Watching your friends relocate to the burbs for "schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

NP here. I accidentally made my first (and unplanned) baby in my 40s because I bought into the propaganda that it was nearly impossible to have a "natural" baby in your 40s. I was hoping to drop the 8 pounds of birth control weight...and ended up with another kind of 8 pounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

NP here. I accidentally made my first (and unplanned) baby in my 40s because I bought into the propaganda that it was nearly impossible to have a "natural" baby in your 40s. I was hoping to drop the 8 pounds of birth control weight...and ended up with another kind of 8 pounds.

Propaganda? It's statistics. You may have been misinformed about your actual chances and you took a risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

NP here. I accidentally made my first (and unplanned) baby in my 40s because I bought into the propaganda that it was nearly impossible to have a "natural" baby in your 40s. I was hoping to drop the 8 pounds of birth control weight...and ended up with another kind of 8 pounds.

Propaganda? It's statistics. You may have been misinformed about your actual chances and you took a risk.

I’m not aware of any studies on the likelihood of a first time pregnancy at 40+. Particularly not any with a significant sample size or control for the myriad of other factors (age of menses, age of parter, familial infertility, other health factors such as BMI, STD history etc.). Please point me in the direction of these statistics.

[Anonymous]

The statistics are not "nearly impossible," which is what the stories in the media lead everyone to think. People need to be realistic about this, meaning some people cannot have babies if they wait too long, but many others can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

Not PP, but you really don't get it. It's great your were able to have kids when you did, but your story is one anecdote and in no way proof that someone else can win at the same odds. She may have phrased things in a way the irked you, but the point is valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

The timely article on CNN today says less than 1% chance every month for women over 40.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

I was told a 5% chance at 40, not 1 in 5.

yeah this is off topic but 1 in 5 chance monthly for over 40, that must be the in vitro rate or some other fertility treatment, not natural. Plus for many couples the real bogeyman of advanced maternal age is not an inability to have kids, but an ability to have kids at higher risk for serious problems, or a problematic pregnancy. not to disparage others' choices, but those risks are real and must be taken into account. The popular discussion of fertility often glosses over this.

back to the topic, for the record I am not one of the people criticizing silver spring or any place people choose to live. What I have been saying is that if you cannot afford Capitol Hill then you could never have afforded Manhattan or Brooklyn had you stayed in NYC. So your time spent in those places was always destined to be a short period of your life, just accept it. Therefore it makes no sense to come here and say that you are disappointed that DC doesn't have to offer what those parts of NY have to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

NP here. I accidentally made my first (and unplanned) baby in my 40s because I bought into the propaganda that it was nearly impossible to have a "natural" baby in your 40s. I was hoping to drop the 8 pounds of birth control weight...and ended up with another kind of 8 pounds.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[Anonymous]

As someone who moved to Williamsburg in 1992, I find it hilarious when you people refer to Brooklyn as "sophisticated" and silver spring as "dumpy."

This has nothing to do with anything, except that I have never aspired to live in a neighborhood with a pottery Barn and a blue mercury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I lived in Brooklyn and moved to the Hill and never have felt this tension at all. I would put a gun to my head if I had to live in Silver Spring. No offense but it is just to dumpy for me. We did have great charter luck though and are planning on staying here long term. And yes, we can afford a great rowhouse in the heart of the Hill because we saved when we were making lots of money in New York. So I guess it just depends on what you can afford and your luck in life. I would probably move VA over MD. The schools are just better and both are equally horrible in my opinion i guess.

I think your're a delusional asshole.

Make no mistake, I don't want to live in Silver Spring either, but you're saying you'd put a gun to your head? Really? Because I bet I can come up with some alternatives that are worse for you than living in Silver Spring. Let's see you put your words to the test.

Oh wait! Moving to New Jersey? Having to eat a bologna sandwich? Tolerating someone whose religious or political views don't align with your own? Those are all easier than living in Silver Spring. Go ahead. Show us a movie of you eating a gun. Or... maybe shut up because you're an obnoxious idiot?

BTW, I don't live in Silver Spring, nor do I know anyone who does. I just think you'd be doing all of us a favor if you followed through on your threat. Jackass.

Pp, you are a worthless piece of shit. That was a figure of speech. How dare you actually wish death on me? Fuck you and enjoy your shitty karma.

[Anonymous]

I'm the other pp mocking you in this thread for calling silver spring dumpy? I would like to say, in all kindness, you are the one who brought up guns. Silver spring does have an excellent gun store, next to the ratio shop, the nice used book store and across from the winery... But that's all too dumpy for you.

No, seriously, in all kindness, you overreacted. And you may keep capitol hill. I would have loved it twenty years ago, (I did love it then); but now it seems rather staid and full of chain restaurants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

The timely article on CNN today says less than 1% chance every month for women over 40.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

I was told a 5% chance at 40, not 1 in 5.

yeah this is off topic but 1 in 5 chance monthly for over 40, that must be the in vitro rate or some other fertility treatment, not natural. Plus for many couples the real bogeyman of advanced maternal age is not an inability to have kids, but an ability to have kids at higher risk for serious problems, or a problematic pregnancy. not to disparage others' choices, but those risks are real and must be taken into account. The popular discussion of fertility often glosses over this.

back to the topic, for the record I am not one of the people criticizing silver spring or any place people choose to live. What I have been saying is that if you cannot afford Capitol Hill then you could never have afforded Manhattan or Brooklyn had you stayed in NYC. So your time spent in those places was always destined to be a short period of your life, just accept it. Therefore it makes no sense to come here and say that you are disappointed that DC doesn't have to offer what those parts of NY have to offer.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

The timely article on CNN today says less than 1% chance every month for women over 40.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

I was told a 5% chance at 40, not 1 in 5.

yeah this is off topic but 1 in 5 chance monthly for over 40, that must be the in vitro rate or some other fertility treatment, not natural. Plus for many couples the real bogeyman of advanced maternal age is not an inability to have kids, but an ability to have kids at higher risk for serious problems, or a problematic pregnancy. not to disparage others' choices, but those risks are real and must be taken into account. The popular discussion of fertility often glosses over this.

back to the topic, for the record I am not one of the people criticizing silver spring or any place people choose to live. What I have been saying is that if you cannot afford Capitol Hill then you could never have afforded Manhattan or Brooklyn had you stayed in NYC. So your time spent in those places was always destined to be a short period of your life, just accept it. Therefore it makes no sense to come here and say that you are disappointed that DC doesn't have to offer what those parts of NY have to offer.

Agree. These people who were priced out of Brooklyn and Manhattan are angry because they can only afford silver spring etc. I don't think you were moving to TriBeCa once you had kids, you were destined for Long Island or New Jersey or queens. Nothing wrong with that. But you can't complain about DC being too expensive for you then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's racism. Pure and simple. The rationalization are just that.

Were you always this simple or did you have to work to reach this state of stupidity?

But it is racism. People are trying to get away from crime and bad schools. Crime and bad schools equal black people.

Wait wait now, you just wrote the most racist thing I've read all night.

[Anonymous]

Brooklyn PP here... just wanted to say thanks so much for all of your thoughts. Planning another trip down to spend a day in each neighborhood I am considering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

The timely article on CNN today says less than 1% chance every month for women over 40.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

I was told a 5% chance at 40, not 1 in 5.

yeah this is off topic but 1 in 5 chance monthly for over 40, that must be the in vitro rate or some other fertility treatment, not natural. Plus for many couples the real bogeyman of advanced maternal age is not an inability to have kids, but an ability to have kids at higher risk for serious problems, or a problematic pregnancy. not to disparage others' choices, but those risks are real and must be taken into account. The popular discussion of fertility often glosses over this.

back to the topic, for the record I am not one of the people criticizing silver spring or any place people choose to live. What I have been saying is that if you cannot afford Capitol Hill then you could never have afforded Manhattan or Brooklyn had you stayed in NYC. So your time spent in those places was always destined to be a short period of your life, just accept it. Therefore it makes no sense to come here and say that you are disappointed that DC doesn't have to offer what those parts of NY have to offer.

Agree. These people who were priced out of Brooklyn and Manhattan are angry because they can only afford silver spring etc. I don't think you were moving to TriBeCa once you had kids, you were destined for Long Island or New Jersey or queens. Nothing wrong with that. But you can't complain about DC being too expensive for you then.

You also can't complain about silver spring being awful. It's not like NJ is that great. At least you should have an easier commute, more space, lower taxes, less snow to shovel and a place to park your car (for free).