Why do people get so much angrier at women having babies over 45 than men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think all the women out there who are advocating that women wait until their mid 40s to have children have NO IDEA that perimenopause exists. Or how women's bodies work.

Do they just think you can go to the right doctor and request a baby? At any age?

I guess you can? If you just buy the fertility of a younger person?

I don't think anyone anywhere is really "advocating" women wait til 45 to have a baby, they're just not pissed off what those who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because how dare a woman do what she wants to do with her body.

Special Ed classes support many of their children. Selfish decision.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Literally every woman we know who had a child around or after 40 has a child with health complications - from allergies to extreme disabilities.

Health issues with the child are nowhere close to the same with the fathers over 40.

You must not be local to northern va? I run into a lot of “older moms” in my tiny social circle. Kids are all fine and rich.

[Anonymous]

Women have been having babies in their forties for thousands of years.

Both sides of my family tree have women that had their last baby in their forties. Guess what? None of my aunts/uncles were handicapped or disabled. All blessed with great longevity too.

Maybe my family is just super fertile but age hasn’t been an obstacle in conceiving.

I’ve kept the legacy going by having my 4th baby last October at the ripe age of 42.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately feminism can't change biology. I am a super feminist but made sure to have my kids early enough to avoid obvious genetic risks/an age-related battle with fertility issues.

Obviously some women are comfortable taking on more risk than I am...and the risks that come with older fathers have only become known much more recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women have been having babies in their forties for thousands of years.

Both sides of my family tree have women that had their last baby in their forties. Guess what? None of my aunts/uncles were handicapped or disabled. All blessed with great longevity too.

Maybe my family is just super fertile but age hasn’t been an obstacle in conceiving.

I’ve kept the legacy going by having my 4th baby last October at the ripe age of 42.

Might be anecdotal but first baby in 40s vs. last baby in 40s are very different stories. For women who have had babies younger already, it tends to go a lot more smoothly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all the women out there who are advocating that women wait until their mid 40s to have children have NO IDEA that perimenopause exists. Or how women's bodies work.

Do they just think you can go to the right doctor and request a baby? At any age?

I guess you can? If you just buy the fertility of a younger person?

I don't think anyone anywhere is really "advocating" women wait til 45 to have a baby, they're just not pissed off what those who do.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately feminism can't change biology. I am a super feminist but made sure to have my kids early enough to avoid obvious genetic risks/an age-related battle with fertility issues.

Obviously some women are comfortable taking on more risk than I am...and the risks that come with older fathers have only become known much more recently.

THIS!!!
Feminism can't change the fact that infants need constant care and supervision, ideally from someone who also produces milk.
But the whole "why don't we have state supported day care" conversation is a WHOLE other thing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately feminism can't change biology. I am a super feminist but made sure to have my kids early enough to avoid obvious genetic risks/an age-related battle with fertility issues.

Obviously some women are comfortable taking on more risk than I am...and the risks that come with older fathers have only become known much more recently.

Yes. Our classes and supports for children have ballooned over the last 25 years. One reason is due to risks with older parents.

[Anonymous]

My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

[Anonymous]

This thread title should just be "Why do people get so much angrier at women" and then stop there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My BIL & SIL have a 10 month old girl and they're both 50. They have 20, 22, & 24 year olds, and weren't liking the empty nest, and always wanted a fourth, so they decided to have another baby, and they are so happy. The child is perfectly healthy, and seems developmentally ahead too. It is not the worst thing ever.

How did they get the baby at age 50? Natural conception? Adoption? Surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread title should just be "Why do people get so much angrier at women" and then stop there.

Who is angry though? Where are you actually seeing this? Are you sure that it’s really so common or are you experiencing confirmation bias?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread title should just be "Why do people get so much angrier at women" and then stop there.

Who is angry though? Where are you actually seeing this? Are you sure that it’s really so common or are you experiencing confirmation bias?

Are you not reading the rest of the comments on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all the women out there who are advocating that women wait until their mid 40s to have children have NO IDEA that perimenopause exists. Or how women's bodies work.

Do they just think you can go to the right doctor and request a baby? At any age?

I guess you can? If you just buy the fertility of a younger person?

I don't think anyone anywhere is really "advocating" women wait til 45 to have a baby, they're just not pissed off what those who do.

+1 I don't really know anyone who thinks it's better to have a baby in your 40s than before that. But the people I know who had babies in their 40s did so because it was their last (and sometimes only) chance to have a biological child, and they wanted that.

Also, to the "but biology" folks -- women have always gotten pregnant in their 40s. Look through history and you will find many, many women who had pregnancies and babies after 40, usually after having other kids. Before birth control and legalized abortion and women's rights, giving birth was the expected job of many/most women, and you were expected to do it until you couldn't. Plenty of 40+ women were still biologically capable of having kids, and also weren't given the option of not having them, so they did.

Women having IVF babies in their 40s are simply doing something women have always done, only more safely and on their own terms. If they are using frozen embryos from when they were younger, they can even avoid many of the risks associated with having babies at 40+. They have better medical care and access to better options than women in the past did, making it far less likely that the pregnancy will harm them or the baby (40+ pregnancies have always been a thing, but 40+ maternal and infant death used to be a lot more common).

If you don't like to see women in their 40s having kids, make it easier for people to have kids earlier and see what happens. Right now the trend is going the other direction -- people are waiting longer and longer because of the costs of childcare and the lack of support for families.