I wish it was ok to have babies in your mid 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not ok? Oh geez! I guess I’ll put mine back in.

That would be nice if you did.

It would have been better if your mother had done that with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, if it's physically possible you totally can. The average age for someone to have a baby in DC is like 38.

It's most certainly not! I think that's the average age at Sibley, but in DC, it's more like 26 or 27. Way higher for white college educated women...hence, Sibley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I understood what causes the vitriol toward older motherhood. I'm not even an older mom, but I've never really understood why people get so invested in it. I really don't think it's concern for the kids because statistically older mothers tend to be more financially stable, have fewer children overall, and in better average physical health. So the kids from these older pregnancies are getting pretty stable, healthy moms who are well positioned to provide well for their children.

I'm guessing it has something to do with misogyny but it's still strange to me. Why be this invested in whether someone who is not you decides to have a baby or not? It's odd.

Totally agree with your post, PP. It’s also very odd to me. Really it must boil down to misogyny. I think it could kinda parallel the anti-choice crowd with their deep concern for the fetus (older moms are too tired, higher risk of complications, etc.??), without actually looking into what it means for the child (typically more attention, resources, better outcomes).

I don’t know, maybe that’s a big stretch, but the whole thing just reeks of deep seeded insecurity and some sort of threat — no idea why though?!

It's not misogyny. It's women judging women. Men are far less likely to pay attention to how old a woman is when she becomes a mother; they're more likely to determine how old a woman is to partner if they want children. But once the woman has a child, they don't really judge the age of the mother nearly as much as other women do. It's one of the classic Mommy Wars. Women have some requirement that they need to disparage other women's choices if they are different from their own. So women criticize other women who made different life choices in order to feel better about the choices they, themselves, made. So a woman who sacrifices a career to have children younger, will disparage women who prioritized career early in life and had children later. Women who decide to stay home to raise their children, will criticize those who decided to go back to work and used childcare. And so on. It's a way to justify to themselves that they made the right choice even though there is no best choice.

(1) Women judging women IS misogyny. Women can be massive misogynists. It's one of many things men have successfully outsourced to women.

(2) There are absolutely men who judge women for being older mothers. I've personally heard men (mostly of my father's generation) express disgust or anger about women having children in their 40s. I've heard them call it "unnatural" or "weird" or, like the posters on this thread, profess concern fro the children. There are men in my own family who will comment on how older moms won't be able to properly parent small children, too.

Anyway, it's misogyny either way, but it's not limited to women. A lot of people think they are entitled to these kinds of opinions on when and how women have children (or whether they do at all). Welcome to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I understood what causes the vitriol toward older motherhood. I'm not even an older mom, but I've never really understood why people get so invested in it. I really don't think it's concern for the kids because statistically older mothers tend to be more financially stable, have fewer children overall, and in better average physical health. So the kids from these older pregnancies are getting pretty stable, healthy moms who are well positioned to provide well for their children.

I'm guessing it has something to do with misogyny but it's still strange to me. Why be this invested in whether someone who is not you decides to have a baby or not? It's odd.

Totally agree with your post, PP. It’s also very odd to me. Really it must boil down to misogyny. I think it could kinda parallel the anti-choice crowd with their deep concern for the fetus (older moms are too tired, higher risk of complications, etc.??), without actually looking into what it means for the child (typically more attention, resources, better outcomes).

I don’t know, maybe that’s a big stretch, but the whole thing just reeks of deep seeded insecurity and some sort of threat — no idea why though?!

It's not misogyny. It's women judging women. Men are far less likely to pay attention to how old a woman is when she becomes a mother; they're more likely to determine how old a woman is to partner if they want children. But once the woman has a child, they don't really judge the age of the mother nearly as much as other women do. It's one of the classic Mommy Wars. Women have some requirement that they need to disparage other women's choices if they are different from their own. So women criticize other women who made different life choices in order to feel better about the choices they, themselves, made. So a woman who sacrifices a career to have children younger, will disparage women who prioritized career early in life and had children later. Women who decide to stay home to raise their children, will criticize those who decided to go back to work and used childcare. And so on. It's a way to justify to themselves that they made the right choice even though there is no best choice.

This is what I don’t understand. Do what’s best for you and let others do what works for them. How hard is that?
Though these kinds of attacks happen only on anonymous forums. I doubt any of these posters would have the guts to say this to someone they meet IRL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ok to do it. But not always physically possible.

+1

Why is it not okay?

There is a bit of a mismatch now between the bio issues and the society/work issues. Best Bio time to have a baby 19-28. 40s is the best time to have it hat you are established and made or at least more made.

But many many women will have trouble certainly after 40 but numbers decline much earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I understood what causes the vitriol toward older motherhood. I'm not even an older mom, but I've never really understood why people get so invested in it. I really don't think it's concern for the kids because statistically older mothers tend to be more financially stable, have fewer children overall, and in better average physical health. So the kids from these older pregnancies are getting pretty stable, healthy moms who are well positioned to provide well for their children.

I'm guessing it has something to do with misogyny but it's still strange to me. Why be this invested in whether someone who is not you decides to have a baby or not? It's odd.

Totally agree with your post, PP. It’s also very odd to me. Really it must boil down to misogyny. I think it could kinda parallel the anti-choice crowd with their deep concern for the fetus (older moms are too tired, higher risk of complications, etc.??), without actually looking into what it means for the child (typically more attention, resources, better outcomes).

I don’t know, maybe that’s a big stretch, but the whole thing just reeks of deep seeded insecurity and some sort of threat — no idea why though?!

It's not misogyny. It's women judging women. Men are far less likely to pay attention to how old a woman is when she becomes a mother; they're more likely to determine how old a woman is to partner if they want children. But once the woman has a child, they don't really judge the age of the mother nearly as much as other women do. It's one of the classic Mommy Wars. Women have some requirement that they need to disparage other women's choices if they are different from their own. So women criticize other women who made different life choices in order to feel better about the choices they, themselves, made. So a woman who sacrifices a career to have children younger, will disparage women who prioritized career early in life and had children later. Women who decide to stay home to raise their children, will criticize those who decided to go back to work and used childcare. And so on. It's a way to justify to themselves that they made the right choice even though there is no best choice.

This is what I don’t understand. Do what’s best for you and let others do what works for them. How hard is that?
Though these kinds of attacks happen only on anonymous forums. I doubt any of these posters would have the guts to say this to someone they meet IRL.

They do. Here is the thing though. Neither choice is right and neither is wrong. That is why women attack. They picked a course and it is the right one. But so is the other course.

[Anonymous]

No, it should be less okay. It’s selfish as hell to have kids in your mid 40s.

At best, you’re guaranteeing a person is going to have the stressors of aging parents when they should be in the prime of their career and/or young family life. At worst you are much more likely to die before they even hit 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I understood what causes the vitriol toward older motherhood. I'm not even an older mom, but I've never really understood why people get so invested in it. I really don't think it's concern for the kids because statistically older mothers tend to be more financially stable, have fewer children overall, and in better average physical health. So the kids from these older pregnancies are getting pretty stable, healthy moms who are well positioned to provide well for their children.

I'm guessing it has something to do with misogyny but it's still strange to me. Why be this invested in whether someone who is not you decides to have a baby or not? It's odd.

Totally agree with your post, PP. It’s also very odd to me. Really it must boil down to misogyny. I think it could kinda parallel the anti-choice crowd with their deep concern for the fetus (older moms are too tired, higher risk of complications, etc.??), without actually looking into what it means for the child (typically more attention, resources, better outcomes).

I don’t know, maybe that’s a big stretch, but the whole thing just reeks of deep seeded insecurity and some sort of threat — no idea why though?!

It's not misogyny. It's women judging women. Men are far less likely to pay attention to how old a woman is when she becomes a mother; they're more likely to determine how old a woman is to partner if they want children. But once the woman has a child, they don't really judge the age of the mother nearly as much as other women do. It's one of the classic Mommy Wars. Women have some requirement that they need to disparage other women's choices if they are different from their own. So women criticize other women who made different life choices in order to feel better about the choices they, themselves, made. So a woman who sacrifices a career to have children younger, will disparage women who prioritized career early in life and had children later. Women who decide to stay home to raise their children, will criticize those who decided to go back to work and used childcare. And so on. It's a way to justify to themselves that they made the right choice even though there is no best choice.

(1) Women judging women IS misogyny. Women can be massive misogynists. It's one of many things men have successfully outsourced to women.

(2) There are absolutely men who judge women for being older mothers. I've personally heard men (mostly of my father's generation) express disgust or anger about women having children in their 40s. I've heard them call it "unnatural" or "weird" or, like the posters on this thread, profess concern fro the children. There are men in my own family who will comment on how older moms won't be able to properly parent small children, too.

Anyway, it's misogyny either way, but it's not limited to women. A lot of people think they are entitled to these kinds of opinions on when and how women have children (or whether they do at all). Welcome to society.

Guy here. Never thought this and never heard anyone say anything like it. Men making comments about how women look -- sure but never too old to have a baby. Could be a generational thing though. Many men under 50 have been in a relationship where there is trouble getting pregnant or they have a relative or friend who has and if you knew that heartbreak --- eve if they were eventually pregnant --- you would never make such a comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ok to do it. But not always physically possible.

+1

Why is it not okay?

There is a bit of a mismatch now between the bio issues and the society/work issues. Best Bio time to have a baby 19-28. 40s is the best time to have it hat you are established and made or at least more made.

But many many women will have trouble certainly after 40 but numbers decline much earlier.

This. And most women I know are willing to sacrifice some of the biological advantages in order to get the many, many other advantages of having kids while older, including:

- Longer maternity leaves because more established in career with better benefits
- More money for childcare and other things
- The ability to have a child with an actual responsible grown up instead of an immature child (tell me how many men under the age of 30 you think are ready to be dads)
- Easier re-entry to work if they take time off, because longer work experience and more industry contacts

And there are others. People can criticize older moms all they want, I view it as a smart choice that benefits mothers and their kids. It also benefits a lot of men because, again, many men just aren't ready to be dads earlier in their lives. Sure, men can always marry younger women but that's a crapshoot and can also be financially a bad decisions -- if you marry a woman in her 20s when you are in your 30s and then have kids, the odds that she may become financially dependent on you go up.

The people saying "women should have babies sooner" are really just saying "I want there to be more childless people in society" because we are NOT well set up for young families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, if it's physically possible you totally can. The average age for someone to have a baby in DC is like 38.

It's most certainly not! I think that's the average age at Sibley, but in DC, it's more like 26 or 27. Way higher for white college educated women...hence, Sibley.

I read a recent study on this. For US women with graduate degrees (not just college) the median age has reached 30. For just college I believe median is 27 or 28.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, if it's physically possible you totally can. The average age for someone to have a baby in DC is like 38.

It's most certainly not! I think that's the average age at Sibley, but in DC, it's more like 26 or 27. Way higher for white college educated women...hence, Sibley.

Some women will have no trouble getting pregnant at 40 or later for the first time. But many will have issues. Many issues can be dealt with when in your 20s or early 30s. Even IVF has better outcomes at younger ages. So you may be a women that will have no issues but you will not know that when you wait. You have to do what is right to you. I waited until mid-30s to try. And had issues. All worked out ok but if I had to do it over I would have had my babies as early as possible (married at 25). But others may make another decision and that is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus, if it's physically possible you totally can. The average age for someone to have a baby in DC is like 38.

It's most certainly not! I think that's the average age at Sibley, but in DC, it's more like 26 or 27. Way higher for white college educated women...hence, Sibley.

I read a recent study on this. For US women with graduate degrees (not just college) the median age has reached 30. For just college I believe median is 27 or 28.

Total US average is like 26.5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is always such a hot topic because this site is full of women who made this decision and know it’s wrong and risky and selfish and unfair so they’re immediately on the defensive.

In all seriousness: why do you think anyone GAF about your opinion of their family planning choices?

Why do you give a f what others think?

I don’t. That’s my point. Your judgement is meaningless.

Yet here you are, super angry.

The angry and insecure one is you. Why are you so agitated about something that doesn’t affect your life?

NP. Does any one else see the irony in that question?

Where is the irony?

Good lord!

[Anonymous]

I had my two at 28 and 31. As they are now teens, I’m kind of sad that I will have an empty nest so young. I didn’t really think that through - I was just baby crazy at the time and my husband was game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's ok to do it. But not always physically possible.

+1

Why is it not okay?

There is a bit of a mismatch now between the bio issues and the society/work issues. Best Bio time to have a baby 19-28. 40s is the best time to have it hat you are established and made or at least more made.

But many many women will have trouble certainly after 40 but numbers decline much earlier.

This. And most women I know are willing to sacrifice some of the biological advantages in order to get the many, many other advantages of having kids while older, including:

- Longer maternity leaves because more established in career with better benefits
- More money for childcare and other things
- The ability to have a child with an actual responsible grown up instead of an immature child (tell me how many men under the age of 30 you think are ready to be dads)
- Easier re-entry to work if they take time off, because longer work experience and more industry contacts

And there are others. People can criticize older moms all they want, I view it as a smart choice that benefits mothers and their kids. It also benefits a lot of men because, again, many men just aren't ready to be dads earlier in their lives. Sure, men can always marry younger women but that's a crapshoot and can also be financially a bad decisions -- if you marry a woman in her 20s when you are in your 30s and then have kids, the odds that she may become financially dependent on you go up.

The people saying "women should have babies sooner" are really just saying "I want there to be more childless people in society" because we are NOT well set up for young families.

I guess I have to ask who are these guys that would not be good dads younger? We are talking DCUM right? The lawyer dad would be better at 40 than 28? I would have thought exactly the same. PhD dad better at 40? Not sure I get it.