Ladies! Stop giving birth to your grandchildren!
Holly Hunter gave birth to twins at the age of 48. When they are 10 she will be 58. When they are 20, she will be 68...if she lives that long. Ditto actress Geena Davis and her twin boys. There's a long list of Hollywood women who put off having children while they built their career and then when their ovaries puttered out, they applied their extensive wealth toward in-vitro fertilization and voila! insta-family. Or they bought a baby in another country. {See Madonna who will be 60 when David is 12; Meg Ryan will be 60 when her daughter Daisy is 15}. Diane Keaton might win for most audacity, at 64 years old, her adopted daughter is 14, her adopted son, 9.
There is a reason that we're so fertile and energetic in our twenties: so we can have babies, keep up with the babies and send them off into the world while we're in our forties so that we still have 5 minutes left to read that book we've been meaning to get to.
I have friends who had their babies late in life. I'm talking their first baby.
When I was growing up women often had their 4th or 5th baby in their early forties - their ooops! baby, their just-about-to-enter-menopause baby. But those kids had siblings to help out and experienced parents who had already raised children and knew what the heck they were doing.
My friends who had their first baby in their forties, well, it hasn't worked out so well. And they'll be the first ones to tell you. By the time their kid is rarin' to go with hormones and discipline problems and peer group pressure, they are worn out, exhausted and dare I say? Old. They are grandparent material. They don't have the energy to walk up two flights of stairs, never mind stare down the flighty teacher, the neighborhood bully or their 6 ft. son who wants to experiment with drugs. My colleague told me yesterday that the son she had in her forties, she pretty much gave up any oversight on after the 8th grade. He was 12, she was 52. She'd burned out from the previous 12 years. She doesn't recommend it for anybody.
Now I know there are always exceptions to the rule, and I'm sure you know somebody who had their first child in her forties and while her daughter is 16 and she is 61, they find lots of things in common with each other and Mom has her finger on the pulse of her progeny. I just haven't seen it. These stories tend to be anecdotal.
The disconnect appears to be generational. If your own parents are 23 or 28 years older than you, there's still a bit of cultural references that you share, common histories. When you are 14 and your mother is 64 the conversation and shared touchstones can be almost invisible. How can your mother possibly understand internet, texting, twitter and the easy access of the drug ecstacy? There weren't even computers when she was your age; she watched black and white TV that shut down at 9pm. It's "Father Knows Best vs. The Simpsons" & the cultural clash ain't pretty. And that's where it stops working so well. The teenage angst that your parents don't understand you is absolutely true once your mom and dad are the age of most kids grandparents. How can they understand you? They still refuse to use email and need your help using their ancient VCR.
You are also burdening your offspring with your elderly self. While they may be going to college, they are on high alert as you slowly start to stroke out, get forgetful, or succumb to cancer. Do you want your legacy to be that you orphaned your kids at a young age? Kinda cruel if you ask me. Their grandparents were dead before they were born and now their parents are dying. Fun times!
I don't think history will judge this social experimentation kindly. And it may only last one or two generations before the women who chose this path tell the women coming up after them, "have your babies early!" This is the first time in history women had the ability to put off having children and then be able to afford the medical interventions to allow them to have them later. And it's the first time in history single, older women have been allowed adopt. We are still in the middle of this particular continuum; the outcome is yet to be decided.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
CarmellaS
scanner
Desnee Flakes
Arthur Louis
Victoria Holt
Jacob Sugarman
Salon.com
Comments
I would never presume to tell anyone when they should or should not have children because it TAIN'T my business. For whatever reason, they have chosen to bear children in the later stages of life. I was 21 when I had mine and my youth didn't make it any easier. Also, there was no guarantee that I wouldn't make my child an orphan simply because I didn't have wrinkles. There are lots of kids who have young parents in the grave.
I think you should have kids when the time is right for you. I don't think there should be arbitrary time tables placed on them. If the plumbing works or needs a bit of adjustment, I say to each her own.
And in defense of the older set (which I proudly claim as a 50 year old), there are quite a few of us who have more than two brain cells to rub together so we aren't so feeble that we do not understand how the internet, texting and twitter works and to be perfectly honest, a lot of 60 plusers have probably ingested more drugs than their kidlets would hope to....not that that's anything to brag about.
JMHO.....
The first commenter here makes a compelling point that men who become fathers later in life, are never chastised for doing so.
I'll add that I'm 51, and considering adopting an older child/children, as it was never a priority for me before, but I feel I have much to offer(now) to a child/children, who have no home, need guidance, exposure/encouragement in the arts, etc.
There's always more love to give,...and when you're older, you know more about how to share that love.
Peace.
www.lisananetteallender.blogspot.com
www.practicewhatyoupeace.blogspot.com
And, for the record, I don't like the salutation "Ladies!" Does that bug anyone else?
I had my first child at 42, and it's working out quite well. I have concerns, like any parent, but if you're going to have this rant, you do need to mention men as well. I'm also very annoyed that this is an editor's choice. Does Salon really support what I see as a fairly sexist, backward attitude? That surprises and saddens me.
The generation gap will undoubtedly happen whether I am 20 or 60. I think you need to reexamine your ideas for the sexist beliefs embedded in them. Unless you want to do a post on men, too. Then, I'll just generally disagree as many women and men have children in their forties and beyond and do just fine with the raising.
Did you know that the average age for most women to have the final child is the mid-forties and has been, far beyond fertility treatments, which I did not have by the way, for many years? It's completely normal, and only our paternalistic, misogynistic society has decided otherwise.
That said, the average person usually can't afford to have kids or adopt them at the more advanced age that the stars can, so their kids don't come much past 40, and as I said before, the stars have more money to help their kids take care of them or to let the stars get better health care and live longer. Also, you should have mentioned all these men who have kids at 70. It seems an ego trip to me, but maybe they just feel like they should get the most out of life while they can.
I still appreciate your rant, though.
That said, I do know people who waited and are very successful in their parenting. They have the financial means to put their children in good schools and expensive extracurricular activities. They have a maturity we did not have in our twenties.
Sometimes it works, often it doesn't. I was often pleased that my parents were so young but then my dad got cancer and died at 52 so there are no guarantees, no matter the age. All in all, good people make good parents, and have the foresight to know when they are becoming parents for them or for the child.
Here is the upside of having kids later: you are probably better off financially. You are probably in a stable relationship. You are probably educated. But one thing you certainly are is wiser. Maybe you are more able to put things into perspective. Age and experience tends to do that for you. You are better able to see impending danger. You can separate little deal from big deal better.
You know what? Parents and teenagers aren't really supposed to relate. And even when I was a kid, people's parents weren't always in the best of health. Hell, my dad became paralyzed when I was in my twenties. My mom had cancer when I was 18. Shit happens. You can't stop it.
Sorry your friends are so tired and old that they're asleep at the wheel. I find that with a couple of cups of coffee, I can conquer the fucking universe. So kudos to me. Judge me if you will, but don't expect me to go quietly.
When I was doing my teacher training, we had a pediatrician as a guest speaker one day, just talking about development from a medical perspective. He mentioned that he had more patients than ever whose mothers were dead because he was seeing so many children of older mothers. (This was in La Jolla.)
I personally don't think 40 is too old to start a family at all, but once you get close to 50, male or female, you're chances of not being able to see your child through young adulthood become significantly increased. That has to be considered, as well as the possibility of disability.
Every individual has to make these decisions for him/herself, but I would not choose to care for an infant late in life, unless my grown children could not take care of their children, or something like that. It's far from ideal.
Ageism and sexism. Fail.
Is it ageism to point out that the older one gets, the more likely one is to die from disease or "old age," become disabled, or suffer from "senile" dementia?
"If an older woman and a younger man have a baby, then then the chances of one parent being alive and good health are much increased, than if they are both elderly."
I look at my Dad, who's parenting a 4 year old at 50, and thank God I don't plan on doing that. He's doesn't ever get a break! He's still cleaning up shit at 50. I want to be done with that part of my life by the time I'm that age. He's got an AARP card and drops his son off at daycare. I mean, that's his choice, and that's fine, but it's strange. I want to be preparing for retirement at 50; he'll never be able to retire.
This is not to mention the risks of downs syndrome and other genetic diseases which are increased in mothers of advanced maternal age. From everything I've read, your egg quality reaches it's peak in your early 20's and starts to decline after you hit 30. So...your fertile years are in your 20's. A friend of a friend is currently trying to get pregnant. She's 42. She got married at 35 thinking she had all the time in the world to get pregnant. She started trying at 38. She went to a repro. endo. and he said to completely skip a fresh cycle of IVF and go straight to egg donation. There's no point of doing a fresh cycle at her age he said. She's all upset. Well, what do you expect? You're 42! You could be hitting menopause any time now!
If only someone would tell this to our ovaries. Women are approaching equality, but our biology has not changed. The fact remains that women start being pre-menopausal (if not menopausal!) in their 40's. If only evolution could keep up. It's so ageist and sexist of it to limit women's childbearing years to the vast expanse of time from 15 to 40ish, you know? So unfair. So un-PC.
I stand by what I said. If someone wants to roll the dice and start this stuff late, it's their choice. Not yours. Just like you can't tell someone how many kids to have, or what language to speak at home.
And that line about "limiting" childbearing years to 15-40 is kind of silly. You know in our culture it is certainly not ok to give birth at 15, and everyone living in their own societal corner faces many, many rules about procreating that put very many more limits on them than just age.
You guys have my panties in a bunch! Watch out!
And it is ageist to presume everyone will be dried up and ready to die by a certain age. And it is sexist to only address women on this issue. I could just as easily ask you to accept the fact that you're ageist and sexist because you can't get past the dried up and gone social customs of the 1950s, just as in the same way you have been in assuming that everyone's ovary reproduction dies off and menopause starts at age 40. Or I could be ageist and say that because you're younger, you don't have the wisdom to get it.
But I'll refrain.
From the March of Dimes website:
Does the risk of Down syndrome increase with the mother's age? Yes. The risk of Down syndrome increases from about 1 in 1,250 at age 25, to 1 in 1,000 at age 30, 1 in 400 at age 35, 1 in 100 at age 40 and 1 in 30 at age 45 (6). Women over age 35 have been traditionally considered most likely to have a baby with Down syndrome. However, about 80 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born to women who are under age 35, as younger women have far more babies (2).
Sorry, that's the coffee talking.
People don't think that someone like Holly Hunter might be able to afford many more attempts than most people ($10K per try) or that she might have used donor eggs, which adds to the cost. The thinking, because you want to believe is "Holly Hunter had babies at 48, so maybe it will work for me too."
None of this is to pick on Holly Hunter specifically; she just makes a good example. But what I have found as a parent in my mid to late 30s so far is that while I have less energy than I may have had in my 20s, I have more patience; I have thought things through more and feel more prepared (to the extent that anyone can truly be prepared for parenthood). On the whole, that's a trade I've been happy to make.
And I know plenty of people my age who had youthful parents, with similar stories. The therapist's office, not to mention the jails are full of people who had super young energetic parents. Your premise that youth=parental competence is, quite simply, flawed.
My mom was a much older 40 than me. At age 40, SHE was winding down and depressed with her failures and disappointments. I, on the other hand, have run over 35 marathons, run 2 ultra marathons (33 miles, 50 miles) run across the Grand Canyon 3 times - all since turning 40. My health is superb, my energy is unlimited and my maturity is a tad more advanced than was the case in my 20s and early 30s. Plus now I have lots of reference points for what not to do as a parent, having watched my friends who were young parents, and how badly some of them screwed it up.
Age has nothing to do with being a good parent. And age doesn't have all that much to do with being energetic, or smart, or able to multi-task your way to a balanced and rich life. That's maturity, which also doesn't have crap to do with age.
COME ON! That little girl, right this moment, is hearing Mozart or Vivaldi in the background while her mother reads aloud to her some brilliant student's paper on poetry...and the first thing she heard upon waking this morn was Fresh Air!
THESE kind of nearing forty people should be PAID to have children! Seriously!
Second, Don't argue with me about sexism, argue with Mother Nature. She's the one that "designed" a system in which women start menopause between 45 and 55. I didn't have any part in that. You conceived at 42, great! I'm not saying it's not possible, obviously it is. Many women do, and do it successfully. How many months did it take you to achieve a pregnancy? Did you need the help of ART?
My primary reason for not wanting a baby past 35 is genetic diseases, like Downs. If, right now, I would discover that I was having a baby with Down's, or any other genetic problem, I would abort- no discussion necessary. Statistically, women over 35 are more likely to have a baby with Downs than women in their 20's. Secondarily, I also want to be having young kids in my 40's. But that's more personal preference than anything.
As my 24 year old daughter was telling me yesterday, she knew few in college or high school who liked their parents, nor did they enjoy spending time with them. "Wow!" I said, "How sad!"
As a psychology professional, I have rarely, rarely met anyone who really knows how to be a good parent. The problems you describe such as "experimenting with drugs, peer pressure, etc." have nothing to do with the age of the parents and everything to do with the relationship they've cultivated with their children over the years, a relationship which begins the moment that child is born!
If all parents were good ones, we wouldn't have the social problems we do have....remember, the family unit is supposedly the foundation of society. My older daughter figured this out at about age 13 when she said to me one day, "If the family is the foundation of society, then no wonder the world is so screwed up because I don't know any happy families or anyone who likes their parents!"
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/03.25/11-moreeggs.html
The thing is, this stuff is sexist and ageist. It is our society that creates these ideas that women (always specifically women not men) cannot have children, cannot do these things after a certain age. They are so ingrained that we accept them as 'biology' ignoring the fact that, years ago, when women had tons of kids until they reached menopause, the average age for the final kid was something like 45 or 46. Which means women had them even later than that. It's NORMAL to be able to have children until you go through full menopause, which for many women doesn't happen until early fifties.
Now, having them even later, with the aid of technology, while unusual, is both expensive (and therefore, rare) and more difficult. But, I don't have the complete omnipotent knowledge needed to judge these women and their choices. I imagine that they wanted children and had them. It isn't any of my business and I have no right to judge.
And neither does anyone else. Your comment isn't in the abstract, you know. Some of us are real people.
From the March of Dimes website:
Does the risk of Down syndrome increase with the mother's age? Yes. The risk of Down syndrome increases from about 1 in 1,250 at age 25, to 1 in 1,000 at age 30, 1 in 400 at age 35, 1 in 100 at age 40 and 1 in 30 at age 45 (6). Women over age 35 have been traditionally considered most likely to have a baby with Down syndrome. However, about 80 percent of babies with Down syndrome are born to women who are under age 35, as younger women have far more babies (2)."
So, you've proven my point exactly.
Let's do the math:
Holly's chances of having a baby with Downs at the age of 25: 0.08%
Holly's chance of having a baby with Downs at age 40: 1.0%
That is an over 1000% increase in the chance of having a baby with Downs when comparing age 25 to age 40.
This stuff is so sexist, but so ingrained that it would take more than a crowbar to get it out. I pray that, by the time my daughter reaches age 20 (at which time I'll be 62 and you know, according to some here, dried up, rickety, dying or dead, feeble, oh wait! no! I'm already that, right? Why haven't I rolled over and played dead, like a good woman should! Let me get my walker ...) anyway, I hope that she can say she has had a wonderful childhood and a mother who loves her desperately. And that she can spot sexism a mile away. Because I'd at least like to be able to teach her that.
I'll point her to this article as a start.
Here's a statistic for you. Did you know that, because I had a child at 42, I'm more likely to live to 100?
We had our lone chick at 36 and never regretted it. We are still the coolest parent among her friends.
One good reason however for not haing children at a later date (if ou have children already), is biological and evolutionary. Some have theorized that menopause (which men do not have) is designed so that the woman can help her daughters parent.
We are, in fact, running out of those grandmothers who have taken over the parenting duties from their druggie children. Now it is the druggie children who are grandparents and they are useless.
Special condemnation for the woman who gave up on her son when he was in 8th grade. She did this for herself and probably would have been a crappy mother in her 20s as well.
You wrote:
"I can have children in my 20's and I can be successful academically. I know because I am living it. I have young children, am 24, and am pursuing a graduate degree in nursing. I am able to juggle all of these balls, keep my sanity, pay my bills and make it work. I can have children at whatever age I please and be as successful as I want to be in my career of choice."
Those are your choices. Others have the right to make choices for themselves without your judgment. Survey the female doctors you work with (particularly those in male-dominated, difficult specialties) and ask how many them felt able to make similar choices just out of college. Nursing is a world still dominated by women and I would assume it is much more accomodating to women's isses compared to say a multi-national investment bank, engineering firm, law firm or a highly competitive medical residency program (long, grueling hours and (sometimes acute) sleep deprivation in a male-dominated atmosphere all being the common thread here). Women who have made the choice to pursue careers like this have fought and are fighting a difficult battle for gender equality in the workplace. You and I have been the beneficary of it. It is why I receive equal pay and can count on doing actual work instead of minding the phones and fetching coffee. That being said, in these grave economic times I think we all should adopt an attitude of empathy and humility. The great majority of us (including those older mothers) are doing the best we can with what we have. This economic tsunami has shown that only very few of us are insulated from falling on hard times. Congratulations on your successes, but please -- tone down the smugness. In this climate, it is particularly difficult to stomach.
When I choose to parent/how I chose to add to my family/how I choose to parent my daughter...none of those are any of your business. Who the hell are you to come all up into my ovaries and decide when and how they should be used? Did someone make you goddess of all things reproductive? The bottom line is reproductive and family building choices are no one's business other than the family involved. Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
And yes, the absence of comment on the age of the father is again evidence of the clear sexism that inevitably occurs in this discussion. So an 80 year old father is perfectly fine as long as he has a nice trophy wife of 25, right? Guess you think fathers are less important than mothers in childrearing. Welcome to the smarmy cult of mommy. But hey, my husband is younger than I am, so maybe you'll give me a pass for being an old fart.
It would be so nice to stop hearing the drivel about older mothers being so focused on their careers that they "forgot to have babies" and the ugly characterizations of adoption as buying babies. I, for one, refused to have a baby without being married. And you know, for black women especially, marriage is not an easy thing to have happen. Over 44% of black women have never been married, compared to 24% in the white population. As a physician working with underserved minority teens, I had no intention of modeling unwed parenting to my patients when 70% of our children are born outside of marriage. I didn't FORGET to get married. I couldn't find someone to marry until my late 30s. I got married at 39. And guess what? Despite 9 IVF attempts, 2 donor egg cycles and 1 16 week loss, there was no voilà baby! There was instead a lot of heartache, painful injections and procedures, and expenses galore.
I then moved to open adoption. And my husband and I were chosen by our daughter's firstmother to raise her child. She entrusted this perfect angel to me and this 24 year old gave less than a damn about my age...her concern was my character, my heart, and the love I would give to Zara.
So your older parent friends/people you know...whatever. As a physician/epidemiologist I can say this: the plural of anecdote is not data. Zara is my world and I will never be too tired, too out of it, or too disconnected no matter my age to parent my child.
Your ideas are sexist. This article is sexist. You don't have all the information. You don't know all the people involved. You're making judgments of people you do not know. There's not much more to be said about it.
I have a beautiful daughter. I'm a better mother than I would have been at 20. But, that's me.
Undoubtedly, in her lifetime, she'll run into smug people who think they have the right to judge other peoples' lives. I can only hope she handles it as well as ... Sandra no longer Miller. ;)
I have never thought there was anything magical about my DNA, but I did want a healthy newborn. Since my husband is older and we're not wealthy, it was extremely unlikely that we would have been able to adopt a child except through Social Services. Most private agencies won't work with you if one of you is over 45 unless you are rich.
There are good and bad parents of every age and income. Personally, I think I did a better job of raising my kids as an older parent than if I'd been in my early 20's. Even though I'm a single parent now, I have a lot more resources to draw upon.
This is a silly column.
Then again, as we said in Kindergarten, "you get what you get and you don't pitch a fit".
And thanks to all the intelligent women who spoke for women making their own choices, rather than having them rammed down their throats. Isn't that what we've been fighting for for nearly a 100 years? The chance to decide for ourselves, with our partners (whoever they may be?) or alone if that is our choice, how and when to raise our children? Who really believes that a 20 year old mom is better suited than one in her 30s or early 40s just because of age? Some are, some aren't. Some women are never suited. And as one poster pointed out, women have been having kids well into their late forties for years; its just that those were often their 4th or 5th or 8th child and it often wasn't by choice but by biology and chance and lack of birth control.
I am so very heartened to see all the heartfelt posts about how we need to make our own paths. Hooray!
That is why I think people like the couple I have mentioned should actually be paid to have children...funny how the same folks who care so much about their dog's breed and parentage, or the lineage of their "old world roses" and "heirloom tomatoes" for example seem to think any child can and would grow up into an able to learn, not defeated by heredity adult....if only that were true!
onecorgilover
January 23, 2009 04:44 PM
And how conveniently YOU ignored the FACT that compared to age 25, the Down's rate increases by over 1000% at age 40. 1000%.
I'm not trying to dictate other women's choices. Women can do whatever they want with their bodies. I really couldn't give a damn, especially in regards to procreating. I injected myself with hormones for two weeks, was put under sedation and had a needle shoved into my ovaries so another woman of "advanced maternal age" could have children. Sure I made a little bit of cash, but I was really happy when she had a baby. Very happy. So, this isn't about that. This is about women who think that they can frolick along with no thought at all to their declining egg quality, thinking, sure I'm 40, but I have all the time in the world to have children! And then "OMG I can't get pregnant!" at 45. Women want to do that, fine by me. So long as they realize that egg donors, repro. endo's, etc. are profiting off of them, as is the entire ART industry. (Of course older women aren't the only ones who suffer from infertility, but they are a big part of why the ART industry is growing.)
It's a personal thing. There are shifting pros and cons to having kids at any age. You did a good job arguing your point.
I think odette's points are especially valid. The trends you are looking at have played out over a very short period time during which women have had reproductive control. And lifespan, health, and style and quality of life are such rapidly changing phenomena that I don't think we will ever have sufficient societal stability to nail down some sort of "ideal" or "normal" reproductive/parenting age.
I also find that the argument that success stories like that of Holly Hunter raise false hopes to be unconvincing. How many 48-year-olds do you know with newborns? People who have regular medical care and reasonable access to media (not to mention everyday family experience) know that it is rare for a woman of that age to conceive. It's like someone complaining that since Bill Gates is a billionaire, they expected to be one, too, despite the fact that they've never met a billionaire.
With respect to the argument that children of older parents have no quality experience of their grandparents, I also find that this assertion ignores other, much more relevant, social trends. People move around much more than in the past. Parents of all ages are now much more likely to live at a distance from extended family. This is the reason that my kids live away from their grandparents (and the reason that their poor, decrepit grandparents learned to use Skype on their newfangled computing machines.)
(One other funny aside on the issue of grandparents: my mother's father was 40 when she was born. He lived to be 105 and was very, very active up until about 103. Unfortunately, he was also something of an asshole. His extended life benefited few.)
Without data to support your arguments, they do come off as simple prejudice. And it is prejudice that I just don't understand. What offense is committed against you when an "older" mother gives birth?
In the interest of full disclosure, I had my first child at 38 and second at 42. Both were conceived quite easily and are in perfect health. We are more than happy with our current arrangement.
I did not have babies early because I had two brothers who were 10 and 14 years younger than me and well knew the work and commitment taking care of small children requires. I love my brothers beyond measure but they kept me from having babies until I was 31 and 41. You are rather judgmental here as if one can find a suitable father of children by going to a particular grocery store aisle during the year one wants to procreate. It ain't that easy.
I did not find someone whom I trusted and who wanted a child with me until I as 30 and I married him in order to have children. Is it better to have children early if there is no suitable partner?
Also, I thought about the burden on my older daughter when I had a child at 41 and would have allowed the abortion my doctor recommended if something had been wrong with my youngest daughter. She was fine. My body was older and the pregnancy was painful for me but that was no reason to abort.
My ex- will be 70 and I will be 60 when my youngest daughter graduates high school and she is lucky to have a (very small) trust fund and a state supported college education paid for through graduate school should she need that. We tried to think ahead and provide for her needs so her older sister would not have that burden.
I love both my children but my youngest has been the light and love of my life the past two years. I had a very aggressive breast cancer requiring extensive treatment that might have killed most people and there were times I only got through it so I could see my youngest go to first grade. High school seemed to distant a goal.
Life is not as easy as you so judgmentally portray it. There are valid reasons women choose to procreate later -- many of those reasons make them better mothers.
I read about a paragraph of it before I had to scroll down to see how other women were responding. I was heartened to read that most feel as I do.
And Sandra no longer Miller, I will gladly baby-sit your newborn for you when you run that next marathon, if you'll do the same for me!
At 39 I am healthier, happier, stronger and better equipped to mother than I was at 29. My mother just turned 70 and she still works every day and does head stands in my yoga class.
Kudos for having the stones to write such a piece for OS but it would have been nice if you responded to some of the comments.
I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt -- the hubris of youth and all that -- but you really come off as quite the arrogant, judgmental prat. I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it has to do with a lack of precision with language resulting in an inability to strike the proper tone. But go back and read through your posts. You have been consistently dismissive of the other side of the argument. "Frolicking along" is just one particulary egregious example. If that's the way you describe choices you "respect", then you've got a long way to go in the maturity department or you need to express yourself more clearly.
FYI -- We live in a (basically) free market capitalist society. Some entity profiting by meeting a need and providing a lawful service is kind of the point. But that was just a red herring, wasn't it? I think something about having sold your genetic material is at the heart of your strange position. You were happy to help someone conceive who in your words "frolick[ed] along with no thought at all to [her] declining egg quality"? Not exactly the most coherent position. So, let me see, it was OK for YOU to profit, but older women should be wary of the clinics and the doctors trying to make a buck? Self-serving much? As I've said, I will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt as tone and intention are hard to communicate in this medium and we have all been guilty of incoherence at some point in time. That being said, if you are indeed the smug, self-important know-it-all your posts seem to imply you are -- don't worry, you will soon be in a position where the choices you've made will present an unseen obstacle that is difficult to surmount (it happens to us all). When that happens I hope you meet someone with exactly your belittling attitude. I'm actually fairly certain you will. The universe is funny like that.
I used to go to her place every day after school and she always took an interest in what I had learned. She expected me to be current on world events, and to play Scrabble with her. She played to win, let me tell you.
Because of the early death of my father and the protracted emotional collapse of my mother, I assumed responsibility for my brother and baby sister at the age of 10. I think that is one reason why I never had any children, and possibly why I chose a career that would have made that choice very difficult.
I have several friends who had children in their late 30s and 40s and yeah, some of them are tired, and they look a bit older than their parentless friends. But not one of them has abandoned their kids, either emotionally or physically. Those kids are loved and cherished and not at all spoiled. They have respect for their parents -- well, as much as teenagers can respect anything -- and on the surface at least, they seem happy. And nearly all of them still have grandparents.
It's all about choice, although I do question women wanting to have children into their 50s. But that's my bias speaking, and I know that there are women out there who are doing it and both they and their kids, adopted or otherwise, are doing just fine.
Look, I had my first child at 24, and had my third at 27, and there was a lot about that that worked for me. I like the way I did it. And I still have a hard time making friends with older moms sometimes who waited. We don't have a lot in common. I might roll my eyes at some of their choices.
But I'd never tell them they shouldn't have waited.
For God's sakes, have you looked around at the world lately? It's motherfucking hard to get an education, get a career started, and maintain one, without worrying about child care and diapers and whatnot. And it's expensive to have kids. Really expensive, even if you keep it on a budget and forgo the snappy stroller and the organic cotton baby sling and the Mommy and Me classes. Women who are older often have more money. There may be biological benefits to having kids younger, but there aren't many financial benefits. And, let's be real here: the population most likely to file bankruptcy is parents. Having a kid makes you more vulnerable to financial ruin than almost anything else (and lots of that bankruptcy is medical bill-related).
So, you can get all "down with women" blah blah blah, in a snarky tone, and envoke those old arguments. Great. But in the meantime, the rest of us are concerned with finding solutions that will make sure our kids have better options for maintaining a family.
And blaming an entire group of women out of hand isn't one of them.
I don't think anyone is saying older parents are crappy parents, or really wants to deprive anyone of the life-changing joy/challenge of a child, but the dynamics ARE different when you're older, and the choices become different. I had my last one at 30, but my husband was 40 at the time, and didn't want any more because he didn't want a child in high school after he'd retired. As it happened, he retired the same year the youngest graduated. I realize a lot of the time that he and I are at different stages (and that women don't really retire) and have different energies. Yeah, childbirth is a personal decision (or in my case, a personal accident) but discussing the subject of older parents and hearing all the "personal testimony," the positives AND negatives -- that's a good thing. This post and these comments have made me (ouch!) think. Thanks again.
So anyway, when faced with this problem of aging eggs and no partner in sight, again not because you've been too busy to find one, but because partnering after your 20s becomes increasingly difficult, what do you then do?
a) Find some random joker and get knocked up before your eggs become toast?
b) Visit a sperm bank?
c) Ask wise Holly for advice since she has all the answers?
or d) Follow your chosen path of finding committed partnership before becoming a parent, and if that takes you out of your fecund years, use ART and/or adoption as alternative means of family building.
It goes without saying that I chose option D since I didn't have wise Holly around to tell me to just get knocked up and become another black baby mama just so that I could avoid missing my fecund years.
But Holly, I've gotta tell you. Though you assume that women over 30 have no sense of the decline in fertility as they age (because we are clearly stupid and don't read, talk to our doctors or know anything about our freaking reproductive systems), the truth is that we know.
Said with humor, of course. I am a very young mother and a very old one. I am also a very young grandmother and have 3 daughters, 2 who were born when I was 24 and 25. My third daughter, the one who pointed out that "my clock was ticking," was born two months before my 40th birthday. She is 20 now. Do the math.
For me, my childlren have kept me young, both physically and mentally. They keep me active. They make me do things and involve me in their lives, appropriately and in a way that has kept me energized, learning new things, relearning old things and ways of being. I am blessed for this interaction and friendship with my adult daughters. Now, there is that first grandbaby, he's 2, I'm a 60, but he thinks I am just a big action firgure, play toy. That's the best thing in the world! He is keeping me young and playful, imaginative, creative.
'I have gotten to learn all over again, what is is to be a baby, toddler, teenager, young adult, mom and gramma. My dedcision to have Julie when I was nearly 40, has been one of the best decisions of my life. I was able to enjoy her, watch her grow, afford the time to be involved with her more than my first two who were in day care from so young, while I raised them, mostly alone for years. The time I had later, as an older mom, was wondeful and I shared this with so many other women who were having babies in their late 30's and early 40's, after pursuing futher education and careers, who could now take quality time for themselves and their desired babies.
Well, babies at any age, when chosen, loved and nurtured, is quite OK in my book.
Will say one thing, though. It is much easier physically, to have babies in your 20ths and bounce back to your thinner shape than in your late 30's or 40's. "Aye, there's the rub!" You either have them young and broke or you have them at a time you can more fully enjoy them and devote more quality time to them. For me, it worked both ways, because I chose to have them when I did.
Wouldn't change a single thing. My later life baby has been such an incredible joy and source of pride and energy to me. She pumped me full of new life, much as I did having her.
One proud, happy, sappy mama!
:)
As I had stated before, I'm 37 with an 80 year old mother and 95 year old father. Yes, in many ways things were harder for me as I had parents who were so much older. My childhood, if you could call it that, was certainly different from that of other children as well. So, would I have been better off if I hadn't been born at all? I don't quite think so. I am grateful that my parents had grown up by the time I came around. There is something to be said for maturity and the stability which age provides. Yes, I did have to grow up quickly - as do many children who have young, immature parents. I became a stronger and more caring adult because of this.
Yes, it was also hard for my parents - my father kept working until about 2 weeks prior to his 79th birthday. At the same time, he stayed more active because he had a younger family and was in better shape then than most men I've known who were in their 50s and 60s. As for those older women who choose to adopt, well more power to them. I think most children would take an older, more mature parent over no parent at all or over one who is still young and focused entirely on themselves.
One last thing. I'm not the product of some fertility treatment meant to reverse the clock. My parents had SEX. It often still works that way.
O.S. provides a venue where I can remark on personal experience, cultural trends and others can jump on board to give their opinion as well. As "Laurel, not Lauren" pointed out, I touched a nerve and did raise some good points. And sometimes, it's not all about you.
This is not an attempt to criticise or control what others do. It's just an observation that having children late is outside the norm and has different consequences than having them in your 20s and 30s. That does not make it wrong but makes for an interesting conversation.
You presented a bunch of anecdotal evidence for why women in their 40s should not have child. There are not merely a couple of exceptions to your 'rule', as you put it - - there are a number of factual considerations that fly in the face of your premise.
Re: the Down's syndrome issue, sure, research has shown that women over 40 are more likely to have a child with Down's. But as you pointed out, women under 40 have far more, as they produce the most children. If the goal is to prevent Down's children, should we then limit the # of children younger women bear? I While we're at it, older men produce more children with autism spectrum disorders.
Natural life span is something like 72. So most women giving birth to children in their 40s will be alive for the entirety of that child's adolescence and young adulthood, as well as early maturity. But frankly, the fear that a child *may* be orphaned by an older parent - any parent - makes me shrug. Life is precious, and it is not less so just because we can't live its entirety surrounded by people of our preference. That's true no matter how old your parents are.
If I may, I'd like to pile-on.... man, you sound like an old codger!
What do you have against single, older women? Should we perhaps not allow them to use hair color? That's also a recent innovation that is a scourge on our society.
Really? A negative judgement against anyone adopting a child for any reason? These are children otherwise thrown away. There is no room for that kind of attitude. Possibly, you didn't take the time to peruse and edit your own thoughts on that. Best of luck with your own, I guess.
Some of what you say may be true--about a physically tired middle-aged or older person embarking on the teen years of her children--but the point is that (1) it's not true for everyone, (2) it's not really for you to say (not that you can't have an opinion, just that your post rails about it in a way that almost screams for legislation against it or something), and, something no one's mentioned, (3) it's not that common. I mean, come on, talk about a straw man. Like this is some kind of rampant societal problem?
I think older and younger mothers bring different strengths to parenting. Sure, it's clear that an older mother is going to get old and die on her children sooner than their friends with younger mothers (as a rule) will lose their parents, but sheesh, there's all kinds of variables going on here, some of which may benefit the children of older parents. This reminds me of my friend who thinks gay people shouldn't adopt kids because "it's not fair to the kids." Like having to deal with society's crap about homosexuality is the only bummer for kids. Kids whose parents get divorced, fight a lot, cheat, commit crimes, drink, act stupid, lose their jobs, work at McDonald's, abuse them physically or psychologically--probably feel life's a bit unfair too. What the hell is "fair" anyway?
And the biggest irony of all: Would said offspring rather not be born at all? Are you talking about the toll on society or what? Because given the alternative, it's no contest for the child.
It's a little mind boggling to me that anyone could argue the point that people who are twenty years older are more likely to die. Especially since many of the people arguing have already watched their own parents die and should therefore have lost the childish fantasy that people live forever.
As for it not being her business, beg to differ. The welfare of children is everybody's business. I realize I'm a little jaded, but working with abused children pretty quickly disabused me of the notion that parents should be the sole arbiters of how much their children suffer. Yes, if your decisions harm your kids, other people are allowed to speak up about it.
It's also a good age to start a career, live in a city, go to law school and marry your first husband.
It's all about choices.
(I don't disagree with you, btw, that older moms die on their children sooner or that the welfare of children is everyone's business. But your smarmy characterization of older moms as relying on politically correctness to get them through the hard work of parenting strikes me as profoundly unfair and more than a little reactionary. Ftr, I don't think I qualify as an "older mom," although perhaps to you I am. I had my first at 28. Is that acceptable to you?)
I just want to say that from a societal perspective I can't see this trend as such a terrible thing. We need to slow down the rate of population growth anyway. The best and most painless way to do that is to educate women. That way they decide of their own volition to do other things with their lives, and postpone childbearing until they can only squeeze out one or two max. Fine with me. The world doesn't need more humans, nor do I favor draconian legislation like China's in order to achieve ZPG.
More to the point, it's my kids' peers whose parents are older that are the true problems in my life. They're they unsupervised, "I can get away with anything because my parents are clueless" kids that I don't allow mine to hang out with. What good can come of half a generation of 14 year olds raising themselves?
Rated and appreciated. A good, bold, "tell it like it is" post.
That's because it doesn't mean anything. You can have all the opinions you want, but they are not really worth much of anything except food for thought, because this country already had their brush with eugenics 100 years ago when the mentally disabled, minorities, and the poor were sterilized, sometimes without their knowledge. This bulls**t persisted well into the 1940's until it was put to rest forever (at least I hope so.)
So here we are in 2009, and people have the freedom to have a child whenever or however or under whatever cirsumstances they want. The only restrictions are those imposed by adoption agencies, and the clinics that perform in vitro or insemination.
So opine away. In the long run, it isn't really going to amount to much.
I think someone should post something about how most people aren't performing sex the right way. THAT should generate a lot of posts too, and would pack just as much hubris.
I EDITOR’S PICK
Great job O! You have “struck through” her prima donna bubble. Can you believe she actually wrote the following lines?
“You are also burdening your offspring with your elderly self. While they may be going to college, they are on high alert as you slowly start to stroke out, get forgetful, or succumb to cancer.”
I am 59 and have a 17 year old going to college in the fall (okay, we’ve got to get that high school thing wrapped up still). Had I known I am going to “stroke out, get forgetful, or succumb to cancer” I would never have bought those damn sea monkeys at the flea market.
BTW, I will say that physically I'm in a lot better shape than many of the 30ish dads I see running around town. And being around a child you love should give you some pep. There is no reason not to enjoy a robust physical existence well into your seventies and beyond, barring accident or genetic diseases.
The generation thing isn't big. Why should another 10 years make a difference. By that logic, teen parents, close in age to their kids are the best bet.
The reason why 40+ women shouldn't have kids is the risk of chromosomal abnormalities, which hits 10% in the late 40s. But, not very many women in the their late 40s are fertile, so nature has that sorted.
With all due respect, you honestly think your points are revelations to anyone over 40 wanting to have kids? My wife and I are going through this now, and it is a process fraught with thought and soul-searching, not to mention tedium, physical pain and a lot of anxiety. We agreed that in our case, the time for children is definitely now; neither of us was ready for kids in our previous relationships. It's the most supremely conscious decision we've ever made.
The only thing that really matters is good parenting, not the age of the parent. Period.
I'd like to point out that radical feminists are more likely to eschew having babies at all rather than simply putting them off.
Because in this thread, assigning roles to different groups of people is paramount.
I am an older parent and many of my friends are older parents. It is great. I have a lot more money than I did in my 20's. I am a lot smarter. My husband and I get along great and agree on the method of raising our child. And I find it easy to ignore parental trends. I just don't feel I need to buy into what the latest, greatest motherhood thing is.
I never had any energy - even in my 20's so I never knew what it felt like to have a lot. But having my child was like being in love - I got a lot of energy for free - nature just provided.
I only have one child. It just isn't that hard.
My mother had six and the youngest had special needs. Talk about hard. That was hard.
Really ignore all these mothers thinking they know best for the whole world. I read a lot of articles like this in the Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker. They irritate me.
Make your own decisions.
Had my sons in my early 20s. I tried my best, but hardly knew what I was doing. And biggest point of all, life doesn't work according to rules. Things happen. Choices are sometimes made that you wouldn't make if all were perfect.
You sound smug. That is a good thing about becoming older-- you realize that rules for things like mothering don't work. You get less smug. Each situation is different.
Disclosure: I'm the 45-year- old father of a 16-month-old son. Do I have a bit less energy for diaper-changing, feeding, late-night wakeups , and general damage control? Possibly. But I'm unquestionably a far better parent than I would have been in my 20s or even 30s.
I've been teaching preschool in the meantime, and generally speaking , the older parents seem far more responsible and responsive to their children's needs, then the younger ones, many of whom are still living in their own parent's houses and getting help from the children's grandparents. BTW, my children's grandparents are all alive and well and have great relationships with my kids. I was the youngest child of a youngest child (born when she was 32), so didn't know my own maternal grandmother--back then people didn't live as long as they do today.
You are absolutely correct in your last paragraph re: social experimentation. We really don't know the social impact of the loss of the grandparent role in child rearing. This issue could open up a plethora of other robust conversations on the impact of women chosing her child's father out of a sperm bank book or a man hiring a surrogate.
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=92442
Anyhoo, regarding "older mamas", I have mixed feelings. On one hand, its not my place to judge, on the other hand I think our biology is the way it is for a reason. I'm NOT saying women over 35 SHOULDN'T have kids, I'm saying that people need to seriously consider the benefits/risks of having little ones past a certain age.
Also, I think that some have forgotten that childern do not carry the "social weight" that they used to . . . familes no longer "need" 5, 6, 7 + kids, childbearing is not a "expected lot" for women and we now have options to control conception and avoid being pupped altogether. (Amen!)
There is no "perfect" age to have kids . . . YES there are "stupid" ages to have kids (like 14 or 95)
I also wonder if "delayed motherhood" would be as common as it is, if medical technology (clomid, IVF, egg donation etc) were not available?
I'm MUCH more concerned about all-too-young women having babies and not knowing what the hell they are doing.
I would say this: I think too many people (such as the famous people you mentioned) are having babies for strange, ego-based reasons - filling some void rather than genuinely WANTING a child. I see it among friends as well: it's like they are furiously racing to some natal finish line. Disturbing. Babies have become status symbols.
Anyway, I appreciate you putting your opinion out there nonetheless. I would agree that later-in-life babies have an extra burden as far as tending to their parents - something the parents don't tend to factor in to the equation.
OK, the stories of successful older parents are "anecdotal", but the stories of your failed friends are somehow not anecdotal?
People are living longer lives with higher education and access to more knowledge than ever before. I believe that this equips women to be wonderful parents at almost any age.
Back in the 50's 60 was old, but in the millennium, 50 is the new 30. You actually provided some good empirical evidence of this, citing older moms such as Madonna, Geena Davis, and Holly Hunter.
Not only is this post an ageism and sexism fail (as Gregor pointed out), but also a logic fail.
But the stories where it works are just "anecdotal?" Say what?
All you've got is anecdotes and your own opinions-- that, for example, we need to know and love the same TV shows as our children. Well now, thanks to the miracle of dvd--guess what? We can all watch *MASH* together!
Put us down as late blooming parents who are having a blast! Life is just not something you do "by the book." Love has no shelf life, and there are way too many other variables in parenting than to make too much out of this one.
Did we not just elect a brilliant, well-adjusted president-- raised by his grandparents?!
And I don't think many mothers are going to judge this article kindly. You bring up many interesting points, but your arguments are all based on a single false premise: you've confused economic necessity with social experimentation.
I'm 50 and was born when my mother was 25. This happened not because it was biologically ideal, but because it was economically possible. My father was able not only to support but actually participate in a middle-class family of four while working reasonable hours. You seem blissfully unaware that such a family is no longer remotely possible for most Americans.
Women are having children later in life not due to some whimsical "social experimentation" (gaaah - that's offensive), but because it's better to have an 18 year old whose parents are undergoing simultaneous hip replacements than a 3 year old whose mommy and daddy are on separate business trips.
In the the world in which most of us live, "have babies early" smacks of "let them eat cake."
As a young woman, I decided the ideal age was 28. And I was fortunate to find and marry a man who was amenable to having a child around that time, and we were so fortunate to actually accomplish it! We went on to have two more, at age 30 and 33.
In my mind, this WAS the ideal. I was old enough to have had time to sow my wild oats, to have had a significant period of adult freedom to look back on when up to my elbows in diapers, but not such a long time that I was set in my selfish, carefree ways.
It is, of course, obvious, that 28 is not the perfect age for everyone to have a child. It does seem also, however, obvious, that 48 or 50 is pushing it. I have several friends who have had kids in their later forties, and who seem to have had a pretty hard time of it, for various reasons.
So, 16 or 17 or 18 seems pretty young, anything over mid-forties seems a little old, I'm sorry, but it does. Not to say it's not your RIGHT, or you won't be able to do a good job . . . but it seems that it will doubtless be very difficult.
Not to say it's not difficult for all parents. Of course it is.
So, is there an ideal age? I still think it's 28, but maybe that's just because it worked out so well for us. But then again, we were lucky.
I lost my dad at age 54--my mom was 39 when I was born. Ah well, my parents were soooooo disfunctional, it wouldn't have mattered at what age I was conceived!
Well, if we don't know anything else from your rant, you have made crystal clear how important you think fathers are.
To have the opportunity to develop the wealth to support their children and themselves beforehand.
To enjoy youth without the burden of parenthood.
The fact that they are living longer, healthier lives and to create scenarios in which their maturity is fuller and more active.
As M. Chariot is bitter and childless, this is all speculation, of course.
In my twenties I got to be selfish and be concern with my career, traveled all over the world and took my time meeting the right man. I am now happily married for 20 years and my daughter will be going to college this fall. I had her at 32 and enjoyed being a Mom because I was ready and mature at that time. Now she and I have a great relationship due to the fact that I had a good career, good marriage and did all the things I wanted to do before I had her.
I think you should have children when you are ready no matter what age.
The brother of Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara told the paper Diario de Cadiz she passed away on Saturday, aged 69."
7/15/09.
Holly... My husband and I have a total of 15 children between "yours, mine and ours." Of those 15, 7 were adopted out of foster care, 2 were adopted privately and 3 were adopted following the deaths of their parents (my brother and sister-in-law).
There is nothing worse or more humiliating than being 16 years old picking up a drunk single mom who is 32 from a bar where she was trying to pick up her next "husband", because she's broke and desperately unaware of how to find an actual job for herself. This was due to leaving school early to raise babies when she was little more than a baby herself.
It was VERY strange for me at my own wedding for my 44 year old mother to meet my 71 year old mother in law. Especially when my grandmother was younger than my mother in law.
However, what I learned is that my immature, uneducated mother never actually grew or progressed emotionally much past where she was when she had me at the age of 16. My grandmother was prematurely aged past her 72 years and looked and acted 99.
My mother in law was educated (she's a surgeon), understanding, loving, non-judgmental, young, vibrant, alive, intelligent, traveled the world annually back to her home country, snow-skis with her kids, water skis better than I do. There is no possible way anyone would credit her for her real age - currently 81 (but looks and acts in her early 60s due to her young family).
Now here I am at 41, with an extremely successful global exporting business, a successful career, a great education, a long-standing, loving marriage, a gorgeous house with no mortgage, and more money than I know what to do with.
And I'm pregnant for the FIRST time. I'm 31 weeks to be precise.
My business is at the point where I will NEVER have to work again the rest of my life. This means I have the time to afford to comfortably spend all of it with my child - nurturing, loving, teaching, playing and watching. No day-care facilities for my baby. No strangers raising my child while I struggle to make rent-money at minimum wage.
I have the money to pay for anything we ever require - that includes freedom of time together. I couldn't have done this in my 20s. Amneocentesis shows no abnormalities - healthy, happy baby.
So, I challenge you to show me where an unworldly, financially unstable, emotionally immature 20-something mother can outdo this kind of full-time care, attention, affection and financial stability for a growing child from a mature parent with a more realistic, worldly viewpoint.
You can't do that. This post is a disgrace. I'm disgusted that this is an "editor's pick".
My great-aunt who grew up in the 30's had 2 kids in her early 30's. Then had 2 more, naturally, at 48 and 49. Most of my female relatives dating back to great-grandmother and great-great-cousins had kids in their 30's because they **couldn't** get pregnant in their 20's. Back then, they were considered ancient. Some of their friends were already grandmas. So this is absolutely not just a sign of the times. It might not happen in such great quantities with modern medicine, but it would STILL happen.
But I guess if you're not fertile or aren't financially stable or haven't met a partner yet then you should just give up on motherhood because having kids in your 30's and 40's is selfish.
You're a piece of work. I hope your kids don't go through the heartbreak of infertility and consequently have kids later in life.
Many of us are the first out of our generations in the history of man to have such an extended post adolescence period. For some one such as myself, this has been detrimental to my evolution as an individual. It took almost 20 years of therapy to heal myself from my disruptive childhood.
This is my story and only my story. I can't speak for anyone else except for myself.
My parents were both beautiful loving people. They were young parents (early 20s). My mother was prepared to be a parent but my father was not. Therefore, there was an abundance of emotional and psychological imbalance between them. Their relationship was not healthy which in turn had a powerful impact upon myself and my sisters. To this day, my older sister who is now in her mid 40s is still psychologically scarred and is struggling.
I have wanted to have a baby since my teen years. I yearned to have a baby and be a mother. But sometimes when you are busy making plans, life happens! Having to witness such an abusive relationship between my parents and having no guides or words of wisdom to go out into the world to attract the right man, I attracted all the wrong men. If you do not learn about sexuality from people who love you and are your elders, you learn it on the streets from people who do not give a damn about you. I was in a multitude of relationships with men that I thought I was in love with but in turn I allowed these men to violate me.
Once I hit my mid twenties and had finally started on a road of healing, I realized that it was going to be a very long time before I got myself into a good place to be a great parent. I started to intuitively feel that I was going to be a parent later in life. I started to preserve my body by changing my diet.
I met a man at 31 who I thought would be the love of my life. I was going to marry this man and finally have children. I also stepped up healing myself mind body and soul. The relationship eventually fell apart. I was so disappointed. It was as if we were growing apart as I dived deeper into healing myself.
Mid to late thirties, I dated three men who of course I thought finally, the one. Not so fast. I was still attracting the wrong men. It takes a long time to change psychological patterns that were set in place in your childhood.
I am now in my mid forties and still long to give birth to a child. This fall, I will start the search to become a single parent. I am extremely healthy. I preserved my body well. I am so proud of myself for the care I put into healing me. People are shocked when I tell them my age.
I look back now and am so grateful that I did not have children when I was younger. I would have been the worst parent. I would not have be able to give them what they needed. I would have continued a cycle of psychological imbalance in my family. I am also grateful that I am not connected to any of the men that I was previously involved with. Thank God for that!
I would like to thank the author of this piece for provoking such a powerful response in people. We all have our own inner voices that guide us and tell us what is right or wrong for our own lives. Some of us feed into other's opinions strongly and allow those opinions to control them. Then there are others who hear out someone's opinion and find that they strongly disagree and that propels then further into our own individual direction.
It is great to have a platform in which to share your opinion. However, when that opinion turns into dictating to others of how to live their lives that is extremely wrong. Who are you to feel that your opinion should dictate to the billions of us that live on this planet. Why do you think Hitler was detested so strongly. For every person on this earth their is a different opinion. I can understand your point of view but I don't have to accept it.
It is important to keep in mind that we can all agree to disagree and go on our own merry ways.
And the comments in regards to age. They are so ignorant, it's so hard to comprehend them. As there is racism, there is ageism. This country is obsessed with youth & beauty: HOLLYWOODISM! It's so superficial and gross. And from this has grow the most shallow and destructive mindset in our society.
And the other ignorance of this piece is the absence of the male anatomy. But maybe the author only meant to focus on the "Ladies".
To Holly the 24 year old who is probably 26 by now. Oh youth! How I remember that I thought I knew everything back then. I had all the answers in life. Enjoy living in that bubble because soon it will burst. BTW: Do you live with your parents? Who is with your children when you are tending to school and work? And where is the father of your children?
Thank you to all the strong kickass women who posted on here. ROCK ON!!! And empower your children with the fact that they have a choice that will work for them as well based on their own individual lives. When someone tells then can't that is the green light to turn that into CAN!
Oh and The Mighty FEMALE does generate new eggs throughout her adult life:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120726180259.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/