Response to sexist comment

This was in response to an article about poll results on the preferred gender of one's child.


This article made me think of my own upbringing and how it may or may not have been affected by my gender. Growing up, I never felt that I somehow got special treatment because of my gender, and now looking back through a feminist lens, the only area where I can see it playing a role was corporal punishment. Not that I wasn't smacked on the heinie once in a while, but I did not make acquaintance with a belt in the same way my dad and uncle did in their day. But this could also have been a generational change in attitude.


To all the men worrying about what to do with or how to relate to girls, I am proud to say that I have a good relationship with my father, and that there are a number of activities we do together for fun, including sports. As an only child, I also grew up helping him with auto and home repairs, along with other mechanical work. Occasionally, we shop together (primarily for sports clothes, if it's just the two of us) and it's typically the two of us going rafting, biking, or other outdoorsy stuff.

An argument can be made that this outcome is an accidental result of my particular situation, rather than a logical culmination of specific choices in upbringing. Part of the reason my dad and I are usually the ones engaged in indoor or outdoor recreation is that my mom doesn't enjoy as much physical activity as we do. It's just not her thing, so that left me as an only choice of compainion. However, I legitimately enjoy it, because it was my father's side of the family that nurtured this tendency, by engaging me in a lot of activity, teaching me about good sportsmanship, and stressing the importance of exercise afforded by sports. Maybe your daughter will enjoy football, maybe she won't. But there are so many different ways in which to use one's body, it should be no trouble to find some physical activity you can both enjoy. As with all instances of child sports, it doesn't have to be played by adult rules. The important thing is to get her to try different things and experience the rewards of participating: a fun, exhilirating workout.

I do sometimes wonder if I'd be spending more time with my dad, had I been born a male. The truth is, though, the are few, if any, things my dad enjoys that I don't find interesting enough to at least discuss. He doesn't like to watch sports and doesn't follow any specific teams (though he will with big events, like the Olympics or FIFA). He doesn't hunt or fish in his spare time. He's not particularly moved by cars, is not a beer or barbecue snob, and does not support a particular political party. Most action flicks leave him cold, if they don't have a good script or cinematography to go along. In other words, he doesn't really care for any of the manly man things prescribed by modern society. Instead, he has a wide range of interests, reading up on everything from gadgets and technology to politics and current events, to history and biographical details. Gaming, sports, and intellectual curiousity for diverse topics are all things we have in common. Sure, if I were a male, perhaps I would match his knowledge and passion more in areas like sports, computers and general handiness and technical savvy. But I don't think that my relative inexperience in these areas hurts our bond whatsoever. It simply exhibits itself in the forms of master and apprentice, doer and helper, pro and newbie. Some times I have even risen to be a competitor, as with table tennis.

From every perspective, I've been very lucky to have been born into and raised by my family. They spent a lot of resources and time on my upbringing, teaching me what's important and treating me mostly without the contraints of rigid gender roles. What if I had siblings of the other sex? Perhaps things would have been different, but the point is, forming a bond with your children has nothing to do with their gender and everything to do with how you chose to spend time with them.

In response to Comment #13: "Close, but here are some other reasons: Raising boys is easier. You let them go and do their thing. Once in awhile they need some medical attention as a result of their activities, but that's about it. Boys just want to go have fun, girls are having fun one minute and crying the next. Most boys will throw on whatever rags that are nearby that could possibly qualify as clothes. Girls are always wanting more expensive clothes in styles that may not be age-appropriate. Having a daughter exposes you to future financial risks. There is the chance she will be pregnant by some low-life male who has no means to support the baby. Guess who pays instead? Guess who pays for the wedding too? And guess which gender earns less on average, meaning it will be more difficult to get a return on your investment? Girls again. Having a girl is a much more difficult experience financially and emotionally."

First of all, "raising boys is easier" is a stereotype. There are girls who are very independent and boys who require constant attention. I would argue that a child's character in that respect is not significantly incfluenced by their gender. What MIGHT be relevant, however, is the willingness of the parents to grant independence to male vs. female children, which probably starts manifesting itself early on. Boys may be more likely to "go and do their thing" because their parents start letting them do that earlier, while keeping a closer eye on female children. And I, personally, was perfectly happy reading books or playing with dolls or toy soldiers when I was 3-7 y.o. quietly, on my own, and without getting upset or needy, as you seem to suggest girls are wont to do. In fact, around that age I would also spend summers at my grandmother's and would often stay out playing with other kids for whole days, my grandmother having to call me in for meals (talk about low maintenance). But, even assuming gender-stereotyped activities, how are more broken things, more frequent trips to the doctor, more torn clothes, etc. easier to deal with than whatever trouble girls might be? (Could it be because those are problems one can just throw money at - buy new things, pay for medical care, etc. vs. dealing with "emotional" girls?) Sometimes kids are just a headache, and that's that.

I won't dwell much on the next raging stereotype, besides pointing out that brands like A&F, American Eagle, and others are equally expensive for both genders. And what about sports gear? A parent wouldn't let their son play football, baseball or soccer in "whatever rags that are nearby," would they? Let's also not forget that for every little princess there is a tomboy.

Moving on to the pregnancy argument and "age-appropriate" clothing. Welcome to the challenges of teenage years! Yes, these are things parents of a 13-18 y.o. girl are likely to worry about. On the other hand, young men could be facing their own demons in the form of drugs and reckless behavior. Not to mention a myriad of issues affecting both genders: body image, popularity, balancing school and social life, depression, the temptations of underage drinking and substance use, just to name a few. This is why parenting a teen, any teen, is hard work. But let's look at the core of the above-mentioned concerns: as someone who once was a teenage girl and knew many others, I believe these concerns could be entirely alleviated, if a young girl is raised with a healthy body image and right values. Contraceptive education wouldn't hurt either. That way, she would hopefully be putting effort in something productive rather than catching the eye of some dude, and spending her free time with friends who are a positive influence, rather than a horny low-life male with no means. I mean, I'm assuming you wouldn't want your teenage son to end up impregnating some girl or getting in trouble with the law, would you? No, surely you'd teach your son better than that. I guarantee that teaching a girl would be no different. Just like with boys, averting poor consequences takes investing time in the right upbringing. It also sounds like you are hoisting financial responsibility for the consequences of a pregnancy entirely on the woman's side, because, wait, if you had a son with no job who got a girl pregnant, what would you do? Would you recognize equal responsibility and give, or at least loan your son the money to pay for half of the expenses?

Skipping ahead now, to address "return on investment." As was mentioned in another Economix article, women are the more likely caregivers for their elderly relatives. So, even if your son is doing quite well for himself, where's the guarantee he'll be investing any of his wealth in your care in old age? Maybe he'd feel responsible enough to put you in a home, which sounds like the outcome you'd want anyway, since you're so concerned with the financial returns, rather than the unpaid time and effort a family member may offer instead of leaving you in the hands of strangers.

I'm assuming the other half of the argument hinted at having to support a daughter longer than a son, due to her lower projected earnings. It's sadly true that there is still gender discrimination in the workplace. But nowadays, thanks to the push for gender equity and a shift in public opinion, most of the wage discrepancy comes from a higher percentage of women in lower-paying jobs, rather than overt sexist denial of equal pay for equal work. Which means that a girl still has a pretty good chance of earning enough to support herself and (gasp) even pay for her own wedding. Instead of assuming that girls are a burden and treating them as such, encourage them to pursue careers in the higher-paying fields, to continue their education, to excel at what they do. Guess what? You won't have to support a girl any more than you would a boy, if you stress to her in equal measure the importance of being able to support herself. Or do you think boys are bound to succeed in life without any involvement on your part?

I hope you reconsider your position; but given how much bias and stereotyping your comment betrays, a girl would probably be better off being born to someone else (if such choice were possible).