In the US? No, it isn't. Other countries and under private insurers may vary. Of course, if a woman waits until she's 35+ and there are additional medical costs that are subsidized by the state, well who fucking cares? Plenty of people do high risk behavior (smoking, drinking, Xtreme sports, going outside) that the state ends up subsidizing the medical costs for, so why is it all of a sudden some sort of major policy issue if a woman does it with regards to having children?
Ha, I was just about to point out that we enact all kinds of policies to discourage at least one or two of the high risk behaviors you mention (smoking, drinking), but KevinNash beat me to it.
EDIT: Also, I think there's more of a burden placed on society by Down's Syndrome (among other defects) than a "hundred extra in taxes."
'cos see I have massive problems with statements like this,
That said, finding a suitable mate takes time. She better haul ass because the biological clock is ticking.
Which kind of lend the impression that a) dudes only exist for this and opening jars and b) you can nip in before closing time at the Man Shack and grab yourself a bargain.
At least one of you knows that older fathers can pass on birth defects too.
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
If a woman has trouble conceiving past 35 because of her life choices is the state responsible for subsidizing medical costs so that she can get pregnant?
In the US? No, it isn't. Other countries and under private insurers may vary. Of course, if a woman waits until she's 35+ and there are additional medical costs that are subsidized by the state, well who fucking cares? Plenty of people do high risk behavior (smoking, drinking, Xtreme sports, going outside) that the state ends up subsidizing the medical costs for, so why is it all of a sudden some sort of major policy issue if a woman does it with regards to having children?
It's not, but when did something have to be a major policy issue before we're allowed to talk about it or judge people's long-tern-planning skills on?
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
Whilst that is to an extent problematic, I agree with Jeffe and McDermot insofar as sorry, but a sixteen year old doesn't have the maturity or experience to sensibly make the choice to be a parent. And that can, and should be judged by society.
Maybe not ideal, but "should be judged by society"? Do you hate the girl or the child more in this scenario, because I'm having trouble telling. And where is the father in all this, I ask again? Off opening a jar somewhere, one presumes.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
And its fucking stupid, because if I give up and get all capitalist about it, I can easily point out that attitude is going to wind up costing a lot more money in the long run, in prison fees for Junior if nothing else.
I'll have to go dig for the data on this but the dirty little secret of the developed world is that waiting into your mid 30's to have children makes it signifcantly more difficult to do so naturally. It isn't coincidence that celebrities turn to IVF when they are having children following their prolonged acting careers.
Long story short: Don't wait to have your first child until you are 35 unless you want to shell out $15,000 to conceive a baby.
The fertility rate for age 35-39 is roughly about half that of age 30-34 (based on studies done in 2000 and 2004), this is true. However, this doesn't mean that you "have to seek fertility treatments" when you are in your mid-30s. There are a multitude of factors that come into play for overall fertility after the age of 35, like ethnic group, socio-economic status, morbidity of various infectious diseases or other medical conditions, etc. This applies for both partners in the matter. The average healthy woman and man who have no history of STDs will still "maek babby".
Your "long story short" is an exaggeration. Celebrities have very little to do with the discussion other than a warped overall awareness of the subject matter through mass media. From 2006 data, assisted fertility accounted for 55k births (this includes hormonal treatments as well as IVF), about half of which were above the age 35 (I think). Out of approximately 250k (or so) births in the group of women age over 35, that's around 10% that were conceived by assisted means.
You are looking at the numbers and thinking that every woman has an equal chance of conceiving. That just isn't the case. Some women will conceive every cycle they have sex at the right time at age 39 and other women will never conceive naturally at age 31.
Are you disputing the idea that more couples will need to seek out fertility treatments if they try to conceive at age 35 than if they had tried to conceive at age 30?
I'm disputing the idea that you HAVE to use IVF or assisted fertility once you hit 35. That's a massive exaggeration, as the numbers state. Only 13% of the births in the over 35 age range used assisted fertility of any kind. It's not a "dirty little secret". It's uncommon, compared to the normal method of making babies.
It's also self-selecting, as pointed out in the overview, because those who seek fertility treatments typically have tried for years to have a child normally without success. Thus, they are typically in the older age brackets when they seek fertility treatments.
I'm reading 25% from 25-30, 15% from 30-35, that means 7.5% from 35+ using your data. The % is per cycle.
Yes there are plenty of factors at stake. But I'm pointing out that it becomes more difficult to naturally the older a woman gets. I think that's notable. The assisted means is likely so low because it's so expensive to actually use these treatments. Celebrities have lots of money. A typical woman does not.
Percent per cycle, yes. But those numbers are a bit misleading, since it's not really a true measure of birth rate (certainly not first birth rates). It's "more" difficult, but it doesn't get REALLY difficult until age 42 or 45 (depending on whether you are white or "other" in America and what state you are including yourself in for demographics purposes). Assisted fertility is a small percentage of overall births regardless of age group, and the success rates are actually lower, the higher the age.
It's none of our business in the sense that we shouldn't tell particular women when they can or can't have kids. If you think this means that there is no such thing as a better or worse time for a woman to have a kid, that's a bit daft, and I don't think discussing the subject is really out of bounds.
I think that it's a personal decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor.
I think that as much as we can have a valid discussion, there are an awful lot of people who are waaaaaaay too interested in telling women (either in general or in particular) what they should and should not do with their bodies.
I think that this sort of discussion is an open invitation to body policing and the ecological fallacy.
I think that there's a way of having this discussion in a manner that isn't going to support body policing, and leading with the question "what's the ideal age to have a child?" isn't it.
I agree with Feral.
This topic is sexist as hell and I'm quite surprised to see it being treated as a valid discussion.
Investment decisions are between a person and his broker. What do you think about the investment thread?
I'm disputing the idea that you HAVE to use IVF or assisted fertility once you hit 35. That's a massive exaggeration, as the numbers state. Only 13% of the births in the over 35 age range used assisted fertility of any kind. It's not a "dirty little secret". It's uncommon, compared to the normal method of making babies.
Its like how TV massively exaggerates the dangers of childbirth. No-one on TV ever has a boring 12-18 hour labour unless the child later turns out have been born with an extra leg or a dick on its forehead.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm disputing the idea that you HAVE to use IVF or assisted fertility once you hit 35. That's a massive exaggeration, as the numbers state. Only 13% of the births in the over 35 age range used assisted fertility of any kind. It's not a "dirty little secret". It's uncommon, compared to the normal method of making babies.
Its like how TV massively exaggerates the dangers of childbirth. No-one on TV ever has a boring 12-18 hour labour unless the child later turns out have been born with an extra leg or a dick on its forehead.
I would totally buy that kid a onesie that said "Unicorn Rides $5"
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'll have to go dig for the data on this but the dirty little secret of the developed world is that waiting into your mid 30's to have children makes it signifcantly more difficult to do so naturally. It isn't coincidence that celebrities turn to IVF when they are having children following their prolonged acting careers.
Long story short: Don't wait to have your first child until you are 35 unless you want to shell out $15,000 to conceive a baby.
The fertility rate for age 35-39 is roughly about half that of age 30-34 (based on studies done in 2000 and 2004), this is true. However, this doesn't mean that you "have to seek fertility treatments" when you are in your mid-30s. There are a multitude of factors that come into play for overall fertility after the age of 35, like ethnic group, socio-economic status, morbidity of various infectious diseases or other medical conditions, etc. This applies for both partners in the matter. The average healthy woman and man who have no history of STDs will still "maek babby".
Your "long story short" is an exaggeration. Celebrities have very little to do with the discussion other than a warped overall awareness of the subject matter through mass media. From 2006 data, assisted fertility accounted for 55k births (this includes hormonal treatments as well as IVF), about half of which were above the age 35 (I think). Out of approximately 250k (or so) births in the group of women age over 35, that's around 10% that were conceived by assisted means.
You are looking at the numbers and thinking that every woman has an equal chance of conceiving. That just isn't the case. Some women will conceive every cycle they have sex at the right time at age 39 and other women will never conceive naturally at age 31.
Are you disputing the idea that more couples will need to seek out fertility treatments if they try to conceive at age 35 than if they had tried to conceive at age 30?
I'm disputing the idea that you HAVE to use IVF or assisted fertility once you hit 35.
You have to if you want to be guaranteed or near guaranteed to have a child. The % past 35 of conceiving naturally is very low. If you were in that situation and you wanted a child would you want to just keep trying until you are so old that chance becomes 0?
That's a massive exaggeration, as the numbers state. Only 13% of the births in the over 35 age range used assisted fertility of any kind. It's not a "dirty little secret". It's uncommon, compared to the normal method of making babies.
That doesn't change the fact that conceiving past 35 is a very low percentage. That was my point. Not that IVF was mandatory. Of course it's not. But if it's an option then I'm sure people would take it over just not having a child.
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
Whilst that is to an extent problematic, I agree with Jeffe and McDermot insofar as sorry, but a sixteen year old doesn't have the maturity or experience to sensibly make the choice to be a parent. And that can, and should be judged by society.
Maybe not ideal, but "should be judged by society"? Do you hate the girl or the child more in this scenario, because I'm having trouble telling. And where is the father in all this, I ask again? Off opening a jar somewhere, one presumes.
The girl's an idiot. Oh, and dad's a dumbass too.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
That actually seems like a really good idea...the school, that is.
It doesn't make teenage parenthood (or elderly parenthood) any less of a stupid-ass idea, of course. But yes, I think that in general we ought to try to limit the overall impact of that stupid-ass idea...if for no reason than because the child didn't choose it.
I think there's a difference between "hey, maybe we ought to more openly talk about the idea of when it is and is not a good idea to bear children" and "let's make rules against poor choices, ostracize those that make them, then feed their children to wolves." I think most here are interested in the former.
And its fucking stupid, because if I give up and get all capitalist about it, I can easily point out that attitude is going to wind up costing a lot more money in the long run, in prison fees for Junior if nothing else.
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
Whilst that is to an extent problematic, I agree with Jeffe and McDermot insofar as sorry, but a sixteen year old doesn't have the maturity or experience to sensibly make the choice to be a parent. And that can, and should be judged by society.
Maybe not ideal, but "should be judged by society"? Do you hate the girl or the child more in this scenario, because I'm having trouble telling. And where is the father in all this, I ask again? Off opening a jar somewhere, one presumes.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
And its fucking stupid, because if I give up and get all capitalist about it, I can easily point out that attitude is going to wind up costing a lot more money in the long run, in prison fees for Junior if nothing else.
Tell me, is that strawman heavy?
Show me anywhere someone said that making bad decision on this matter makes you evil or immoral or that we should cut people off from support services. All anyone is saying is that conceiving a child too young or too old says a lot about a person's intelligence and decision making skills.
It's none of our business in the sense that we shouldn't tell particular women when they can or can't have kids. If you think this means that there is no such thing as a better or worse time for a woman to have a kid, that's a bit daft, and I don't think discussing the subject is really out of bounds.
I think that it's a personal decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor.
I think that as much as we can have a valid discussion, there are an awful lot of people who are waaaaaaay too interested in telling women (either in general or in particular) what they should and should not do with their bodies.
I think that this sort of discussion is an open invitation to body policing and the ecological fallacy.
I think that there's a way of having this discussion in a manner that isn't going to support body policing, and leading with the question "what's the ideal age to have a child?" isn't it.
I agree with Feral.
This topic is sexist as hell and I'm quite surprised to see it being treated as a valid discussion.
It's only sexist due to the biological reality that only one gender bears children.
Also, haven't there been some studies showing links between advanced paternal age and some defects? I could swear there have been. So yeah, we could probably talk about that too if anybody wants to.
For both mother and father, it basically boils down to a balance between financial stability and risk of genetic defect. Those two will vary on average between males and females (particularly the genetic bit), and from person to person.
Sure, let's talk about dudes.
I think that pretty much anyone, male or female, is grossly irresponsible if they have a kid knowing that there is a very good chance that they will die while the kid is still young. Terminal cancer patients, 65 year olds, whatever - you're having a kid and almost guaranteeing that you will put him through an extremely traumatic experience at a very vulnerable time in his life. It is grossly irresponsible and incredibly selfish.
Better?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
You have to if you want to be guaranteed or near guaranteed to have a child. The % past 35 of conceiving naturally is very low. If you were in that situation and you wanted a child would you want to just keep trying until you are so old that chance becomes 0?
<snip>
That doesn't change the fact that conceiving past 35 is a very low percentage. That was my point. Not that IVF was mandatory. Of course it's not. But if it's an option then I'm sure people would take it over just not having a child.
Past the age 35, yes it's low. But there are degrees of low. There's "well, you are half as fertile, but still can conceive naturally" in the 35-39 age bracket. Then there's "you are more likely to get in a car accident", which is 45+. It's a matter of degree, and if you had simply said "over the age of 40", I might not really dispute what you are saying. 35-39 is a viable age group for birth rate. There are socio-economic factors that impact birth rate more than being in that bracket.
Also, assisted fertility? The batting average is... like a professional batting average, actually. It is less than 30% of a chance of success. IVF (or any other assisted fertility treatment) doesn't instantly give you a baby. That 30% chance is over several cycles of failed treatments, too (the average being 6 or 7 attempts). Much like a batting average doesn't count those strikes or balls. *grin*
I think there's a difference between "hey, maybe we ought to more openly talk about the idea of when it is and is not a good idea to bear children" and "let's make rules against poor choices, ostracize those that make them, then feed their children to wolves." I think most here are interested in the former.
And the former is a valid discussion - with the right tone and context.
A woman saying "I want to have a baby, but I want to have a career too, what are the risks of waiting until my 30s?" is a pretty okay context in which to have that discussion, for instance. You can ask about her particular circumstances (no family history of chromosomal disorders; no prior use of teratogenic medication; what career are you considering?, etc) so you don't have to make any clumsy generalizations. She's opened herself up to making the decision public. And, possibly most importantly, the people giving advice have the opportunity to listen to her and learn something themselves.
But talking about the average woman... well, there's no such thing as the average woman. There are nasty stereotypes, and blurry generalizations, though, and the discussion as it is currently framed is a great little petri dish for the culturing of those generalizations.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The ideal age for a woman to conceive? Some people say never, because to bring a life into the world is to expose it to the possibility of suffering. Sure, there's a possibility that a child may have a wonderful, happy life, but bringing a new life into the world is basically gambling with another human life.
If the act of procreation were neither the outcome of a desire nor accompanied by feelings of pleasure, but a matter to be decided on the basis of purely rational considerations, is it likely the human race would still exist? Would each of us not rather have felt so much pity for the coming generation as to prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at least not wish to take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
Whilst that is to an extent problematic, I agree with Jeffe and McDermot insofar as sorry, but a sixteen year old doesn't have the maturity or experience to sensibly make the choice to be a parent. And that can, and should be judged by society.
Maybe not ideal, but "should be judged by society"? Do you hate the girl or the child more in this scenario, because I'm having trouble telling. And where is the father in all this, I ask again? Off opening a jar somewhere, one presumes.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
And its fucking stupid, because if I give up and get all capitalist about it, I can easily point out that attitude is going to wind up costing a lot more money in the long run, in prison fees for Junior if nothing else.
Tell me, is that strawman heavy?
Show me anywhere someone said that making bad decision on this matter makes you evil or immoral or that we should cut people off from support services. All anyone is saying is that conceiving a child too young or too old says a lot about a person's intelligence and decision making skills.
No, it frequently doesn't; it says a lot more about the pressures around them and the lack of opportunity, access to contraception, etc. For older parents, it often speaks to simply being unlucky enough to meet someone later in life than society deems ideal.
And even if they are stupid, so fucking what? That gives you the right to treat them like fail? I'd rather be less awful, thanks, and acknowledge that maybe these mothers just need more help. Keep your "judgements" to yourself.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
Of course, this is a problem with our society as a whole, not just relating to parenting.
EDIT: For example, being told you can't possibly take a week off of work, even unpaid, to see your spouse off to a yearlong military deployment. Work is just far too important!
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
You are free to think the thread is terrible. If it's breaking rules, you are free to report it. What you guys are doing, though, is threadshitting, and it stops now.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
So now you're pissed that we might be saying that there's a tradeoff to waiting until you're old and rich?
It's none of our business in the sense that we shouldn't tell particular women when they can or can't have kids. If you think this means that there is no such thing as a better or worse time for a woman to have a kid, that's a bit daft, and I don't think discussing the subject is really out of bounds.
I think that it's a personal decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor.
I think that as much as we can have a valid discussion, there are an awful lot of people who are waaaaaaay too interested in telling women (either in general or in particular) what they should and should not do with their bodies.
I think that this sort of discussion is an open invitation to body policing and the ecological fallacy.
I think that there's a way of having this discussion in a manner that isn't going to support body policing, and leading with the question "what's the ideal age to have a child?" isn't it.
I agree with Feral.
This topic is sexist as hell and I'm quite surprised to see it being treated as a valid discussion.
It's only sexist due to the biological reality that only one gender bears children.
Also, haven't there been some studies showing links between advanced paternal age and some defects? I could swear there have been. So yeah, we could probably talk about that too if anybody wants to.
For both mother and father, it basically boils down to a balance between financial stability and risk of genetic defect. Those two will vary on average between males and females (particularly the genetic bit), and from person to person.
Sure, let's talk about dudes.
I think that pretty much anyone, male or female, is grossly irresponsible if they have a kid knowing that there is a very good chance that they will die while the kid is still young. Terminal cancer patients, 65 year olds, whatever - you're having a kid and almost guaranteeing that you will put him through an extremely traumatic experience at a very vulnerable time in his life. It is grossly irresponsible and incredibly selfish.
Better?
This applies to everything like this. The fact is that when there's hard scientific evidence we absolutely should tell people what they should or should not do.
But they should have the right not to listen. That doesn't make the decision not perhaps stupid, but they have the right to be stupid to a certain extent. It's to our benefit to study and learn what the ideal child bearing ages are for both men and women (biologically) and study social impacts as well. And then using the data come up with a suggestion of when people should try to have kids. That doesn't mean they have to. But at least we can let people be responsible if they choose to.
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
You and I have talked about this in the past and I think you're basically right. That said, I think this is primarily a work/life balance issue more than a motherhood-discrimination issue. In the places I've worked, parents get a lot of leeway on their scheduling, a lot more than non-parents. Want to leave early? Well, if it's because you need to pick your kids up, then it's okay... but if it's because you want to take a night class, or you have a home business that you want to attend to, then that's unacceptable. Given that I've personally been on the short end of that double standard, I get pretty frustrated by it, but I think in the past I've misplaced my frustration by directing it towards the parents rather than the workplace.
The solution IMO is to promote more scheduling flexibility and more respect to work/life balance for everybody, not just parents.
Edit: alright, Jeff. I completely disagree, but you're the mod.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
This applies to everything like this. The fact is that when there's hard scientific evidence we absolutely should tell people what they should or should not do.
But they should have the right not to listen. That doesn't make the decision not perhaps stupid, but they have the right to be stupid to a certain extent. It's to our benefit to study and learn what the ideal child bearing ages are for both men and women (biologically) and study social impacts as well. And then using the data come up with a suggestion of when people should try to have kids. That doesn't mean they have to. But at least we can let people be responsible if they choose to.
Pretty much. Are the implications of waiting to long to have children (for both men and women) even covered in, like, high school health classes? Or are they too busy teaching people that condoms don't really work and zomg never have sex ever?
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
You are free to think the thread is terrible. If it's breaking rules, you are free to report it. What you guys are doing, though, is threadshitting, and it stops now.
Pointing out that conception decisions aren't made in a vacuum and that society creates artificial problems around parenting that could be easily remedied by more sensible work and life support systems and a shift in priorities away from 'maximise profits at all costs' is threadshitting now? What the hell? That's the core of the issue, Jeffe, you can't just ignore it and act like the only going concerns are the condition of your gametes and body, and the size of your bank account. There wouldn't really be a thread otherwise, because the answer is clearly "the intersection of when you're still reasonably young and healthy but as economically independent as you're ever going to get".
This applies to everything like this. The fact is that when there's hard scientific evidence we absolutely should tell people what they should or should not do.
But they should have the right not to listen. That doesn't make the decision not perhaps stupid, but they have the right to be stupid to a certain extent. It's to our benefit to study and learn what the ideal child bearing ages are for both men and women (biologically) and study social impacts as well. And then using the data come up with a suggestion of when people should try to have kids. That doesn't mean they have to. But at least we can let people be responsible if they choose to.
Well, sure. That's all perfectly reasonable.
Just like there are good and bad times to buy a house, or get married, or whatnot.
An issue like this is pocked with landmines. But that doesn't make it a less-than-relevant issue, and it doesn't make it something that is verboten to discuss; or at least it shouldn't.
Every time we have economic debates, we get some dipshit coming in and saying everything would be great as long as we privatized everything that exists. And we all tell him he's retarded and life goes on. The fact that there are stupid points of view does not invalidate the discussion.
Anything involving women winds up thornier, for clear reasons, but I take issue with the notion that we are not allowed to even bring it up. If someone comes in and says retarded shit, let's call him retarded and move along.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
You and I have talked about this in the past and I think you're basically right. That said, I think this is primarily a work/life balance issue more than a motherhood-discrimination issue. In the places I've worked, parents get a lot of leeway on their scheduling, a lot more than non-parents. Want to leave early? Well, if it's because you need to pick your kids up, then it's okay... but if it's because you want to take a night class, or you have a home business that you want to attend to, then that's unacceptable. Given that I've personally been on the short end of that double standard, I get pretty frustrated by it, but I think in the past I've misplaced my frustration by directing it towards the parents rather than the workplace.
The solution IMO is to promote more scheduling flexibility and more respect to work/life balance for everybody, not just parents.
Edit: alright, Jeff. I completely disagree, but you're the mod.
Yeah I remember those discussions, and I'm in agreement. Its easy to get resentful, but the ideal worker is a single, able bodied person with no major distractions from work in their personal lives (that a boss can't override, e.g. taking a class not related to career development), and since you're closer to fitting that category than a parent, you're getting the short end of the stick.
Clearly, its an optimal socioeconomic environment for you to have a kid. You're at the right age, aren't you :P
This applies to everything like this. The fact is that when there's hard scientific evidence we absolutely should tell people what they should or should not do.
But they should have the right not to listen. That doesn't make the decision not perhaps stupid, but they have the right to be stupid to a certain extent. It's to our benefit to study and learn what the ideal child bearing ages are for both men and women (biologically) and study social impacts as well. And then using the data come up with a suggestion of when people should try to have kids. That doesn't mean they have to. But at least we can let people be responsible if they choose to.
...I think this is hilarious.
You are arguing on the side that we should be able to tell people what they should do in a thread where all the people arguing that we should tell people what to do are arguing against the biology.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
Whilst that is to an extent problematic, I agree with Jeffe and McDermot insofar as sorry, but a sixteen year old doesn't have the maturity or experience to sensibly make the choice to be a parent. And that can, and should be judged by society.
Maybe not ideal, but "should be judged by society"? Do you hate the girl or the child more in this scenario, because I'm having trouble telling. And where is the father in all this, I ask again? Off opening a jar somewhere, one presumes.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
And its fucking stupid, because if I give up and get all capitalist about it, I can easily point out that attitude is going to wind up costing a lot more money in the long run, in prison fees for Junior if nothing else.
Tell me, is that strawman heavy?
Show me anywhere someone said that making bad decision on this matter makes you evil or immoral or that we should cut people off from support services. All anyone is saying is that conceiving a child too young or too old says a lot about a person's intelligence and decision making skills.
No, it frequently doesn't; it says a lot more about the pressures around them and the lack of opportunity, access to contraception, etc. For older parents, it often speaks to simply being unlucky enough to meet someone later in life than society deems ideal.
.
Who says we're treating them like anything? When someone makes a decision, everyone has the right to have an opinion on the wisdom of that choice. That doesn't mean that they can't make the decision, or that you can't have an opinion on my opinion, but saying that all choices are equally wise is stupid.
Hell, even in the case of not finding the right partner, if a person plans on having kids and doesn't want to be a single parent, he or she is going to have to come to terms with the fact that holding out for a better match is going to have costs.
Its like how TV massively exaggerates the dangers of childbirth. No-one on TV ever has a boring 12-18 hour labour unless the child later turns out have been born with an extra leg or a dick on its forehead.
I'm kind of curious why you think that TV massively exaggerate the danger of childbirth.
Talking to random people, it seems to me that they are always shocked to find out the true incidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from pregnancy and childbirth to healthy women. I feel like in other threads (generally abortion ones) you have helped me point out the dangers of chlidbirth to posters who assume that in these days of modern medicine it is risk free to women.
Have you met lots of people outside of D&D that overestimate the incidence of morbidity and mortality resulting from pregnancy and childbirth?
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
My big problem/concern is that I am watching a couple of female friends fast approaching the bit 30 go into full freak out "OMG I am getting older with no husband/no kid must find a man I can sort of deal with and commence procreation before its TO LATE <insert Michael Bay Music/explosions>". It just seems almost Sisyphean in that I watch these people struggle for years to get their lives together/stable and as they approach 30 they just seem hell bent on throwing it all away in the name of procreation. I wish them the best, even if it does mean more 2 am wake up calls asking for a ride to the ER.
To answer the question in the thread title, I would say the IDEAL age would be as young as you can while still being old enough to have secured a support network (Job, friends, family, etc.) that will be able to help you pick up the slack. The support network is key, you cannot do everything alone, and god forbid you make a poor choice in sperm donor due to your haste.
The whole premise of this thread is profoundly dumb.
Even if we were to agree on some combination of medical and social criteria that allowed us to statistically define an "ideal" childbearing age for the average woman, so what?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The whole premise of this thread is profoundly dumb.
Even if we were to agree on some combination of medical and social criteria that allowed us to statistically define an "ideal" childbearing age for the average woman, so what?
I dunno, what do the Dr. Who and Linguistics threads accomplish?
Yeah, if you come to these forums with the expectation that you are accomplishing something useful, you're doing it wrong.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
In the interets of more egalitarian discussion, the topic of this thread is now about ideal child-rearing conditions in general.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
Have you met lots of people outside of D&D that overestimate the incidence of morbidity and mortality resulting from pregnancy and childbirth?
I've found most people I know, also many women, don't know how dangerous childbirth is
Or that specifically humans have higher rates of complications than most other animals, fuk uuuuu narrow hips
Along those lines, I am also squicked out by the way in which child-bearing is fetishized in Hollywood. You have celebrities in their standard-issue ephemeral Hollywood relationships having a couple kids who will be raised by nannies or maybe equipped as publicity props every now than then. I dislike how having a child is considered some sort of necessity, almost a status symbol. And I am uncomfortable with how having a kid is often given the same amount of thought as leasing a car.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
In the interets of more egalitarian discussion, the topic of this thread is now about ideal child-rearing conditions in general.
Awesome.
As a 41-year-old parent of a 2-year-old, I've found that money isn't nearly as much of an issue as I thought (though your society may be different) but that my age is a big deal. I wish we'd had her when we were much younger - we didn't have as much money, but we don't really need a lot of money, and Christ looking after her takes it out of you.
Maybe it's just because I live in Japan and am not a fan of private education, but I feel the financial cost of having a child is wildly over-rated by people in general (I'm not talking about professional studies, just what most people think).
I'd advise younger couples to really sit down and check the numbers on bringing up a child - it might be less than you expect.
The nice thing is that when you have a kid, you no longer have the time or energy to go out and spend all your money, so it all works out.
Seriously, though, the biggest costs of having a kid are seriously front-loaded if you want to have a career in there, too. Daycare costs can easily run a grand a month or more for a newborn, not to mention the cost of diapers, formula, food, clothes, toys, and everything else. If you can make it through the eighteen months or so, it gets dramatically cheaper.
Another thing a lot of people forget - even those who are already parents - is how much energy it takes to have a kid. You basically give up sleep and relaxation for the first six months minimum, so people getting up in years can have trouble keeping up.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Its like how TV massively exaggerates the dangers of childbirth. No-one on TV ever has a boring 12-18 hour labour unless the child later turns out have been born with an extra leg or a dick on its forehead.
I'm kind of curious why you think that TV massively exaggerate the danger of childbirth.
Talking to random people, it seems to me that they are always shocked to find out the true incidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from pregnancy and childbirth to healthy women. I feel like in other threads (generally abortion ones) you have helped me point out the dangers of chlidbirth to posters who assume that in these days of modern medicine it is risk free to women.
Have you met lots of people outside of D&D that overestimate the incidence of morbidity and mortality resulting from pregnancy and childbirth?
This made me choke as well (what Kistra said).
Childbirth is glorified to hell and back on TV.
"I CAN FEEL THE CONTRACTIONS COMING"
"PUSH"
"*pushes*"
"COME ON, YOU CAN DO IT"
"*PUSHES*"
"wwwaaaAAAAAH"
"*sudden relief*"
Most often glossing over the fact that most births take a bit longer and are a whole lot "messier" in addition to being dangerous.
In the interets of more egalitarian discussion, the topic of this thread is now about ideal child-rearing conditions in general.
Two kids with 2-3 years apart - preferably of different sex.
A house in the suburbs.
A child-friendly pet of some sort.
Neutral education with focus on equipping the child with the proper faculties (such as scepticism) to make up their minds in a number of life-questions as they grow older.
Just enough money to give your child better healthcare and education than the norm.
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class
Not to single cat out, but the term "breeding class" is pretty great.
I think it's also pretty interesting that most children are born outside the ideal conditions that this board has come up with. Not that I necessarily disagree with those conditions. I tell my girlfriend that we're not going to have children until we can afford to pay somebody else to raise them. However, it's not like the majority of children end up being delinquents, and there are many successful people who come from "non-ideal" situations, so maybe timing and finances aren't as important as people think they are.
Posts
Ha, I was just about to point out that we enact all kinds of policies to discourage at least one or two of the high risk behaviors you mention (smoking, drinking), but KevinNash beat me to it.
EDIT: Also, I think there's more of a burden placed on society by Down's Syndrome (among other defects) than a "hundred extra in taxes."
It's not, but when did something have to be a major policy issue before we're allowed to talk about it or judge people's long-tern-planning skills on?
Maybe not ideal, but "should be judged by society"? Do you hate the girl or the child more in this scenario, because I'm having trouble telling. And where is the father in all this, I ask again? Off opening a jar somewhere, one presumes.
Places like this can all but eliminate the negatives of breeding outside the societally accepted norm, not to mention do tremendous things for breaking the cycle of poverty and state dependance, but they are so rare and constantly under threat. That really speaks to how little our society really values childrearing - as soon as it gets in someone's face or costs are more obviously spread across society than usual, parenting becomes a Terrible Problem that is Eating All Our Precious Profits.
And its fucking stupid, because if I give up and get all capitalist about it, I can easily point out that attitude is going to wind up costing a lot more money in the long run, in prison fees for Junior if nothing else.
It's also self-selecting, as pointed out in the overview, because those who seek fertility treatments typically have tried for years to have a child normally without success. Thus, they are typically in the older age brackets when they seek fertility treatments.
Percent per cycle, yes. But those numbers are a bit misleading, since it's not really a true measure of birth rate (certainly not first birth rates). It's "more" difficult, but it doesn't get REALLY difficult until age 42 or 45 (depending on whether you are white or "other" in America and what state you are including yourself in for demographics purposes). Assisted fertility is a small percentage of overall births regardless of age group, and the success rates are actually lower, the higher the age.
Investment decisions are between a person and his broker. What do you think about the investment thread?
Its like how TV massively exaggerates the dangers of childbirth. No-one on TV ever has a boring 12-18 hour labour unless the child later turns out have been born with an extra leg or a dick on its forehead.
Childrearing is great as long as you're not one of the undesirables doing it. If you're rich or upper-middle-class, married (to a man), and between the ages of - wait, let me scroll up here to find out - 25 to 30, then motherhood is a beautiful thing.
If you're poor, too young, too old, single, or gay; or if you commit the felony of Motherhood While Poor and Black, then what the hell is your problem, lady?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I would totally buy that kid a onesie that said "Unicorn Rides $5"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You have to if you want to be guaranteed or near guaranteed to have a child. The % past 35 of conceiving naturally is very low. If you were in that situation and you wanted a child would you want to just keep trying until you are so old that chance becomes 0?
That doesn't change the fact that conceiving past 35 is a very low percentage. That was my point. Not that IVF was mandatory. Of course it's not. But if it's an option then I'm sure people would take it over just not having a child.
The girl's an idiot. Oh, and dad's a dumbass too.
That actually seems like a really good idea...the school, that is.
It doesn't make teenage parenthood (or elderly parenthood) any less of a stupid-ass idea, of course. But yes, I think that in general we ought to try to limit the overall impact of that stupid-ass idea...if for no reason than because the child didn't choose it.
I think there's a difference between "hey, maybe we ought to more openly talk about the idea of when it is and is not a good idea to bear children" and "let's make rules against poor choices, ostracize those that make them, then feed their children to wolves." I think most here are interested in the former.
Yup.
Tell me, is that strawman heavy?
Show me anywhere someone said that making bad decision on this matter makes you evil or immoral or that we should cut people off from support services. All anyone is saying is that conceiving a child too young or too old says a lot about a person's intelligence and decision making skills.
Sure, let's talk about dudes.
I think that pretty much anyone, male or female, is grossly irresponsible if they have a kid knowing that there is a very good chance that they will die while the kid is still young. Terminal cancer patients, 65 year olds, whatever - you're having a kid and almost guaranteeing that you will put him through an extremely traumatic experience at a very vulnerable time in his life. It is grossly irresponsible and incredibly selfish.
Better?
Even if you're in the socially approved for breeding class, you can still cop substantial flak. If you have to leave early to pick up the kids from school, you and your brats are the problem, not the fact that the school and work hours don't line up, or that the daycare is miles from either work or home. Wanna breastfeed or pump at work? Don't make me laugh. You'll be lucky not to be fired on some random pretext, even in white-collar workplaces, but if you're really lucky, here, we set aside this clean and hygienic toilet cubicle for you to use while you extract food for your child. If you're a guy, you can't even get away with too-frequent phone calls to family, let alone actually leaving to take care of something.
Work Must Come First!
Also, assisted fertility? The batting average is... like a professional batting average, actually. It is less than 30% of a chance of success. IVF (or any other assisted fertility treatment) doesn't instantly give you a baby. That 30% chance is over several cycles of failed treatments, too (the average being 6 or 7 attempts). Much like a batting average doesn't count those strikes or balls. *grin*
And the former is a valid discussion - with the right tone and context.
A woman saying "I want to have a baby, but I want to have a career too, what are the risks of waiting until my 30s?" is a pretty okay context in which to have that discussion, for instance. You can ask about her particular circumstances (no family history of chromosomal disorders; no prior use of teratogenic medication; what career are you considering?, etc) so you don't have to make any clumsy generalizations. She's opened herself up to making the decision public. And, possibly most importantly, the people giving advice have the opportunity to listen to her and learn something themselves.
But talking about the average woman... well, there's no such thing as the average woman. There are nasty stereotypes, and blurry generalizations, though, and the discussion as it is currently framed is a great little petri dish for the culturing of those generalizations.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
No, it frequently doesn't; it says a lot more about the pressures around them and the lack of opportunity, access to contraception, etc. For older parents, it often speaks to simply being unlucky enough to meet someone later in life than society deems ideal.
And even if they are stupid, so fucking what? That gives you the right to treat them like fail? I'd rather be less awful, thanks, and acknowledge that maybe these mothers just need more help. Keep your "judgements" to yourself.
Of course, this is a problem with our society as a whole, not just relating to parenting.
EDIT: For example, being told you can't possibly take a week off of work, even unpaid, to see your spouse off to a yearlong military deployment. Work is just far too important!
You are free to think the thread is terrible. If it's breaking rules, you are free to report it. What you guys are doing, though, is threadshitting, and it stops now.
So now you're pissed that we might be saying that there's a tradeoff to waiting until you're old and rich?
This applies to everything like this. The fact is that when there's hard scientific evidence we absolutely should tell people what they should or should not do.
But they should have the right not to listen. That doesn't make the decision not perhaps stupid, but they have the right to be stupid to a certain extent. It's to our benefit to study and learn what the ideal child bearing ages are for both men and women (biologically) and study social impacts as well. And then using the data come up with a suggestion of when people should try to have kids. That doesn't mean they have to. But at least we can let people be responsible if they choose to.
You and I have talked about this in the past and I think you're basically right. That said, I think this is primarily a work/life balance issue more than a motherhood-discrimination issue. In the places I've worked, parents get a lot of leeway on their scheduling, a lot more than non-parents. Want to leave early? Well, if it's because you need to pick your kids up, then it's okay... but if it's because you want to take a night class, or you have a home business that you want to attend to, then that's unacceptable. Given that I've personally been on the short end of that double standard, I get pretty frustrated by it, but I think in the past I've misplaced my frustration by directing it towards the parents rather than the workplace.
The solution IMO is to promote more scheduling flexibility and more respect to work/life balance for everybody, not just parents.
Edit: alright, Jeff. I completely disagree, but you're the mod.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Pretty much. Are the implications of waiting to long to have children (for both men and women) even covered in, like, high school health classes? Or are they too busy teaching people that condoms don't really work and zomg never have sex ever?
Pointing out that conception decisions aren't made in a vacuum and that society creates artificial problems around parenting that could be easily remedied by more sensible work and life support systems and a shift in priorities away from 'maximise profits at all costs' is threadshitting now? What the hell? That's the core of the issue, Jeffe, you can't just ignore it and act like the only going concerns are the condition of your gametes and body, and the size of your bank account. There wouldn't really be a thread otherwise, because the answer is clearly "the intersection of when you're still reasonably young and healthy but as economically independent as you're ever going to get".
Well, sure. That's all perfectly reasonable.
Just like there are good and bad times to buy a house, or get married, or whatnot.
An issue like this is pocked with landmines. But that doesn't make it a less-than-relevant issue, and it doesn't make it something that is verboten to discuss; or at least it shouldn't.
Every time we have economic debates, we get some dipshit coming in and saying everything would be great as long as we privatized everything that exists. And we all tell him he's retarded and life goes on. The fact that there are stupid points of view does not invalidate the discussion.
Anything involving women winds up thornier, for clear reasons, but I take issue with the notion that we are not allowed to even bring it up. If someone comes in and says retarded shit, let's call him retarded and move along.
Yeah I remember those discussions, and I'm in agreement. Its easy to get resentful, but the ideal worker is a single, able bodied person with no major distractions from work in their personal lives (that a boss can't override, e.g. taking a class not related to career development), and since you're closer to fitting that category than a parent, you're getting the short end of the stick.
Clearly, its an optimal socioeconomic environment for you to have a kid. You're at the right age, aren't you :P
...I think this is hilarious.
You are arguing on the side that we should be able to tell people what they should do in a thread where all the people arguing that we should tell people what to do are arguing against the biology.
Who says we're treating them like anything? When someone makes a decision, everyone has the right to have an opinion on the wisdom of that choice. That doesn't mean that they can't make the decision, or that you can't have an opinion on my opinion, but saying that all choices are equally wise is stupid.
Hell, even in the case of not finding the right partner, if a person plans on having kids and doesn't want to be a single parent, he or she is going to have to come to terms with the fact that holding out for a better match is going to have costs.
Talking to random people, it seems to me that they are always shocked to find out the true incidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from pregnancy and childbirth to healthy women. I feel like in other threads (generally abortion ones) you have helped me point out the dangers of chlidbirth to posters who assume that in these days of modern medicine it is risk free to women.
Have you met lots of people outside of D&D that overestimate the incidence of morbidity and mortality resulting from pregnancy and childbirth?
To answer the question in the thread title, I would say the IDEAL age would be as young as you can while still being old enough to have secured a support network (Job, friends, family, etc.) that will be able to help you pick up the slack. The support network is key, you cannot do everything alone, and god forbid you make a poor choice in sperm donor due to your haste.
Even if we were to agree on some combination of medical and social criteria that allowed us to statistically define an "ideal" childbearing age for the average woman, so what?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I dunno, what do the Dr. Who and Linguistics threads accomplish?
I've found most people I know, also many women, don't know how dangerous childbirth is
Or that specifically humans have higher rates of complications than most other animals, fuk uuuuu narrow hips
Awesome.
As a 41-year-old parent of a 2-year-old, I've found that money isn't nearly as much of an issue as I thought (though your society may be different) but that my age is a big deal. I wish we'd had her when we were much younger - we didn't have as much money, but we don't really need a lot of money, and Christ looking after her takes it out of you.
Maybe it's just because I live in Japan and am not a fan of private education, but I feel the financial cost of having a child is wildly over-rated by people in general (I'm not talking about professional studies, just what most people think).
I'd advise younger couples to really sit down and check the numbers on bringing up a child - it might be less than you expect.
Seriously, though, the biggest costs of having a kid are seriously front-loaded if you want to have a career in there, too. Daycare costs can easily run a grand a month or more for a newborn, not to mention the cost of diapers, formula, food, clothes, toys, and everything else. If you can make it through the eighteen months or so, it gets dramatically cheaper.
Another thing a lot of people forget - even those who are already parents - is how much energy it takes to have a kid. You basically give up sleep and relaxation for the first six months minimum, so people getting up in years can have trouble keeping up.
This made me choke as well (what Kistra said).
Childbirth is glorified to hell and back on TV. Most often glossing over the fact that most births take a bit longer and are a whole lot "messier" in addition to being dangerous.
Two kids with 2-3 years apart - preferably of different sex.
A house in the suburbs.
A child-friendly pet of some sort.
Neutral education with focus on equipping the child with the proper faculties (such as scepticism) to make up their minds in a number of life-questions as they grow older.
Just enough money to give your child better healthcare and education than the norm.
Not to single cat out, but the term "breeding class" is pretty great.
I think it's also pretty interesting that most children are born outside the ideal conditions that this board has come up with. Not that I necessarily disagree with those conditions. I tell my girlfriend that we're not going to have children until we can afford to pay somebody else to raise them. However, it's not like the majority of children end up being delinquents, and there are many successful people who come from "non-ideal" situations, so maybe timing and finances aren't as important as people think they are.