They have two daughters, and this would be their third child. They didn't want to know the sex of the child, mainly because it seems they've been really hoping for a boy, and didn't want to be "disappointed." And there's been some murmuring around the office.
"Poor guy's been shooting blanks," Mr. T said this morning at the roundtable office meeting.
I rankled.
"Wow, Mr. T.," I said, "that was only marginally demeaning to every woman in this room."
First of all, I love that Kameron said something, 'even' in a workplace situation. This is exactly the sort of day-to-day fight that it is sometimes hard to fight as a feminist. But I think it cuts to the heart of the disingenuousness of people who say that they're not being sexist, exactly, but that they'd be disappointed if they had a girl. And I think a lot can be understood as you start to figure out why you want a child of a particular sex, whether you desire a boy or you desire a girl.
So, when one of the commentors says:
That said, if Karin and I have another kid, I'd like it to be a girl. I won't be disappointed if it's a boy -- as you said, I won't love them any less -- but it would be nice to, you know, get to see what it's like to raise a girl, too...
I immediately begin to wonder--why is it that it's different 'raising a girl'? Certainly doesn't seem like it should be different because of the sex of the baby--but it's different because of the gender that will get created around that sex. And I think it's interesting that there's a deeply-seeded idea (no pun intended) that raising a girl ought to be different--not just is different--than raising a boy. Seems to me that the similarities between the two ought to fundamentally outweigh the differences, though I know in practice it doesn't work out that way, partially because of the self-fulfilling prophecy nature of 'wanting a girl'.
The very act of wanting a boy or wanting a girl smacks of a kind of gender essentialism that bugs me. It would be like wanting an engineer or wanting a basketball player--certainly it would be a different experience raising one or the other, but why ought one have a higher value at the outset? Wouldn't it just be great to have a kid, have the kid be happy?
And what's with the idea that one can want to have a girl, but not be disappointed at having a boy (or vice versa)? Do people have a different sense of wanting than I do? When I want something, and I don't get it, there simply is dissapointment, isn't there? Sure, it may be offset in the case of children by the joy of having a kid, but that doesn't mean there isn't disappointment--and I think ignoring that fact, or trying to weasel out of it by saying "I want 'x' but I won't be disappointed if I don't get it," really points to the fact that people do see different genders as having more or less worth than other genders, which, y'know, just doesn't wash with me--it smacks of a gender essentialism that flies in the face of the various kinds of feminism I embarace.
2 comments:
I'm no authority on psychology, feminism, anthropology or sociology. But I was very taken by this post...
You say "...but why ought one [sex] have a higher value at the outset? Wouldn't it just be great to have a kid, have the kid be happy?"
Of course it would. Which is why people say "I'd like a girl/boy but if I don't get it, I won't be dissapointed" - nothing to do with essentialist ideas and more to do with the individual value of any child and the general happiness - nay, euphoria - the parents tend to feel when having a child. I realise you disagree with that, but but read on!
You say such a viewpoint "really points to the fact that people do see different genders as having more or less worth than other genders"
You essentially (heh heh heh) question why parents should want one sex over the other and conclude that most people are essentialists. I'd bet my hat, stick and gold coin (all my worldy posessions), that that too has less to do with essentialism, subconscious or otherwise and more to do with wanting one sex because you already have one of the other...that's right, as superficial as collecting the set - which may even be worse than essentialism, but that's probably up for debate. Whether or not collecting the set bothers you or offends your feminist sensibilities, there's no way around saying this but, it's pretty much none of your business to be bothered about it - that is to say, you have no legal right (and at best, a sketchy moral right) to be bothered about it (please don't take that as a sneering, malicious comment, it isn't).
And yes, the experience of raising a male is different to raising a female, they both have different needs and both respond to things differently. Of course, within the catagories of male and female, you have the individual who needs to be catered for - it's as much a fault to not see the forest for the trees as it is to not see the trees for the forest...
As for someone whose blatantly essentialist, I cannot vouch for them...that would certainly smack of essentialist views which fly in the face of your various feminist ideas =)
If you wish to respond, then please do so. You can either respond directly to me at two__moons@hotmail.com (double underscore) or reply here. If you choose the latter, please send me an e-mail to alert me to your response. Thank you for your time in reading this and take care!
I actually hadn't thought of the 'collecting a set' reason for wanting a boy or a girl as a second child, so thanks for pointing that out to me. I'd probably want to think about it some more, but my initial reaction is that if there are good reasons that aren't essentialist for wanting a boy or a girl, that's probably one of them.
So I'll amend my ideas with: I still think they apply across the board to people who are having their first child.
Post a Comment