Having not met my mate, I have been TTC via donor sperm for the past 4 years (ages 40-soon to be 44.) I have a "free" cycle left, and persuingadoption in thus meantime, too. Is this how I pictured my life? No. However, These are the cards I have been dealt, and in my heart, I just know that it WILL work out for me the way it is SUPPOSED to. In other words, I have faith.

Life happens. Circumstances are often out of our control. I kept telling myself that I would meet someone soon. Well, that never happened, and at age 40, it was very liberating and reassuring for me to know I could TTC on my own. And I did just that..."try," at least.

Regardless of whether I (against all odds) do conceive or if adoption tutns out to be my only option (and what a great option, it is...).... I do not regret my path for 1 minute. I prefer to look at the positives in my life, and not dwell on the negatives. I have traveled the world over the past 10 years, established myself in a career I adore, great family/friends, health, financial security. All of those things will make me a great mom. And I cannot wait!

Thank you PP. You articulated what I wanted to say. I do think men need to be advised of these issues too. As a PP stated most men aren't aware of the true realities either.

I still think if the opportunity arises, you should broach the subject with younger women and men. I fully plan to be open with my nieces and nephew who are in mid 20s right now.

Unfortunately this discussion seems to have devolved into a conversation about whether women are too picky about their mates...I think many of us feel judged enough for our reproductive choices not to have to throw in a healthy dose of guilt about our romantic lives as well.

I did want to respond to the OP. When I was in grad school, a lot of attention was paid to the climate in my field of science for women. To that effect, issues of work-life balance were discussed very openly. Though there were generally few women, one of my world-renowned professors (the kind that its really impossible to imagine as anything other than a scientist) used to discuss her decisions about having children quite openly. She waited until after she had her tenure position to have her first in her late 30s. She always says that at the time she had no idea the risk she was taking with her fertility and how lucky she was to still have children. She says if she were to do it over she would never wait, and she would advise no one to wait on account of career if they want kids and feel that they can personally/financially support them. In her view, she would regret not having kids far more than she would reject not having got tenure.

I don't think that her advice should be translated to say that anyone who doesn't have kids in their 20s or early 30s is an idiot or irresponsible. You obviously have to balance considerations like whether you want to parent with a partner or are barely scraping together rent. But at least in the sciences I think there is a tendency even among women who have partners they want to parent with (or have already decided to parent alone) to wait based on the perception that it might harm their career. The reality is that it might. You may not be able to balance the demands of your career and child-rearing. Or your child may have special needs that limit your ability to pursue career opportunities (this is especially true for academics who often have to move frequently for jobs until well-past the age of 35). But all of that could be true even if you have kids later in your career too.

Anonymous wrote:

Since I studied engineering, I personally knew dozens of decent men whom girls of their age didn't even consider for dates. Fast forward 10-15 years and those men no more available to those women because they are all married with children.

But...wait. Doesn't the point that those men are all married with children now, as you say, show that there were many women who did "settle" for them? And fairly early? If those guys aren't currently unmarried, that means that they found their matches, and yay for them and their families. They were not universally passed on -- perhaps the women who passed on them did so because they understood for whatever reason they would not make a good match. (For example, they did not "share their interests," which you put forward as if it is a minor issue but I think is actually fairly major. Isn't shared interests a building block of a strong relationship?)

Anyway, this conversation has taken a weird turn. I would posit that this situation is a bit more complicated than all these feckless women not seeing the decent men that are right in front of them, but it's way too complicated to get into in an anonymous message board and I doubt any minds would be changed.

This argument is clearly between a lawyer and an engineer. The engineer is arguing logically and the lawyer is twisting things around. lol There are more women than men in the world. So naturally it's understandable that these engineer, geeky type of men will inevitably get married maybe. But it's true that lots of women in their 20's reject wonderful marriage material men because they're not hot enough, they are geeky, or for just superficial reasons. If a woman is waiting for that hot, wealthy type of husband, chances are hes not going to prove himself to be marriage material, no matter how much he professes his love for his 20 something year old girlfriend. The men that are loyal and good fathers and good providers are often times the men who aren't the best looking in the world or the ones who don't have the greatest bodies or who aren't the most athletic or popular. I am now pregnant with a girl and I plan to advise her to look for the marriage qualities in a man, not how hot he is, how great his body is, etc...

Anonymous wrote:That's a generous interpretation that doesn't match the actual words that were written ("planning to marry and have a family by age 32" is not the same at all as "though they are married and able to have children immediately") .... but okay.

Okay so maybe she's saying that our younger women need to start thinking of finding Mr. Right much earlier to they can indeed plan to marry earlier and have a family by age 32. Nothing offensive about that. Most women in their 20's are not looking to get married until they're at least 28. They're just dating. She's saying these younger women should start looking to date only serious potential marriage candidates so they can start the process earlier. It's good advice. Take it from a woman who's had numerous cycles and lost a lot of retirement money but is finally pregnant at 44.

Anonymous wrote:But...wait. Doesn't the point that those men are all married with children now, as you say, show that there were many women who did "settle" for them? And fairly early

Actually - no. Ten years late (~33-35), when they dressed better and made much more money, they married younger women whom they knew (as far as such things can be known) who give them children. They passed on women from their generations, now 33-35, who didn't settle in time.

You appear to think that there is equal number of men and women on the marriage market, but there isn't - not for same categories of men/women. This is because, roughly, incoming young women compete for all men, but incoming young men only compete for incoming young women. So young women and older men have much more choices than young men and older women. Women should marry young (around 25) and men should wait (and marry around 35).

Anonymous wrote:For example, they did not "share their interests," which you put forward as if it is a minor issue but I think is actually fairly major. Isn't shared interests a building block of a strong relationship?

Not at all. Interests change over lifetime, while the need to plan and make decisions together will be with you every day for as long as you are married. What matters most are things you can't change - such as intelligence, responsibility and kindness. Those personality traits predict a lot (income, marriage stability etc). They are also highly heritable, so not only will your husband have them, but your children as well.

This discussion is interesting and useful, but it puts nearly all of the responsibility for fertility and decisions on women. Men also need to be educated. Part of the issue is that many men are even less aware of fertility than women. My otherwise fairly educated husband told me, when we were first engaged and discussing TTC before the wedding (since I was 37 at the time!), that he thought that the chances for a healthy pregnancy within the year (so age 38) were around 85 percent and if not, we could definitely get pregnant if we did IVF, which he estimated to cost around 5k, "but covered by insurance, right?". WHen I told him the stats for my age, alone or with IVF, he basically threw his condoms away that night (and we were very, very lucky--two kids at 39 and 41 without treatments).

But I think there are other issues at play--both men and women are delaying marriage and childbearing (part of the reason I waited until 38 to get married is that I spend the better part of my 30s dating two different guys who claimed to want family/kids, but couldn't commit--one is still single in his late 40s, the other panicked at turning 45 and got married to someone he barely knew....and is in the process of divorcing....but I digress). And for women, quite often, it is the pressure to have a career solidified. I needed to finish my PdH and find a job before I felt ready to settle down--in part because as the OP mentioned, I rarely saw women in their prime childbearing years also succeeding at work or in grad school. The female academics were all either childless or were racing to have kids in their late 30s. A few did have kids in grad school , and now I envy them. But its not just academe--we have family unfriendly policies in many workplaces so perhaps some women put it off until they feel their career is secure enough. Just a thought anyway.

as for 'warning' women-its a delicate thing. I think OBGYNs should have frank talks with their patients about fertility but I know that I got 'that talk' all the time from my mother starting in my late 20s (by the time I was 35 she told me I was too old to freeze my eggs!) and all it did was stress me out, since I wasn't ready to do it alone and hadn't met the right partner. It did, however, finally change the way I approached dating and finding a good man who was truly ready to have kids.

Since I studied engineering, I personally knew dozens of decent men whom girls of their age didn't even consider for dates. Fast forward 10-15 years and those men no more available to those women because they are all married with children.

But...wait. Doesn't the point that those men are all married with children now, as you say, show that there were many women who did "settle" for them? And fairly early? If those guys aren't currently unmarried, that means that they found their matches, and yay for them and their families. They were not universally passed on -- perhaps the women who passed on them did so because they understood for whatever reason they would not make a good match. (For example, they did not "share their interests," which you put forward as if it is a minor issue but I think is actually fairly major. Isn't shared interests a building block of a strong relationship?)

Anyway, this conversation has taken a weird turn. I would posit that this situation is a bit more complicated than all these feckless women not seeing the decent men that are right in front of them, but it's way too complicated to get into in an anonymous message board and I doubt any minds would be changed.

Anonymous wrote:So we should settle, marry young, procreate with men we probably won't even like or respect in 5 years? Those same men who you state are jobless or mentally unstable

No - those are not the same men. There are plenty of men that women pass on in their twenties because they are not attractive or socially skilled or are not yet accomplished. Since I studied engineering, I personally knew dozens of decent men whom girls of their age didn't even consider for dates. Fast forward 10-15 years and those men no more available to those women because they are all married with children. What is then left to them is basically men-garbage - men who will never marry, have no jobs, are very old etc etc.

The point is - the earlier you settle, the better you will settle. The passage of time has very different effects on men and women, so when a women is 40 she is dreaming to find a guy to whom she would be settling at 24.

I think what will happen in the future is that more women will start freezing their eggs in their early 30s. I had kids in my late 30s without problems. I'm glad that I waited because marrying the right person and being ready was important to me.

Everyone that I know who was married in their mid 30s to early 30s was divorced within 5 years. There is a big shift in priority outlook and maturity within your 30s. Today economy almost requires households to be double income. Balancing work/parenting/marriage requires ALOT of maturity and its much easier if you are beyond the "me" years.

So we should settle, marry young, procreate with men we probably won't even like or respect in 5 years? Those same men who you state are jobless or mentally unstable? Again, how is that a solution to the original question? Besides what about the 28 year old or the 32 year old having IF?

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the science lesson, but yet again, I'd like to repeat that many of the women you are accusing of putting off child bearing are not doing so because we're swanning around, traveling to Europe, and waiting to "find ourselves." And we're not that influenced by what Hollywood stars are doing. To the contrary, many of us would like to bear children with decent partners, but they don't always magically pop up by the age 32 timetable that you have identified as the drop-dead date for child-bearing. Maybe we need to get it through the heads of men that by age 32 they need to think about settling down, instead of acting like overgrown children playing the field perpetually. (not all men, but quite a few fall into this category.)

And maybe we need to get into the heads of women that they need to settle for the good enough guys early on rather than pursuing great passions, soul-mating and prince-charmings (only to find themselves at 40 settling desperately for divorcees, jobless and/or mentally unstable).

Though getting married and having babies are two different (and connected) issues, there is quite a bit of similarity between married women who postpone childbearing waiting to be ready, and unmarried women turning down men because they don't fit image of whom they should marry (i.e. they are short, socially awkward, don't share their interests etc).

Agree pp. Men need to learn this too! So what happens if men don't want to date 32 and up single moms?

We need to get it in the heads of women that you there is a time frame for having children, don't put it off past 32. It's science. Women think that they can magically have children without issues if they marry late in life because of the perception that a lot of older women having kids when in fact it is not true.

Thanks for the science lesson, but yet again, I'd like to repeat that many of the women you are accusing of putting off child bearing are not doing so because we're swanning around, traveling to Europe, and waiting to "find ourselves." And we're not that influenced by what Hollywood stars are doing.

To the contrary, many of us would like to bear children with decent partners, but they don't always magically pop up by the age 32 timetable that you have identified as the drop-dead date for child-bearing. Maybe we need to get it through the heads of men that by age 32 they need to think about settling down, instead of acting like overgrown children playing the field perpetually. (not all men, but quite a few fall into this category.)

Unless you are okay with single mothers. Since the majority of babies born to women under 30 in this country are now born to single mothers, (see recent stories in the New York Times and elsewhere) clearly many women are already taking your "advice." But there's a price to pay for going that route -- yes, you have the child in the appropriate biological timeframe, according to you. But can these women maintain the best home and environment for that child? Many women can, but quite a few struggle.

So I was PP earlier and thought more about the discussion. There are two scenarios we are discussing. Finding the right mate and being married or not. Basically you can't tell a single woman at 34 that she 'must get serious' that puts a lot of pressure on her and any potential relationship.

I had a strategy after graduating from college (single). It was to date men that were serious and older men (30s). Mostly because men my age (20s) weren't established, weren't looking to settle down, and I didn't want to wait to start having kids until my mid-30s. I wanted to be done by 30. I traveled heavily for 5 years and did all of those things that I wanted to do before having 2 kids before 30. Not everyone is that lucky.

That being said if a female student brings up family and balancing school, job, career; I think you should be 100% honest and supportive. Most women don't feel like their boss or co-worker would support them having children so hearing otherwise might actually help someone feel more confident about taking the plunge. So do it, OP, spread the word!