To wonder whether there will be no childless female celebrities in the future.

[JNicholson]

I’m turning 40 this year. Single. No kids. Over the last few years I’ve been conscious that there were a few female celebrities of about my age or a bit older who didn’t have kids yet - Elisabeth Moss, Hayley Atwell, Aisling Bea, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Michelle Dockery. The first three have all had a kid in the last year or so, and PWB and MD are just recently announced as pregnant.

Obviously in one way it has no bearing on my life, but it sort of feels like the opposite of what the media seem to be constantly claiming, which is that fewer and fewer women are having children. In real life most women my age that I know of have had kids, and now that all of the above celebrities have or are having kids I’m not sure I can actually think of any well-known actresses in my age group who don’t have them.

I guess I’m just thinking that I can think of several famous women 50 or older who never had kids (Helen Mirren, Kim Cattrall, Jennifer Aniston), and a few who had kids at 45+ via adoption (Diane Keaton, Kristin Davis, Sandra Bullock). But I can’t actually think of famous actresses my age who don’t have them. AIBU to wonder whether with the improvements in reproductive technology and egg freezing etc, availability of surrogacy etc, childless female celebrities will become a thing of the past? Obviously us ordinary mortals can’t afford those things, but if you’re a celebrity and you can afford to have a baby on your own timeline, and as much childcare as you want etc, there’s sort of no reason not to?

I just feel increasingly isolated in my society and wider culture I guess, really doesn’t feel like what the statistics claim about more and more women being single and childless. I don’t really feel I know anyone like me, even the couple of women my age who don’t have kids have partners.

Obviously in one way it has no bearing on my life, but it sort of feels like the opposite of what the media seem to be constantly claiming, which is that fewer and fewer women are having children.

”Anecdote” and “data” are not the same. My circle is overwhelmingly childless women but I know my circle is not the norm. I don’t replace my anecdotes with data.

Birth rates are plummeting though. That is undeniable.

I read this is a huge driver for the fall in the South Korean birthrate.

~97% of SoKo children are born in wedlock and their marriage rates have plummeted.

I don’t think that will change massively or rather I think there will always be people who, irrespective of wealth, only want to have children within a committed partnership.

I am assuming it does not work for her.

This. Not everyone is comfortable with using an egg/sperm donor or a surrogate.

Yep. I have the family support and income to be a single mother if I really wanted to. But I would never want a child in that context.

This is the case now, if one has sufficient funds. Donor eggs/ surrogacy. Very normal in wealthy parts of the country.

A few of them will probably give birth closer to 50, others have no interest.
What's the point in committing your life to someone when it isn't what you want.
I'd say the majority are choosing to stay child-free

I’m early 40s and have 7 friends in my age group / slightly older with no DC, for various reasons from infertility to not meeting the right person to an informed choice. I know yet more my age and older with no kids on the edge of my social circle / through work / friends of friends. In fact in my circle of friends I’m a bit of an outlier for having a DC!

I have several friends who are late 40s/early 50s and don’t have children. This wasn’t by design - they never met the right partner in time and didn’t want to go it alone - but they have more than made their peace with it and are enjoying life and embracing the future.

Yes, so by choice. I’m saying that, ideally, everyone who wants kids will be able to have them. Which appears to be the situation OP feels the wealthy are currently in.

Oh you mean biologically / physically? I see that. Though I am not sure those childless by circumstance would truly consider it to be a choice.

Are you saying that those who don’t want to use donor eggs, sperm or surrogate are actually childless by choice?

No other posts. Did you register on mumsnet specially to post this? Certainly sounds like someone needs to get a grip.

I genuinely don’t know how to respond to this.

Being childfree by choice will always be a thing, both in the public eye and out of it. Why wouldn't it? Parenthood isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Yes, I meant biologically/physically. I agree that those who are childless by circumstance might not see it as a choice.

However, my point was that I think the fact that reproductive technologies are removing barriers is something to celebrate. The tone of the OP seemed to be negative (which may have just been my perception/misunderstanding) about this, so I was querying that.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere though doesn’t there? Where the desires of the would be parent are not compatible with the interests of the potential child?

Tbf I don't particularly want DC but if I was rich/famous would probably have had at least one -its the relentless child rearing and change to lifestyle that mainly puts me off whereas if I had a nanny to help with all that I'd probably give it a go.

Honestly, the lives of most celebrities are so far removed from "normal" people that it's not really worth using them as comparators or representatives for any particular life stage. There are lots of things the wealthy are able to do that the rest of us can't- whether childfree because of infertility or by "choice" and the very wide spectrum that covers (including things like those who would like another child but can't afford it).
I can't say it affects my decision making.

How might advancements in reproductive technologies affect the welfare of the resulting child? They do not alter the fitness or circumstances of the parents, which remain a matter of chance, as they have always been.

There have been cases of women having babies via egg donor in their 70s. How can that be in the best interests of the child?

Policy and ethics aren’t built on freak outliers. The vast majority of people using reproductive technologies are not septuagenarians with donor eggs, but people of typical parenting age dealing with infertility, genetic risk, lack of partner or same-sex couples who want children.

Coupled with your previous comment, this is coming across as you just wanting a row, no matter how senseless. So, I’m going to stop engaging.

I had several older relatives who never had children for various reasons - 1 great Aunt who never married. 1 great Uncle/Aunt who had fertility issues and another great aunt who was widowed young. Then my Uncle (mums brother)never had kids. Then in my generation I have a cousin and a sister who have not had kids either and are in thier early 40s.
So I don't think it has changed dramatically but as previous posters have said people are having less children per family.

Since you're asking about celebrities (aka rich people) instead of normal people where funding is an issue, yes I think the number of famous women without children will reduce.
Rich people generally get what they want.

I wasn’t really looking to take a negative or positive stance on the technologies themselves, just observing the change, but I’m not sure why you think the fact that they’re available to rich people means they will soon be easily available to everybody? IVF has been around for quite a while now but it’s still much more easily available to the rich, yes some can access it via the NHS but the postcode lottery is well known, and there are restrictions re how many rounds/age etc that won’t constrain those who can afford it privately. Personally I’d assume that the gap between rich and poor will continue.