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

[Anonymous]

Totally fine. Just sucks more when your kids are adults, and you are the much older grandparent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It sounds like you have a narrow frame of reference. Lots of men, just like lots of women, dislike the idea of older mothers. They might be older, or come from a culture where young motherhood is prized, or simply be misogynists. Those still exist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What??? It’s not OK? Nobody told me or my grandmother.
No need to wish. It is 100% OK.

Weirdo

Nope just someone who knows a ton of women across generations who had kids in their 40s. It is absolutely 100% ok and OP is weird for thinking it is not.

I do too. I agree it’s not ideal but certainly possible and absolutely fine. A lot in life isn’t “ideal”! Don’t know why this one poster is harassing everyone. It’s a strange strange hobby.

Having a baby at 40 is certainly not new. I come from a large Irish/Italian family and other both sides moms had babies after 40. But not their first. Their fourth, fifth, or sixth. For a first baby later than 40 -- that is a modern invention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would have been better if your mom didn’t hatch you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It sounds like you have a narrow frame of reference. Lots of men, just like lots of women, dislike the idea of older mothers. They might be older, or come from a culture where young motherhood is prized, or simply be misogynists. Those still exist!

Maybe. Never heard of it though. Don't think frame of reference is arrow but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What??? It’s not OK? Nobody told me or my grandmother.
No need to wish. It is 100% OK.

Weirdo

Nope just someone who knows a ton of women across generations who had kids in their 40s. It is absolutely 100% ok and OP is weird for thinking it is not.

I do too. I agree it’s not ideal but certainly possible and absolutely fine. A lot in life isn’t “ideal”! Don’t know why this one poster is harassing everyone. It’s a strange strange hobby.

Having a baby at 40 is certainly not new. I come from a large Irish/Italian family and other both sides moms had babies after 40. But not their first. Their fourth, fifth, or sixth. For a first baby later than 40 -- that is a modern invention.

But all of the drawbacks to having a baby post 40 (potential fertility issues, maternal health, parents not living as long for the child, etc) exist whether it’s your first child or 5th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What??? It’s not OK? Nobody told me or my grandmother.
No need to wish. It is 100% OK.

Weirdo

Nope just someone who knows a ton of women across generations who had kids in their 40s. It is absolutely 100% ok and OP is weird for thinking it is not.

I do too. I agree it’s not ideal but certainly possible and absolutely fine. A lot in life isn’t “ideal”! Don’t know why this one poster is harassing everyone. It’s a strange strange hobby.

Having a baby at 40 is certainly not new. I come from a large Irish/Italian family and other both sides moms had babies after 40. But not their first. Their fourth, fifth, or sixth. For a first baby later than 40 -- that is a modern invention.

But all of the drawbacks to having a baby post 40 (potential fertility issues, maternal health, parents not living as long for the child, etc) exist whether it’s your first child or 5th.

Yes and no. Fertility starts to decline at age 30. For some people decline is not an issue for others it is. Also some of the issues that cause infertility later are not preset in your 20s. And some of those issues can be corrected before it causes further issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What??? It’s not OK? Nobody told me or my grandmother.
No need to wish. It is 100% OK.

Weirdo

Nope just someone who knows a ton of women across generations who had kids in their 40s. It is absolutely 100% ok and OP is weird for thinking it is not.

I do too. I agree it’s not ideal but certainly possible and absolutely fine. A lot in life isn’t “ideal”! Don’t know why this one poster is harassing everyone. It’s a strange strange hobby.

Having a baby at 40 is certainly not new. I come from a large Irish/Italian family and other both sides moms had babies after 40. But not their first. Their fourth, fifth, or sixth. For a first baby later than 40 -- that is a modern invention.

But all of the drawbacks to having a baby post 40 (potential fertility issues, maternal health, parents not living as long for the child, etc) exist whether it’s your first child or 5th.

Yes and no. Fertility starts to decline at age 30. For some people decline is not an issue for others it is. Also some of the issues that cause infertility later are not preset in your 20s. And some of those issues can be corrected before it causes further issues.

Just shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not that they won’t be good dads, but men often don’t want to get married until they’re close to age 30 and then have kids sometime after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would have been better if your mom didn’t hatch you.

Same goes for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would have been better if your mom didn’t hatch you.

Same goes for you.

Nope, your comment is a total fail like yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ha, as a lawyer myself, most of the men I went to law school with would have made terrible fathers in their 20s. They'd just spent two decades in school, were making good money for the first time in their lives, and worked long hours. They wanted to party. Even the ones with girlfriends or wives. They wanted to go out for fancy meals, take long weekends in the Caribbean, sleep in on the weekends to make up for late work nights, etc. They didn't have the skills to balance their work demands with a family life. Also, people who go to graduate school are very busy with school, and then often saddled with loans, in their 20s. It's not a great time to take on another major responsibility and expense. Graduate school is probably one of the main reasons people delay having kids. I would not want to have had a baby in law school, and definitely not in the first years out of law school. I think I knew one woman who did this? No men. And the woman I know who did it, her husband was older (like I think in his 30s) and had a lower key career than her.

[Anonymous]

All of the references to past generations don't apply today, because today more women are CHOOSING to have babies as old ladies. That’s the selfish part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ha, as a lawyer myself, most of the men I went to law school with would have made terrible fathers in their 20s. They'd just spent two decades in school, were making good money for the first time in their lives, and worked long hours. They wanted to party. Even the ones with girlfriends or wives. They wanted to go out for fancy meals, take long weekends in the Caribbean, sleep in on the weekends to make up for late work nights, etc. They didn't have the skills to balance their work demands with a family life. Also, people who go to graduate school are very busy with school, and then often saddled with loans, in their 20s. It's not a great time to take on another major responsibility and expense. Graduate school is probably one of the main reasons people delay having kids. I would not want to have had a baby in law school, and definitely not in the first years out of law school. I think I knew one woman who did this? No men. And the woman I know who did it, her husband was older (like I think in his 30s) and had a lower key career than her.

My DH went to law school straight out of college. While there, we belong to a “married law students” social group organized by the school. (No different from Jewish law students, black law students, etc.) Pretty much every single couple in that group had a baby within 24 months of the law school graduation, is included. I know it’s a self-selecting group, but it’s been 15 years and all are still married and happy, and all had a second kid and some even a third.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would have been better if your mom didn’t hatch you.

Same goes for you.

Nope, your comment is a total fail like yourself.

Look in your mirror if you want to see fail.