Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be really really angry that only women are once again being blamed for leaving having babies too late??

246 replies

littlestmummystop · 19/06/2009 16:32

Where the feck is the man's responsibility in all this??

A straw poll of my friends. . . 4 out of 6 felt broody and wanted babies in their 20s despite all also having great jobs. None of their boyfriends also in their twenties were 'ready' so none of them did.

I had a baby at 24, then my exP decided he was too young to be a dad ( at 28) so he left. I've been a single parent since.

So what are women supposed to do? Make ultimatums, have a baby earlier and risk being a single parent? Or leave it till their menfolk are 'ready' to settle down, which among the middle class lot appears to be around 35, and then risk leaving it too late? Why are women being solely blamed for this??

OP posts:
Judy1234 · 21/06/2009 21:48

If your partner cannot have chidlren you can have donated sperm. On teh issue of IVF being expensive if you have your chilren alone as my sister did, well you don't have to use that method. It's not very hard to find a man to sleep with you whom you never contact again if you want a child so very very much.

Certainly girls in their early 20s like my daughters need to work backwards. If 35 is about the latest ideally and if you want 3 or 4 children ( I have 5) and okay you may have the last at 36 or 37 then you need to be having the first around 30, marrying around 28, finding the man around mid 20s in case he's one who changes his mind and you have to start all over again.

nooka · 21/06/2009 21:52

Oh, I don't disagree that there is an element of choice. Actually I'm more with Xenia, planning (not obsessively, but realistically) is generally a good thing, and thinking about the long term early on, when you are thinking about partners is also probably wise. But then life rarely turns out how you expect ( I certainly didn't plan on marrying my first serious boyfriend, and my parents were horrified).

stainesmassif · 21/06/2009 22:05

i'm afraid i haven't read the whole thread, but i do hate the debate - why isn't there similar 'concern' over older fathers? not all of their children are conceived 'naturally'. what about viagra? and sperm counts? and all the other assisted methods that science has created to enable men to have children after their 'natural' child rearing years are over.

i have used an excess of ' marks, but this makes me really mad - more scapegoating of individual women by the media to sell papers and make us all paranoid that we can't find a man.

smallchange · 21/06/2009 22:38

Maybe this is the solution...

Women have the babies and the power, and men don't have to commit in their 20's (or ever, although they do have to help with their sister's babies).

wigglybeezer · 21/06/2009 22:40

Erk, for once i have conformed to Xenia's idea of what a sensible woman should do - married at twenty eight, first baby at thirty, third baby at 36. Shame I haven't exactly got a career though .

Horton · 21/06/2009 22:47

"It's not very hard to find a man to sleep with you whom you never contact again if you want a child so very very much."

It might be hard to find an endless succession of them, though. It took me two years to become pregnant with our daughter (despite neither of us having any fertility issues), and we honestly were shagging like rabbits for a fair percentage of that time. Average it out and I reckon finding four different men to sleep with per week for two years and also making them be people who you never have to see or contact again would be pretty much a full time job. It sounds absolutely exhausting!

whereeverIlaymyhat · 21/06/2009 22:50

Some would argue though that men have never actually been required to have a baby or a family beyond the obvious. Again it comes back to the American ideal, post WW1 that there should be a mother, father who attend church and have babies, one of each and that's what we should all aspire to.
Prior to that the majority of women did have babies with men who came and went, to find work/shag other women/never really knew them in the first place, was it was only the rich who married before children ?
And now we've feminized men's role as a provider by replacing them with the state, if you can't feed your family don't worry there's tax credits/child benefit/income support etc etc are we really surprised many men don't want to know. Why would they.

salbysea · 21/06/2009 22:54

my DH wanted to be young dad - wanted to still be fit enough to run around with them and blah blah blah - didnt want to be a 40 year old and dad of small children

at the same time, he said he wasnt ready, still young etc, definately wanted kids "some time" but maybe in a few years

he also didnt want an only child

he didn't see how these things contradicted each other

had to actually spell it out to him and make him do the maths.

If we wait a few years, we'll be what? 32/33 when its born IF we are lucky enough to conceive in the first year of TTC.

So then we would be aiming to have a second, what? 3 years later? - that's 36

so you would be 40 when DC1 is 6ish and DC2 is 4

what if we want a 3rd?

you said you dont wanna be 40 when they're small, still think we've got a few years before we start TTC?

He honestly hadn't thought it through like that - he thought! yes! early 30s is still young, I'll still have plenty of energy then - didn't put 2 and 2 together to see that STARTING to TTC at 33 doesn't equal being 33 when they are all at the running around playing ball with dad stage

He saw the error of his ways and is now delighted to be a young dad

A bit of a sweeping statement here - but I don't think that men think the whole process through the way that women do - may be something to do with men hearing less TTC stories than women do so not being quite so aware of how long it can take to make the family you dream of

Penthesileia · 21/06/2009 23:05

Actually, according to Robin Baker, in "Sperm Wars", Horton, Xenia's right: woman stand more chance of conceiving after a random fling than they do with their regular partner.

Penthesileia · 21/06/2009 23:07

women

ABetaDad · 22/06/2009 08:49

The thread has taken an interesting turn and raises some interesg debating points.

I take the point raised by Xenia and others that women might eventually decide to go it alone and either use IVF to conceive or perhaps conceive naturally with random men and then deliberately exclude the man from bringing up or even having contact with his biological child. Certainly those are both trends we are beginning to see in our society already and that we may see continue.

However, that analysis is quiet a static one and it is possible that society and nature might push back against that trend. Here are a few random thoughts about what might happen.

Would men change the way they behave and withold sperm from women? Perhaps that is what is already happening as this thread shows with men refusing to consent to have chldren. Knowing they are now legally on the hook for the upkeep of the child and knowing that the women can simply walk away at any time after conception and claim financial support but with little chance of enforcing their rights as a fathers - are wealthier men saying what is in it for me?

Also the idea that women can simply conceive by IVF still depends on sperm and men may refuse to donate (although tehnological advance may allow egg-egg IVF). For example, I thought about donating sperm to other couples after me and DW went through IVF but decided against it when it became clear I might be held responsible for the child at some future date. Might sperm become a very valuable commodity as we can already see men are now very unwilling to donate and it ahs become a major problem for chldless couples in the UK.

It is possble that human society mght become more like an elephant matriachal society with men excluded except for mating and then only with the dominant males? Many males never get the chance to mate. Perhaps we really are already seeing this in society with the rise of gang culture though with young men routinely killing each other to establish a domnant male position. Not a good outcome.

We may see a more Gorilla like human society with one or a few dominant males and a hareem of female mates. Again we see this in human society already with very wealthy men marrying and then carrying on multiple affairs with younger women who seem happy to go along with the arrangemet in return for protection and welfare. Better to mate with a known serial philanderer who is rich than a single poor man (who may stil stray).

Perhaps women routinely mating with a series of random unknown men in order to conceive may face much higher health risks. Again we know biology produced AIDS and perhaps another AIDS-like virus might appear if women had many multiple partners.

Perhaps women who are prepared to mate and be monogamous with one man might become highly prized and men will vie to be chosen so the whole pendulum will swing back to early marriage and consenting men looking to conceive early with the one woman that has chosen them.

I emphasise, these are just my random thoughts so please don't think I am having a go at anyone or 'sticking up for men'.

Would like to hear what others think.

Longtalljosie · 22/06/2009 09:24

I get very frustrated with this whole "selfish career-girl" label. I met DH when I was 30. I would have loved to have met my life partner earlier. I didn't enjoy being single, and did all I could to get "out there" and meet people. But it didn't happen. I disagree there are "loads of men out there". There are, but finding someone who is right for you is difficult. And if you haven't found it difficult, you were lucky. To say women who have it difficult have impossibly high standards - well, my two boyfriends from my late 20s weren't catches on any level. I swear the only reason I ended up with such a good-looking, intelligent man was sheer, dumb luck!

But while I was single - or not in a lifelong relationship, I worked hard at my job. You have to succeed at something, and it was that or go home and watch EastEnders by myself. Plus, you need affirmation from somewhere. Looking at me from the outside I look like the archetypal "delayed babies for career" girl - it's just not that simple.

When the time came for having babies - I simply explained to then DP/ now DH that if he loved me, my biological clock was his biological clock - and that we would run out of time together. He had a long think (seriously, he said nothing for about five minutes) and then gave me a date. Which he stuck to - so you can't say every man is worth leaving if he doesn't immediately burn all the condoms.

I'd also like to say that the idea that you can have a debate on delaying childbearing, and then tell childless women they're not especially welcome to contribute, is a bit ridiculous. How on earth would that be balanced?

makipuppy · 22/06/2009 09:39

I honestly thought I was doing my best to find a man who wanted children and now I find there are lots of them around. Where? Even my friends who had success earlier than me had to corner their partners, threaten to leave and beat their chests over periods of years to have their babies (more than one took the executive decision and I'm glad to say in all instances, which were stable loving relationships, this had a positive outcome). Perhaps my failure is natural selection working towards greater assertiveness?

Recently my DP had the temerity to bemoan the fact that we will probably only have one child! I'll be 41 when this one comes out so, yes dear, possibly just the one. Particularly since having one appears to count us out for adoption.

As I said above, we conceived using IVF donor sperm because of hereditary disease issues. As part of the process DP (4 years younger than me and an athletic miracle) had his sperm tested. He was practically infertile. A minimum of sperm and what there was swam backwards. I don't think men consider their fertility.

I wonder if the men who are more guarded about their sperm are the same ones that don't want to expose their assets to marriage?

Loving the gorilla-like society though, sometimes of a Saturday night I think we're there already.

Just a point of order Abetadad - I believe I know from previous posts that you are aware of this, but just in case there are any potential donors out there, you cannot be held legally responsible for any offspring of regulated sperm donation, although a knock on the door is now possible when they turn 18.

LindenAvery · 22/06/2009 09:55

ABetaDad

Good post - maybe it would be good if men withheld sperm from women as they would either have to choose to have no sex,use condoms all the time or even the male pill.

However I don't see this happening 100% - Do you?

MachuPicchu · 22/06/2009 10:36

It is interesting that on here despite the fact that women generally control the contraception and could easily just stop taking the pill or whatever the majority don't seem to do so (obviously that is just on here and of course it happens and I'm sure it's not that uncommon). Still, although you could get accidentally-on-purpose pregnant or IVF as a single woman, it suggests that most women want it to be something that happens as part of a partnership and to become a family rather than just having a child, and to them that is almost as important as becoming a mother. I think that's good, though of course it means women run the risk of investing too much in someone who doesn't want children at all or until it's too late, or even perhaps just not with that woman but they're too cowardly to say so.

It would be very interesting to see what happened if women as a whole handed over complete responsibility for contraception over to men, as LindenAvery and ABetaDad point out. I know that many men do take responsibility for this but there are also many who rely on and trust women wrt contraception, with good reason judging from many comments above from women who probably could easily have stopped using contraception.

kittywise · 22/06/2009 10:48

abetadad, nice idea but i think most men want a quick shag and they honestly don't care about the rest, certainly not enough to withold sperm!

ChippingIn · 22/06/2009 10:57

Machu - great post, agree wholeheartedly.

I do (did) wonder what would have happened in my previous LTR if I had 'accidentally-on-purpose' become pregnant. I think it would have worked out so much better than accepting he wanted to wait. Had we had them, I would have been happier (thus easier to live with I suspect) & he would have been a great Dad. However, I didn't because I wanted him to be ready too and I didn't ever want him to think this is what I had done (and I think lying about something so important erodes your relationship anyway) and I didn't want him to feel 'trapped'.

Did I do what is considered by most people 'right'? Yes

Did I do what I thought was best at the time? Yes

Did I do what I now think was best? NO

I think I did the wrong thing, for the right reasons. Sad

makipuppy · 22/06/2009 10:59

I think your point about family is spot on, Machu. I definitely wanted a family, not a baby. I also know that if I'd had babies with any of my previous boyfriends I would not be a happy family unit now.

If you hand over responsibility for contraception to men you generally get pregnant (I did this from day 1 (well, day 3 ) of our relationship - the only reason I didn't get pregnant because he wasn't fertile..).

I have a friend who used to write her ovulation date in her bf's diary and then leave it to him. She did get pregnant (d'oh!) as she had always wanted but he's an absent father.

Like Candi Staton sang, you might get your babies but you won't get your man...

makipuppy · 22/06/2009 11:02

Chipping in - I do completely see where you're coming from, if it's the right man.

whereeverIlaymyhat · 22/06/2009 11:07

It strikes me with the best will in the world these days families are almost unobtainable for certain sections of society so it's a case of for many you may as well have your baby because the men aren't ever going to stick around anyway.

FioFio · 22/06/2009 11:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MachuPicchu · 22/06/2009 11:09

That's very interesting ChippingIn - many women are perhaps too trustworthy for their own good!

I hasten to add to my previous post that I don't consider a one-parent family not to be a family, I was just writing that as a possible point of view of someone who is faced with the choice of having a child alone straight away or waiting for the 'right' partner to come along.

FioFio · 22/06/2009 11:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ChippingIn · 22/06/2009 11:21

Machu Guess I was

It's true what you say though, I did want to have the whole package and not just 'a baby'.

WhereverIlaymyhat - in which 'certain section of society' exactly, is it that 'families are almost unobtainable'
??????????

fircone · 22/06/2009 11:25

Just ploughed through this thread and really feel that things have gone wrong for women. Living with a man? It so backfires. It can mean that someone is just having their cake and eating it. No responsibility, no commitment. I have two friends who lived with men for ten years. In each case the man upped and left and married someone else and had children in a short space of time. I think if someone doesn't want to get married, it is really saying you're not the one.

You may remember in When Harry Met Sally this exact scenario happened to Sally who afterwards reasoned that her ex, when he said he didn't want children, actually meant he didn't want children with her

Swipe left for the next trending thread