Kirsty Allsop

I had my DS at 39 and would have been a much worse mother if I had done it sooner. I wanted to spend my 20s and early 30s having fun and building up a career, and if I actually ended up childfree I wouldn't have minded.

Och I don't know. I am from the 'having it all' generation as I think she is too (although with enough privilege that having it all could really be a thing for her) and I think it is good to talk about timing. Agree though that framing it round 'things I'd tell me daughter' rather than her sons weakens the arguement.

I do hear posters who are saying that re-entering the workplace after having children young is no picnic, but then it's no picnic later on either. I think if both parents take a hit earlier on then it will surely be easier for both parents to recover?

I think the more we talk about this the better tbh and she's right - fertility does decline. Maybe not in the way the Fail would have you believe it declines, but it does decrease...

I am not sure why a woman, if she had her life partner lined up at 27, could not have already finished university, started her career, had a child and continued working. There is nothing to give up.

Ah, but maybe that is because Kirsty herself did not go to university and in fact had her first child at 29.

Interesting article there, Everythingcounts.

There is something (oddly) very likeable about Kirstie Allsopp even though I disagree with her on almost everything. She's like my most annoying friend with whom I have long and unresolvable arguments because we inhabit different ideological spheres - but yet her very feistiness belies all the traditional values she professes to espouse. KA is entitled to her opinion, I suppose. I don't buy it but I don't abhor her for having it either.

I had mine from 23 but have had no need for any career gaps. Had 2 weeks, 7 months and then 2 weeks for 3 babies. On my cv that means no children so no one ever has asked me. I have done a degree, masters, worked full time etc and havent found there to be much difference to before really. I wouldnt mind all my dds doing that, but would be hugely disapointed if they didnt have a decent career.

It just sounds like "women, you're doing it wrong" to me. Men don't need to worry about declining fertility, but usually a woman needs a man to make a baby; Kirstie's stance barely touches that, it's apparently mostly the woman's responsibility.

And her quote "as a passionate feminist, I feel we have not been honest enough with women about this issue." is pretty patronising, as if women are too stupid or ignorant to realise themselves that you need to cram a lot into a short space of time if you want it all. Of course women realise that without a tv personality and the "we" she speaks of (whoever they are) being honest with them. Some women have kids first and it works out great, for others it's not feasible or desirable. There is no useful wisdom on the subject that anyone can give because everyone is so different.

Well I haven't read the original Telegraph article but from this Guardian article I'm not sure what she's said is all that bad. She isn't saying 'don't go to university' or 'don't have a career', she's just questioning the order in which we do things and when you think about it, the 'normal' order is kind of set up for men who don't have to worry about declining fertility in their late 30's.

I did it this way round - had my DC young (22 and 25) then went to uni aged 30 and then began establishing a career. It's worked very well for me. As it happens I've had an early menopause so if I had done things the traditional way round I would probably have missed out on children altogether. Also I really wasn't mature enough at 18 to make the most of uni, I would probably have dropped out. It was noticeable when I was there that those who really worked hard and made the most of it were the mature students. The youngsters were mostly still in 'school mode' - this may have changed now the fees are so stupidly expensive.

I'm sure it's not sensible advice for everyone - not everybody even wants children and it wouldn't suit every type of career - there are a few where it's important to establish yourself while you're young - but I'm struggling to understand the outrage.

Hadley Freeman has written a marvellous response to Kirstie's musings. Well worth reading.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/03/kirsty-allsopp-advice-nigel-farage-woman-life-choices

Kirstie Allsop is a passionate feminist?? News to me.

Does anyone actually take this woman seriously?

Posted too soon... what I really didn't like was putting the onus on women, "oh I'd tell my imaginary daughter to do this", no mention of what she would tell her actual sons. Perhaps she has been quoted out of context, I've read her saying "I just meant we should be discussing this with women, and includinh men, because nature isn't feminist". Still I groaned a little when I read it.

Ugh she really annoyed me with this. Of course there is an abundance of men (let alone women) who want to have kids in their 20s, have found the right person to have them with and are in a financial and practical position to do it. And most people have parents who can put down a deposit for a flat for their offspring's presumably single income family. And employers who are willing to hire a woman in her late 20s, 30s or 40s with zero work experience.

Her name is in the URL and you still managed to spell it incorrectly.

I agree. She doesn't really believe in the Sisterhood...