Why are boys more valued?

[Tsuga]

I have been known to wish I were a man so I wouldn't have periods. I also would like to say, none of the Indian-heritage and Indian-Indian people I know discriminate against girls. They are all progressive people, I would say feminists. Obviously that's because I work in education and that is what we do. 

 

I think it is a rural, tribal issue around the world--not Indian, per se, but India is a big, rural country. Same with China, though both are rapidly urbanizing.

[Guest]

Just wanted to warn against the overgeneralization of "Indians don't want daughters." While it is very true in certain parts of India (as demonstrated by horribly skewed birth rates in certain regions) it is by no means something that exists as a rule for the entire sub-continent.

 

Too many different cultures, sub-groups, etc. for there to be one standard rule. My ILs for example, wanted girl grandchildren first. They treat both my children equally. They are traditional, middle-class Indians. But with a preference for girls to be born.

 

The dowry issue is also complicated. Traditionally, girls couldn't inherit from their birth families after they married. Dowry was a way to pass on a percentage of their inheritance to them at the time of marriage.

 

Unfortunately, it has morphed and taken on many uglier sides. (BTW, dowry is illegal in India and has been for a long time. It still is prevalent however.)

 

In poorer families, one primary reason to prefer a son to a daughter is the sheer cost of a marriage of a daughter that is to be born entirely by her family. Families of sons act like they won the lottery when it is time for their son to be married - and they make sky high demands. It is tragic to see what lengths poor families go to when trying to get their daughter married into a "good" family.

I was hoping you'd chime in, Cammie. Your insights on this are valuable, given your own background and personal experience.

 

It's been a fascinating read from many of you other ladies as well - some of these issues seem obvious but others I'd never even thought of!

[LucyStoner]

If you go looking for a logical explaination of patriarchy and it's nastier little brother, misogyny, you won't find one but you will raise your blood pressure a few points.

[Excelsior! Academy]

 

I was hoping you would respond. :) That is the prayer I was thinking of! I did not know it was Jewish. Thank you for clarifying!

[lllll]

nm

Edited February 13, 2016 by - 8 95

[BlsdMama]

I just read a snippet about a doctor in India who is trying to change the way people view daughters (not as wanted as sons) by not charging to deliver girls and having a party in the hospital at the birth of a girl.

 

It made me think--why are men always more highly valued? You see it in different times and different cultures that sons are valued over daughters. Are there any cultures that value daughters over sons??

 

Is it due to physical strength? Men can overpower women so they get to be the boss so sons are better?

 

It makes no sense. Women grow children! That's pretty darn important! In my head, the birth of a girl would ensure that your family line continues. Why do most cultures view sons as better??

 

 

I believe it is changing in much of the world.  We have eight girls and people don't seem to react differently to girls vs. boys in the American society.  I think, unfortunately, a lot of that is about societal values - prestige, power, money.  Women have a disadvantage at earning those in some societies, so it keeps them down.  In a society where women are allowed to be educated they've proven they aren't inferior in any way.  Given equal access, they have proven their equality.

[Garga]

My theory is that it goes back to childbirth and caring for children.

 

Women bear the children and biologically have an intense bond with them usually from the moment they're born. I'm pretty sure (?) men do not feel that intense chemcially-induce bond right away. They develop a bond to their children over time. I'm going on memory here, but I thought I read something about the very strong chemicals that wash through a woman's brain when she gives birth that causes intense bonding to the child. It would make sense. Human babies are utterly helpless for years after they're born. One of the parents would have to be bonded to the child intensely to be willing to do the overwhelming caring for the child for years at a time or the species would not survive. Every one of us here knows exactly how difficult it can be to tend to a baby through sleep deprivation and recovering from the birth and the pain and hassle that can come from breast feeding, etc.

 

So, once the babies are here, women are their primary caregivers. Many primitive cultures expect the woman to spend at least 6 weeks secluded in a hut somewhere to recover. The other women care for her, but she does not work. And when she does work, she is hampered by tending to the baby. Sure, she can go out and gather, but now she has to stop every couple of hours to nurse the baby or change the diaper or tend to baby spit up, or whatever. She is not as productive. And let's not forget that she was also not as productive when she was 8-9 months pregnant. You just can't run as fast when you've got a baby that big inside of you, or bend over to gather, etc.

 

So a woman's contributions go down for 3 months or more every time she is pregnant: 8 and 9th month plus 6 weeks recovery. And they slowly start to come up, but not as much when she has the baby now strapped to her back. Once the kids are off the back, then she has to make sure they don't run off and fall into holes or get hurt, so she's still not able to focus fully on her work. This goes on few a few years. And when she gets pregnant again, it all starts over again.

 

Through all this, nothing changes for the men. Their physical state stays the same and their work continues. In addition, they may be expected to do more to protect the woman and child.

 

It's pretty obvious that the man then becomes considered more important to the survival of the group as a whole. The woman may be tending to her one child, but the man is still out hunting for everyone and protecting everyone. While the woman's world narrows down to the tending of the children, the man's world expands to doing all the other things he does, plus protecting the children.

 

I can see how people would start to turn to men to "get things done around here." And after a while, you feel like the women just aren't as useful.

[TKDmom]

We had a boy and then a girl. I remember someone telling me that we must be done, since we had one of each.

Yes. We had a girl and then a boy. I got comments from people who were floored that I would go on the have a 3rd (and then a 4th!!) child when I already had one of each. One of my neighbors actually told me (when he found out I was pregnant again), "And here I thought you were an intelligent person." I wished I had snapped back that I was trying to increase the gene pool with intelligent children from my very intelligent self. Our modern American culture doesn't seem to value children and childbearing, whether they are boys or girls.

[Garga]

Also, along with the childbearing/tending theory, men are also stronger.

 

I watched a fun show called The Quest. It's a reality tv show where the contestants are taken to a castle and everyone pretends it's medieval times and there are competitions to narrow the contestants down to one. They do some archery and sword fighting, etc.

 

Through the draw of straws, sometimes women were pitted against men. And the women's faces would just sink. There they are, tinier than these men in all ways having to compete with them. Now, I have to say a number of them managed to hold their own, but it was a lot harder for them.

 

In one competition, they were inside metal cages with no bottoms. They were expected to lift the cages and run through an obstacle course. When they were told to go, the men lifted the cages and took off running. The women went, "Oof!" And barely got the cages off the ground enough to stagger around.

 

In our society, we don't rely on physical strength to get us money and status. But for the past few thousand years, physical strength was *the* way to get money and status. Men have more physical strength.

 

Now, of course, the world is different. And just because men are stronger and not slowed down by kids doesn't mean they should be jerks about it and treat women like they're lesser than. But that's what ends up happening.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Garga

[Danestress]

I always assumed it was partly about who takes care of parents and remains more bonded to them. In cultures where an eldest son remains in the home, his wife moves in, and they are expected to continue to live with the parents and then inherit the homestead, a son may be more valued and expected to have the closer bond with parents. Some cultures expect men to support their parents and women to become members of the husband's family and devote herself to his parents. Combine that with the expectation that her parents provide a dowry, and daughters can be less advantageous.

 

In the US we have different expectations. "A son is a son till he takes a wife...." Many people assume men who have sisters can get a bit of a pass in caring for elderly parents. We expect daughters to be more bonded with their family of origin. I have heard people say that a daughters children are more special than a son's children. And honestly, I am not sure many people care that much about the 'family name.'

 

We also have some basic safety nets for the elderly. Not enough perhaps, but some. Medicare, social security etc. While these are not a guarantee against poverty, Cultures without this may really need support from adult children more.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Danestress

[G5052]

For India? Castes are rigid. Dowries are expensive.

 

We have a number of friends who grew up in India and immigrated. Several are planning arranged marriages for their college-aged kids.

 

And even if they marry an American-born spouse, a dowry is still expected in an arranged marriage. It can get pretty stressful for families that have all girls.

[Tsuga]

Yes. We had a girl and then a boy. I got comments from people who were floored that I would go on the have a 3rd (and then a 4th!!) child when I already had one of each. One of my neighbors actually told me (when he found out I was pregnant again), "And here I thought you were an intelligent person." I wished I had snapped back that I was trying to increase the gene pool with intelligent children from my very intelligent self. Our modern American culture doesn't seem to value children and childbearing, whether they are boys or girls.

What the heck is wrong with that guy????

 

I am sorry that happened to you.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Excuse me, I'm going to ramble a bit.....

 

 

I think historically it's because men had capital value.  They could earn money, conduct business, hold property/wealth.

 

Women have also lost value, because of the push to lower birth rates.  Women used to valued, in part, for the ability to produce children, who would do productive work for the family (many children were needed, because much labor was needed, and because some would die).  Which sounds mercenary, but was just a reality of survival for most people through history.

 

We stopped value children, so we stopped valuing fertility, so we stopped valuing women.

:iagree: I think this is a very good generalized explanation. Take the basis of this and apply it to most cultures and you'll see historically men had a value that women could not attain.  Women did have their own value but she and the children would starve without the man whereas after a certain age (especially depending on older siblings) children could survive without her.

 

I think we still value children as a society but not in the same way. In the past many children died in infancy and even later into the tween years simply because they were children and were more susceptible to disease. With the advent of modern medicine mortality rates have improved and barring accident most children make it to adulthood.  Knowing that of your four children 2 of them will likely die does make you value their "life" more.  But, for good parents, knowing all 4 of your children will live makes you able to love and care for them more which creates a closer bond and you value them as individuals.

 

I don't think I value my son over my daughter.  They both have their own personal strengths and weaknesses.  I do think DS will have a significant earning advantage over his sister because he was simply born male, then factor in DD's interests (very art orientated) and DH and I already assume and have discussed that we will have to financially support her for a longer period of time then we will our son who is more STEM orientated.  

 

I went to University and had I finished, Dh, without any additional schooling, would still make significantly more then I would have made with a degree.  Does that mean he's more valuable than me?  To some people and some societies sure, in our house he often says how happy he is that I stay home with the kids because he could never do his job if I weren't here doing mine. :hurray:

[idnib]

Just wanted to warn against the overgeneralization of "Indians don't want daughters."  While it is very true in certain parts of India (as demonstrated by horribly skewed birth rates in certain regions) it is by no means something that exists as a rule for the entire sub-continent.

 

Absolutely!

[SparklyUnicorn]

I disagree that sons are more highly valued, at least in American culture (I agree this is not true elsewhere).  Daughters are more expensive to maintain, though, and that probably determines their lower value in less-wealthy countries (for all the reasons Bluegoat cited). 

 

Just wondering why you say daughters are more expensive to maintain.