Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

Anonymous wrote:Wow. She’s 44. Congrats I guess?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Who cares? She's a movie star. They won't relate to her anyway.

By your 40s, you kind of get over that need to be in lockstep with your kids' peers' moms. Honestly I don't relate to most of them anyway, and we had kids at similar ages. People's lives are different and it separates you. Most of my good friends are from before I had kids and I'm sure that's doubly true if you are recognizably famous and have a kid in your 40s (which is common for famous people). She already has her people and is not going to go haunting mommy and me classes looking for a lifelong friend.

No matter how you spin it, her kid's friends moms will be significantly younger. Her kid will have friends even if she's a "movie star" and she will still have to navigate that world. You can cheer this on all you want, but I feel sorry for a kid with a geriatric mom.

I’m sure Natalie Portman would cry herself to sleep if she knew some Russian troll impersonating a tradwife on DCUM felt sorry for her unborn baby…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Who cares? She's a movie star. They won't relate to her anyway.

By your 40s, you kind of get over that need to be in lockstep with your kids' peers' moms. Honestly I don't relate to most of them anyway, and we had kids at similar ages. People's lives are different and it separates you. Most of my good friends are from before I had kids and I'm sure that's doubly true if you are recognizably famous and have a kid in your 40s (which is common for famous people). She already has her people and is not going to go haunting mommy and me classes looking for a lifelong friend.

No matter how you spin it, her kid's friends moms will be significantly younger. Her kid will have friends even if she's a "movie star" and she will still have to navigate that world. You can cheer this on all you want, but I feel sorry for a kid with a geriatric mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

That actually makes it worse, not better. Saying “it’s her third kid” does nothing to change the misleading message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Who cares? She's a movie star. They won't relate to her anyway.

By your 40s, you kind of get over that need to be in lockstep with your kids' peers' moms. Honestly I don't relate to most of them anyway, and we had kids at similar ages. People's lives are different and it separates you. Most of my good friends are from before I had kids and I'm sure that's doubly true if you are recognizably famous and have a kid in your 40s (which is common for famous people). She already has her people and is not going to go haunting mommy and me classes looking for a lifelong friend.

No matter how you spin it, her kid's friends moms will be significantly younger. Her kid will have friends even if she's a "movie star" and she will still have to navigate that world. You can cheer this on all you want, but I feel sorry for a kid with a geriatric mom.

Who cares if you’re older than your kid’s friends’ moms? Are you looking for friendships through your children? You just have to be cordial with other moms, not BFFs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Who cares? She's a movie star. They won't relate to her anyway.

By your 40s, you kind of get over that need to be in lockstep with your kids' peers' moms. Honestly I don't relate to most of them anyway, and we had kids at similar ages. People's lives are different and it separates you. Most of my good friends are from before I had kids and I'm sure that's doubly true if you are recognizably famous and have a kid in your 40s (which is common for famous people). She already has her people and is not going to go haunting mommy and me classes looking for a lifelong friend.

No matter how you spin it, her kid's friends moms will be significantly younger. Her kid will have friends even if she's a "movie star" and she will still have to navigate that world. You can cheer this on all you want, but I feel sorry for a kid with a geriatric mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Who cares? She's a movie star. They won't relate to her anyway.

By your 40s, you kind of get over that need to be in lockstep with your kids' peers' moms. Honestly I don't relate to most of them anyway, and we had kids at similar ages. People's lives are different and it separates you. Most of my good friends are from before I had kids and I'm sure that's doubly true if you are recognizably famous and have a kid in your 40s (which is common for famous people). She already has her people and is not going to go haunting mommy and me classes looking for a lifelong friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's either had her eggs on ice for awhile or it's someone else's egg (bab

We could probably cure cancer with all the medical research and $$$ spent on creating vanity babies to validate second marriages (ahem, relationships) .

It definitely happens naturally. My MIL had her 4th and 5th baby at 42 and 44. I know a handful of women who become pregnant between 40-45 naturally

We need to stop pretending celebrity fantasy stories are real life guidance. For ordinary people, the smart and realistic plan is to have children before 30 if possible, not gamble on wealth based exceptions in the 40s and then market them as empowerment.

These glossy headlines are shamefully dishonest because they hide the machinery behind them: frozen eggs, IVF, donor eggs, surrogacy, private doctors, planned surgeries, nannies, night nurses, trainers, chefs, and unlimited money. Then the public is told, "See, 44 is the new normal." No, it is not.

For most women, biology is not a PR campaign. Fertility declines with age. Risks rise. Energy changes. Recovery gets harder. That is reality.

Having children earlier generally means:

Better natural fertility odds
Lower miscarriage risk
Lower rates of chromosomal abnormalities
Lower pregnancy complication risk
Easier recovery on average
More stamina for newborn and toddler years
Being younger and healthier as your child grows

By contrast, pushing late motherhood as some carefree trend is irresponsible. Many women later discover that fertility treatment is expensive, emotionally draining, not guaranteed, and sometimes unsuccessful. Those painful realities rarely make the magazine cover.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes higher age related pregnancy risk beginning at 35, with risks increasing further into the 40s. That is medicine, not judgment.

No one is attacking women who have children later. Life happens. But glamorizing rare celebrity outcomes while hiding the truth is unfair and harmful. Society should be honest: if you want the best biological odds and lowest overall risk, aim to have your children before 30 when possible, not after decades of delay and wishful thinking.

It’s her third kid, dip$hit. She didn’t wait until she was 44 to start trying.

That actually makes it worse, not better. Saying “it’s her third kid” does nothing to change the misleading message being sold to the public. In many ways it strengthens the deception, because people see the headline and think having babies at 44 is some normal, easy, repeatable life path.

It is not.

A third child at 44 after prior pregnancies, prior fertility success, possible stored embryos, elite medical care, and massive financial resources is not remotely the same thing as an average woman trying to start or expand a family at that age. Pretending those scenarios are equivalent is dishonest.

What the public absorbs is simple: “Look, another celebrity having a baby at 44, no big deal.” They do not see the years of context, medical intervention, or support systems behind it. They do not see failed cycles, specialists, private care, nannies, recovery help, or the advantages money buys.

So no, “it’s her third kid” is not the gotcha you think it is. It actually proves how distorted these stories are. A later age third child after earlier fertility success gets marketed as if age is irrelevant and anyone can casually do the same.

That is exactly the problem. It normalizes a rare, privilege driven outcome and sells it as ordinary life. For regular people, biology still matters, risk still matters, and time still matters.

You are wrong.
I go to a trad Catholic church where women do natural family planning. The ones who don’t have babies in their early to mid 40s are the *exception* not the rule. These are middle class women. It’s quite shocking actually. Some of them keep going til late 40s.

Yep. A lot of women who are already moms can get pregnant in their early 40s. I bet if most people in this thread look back a generation or two they’ll find a great grandma with 7-10 kids who had the last one in her 40s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are some of you guys bitter because you waited too long and aren’t moms?

Not me. I was an older mom. It's not all it's cracked up to be and certainly not glamorous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won't feel good to be the oldest mom at high school graduation... in her 60s.

Natalie Portman at 60 is gojng to look younger than me at 50. I could kid myself and say that isn’t true, but I know it’s not.
My family has longstanding history of having babies well into 40s without trying, so this isn’t that big a deal to me. I got my tubes tied at 40 because I didn’t want to risk it. My mom, sister and niece all had babies in their 40s, as did my great grandmothers. (My grandmothers didn’t because both had reproductive medical injury in their 30s that prevented further pregnancy.)

It's not about looks, at all. It's hard to relate to moms who are 20 years younger than you no matter how you look. You're a totally different generation.

Anonymous wrote:Are some of you guys bitter because you waited too long and aren’t moms?