Absolute shocker - senior doctor says something sensible about women postponing pregnancy!

[FairPhyllis]

Graun article

So it is actually possible for a president of the RCOG - and a man at that - to talk about about women postponing pregnancy until later in life in a non-blaming, non-patronising way. Alleluia.

Top quote: "If you put a man in that situation, they would do exactly the same. I completely respect that position."

This is great. Late pregnancy isn't a stand alone choice, but is usually dictated by relationship/financial stability. I didn't reach this stage until my thirties, only then could I have children. As did most of my friends.

What a breath of fresh air the man is. And I say that as someone who had her children in her 20s.

I didn't reach this stage until my thirties, only then could I have children. As did most of my friends.

Everything is fine when its fine, what else can be said? Informed choice is everything. As long as a woman is aware of the increased hazard, justice is served. I know its not a stand alone choice, obviously, but statistics are not a choice, statistics don’t judge or care, they simply are what they are. Similar reproductive statistics apply to men wanting children over 40.

My father sired me at age 50 and died of a heart attack age 54. Statistics. My extended family member wanted to have a child in her 30's. Could not happen due to onset of medical condition affecting conception. Statistics. Family friend intended same... medical problem revealed pregnancy was no longer possible... statistics.

Its not a guilt trip that you made the wrong choice, just an awareness that the chance of your choice working out in the way you imagine is reduced as you age. Men don't create that issue, human biology does, men just bear the burden of reproductive probability a decade later than women.

"Its not a guilt trip that you made the wrong choice" Well clearly Nora didn't make the wrong choice . It's only you who is suggesting that she did.

And men make plenty of choices about having children that affect women.

"Men don't create that issue, human biology does, men just bear the burden of reproductive probability a decade later than women."

Well, plenty of men do 'create' the issue with unwillingness to commit, or to have children, at an age which is biologically preferable for the woman. Because as a man, it must be very hard not to have in the back of your mind that the clock isn't ticking for you.

Also, women aren't stupid. Most of them are well aware of the statistics. It's society that puts opposing burdens on them much of the time which affect them being in a position to act earlier. Even things which are supposedly 'choice' like getting established in a career are a forced choice within a society which will penalise them once they are mothers, where jobs are structured in a way which is difficult to balance with family life, etc.

Well, plenty of men do 'create' the issue with unwillingness to commit, or to have children, at an age which is biologically preferable for the woman. Because as a man, it must be very hard not to have in the back of your mind that the clock isn't ticking for you.

I can speak for myself only, I was very aware of my wife not having the luxury of an extra 10 years of reproductive choice that I had as a man. My wife decided when she wanted us to try for children and I did not influence her choice, I agreed with it when she made it. That said relationship and financial stability was there for us, it just happened earlier than her turning 30.

Exactly as you wrote, women aren't stupid and most of them are well aware of the statistics. But are men aware? The clock most certainly ticks for men, absolutely it does, just slower until age 40 when it shouts just as loudly in their ear. Men who care about their partner but are otherwise ignorant would benefit from a brief lecture distilled down to: 'Please understand you have an extra 10 years to decide if you want children, years I do not have as a woman.' That is a short message a man should clearly hear because it puts a womans situation in terms he can directly relate too.

Oh right so it's up to women to educate men then. About basic biological fact they would have learnt at school. It's up to women to communicate this in a specific way that a man will then actually take her feelings and situation into account. And if he still doesn't? Is it her fault? Or is it only her fault if she communicates this educational lesson out of the parameters you've set?

Just so we're straight and all.

I'm curious as to why this man's outlook refreshes you so much, FairPhyllis. Genuinely.

Wouldn't it be a stronger feminist position to be arguing for a change in a socio-economic structure that effectively penalises women for having children (until they are very financially secure) - with all that is implied and embedded in that (there is a huge issue embedded here, for example, about the increasing viewing of having children as a "lifestyle choice", which has all kinds of effects, not least for mothers of disabled children)?

His slightly laissez-faire approach surely endorses all sorts of beliefs. My guess is that is ultimately favours those who can pay for fertility treatment - a eugenics by stealth?

I'm just throwing those issues into the ring because I'm not convinced there is anything implicitly feminist, or even pro-women, in his view.

Perhaps I'm missing something.

I do think that most women I know realise that fertility in women drops with age. But there again, I mainly know women who have had children if they wanted them, or are childless by choice. It's not wholly inconceivable that there is a group out there who aren't so well informed about basic biology.

Almost anything could be at the bottom of his "extremely relaxed" approach. It strikes me as being politically neutral rather than feminist per se.

I genuinely don't really "get it".

I don't know what you mean about the lifestyle choice thing, catfromjapan. Can you expand on that?

thecat - I know what you mean. That was one of my first thoughts when reading the article too. That he is missing that societal change is needed if women are to be enabled to make genuine choices about timing families. But on the other hand I think it's an important step that he is moving away from a lot of the 'woman blaming' that goes on around this issue.

DadWasHere - So it's women's job. Women need to educate men on their own and his fertility. Then the 'good ones' will realise that they have to adjust their behaviour and timings? And the selfish ones will still not have the same urgency. Wow. We women bear all the responsibility on this one don't we?

Surely it's women who tend to be the prime movers behind family planning though?

If men are merrily ignoring their fertility or that of their partner, then as long as the consequences don't bother them why would they need to educate themselves?

It's women who usually want kids isn't it.

I don't think that's true. I think most men also want kids. But in that unhurried "I have loads of time" way.

I really don't see that it is women's job to educate men about fertility. How about men's responsibility to the women they profess to love?

I don't believe I claimed he was up for Feminist of the Year cat. If I did perhaps you could direct me to where I said that.

I'm just saying that this is refreshing in context. Where the context is that pretty much all senior doctors who have spoken publically on this topic have basically implied that women are uninformed and reckless in postponing childbearing until a time where they are at greater risk of complications or infertility. Including the CMO, who is a woman. This man's own professional body's official advice is actually at odds with what he is saying.

That's really spelling it out btw. I thought anyone interested in this would be aware of that context.

He's saying that women aren't idiots. That we know the risks and that we are making choices which are also informed by social and economic pressures. That he respects the decisions we make in less than perfect circumstances for us. That's a fairly woman-affirming message, no?

He's not offering a solution to the problem, but he's starting from a position of respect for our decisions about our bodies and our lives. Which is pretty bloody unusual for the medical profession, let's face it.

That's the sad thing Buffy. It is a bit of a radical attitude to express publically these days. That's why my ears pricked up when I heard about this.

"Wouldn't it be a stronger feminist position to be arguing for a change in a socio-economic structure that effectively penalises women for having children (until they are very financially secure) - with all that is implied and embedded in that (there is a huge issue embedded here, for example, about the increasing viewing of having children as a "lifestyle choice", which has all kinds of effects, not least for mothers of disabled children)?" Yes this. Getting to the root of the problem.

I would also take this further and look at the socialisation around men in relation to having children. The lack of responsibility on several levels, for example. We are talking about continuing the human race, giving life not how to fix a car or use a computer.

DadWasHere "As long as a woman is aware of the increased hazard, justice is served." ?? Justice? Since when was there any justice at all in reproduction?

So if Dr Richmond had said that society ought to change so that having babies will be desirable to women in their 20s, would that be better? Because not everyone seems to like his odd idea of medical professionals having to deal with people in the conditions of society as it is now.

Back in the olden days, people were lucky if they lived much into their 40s. Maybe the hope of seeing your kids grow up was an incentive to have them while you're young! Since we now expect to live longer, we might be trying to spread out the events in our lives, and biology won't go along with that as much as we want it to.

FairPhyllis - OK.

I have to admit that I haven't followed much of the public debate about this and much of what I know, I know either informally through feminist friends who are involved in ob/gynea practise and research and the research I did, some 20 years ago (so out of date - perhaps). So my question was a genuine one. I was quite struck by how very far behind my friends' outlooks he was and also how very tepid he seemed to be.

Sorry if my question was phrased in such a way that you felt I was being rude, or awkward - it was genuinely motivated.

In all honesty, my main response to the Guardian profile was informed by my impression that the major turn in modern, public discourse around motherhood (and I am using "motherhood" strategically here, to highlight the statistical continuation of a gendered inequality in parenting) not for uninflected reasons) has been a shift to this conceptualising of becoming a parent as a lifestyle choice. I read the profile through that prism, rather than being open to his accordance of full, informed consciousness to women.

I'm sure you are right about that, but I really have managed to avoid many articles suggesting that women are silly, uninformed and bad at decision-making. I can well believe that may be the dominant tenor of the debate, and that it is a small victory when women aren't protrayed in this fashion.

What he seems to be saying is that medical professionals should deal with the consequences of social trends rather than comment on social trends. I am not sure how I feel about that stance.

As for the idea that women delay birth so that they can achieve greater levels of equality, that obviously isn't feminism In itself. That's just an individual choice. Feminism would be about structurally altering employment, housing, childcare etc so that women could achieve equality regardless of pregnancy at 16, 26, 36 or never.

Oh right so it's up to women to educate men then. About basic biological fact they would have learnt at school.

I am certain I did not learn about human reproductive age quality windows at school, male or female. I suppose I picked that knowledge up later, along with the knowledge of 40 being the time of declining fertility and rising reproductive problems for men, from doctors trumpeting it through the media to anyone who would give them airtime.

It's up to women to communicate this in a specific way that a man will then actually take her feelings and situation into account.

Its up to a person to attempt to communicate in a way that that their partner will hear and its up to their partner to listen and attempt to understand. Well and good, in theory, and some people can communicate, listen and understand well. Sadly others do only some of them, and poorly.

And if he still doesn't? Is it her fault? Or is it only her fault if she communicates this educational lesson out of the parameters you've set?

How could it be her fault? What I set out is a simple message any man would hear, short of a drooling Neanderthal incapable of stringing a sentence together. In short, keep in simple and relate it to them because men are dumb. But establishing clarity of delivery in a message to a partner has no bearing on what that partner may do about it, its only an affirmation that they received it loud and clear.

For some men that MIGHT move them past mouthing off to their mates at the pub “The missus always moans on and on about us having kids” to thinking that it isn’t just something that his missus WANTS and NAGS about, something that he can get around to supplying at his leisure later- like that new coffee table, but a serious choice he needs to make NOW before TIME takes away his ability to choose at all.

What he seems to be saying is that medical professionals should deal with the consequences of social trends rather than comment on social trends. I am not sure how I feel about that stance.

Doctors are required to deal with social health trends, so I think they should comment on them as part of social discourse, with a broad view of the implications of what they are saying.

In wider scope both genders are having kids later in life and that has been slowly advancing for hundreds if not thousands of years of social development. If you live in a world of average life expectancy being 30 you just don’t wait to 30 to start having kids. The most recent reproductive trend research in the western world seems to suggest that the age average is no longer advancing. I read a social theory postulating generational backlash from maturing younger people with ever older parents. The idea being they see their own parents as 'worn out and unrelatable' and so commit to have their own children younger (or at least no later) than their parents did. Another theory was that we live in generation 'stuff' so that the idea of waiting to have kids longer just for more 'stuff' is no longer as relevant or appealing as it was in decades past.