To wish I’d had my kids earlier?

[40220s]

My mum was 35 when she had me. She died when I was 16, and I had my first baby at 40. My dad died when I was 30.

One of my friends at school got pregnant at university and I remember my dad making some comment about being glad it wasn’t me. But I look at her now and it got me thinking. If I’d had my first baby at 20 and my mum had me at 20 … maybe there’s something in doing it that way, as you’re more likely to have extensive support from family.

Does anyone else think that this might be a ‘better’ way than the middle class approved route of kids in your 30s?

I only voted YABU because it's unfair to give yourself a hard time for something you can't change. I had DC very late and don't regret it at all. I was ready to focus on them, as I'd had so much freedom and fun before they came along. If your mum had had DC at 20 you wouldn't exist! Different egg, different sperm. And whatever age you have them is no guarantee that grandparents will be around. They could be working or living abroad or not interested or in poor health.

But. It doesn't always work out does it? What if you couldn't conceive at 20? What if you had a miscarriage or stillborn? (God forbid). And then you had a kid in your 30s? My friend had 3 miscarriages and one stillborn in her 20s. She's finally got her miracle child at 32. You can't plan these things. Our bodies and our experiences are different. Treasure what you have and make the most of it.

Bit of a tough one, presumably you had some experiences in your 20s and 30s that would be almost impossible if you had kids then.

Also if you are "free" in your late 40s early 50s are you really going to be doing anything that exciting (I am 44 for what it is worth)

[quote Realyorkshiretea]@Ozanj and you’re so successful you have time to reply 😉

It’s Saturday, by the way…[/quote]
I never said I was. Any wealth I have is down to marrying well.

[quote ithinkilikeit]@Realyorkshiretea I don’t think men are taught anything by the age I’m that women have children. Sorry but the reason there are more single women wondering why men won’t marry them after having kids is because these women have failed to realise that nowadays having kids with someone means diddly squat. It could be a one night stand or a 15 year relationship.

Therefore they can get a women pregnant when she is 21 or 39 and can still choose to not commit and many women will stay with him. Women having children is not the answer to lack of commitment in men. It truly is not. And even if it is not the solution to men choosing not to commit so not making women have kids early. There is a reason why women having more rights to education and employment cause a shift to later childbearing. And imo it’s a good thing. Fear of infertility down the road is not a reason to rush into parenthood.

Having a child in modern society is no longer seen as a commitment for men . It’s an annoying deduction from your pay check from CMS at worst for most men.[/quote]
I didn’t say after kids. I meant before kids. Men just want to ‘date’ a woman for years without kids or marriage. Of course if they don’t want those things that’s a matter for them, but if they do, they need to factor in their partner’s biological clock, because it’s selfish not to - it puts the woman at additional health risk and possible IVF, etc.

@Ozanj yuck!

@tttigress

Bit of a tough one, presumably you had some experiences in your 20s and 30s that would be almost impossible if you had kids then.

Also if you are "free" in your late 40s early 50s are you really going to be doing anything that exciting (I am 44 for what it is worth)

I do agree with this. People in their 40s and older do travel and many may do it well but doing it between 16-30 is transformative in a way it just isn’t when you do it later. Young people, particularly women, are (generally) trusted in a way that people will open up their homes to them & want to teach / guide them. That changes you as a person and it just doesn’t happen at 40+. One of my friends said this - that you travel before 30 but can only holiday afterwards and I think she had a point.

But of course most people won’t want to travel in this way. They probably are just talking about holidays or living as expats abroad which is fine too.

I do agree with this. People in their 40s and older do travel and many may do it well but doing it between 16-30 is transformative in a way it just isn’t when you do it later.

Of course you do, Ozanj.

I think travelling later is fab idea - you’re past the getting drunk stage so can focus on proper sight seeing and appreciate it more rather than just getting pissed every night which you can do in Magaluf at 18.

My friends who went travelling (ie for more than a month or two) in a group all had high drama & fell out, usually because one or two people dominated the group and the rest felt compelled to go along with whatever they wanted, and didn’t fulfil the things they wanted to do.

As a disclaimer, yes I have done the whole full moon parties thing!

Also travelling is now a tantalising carrot to me, an exciting prospect after years of childcare. Its fresh and new and it means I don’t miss what I’ve already had, if you see what I mean.

@Realyorkshiretea but maybe the woman doesn’t want kids. Your falling into a very tried and frankly misogynistic stereotype that it’s women who are gagging for kids as soon as they’ve go their provisional licence and it’s men who push them to have kids later.

Even reading this thread you can see this is not true for a lot of women and they chose to have kids later because they wanted to.

I would have loved the men you are describing in my 20’s. I didn’t want commitment I wanted to have fun.

@user908768543 well of course having children in general reduces wages but that doesn’t rebute my point at all.

[quote ithinkilikeit]@Realyorkshiretea but maybe the woman doesn’t want kids. Your falling into a very tried and frankly misogynistic stereotype that it’s women who are gagging for kids as soon as they’ve go their provisional licence and it’s men who push them to have kids later.

Even reading this thread you can see this is not true for a lot of women and they chose to have kids later because they wanted to.

I would have loved the men you are describing in my 20’s. I didn’t want commitment I wanted to have fun.[/quote]
If she doesn’t then she doesn’t have to have them I didn’t say women should be encouraged to have children, I said if they do then society shouldn’t make it so difficult for her, like it is at the moment. Because there is no real benefit to women from older mums being the societal norm.

It isn’t ‘feministic’ to have children as late as possible, in fact the idea as a whole benefits men more than women.

@Realyorkshiretea I did not say anything about feminism and women should be Abel to make choses without thinking whether it benefits men or not. Not sure how men benefit from women having children later but even if they do it does not take away a women’s right to choose to have kids whenever she wants.

*able

I really get confused when people say things on here like ‘well actually that chose benefits men in general’. Sorry when I make choices I think about myself. Do not give a hoot whether ‘men’ benefit or suffer from it.

It hi k women should have feee choice. Not be paranoid about making sure their choice does not benefit ‘men’.

I have an 18 year old and a 12 year old and I’m still in my 30’s. I have a family member in their mid 40’s with a toddler and after spending a few days with them I’ve told my husband to go ahead and book a vasectomy if he wants one. I couldn’t do it at this age.

I didn’t really have a career when my first was born, having them gave me some purpose and I trained for a qualification that has given me some amazing opportunities after they were born and before DC2 came along. I wouldn’t have ever thought of this career before having them so having kids young definitely worked out for me and now I’m at a stage where my career is taking off and I have older independent kids who I don’t have to give quite as much headspace to (in terms of school runs/childcare etc).

I did plenty of socialising, solo holidays before having DC1, lived with friends for a year, crammed in a lot. And now I’m getting to that point where DH and I have more time for us again except now we have plenty of cash to enjoy ourselves. It’s a win win for us anyway.

[quote ithinkilikeit]@Realyorkshiretea I did not say anything about feminism and women should be Abel to make choses without thinking whether it benefits men or not. Not sure how men benefit from women having children later but even if they do it does not take away a women’s right to choose to have kids whenever she wants.[/quote]
They benefit because it normalises them only making a commitment at the very last minute, when the health risks for the women are higher.

Of course women should choose if and when to have children. My point is only that for those who want to have children in their 20s, society shouldn’t be so geared up against making that happen in terms of employment, social stigma, expense and men being told it’s far too young.

@ithinkilikeit

I really get confused when people say things on here like ‘well actually that chose benefits men in general’. Sorry when I make choices I think about myself. Do not give a hoot whether ‘men’ benefit or suffer from it.

It hi k women should have feee choice. Not be paranoid about making sure their choice does not benefit ‘men’.

I’m not talking about the choices of an individual. I’m talking about the overall effect on society. Hth.

the fact is having children young is more likely to lead to a lower wage over a women’s lifetime. That is a well documented fact.
Some people don't prioritise earning big money or travelling.
Fact is you might have more money waiting until later but less time to spend with them.
Losing your parents is hard at any age.
Plus having a baby young doesn't mean you can't have a career later.
I wasn't young or old 28 and 34.
Pp's saying they'd be a shit DM when older or younger cannot know that for certain, we all make the best of what we have.

@nokidshere

However if you have your kids at 40 you have a constant sinking sensation that this is it for you, you’ll be an old person of 60 when they leave home and you have no future.

I had mine at 39 & 41. It took me 17yrs to get pregnant so it wasn't by choice. I'm now 60, one of them is working and getting his own place and the other is away at uni.

My life is fantastic. I'm not old, I definitely don't sit around with a sinking feeling that 'this is it'. I have friends, hobbies, a fab DH and a great sex life with no 'children' at home. What's not to like.

Agree with you. I had my first in my 30s and hope to have more. I totally see the advantage of having children young in terms of spending more time with them but it has never been an advantage to me that you get your independence back when you're still young. For me, parenting is a life long commitment and I don't see it that once they're grown you can just go off and do whatever you like. My parents moved closer to where I moved for work, they help with childcare, and they are still absolutely committed to family life. Yes they are retired and have holidays but they're not off touring the world. They want to be with us because they love their family. I feel the same. I am glad I got studying and paving my way in my career out of the way before kids because now I am financially stable and can afford to take time out when I want to. If I had kids young I would've struggled to get to where I am. I think its completely dependent on the individual as to which is best

@Realyorkshiretea

It isn’t ‘feministic’ to have children as late as possible, in fact the idea as a whole benefits men more than women.

I dont get this. I saw your follow up post about commitment. However surely you could argue it benefits men if women have kids young, when their career is less developed and they're earning less meaning it ends up making sense for them to be SAHM as childcare is so expensive. It keeps women out of the market and away from competing with men. Keeps men in top roles as when women then go back, they have missed out on years. Whereas women having kids later will have had more chance to advance their careers such that time out to have kids has less impact and childcare is more affordable. Just playing devils advocate

@Newmumatlast not necessarily. We have legislation in place now that wasn’t around back in the 70s. We could make SPL better, so employers wouldn’t assume it would only be women taking the leave if she became pregnant, and therefore wouldn’t be disadvantaged in the recruitment/promotion process. There’s lots that can be done to ensure women wouldn’t immediately be transported back 50 years.

It isn’t ‘feministic’ to have children as late as possible, in fact the idea as a whole benefits men more than women

Why is it feminist to have them young?

I’ve thought about this a lot. It’s all well and good for people to say I’m glad I’ve had my children young and now I can enjoy myself etc . But the truth is that we don’t have a choice. I don’t just mean those that suffer from infertility. You actually have to find a partner to have a child with! Not every finds their life partner at age 18 or in their twenties. And even if You’ve had your children young, they will have kids of their own so you’ll probably have to help out plus work as well. You won’t have time to go travelling and what not.

Having kids young is no guarantee that you’ll live long. I’ve had lots of people in my family die young. My cousin was early thirties, my mother’s dad was early thirties too, mums brother was late 40s etc . We can go at anytime and nothing is guaranteed. My own grandmother was 70 when she died and I was only 17. I could’ve had her in my life for at least another 10 years.

At the end of the day, parents will usually die before their children. As long as they’re given a good foundation then that’s all that’s required.