Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's really about what you decide now, since the most hostile comments are likely from 30- and 40-somethings closing in on the end of fertility. It's more about your posture moving forward. Instead of admitting your were bamboozled, made mistakes and squandered years of your life, you double down and encourage other young women to follow in your lonely, regretful, and unfulfilled rootless footsteps, as if you seek to create more victims to join you.

+1

How come you are all ignoring the comments from all the happy moms who easily had kids in their 30s and 40s and only responding to the single person on here who didn’t have kids? Because we don’t fit your narrative? I partied my 20s away and then had kids when pushing 40. Easily.
No IVF. So did most of my friends here in DC.

So. Give your argument some teeth. Show me some stats that women in their 30s who partied are less likely to marry and start families. The internet tells me the following about fertility (source is NHS):

- aged 19 to 26 – 92% will conceive after 1 year and 98% after 2 years
- aged 35 to 39 – 82% will conceive after 1 year and 90% after 2 years

So where’s the “end of fertility”? Looking forward to your sources. But… Bet you won’t respond because this doesn’t fit the anti-brunch narrative.

Ha! You killed the thread with facts.

She ignores every comment from the MANY, many posters (including myself) who have said that they are very happy with their trajectory in life that included tons of travel, time building lifelong friendships, higher level education, becoming stable and affording themselves later flexibility in their careers and yes, having FUN that they had in their younger years who are now happily married with kids choosing to bill the "haters" as "lonely spinsters with barren wombs." She's also all over the "women's reproductive choices" thread crowing in that "the most important thing is you won't be either a cute young mom, you'll look old and not cute (I'm paraphrasing, this is the gist...) and all your friends from college reunions will be empty nesters." Which is just...not true. Not in my orbit. I don't see it. Maybe this is rural Utah?

I want to know 1)where Brunch Granny lives that there are tons of "cute 22 year old moms", because it is NOT DC or any major city 2) Why "looking old" is "the most important thing" to have kids young 3) How stunted developmentally you have to be to place priority on any of that!

And yes, as a PP said, I feel bad for Granny's kids. I can't imagine the pressure to look at every relationship from 16 (13?) on as husband and father material to be ready to procreate by 21 with no desire to ever be an independent adult.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's really about what you decide now, since the most hostile comments are likely from 30- and 40-somethings closing in on the end of fertility. It's more about your posture moving forward. Instead of admitting your were bamboozled, made mistakes and squandered years of your life, you double down and encourage other young women to follow in your lonely, regretful, and unfulfilled rootless footsteps, as if you seek to create more victims to join you.

The only “victims” here are the snotty 40-something grannies.

relevant

“Older Women gave younger generation self-destructive advice. “Party, work, freeze eggs.””

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's really about what you decide now, since the most hostile comments are likely from 30- and 40-somethings closing in on the end of fertility. It's more about your posture moving forward. Instead of admitting your were bamboozled, made mistakes and squandered years of your life, you double down and encourage other young women to follow in your lonely, regretful, and unfulfilled rootless footsteps, as if you seek to create more victims to join you.

+1

How come you are all ignoring the comments from all the happy moms who easily had kids in their 30s and 40s and only responding to the single person on here who didn’t have kids? Because we don’t fit your narrative? I partied my 20s away and then had kids when pushing 40. Easily.
No IVF. So did most of my friends here in DC.

So. Give your argument some teeth. Show me some stats that women in their 30s who partied are less likely to marry and start families. The internet tells me the following about fertility (source is NHS):

- aged 19 to 26 – 92% will conceive after 1 year and 98% after 2 years
- aged 35 to 39 – 82% will conceive after 1 year and 90% after 2 years

So where’s the “end of fertility”? Looking forward to your sources. But… Bet you won’t respond because this doesn’t fit the anti-brunch narrative.

Ha! You killed the thread with facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could not have a child because you could not afford a babysitter... yet CAN afford avocado toast and almond milk lattes every morning, an insatiable thirst for Napa cabs, and to remain unmarried so both you and the boyfriend pay two rents, two sets of bills, and build no equity for years on end. Got it.

Preach sister, preach! I wish people would listen to you instead of trying to emulate Carrie Bradshaw!

I like Oregon Pinot Noir, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's really about what you decide now, since the most hostile comments are likely from 30- and 40-somethings closing in on the end of fertility. It's more about your posture moving forward. Instead of admitting your were bamboozled, made mistakes and squandered years of your life, you double down and encourage other young women to follow in your lonely, regretful, and unfulfilled rootless footsteps, as if you seek to create more victims to join you.

+1

How come you are all ignoring the comments from all the happy moms who easily had kids in their 30s and 40s and only responding to the single person on here who didn’t have kids? Because we don’t fit your narrative? I partied my 20s away and then had kids when pushing 40. Easily.
No IVF. So did most of my friends here in DC.

So. Give your argument some teeth. Show me some stats that women in their 30s who partied are less likely to marry and start families. The internet tells me the following about fertility (source is NHS):

- aged 19 to 26 – 92% will conceive after 1 year and 98% after 2 years
- aged 35 to 39 – 82% will conceive after 1 year and 90% after 2 years

So where’s the “end of fertility”? Looking forward to your sources. But… Bet you won’t respond because this doesn’t fit the anti-brunch narrative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’

Well maybe men should grow up and make us want to get married and start popping out babies before we turn 30?

I didn’t say it was fair.
But she’s not wrong about biology.

So does that mean that Brunch Granny is PRO brunch for those of us in our 50s past child bearing years?

Do whatever you want after menopause. But being a layabout day drunk on weekends while you're still a gorgeous 20-something is a fool's errand.

Are those my only options? a) layabout day drunk or b) move back to my hometown so I can marry directly after college so my parents can be young grandparents? It's so hard to decide.

I think the argument was originally in reference to not being able to afford child care. If you moved away from all of your family support system (ex. free childcare) and you're still too broke 5 and 10 years after college to afford kids and childcare, maybe it's time to admit you were bamboozled.

Why are you presuming that everyone's family is ready to do free child care for you? If you're in your 20s when you have kids, and your parents were also in their 20s when they had kids, that means they're in their 40s now - do you think most 40-somethings are in a position to retire so they can give free babysitting to their grandkids?

You live in a bizarre fantasy world, and frankly one that sounds a lot less fun than SATC ever was.

+1. When I was in my 20s, my parents were in the prime of their careers. My highly educated and high achieving mother was not about to quit her well paying job and all the perks that came with it to go babysit. And once my parents did retire, you know what they did? Travelled internationally with a similarly aged group of retired friends. Who exactly was going to be watching the kids while they traveled through Asia for 3 weeks? Should I have expected them to put their plans aside so I could have a free sitter, after they worked hard all their lives?

We hired a wonderful nanny and they got to go enjoy retirement. They babysit on the weekends when they feel like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's really about what you decide now, since the most hostile comments are likely from 30- and 40-somethings closing in on the end of fertility. It's more about your posture moving forward. Instead of admitting your were bamboozled, made mistakes and squandered years of your life, you double down and encourage other young women to follow in your lonely, regretful, and unfulfilled rootless footsteps, as if you seek to create more victims to join you.

+1

Misery loves company.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion:
anti brunch granny is not completely wrong.
Just sayin’

Well maybe men should grow up and make us want to get married and start popping out babies before we turn 30?

I didn’t say it was fair.
But she’s not wrong about biology.

So does that mean that Brunch Granny is PRO brunch for those of us in our 50s past child bearing years?

Do whatever you want after menopause. But being a layabout day drunk on weekends while you're still a gorgeous 20-something is a fool's errand.

Are those my only options? a) layabout day drunk or b) move back to my hometown so I can marry directly after college so my parents can be young grandparents? It's so hard to decide.

I think the argument was originally in reference to not being able to afford child care. If you moved away from all of your family support system (ex. free childcare) and you're still too broke 5 and 10 years after college to afford kids and childcare, maybe it's time to admit you were bamboozled.

This is a ridiculous argument. Even among my friends who married young, and I know a bunch as a graduate of Catholic schools, none had sufficient "free childcare" from their own parents to enable two working parents. If the grandparents are young enough, they might be working themselves. Or if they're retired, they might want to do other things with their free time other than raise more babies 40-50 hours per week, year after year. Or maybe one grandparent is taking care of the other one.

And the point that so many people are making is that WE AREN'T TOO BROKE TO AFFORD CHILDCARE. We had babies and then had nannies or daycares or quit working to stay at home. And we managed to do that all in our 20s, 30s, even 40s without having to go back to Indiana.

The reason you are getting so much pushback is because your model of trapping generations of women into eschewing career, travel and economic security in favor of endless childbearing and rearing is hopeless sexist and outdated.