Why having daughters is better than having sons

[kenny]

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140722-why-daughters-are-in-vogue

SNIP
With global life expectancy now at age 68 for men and 73 for women, it’s more likely than ever that your children will have to support you in old age. But will it be your son or your daughter who steps up to take responsibility?

The answer may surprise you. Sons are not only less likely to support elderly parents, but are actually more likely to depend on them for financial support, making daughters the favoured gender. This trend is spreading to some of the world’s most patriarchal societies, including some in East Asia, where the greatest gender imbalance exists.

 

[ruby59]

Not sure about financial support, but judging by my friends and my own experience, if an elderly parent cannot live on their own but does not want to go into a nursing home or assisted living, they will more than likely move in with a daughter rather than a son. My mom moved in with me rather than my brother. It is probably because the women do most of the caring - feeding, bathing, cleaning - and many daughter in laws do not want to take this on. Many of my friends are in the same boat, and if there is a daughter, she seems to be the one offering the help. And once they move in, we obviously take on the financial responsibility as well.

 

[kenny]

Some societies abort more females.

Not that any abortion is good but apparently they got it backwards.

 

[Candygrl]

Kenny I agree, very backwards. However obviously neither should be aborted as you said.

 

[ecf8503]

Interesting. Our family is currently dealing w elder living issues, and there are 4 of us kids - 2 girls, 2 boys. I'm the oldest, and female. So far my sister, who is in no financial place herself to help, has been the only one to offer to help, besides us. My 2 (well-off) brothers have not stepped up, and the burden of finding a place for our mom and her husband to live has fallen completely on me and my family.

 

[anne_h]

Can totally see this. My own parents are still pretty young, but for both sets of grandparents, it's the female children (my aunts & mother) who usually take on the hands-on care of aging parents. Although on my mother's side, the sons (my uncles) handle their mother's finances.

I can see myself contributing to my parents' care... we'll see about my husband contributing to his own parents' care... so far seems his sister is in line for that job. lol

Anne

 

[iLander]

There's a saying that covers this:

"A son is a son until he takes a wife,

But a daughter's a daughter, all of her life."

Plus the Chinese symbol for trouble is two women under on roof. Or so I've been told.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I hope so...

 

[redwood66]

Well I'm screwed then. Hopefully they visit me in the home they put me in.

 

[swingirl]

My son cooks way better than my daughter. I hope I'll get to live with him.

 

[lambskin]

We have two preteen girls. Everyday one of them is mad at one or both of us. So depending on their moods in the future we may be at the worst nursing home in town.

 

[boerumbiddy]

I have one brother, who lives in the same state where my mother lived. I moved there and stayed with her for most of a year as her mild dementia worsened. When she couldn't exactly remember where the bathroom was, my brother and I asked her if full-time care would be okay with her. God bless her, she said fine! And God bless my brother, he found a wonderful place near where he lives with a spectrum of care and visited her there every day until she died. Thank heavens she had long=term care insurance, suggested by my brother, but if she had run out of money, we were going to split the cost. So in this case, it was more or less half and half. I know how lucky I was.

Now I am trying to look after a difficult aunt who refuses to consider institutional care at any level, though she is now bedridden. She has good help whom she pays poorly; I make up the difference. Geography makes me responsible, as does the fact that she alienated my brother long ago.

 

[AprilBaby]

I have three sons and a daughter. The boys all live near by. The daughter is three hrs away. I hear from her every day. I hear from the boys.....when they need something.

 

[kenny]

FWIW, my sister was more of a care giver to my parents in their last years than I or my brother was.

On the other hand my SO just said his brother wants their parents to move in with them when the parents can no longer live alone.
Nice to see at least one man stepping up.

I do wonder if women being much more likely to be the caregivers is more nature or nurture.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Well, perhaps if we start raising our sons to be responsive, loving, empathetic people, rather than blindly ascribing to gender norms, then those of us with sons will be ok

 

[JaneSmith]

Sometimes I think I have a touch of Maru's syndrome. Like a cat, I see a (comment) box, and I cannot help but enter.

Dreamer, high five!
Swingirl, excellent plan.
Kenny, it's nurture. For goodness sake, just look in a toy store or kids clothes shop for starters. Also, every wanted abortion is a good abortion.

 

[Laila619]

I have two of each, so I'm covered either way.

 

[missy]

Well, perhaps if we start raising our sons to be responsive, loving, empathetic people, rather than blindly ascribing to gender norms, then those of us with sons will be ok

...snip...

Dreamer, high five!
Swingirl, excellent plan.
Kenny, it's nurture. For goodness sake, just look in a toy store or kids clothes shop for starters. Also, every wanted abortion is a good abortion.

I agree completely. IMO it's more about how one is raised and the values one is taught. It's time to move past outdated stereotypes and realize every person has much more to offer than just tired old role models. Men and women are just not that different. It's how one is raised that makes the difference IMO.

 

[AGBF]

I agree completely. IMO it's more about how one is raised and the values one is taught. It's time to move past outdated stereotypes and realize every person has much more to offer than just tired old role models. Men and women are just not that different. It's how one is raised that makes the difference IMO.

I thought everything was about nurture until I got a Golden Retriever. (I had had Cocker Spaniels growing up.) Suddenly I had a dog bringing me a shoe every time I came home. I learned something about nature from that.

My mother was a highly trained elementary school teacher (she attended the very daring and radical New College at Columbia in the 1940's to become a teacher). She told me that when you took all the toy guns away from little boys, they still pointed their fingers at each other and shot each other. In the classroom, the boys went to the trucks.

No one is more of a feminist than I am. But denying nature is just lying. I think we have to accept the physical differences between the sexes and what the hormones do to people, then work for equality bearing the truth in mind. I believe equality is possible. I think it is easier to achieve equality if we do not try to kid ourselves.

For example, I think women should shave access to all jobs. But are we going to lie to ourselves and say that the pool of women available for some jobs that require brawn and size is as big as the pool of men available? It's just not. Maybe the pool of women available to pilot small planes is bigger than the pool of men available since fewer men, who tend to be larger, can fit in them!

Deb/AGBF

 

[chrono]

In my culture, the sons are supposed to look after their parents in their old age, not daughters.

 

[missy]

I agree completely. IMO it's more about how one is raised and the values one is taught. It's time to move past outdated stereotypes and realize every person has much more to offer than just tired old role models. Men and women are just not that different. It's how one is raised that makes the difference IMO.

I thought everything was about nurture until I got a Golden Retriever. (I had had Cocker Spaniels growing up.) Suddenly I had a dog bringing me a shoe every time I came home. I learned something about nature from that.

My mother was a highly trained elementary school teacher (she attended the very daring and radical New College at Columbia in the 1940's to become a teacher). She told me that when you took all the toy guns away from little boys, they still pointed their fingers at each other and shot each other. In the classroom, the boys went to the trucks.

No one is more of a feminist than I am. But denying nature is just lying. I think we have to accept the physical differences between the sexes and what the hormones do to people, then work for equality bearing the truth in mind. I believe equality is possible. I think it is easier to achieve equality if we do not try to kid ourselves.

For example, I think women should shave access to all jobs. But are we going to lie to ourselves and say that the pool of women available for some jobs that require brawn and size is as big as the pool of men available? It's just not. Maybe the pool of women available to pilot small planes is bigger than the pool of men available since fewer men, who tend to be larger, can fit in them!

Deb/AGBF

I agree in that there is no denying nature plays a definite role. I just don't agree that being a nurturer is all due to (or even a big part of) nature. (LOL say that a few times fast). I think men can be just as good in the nurturing role as women. It's all about how much effort they want to put in and how much they learned from their mothers and fathers. That's my thinking anyway just seeing the examples all around me.

Greg is a huge nurturer and his brothers not at all. Why? Because when his mother went back to school to obtain all her advanced PhD degrees Greg was in charge. He is the oldest (only 6 years separate the oldest from the youngest of 3 boys) and took the role of nurturer over quite well. He cooked for everyone and watched his little brothers and IMO it helped shape the man he is today. Look at me. I am not a nurturer in the traditional sense that is. And I feel much of that is due to the low expectations placed upon me (in that regard) by my parents. My mom was a stay at home mom and she did everything for me. Looking back I wish they hadn't made it so easy but I know they raised me the best they knew how and raised me to be the loving caring person I am today regardless of not being a traditional caretaker (i.e. cooking, cleaning etc.) Though they did instill in me a sense of I can do anything a man can do and more so they get big points for that.

Are we as physically strong as many men? No. Should we do anything a man can do? No. Can we? Maybe not everything but certainly most things IMO. And for sure a man can be as good or better a nurturer as any woman. By that statement I stand.

So getting back to the original topic- why could a man not take as good care of his parents as any woman? Of course they could. Nurture can rule over nature in this instance if it is truly nature and not nurture that makes them that way which is not something I am entirely convinced of anyway. What makes civilization great is its ability to adapt and change with the times. Well the times they are changing and that is one of the constants you can count on...they are always changing and we must adapt. We are a thinking society and sometimes nurture must rule over nature for survival. My (long and drawn out as usual) thoughts anyway.

By the way I love Golden Retrievers. Beautiful dogs inside and out.

In my culture, the sons are supposed to look after their parents in their old age, not daughters.

Good point Chrono and I think that shows that men are just as able to be nurturing as women.

 

[Dreamer_D]

The nature-nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Both variables contribute to essentially every aspect of psychology. Moreover, nurture can actually shape nature by causing certain genes to "turn off" or "turn on". Luckily, the actual genetic contribution to most sex differences that are systematically observed in society are very very small. We simply pay attention to such differences a lot, and often such differences are further emphasized by culture.

One thing is fairly certain from the psychological literature concerning close relationships and parenting -- try as they might, no one has reliably found biological or genetic evidence that one sex is inherently better at caring, loving, and responding to others' needs. There are certainly personality traits that aid those skills. Agreeableness, one of the Big Five personality traits, plays a role. So does conscientiousness, another core personality trait. But those traits are equally distributed across the sexes. So although biological predispositions shape one person to be naturally more inclined towards caregiving and responsiveness than another, systematic sex differences in those skills -- and yes, I consider them to be largely learned skills, not inborn traits -- are learned through gender socialization.

I think the next wave of feminism will involve welcoming men into the caregiving role and encouraging boys and men to take pride and pleasure in caring for others. When boys and men are free to express the full range of emotions that women are free to express, and when men are able to enjoy and perceive all of the myriad psychological benefits of intimate bonds and caregiving -- benefits like a longer life, more happiness, and greater overall well-being -- then we will really start to see a more fully-actualized society in my opinion. One in which people's natural proclivities, not their genitals, will determine the roles and responsibilities they perform in society and in the family.

I don't think this is an fairytale ideal. I think I will see it in my lifetime, if the amazing young men and women in my university classrooms are any indication.

 

[iLander]

I couldn't live with my DIL, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

I'm moving in with Kenny.

 

[AGBF]

The nature-nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Both variables contribute to essentially every aspect of psychology. Moreover, nurture can actually shape nature by causing certain genes to "turn off" or "turn on". Luckily, the actual genetic contribution to most sex differences that are systematically observed in society are very very small. We simply pay attention to such differences a lot, and often such differences are further emphasized by culture.

One thing is fairly certain from the psychological literature concerning close relationships and parenting -- try as they might, no one has reliably found biological or genetic evidence that one sex is inherently better at caring, loving, and responding to others' needs. There are certainly personality traits that aid those skills. Agreeableness, one of the Big Five personality traits, plays a role. So does conscientiousness, another core personality trait. But those traits are equally distributed across the sexes. So although biological predispositions shape one person to be naturally more inclined towards caregiving and responsiveness than another, systematic sex differences in those skills -- and yes, I consider them to be largely learned skills, not inborn traits -- are learned through gender socialization.

I think the next wave of feminism will involve welcoming men into the caregiving role and encouraging boys and men to take pride and pleasure in caring for others. When boys and men are free to express the full range of emotions that women are free to express, and when men are able to enjoy and perceive all of the myriad psychological benefits of intimate bonds and caregiving -- benefits like a longer life, more happiness, and greater overall well-being -- then we will really start to see a more fully-actualized society in my opinion. One in which people's natural proclivities, not their genitals, will determine the roles and responsibilities they perform in society and in the family.

I don't think this is an fairytale ideal. I think I will see it in my lifetime, if the amazing young men and women in my university classrooms are any indication.

I see this as opinion, not fact, Dreamer. I spend a lot of time on dog fora. I realize that humans aren't dogs and that characteristics of dogs can be bred out over time. I remain unconvinced that male animals and female animals-at least in the forseeable future-and at least in species like dogs and humans (I won't discuss seahorses here), will not retain some of their present characteristics, characteristics they have due to nature.

Deb

 

[jaysonsmom]

My son said he can provide financial support to my daughter who can actually be our caregiver. I actually asked them about this loaded question when I saw this thread, bless their hearts, they are only 12 and 10!

 

[Dreamer_D]

The nature-nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Both variables contribute to essentially every aspect of psychology. Moreover, nurture can actually shape nature by causing certain genes to "turn off" or "turn on". Luckily, the actual genetic contribution to most sex differences that are systematically observed in society are very very small. We simply pay attention to such differences a lot, and often such differences are further emphasized by culture.

One thing is fairly certain from the psychological literature concerning close relationships and parenting -- try as they might, no one has reliably found biological or genetic evidence that one sex is inherently better at caring, loving, and responding to others' needs. There are certainly personality traits that aid those skills. Agreeableness, one of the Big Five personality traits, plays a role. So does conscientiousness, another core personality trait. But those traits are equally distributed across the sexes. So although biological predispositions shape one person to be naturally more inclined towards caregiving and responsiveness than another, systematic sex differences in those skills -- and yes, I consider them to be largely learned skills, not inborn traits -- are learned through gender socialization.

I think the next wave of feminism will involve welcoming men into the caregiving role and encouraging boys and men to take pride and pleasure in caring for others. When boys and men are free to express the full range of emotions that women are free to express, and when men are able to enjoy and perceive all of the myriad psychological benefits of intimate bonds and caregiving -- benefits like a longer life, more happiness, and greater overall well-being -- then we will really start to see a more fully-actualized society in my opinion. One in which people's natural proclivities, not their genitals, will determine the roles and responsibilities they perform in society and in the family.

I don't think this is an fairytale ideal. I think I will see it in my lifetime, if the amazing young men and women in my university classrooms are any indication.

I see this as opinion, not fact, Dreamer. I spend a lot of time on dog fora. I realize that humans aren't dogs and that characteristics of dogs can be bred out over time. I remain unconvinced that male animals and female animals-at least in the forseeable future-and at least in species like dogs and humans (I won't discuss seahorses here), will not retain some of their present characteristics, characteristics they have due to nature.

Deb

My post concerned human gender roles and other aspects of human psychology, not dog behaviour. My point was very specific-- there is little to no reliable reputable scientific evidence that men and women biologically differ in the capacity to love and care for others. And yes, it is my opinion based on my knowledge of the scientific psychological literature concerning the self, gender roles, and interpersonal relations, subjects that were the topic of my PhD and subjects on which I teach classes at university. You are of course free to regard my opinion however you like!

 

[LaraOnline]

I couldn't live with my DIL, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

I'm moving in with Kenny.

I feel I *should* feel enthusiastic about unspecified years of increasing hours of unpaid caring work for both my m-i-l and my mother...but, awfully, I don't.
I feel anxious about costs, extra responsibilities and a list of housebound 'thankless tasks'.
I already do plenty of those for my three primary school children and my work-obsessed husband!

My mother was not the most dedicated mother - the phrase 'dragged myself up' comes to mind. She can be unthinkingly critical and some of her opinions are not as informed, in my view, as she thinks they are.
And my m-i-l was a dedicated - hey, obsessive - mother to her own boy but did her best to run down my reputation upon engagement, received my pregnancy announcements very ungracefully and also tried very hard to totally exclude me from her side of the family for years after the marriage. She slowly softened after the kids arrived.
Neither have helped in any serious way with my children, impossible for them really as they live on the other side of the country.

But I am worried about my m-i-l. Should I build a granny flat ??
Really, really afraid of that possibility in terms of my privacy and independence.
She is the type who buys a one-way air ticket over to us and arrives with no clear sense of departure date.
This was something of a shock to me at first (my mum rarely stays for longer than a couple of days) but I am trying to relax and get used to that way of interacting.

I am concerned about my m-i-l's quality of life and wellbeing going forward.
I do have a fairly well developed conscience.
Depressed about my options really.
And who is going to raise the subject?
My husband says it would be 'insulting' to bring it up...I know from conversations about others she is quite private and can be very picky if she percieves any critique of her housekeeping etc etc but don't want her to feel abandoned.

So much to look forward to in this area! This problem is not going to solve itself is it.

 

[kenny]

I'm moving in with Kenny.

I hope you do windows.
I need help here at my house ...

 

[ksinger]

The nature-nurture debate is a false dichotomy. Both variables contribute to essentially every aspect of psychology. Moreover, nurture can actually shape nature by causing certain genes to "turn off" or "turn on". Luckily, the actual genetic contribution to most sex differences that are systematically observed in society are very very small. We simply pay attention to such differences a lot, and often such differences are further emphasized by culture.

One thing is fairly certain from the psychological literature concerning close relationships and parenting -- try as they might, no one has reliably found biological or genetic evidence that one sex is inherently better at caring, loving, and responding to others' needs. There are certainly personality traits that aid those skills. Agreeableness, one of the Big Five personality traits, plays a role. So does conscientiousness, another core personality trait. But those traits are equally distributed across the sexes. So although biological predispositions shape one person to be naturally more inclined towards caregiving and responsiveness than another, systematic sex differences in those skills -- and yes, I consider them to be largely learned skills, not inborn traits -- are learned through gender socialization.

I think the next wave of feminism will involve welcoming men into the caregiving role and encouraging boys and men to take pride and pleasure in caring for others. When boys and men are free to express the full range of emotions that women are free to express, and when men are able to enjoy and perceive all of the myriad psychological benefits of intimate bonds and caregiving -- benefits like a longer life, more happiness, and greater overall well-being -- then we will really start to see a more fully-actualized society in my opinion. One in which people's natural proclivities, not their genitals, will determine the roles and responsibilities they perform in society and in the family.

I don't think this is an fairytale ideal. I think I will see it in my lifetime, if the amazing young men and women in my university classrooms are any indication.

The skills may be mostly trained in, or not, but at the end of THIS day, most of us are dealing with men who do NOT step up to the caring/nurturing level of women.

You say that when men are able to enjoy and perceive all of the myriad psychological benefits of intimate bonds and caregiving, they will want to do it as much as women do. By saying that you are asking for nothing less than a complete redefinition of what status means for men, to be the same definition of status for women. Yes, caretaking has rewards, but anyone who has done it - for that aging or terminally ill parent? - will also tell you that it is often thankless, heartrending, and exhausting both physically and emotionally. At some point you're doing it out of duty, not joy in the job. And for either gender, society tells us that caretaking is a very low-status job, because true caretaking jobs pay very little - social worker, health aid, teacher - all very low status AND low pay.

I do not believe that men are as good at handling intense emotion as women. And I don't believe it is even mostly nurture. I just remember a fascinating interview I heard years ago on NPR, where a woman who had undergone a complete sex-change, was telling about the process. One remark I remember was that as the process progressed, he noticed that he became unable to weep. It was not that he didn't want to or had not been socialized that it was OK, he could NOT. He said it was like he was physically unable to express emotions as easily as when he was female. He also indicated that he was much more easily angered than when he was a woman. I realize that is but one person's experience, but it supported what most cultures have observed, and it seemed to be coming from a biological level, not a socialized one. (It just flashed through my mind: Hermione, after Ron expressing amazement that anyone could experience such a dizzying range of emotions, saying, "Just because YOU only have the emotional range of a teaspoon...". )

Unlike you, who thinks she will see massive changes in her lifetime, I think you're going to get quite a bit of pushback on that. There is the fact that we just went through over a decade of war and all things warrior and war ethos, so there's that to consider. And right now in the US, caring for anyone but yourself and yours is highly out of vogue, and the anti-women rhetoric coming from men who are really not that old, makes me a bit more skeptical that such sweeping changes, at least in the US, will happen any time soon. While gays are moving forward at warp speed (from a societal change standpoint) women are slipping back at almost the same clip. And finally, the young couples (under 30) with whom I am intimately acquainted, are outwardly quite egalitarian, yet when you talk to them one on one, you realize the old gender roles are quite alive and well and causing tension.

 

[iLander]

I'm moving in with Kenny.

I hope you do windows.
I need help here at my house ...

Deal! As long as you don't mind waking up to me every day.