Time for a little baby talk, guys. A new Gallup poll found Americans would much prefer to have a baby boy (40 percent) than a baby girl (28 percent) -- if they could only have one child. The remaining 32 percent said they didn't have a preference or weren't sure. Even more interestingly, these statistics haven't changed in the 10 times Gallup has conducted this study since 1941. So guys -- do you (or did you) have a gender preference for your offspring? And what's up with all the love for baby boys over baby girls?
Chic Geek says:
That poll is really surprising. What is this, China? I kid, I kid. But I wonder why more people would prefer a boy. It's not like it's the 1800s when families needed boys to work the fields and/or drive the wagon after Pa dies from cholera on cross-country trips. (Or so "Oregon Trail" taught me.) Do they worry about having a teenage daughter in our post-"Teen Mom" culture? Cause that show is enough to scare you off having kids period.
I don't have any gender preference. Boy or girl, I'll love them all the same. All I ask is that people stop naming their kids "Edward," "Jacob," "Isabella," and "Sookie." Man are these kids going to be annoyed when they're old enough to realize that they were named after mediocre vampire fiction.
Girls' BFF says:
I have a little girl now. And let me tell you I wanted a boy. It's not even that boys seem more low maintenance. It's more about the fact that I've seen all of the ridiculousness that my sisters have gone through in life and not to mention the crap I've put some women through and frankly, it seems exhausting. Add to the myriad self-esteem and emotional issues teenage girls go through in high school (and beyond really) and the fact that all I remember about my life was living fancy free and doing whatever the hell I wanted with little social or familial repercussion. Now, my daughter is my princess and I'm happy as can be. It just seems like life can be hard out here for women. If I know that going in, it seems like having a boy is the easy money in terms of raising a kid for the future.
Reformed Player says:
My guess is that people think boys are lower maintenance. Personally, I'm not that picky for when I have kids, as long as they have the upper body strength to do housework.
I think the preference for boys is part perception (that they are easier than girls) and part residual archaic thinking from the days when a family needed lots of field hands but only one cook/maid/babymaker.
I always wanted a daughter and was thrilled to get one. Also, I never had to worry about catching pee in the face while changing her diaper.
Mystery Man says:
We didn't want a baby at all. We were both very firm about that. The gods have an evil sense of humor.
Still, who cares? A kid is a kid, and the whole "Carry on the family name" thing is dying out anyway.
Funny Guy says:
As stated by my colleagues, conventional wisdom says boys are easier to raise than girls. That boys face less hurdles, can more easily fend for themselves, and prove to be greater family assets for stuff like corn plantin', milk milkin' and general chorin'.
I guess that's true, though Laura Ingalls ran away far less than Albert, and fended for herself as well if not better than Albert could. Plus, don't even get me started about Halfpint's chorin' prowess. Nobody could clean a chicken coup and feed the horses like Little Laura.
So in answer to your question, yes, any of the Ingall's children (minus sucky Carrie) would be just fine for me and Mrs. Funny.
Gal Pal says:
I can't even answer the question now because I am floating in a "Little House on the Prairie"-induced euphoria. Thanks a lot, Funny Guy! I plan to birth octuplet kittens and love them all equally regardless of gender or paw orientation.