Women delaying motherhood is worrying

[funnyvalentine]

The chief medical officer (herself a woman who had 2 kids in her 40s) says it's worrying that women are delaying motherhood:

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/10578227/Women-delaying-motherhood-is-worrying-issue-says-Britains-chief-doctor.html

On the one hand, 'men delaying fatherhood' isn't as much of a health issue. The issues are with a decline in female fertility and increased health risks to pregnancy. But men clearly play a big role in when women have children. So why is it always 'women delaying motherhood' as though it's a choice women make in a vacuum?

She is also concerned that many women are choosing not to have children. I'm at a loss to understand why not having children is a bad thing?

Really, angry?

Forgive me, but you posted telling us to 'remember' about disability after at least two other people had mentioned this point.

It might be you are closing your eyes to the evidence that people do know the risks.

"statistics showed women should abandon birth control at the age of 27 regardless of their partner's views on the matter."

:o

Very nice work, Buffy :)

"Any information is good and useful surely?"

:o

I barely know where to begin with this.

You genuinely think that ALL "information" is good and useful?

What drives me crazy about these articles, and statistics is the definitive, "age 35 your ovaries start shrinking". So, for me, healthy woman, age 35 and 1 day suddenly getting pregnant gets harder? That's ridiculous. And yes, I know that I am massively oversimplifying.

But so are all these stories. I can't count the number of women I know who get busy trying for a baby, often a second one, quicker than they like because they're all told how likely it will be that will take ages because now they're over 30. And in almost all cases, they get pregnant practically instantly. Partly because the average time to get pregnant is 6 months or something (I forget the number) but that number in itself is fake - it's made up of all the "healthy normal" women who get pregnant super fast and combined with the rest who take months or years. It's completely ridiculous. I am not sure I know a single person who when trying to get pregnant found it took the average amount of time - it was either quick, or very very slow.

My point is that these statistics don't really show what's truly going on and I for one am so tired of the scaremongering and being accused of risking my own and my baby's health because of these ridiculous statistics based on averages across an entire population.

Shoesmacking - the stats aren't claiming to be definitive. They point to a correlation between age and pregnancy complications. The same as they would use stats to identify high risk groups for testicular cancer or any other illness or condition. It's up to you to read them for what they are. They look at probability.

As a representative of the not uncommon population of childfree women, I need to point out that this isn't an especially British phenomenon.

The proportion of women without children has almost doubled since the Nineties, according to the Office for National Statistics, with one in five 45-year-olds yet to start a family. Overseas, one in five American women in their early forties is childless, rising to a third of women in the same age bracket in Germany and Japan.
www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/9847642/Helen-Mirren-confronts-the-final-female-taboo.html

Sorry Buffy I haven't read all the thread. What do you mean 'a language'? Do you mean they can be interpreted or something?

With regard to birth complications, you also see an attitude about older educated mothers too though.

Whilst they are told they are at more risk they are also told that trying to minimise this risk based on their own personal circumstance through choosing an ELCS is also unacceptable.

Note again, the number of female doctors who go down this route is considerably higher than the general population (which may in part be in being overly exposed to complications from VBs but you would also expect them to be just as familiar with complications from ELCS).

Strangely, in just about any other healthcare issue, educated people have been proven repeatedly to get the best care in comparison to others and to have better outcomes as a result of this.

Yet discussing pregnancy and educated women, society seems to have this real problem of accepting women as capable of both understanding information and using this information in the best way for them and respecting their decisions to be anything but selfish. Again and again the message about women's healthcare is linked with this idea of selfishness if you do not conform to a certain prescribed pattern.

From advertising of cervical screening using images of children to guilt women into going to appointments (noting here of course the rates of men going to the doctor are much much lower and this is one of the main obstacles for improving mens health), to childbirth, to feeding children its used over and over again.

Either comply with institutionalised and generalised recommendations or you are selfish, ignorant and endangering the very fabric of our society.

I just don't accept that there is any obligation on women to reproduce. I possess many unused abilities; this is only one of them. (Actually, my reproductive ability turned out to be a bit crap, but so is my running ability. Nobody demands reasons why I never sought medical intervention for that!)

It seems obvious to me that a high proportion of women never feel the desperate urge for a baby, which we're all told to expect - I didn't. As we make progress, such that our economic survival isn't dependent on sprogging some man's lineage, we're free to not bother with having DC.

So the matter of declining fertility is a non-issue, except to the (minority?) who crave babies. And I imagine they're on the ball with that already.

Why is that important to point out?

That was to Buffy

Buffy There is another option for this group of educated career women.

Perhaps they don't think the want children right now? I don't.

I have had this conversation with DP of course and we have agreed that if we decide we want children when I'm a bit older we will accept the odds. What will be will be and all that.

I've never felt broody at all, never been particularly conscious of my biological clock except when reading these damned articles so I am not burying my head in the sand, I just genuinely have no urge to get pregnant and think it would be a mistake to do so for fear of missing out. After all, if having a baby ended up feeling like the worst mistake of my life, I can't very well hand it back.

Helen Mirren is actually a very interesting case. Her reasons for not wanting children are in huge part down to her fear of childbirth
story here.

I could go on a lot about how women with fear of childbirth are treated. A lot... Especially with regard to policy making and the media construct of too posh to push.

Its something that is becoming less taboo to talk about and more common to acknowledge as an issue. Its not a new thing though people want to think it is - its just something that has remained hidden for a lot of social reasons.

It makes you wonder how many people who don't have children do so because they are afraid of complication etc, but actually do want children and thats part of the regret later. Are they being frightened by information like this or perhaps do they feel unsupported?

I don't doubt that a lot of women really genuinely don't want children, but I also can't help but think there are also culture taboos that make it difficult for women with doubts or fears to express these easily. Its easier to put up a front, than be more honest about why you don't want children.

and at the same time a woman who makes the decision to have children without (perceived) optimal financial/relationship/health/etc circumstances is also judged 'well why did you choose to have children if you knew xyz'

I love statistics. I think they're great for finding out about stuff. They're brilliant for whole populations, but terrible for individuals, and that's what people forget :)

Skewing arguments and using stats to say "you can't argue cos I've got maths behind me" are also bad practice. Don't think you can blame stats for that though, but the people wrongly using stats.

Yes. Thank you, Buffy. Those are the assumptions I find unacceptable - plus the assumption that all women 'should' want children. Hence why I can't get worked up about the declining fertility argument; it's based on an unproven theory.

Yes and that's before they have the children. The think the cultural expectation on mother's in this country has gotten out of control, with no equivalent expectation of fathers.

There is so much judgement about the choices that women make as parents. From the outside looking in it looks like a hell of a lot of pressure on and sacrifice expected of mothers, but not so much fathers. I wonder if this puts people off having children early / at all too. (If so, I think shared parental leave would go some way to address this.)

I think its perfectly legitimate to say, I don't want to risk my body or potentially risk my life in order to conform with societies expectations.

I don't think this should be derided as selfish - just a ver personal decision. Yet I don't think I have ever really heard this in the media, certainly without a very critical editorial line. Why?

However you could argue its more selfish to have children, especially if you aren't really bothered about having them, and to put a burden on society if you do have complications. (And of course this is being thrown at women over 35).

There is so little room for honesty in the debate.

Tbh, I think you really can't win and its impossible to avoid getting a label somewhere along the line. Women are simply judged on their childbearing decisions first and everything else in life is simply secondary.