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

[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.

If we're considering "allergies" a "health complication," then literally every single woman I know who has had a baby at any age had children with health complications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say I get angry at a woman for having a baby around the age of 45, but I do think they are being sort of reckless with their lives, the life of the baby, and the lives of any other children they have?

Isn’t it common knowledge that the ALL of the risks of childbirth go way up after 40 and continue to rise with the age of the age of the mother? I was an AMA mom myself, and one of the reasons I stopped at one child was I knew the odds of a healthy pregnancy and baby weren’t as good as they were a couple years earlier when I was 39.
[/


The blatant disregard for the risks associated with AMA, mom and child, is absolutely wild to me. Even for super healthy people, the risks are high.

It's a specific type of arrogance that I find really off putting.
"The risks don't exists in MY situation..."

[Anonymous]

Men over 45 slowly increase their chances of having a child with special needs as they age. For women the chances go up some at 35, a lot at 40 and even more at 45. I say this as a mom to a child with special needs I had in my early 30s. It is an incredibly challenging road. Alo parenting does not end when they turn 18. There are other issues as well, but it's like poking the hornet's nest to bring up any of that, even the special needs.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think I’ve known any woman 45 to have a baby. Men get free passes on lots of things, haven’t you noticed?

[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.

Even with donor eggs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a woman has too many kids people get angry.

If a woman has one kid people get angry.

If a woman has kids when she's too young people get angry.

If a woman has kids when she's too old people get angry.

If a woman has no kids people get angry.

If a woman stays home with her kids people get angry.

If a woman goes back to work after having kids people get angry.

Tune it out (which incidentally, also makes people angry).

I would say you left parts out. Here is a corrected version.

If a woman has too many kids people get angry... If you knew she could not afford even the first one or 2 and now out taxes pay for it.

If a woman has one kid people get angry. Who gets angry?

If a woman has kids when she's too young people get angry.,,, if she cannot afford this child, keeps it and becomes abusive. If she can afford the child and has the emotional maturity to deal-great.

If a woman has kids when she's too old people get angry....if she complains incessantly because the risks came true or she does not have a plan for child if she becomes ill.

If a woman has no kids people get angry.... Who gets angry?

In summary, people get annoyed if you expect them to fix/pay for their choices, especially choices made when the research suggests it's not a good choice. You can do whatever you want and people won't get angry as long as you are fully responsible for your choices.

If a woman stays home with her kids people get angry.

If a woman goes back to work after having kids people get angry.

Tune it out (which incidentally, also makes people angry)

[Anonymous]

My kids go to a catholic school where lots of families have the last kid born in the mom’s early 40s and those youngest kids are all athletic and popular… way more so than my kids born in my 20s! Maybe being part of a big family makes you more adept socially?
I don’t know of any late kids who have problems like you are stating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If we're considering "allergies" a "health complication," then literally every single woman I know who has had a baby at any age had children with health complications.

Right?? I had my child at 32, and they have allergies and asthma. Just like mom and dad!

[Anonymous]

I think what bothers me is when women have their first in their mid 40: (especially celebrities) everyone says "I totally believe it was natural, my grandmother had her 10th baby at 48."

The reality is that having your first without intervention in mid 40s is like lightening-bolt rare. I worked at a DMV IVF clinic and we were doing hundreds of donor egg IVF cycles per year on middle age women and there are hundreds of clinics worldwide like ours.

This is not an anti IVF screed. My own kids are the result of ART. I just hate when people pretend that most women can have kids naturally for 3 decades. It does not help women.

[Anonymous]

To the people asking who gets angry, check out the comments section on any post about a woman having a baby late and you will have more than enough evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the people asking who gets angry, check out the comments section on any post about a woman having a baby late and you will have more than enough evidence

Angry isn’t the right word.

Curious about why now…particularly when seasoned moms recognize things a newbie doesn’t.

Concerned given the risks.

Doubtful it’s natural (like celebs pretend) and frustrated since the scam fosters false hope.

But it’s not anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people asking who gets angry, check out the comments section on any post about a woman having a baby late and you will have more than enough evidence

Angry isn’t the right word.

Curious about why now…particularly when seasoned moms recognize things a newbie doesn’t.

Concerned given the risks.

Doubtful it’s natural (like celebs pretend) and frustrated since the scam fosters false hope.

But it’s not anger.

This. I think it's stupid and selfish but I'm not angry about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a woman has too many kids people get angry.

If a woman has one kid people get angry.

If a woman has kids when she's too young people get angry.

If a woman has kids when she's too old people get angry.

If a woman has no kids people get angry.

If a woman stays home with her kids people get angry.

If a woman goes back to work after having kids people get angry.

Tune it out (which incidentally, also makes people angry).

I would say you left parts out. Here is a corrected version.

If a woman has too many kids people get angry... If you knew she could not afford even the first one or 2 and now out taxes pay for it.

If a woman has one kid people get angry. Who gets angry?

If a woman has kids when she's too young people get angry.,,, if she cannot afford this child, keeps it and becomes abusive. If she can afford the child and has the emotional maturity to deal-great.

If a woman has kids when she's too old people get angry....if she complains incessantly because the risks came true or she does not have a plan for child if she becomes ill.

If a woman has no kids people get angry.... Who gets angry?

In summary, people get annoyed if you expect them to fix/pay for their choices, especially choices made when the research suggests it's not a good choice. You can do whatever you want and people won't get angry as long as you are fully responsible for your choices.

If a woman stays home with her kids people get angry.

If a woman goes back to work after having kids people get angry.

Tune it out (which incidentally, also makes people angry)

Nope. Mom of an only here and people absolutely do criticize and judge if you only have one. Literally for women there is no way to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always judged both men and women equally for this.

+1

Agreed!

Every older parent I know acts like they invented parenting. Like, it couldn't possibly have been happening before they decided it was worthy of their attention, well into their fourth or fifth decade.
And to a person, they are all convinced that they are doing it WAY better than anyone else.

Egotists and narcissists to a person. Including the fact that they are all
Convinced that no sickness, cancer, early dementia, or any other common health risk could ever, ever, and will never happen to them.

It sounds like you and your social circle are ALL sh*tty people. Are you wealthy? Don't generalize outside your demented circle. You need new friends. And therapy to decide why you keep hanging around narcissists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what bothers me is when women have their first in their mid 40: (especially celebrities) everyone says "I totally believe it was natural, my grandmother had her 10th baby at 48."

The reality is that having your first without intervention in mid 40s is like lightening-bolt rare. I worked at a DMV IVF clinic and we were doing hundreds of donor egg IVF cycles per year on middle age women and there are hundreds of clinics worldwide like ours.

This is not an anti IVF screed. My own kids are the result of ART. I just hate when people pretend that most women can have kids naturally for 3 decades. It does not help women.

Ok but plenty of women can get pregnant naturally in their 40s. I also have a great grandmother that had her last baby in her 40s in 1931. Clearly not the result of reproductive assistance.