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?

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

Nobody is talking about "conspiracy", we're talking about culture.

A culture that is unhealthily focused on controlling women's fertility and sexuality.

to be fair, if what the article says is true prof davies was addressing 'a group of health practitioners', so it is right that she is highlighting the problem that will affect their work/funding needs etc specifically. without seeing her transcript it is difficult to tell how she was phrasing her comments

it's the newspaper that has extended this to include comments from others that are telling women to Get The Fuck On

Artetas I'm not assuming anything. That was the stereotype portrayed in the article

in my experience it is usually because women want to get an education, maybe travel and get established in their careers

Quite often we will see businesswomen of 42 or 43

What other group of women are being discussed there if not middle class career women? There are no other examples in the article.

I'm not suggesting only career women (bloody hate that phrase incidentally, but it's a convenient shorthand) have trouble meeting the right man, settling down and having a baby before age 35. If that article is aimed at those people, why aren't there a broader range of examples? Why is there no mention of couples meeting and settling down later - at all?

A quote from the article;

“If you are a woman in a relationship and you know you want a child, I would say get on with it,” she said. “But a lot of women are intentionally childless – let’s not knock the fact that woman have more choice now about planning a family than was the case in the past.”

Nowhere do I see an implication that women are stupid or selfish, but rather far more in control. But once we get into the realms of what the article implies rather than what is written, discussion becomes pointless.

But artetas that still suggests it's all down to women. How about:

If you are a person in a relationship and you know you want a child, I would say get on with it,” she said. “But a lot of people are intentionally childless – let’s not knock the fact that people have more choice now about planning a family than was the case in the past.

If you are a woman in a relationship and you know you want a child, I would say get on with it

That's fucking terrible, TERRIBLE advice though.

It basically says that if you are a WOMAN and you are lucky enough to get a man to be in a relationship with you, you should have a baby as soon as possible.

So it doesn't matter if it is THE RIGHT relationship. It doesn't matter if "getting on with it" hurts your ability to earn money in the future or pushes you into poverty.

The ONLY thing that matters "if you are in a relationship" is getting pregnant.

If women followed this advice and didn't wait until they were with a decent man who would make a good co-parent and father and until having a child wouldn't destroy them financially, then the costs to the state would be a lot higher than a slightly older average age for becoming a mother.

And the costs to the individual women "getting on with it" before they were in a good position to get on with it would be incalculable.

Maybe I did not express this clearly before, but there are two parts to parenthood - pregnancy and post birth. Post birth is equal responsibility for bot parents.

Pregnancy is completely the woman's choice. It is her body, her risk, her carrying the baby. So all medical advice should be given to her primarily. And this is what this article is about. If it was banging on about post-birth problems or issues, then yes that includes the partner too.

My limited understanding of FWR is that all aspects of pregnancy are down to the woman, from conception to birth. Whether to try in the first place, whether to carry to full term or not, what risks are involved. Apart from a minute or two of exertion, what health issues are there for men?

Can thoroughly recommend having children early. I am approaching the rend of my schooling years and my 40 plus sister is just starting hers.

Actually, my DH did take on board the medical advice about health risks for pregnancy in older women when we were planning our family. Both for me and for our potential child. He actually wanted to minimise that risk too.

And I don't believe that pregnancy is completely the woman's choice or that all aspects of pregnancy are down to the woman, from conception to birth. Women shouldn't just decide to get pregnant without the consent of the father-to-be.

Get you tin hat on then, funny

Well, surely the issue is that for most people, choosing to conceive a baby is something you wouldn't do within a relationship unless your partner was on board. So men need to know too.

I could be unrepresentative, but I don't know that many couples who were so burning with unanimous desire to start a family that one of them simply said 'let's have a baby!' and the other said 'brilliant, I'll get my kit off', and that was it. Most people discuss this, at least a bit.

And yes, obviously you can simply say 'love, I'm 35, here are the stats on my chances' but it'd be nice if both people had a reasonable chance of understanding the situation from the start.

My daughter's gold christmas crown is still hanging around somewhere - will that do?

If this is going to slide off into a 'how is abortion different from deciding to conceive a child' debate, I'm off, though.

If it is part of a princess costume, better get a suit of armour too!

If you are a woman in a relationship and you know you want a child, I would say get on with it
Can thoroughly recommend having children early

OK, so why are we all celebrating the fall in teenage birth rates? Why do 'benefit scrounger' rants always include feckless women having more than 2 children, and/or having them before they've got a career started?

Our society doesn't care about women's fertility, women's gestational well-being, or the putative stability of any woman's family set-up. It cares only that women are child-bearers, and uses this as a tool to blame and control women.

I am among the ONE IN FOUR women who've silently protested against this. We are not defined by our reproductive organs. No woman should be imo, but even this thread is focusing on the 'right time' to have children and society's self-contradictory views on that.

Is remaining child-free still taboo, even here? Is it not a valid outcome for women? Why are one in four of us still unheard?

No princess costumes in this house ;)

Though, seriously, do you really think men shouldn't factor in the potential risks to the mothers of their children when family planning? Or that women should just get on and get pregnant when they want, regardless of what the man thinks?

Garlic I especially said in the OP that I couldn't understand why remaining child-free was even an issue :)

Replying to orig post, I can't speak for all but I feel I didn't have enough life. I'm missing about ten yrs. I needed ten extra years between 29 and 30.

I wanted a career in the city. I wanted boozy nights with mates in my twenties, was still growing up. Wanted to travel, be cool, be fashionable etcetera. I resent being told at 34 I was an old mum even if biologically I was. I get the medical reasoning but feel a bit cheated of some life. Of some experiences.

I guess others do too maybe. Life's just too exciting now and techy to settle down early. Til mother f-ing nature catches up people will perhaps 'choose' to leave it because they are living first.

Don't get me wrong, I still feel full of life at 37. Just that I needed ten more years to cram more stuff into. Am quite looking forward to 40's really.

Funny, I think that that question is so loaded, it is hard to answer. If I say that a man and a woman in a committed relationship should plan a family considering all the factors, then aren't I being heteronormative? What about women who don't 'have' a man - she may not want a partner, or she may be gay, or both. And I have seen people on here royally skewered for expressing such opinions. But I know what you are getting at, and if that is the situation, then yes, agreement is the ideal situation.

That is the problem, minnie. Ten more years.

"Is remaining child-free still taboo, even here? Is it not a valid outcome for women?"

I would say yes and no (it is not not a valid outcome for women :o)

I hear the word "selfish" used frequently in discussing why women don't have children (either at all, or early enough) and that is often by the women themselves.

"Oh, I'm too selfish to have children." "I just want to enjoy my selfish life."

It's bizarre, because as far as I can see a decision not to have children is at worst morally neutral. I can't see who is harmed by it.

Of course remaining child-free IS a valid outcome for women.

But I think the idea that a woman is not an entire person in her own right, and therefore lacking in some fundamental way unless she helps a man to reproduce still has quite a lot of power in our society.

I think I'll have to agree to disagree then artetas. From a feminist standpoint, I think the framing of the article, including the examples chosen are important. It's pitched at a particular gender and demographic and if it's intended as a public health message (rather than pushing an editorial agenda) then that's not good enough.

Women make decisions on remaining pregnant yes, because they are taking the risks. Ideally both people in a committed relationship have an adult discussion and make a joint decision on whether or not to have children not have 'a pregnancy'.

If 'public health messaging' is not addressing the men in this equation as well then I'm afraid that is sexist and woman-blaming. Women can to a large degree control not getting pregnant, which is great compared to our grandparents generation. What they can't do and these articles don't acknowledge, is magic up a suitable and willing sperm donor at a biologically optimal time that coincides with a time that is suitable in terms of their financial stability. If they could do that, they wouldn't be women, they'd be wizards...

Sorry, funny, I got so steamed up at what I perceived to be the direction of the thread, I forgot you'd said that!

the idea that a woman is not an entire person in her own right, and therefore lacking in some fundamental way unless she helps a man to reproduce still has quite a lot of power in our society.

Immense power, I'd say. It's the fundamental root of feminism.