Women delaying motherhood is worrying

I remember in my early 30's seeing a Bridget Jones Weekend which was basically a group of women in their late 30's and early 40's saying they could leave it as long as they like and use sperm donors, or adoption to get the children they wanted.

Having had kids in my late 30's and 40's. I was lucky. I dont think women should leave it that long and then expect to get pregnant that easily. If you dont meet the right person - well isnt that just bad luck. If you are late 30's and TTC its not a right to have a baby.

I didnt get married until mid 30's. I wasnt sure I wanted children and if they hadnt turned up - well I would have to have lived with this. Its not 'societys' fault that you didnt meet what you felt was the right person

Keep up read the thread

I don't believe I said anything about a conspiracy. I said that the information being given to women from all quarters is conflicting.

Get a grip.

Lol,as compared to the conspiratorial mutterings,the bold,the SHOUTING from others
Yea like wow indeed

wow. a bit overinvested in the argument there, sm?

Oh Christ alive.public health info has you thumbing your conspiracy for beginners manual

Patriarchal opinion formers, sm.

Hard to work out from a post in FWR, I know.

for heaven's sake, it's not a conspiracy. It's simply conflicting information.

&#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 WOMEN!
YOU CAN'T DO RIGHT FOR DOING WRONG
&#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 GET USED TO IT

&#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160 &#160[THERE'S A DEAR]

Who is they?who are you referring to in your elaborate conspiracy

I'm curious. So they want women to be looking to have children in their early 20's? Would that be those pesky women in the 18-25yo category that they're busily cutting all benefits for? The ones they claim should living at home, still going to school or working?? And precisely how does a solid relationship and a baby fit into that???

On one hand, they're saying they want people to be more stable and financially independent before having a baby, but then turning around and reversing it and saying have the baby when you're younger.

get impregnated by some genetically desirable bloke. I wouldn't tell the bloke

All I wanna do is make looooove to you
One night of love, was all we knew :o

I do think most women want to be in a committed relationship prior to having children.

Sure they do. Just like many women want to be financially secure and ideally have some kind of job security before having children.

But neither of those things is a necessary requirement for having a child, and if women are being advised to forgo "a career" in the interests of early childbearing, then they should also be advised to forgo a "committed relationship" for the same reason.

Sorry, I didn't mean I want to see parenthood mandated (that would be running backwards!) but fathers required to take 50% of parental responsibility - or 100% if solo.

YY. Go, Jodie Foster!

My original plan, formulated at 22yo, was to sort out a brilliant career and get impregnated by some genetically desirable bloke. I wouldn't tell the bloke (mean of me, but hey.) There was no mat leave in those days, and terrible provision for single mothers; it had to be brilliant career + baby. I nearly bloody did it, too. I sabotaged my plan by coupling up with a nasty man ... and was sub-fertile, I later discovered, so would have had to shag an awful lot of genetically desirable blokes (what a shame.)

40 years on, there's much better support for women having children, but the pressure to perform astonishing feats of life-balancing hasn't really changed. It still boils down to "Get a man, get pregnant, get a salary." This is why I want to see a full restructure of working practices, such that parenthood - by both sexes - is proactively encouraged & supported: mandated, even. I can't see any other way of levelling the playing field for women.

Join I take your point, but then they'd be a single mother and Everything That is Wrong with Society

In all seriousness (and I know this is a whole different feminist discussion in itself) I do think most women want to be in a committed relationship prior to having children. Once in that relationship, throwing it away for a theoretical child is a big step.

This article didn't go this far by any stretch, but I don't think the messaging to 'career women' that pops up regularly in the Mail etc. is purely aimed at women who are part of a heterosexual couple. I actually think it's worse than that: if a women if 30-something and single, then that's probably their fault too (because they were prioritising education / travel / partying / career / whatever).

Why not advise the man in the partnership "remember that the risks to your partner and your potential child increase as she gets older, so get on with it"?

I don't know, I'm kind of conflicted about this.

I think most men know perfectly well that women aren't fertile forever.

But they don't care very much, because they know they have other options if her time should run out.

So to me that advice sounds more like "Men: the woman you are with is running out of time, but don't sweat it because there will be a younger model around and willing whenever you decide to get around to it."

Which, let's be honest, is advice that many men are already very well familiar with.

I'm not sure there is one piece of advice on this that works for both men and women and I think it's fine for women to receive messages about their own fertility. As long as that advice isn't about scaring them or restricting their options.

I think if women were advised to go it alone if they got to, say, 35 and nobody was willing to get them up the duff that men would find themselves a lot less reticent about agreeing to TTC.

Well arguably if a lot of women are reaching the age of approved reproduction without a man sanctioning them for pregnancy, men are erasing fathers :o

"What they can't do and these articles don't acknowledge, is magic up a suitable and willing sperm donor at a biologically optimal time that coincides with a time that is suitable in terms of their financial stability."

But they absolutely CAN "magic up" a sperm donation.

And some do. But it's VERY taboo to just go ahead and take full control of your fertility in that way.

If these articles accepted that extremely possibly option, then they would make a bit more sense.

But they address themselves specifically to women who have a boyfriend.

Not even all women. Just the ones with a fella.

"Or that women should just get on and get pregnant when they want, regardless of what the man thinks?"

But that presumes a man.

And that's one of the things that's so annoying about the advice.

It's that women should race to get themselves pregnant but ONLY ONCE they have attained the status of ATTACHED WOMAN.

Surely the honest, non-ideological, medical advice to women would be:

If you are a woman and you know you want a child, I would say get on with it once you get to your mid-30s if you haven't already.

Why give advice that is specifically addressed at women but still leave in the part where she has to get a man to sanction her as worthy of reproduction.

If it's just about what is best for women, then what difference does it make whether she is in a relationship?

Surely if it's about women having babies at the right time, regardless of their circumstances, then a partner to have them with is as irrelevant as a good job?

Sorry, funny, I got so steamed up at what I perceived to be the direction of the thread, I forgot you'd said that!

the idea that a woman is not an entire person in her own right, and therefore lacking in some fundamental way unless she helps a man to reproduce still has quite a lot of power in our society.

Immense power, I'd say. It's the fundamental root of feminism.

I think I'll have to agree to disagree then artetas. From a feminist standpoint, I think the framing of the article, including the examples chosen are important. It's pitched at a particular gender and demographic and if it's intended as a public health message (rather than pushing an editorial agenda) then that's not good enough.

Women make decisions on remaining pregnant yes, because they are taking the risks. Ideally both people in a committed relationship have an adult discussion and make a joint decision on whether or not to have children not have 'a pregnancy'.

If 'public health messaging' is not addressing the men in this equation as well then I'm afraid that is sexist and woman-blaming. Women can to a large degree control not getting pregnant, which is great compared to our grandparents generation. What they can't do and these articles don't acknowledge, is magic up a suitable and willing sperm donor at a biologically optimal time that coincides with a time that is suitable in terms of their financial stability. If they could do that, they wouldn't be women, they'd be wizards...

"Is remaining child-free still taboo, even here? Is it not a valid outcome for women?"

I would say yes and no (it is not not a valid outcome for women :o)

I hear the word "selfish" used frequently in discussing why women don't have children (either at all, or early enough) and that is often by the women themselves.

"Oh, I'm too selfish to have children." "I just want to enjoy my selfish life."

It's bizarre, because as far as I can see a decision not to have children is at worst morally neutral. I can't see who is harmed by it.

Of course remaining child-free IS a valid outcome for women.

But I think the idea that a woman is not an entire person in her own right, and therefore lacking in some fundamental way unless she helps a man to reproduce still has quite a lot of power in our society.

That is the problem, minnie. Ten more years.