Girls?? Blech -- Open Thread

I have long noticed that despite decades of feminist dogma, Americans still value boys more than girls. (Don’t hit me, Bev... I’m just the messenger.) Now there’s some statistical proof to back up my observation.

The statistical proof comes in the form of a study by economist Enrico Palazzo Moretti. Enrico found a statistically significant difference in marriage and reproduction rates depending on the sex of the first child. Specifically, he found this:

● Couples who have a boy out of wedlock are more likely to marry before birth than couples who have a girl.

● Parents who have a girl as the first born child are more likely to divorce.

● Parents who have a boy as the first born child are less likely to have more children.

● Fathers are more likely to seek custody when the child is a boy.

Each of these was in the 2-3% range, which doesn’t sound like much until you realize that means thousands of cases each year.

Based on these items, Enrico Suave concluded that the public has a bias in favor of boys because couples are more likely to stay together for boys, fathers are more likely to claim boys in a divorce, and couples with boys are more satisfied with the children they have when they have a boy. Now, this could just mean that men value boys more, but I don't think that's the case. I say that because the above fits with other observations I’ve made of human behavior over the years, observations which involve an implicit valuing of male higher than females... valuing done by both men and women.

For example, it’s still newsworthy when women achieve some level of equality. This tells me that there is a “surprise” factor in women being seen as equal to men. That suggest that women are still considered lesser. There’s also the issue of drag queens. Women in particular seem thrilled by the idea of female impersonators and drag queens, whereas no one is interested in male impersonators or "drag kings." I would suggest that this tells us there is a shock factor in men adopting femininity. That shock factor derives from the loss of status, and it's identical to when a boss in some story lose their position and must now live among the lowly employees. Conversely, notice that when women are dressed as men in magazines, it’s typically seen as sexy and playful. There is no shock because it has the feel of someone aiming for higher status, just as when children put on their parent's clothes, i.e. it is seen as "cute." Again, this suggests that society sees women as having less status as men, and thus men becoming women is shocking and women becoming men is looked at somewhat condescendingly as cute.

There’s also the fact that women are still seen as needing guidance and protection in all phases of their lives – just look at Obama’s Julia website which all but suggested that without his guidance, poor Julia would live a hopeless, failed life. No one would attempt to sell their platform as offering guidance to men, because society still sees men as functioning independently and women needing help. Again, this suggests that women are seen as lacking skills men possess, which again suggests a view that they are inferior.

Is it true that one is more valuable than the other? Not really. On an individual basis, there and both men and women who are extremely valuable and others who are worthless. And my sense is that on average, both are about the same. Men seem to be better at some things and worse at others, and when combined, the two form a pretty decent partnerships that cover all the options. But despite that, I do think that there is a lot of evidence that society still perceives males as having more value. Enrico’s statistics fall in line with that.

I guess the next question is, what's the source of this?