Advanced search

Interesting article on much-quoted female fertility statistics

(9 Posts)
FairPhyllis Mon 24-Jun-13 20:21:46

This might not be news for some of you, but I was utterly gobsmacked when I read this. Apparently almost all the statistics that are bandied about about women's fertility plummeting with age are based on fairly ropey data (e.g. studies based on 17th and 18th century populations!).

I mean, you'd almost think the reporting of these statistics was a plot cooked up to give women baby panic! hmm

SunshineBossaNova Mon 24-Jun-13 20:33:11

That's extremely interesting.

DH and I went through fertility tests. There's an interesting report I read somewhere about the language: women 'fail' to conceive, while men 'merely' have a low sperm count. And the way we are treated vs men...

louisianablue2000 Wed 03-Jul-13 00:20:08

Wow, that's so interesting, I'll be bookmarking that to quote at everyone and anyone for quite some time. On the down side I no longer feel special with my easy conceptions in my late thirties/early forties!

wannabeawallaby Wed 03-Jul-13 00:33:46

Phew, good news for once! grin Thanks for the link. Now all I have to worry about is not fertility, but how ancient I'll be if and when I have grand kids...

sashh Wed 03-Jul-13 05:19:33

Good article.

There is so much that is ignored with fertility. Women are now better nourished and fit than their grandmothers.

Have a look at the popularity of the name 'Gerard'. Now I had an uncle Gerard, and when I was growing up so did a lot of people. Obviously people pick names for all sorts of reasons but Gerard was commonly give to 'change of life' babies, particularly if the parents were RC.

Look how many there are in the 1950s/1960s, I don't think (but no evidence) that was not just due to it being a popular name.

BTW when did anyone, before reading this, use the phrase "change of life baby"? They don't happen any more do they?

This is interesting

The average age of mothers giving birth in 1944 in Canada was about the same as now.

Salbertina Wed 03-Jul-13 05:29:44

Sunshine, yep with you on the sexist language- why still "incompetent cervix" and "failure to progress" ??? angry

louisianablue2000 Thu 04-Jul-13 21:45:05

sashh I read somewhere that there are still half the number of women in the Uk having babies in their 40s in comparison to 1939. The push after the war to get women back into the home massively reduced the age at which women had their first child. It really annoys me that all stats compare out generation to our mothers when they were historically a very young lot of mothers.

AmandaPandtheTantrumofDoom Thu 04-Jul-13 22:25:37

Louisiana - I read that too, but I think that profile was just for births in their 40s, not first births. The argument in an article I read was that more women had children in their 40s, but often 2/3/4/5th children.

There was a similar article to this in the Times last week. Interesting (although there are valid reasons for using old data for some studies, as fertility treatment and contraception make current data very difficult).

Also, fertility does plummet with age, just not as early as often bandied about.

SolidGoldBrass Mon 08-Jul-13 12:43:21

I had my DS at 39 and he was unplanned and very unexpected, so I have since been well aware that all this 'have a baby before you're 30 or be a barren spinster' stuff is at least exaggerated. But it's good to have more reliable data.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now