I've just worked out that when I'm 70 my DD will only be 29

[SuperbLyrebird]

I've never done the maths before but I was reading a thread on the Elderly Parent board the other day (heaven knows why as I've never had elderly parents!) and it got me thinking and I felt sad.

How do others who had their kids in there 40s feel?

And to add the disclaimer: I know I will be fortunate to reach that age as neither of my parents did.

This was exactly my mum's and my age gap. What's the problem? My mum was fit, active and able well into her mid 80s. Most people never knew how old she was. She was younger at heart and in spirit than other people 20 years younger than her. I was embarrassed at her age when I was younger, but we're talking the 1970s when her older age as a parent was unusual, these days it absolutely is not. What are you worried about? None of us know what the future holds but keep yourself fit and active and there's no reason why your daughter can't be happily in her 50s before it's your time to leave this world. Plus you and she both benefit from your maturity when it comes to motherhood. Relax

LOL I'm nearly 64 and my 23 year old has just moved back home for a bit while she plans the next part of her life. I've told her 'don't do what I did as I wont be much help to you when I'm 80'! I had a young Mum though and am grateful to still have her around and living independently, at 87. And that my daughter knows her so well. Good luck op, there's lots of us about!

My DF is 75, my mum 67 and I'm 32. My dad still works but my mum is retired, she looks after my 2 DC for me so I can work as I don't earn enough between 2 jobs to pay for childcare.

My dads 75 my youngest brother is 17. He thinks it's funny when people assume he's his grandad & he's a very fit 75 year old so doesn't bother him.

I had old parents. My Mum and Dad were SO old fashioned. I never had Grandparents, they died before I was born. I lived in a strict household. I hated every single moment. No freedom. Not allowed to have an opinion. Expected to get married. Or a job. Not both. Not allowed to go to college, or try to further my education.
I left home at just 17, (I left, just after my 17th birthday) and couldn't wait to get out. It was SO oppressive. And my life began.
My son will be 40 next year, and it doesn't seem real. When did that happen? It happened when I wasn't looking, obviously. He was born when I was 23. I wanted my children to be born while I was still young enough to enjoy them, not to burden me down with drudgery, et al. I wanted to be able to have a conversation with them, about anything, not to be told to "keep your mouth shut". I wanted them to have opinions, and I tried to encourage that. I asked them questions, why do you think that? and listened to their reasoning, the thoughts behind how they came to that conclusion. It was fascinating! And, honestly, I still ask them how, why, and say have you thought about, and it is STILL fascinating. I have loved every moment of my children. I know times have changed, thankfully. My parents were brought up in Edwardian times, their parents brought up in Victorian times, so a different outlook, but sadly, could not, would not adapt to change. Was that anything to do with World War 2? I don't know. They never talked about it. I can only think that it was not a huge laugh. I do not regret, ever, having my children young. However, having said all of that, I firmly believe that you need to do what feels right for you. None of this You Do You crap. At 17, I didn't know what You Do You meant. Honestly, I still don't. All I knew was, I needed to get out. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters. What anyone else thinks is immaterial.
Sorry. Long post.I won't say GO GIRL. I don't get that either. Go where?

My parents were brought up in Edwardian times, their parents brought up in Victorian times, so a different outlook, but sadly, could not, would not adapt to change. Was that anything to do with World War 2? Wow my grandparents had Edwardian parents (only just as they were born in 1916 &1918). They were actually quite forward thinking (Grandpa cooked and could change a nappy for eg).

@SeaShoreGalore

The important th9ng is to stay slim and fit and healthy.

Yes this is the most important thing. Unfortunately people are getting fatter and more unhealthy than previous generations. It’s a worrying though.

The important th9ng is to stay slim and fit and healthy and not get Alzheimer’s.

It's not age, but health that matters. When my dad was 70, I was 10. He was fit and independent well into his 90s
My children are in their early 20s and their mid-50s Dad has a progressive incurable disease which is taking him from us bit by bit.
I was more fortunate than they are.

@Jerseygirl12

The important th9ng is to stay slim and fit and healthy and not get Alzheimer’s.

Some researchers think Alzheimer's is linked to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, so staying slim and fit might help you avoid Alzheimer's too.

Just a point of clarification. The Edwardian era was 1901-1910. (Sometimes extended to the start of WW1 in 1914).

@SuperbLyrebird I am a bit baffled by your posts tbh. Your original post made it clear you feel a bit sad that you will be 70 when your DD is only 29, but then you went on to come up with a bunch of reasons why it's actually OK, and no problems will ensue...

To be honest, I am so glad I had mine younger (mid to late 20s,) because I am early to mid 50s now, and they are in their mid 20s, and I get worn out a lot easier, and am ready for my pit by 10.30pm some days.

No matter what ANYOne says, the vast majority of people will start to wind down, and become more weary and tired much quicker/easier when they get past 45 years of age. It's a biological fact. They will also start to develop more ailments.

When my (2) kids were primary age to mid teens, I took them to rock concerts, and shows, and took them to lots of extra curricular things, and hobby groups, and ran them around to their friends like a chauffeur, as well as working 3 days a week... I was in my late 20s, and my 30s for the most part, (and in my early 40s when they were mid to late teens.)

If I had been in my 40s when they were babies, (and primary school age;) and in my 50s/early 60s, when they were teens, I would never have coped. Maybe a few people do. It would not have been for me. The thought of having a primary school aged child now (in my early to mid 50s) fills me with horror to be honest.

People always come up with stories on threads like this, of this person and that person, whose mum had them at 23, and then died at 45 anyway, leaving their child motherless at 22. And also stories of all people they know who are 75 to 80, and still working, and running marathons, and who could run rings around women a third of their age.

But the fact is that if a woman has their child(ren) past their early 40s, the child(ren) are FAR more likely to lose their mum whilst they're still young. AND - as much as people hate to hear this - the young adult IS a lot more likely to be a carer for an elderly and infirm parent when they are young and should be enjoying their life and their freedom. (OR when they have young children themselves, and need support from their mother.)

Either way, a young person in their late teens/20s/early 30s, should not be having to support and care for an infirm and elderly parent...

It's unfair on the child, and quite selfish IMO to have babies past your early 40s...

I am struggling slightly to make the numbers fit for someone whose almost 40yo son was born when she was 23, (so she herself was born in 1958 or 59) having parents who grew up in the Edwardian era.

They could have born at the very end of the Edwardian era, grown up in the inter-war years and had you in their mid to late 40s @BobISMyUncle But your mother surely cannot have had you in her late 50s?

I know that's a bit beside the point.

When my (2) kids were primary age to mid teens, I took them to rock concerts, and shows, and took them to lots of extra curricular things, and hobby groups, and ran them around to their friends like a chauffeur, as well as working 3 days a week... I was in my late 20s, and my 30s for the most part, (and in my early 40s when they were mid to late teens.)

What's so hard about that? Sounds like normal life for most 40-somethings I know.

@lottiegarbanzo

When my (2) kids were primary age to mid teens, I took them to rock concerts, and shows, and took them to lots of extra curricular things, and hobby groups, and ran them around to their friends like a chauffeur, as well as working 3 days a week... I was in my late 20s, and my 30s for the most part, (and in my early 40s when they were mid to late teens.)

What's so hard about that? Sounds like normal life for most 40-somethings I know.

Yes, and to me it seems a real waste of career potential to be only working 3 days a week in your 20s and 30s.

@HaveringWavering why would it be a waste of career potential to work pt in your 20s and 30s, but not in your 40s/50s? In my industry, your 40s are peak promotion age as you’ve amassed a lot of experience & are long past the partying/hangover stage & a bit more responsible.

In fact many of the 40-something I know, doing all those things, are working full time too. That's just normal.

Starting to feel a few little aches and pains and having to try harder to stay fit sounds normal to me for late 40s.

'Winding down' sounds like late 60s to 70s!

[quote Realyorkshiretea]@HaveringWavering why would it be a waste of career potential to work pt in your 20s and 30s, but not in your 40s/50s? In my industry, your 40s are peak promotion age as you’ve amassed a lot of experience & are long past the partying/hangover stage & a bit more responsible.[/quote]
And how did you amass that experience? By working full time in your twenties and thirties!

[quote Realyorkshiretea]@HaveringWavering why would it be a waste of career potential to work pt in your 20s and 30s, but not in your 40s/50s? In my industry, your 40s are peak promotion age as you’ve amassed a lot of experience & are long past the partying/hangover stage & a bit more responsible.[/quote]
What sort of weird industry do you work in that people can get away with under-performing in their 20s and thirties due to partying and hangovers?

I am a bit baffled by your posts tbh. Your original post made it clear you feel a bit sad that you will be 70 when your DD is only 29, but then you went on to come up with a bunch of reasons why it's actually OK, and no problems will ensue

No I didn't. I just read through all my posts to check and I didn't come up a "bunch of reasons..." other people did and I took heart from them. Nowhere have I said "no problems will ensue"

When my (2) kids were primary age to mid teens, I took them to rock concerts, and shows, and took them to lots of extra curricular things, and hobby groups, and ran them around to their friends like a chauffeur, as well as working 3 days a week... I was in my late 20s, and my 30s for the most part, (and in my early 40s when they were mid to late teens.)

Now it's my turn to be baffled by you I did/am doing all those things for my DD and at 57 I'm not in the least bit knackered. You say you couldn't cope - have you had your thyroid checked, blood tests for vitamins/iron, do you exercise?

It's unfair on the child, and quite selfish IMO to have babies past your early 40s

Ahhh, I'm ok then as I was 41 😇

Honestly, you sound like you want young people to become carers or lose a parent young because that justifies your life choices that have left you knackered by your early 50s. If your dc are grown you should be enjoying this stage of life not going on about your tiredness and ailments.

@HaveringWavering

Do you work? Are you in a modern workplace? Plenty of people with kids work part time (generally in their 30s) for childcare purposes. Once the children have grown up a bit and gone to school, they go full time & climb the ladder.

If you climb the ladder earlier & then have kids, you can end up with small children & a high pressured job. Not generally a good mix although lots of women are capable, or just push through.

If your workplace is only promoting people under 35 they clearly aren’t passionate about equality

@MyPatronusIsACat

People always come up with stories on threads like this, of this person and that person, whose mum had them at 23, and then died at 45 anyway, leaving their child motherless at 22

I don’t get this either. My mum died young and it’s the exact reason I had my children young - to try and ensure (as much as one can) that I am around for them as long as possible, and that I was in prime age, so less risky pregnancy and birth. I never ever saw it as a reason to wait until late to have DC because you might die young anyway!

My brother announced his 2nd wife is pregnant and he will be 48 when baby is born. He has 2 younger children in their mid 20’s. Rather than him than me but I’m looking forward to having a baby around again as mine are in their teens and 20’s now.

@MyPatronusIsACat I don’t think I would go as far as to call it selfish in itself, but as a stand-alone set of circumstances (ie if we took two women with exactly the same circumstances, but one was 30 and one was 40) then younger is better. Life doesn’t work like that though. The only scenario that I do think is a little bit selfish is when there is no reason to wait til 40 bar enjoying things like holidays and nights out etc, I do see that as having your cake and eating it at the expense of your dc. I mean nobody is saying 16 is better, but there’s a gulf between 16 and 40. On a purely arbitrary level I would say the perfect age is 28-35.