Interesting "New Republic" Article on the Topic of Waiting to Start a Family

[lavender's green]

Panties in a wad?

 

:chillpill:

[Audrey]

Yes, I do wonder if this is a new trend. My mother recently mentioned that none of my brother's friends have married even though they've all had serious relationships. These friends are now close to 40. That kind of made me worry for my dd.

 

 

Ah, but biology being what biology is... it is easier for a man to wait longer. Men have viable fertility for far longer than women do (although some studies suggest that, too, deteriorates somewhat over time, and may contribute to fetal abnormalities).

 

Surely, it is a double-standard that we don't pressure men to marry as earlier as we seem to pressure women, but that biological clock is a real, albeit not literal, thing for women. The offset of men waiting, however, is that they are often looking for or dating women in their general age range, and so those women are older because they've been waiting for the right man. It's like a catch-22.

[Izzy]

Weird topic.

[Matryoshka]

I get that not everyone is fortunate enough to meet Mr. Right when they are young. That can't be helped. Choosing not to even try to have kids until you've been married for a decade is something else entirely.

 

I would've loved to have had kids earlier. Didn't meet dh till I was 28, married at 29, and then had years of infertility and first kids at 33, last at 35. I'll agree that what held me back was finding a decent guy who wasn't terrified of commitment, no less marriage and kids.

 

But I also know two women I used to work with who both had been married 15+ years and intentionally avoided even trying for kids till they hit 40. They very much had an "oh, there's still plenty of time for that!" attitude. And then, surprise, it wasn't so easy. They both each did have a kid by around 42. But waiting that long on purpose when you're in a long and stable marriage I agree I don't get.

[Trish]

It's pretty disingenous to claim you don't judge. Everyone does it to some extent or another.

 

And, btw... congrats on being an exception to the anecdotal rule I stated upthread. I'm glad you didn't go getting your panties in a special little wad. Because you know... when someone says "largely" or "mostly" or other qualifiers like that in a statement, it does mean there are acknowledged exceptions to the statement's claim. I'm glad you know that, and didn't think I was talking about you, specifically, personally and most especially. ;)

 

I didn't see where she claimed that.

 

I agree this IS a judgy thread...what's special about it is that it's judging in so many different directions, up down, sideways, in utero, ex utero, give me a petri dish chaser with that.

 

I make judgments all the time, so I don't really care how judgy this thread is or isn't. I'm just disingenuously enjoying reading about the personal stories.

[eloquacious]

I find it fascinating that the sexual revolution hasn't entered this thread yet.

 

Finding and keeping well-paying employment certainly contributes to advancing maternal and paternal age. The desire and need of men and women to pursue higher education in a high-tech world plays into it. But no one can tell me that the fact that young women can have sex with a low chance of becoming pregnant and young men can persuade multiple young women to have sex with them (similarly, with a low risk of repercussions) doesn't play into all this.

 

When I was in college I noticed that the "magic age" for young men to start to think about getting married was 29 or 30. I saw this pattern repeated time and again among recent graduates who were friends or friends of friends. It was common knowledge that the 5 year-reunion was a great time to meet a guy because all the men who were boys in school had grown up - or, failing that, one could look to the class 5 years ahead. Interestingly, my husband was 29 when he proposed and 30 when we married. I was 26 when we married, and 27 when I had my first son... the same ages that my grandparents had been when they married in post-war Germany, except that for them it was an extremely long engagement due to the war and the need to finish schooling and find employment to support a family. For us, it was fairly standard. In fact, I was one of the earliest brides of my college acquaintance.

 

ETA: Once we married, there was no waiting. Our first son was born three weeks before our first anniversary.... but that is the result of our circumstances when we married. We know of several young couples who are marrying at 19-21, and who expect to delay childbearing at least until they finish college.

[butterflymommy]

My brain is still kind of mushy from the anesthesia. But is she really implying that the rise in autism and other disorders is due to older women having children? There just aren't enough older women having children to make that kind of statistical impact. Yes, many more older women are having children than a generation ago. But they are still the minority in terms of child bearing. They are also more likely to terminate pregnancies where the child has a detectable abnormality in utero.

 

As far as older men being more likely to father autistic children, it could be that men carrying genetic traits for autism are more likely, for whatever reason, to settle down later than other men. You would have to looks at men who've have children from their 20s through 40s+ and compare children of the same paternal line.

[Wheres Toto]

What I usually see among friends and acquaintances is they get married and have children based on how their individual circumstances work out, not so much based on a life plan. I see very few women putting off children until they are 40+ due to wanting to be wealthy, travel, etc. I see women who don't meet the right guy until they are mid-30's or older, women who marry their highschool sweetheart and have kids right away, women who marry young but are living with parents so wait to have children.

 

I was married the first time at 21 (almost 22) and had my oldest at 24.

I was married the second time at 35 and had my two youngers at 36 and a week before I turned 38.

 

It's just how it happened to work out in my life. Although I have given my oldest the recommendation that she graduate college before marrying and having children.

[kalanamak]

 

 

And what does "upend" even mean? That society is going to change drastically and we are supposed to be scared of that? Change is the only constant. We need to get used to it.

 

 

"Upend" means "I'm doing it, and I'm important, so it is going to have some effects!"

[Reya]

Second, so many areas of this country have brutal COL and that's where the jobs are. ...

 

 

Jobs are growing faster in places with a low COL. California and the East Coast are both hemorrhaging population.

 

If you can't find a job in a place with a low COL immediately, you can get a job in a company with multiple branches, including low COL places, and then transfer. You get to keep you high COL salary in the new location. Three are a number of people at my husband's company who took their $130k salaries to Dallas. $130k goes really, really far there! (We have a "brutal" COL, but we're here because my husband is a hardcore hobbyist for an activity that only exists in brutal COL places.)

 

You don't have to stay trapped.

 

DD, a 20-something (as well as her fiance), are darn mature individuals and they'd like to have a family someday. However, it isn't easy to raise a family on paramedic pay and entry level computer programmer jobs which are generally contract pay without benefits. She HAS to work so they'll have medical insurance.

 

 

Those jobs aren't growing fastest in high COL areas but in low COL. If he's on a 1099, then he should continue interviewing for a better position. They aren't "mostly" 1099s. If he has a 4-year degree and is competent and is an American citizen with a clean criminal record, he could get a job making at least $85k within a month here. Heck, PM me, and I'll send his resume through my DH. The paramedic pay here still sucks, though.

 

I personally think someone has to have a better reason to have babies than just producing workers to pay into the system and as a general rule, that is the unspoken reason why people get their tails in a knot about declining birthrates.

 

 

Actually, it's called a demographic collapse and is directly responsible for the end of more empires than any other single factor.

 

I don't think we give the young adults of this generation enough credit for navigating the economic waters in which they are swimming. We had it a LOT easier getting going. Wages were much higher commensurate to COL, and pay raises were pretty much a given.

 

 

I'm 33, so I'm in the range of many people trying for their first kid or still putting it off.

 

I'm not actually talking about people in blue collar, pink collar, or gray collar jobs. I don't know so much about them, and they aren't the ones holding off having kids nearly so much as those who have 4 year degrees and up. I know a great deal about people who are solidly middle-middle to upper-middle class.

 

SOME of these people are hard workers who can't see how to make it work. Most aren't.

 

I'm very active in a community with a lot of college students that I am in frequent contact with, and I see very few of them graduating in four years with a practical degree and then settling down to work. I see a lot of job hopping and dissatisfaction, an unwillingness to commit to even a single industry enough to make progress. Virtually all the people I know from this environment quit jobs--sometimes 6-figure jobs, and often multiple times--because they just weren't enjoying it enough. They expect work to be less work and more fun. They rarely have replacement jobs lines up--they live off what savings they're accrued and move back home while they find themselves. Again.

 

As far as schooling, I see people taking 5-6 years for an undergrad degree and then bouncing in and out of school in and the workforce for the next 10 years. They often aren't getting a master's degree to further their jobs but get second degrees in another major--sometimes more practical (theater tech to electrical engineering), sometimes absurdly impractical (business to an undergrad psych degree). PhDs only take 4-6 years, but many grad students are staying in school through their 30s. I know a woman who didn't finish her residency until she was 36! She should have been 30, as med school, residency, and internship take 8 years. That's crazy. She'll be paying off her student loans at retirement.

 

Those I know who do have jobs aren't happy with their parents' starter home. They won't accept the crib in the closet. They want to have what their parents had when they graduated from high school--20-30+ years into their parents' working lives.

 

My husbands' coworkers are mostly 26-40 years old, and they are the responsible ones--they don't job-hop or get bored and quit. The ones making the LEAST are pulling down $115k a year, and most are making $130k or more. Their wives often make as much. Most of the ones married for at least 2 years have no kids, and NONE have more than two. Yes, we do live in a very high COL area, but the #1 reason most of them cite is that it's just too expensive. It is by no means too expensive for a family making more than $200k here to afford to have kids. Bu they don't want to make the time or financial sacrifices. Typically, they pop out their only child when the husbands hit 35-38, not because they STILL feel financially prepared but because they figure it's "now or never," and then they might go for a second in three years........maybe.

 

Then there are those who actually DID go straight through and thought they'd be in academia. They usually choose to put off serious relationships until after their PhD. Then they have years as an underpaid postdoc before the light turns on and they realize that there are 10 PhDs for every tenure track position and their chances of actually getting a professorship are just above nil. So they don't go to private industry and get their first decent-paying job until they are 33 or 35, and then they wait a few MORE years to buy a child-worthy house before they have a kid. What they should have done was not put off dating and marriage just because they weren't ready for a kid, and they should have been educated about their actual, realistic chances of ever getting a tenure-track position. Then, they could have had a child in grad school or shortly thereafter instead of expecting to be able to get a professorship before starting a family. There was no benefit in waiting and quite a bit to be lost.

 

If anything, these young people are MORE responsible than my generation was. We went around popping out kids whenever the sentimental notion took us and figured, somehow, someway, it would all work out. Well, it worked out because the economy was booming and fantastic. Finding work that paid a living wage and some medical wasn't that hard by comparison. We could afford to assume it would all work out. They can't!

 

 

No, we graduated during one downturn and are now making it through another.

 

The final rub is that they get out at 18 and their high school diploma turns out to be worth nothing. What are they supposed to do? Obviously, it's going to take some years to get enough education and training to have any kind of career path.

 

 

No one is saying that people should start popping out babies at 18. Most people did wait for college or to finish an apprenticeship or to get training in some other field and get a decent start on life. The problem is that "a decent start" has been shifted to include a standard of living my parents certainly didn't enjoy when they had us, and too many people expect to work to be fun.

 

As for my boys, they are really pretty mature for their ages already. They show signs of being "marriageble" material by their early 20's. However, only one is going into a field in which he has any reasonable guarantee of being financially viable before 27 or 28 years of age. One will need a PH.D plus several years of field work (remote, somewhat dangerous places to boot) before he will be able to support a family thereby pushing him into his 30's before it would be responsible for him to consider being a father. The other will also need a PH.D. However, no field work and he should be able to work for a few dollars more than minimum wage per hour on his master's degree so maybe mid-20's and he'll be worth marrying for his provider capabilities.

 

 

My mother had my brother while she was in grad school. They had to pinch pennies, but my parents understood that it was a temporary privation for a permanent gain. My mother had someone she could trade babysitting with already who was in the same boat. It worked out fine for all.

 

Those WERE children that they could afford because they met my needs and my little brother's needs on their own. They lived cheaply, but they didn't expect someone else to pay the bills to meet a preconceived standard of living. Sure, my grandparents occasionally bought something outrageously expensive, but that was a matter of my grandfather demanding that he daughter have X, Y, or Z and her patiently explaining that there was no money for it, and if he wanted them to have it that badly, he'd have to buy it for them. (I think their first microwave was like $8,000 in today's money. It died three years ago, at the age of 27!)

 

You can raise a family on fellowship money--even many TA stipends. Sure, you won't be saving for the future, but grad school can be the BEST time for a family because you really do have fewer demands on your time and a more flexible schedule than when you are working full time. And for goodness sakes, there is nothing from keeping either one from MARRYING before they get their PhDs. If you wait until you have a padded savings account, then you won't even be LOOKING for a potential mate until you are 28, so no, there is little chance of a first child until the wife is in her 30s.

[KrissiK]

We probably don't really count because I didn't give birth to any of my kids, but we're one more couple who didn't find each other till late. I would have loved to be married 10 years earlier. We got married at 34 and started trying right away, but nothing happened. We were not at all interested in fertility treatments, so we went straight to adoption,

[mommymilkies]

Only a tiny fraction of 20somethings are pursuing PhD's and then a series of post-doc's. Sure, if one chooses that path, it will necessarily mean delaying childbearing (though it doesn't have to mean delaying serious courtship & marriage). But that situation is very much the minority.

 

Most of the women I know who are struggling with fertility issues now in their mid-30's could absolutely have chosen to settle down in their 20's. Most were finished with their education by 25 or 26. They could've stopped the partying earlier but chose not to.

 

 

I agree. I used to work in infertility, and very very few were younger than 35 and at least 75% or so waited so that they could put jobs and social life first. Which is fine for them. But they all regretted it. Of my friends who graduated with me, many are married, settled down, have jobs after college. But at my reunion almost all of these said they didn't want to be tied down by kids yet and there was "plenty of time". Again, their choice, but I really think we need to get the fact out there that there won't always be a later for fertility.

[Jennifer3141]

Who are all these women who regret waiting and where have they been for the past 20 years?? You cannot open an internet forum or women's magazine or watch a TV show for women without hearing the screams about your fertility essentially ending at 35. Are there masses of just really stupid women out there who pay ZERO attention to the media and/or their bodies??

 

As someone who is 41 and TTC, I find the incessant reminders that I should be sterile quite annoying, thankyouverymuch.

[mommymilkies]

 

 

 

This is exactly why 20-somethings shouldn't marry. They're largely idiots chasing after the cream of the turd crops. I cringe when I hear that someone under 25 is getting married. So very, very few of them are capable of making good decisions on adult matters. I think people should wait until they're mature enough to be adults, not just do adult things, but actually BE adults in action and in thoughts.

 

 

It wasn't this way not long ago. I got married at 21. Happily. And I'm certainly not an idiot. Don't cringe on my behalf. People make bad choices at any age. My mom was 40 when she decided meth was much more fun than her family. Age isn't everything. What about if we set up society for people to achieve instead of acting like anyone under 25 is an idiot incapable of being mature? That's just a self-fulfilling prophecy if you're taught you'll do stupid things and be stupid until that magical age.

[mommymilkies]

Who are all these women who regret waiting and where have they been for the past 20 years?? You cannot open an internet forum or women's magazine or watch a TV show for women without hearing the screams about your fertility essentially ending at 35. Are there masses of just really stupid women out there who pay ZERO attention to the media and/or their bodies??

 

As someone who is 41 and TTC, I find the incessant reminders that I should be sterile quite annoying, thankyouverymuch.

 

 

Yes, actually. As someone who was an infertility professional, most did not know. Now, that was a decade ago. Maybe people know more now. But at my reunion last year, they sure didn't! It's like telling someone that condoms don't always work "they will for me! Nothing will happen to me!". As someone who personally was told I'd never have children, I wish I had been taught more sooner, but until it becomes personal, many of us keep our heads in the sand.

[Jennifer3141]

Yes, actually. As someone who was an infertility professional, most did not know. Now, that was a decade ago. Maybe people know more now. But at my reunion last year, they sure didn't! It's like telling someone that condoms don't always work "they will for me! Nothing will happen to me!". As someone who personally was told I'd never have children, I wish I had been taught more sooner, but until it becomes personal, many of us keep our heads in the sand.

 

I had my kids 8ish years ago and we did wait to have kids. ALL of my friends did. Every single one of us knew that there was a risk to waiting but we all gladly accepted that risk.

 

Claiming that you don't know and actually NOT knowing are two very different things. If you live in the hills and you don't have cable TV, radio, and internet; you might not know. But if you live in the hills, odds are you got pregnant in your late teens/early 20s.

[Reya]

Who are all these women who regret waiting and where have they been for the past 20 years?? You cannot open an internet forum or women's magazine or watch a TV show for women without hearing the screams about your fertility essentially ending at 35. Are there masses of just really stupid women out there who pay ZERO attention to the media and/or their bodies??

 

As someone who is 41 and TTC, I find the incessant reminders that I should be sterile quite annoying, thankyouverymuch.

 

You have a 50% of being unable to have a child if you start at 40. That's only half. So it depends on which half you come down on.

 

They don't seek TREATMENT until they are 35+. Often, they start trying at 33 or so, because it IS still easy for MOST people. Only about 15% are technically subfertile by then.

 

So, they spend 2 years trying. Many of them manage to get their pregnancy at 35. YAY! Then they start trying again at 37, not because they're stupid but because it took 2 years the first time. And they realize that it's fertility treatments or nothing.

 

Or they spend 2 years trying and have no luck, so they end up in the RE's office at 35, do a bunch of IUIs, these fail, spend a year saving, and then have their first IVF at 37. They aren't stupid. Time just ran against them.

 

And 85% of women still got pregnant in the space of the year. Everyone assumes they'll be in the 85%, not the 15%. It just doesn't work that way, though.

 

Of course, most ART is paid for out of pocket, so what you don't see there are women with lower incomes who are also infertile. It's a bit of a skewed world, where "low income" is suddenly "two teacher's salaries."

 

---

 

I was one of the few women in my RE's office under 35. I started having kids at 23. I didn't wait, but it'll be unlikely that I'll get the family I'd hoped for before I go from subfertile to infertile. (The IUIs didn't get me anything but more miscarriages, and I have some ethical problems with typical IVFs, BTW.)

[Reya]

Yes, actually. As someone who was an infertility professional, most did not know. Now, that was a decade ago. Maybe people know more now. But at my reunion last year, they sure didn't! It's like telling someone that condoms don't always work "they will for me! Nothing will happen to me!". As someone who personally was told I'd never have children, I wish I had been taught more sooner, but until it becomes personal, many of us keep our heads in the sand.

 

Virtually ALL women realize if they wait until 40, their chances are bad. And everybody knows people who effortlessly pop out kids before 35--I mean, MOST women can! So MOST try to start families some time before that "35" year mark. It often works out Except when it doesn't.

 

They don't add up the time it takes to "try" before seeking treatment and the time treatment itself takes, so they don't fully understand how if they chances aren't great at 3X, their chances will be much worse at 3X+3. And it TYPICALLY takes 3-4 years for most women to go from first "trying" to an intervention that works, if they are significantly subfertile. It's those years that really destroy the chance of the family they imagined.

[Wheres Toto]

I was very well aware that fertility lessens after 35. It's why dh and I started TTC the moment we were married even though no one but our witnesses and my oldest knew we were married. We were planning a "big" wedding months later, we had a small ceremony to make it legal since dd and I were moving in with dh. Since I had heard all the time that after 30 it takes on average a year of trying to conceive, with the time going up after that, we just went right to it. And ds was conceived 2 weeks after the wedding that no one knew about. We ended up telling our families about the pregnancy and that we were married already at the same time.

 

Same with dd. Even though I was 37 when we started trying for her, I was pregnant within 2 months. At my ultrasound, I was told I had the ovaries of a much younger woman. :tongue_smilie:

 

Old age ups the risks but doesn't guarantee difficulty conceiving.

[Jennifer3141]

I was very well aware that fertility lessens after 35. It's why dh and I started TTC the moment we were married even though no one but our witnesses and my oldest knew we were married. We were planning a "big" wedding months later, we had a small ceremony to make it legal since dd and I were moving in with dh. Since I had heard all the time that after 30 it takes on average a year of trying to conceive, with the time going up after that, we just went right to it. And ds was conceived 2 weeks after the wedding that no one knew about. We ended up telling our families about the pregnancy and that we were married already at the same time.

 

Same with dd. Even though I was 37 when we started trying for her, I was pregnant within 2 months. At my ultrasound, I was told I had the ovaries of a much younger woman. :tongue_smilie:

 

Old age ups the risks but doesn't guarantee difficulty conceiving.

 

 

Thank you, Dororthy!!! Us "oldsters" need to hear the good news about it working for the elderly every once in awhile.

[AndyJoy]

Another anecdote:

 

DH and I married at just shy of 20 and 21, respectively. We were most certainly adults. My mom commented that she wouldn't have been very worried if I'd gotten married at 18! When we married, I still had 1 semester of college left to finish, but he had an undergraduate degree and a new job. However, since he had just turned 17 when he started full-time college, he was young and still figuring himself out and ended up choosing a major that we came to realize was not really suited for his personality for a long-term career. Thus, after 1 year of marriage he went back to school to get a Master's degree in a different, more fitting field. We probably could have had a child during this time financially if I were willing to use the campus' Child Development Center rather than caring for our child myself, but there was NO WAY I was going to do that. Due to an injury, his program was delayed a bit and it took 2.5 years for his degree. He then got a full-time job in his new field and I took a 1-year teaching position, hoping to get pregnant near the end of it. I did get pregnant, but had a miscarriage on my 5th anniversary at age 26. That put off baby plans for another 6 months until I was able to get pregnant again. I had my DS a few months before I turned 28. After another miscarriage, I'm now expecting again in August. I will be a few months shy of 32 when he/she is born.

 

Our delays weren't for selfish or childish reasons. We never partied or pondered how unexciting our life would be once we had kids. We wanted kids so badly--even my young husband who constantly defied the stereotypes of his age---but we thought the adult thing to do was have a plan that we could all live with. Our minimum standard was that DH have a job with benefits and sufficient pay to enable me to stay home with our kids. We didn't want anything "lavish" like home ownership, an established career, or even a minivan. We just didn't want to have to depend on anyone else to support us once we made the decision to add this huge responsibility.

 

I realize we weren't super old when we had our first successful pregnancy (27 & 25), but if you look at my timetable, you can see how easily it might have been pushed even further. What if DH's injury had been more serious? What if he had been a more typical 18.5 when he left home rather than barely 17? What if we had met as sophomores rather than freshman and thus still been dating as jrs. rather than planning a wedding?

 

I do know quite a few 20-somethings who are immature and self-centered. I know parents who ridiculously coddle their young adult offspring to the point of nauseating me. DH knows a large group of guys who are 25-33 with no girlfriends, good jobs, and lots of toys who have no thought of "settling down" now or maybe ever. They'll probably be the ones who eventually find wives and become older fathers. But really, I 'd rather many of them do wait a bit to have kids. Sure, the act of having kids might mature you a bit, but having some maturity to build on first seems like a better plan. I know too many people who had their kids when they were still immature themselves and the kids pay the price. (ETA: I'm NOT saying these people are immature because they aren't married and have no kids. I just know these particular people well enough to know that many of them are immature. There are several really great, mature guys among them who just aren't wanting to be in a relationship yet for several reasons)

[Free]

Actually, it's called a demographic collapse and is directly responsible for the end of more empires than any other single factor.

World population is 7 billion now and will continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050. What demographic collapse and what empires are you referring to?

 

Most of the ones married for at least 2 years have no kids, and NONE have more than two. Yes, we do live in a very high COL area, but the #1 reason most of them cite is that it's just too expensive. It is by no means too expensive for a family making more than $200k here to afford to have kids. Bu they don't want to make the time or financial sacrifices. Typically, they pop out their only child when the husbands hit 35-38, not because they STILL feel financially prepared but because they figure it's "now or never," and then they might go for a second in three years........maybe.

 

 

OK. And why is this a problem? Why should we require people to have more than 2 kids, or kids before 35?

 

What they should have done was not put off dating and marriage just because they weren't ready for a kid, and they should have been educated about their actual, realistic chances of ever getting a tenure-track position. Then, they could have had a child in grad school or shortly thereafter instead of expecting to be able to get a professorship before starting a family. There was no benefit in waiting and quite a bit to be lost.

......

 

The problem is that "a decent start" has been shifted to include a standard of living my parents certainly didn't enjoy when they had us, and too many people expect to work to be fun.

 

......

 

You can raise a family on fellowship money--even many TA stipends. Sure, you won't be saving for the future, but grad school can be the BEST time for a family because you really do have fewer demands on your time and a more flexible schedule than when you are working full time. And for goodness sakes, there is nothing from keeping either one from MARRYING before they get their PhDs. If you wait until you have a padded savings account, then you won't even be LOOKING for a potential mate until you are 28, so no, there is little chance of a first child until the wife is in her 30s.

 

I keep seeing opinions like these in the whole thread and they baffle me. Why should people put off traveling, or partying, or buying a new home, or doing what they want to, so that they can have more kids? Are we saying that there can be no purpose or meaning to existence without having kids?

[Jennifer3141]

 

I guess I shouldn't be shocked by this given your previous comments, but really? What is up with the bigotry against people living in hilly areas?

 

Wow. Interesting but erroneous thought. I guess i shouldn't be surprised based upon YOUR previous comments.I live in the hills myself. :laugh:

 

That's pretty much how I know you'd have to have your permanently head stuck where the sun doesn't shine to not know about fertility rates in older women.

[Dandelion]

I read most of the article. To me, it felt like the author was sensationalizing the topic (more interesting to read, but not necessarily more accurate). The author also engaged a bit too much in the "correlation=causation" fallacy for me to take the article seriously.

 

. Instead of treating one's 20's as an extended adolescence, as a society we should be encouraging 20somethings to start acting like adults.

 

I agree that we should encourage 20-somethings to act like adults, but I vehemently disagree that the only way to qualify as an adult is to get married and have kids.

 

I left home a month after graduating high school and moved to another country on my own (from Germany back to the U.S.). I got a full-time job, got my own apartment, bought a car, and enrolled in college. I was not a "partier" by any stretch of the imagination. I did marry at age 22, but that marriage didn't last and thankfully we didn't have kids. I completed my graduate degree at age 28, got married to DH at age 29, and we had our first child when I was 31 and DH was 35.

 

IMO, people should marry and have kids when they are ready - not based on some arbitrary "acceptable" timeframe.

[Free]

 

I agree that we should encourage 20-somethings to act like adults, but I vehemently disagree that the only way to qualify as an adult is to get married and have kids.

 

 

Yes! Thank you for saying this!

[Jennifer3141]

Yes! Thank you for saying this!

 

Absolutely thank you!!!!

[Wheres Toto]

Since upthread age of father was also mentioned - dh was 48 when we got married. So he was definitely on the "older" side even more than I was. He had never been married before, partially due to enjoying his younger years but he also had two relationships that almost led to marriage and kids (he was ready, didn't work out due to reasons even most of those on here would find "acceptable").

 

I will say, if I compare my ex who became a father at 31 to dh who became a father at 49 - dh is by FAR the better dad, the more involved dad, the one who constantly shows that he really WANTED to have children, not that he had them because it was expected once you reach a certain age and get married.

 

I know so many women who complain about their husbands not wanting to spend time with the kids, women who have to practically beg their dh's to watch the kids so they can go out for a few hours, and even some who do not feel they can leave their kids alone with their husbands because they feel they won't be adequately supervised. Some of these men may have benefited from a few more years of maturity to get ready to actually be an active, involved father.

[redsquirrel]

wow. So, people who don't want or unable to have children are living a life of perpetual adolescence? It is only by reproducing, an act possible for most 15 year olds, that one becomes an adult?

[Jennifer3141]

 

To claim that people in the hills have less access to internet, tv and radio is a pretty ridiculous notion.

 

Some people might be doing more important things than studying up on fertility rates of older women or visiting chat boards when they're in the middle of building careers/going to grad school. I don't know, I currently live in an urban area and before this I lived in a major metropolitan area on the East Coast. Plenty of women were delusional about the fact that fertility decreased as their age increased. Frankly, most women don't give a thought more to childbearing beyond just deciding to put it off till "later" (whatever that means).

 

Really? You don't think that living in a rural area changes your access to information?? Excuse me but I'm sitting here on a DSL line, not cable BECAUSE I LIVE IN A RURAL AREA. It absolutely affects our ability to access information; especially between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and midnight. My iphone doesn't work in most of our local restauarants and for giant swaths of roads up here because there are no local towers.

 

When we moved out here just four years ago, DH was the first person our local Centruy Link office had ever had ask about the latest internet speed for his work. We actually had to get the hospital IT department involved before we signed the papers on our house because the deal would have been off if DH couldn't easily access patient records at night. The hospital computers could only operate at a certain speed and they were not able to communicate with the original internet speed that was out here. That was just four years ago, We haven't improved much since then.

 

Cable TV isn't offered here. You can have either Netlfix through your DVD player or whatever (what we do) or buy a satellite package. So I cannot watch CNN today. Not that I'd really want to, which is why we don't have it.

 

So YES. Living in the hills has a direct impact upon our ability to get information.

 

And yet, I still managed to figure out that my fertility decreases in my 30s. So I'm still not getting why you are having such an obviously hard time with comprehension.

[Caroline]

I had my first at 25 while I was working on my PhD in engineering. I had fertility problems 28-31, when I finally was successful with getting and staying pregnant with #2 (with medical intervention.) Then, when I hit 34, I got pregnant and then again at 36, with no outside help. My fertility actually increased in my mid thirties.

[TranquilMind]

In light of the other thread, I thought this article from The New Republic was very interesting. "How Older Parenthood Will Upend American Society".

 

 

It is interesting to ponder the potential issues here. I'm an older Mom but my kids are fine - my husband is years younger though, so I guess that is an advantage.

 

No way would I ever have undergone fertility treatments, both from a distaste for messing with my hormonal system, and from an economic standpoint. I figured if it was meant to happen, it was going to happen, and if not, we would have found a child to adopt.

[regentrude]

My husbands' coworkers are mostly 26-40 years old, and they are the responsible ones--they don't job-hop or get bored and quit. The ones making the LEAST are pulling down $115k a year, and most are making $130k or more. Their wives often make as much. Most of the ones married for at least 2 years have no kids, and NONE have more than two.

 

Why SHOULD they have more than two children??? 2 is pretty close to replacement rate; taking into account much higher fertility rates elsewhere in the world, one can make the argument that these people are very responsible in their reproduction.

Certainly there is no shortage of human beings on this planet.

[Laura Corin]

So that I'm not totally depressed after reading the article, can I just cling to the one line about kids born to older parents being better adjusted and doing better in school? Gotta throw me a bone here. :p

 

Yes... here too. Husband and I met when I was 25 and he was 31. It took us eight years to conceive Calvin and another four years to conceive Hobbes (without medical intervention). Calvin (born when I was 33) has motor skills delays. Hobbes has a stutter. What were we meant to do? We didn't even know we could have children until I fell pregnant with Calvin.

 

FWIW, my mother was 39 and my father 33 when I was born, and I'm as normal as any other INTJ obsessive ex-home educator... Go on Elinor, say that I'm normal, please.....?

 

Laura

[kalanamak]

 

To claim that people in the hills have less access to internet, tv and radio is a pretty ridiculous notion.

 

 

 

I know a river people go out of their way to go fishing at because radio doesn't even make it into the valley.

I have a relative by marriage who has no cable or email at home. She emails from work, which she drives 35 miles to. Her cell phone doesn't work either, and she doesn't want to shell out the bucks for one that will.

 

Your "hills" must be different from my "hills".

 

You know, I haven't looked into it, but the Bronx had no cable when I lived there. Manhattan had had it for years. I believe it was because there were so many lawsuits about who was cheating to get the contract. That was only 20 years ago.

[catz]

Wow - I have to say I cringe when I read threads like this. Why the hate? I loved Faith's post and I agree with who ever said this article was sensationalism.

 

I took 5 years through college, with some parental help and part time work (full time in summer). I graduated with no debt and was finanically independant at that point. I rented my own apartment and eventually bought my own home. I had a serious boyfriend at 21, 23, 26, and FINALLY met my husband at 28, married at 29, and had my oldest at 30. My DH is 8 years older than I am, or we may have waited a little longer to have our oldest. My DH went through a divorce after marrying young (he tried to make it work w/counseling, etc, she left). That is when the timing worked out for me. Most of my mom friends are older, many have higher degrees and met their spouses after college. I'm just not seeing a huge number of women who ignore all warnings and wait, throwing caution to the wind. I don't think you can predict how these things are going to play out. I do think the current economy is helping by any stretch.

 

There is a great number of people on this board who have had successful younger marriages. Which is excellent. I would guess everyone on this board as very intentionally placed family first. Statisically, the odds are not necessarily in your favor with young marriages being successful.

 

It's also been studied and shown that the brain continues to develop and mature into your 20's.

http://www.dartmouth...2006/02/06.html

 

I think there's room in the world for everyone! If people chose to wait, ultimately they will pay the price for waiting.

 

I also want to say with all the diagnosis that have come up in number. In my own classrooms in elementary school I can easily pick 5 kids that would be slapped with a label now that never had any kind of diagnosis or special ed in the 70's. My great grandmother was having kids into her 40's (she had 14). I know 2 of them that ALWAYS have had issues and were never dxed with anything.

 

Anyway - a few disjointed thoughts.

[justamouse]

I agree. I used to work in infertility, and very very few were younger than 35 and at least 75% or so waited so that they could put jobs and social life first. Which is fine for them. But they all regretted it. Of my friends who graduated with me, many are married, settled down, have jobs after college. But at my reunion almost all of these said they didn't want to be tied down by kids yet and there was "plenty of time". Again, their choice, but I really think we need to get the fact out there that there won't always be a later for fertility.

 

I think Alexis Stewart (Martha Stewart's daughter) has been one of the most vocal about not waiting to have children. She waited and struggled mightily. Her story is heartbreaking.

[regentrude]

Frankly, it's none of my business 'cause I'm not German, but I am saddened by the low birth rate in Germany (for example) because I think German culture and civilization is beautiful and I hate to see it disappear in the way that the Romans did. I just have trouble imagining people four hundred years from now needing to learn a "dead language" to read German philosophy and all those commentaries on the Greek and Latin philosophers that were written in German.

 

I am sure you are aware that Germany is a very densely populated country where 80 million people live on an area twice the size of Missouri, where 70% of families live in apartments, and where 1,000 sq feet is considered a large apartment for a family. There are reasons behind the small birth rate that have nothing to do with values, but a lot with population density.

[Laura Corin]

I am sure you are aware that Germany is a very densely populated country where 80 million people live on an area twice the size of Missouri, where 70% of families live in apartments, and where 1,000 sq feet is considered a large apartment for a family. There are reasons behind the small birth rate that have nothing to do with values, but a lot with population density.

 

Agreeing with Regentrude from another European country. This article gives a good idea of living space in Europe compared to the US.

 

My cousin and his wife are bringing up their toddler in the smallest flat I have every seen. As a smallish adult, I felt that I had to walk and turn carefully so as not to knock over the (sparse) furniture in their new-build Edinburgh apartment. I can't imagine how it must be with a whirlwind toddler in it now.

 

ETA: Google tells me that the UK is about the size of Oregon. But it has a population of over 60 million, rather than 4.

 

Laura

[regentrude]

Another question, if Europe really does have such a hard time with overpopulation, why has it been so easy historically to immigrate to Germany? Things might have changed, but when I was there 10 years ago, there was a huge Russian population there who had immigrated after the Berlin Wall. It would seem counter intuitive to me to

 

It is actually extremely difficult to immigrate into Germany. It was only possible if you were considered German, i.e. of a line of German heritage parents, irrespective of birth place. In the US, citizenship is given through being born on US soil; in Germany, citizenship is given through blood line )children of foreigners born on German soil are not German citizens). Those Russians you are referring to are probably Germans who settled in Russian territory hundreds of years ago. The Volga Germans were recruited in the 18th century under Catherine the Great to settle in Russia, but the families retained their German identity and often still speak a German dialect. Because they are considered German, they were allowed to move to Germany, and many did in order to escape the Soviet regime which persecuted Volga Germans.

Otherwise, in contrast to the US, Germany does not consider itself an immigration country, and it is very difficult to become a permanent resident. Another larger group of foreigners was recruited in the 60s and 70s mainly from Turkey as temporary "guest workers"; they were not intended to be permanent immigrants. (There are now recent exceptions being made for children of these guest workers)

 

Finally, this I have very little info on so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought there was also an issue of rural to urban migration as well. So, the rural areas would then have less population density than urban areas.

Of course rural areas have a smaller population density than urban areas. However, "rural" in Germany is quite different from rural in the US: the next small town or village will be 1-3 miles away.

[Laura Corin]

 

I'm not saying that "lifestyle choices" should not be taken into consideration when having children, but I would think that the "higher standard of living" would then be the real issue and not population density if people actually valued having bigger families.

 

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but in order to equalise lifestyles between the UK and the US, you have to have fewer children. So yes, I'm sure Western people now expect more comfort than they did in previous generations, but people in the West these days expect similar levels of comfort from country to country, and that's just less possible with large families in crowded European countries.

 

If you look at the graph, my cousin would probably have three times the space in a similar apartment in the US, so that he could have three children without a sacrifice of comfort.

 

Laura

[Wheres Toto]

I think your statement "if people wanted to have more children, they would have more children" is probably accurate. WHATEVER people's reasons for not having more children - space constraints, money issues, age issues, other priorities - they are doing what they feel is right for them. So what? I would rather people know their limitations and stop having kids when they want instead of having more and more children just because some vague idea about it being the "right" thing to do.

 

I don't think there are any modern cultures in danger of disappearing due to a lack of population. It's hard to take that idea seriously when you are talking about a country with a population of 80 million, especially since I've seen nothing to indicate the population in any of these countries is actually going down at any significant rate (2 kids - which is replacement rate - seems to be the norm most places).

[Wheres Toto]

But it's not an all or nothing, once we are on this path we can't change kind of thing. If one of the reasons people in Europe aren't having more children is due to space and resource issues, as the population goes down due to low birth rate, those things will no longer be an issue and people will start having more children again.

 

Just curious what other peoples have become obsolete due solely to low birth rates?

[regentrude]

Right, and I would think that combined with an incredible public transportation system it would be incredibly easy to commute into the city for work if somebody needed more elbow room. But, I fully admit that I'm just speculating here. The point I'm trying to make is that if people wanted to have more children in Germany, then they would. Especially with all the social programs designed to encourage having more kids (like childcare!). So, the conclusion is that the general culture there just tends towards not having children and rather focusing on other priorities. Especially among the students I encountered (granted this was just the students at technische universität hamburg-harburg) the feel was definitely "Why would anyone want to have kids when there are so many better things to do?" And I'm not really even being judgmental about this, that was my attitude at the time as well. And well, I do realize this was 10 years ago so things might have definitely changed.

 

So forgive me, but I do still have trouble believing that for the average young person in Germany that they'd cite "population density" as their reason for not getting married and having children.

 

 

The incredible public transportation system works very well inside the larger metropolitan areas. Commuting from truly rural areas has to happen largely by car, the public transit available in rural villages would not allow a commute (hourly bus service with the last bus at 5pm, stuff like this)

Of course if you talk to students at a university, they are not making kids a priority. Neither do my students at the American university here - they are paying to go to school and get a degree because they want to work in their fields. When they talk about their plans, they don't talk about how many children they are going to have- they talk about where they are going to get a job.

 

About having kids in Germany: of course young people don't cite population density, but they have to live with the population density and the difficulties that entails. A common problem is landlords not wanting to rent to families with children; in a country where most families have to rent, it is a big problem, especially in the cities.

You mention childcare as an example for social programs: daycare is a very sore point! Because there are programs to subsidize daycare, there is no real free market, which causes a severe shortage. In East Germany it not as bad, because in communist times all women had to work, and there were plenty of daycare spots available, and they kept many of the institutions open. In the West, where more women stayed home, daycare is hard to find, and extremely hard for kids under three.

There have been different approaches by the government to encourage people to have children. Having lived in both countries for many years, I would find it much more difficult to live with a large family in Germany than it is in the US. My best friend has five children, a lot by German standards. All of my other friends have two or three. Daycare and living situation are cited as specific obstacles.

 

And yes, those women want to do other things besides raising children. Especially educated ones. My friends who work got their education because they loved their field and wanted to work in this field- as doctors, physicists, speech therapists, teachers. They try to combine family and work, and that pretty much limits family size. If you want to call this a lifestyle choice, it certainly is - but it is not about a material standard of living. It is about finding fulfillment not only in the family, but also in other fields.

I applaud every mother who manages the balancing act and chooses to be a happy mother to her family - whether she works in a job and raises two kids, or stays home with twelve. But I do not find one choice worth less than another, and I certainly do not feel that women who want contribute to society in other capacity than as mothers to have lesser values or to value "comfort over children". (I don't work for the money: I work because it makes me happy. If they did not pay me, I would work for free - and still only have two kids.)

[elegantlion]

I think your statement "if people wanted to have more children, they would have more children" is probably accurate. WHATEVER people's reasons for not having more children - space constraints, money issues, age issues, other priorities - they are doing what they feel is right for them. So what? I would rather people know their limitations and stop having kids when they want instead of having more and more children just because some vague idea about it being the "right" thing to do. I don't think there are any modern cultures in danger of disappearing due to a lack of population. It's hard to take that idea seriously when you are talking about a country with a population of 80 million, especially since I've seen nothing to indicate the population in any of these countries is actually going down at any significant rate (2 kids - which is replacement rate - seems to be the norm most places).

 

Speaking for me, I was not raised to think I needed to have as many children as possible. My mom is from a large family, dad from a dysfunctional one. Dh has 4 siblings, and at one time (with a short remarriage for his mother) there were 10 kids in his household. My mom had 3 miscarriages between ages 23 and 30 (when I was born). I'm honestly trying to remember what kind of conversations I had with my mother about fertility. We talked about everything, so I know they had to have happened. Maybe it was that letter I wrote at age 12 stating I didn't want to have kids or the health class birthing film. I truly think some of these maternal instincts/or lack thereof are part of my genetic makeup.

 

Dh and I told people we would think about kids after being married 5 years. On our 5th anniversary ds was one month old; I call this God having a sense of humor. We both breathed a sigh of relief when the doctor said I shouldn't have more children, pregnancy was truly difficult for me and ended up in major birthing complications due to my health. Neither dh nor I were in a rush to have kids anyway or obviously I'm not very fertile..I never felt like we were missing anyone in our family after ds was born. I don't know, it's curious, I can't pinpoint one reason why I feel this way either. I don't have anything against large families, our one child is not a political or environmental statement, it just is where dh and I both felt comfortable.

[Jennifer3141]

But it's not an all or nothing, once we are on this path we can't change kind of thing. If one of the reasons people in Europe aren't having more children is due to space and resource issues, as the population goes down due to low birth rate, those things will no longer be an issue and people will start having more children again.

 

Just curious what other peoples have become obsolete due solely to low birth rates?

 

 

Excellent question!!! lol

[regentrude]

People have to start seeing a greater value in having more children beyond utilitarian reasons of population decline. Like their other choices, they have to start seeing children as an intrinsic good and though most of history has held that children were an intrinsic good, the modern Western world has mostly rejected that notion. Now children are just one good among many different equally valid choices.

 

 

I do think people still see children as intrinsic good! We should, however, not forget that throughout history, the reasons people had many children were often very utilitarian: a high infant mortality required a large number of births to have a few survive into adulthood, and the absence of a different retirement system required old people to rely on their children to support them in old age. That's one aspect that caused the craving for sons, since the daughters would become part of their husband's family and care for their inlaws, not their own parents.

And in poor families, often children were seen as a burden, as an extra mouth to feed - there is a reason this element made it into folklore and tales.

 

So, I would not look upon history as such an idyllic time where everybody had lots of children just because they loved them for their intrinsic good. And besides: those people did not have a choice. I am sure many mothers would have preferred to limit their family size and stay alive to raise their children rather than dying in childbirth with yet another baby.

[Heather in Neverland]

And yes, those women want to do other things besides raising children. Especially educated ones. My friends who work got their education because they loved their field and wanted to work in this field- as doctors, physicists, speech therapists, teachers. They try to combine family and work, and that pretty much limits family size. If you want to call this a lifestyle choice, it certainly is - but it is not about a material standard of living. It is about finding fulfillment not only in the family, but also in other fields.

 

I applaud every mother who manages the balancing act and chooses to be a happy mother to her family - whether she works in a job and raises two kids, or stays home with twelve. But I do not find one choice worth less than another, and I certainly do not feel that women who want contribute to society in other capacity than as mothers to have lesser values or to value "comfort over children". (I don't work for the money: I work because it makes me happy. If they did not pay me, I would work for free - and still only have two kids.)

 

I feel the same way. So many people think that a woman having a career means they are just too materialistic to understand the righteousness of being a SAHM. I don't get rich off my career and I have never even thought of my career as a way to get rich. I do it because I love it. And I still manage to raise 3 happy children. It is not a comfort vs. children thing for me. That is a false dichotomy.

[Free]

But, from the perspective of what I hold to be the truth I do think that in general larger families are better for both families and societies.

This is indeed the heart of the debate because I do think that smaller families are better for children's health and well being, for women's health, for women's careers and therefore for societies at large. Smaller families are better for the earth and the environment as well. And this is not just an empty belief that I hold on to contrary to evidence. I think I can search for scientific data to backup this claim. I can link them later.

 

I'm not a historian. But, my understanding is that the modern phenomenon of prosperity AND low birth rates is unusual in history.

Yes, and this has come about because of greater freedom for women to pursue what they love.

 

Certainly peoples have become obsolete from declining population, but usually there was a cause for the decline: war, famine, natural disaster, etc.

Exactly. With the modern medicine being what it is, and with longer lifespans, I do not see populations becoming extinct due to low birth rate anytime soon. At least not for another 100 years according to the graph I linked earlier in this thread.

 

That said, I'm not as optimistic about the idea that the trend will be reversed.

I am very confident the trend will be reversed, if people decide so. When India was facing a burgeoning population problem, the Govt of India, sometime in the 70s started campaigning and educating people about the problem requesting people to limit family size. I think people overall have responded magnificently, and if this call were to be reversed, I am certain people will respond equally.

 

....they have to start seeing children as an intrinsic good and though most of history has held that children were an intrinsic good,....

And that is why we should make it easier to adopt the millions of uncared for children, rather than trying to bring even more into this over populated world.

[Rosie_0801]

But is she really implying that the rise in autism and other disorders is due to older women having children?

 

The latest theory running around in my brain is that the rise in add, autism and such could be linked to the rise in c-section rates and some drugs used for pain relief. A lot of the behaviours and learning difficulties that go along with those diagnoses are symptoms of retained baby reflexes, and a lot of them can be caused by inadequate squeezing during the birthing process. My son wasn't born via c-section, but was born too quickly because of pain relief drugs, and has recently been diagnosed so I've been reading up.

 

*Disclaimer: Not knocking people who have caesarians because sometimes they are a really great idea. Not blaming anyone for causing their kids problems. Not saying those diagnoses are all fake or any such thing. Merely commenting on new information I came across recently because it might be of use to someone.

[Jennifer3141]

How has our society made birth control a "requirement?" Who comes to your house and forces you to take the pill?? Where do you live that that is even a FEAR???