When am i too old for more kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The luckiest, happiest children have parents who know how to be parents. Just about no one is perfectly situated, ever. But we do our best.

So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The luckiest, happiest children have parents who know how to be parents. Just about no one is perfectly situated, ever. But we do our best.

So true.

I don't quite understand this statement...although it seems genuine and positive...it's hard for me to understand. How do you know how to be a parent unless you become one? Isn't becoming a parent a trial and error kind of situation? While I did read a lot of books before I had DS...nothing, and I mean nothing, prepared me for 12 weeks of a colic baby...but I learned "on the job" if you will how to handle it. Every child is different, and you don't have babies already knowing how to parent them. My child is very very happy and I was freaking clueless...you learn as you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The luckiest, happiest children have parents who know how to be parents. Just about no one is perfectly situated, ever. But we do our best.

So true.

I don't quite understand this statement...although it seems genuine and positive...it's hard for me to understand. How do you know how to be a parent unless you become one? Isn't becoming a parent a trial and error kind of situation? While I did read a lot of books before I had DS...nothing, and I mean nothing, prepared me for 12 weeks of a colic baby...but I learned "on the job" if you will how to handle it. Every child is different, and you don't have babies already knowing how to parent them. My child is very very happy and I was freaking clueless...you learn as you go.

That poster also mentioned how a parent has to be a "thoughtful, patient person who knows how to love." Of course nobody knows all the mechanics involved in being a parent before they actually are one. But you'd be surprised how many parents don't put any effort into trying to figure out what their kids need, much less what they want. To them, a child is an accessory to their lives at best, or a liability at worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The luckiest, happiest children have parents who know how to be parents. Just about no one is perfectly situated, ever. But we do our best.

So true.

I don't quite understand this statement...although it seems genuine and positive...it's hard for me to understand. How do you know how to be a parent unless you become one? Isn't becoming a parent a trial and error kind of situation? While I did read a lot of books before I had DS...nothing, and I mean nothing, prepared me for 12 weeks of a colic baby...but I learned "on the job" if you will how to handle it. Every child is different, and you don't have babies already knowing how to parent them. My child is very very happy and I was freaking clueless...you learn as you go.

That poster also mentioned how a parent has to be a "thoughtful, patient person who knows how to love." Of course nobody knows all the mechanics involved in being a parent before they actually are one. But you'd be surprised how many parents don't put any effort into trying to figure out what their kids need, much less what they want. To them, a child is an accessory to their lives at best, or a liability at worst.

Patience is a virtue. The people that view their children as an accessory need to put those children up for adoption for a couple who actually want children to love. If people want to tote something around as an accessory...get a poodle. It breaks my heart to see these parents who abuse their children...or even kill them because they are an inconvience to them...i.e. Casey Anthony. Those type of people need to be sent to a remote island filled with snakes and spiders.

[Anonymous]

If people want to tote something around as an accessory...get a poodle.

Hey, now! Poodles are people too! Oh, wait... (But seriously, I know what you mean, though even dogs should not be mere accessories.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the PP who insisted that 25 is plenty old to have earned a basic graduate degree. In fact, I finished my first at 24. I'll disclose that now, at 35, I'm heading for another in a different field- now that my child is older, I can refocus on myself. But that's not so relevant, since I'm at least 10 years older than my classmates.

I'd be really surprised to hear that most DCUMs who waited past 29 to become parents did so because they were pursuing basic graduate degrees. They certainly might have been building their careers, but I would expect that they had completed their educations (MDs and PhDs excluded, of course) well before. Again, not judging, just insisting that level of education is not what sets us apart.



I guess the disagreement I'm having with 02:27 is that I'm suggesting her vast majority of her under-educated 25 year-olds won't be helped by delaying motherhood... don't most women who are going to earn graduate degrees do so before they leave their 20s? I guess statistics could resolve that debate, but at such a late hour, 2:27 (who probably had a newborn in her arms... yes?) didn't feel like Googling. For that matter, neither do I.

This comment skews my point. Okay forget googling, and lets assume you are correct. Assuming for argument sake that most women who earn graduate degrees do so before 30, they still do not have children immediately after having graduate degrees...unless they are prepared to give them to a nanny or a mother-in-law or a mother to help raise them. Many women who have children at later ages are able to stay at home if they desire because they not only have the strong education, they've had time to advance their careers and as a result have built up financial security so they have the option of staying at home with their child and not working if they desire.

For whatever another anecdote is worth, which is not necessarily very much at all, I've grown miserably impatient with small children now that I've hit middle age. In my 20s, I enjoyed my own and everyone else's babies and toddlers. Now I only appreciate them in small doses and can't wait to return them to their parents when they become irritable. Humbug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You said you could see how parent education and financial stability correlate to a child's achievements. But you don't see how age is a factor in all of this. And you ask for statistics. What percentage of 25 year olds in the United States have Masters degrees, law degrees, or MBA's? And what percentage of women who have children at 25 have more than a college degree? Do you really need anyone to pull these facts and figures to prove that only a very small percentage of 25 year olds in this country are well-educated? I think this is common knowledge. If you recognize that parent education correlates to financial stability and you also acknowledge that parent education and financial stability also correlate to a child's superior achievement, then you need only to admit that so few 25 year old women meet the requirements of being well-educated and having financial stability to conclude that the vast majority of 25 year old women are probably not well educated or lack the financial security to foster their child's superior achievement.

By most "older" mothers accounts who have had children at 25 and then more children when they were "older", they will say they are far more patient now at 40 than they were at 25. A 27 year old mom is unable to answer this question as she lacks the experience. Wait until she turns 40 and then ask her if she became more patient with her children.

Greater education and financial stability doesn't necessarily correlate with better parenting or happier children, though. How many children of super rich, super successful parents do you know who are messed up? I know a lot. Money is less important than attention and care.

Is this a slippery slope argument? If you are the lawyer, maybe you can let me know but I heard these were weak arguments! Better education and stronger financial standing does generally correlate with better parenting and more healthy, psychologically stable children. What you point out is the negative outcome of some families with extreme or excess wealth such as the Kennedy's, Hiltons, etc...certain people in these type of families might have been more interested in accumulating more wealth than ensuring the proper upbringing of their children. But that doesn't mean that some wealth and some education isn't beneficial to our children.

Maybe it's hard for the PP to believe, but there are PLENTY of happy, well-adjusted children growing up in plainly middle-class homes (with parents who might have had them in their 20s). They too grow up to be happy and productive citizens, even if their chances of going to an Ivy League school or some otherwise "superior achievement" are lower.

It was 16:02 and 16:08 who brought up the point that education and financial security correlated with superior achievement in children, not me. But I think her point was that these can be achieved earlier in life. I never said children born to lower-middle class families or middle-class families with moderately educated parents turned out to be unhappy or unproductive. There you go with the slippery slope argument again. I said better education/ better financial status correlates to higher achievement and this is often seen in older mothers as opposed to 20-something moms. The only reason I addressed achievement is because 16:08 brought it up and to show her that this is often seen in older moms. Now you erroneously accuse me of making the inference that middle class kids must, therefore, be unhappy and unproductive. That's a huge leap in inference and it's the wrong leap because I never made that kind of conclusion.

And I asked my mother (my wonderful, wonderful mother) who had me at 26 if she thinks she would have been a better mother if she had had me when she was 40. She just laughed (and then looked a little horrified). She and my father (who married at 22) are still together, still happy, still financially secure (though certainly not well-off by D.C. standards), and gave me an absolutely fantastic childhood.

Poster, I am certain your mother was a fantastic mother. I did not mean to offend all those mothers out there who chose to have children in their 20's by implying they made the wrong decision. What I am simply trying to do is to show people who judge older moms that there are indeed many favorable reasons to have a child later in life also.

It is perfectly fine, in my view, to wait until you are 40+ to have children, if that's what works for you and the way your life develops. Please do not try to claim that your way is the better way, though. For many people it is not.

By listing all the favorable reasons to have a child later in life it does not necessarly imply that there are no favorable reasons to have a child earlier in life. Clearly there are many reasons to have a child earlier in life. Eggs are better quality, genetic abnormalities are fewer, a moms energy level is higher, a mother can live to be a grandparent, etc..etc...Who can deny these and other benefits of having children when young? But clearly ther are benefits to having a child later and for many older moms this is a better choice for them. That is simply what I'm saying!
Signed,
A 30-year-old mom who was married and had her law degree at 25

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I guess the disagreement I'm having with 02:27 is that I'm suggesting her vast majority of her under-educated 25 year-olds won't be helped by delaying motherhood... don't most women who are going to earn graduate degrees do so before they leave their 20s? I guess statistics could resolve that debate, but at such a late hour, 2:27 (who probably had a newborn in her arms... yes?) didn't feel like Googling. For that matter, neither do I.

I'll help out. If you go down to figure 4 at the website below you'll see that the percentage of 25-34 year olds with a Bachelors degree or higher (in the US as a whole) is exactly the same (30%) as the percentage of 35-44 years olds with one. It's the 18-24 year old cohort with lower educational achievement, although that isn't surprising since they are mostly still in school.

http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2006/october/2.html

This study you cite does not break down the education level precisely. It lumps all degrees in ONE category "college degree or more." So a doctorate would be considered the same as a college grad according to your study. But we know that generally salaries vary between these so it would be more revealing to show a more detailed breakdown of level of education by age.

check out http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_PCT025

3% more people between the age of 35-44 have graduate or professional degrees than in the 25-34 age category. The difference in the kind of degree matters because salary varies depending on your degree. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States under Education and Training Pays. But level of education is not the only benefit of an older mom. Financial security is probably her greatest benefit. Fiancial security varies significantly bewteen the age groups the poster mentioned. Household income or individual income of people who are 25-34 or 34-55 do vary greatly. Middle agers earn much more. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104688.html There are too many studies that cite this fact to list them all.

Does this all translate to better parenting? Well I believe that it generally makes for more patient parenting. But my personal opinion means nothing right? Since I've been cited in previous posts for not providing substantive evidence here is some evidence: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Older_women_make_better_moms_Study/articleshow/2499714.cms

By trying to show younger moms that we older moms have just as much right and reason to have children later in life, it seems I've had to battle every argument imaginable. Older moms are not saying ALL young moms are clueless, unproductive, unhappy, or bad parents. There are clearly lots of benefits to having children early in life. BUT, that said, please do not deny the clear advantage that older women generally enjoy also and they include greater financial security, more stability, higher education and they do indeed correlate to better parenting.

Don't take this personally. These are based on statistics and there are lots of exceptions to general statistics. I don't need every young mother who got her law degree at 25 to prove her existence. What does that prove? The studies don't say such women don't exist. What they say is that younger women do not have the financial security, that comes from higher education and time spent in careers, or stability that older moms have GENERALLY and this does benefit children.

[Anonymous]

Protest too much? It still sounds like you're trying to prove that older moms are better, in part because they generally have more money. Why can't we all just agree to do what works for our families, with youth having its own advantages and maturity having other, different advantages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Protest too much? It still sounds like you're trying to prove that older moms are better, in part because they generally have more money. Why can't we all just agree to do what works for our families, with youth having its own advantages and maturity having other, different advantages?

PP needs to protest b/c our society looks down at older women. I am 42 with two young children. Before I had children, one of my high school teacher colleagues (who had her children in her late teens/early 20s) said that she couldn't stand seeing old women come in to pick up their teenagers - an example of an older, "educated" woman who apparently had no filter.

No one is saying that young women don't make good mothers, but there is no stigma attached to young parents, unless, of course, they're teen mothers. (Note that I didn't say teen fathers. Men - different story altogether) So until we stop bashing "older" women for making personal choices, we will always protest b/c ultimately it's our children who will suffer from society's negative perceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Protest too much? It still sounds like you're trying to prove that older moms are better, in part because they generally have more money. Why can't we all just agree to do what works for our families, with youth having its own advantages and maturity having other, different advantages?

Of course I'm protesting like crazy. Why the heck not? When women out there make judgmental and even false comments about older women why should I protest mildly? I didn't see younger women responding favorably when older women said they were financially secure or better educated so why should we older women remain quiet in the face of younger women's judgment.

Again, this is not to make all 20 something moms feel as though they made wrong decisons. I say again - there are always exceptions to these statistics and there are great downfalls to having children late. But don't for one minute think being an 40 year old mother doesn't have it's tremendous advantages that just are not generally seen in many younger moms.

[Anonymous]

Obviously, the real answer here is that everyone should have babies in their 30s. You're too young in your 20s and too old in your 40s... problem solved!

[Anonymous]

Heh. I mean, who really cares?

[Anonymous]

You're absolutely right PP. The ONLY person who should care are the child's parents.

[Anonymous]

Although I agree that an older parent has a great deal to offer, including, often, the peace of mind associated with havnig one's own accomplishments before throwing herself into a completely other-centered and hopefully selfless job, I'm really amused by the parts of the thread that deal with education levels.

I learned a ton about good parenting from my high school-educated nanny, who raised three wonderful, accomplished kids of her own, first of whom was born when my nanny was 17, before coming to us. We were her third nanny gig and she was a naturally great person with kids. Not just nurturing an infant, but coming up with interestng and educational activities, stimulating her, and helping me problem-solve. I imagine that many older, working mothers also enlist the help of a caregiver with far less educaiton than themselves. In my case, she taught me several things that law school could not.

The frustrating thing for many of us high achievers is that although our accomplishments make us feel good about ourselves and enrich us, they are by no means necessary for good parenting. I see so many people reading dozens of books and signing on to one psychologist or another's theory of how to handle a baby, but plenty of people do it on instinct, or with practice, or because their parents taught them well, or they helped with their siblings.

Mothering is the great equalizer. Young or old, rich or poor, college-educated or not, we all get a bald, toothless little poop machine who doesn't speak our language. We all wake up at 3am to get barfed on, and we all do the walk of shame out of the mall with a screaming two-year-old in a stroller, melting down, at least once in our lives. We all make tough choices about how to handle our responsibilities, and we all lose a part of our pre-child selves in order to give to another. We all gain a child in the process.

Peace, out.