Misogyny in the media when reporting on fertility

[BertramTheWalrus]

Is it just me, or is there mostly a misogynist undertone when the media report on fertility issues? For example, I've noticed nearly all articles about fertility are about the decline in female fertility with age. Apparently, the day after your 35th birthday, female fertility is more or less negligible. Count yourself lucky if you manage to conceive after the age of 35 is the message. Actually, fertility remains high and even taking into account the higher number of chromosomal abnormalities, the likelihood of having a healthy baby at 40 is not as low as women are led to believe. For example, according to the bpas homepage, 90% of women up to the age of 39 will have conceived after 2 years. Whereas after 1 year, 82% of women aged 35-39 will have conceived, compared to 92% of women aged 19-26.
There doesn't seem to be much talk about the fact that men's fertility has declined massively over the last decades (there was an article in the Guardian about this today, unfortunately I don't know how to post links from my phone). It's mostly about women being told to get a move on and have babies asap. Am I imagining things?

I have to say, I saw two articles on declining male fertility on gmx today.

But I think you are right, the tone is different.

The fact that children of older fathers are more likely to have some disorders is hardly ever reported. It is all about women.

And while women are told that fertility declines with age and we just have to deal with it, men's declining fertility is portrayed as catastrophal sign of environmental pollution, climate change, or what have you. (Not to say it isn't, but women's fertility probably suffers from environmental factors just as much)

Women were told that riding a bike reduces their fertility (which is utter bollocks) but the very real fact that riding a bike reduces male fertility is only ever mentioned when a man has low sperm count and wants to fix that - obviously was never used to tell men not to ride bikes. (Or horses. I suppose the effect is the same. Testicles need cool air; even tight trousers are detrimental)

Saw a headline today about the decline in male fertility actually! Apparently it's dropped 40% in the last 20 years.
I'm not sure if I agree about misogyny related to female fertility. It is not at all ideal for women to leave having babies until later in life due to all sorts of things, not just fertility. Birth defects, health risks to mother etc.
I do however think it's most unfair it's framed as "women's choice". Loads of men are in no way prepared to be father's in their 20s. And it would make things hugely different if there wasn't such a motherhood penalty for working mothers as many women then wait for their career to be established before having kids.

I'm not sure if I agree about misogyny related to female fertility. It is not at all ideal for women to leave having babies until later in life due to all sorts of things, not just fertility. Birth defects, health risks to mother etc.

Yeah, but the sperm of older men is also more likely to have mutations. I read a study about that once - it was about the average age at which men in certain indigenous tribes fathered children, and the rate of mutations. This is something you rarely ever read about; it is portrayed as if sperm is just the same quality whether the man is 20 or 70.

And also, yes, it is not a choice. I am over 30 now, and never met a man I'd actually have wanted to father my children ... never mind being in a place in life where I could afford children.

Ah vestal
I know about mutations in male sperm but I don't think (?) It's quite as marked an impact as in females. Although maybe I've been mislead by the patriarchy.
However the impact to women's bodies is still an issue. Men seem to manage ejaculating safely at all ages if they can get it up

The commanders are all 'fertile'

No such thing as a sterile man - women are either fruitful or barren.

You're right that the tone of any article on women's fertility is generally "women, you are doing it wrong".

And the drop-off-the-edge-of-a-cliff claim is an interesting one. Based (if memory serves me) on seventeenth century French parish records, not a modern study. But so pervasive that there are now, apparently, more abortions to women in their forties than women in their teens (presumably because women in their forties have been so brainwashed by the Daily Mail that they're taking chances with their contraception).

The commanders e.g. is an interesting one isn't it? It's a while since I read it, but isn't the twist in the tail at the academic conference a few centuries in the future the fact (within the fictional world) that the low birth rates in all probability were due to falling sperm counts - a fact documented in the countries outside Gilead? And of course the women know this - some of the wives quietly encourage their handmaidens to have relationships with the male home-helps like the chauffeur - Offred is never quite sure whether the wife in her household knows about and is tacitly permitting her relationship with Nick to raise the chances of her getting pregnant.

(The older I get the more I understand the sheer brilliance of Atwood - the thing that really struck me on my most recent re-reading was the off-screen relationship between Offred and her mother who Offred dismisses as a loony extreme feminist of the sort that the modern world no longer needs - you realise Offred's mother is a hero, and Offred probably the sort of numpty lib fem who's said things like "feminism is about equalism" and "feminism's work is done now" - Offred and her generation have sleep-walked into Gilead).

Thanks for your comments, a lot of interesting posts. I'm glad it's not just me and there are others who have noticed this too!

However the impact to women's bodies is still an issue.
This is true, we can't ignore the fact that a pregnancy at 45 is high risk compared to a pregnancy at 25. What irks me though is that the media focus on the fact that the risk is higher in older women, while ignoring the fact that they are still highly likely to have a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby. For example, iirc at 40 the risk of Down 's syndrome is 1 in 12, which still means that over 90%of babies will not be affected. I've never seen it put that way in the media.

For example, iirc at 40 the risk of Down 's syndrome is 1 in 12, which still means that over 90%of babies will not be affected. I've never seen it put that way in the media.

The risk of Down's is actually 1 in 90 for 40-year-old mothers, which means about 98 per cent will have chromosomally normal babies. And you're right, it's never framed that way in the media.

I had my daughter at 40. I did the Verify blood test, and I remember feeling shocked when the report came back very low risk for abnormalities - I had just been so convinced that something would be wrong, given my age. I was subconsciously operating under a belief that my eggs were mostly past it, and I realise now that I got that from the media and the way they frame women's fertility.

Furthermore, they seem to enjoy framing it that way: 'Look at all these desperate women with rotten eggs! Tut, tut, if only they hadn't been so stupid/career-driven/female! Now they are doomed to a lonely life of unfulfillment, because everyone knows that motherhood is the ultimate measure of a woman's worth!'

IMO a lot of the news media around women's issues is informed not just by unthinking misogyny but outright sadism and delight in women's misery.

Thanks Donkey for the correct statistics. 1 in 90, much lower than I would ever have thought - I've been brainwashed too!

outright sadism and delight in women's misery. perfectly put.