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.

I am not sure why you think fertility treatment/assisted reproduction is not affordable by ordinary women if they want to have children. Yes, there are limitations on access to NHS-funded teatment and, yes, some sorts of complex treatment can be very expensive, and it can also be expensive if you need repeated cycles of treatment.

However, if you need 'routine' IVF and are not eligible NHS funding, the costs are not out of the reach of most women, although I accept that some women on very low incomes might not be able to afford them (and that that does raise questions of fairness).

I was not eligible for NHS funding due to my age when we were ttc (started IVF when I was 41). We were just an average couple income-wise. We found the money to pay for three full cycles and a frozen embryo cycle plus additional money for complementary treatment such as supplements and acupuncture. We did this by cutting back on other things. We were lucky enough to have two children as a result. I reckon our treatment cost a total of around £20k (about £10k-£12k for the actual treatment) over a period of about six years. This was some time ago and costs have risen since then but so have earnings. I don't think basic IVF is beyond the reach of most women although, as I have said above, more complex treatment and numerous cycles of treatment is a different matter.)

What I can say, however, is that the costs of our IVF and complementary therapies were an absolute drop in the ocean compared with the costs of bringing up children that all parents have, such as food, clothing, accommodation, furniture and equipment, activities, holidays and the huge costs of childcare and loss of earnings/earnings potential (in latter case, for me, as I was the primary carer).

I get your point that celebrities are likely to have access to lots of money, but I think the real issue for most ordinary women is not the cost of IVF in itself but the more general issue of the costs of raising children.

I don’t think 40 was ever the cut-off for having children, for both celebrities and regular women. You can look up the stats - tens of thousands of women give birth over 40 every single year. You picked a handful of celebrity women who had a baby at 39-42, I gave you a much longer list of celebrity women who are 40-45 who are child-free. I’m sure if we revisited my list in 5-10 years, most of the women will still be child-free. I just don’t buy the idea that every 40+ celebrity woman is just biding her time and relying on reproductive technologies. A lot simply don’t want children.

Also agree with PP, that normal course fertility treatment is not out of reach financially for most couples.

In your title you had said “no childless celebs in the future”.

While technology helps more achieve their parenthood dreams there are many women for whom childlessness has nothing to do with being biologically unable. So there will always be childless celebs.