudiced perspective.
2+3. SS is contributory and sustainable without sponsoring corruption. The issue is progressive inflation. The problem with SS and other social benefits is that it sabotages primary social structures, beginning with family.
4. The best source is our children, who are morally educated, and moderate their dreams of instant and immediate gratification.
The problem for our society, and certainly for the aliens' societies, is a progressive dissociation of risk including libertinism or progressive morality.
Ann Althouse:
A man's son, and a woman's daughter, can be perceived as competing interests, and they likely are, intellectually and physically. Fathers and mothers need to teach their children, their parent's religion (i.e. moral philosophy). They need to teach their children moderation and mutual respect.
"Why are daughters preferred to sons?"
I didn't have much choice in the matter.
I suppose we could have aborted until a male showed up.
jimbino: I maintain that...
Sorry, jimbo, but endlessly repeating your self-serving anecdotes doesn't change the stats.
Yes, parents breed for selfish reasons, which is why the childfree should not be taxed to support the breeding and the education of those kids who are there to serve the selfish interests of breeders.
Says the guy who's all hot to import a demographic which uses public services (aka "taxpayer's money") at higher rates than the demographic he disparages.
Just like horse breeders, parents should be required to finance their breeding project...
Except for your preferred workers, of course, whose "breeding projects" you've been perfectly happy to have the rest of us finance so that you don't have to pay market rates to get your lawn mowed.
...on the free market.
Sure, if you remember to invoke the free market in your sperg drivel, nobody will ever notice that you're a rent-seeking parasite.
I won't make a point of being seen cleaning my rifle when my son's prom date arrives at the door.
If that's what you mean.
I suppose we could have aborted until a male showed up.
That is exactly what millions have done, and will continue to do.
1985. Day 65. Phoebe Cates' mother tells me that I am a gentleman, letting Phoebe stay at my apartment, topless and free. Me: topless and helping with the rent would be nice, I think.
In 1985, I would have paid to have Phoebe Cates live with me, even if she wasn't constantly topless.
Yes, parents breed for selfish reasons, which is why the childfree should not be taxed to support the breeding and the education of those kids who are there to serve the selfish interests of breeders
Whence comes the demographic (and tax base) death spirals of Japan and Western Europe.
A few thousand years of patriarchal society and humanity might have become adapted to it. Or maybe patriarchal societies have a competitive advantage? The Celts did get pretty much wiped out.
Remove that-- via, perhaps, a cultural if not legal sort of "affirmative action"-- and natural forces might cause a natural upset in the equilibrium.
Plus: Daughters are cuter... and maybe a little more pliant and assistive in their childhood years too.
Even in the traditional Asian societies, it has always been young women taking care of the elderly. It's just that she was taking care of her husband's parents, not her own.
It appears that the expectation that she take care of her in-laws, not her own parents, is now breaking down, and quite rapidly. This could explain an increasing preference for daughters in those societies.
I don't recall the celts being Matriarchal. And I think they were run off the rails by the countless Viking invasions.
I recomend reading "Guns Germs and Steel" to get an idea of why certain civs evolved faster than others. And why some are still builing with mud and straw (waves to Crack Racebaiter). Hint - it has nothing to do with race.
"Plus: Daughters are cuter... and maybe a little more pliant and assistive in their childhood years too."
Cuter? You bet. Fucking adorable. Pliant and assistance giving? You are fucking kidding me. Manipulative little shyster lawyers is more like it.
This post is based on a BBC story, which can not be trusted to be true.
Post a Comment