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?

I see Buffy, that's down to people's understanding of the stats. They are just a biproduct of the most effective form of analysis. People need to look at them as odds.

Buffy, but the stats allow for many possibilities and outcomes. They allow for differing view points. I think people are wise to this or should be

When I put effective, I meant efficient. In terms of cheapest and time consuming.....sorry

I agree with her. I waited until 34 an I am now 37 and want more.... I wish I had focused less on career and more on family!

Discussing right now on LBC radio

Looking at countries like Iceland, I wonder whether people would have children at a younger age if doing so did not prevent them from finishing university, getting a good job and progressing in their career?

Subsidised childcare, equally shared maternity and paternity leave, and affordable family housing would solve this 'problem' overnight.

I haven't said it's not a language. Of course the stats need to be interpreted. But you wouldn't go to sensationalist press for your information. However, you misguide someone the stats don't change. The stats are there to be looked at. Your example only presents one part of the statistics. Not them as an entirety.

Pure statistical facts

Some people say that MN is a stronghold of educated, middle-class women. Isn't it possible that medical professionals may feel the need to get this out to as wide an audience as possible? (acknowledging that the Torygraph might not be the best conduit, but there is no indication that the professor spoke exclusively to them).

So while a group of women on MN retort 'But we know all this!', perhaps MN was not the only intended audience?

This is great on statistical fallacies:

www.refsmmat.com/statistics/index.html

I think stats is a language used (often wrongly!) to describe the inherent uncertainty in the world. Statistical literacy is poor though, and many people think 'but that's the stats' is a great way to stifle debate.

tethers - call off your breathing strike! It's not going to help :o

Its not just the sensational press who are guilty of manipulation of stats in healthcare though. Its rampant everywhere. Even in 'trusted' sources. See Margaret McCartney or Ben Goldacre for further details on that.

I had my dc at 29,31,32.

Which was just as well as my ovaries were actually shrivelling up, not down to "patriarchal society" but down to a family tendency (that I didn't know about) to prem menopause.

We were right up there as typical parents to wait - I was a promoted teacher, dh a GP. We'd been married since 24 and so were ready to go ahead, which was a great idea as my periods became irregular at 35 and I was officially "through" the menopause at 39!

There are some huge assumptions out there about extending female fertility. I know that in my case I was lucky to meet my future-dh at age 18, marry at 24, have our dc young. If I hadn't met him until 34, then it's unlikely, even with I've, that we would have had any dc, let alone the 3 we have.

Please don't take fertility for granted!

I get what you mean with the method of analysis. I'll have to disagree regarding a language as such. Even if you use stats to make a point there is always the flip side of that probability. This will either show up in analysis or leave a void which is not analysed. They don't try to be definitive or conclusive.
I agree that there should be a responsibility not sensationalise or trivialise. Fundamentally, the responsibility lies with us to analyse the statistics and not be so trusting.

Reporting it isn't a bad thing, talking about it and having media attention is a good thing isn't it? it's becoming widely known that fertility reduces the older your get, (not a marketing gimmick as suggested up post).

I knew that and most of my friends seem to with the exception of one who at 49 is livid that she hasn't been able to conceive, is angry that no one told her at 32 that her fertility would decline and is livid that IVF has cost her a fortune and failed. She wants to start a campaign and get shouts. I gently pointed her towards Google to read what is already out there.

I suspect that the average age to have first will creep down as the next generation are more aware of older parents and ageing fertility.

Reporting isn't a bad thing Pigsmummy but focus on women only and the careerist stereotype is unhelpful. It's taking valid information but using it to demonise a particular demographic (middle class women).

The responsibility lies with us to analyse the statistics and not be so trusting.

Quite, but when you do that and come to a conclusion that other people don't like (like delightfully hypocritical Professor Dame Sally Davies), then this is deemed unacceptable and wrong!!!

But Sally Davies, is just one person. She can use the stats to show her point of view. But it's not the full picture. The only thing that seems off is the suggestion that motherhood is inevitable. I don't fully understand why people don't like it, you don't have to take it on face value

Reporting isn't a bad thing but focus on women only and the careerist stereotype is unhelpful. It's taking valid information but using it to demonise a particular demographic (middle class women).

Exactly.

If the delaying of parenthood (by obviously women ) is such an issue why isn't this covered extensively in high school as part of standard education for boys and girls and why isn't there loads of stuff aimed at young men and women at uni or part of sexual health communications that are plastered over every GP practice that I have ever been into?

That way, whilst not encouraging people to have babies right there and then it would seem sensible to get them young, educate them so they can make life choices to have babies earlier, and both men and women can understand the potential impacts of delay of parenthood when the women are the right age.

Some how I think that if this was the case there would be a HUGE uproar.

Well, you are assuming that those being 'demonised' (very emotive btw) are careerist, and not women with ordinary jobs who are still beholden to the same pressures as everyone else. What about office workers, or cleaners, or computer operators, estate agents, shop assistants or delivery drivers who don't meet a suitable partner, or cannot afford kids early on, or who have other commitments?

Still, if anyone wants to see a conspiracy anywhere, it's usually possible.

The responsibility lies with us to analyse the statistics and not be so trusting.

Well if we're clever enough to do that, we're clever enough to make our own decisions about what is best for us without quarterly "reminders" of what the great and good think we should be doing with our lives.