Is it sexist to only want children of one specific gender?

[Phalnia]

Depends on the situation. Well; there are still people in some parts of the world who bury their babies alive just because they're girls.

My dad once told me he really anticipated a daughter. I also want to have a daughter in the future but no I wouldn't get sad if it was a boy. I'd just try again it's for free after all :p

Not in the long-haul.

[United Marxist Nations]

Depends on the reasoning.

You seem to like to ask questions about these kinds of things, are you trying to find out if you're racist and/or sexist?

[Milograd]

Not necessarily. It depends on the reason.

A parent can prefer to raise one gender over the another out of preference for their own experience as a parent. That's not sexism.

[Geilinor]

Yes. Male or female, your children are still your children.

[Libertarian California]

I want one son and one daughter. Problem solved.

[Space Murica]

Yes. Parents that only want one gender do not have the rights to be parents. Love your child no matter what or don't have it. Not a hard concept to figure out.

[Verdo-Releignia]

I dunno, I might wan't a daughter just so I can be a dick to whoever tries going out with her. The whole "Do anything with my Daughter and I will find you, I will kill you.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Alternatively: Tell your daughters to keep their surname, and pass it on if they have children.

I've been telling you furrinorz that bi-patrilineality or co-lineality is ideal and superior, and that a sole surname is sexist, for quite some time.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I want one son and one daughter.

Me too.

[GCMG]

Alternatively: Tell your daughters to keep their surname, and pass it on if they have children.

I've been telling you furrinorz that bi-patrilineality or co-lineality is ideal and superior, and that a sole surname is sexist, for quite some time.

What used to happen was...

name, middle name (optional), mother's maiden surname, surname.

It wasn't necessarily strictly adhered to but double-barrelled surnames are both unwieldy and associated with class distinctions (and, oh dear, both parents have double-barrelled surnames). A single new surname avoids that but, at the same time, it would be difficult to trace familial connections through time with such a system being commonplace (which is not a fatal flaw but it is something to consider).

Perhaps the best option is a dual surname... complications with ID be damned. Although, in all honesty I have no issues with the current reality where there's a majority going with the father's and a decent chunk doing all sorts. Provided there's a decent variety of names, handing down just one parent's surname (regardless of which) has a convenient simplicity and traceability to it. Obviously, when the original surnames are almost all of the form Johansen, Nielsen etc one could run into problems... hence my "decent variety" condition for such a system's simplicity.

[Tahar Joblis]

Not necessarily. It depends on the reason.

A parent can prefer to raise one gender over the another out of preference for their own experience as a parent. That's not sexism.

That sounds exactly like sexism to me.

Not to mention also a recipe for disaster when you have, say, a tomboy instead of a girly-girl and get all bent out of shape over the fact that she has "boy" interests. Or an effeminate boy, and get bent out of shape over him not being interested in learning to play football.

[Blasveck]

Not necessarily. It depends on the reason.

A parent can prefer to raise one gender over the another out of preference for their own experience as a parent. That's not sexism.

That sounds exactly like sexism to me.

Not to mention also a recipe for disaster when you have, say, a tomboy instead of a girly-girl and get all bent out of shape over the fact that she has "boy" interests. Or an effeminate boy, and get bent out of shape over him not being interested in learning to play football.

I think they're saying that a woman would prefer to raise a girl, tomboy or not, simply because said woman is also a girl and has experience being a girl. Same concept with men raising boys.

But whatever.

[Jazakstan]

Not at all, I'm surprised how many people have said yes. If I had a child I'd prefer it to be a boy. I don't see how that'd make me sexist..

[Cata Larga]

No, not as long as you'd love your kids either way. If it's one of those "abort it if it's not a boy/girl" deals, then yes, definitely.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

both unwieldy and associated with class distinctions

Eh, sometimes it's the rule in a society.

It's not necessarily awful and classist, while wives adopting their husband's surnames and only one descent line being regarded as relevant is.

And believe me, nobody is idiotic enough to put a thousand names in their kid. Except monarchs. But pish, that's why we abolished them.

[Milograd]

Not necessarily. It depends on the reason.

A parent can prefer to raise one gender over the another out of preference for their own experience as a parent. That's not sexism.

That sounds exactly like sexism to me.

Not to mention also a recipe for disaster when you have, say, a tomboy instead of a girly-girl and get all bent out of shape over the fact that she has "boy" interests. Or an effeminate boy, and get bent out of shape over him not being interested in learning to play football.

Nonsense. How is having preferred interests in a kid's gender inherently sexist?

I think I can raise a boy better, because I am also a male, and thus I'd rather raise a boy. I'm more comfortable with that. The idea of raising a girl, whose gender I have no experience with in terms of the challenges of growing up, is not as appealing to me as something I am comfortable with. Surely you're not saying that that makes me sexist?

[GCMG]

both unwieldy and associated with class distinctions

Eh, sometimes it's the rule in a society.

It's not necessarily awful and classist, while wives adopting their husband's surnames and only one descent line being regarded as relevant is.

I don't think either system is necessarily awful. As I wrote before there are some nice advantages to such a system (or, for that matter, the reverse) while, in the scheme of things, the neglect of one parent is entirely down to personal interpretation: not everyone sees neglect, they just see a system of passing names down.

And believe me, nobody is idiotic enough to put a thousand names in their kid. Except monarchs. But pish, that's why we abolished them.

I would assume that if we had A-B and C-D their children would end up with something like A-D? Where A, B, C and D are surnames.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

And believe me, nobody is idiotic enough to put a thousand names in their kid. Except monarchs. But pish, that's why we abolished them.

I would assume that if we had A-B and C-D their children would end up with something like A-D? Where A, B, C and D are surnames.

A-B = mother's mother and father; C-D = father's mother and father; generally all are patrilineals due to tradition

Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking cultures tend to be B-D [Lusophone usual but often found in Spain too] or D-B [Hispanic usual] (patrilineal + patrilineal), but I happen to be A-D (grandmother's patrilineal + patrilineal). I am going to use my grandmother's surname for my children unless it also happens to be my wife's/husband's/spouse's choice in the case they have the same surname [if I have children at all].

I know of only a single person who is A-C-D, but her middle surname is "Reis", so it's not a problem, and it's common use in Brazil to shorten your mother's surname to the first letter and a point as if it was a middle name anyway. (I only do it when the lack of space is critical; I never file my father's surname when I get to opt in informal contexts, though. I'm highly unusual because I regard both extremities of my name as the accessory ones.)

[The Assassin ShadowX]

No, in most cases. There are reasons why a parent might wish for a child of a certain gender.

Often a father wishes for a son and a mother wishes for a daughter because in most cases each believe it is easier to raise a child of their own gender, considering each parent knows what it's like to be a boy or a girl themselves.

Though another reason for a father wishing for a boy is that (in most cultures) is the son that carries the family name, and the daughter would carry her husband's. Also, especially in the past, there are many cultures where its societies main jobs favor those who are more physically capable; i.e: men. This has actually dwindled in the present, but in the past the jobs most in demand were strong soldiers and farmers.

Yes. Parents that only want one gender do not have the rights to be parents. Love your child no matter what or don't have it. Not a hard concept to figure out.

I don't think this is how it works (at least for most people) For most people who do wish for a child of one gender or another, they would still love the child dearly no matter what gender it is.

I know it's a silly analogy but I think it applies here. It is like getting a new phone, a phone you have dreamed of for a long time, just in a different case color than you first hoped for. Still, you will probably treat it just the same no matter what.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Often a father wishes for a son and a mother wishes for a daughter because in most cases each believe it is easier to raise a child of their own gender, considering each parent knows what it's like to be a boy or a girl themselves.

That's such bullshit.

In real life I always see boys having slightly better relationships with their mothers and girls having slightly better relationships with their fathers.

That's the case most particularly if they happen to belong to another religion, a shunned subculture, have very different lifestyles, don't choose their expected family profession or have historically marginalized sexual orientation/gender identity.

[72o]

I only want girls. I haven't got kids yet, but I worked with kids and boys are far more difficult/annoying than girls. I don't think it sexist.

[Olthar]

Yes.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I only want girls. I haven't got kids yet, but I worked with kids and boys are far more difficult/annoying than girls. I don't think it sexist.

It is. Saying children will be similar to annoying kinds based on their genitals totally ignores a lot of things about humans and how they become what they are. Not expecting them to act in some way as normal because "that's normal for boys" is actually a good way for such behaviors to decrease.

Also, the boy factor I see in American kids in TV seems to be the source of a notorious lack of discipline. I'm against physical punishment and I find it coward, dumb, ageist and a pig attitude, but when I start to see boys peeing inside stores in Supernanny to manipulate their parents I can only think of this.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I would assume that if we had A-B and C-D their children would end up with something like A-D? Where A, B, C and D are surnames.

A-B = mother's mother and father; C-D = father's mother and father; generally all are patrilineals due to tradition

Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking cultures tend to be B-D [Lusophone usual but often found in Spain too] or D-B [Hispanic usual] (patrilineal + patrilineal), but I happen to be A-D (grandmother's patrilineal + patrilineal). I am going to use my grandmother's surname for my children unless it also happens to be my wife's/husband's/spouse's choice in the case they have the same surname [if I have children at all].

I know of only a single person who is A-C-D, but her middle surname is "Reis", so it's not a problem, and it's common use in Brazil to shorten your mother's surname to the first letter and a point as if it was a middle name anyway. (I only do it when the lack of space is critical; I never file my father's surname when I get to opt in informal contexts, though. I'm highly unusual because I regard both extremities of my name as the accessory ones.)

In Central America and Mexico we use the A+B and C+D = A+C standards. Less common is the A+C+D combination.

We combine the patronimic of the father and the patronimic of the mother (Ochoa Portillo, for instance, uses both the male's patronimic and the female's patronimic) we don't use the matrilineals B and D much.

Anyhow, on the topic. It's not necessarily sexist, but it can be.

[Hollowpoint]

Yes. Next!