Breaking News! Gleem Does Not Work On Your Ovaries
Via NumberSix, The New York Times rounded up a bunch of stupid women who think looking young means their ovaries will still be rarin' to go as they get up there in age. Tatiana Boncompagni writes for the Styles section:
FORTY may be the new 30, but try telling that to your ovaries.With long brown hair and come-hither curves, Melissa Foss looks -- and feels -- fabulous at 41. "I've spent hours of my life and a lot of money making sure I was healthy, and that my hair was shiny, my teeth were white and my complexion clear," said Ms. Foss, a magazine editor in New York City.
So when it came to conceiving a child with her husband, a marketing executive, Ms. Foss wasn't at all worried. After all, she noted, those same traits of youth and beauty "are all the hallmarks of fertility."
Fifteen unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization later, Ms. Foss now realizes that appearances can be deceiving. "I'd based a lot of my self-worth on looking young and fertile, and to have that not be the case was really depressing and shocking," she said. The couple are now trying to have a baby with the help of a surrogate and a donor egg.
Advances in beauty products and dermatology, not to mention manic devotion to yoga, Pilates and other exercise obsessions, are making it possible for large numbers of women to look admirably younger than their years. But doctors fear that they are creating a widening disconnect between what women see in the mirror and what's happening to their reproductive organs.
Are women really that stupid -- or just the ones interviewed for this article?
Number Six adds, "As much fun as it is to blame the media, Jessica Grose (on Slate) has a better point":
"[P]retending that this is something common, or trendy, takes away from the messy reality that most women who wait to have children aren't doing it because they believe they are endlessly fertile. They're waiting because they haven't found the right partner, or they don't have enough money, or they don't feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance."
Surely I can't be the first to say it: You just can't fool Mother Nature.
gharkness at September 5, 2011 7:55 AM
Also, at the price of in vitro fertilization, these people obviously have more money than sense. FIFTEEN rounds? Wouldn't that run somewhere north of $200k?
gharkness at September 5, 2011 7:58 AM
I'm gonna go with "yes" on that one.
No she hasn't. For thirty years, women have been buying the lie that they can have it all, and so they've been putting off starting a family because of the all important "career". It doesn't set in until they can't conceive that perhaps they got things done in the wrong order, and then its too late to go back.
In other words, it's not that they haven't found Mr. Right (or even Mr. Good-Enough), it's that they've been blowing him off for 20 years while they pursue that position as junior partner at Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.
brian at September 5, 2011 8:23 AM
New rule for Planet Cridmo, with violations punished by sudden, violent death:
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 8:25 AM
"They're waiting because they haven't found the right partner, or they don't have enough money, or they don't feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance."
No. They are making choices to do other things than have children. The "reasons" are rationalizations, to justify their choice.
Making that choice is fine. Just don't act like it is a shocking tragedy when the consequences come--in this case infertility; menopause is hardly an unknown even in women's lives.
Spartee at September 5, 2011 8:28 AM
We're forgetting that men are putting this off, too. A friend of mine would have had a baby at 22 if her boyfriend, now her husband, had been up for marriage and children then. But he went to medical school, and then failed out of medical school, and then established himself in a new career before having a child. They waited because they were being responsible.
It takes a lot longer to be a fully functional adult than it used to. If a woman is dating in her peer group, the odds are good that they won't be out of school until at least 22 if they go to college. Then there's the debt to pay off. Add three years and $70,000 each if they get master's degrees.
It's playing dirty to criticize women for putting off having children if you're also going to criticize them for living off of the men in their lives. It's one or the other.
MonicaP at September 5, 2011 8:38 AM
I'm sure I'll be the minority here, but I do have some sympathy. The woman interviewed admits her thinking was wrong and how depressing it is. As far as how many fertility treatments she had goes, who cares if you're not paying for it. I worry more about all those hormones being injected and what that does to her health. Infertility whether younger or older is very hard. I know too many people struggling with it both in their late twenties and early thirties. Most households need two incomes now and women want to have careers and wait on kids. As someone who had kids young and didn't have a "career" I do sometimes wonder which way is better.
Kristen at September 5, 2011 8:46 AM
Duh.
Which one has a hard and fast deadline on it: working or reproduction?
Have your kids in your 20's, and you've got the last 40-60 years of your life to devote to "career fulfillment" or whatever.
brian at September 5, 2011 8:49 AM
> I'm sure I'll be the minority here,
> but I do have some sympathy.
You're the minority! You're the minority!
Grrrrrr!
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 8:49 AM
"Add three years and $70,000 each if they get master's degrees"
Runaway credentialism is harming American society in many ways. This is one of them.
david foster at September 5, 2011 9:00 AM
Have your kids in your 20's, and you've got the last 40-60 years of your life to devote to "career fulfillment" or whatever.
Except when having a career isn't about having a time-consuming hobby and instead about paying your bills. Children cost money to raise, and it's a big gamble to assume that the baby's father will stay employed, stay alive, etc., long enough for you to gain the means to support your children.
Also, momentum favors the young. It is very difficult to build a career in some fields if you are older.
MonicaP at September 5, 2011 9:03 AM
Yeah, I figured I'd be the minority, but that's ok. I'm 43 and my kids are mid to late teens. The job skills I have come from working part-time around the schedule of my kids and trying to get into a career now is scary. Its not a great job market out there even with a degree. I'm very happy I was able to be a good mom and be there for all of their stuff. It was my choice to put being a mother before a career because I believed it was important. Not everyone made the same choice as me. I don't know that those who made a different choice made a worse one. Its not an easy answer and what works for some may not work for others. I can sympathize with those who chose to have fulfilling careers thinking motherhood would always be there. Infertility is tough and I'll always have sympathy for someone who wants to have kids and can't.
Kristen at September 5, 2011 9:05 AM
> Runaway credentialism is harming American
> society
It's not that you're wrong, it's just that the best possible way to make that argument is to thrive without one
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 9:44 AM
Monica - Momentum may favor the young, but the old haven't got a choice in matters of reproduction.
Women, please understand this: your ovaries are a depreciating asset with a "use by" date stamped on them that you will never know until it passes.
Your brain, absent catastrophe, is not.
Knowing these two facts, choose your priorities and behave in a manner that will optimize them.
But what do I know, I'm just an engineer. The world is an optimization problem.
brian at September 5, 2011 9:50 AM
Crid...lots of people thrive without advanced degrees or even college degrees at all...meanwhile there are plenty of people with masters degrees in squishy-soft subjects who are working as poverty-level adjunct professors (if they're lucky) or as baristas at Starbucks (if they're not). The tidal wave of people with student loans for educations that didn't really pay off, but who will be struggling with the debt until they are 40 or 50, will hopefully cause some pushback against the propaganda of the endless-seat-time establishment.
david foster at September 5, 2011 9:55 AM
> Infertility is tough and I'll always have
> sympathy for someone who wants to have
> kids and can't.
Know what this is like?
Sagan once tried to describe how the arithmetic of a multi-dimensional universe would work to a room full of three-dimensional journalists. Paraphrase:
The fascination you describe is foreign and inane, like country music or gay sex. I can't imagine the attraction.
I saved this comedienne's tweet not because it's her funniest, but it conveys the bloodthirst of this obsession for so many.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 9:58 AM
Women, please understand this: your ovaries are a depreciating asset with a "use by" date stamped on them that you will never know until it passes.
Oh, we don't disagree on this. Women are not men, and we have different choices to make. But the NYT article makes the matter look like a simple problem of priorities.
Even for women who are not career focused, it's pretty hard to find a stable, family-oriented man who feels a sense of urgency to have children at 23. These reproductive choices aren't happening in a vacuum. Men and women are both putting off families for lots of reasons.
The women in the NYT article are exceptional in that they honestly seem surprised that they are not as fertile at 45 as they were at 25. I'm 33, and my friends my age are hyper aware that their fertility is declining. Some starting freaking out hard when they turned 30. Not one thinks she is Geena Davis.
MonicaP at September 5, 2011 10:04 AM
The fascination you describe is foreign and inane, like country music or gay sex. I can't imagine the attraction.
Country music is awesome, Crid. (Gay sex might be awesome, too, but I can't say for sure with any certainty.)
MonicaP at September 5, 2011 10:15 AM
Genetic issues with offspring increase after 35 for women and that age or somewhere in the forties for men (that's from memory, our three were born after 35 and 38 respectively). So fertility isn't the only issue.
After the base cost, children are only as expensive as you make them (that $400 bike or the one for $150, hand me downs, etc.). The vast majority of children come from middle-class and below.
Putting off children comes from an expectation of life-style. Having all your ducks in a row before children is a chimera. Besides, speaking from experience, I no longer have the energy to devote the time my children deserve. I'll be well past 60 when the last leaves HS.
Ariel at September 5, 2011 10:41 AM
It's playing dirty to criticize women for putting off having children if you're also going to criticize them for living off of the men in their lives.
Or the taxpayers. Seriously, how many people can even generate enough useful productivity in their lives to buy themselves a first-world standard of living, let alone end up with enough extra wealth to fuel the creation of another person.
Pirate Jo at September 5, 2011 10:47 AM
That is probably the single silliest thing I've ever read on the internet.
The answer, apparently, is 90% of Americans.
Unless you consider a first-world standard of living being able to retire for 40 years after working for 30, which is kind of not a good idea, math being the bitch that it is.
brian at September 5, 2011 11:06 AM
> It's playing dirty to criticize women for
> putting off having children if you're
> also going to criticize them for living
> off of the men in their lives. It's one
> or the other.
One could disagree given the seemingly ever-greater insistence by women that their choices have no costs in their own lives whatsoever, no matter how inconvenient or expensive those choices are for the rest of us.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 11:11 AM
As someone who had kids young and didn't have a "career" I do sometimes wonder which way is better.
Hey, at least you're not going to be one of those women who wait to have kids and suddenly find out it's more difficult to have them.
mpetrie98 at September 5, 2011 12:01 PM
Unless you consider a first-world standard of living being able to retire for 40 years after working for 30, which is kind of not a good idea, math being the bitch that it is.
I'm not silly, YOU'RE silly!
And the expectations of most of America and western Europe are silly!
But that's not as silly as you thinking this won't affect you.
Pirate Jo at September 5, 2011 12:02 PM
> But that's not as silly as you thinking this
> won't affect you.
See?? SEE???
There's always that threat bubbling just below the surface— "This is my problem and we have a choice: We can make it your problem now, or we can make it your problem later. So which way do you want to go? Never let it be said I never gave you any option...!"
Well, Goddamit, I will not listen to country music. Or do the other thing. AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 12:16 PM
Brian seems to think that 90% of Americans can generate enough useful productivity in their lives to buy themselves a first-world standard of living, AND end up with enough extra wealth to fuel the creation of another person.
He qualifies this to say that a person's definition of a first-world standard of living suffers from inaccuracies if they expect to be "able to retire for 40 years after working for 30."
I happen to agree with Brian on this point. But Brian ignores the fact that for decades now, this is precisely how people defined a first-world standard of living. They spent money popping out kids, borrowed to the hilt, saved nothing, and expected their inheritances, their government benefits, their pensions, and as a last sort, their own children, to take care of them.
Did you know that the average wage-earner in the USA earns $25,000 a year? How far does that get you in ... well, most places in the USA? Our expectations have been built upon a giant bubble.
People thought they could crank out more offspring, exponentially, indefinitely, and that their kids would not only be able to work less, they'd have more. While a "first-world" standard of living, to me, might mean air conditioning and grocery stores, as Brian points out, for many people it means a lot more. Most people who have kids think their kids will be able to do better. History has shown that for a number of generations in the past this hass not been the case. We're about to witness one or two of those generations, and it's bound to suck.
Pirate Jo at September 5, 2011 12:17 PM
AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM.
Not that I disagree, Crid, but it WILL be your problem. And not because "I" am threatening you.
Pirate Jo at September 5, 2011 12:20 PM
Most households need two incomes now
Why? Because when women entered the workforce en masse the labor pool got much larger, meaning employeers could pay lower wages. Couple that with the average woman's reluctance to push for promotions and raises and you continue to have depresed wages. It really isnt a suorise that you need to wage to run a household. Especially when your house hold requires a couple of plama TV's and the NFL package on Dish NEtwork and smart phones for your four year old.
Even for women who are not career focused, it's pretty hard to find a stable, family-oriented man who feels a sense of urgency to have children at 23.
This is why women used to marry someone half again, if not twice, their age. And why would a guy risk having kids right away given how easy it is for a woman to divorce him, and force him to pay for kids he'll never see. Better to wait 5 to ten yrs into the marrige to see if it falls apart before assuming that risk
One could disagree given the seemingly ever-greater insistence by women that their choices have no costs in their own lives whatsoever, no matter how inconvenient or expensive those choices are for the rest of us.
Damn right
lujlp at September 5, 2011 12:26 PM
Incidentally, men aren't immune from reproductive problems when aging. Several studies have found that birth defects increase sharply with older men regardless of the age of their partners.
Joe at September 5, 2011 12:27 PM
I disagree that many of these women made analytical decisions or that they couldn't find the right men. I suspect that most didn't want children in their twenties. Neither were they interested in marriage and thus didn't date with the intent on finding a husband.
From the guy's perspective lujlp is exactly right: men know they will get royally fucked in divorce so what's the incentive? Frankly, why any man has children in the US in this legal age is a mystery to me.
Joe at September 5, 2011 12:32 PM
And why would a guy risk having kids right away given how easy it is for a woman to divorce him, and force him to pay for kids he'll never see. Better to wait 5 to ten yrs into the marrige to see if it falls apart before assuming that risk
That's my point, in part: that there are a lot of reasons for the increase in maternal age that have nothing to do with twits in The New York Times not understanding how biology works.
Frankly, why any man has children in the US in this legal age is a mystery to me.
The great number of happy married men with children that I know seem to be doing OK with it.
It seems silly that people use things like TVs and stereos as signs of wealth. These things are effectively free. If you want a brand new TV, you will pay money, but if you are willing to take a lesser model, you can get one from the curb on trash pickup days. Having lots of stuff doesn't mean you're wealthy. It means you have lots of stuff.
Also, kids can be unexpectedly expensive, like my friend's daughter, who has had chronic health issues since she was born seven years ago. I bet my friend is glad she put the effort into that chemistry degree, because medical care ain't cheap.
Why? Because when women entered the workforce en masse the labor pool got much larger, meaning employeers could pay lower wages...
I know, right? Those bitches should keep their pregnant asses in the kitchen and just go for the throat on alimony if things don't work out.
MonicaP at September 5, 2011 12:55 PM
And the expectations of most of America and western Europe are silly!
That is correct. If our expectations weren't silly, we wouldn't have this welfare state, with the $14.6 trillion debt and the $100 billion gazillion in unfunded liabilities.
And don't get me started on Western Europe. I bet you could stick a fork in most of those countries, because they're done, even if they don't know it yet.
mpetrie98 at September 5, 2011 1:08 PM
AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM.
Well, unfortunately, it IS going to be your problem, and my problem, and Pirate Jo's, and everybody else's. We have too many takers, and not enough makers.
mpetrie98 at September 5, 2011 1:11 PM
The average wage-earner could live decently on $5,000 a year at one point in time, Pirate Jo, as far as I know. Thanks a lot, Federal Reserve. Those crooks should be sharing a cell with Madoff.
mpetrie98 at September 5, 2011 1:14 PM
> it WILL be your problem.
You think people can be endlessly forced to deal with things that aren't their concern. This is not so. People, GOOD people, turn their backs to the consequences of others' irresponsibility all the time.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 1:18 PM
Acctualy MonicaP I think that women need to demand more like men do, no fault divorce should be 86ed for couples with kids, pre nups should be a mandatory part of the marrige licence, and stay at home dads should get the same legal and finacial bonaza as stay at home moms.
lujlp at September 5, 2011 1:22 PM
Two thoughts keep colliding in my brain. I can't even decide if either one is important, much less which is more so....
First, how can this woman (or any human) think she is entitled to escape the consequences of her decisions? EVERY action has a price. Sometimes the price isn't obvious; sometimes it is.
I had no problems with fertility because I CHOSE to reproduce in my early 20's. Little did I know that when I was birthing my two children, the boss I have today wasn't even born yet! She hasn't the college education I have, she doesn't have the professional license I have, and she worries constantly about babysitting for her kids. She made her choices (and is paying her price) and I made mine (and am paying MY price). BTW, I respect my boss enormously and am frankly glad she is in her position and not I, but that's a different story. Her kids will never have the secure feeling that mine have told me they had while they were growing up, because I was always there. I didn't go to work or back to college until they were in high school.
My other thought is: there's no guarantee this woman would have been able to conceive even if she had tried in her twenties. Sometimes life sucks, and none of us is immune from that, either.
gharkness at September 5, 2011 1:27 PM
You think people can be endlessly forced to deal with things that aren't their concern.
It seems our differences in opinion are associated with timeline. No, I don't think people can be *endlessly* forced in such a way. But they will put up with it for a long time, even as long as the lifespan of a person.
So I think that even if your expectations are fairly well-aligned with reality, you will experience a change in environment as those around you, whose expectations and sense of entitlement are not so reasonable, begin to shit a brick.
Pirate Jo at September 5, 2011 2:07 PM
And another thing....I love country music!!
Kristen at September 5, 2011 3:11 PM
How dare you.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 3:15 PM
I suspect that most didn't want children in their twenties. Neither were they interested in marriage and thus didn't date with the intent on finding a husband.
I think that is the real point, Joe, and I wish the second article had included this in the rebuttal. While I still think it's a more realistic reason than women putting off having kids because Salma Hayek did it, Grose still makes the mistake of assuming that women who don't have kids young have done so even though they wanted kids young.
Since the Times has a history of investigating bogus "trends" (remember all those people who didn't bathe?), and considering this article was in the fucking Fashion and Style section, I'll wager that women who wait to have children and then are surprised they can't are a result of the "I want and can have it all" school of thought rather than the "Halle Berry did it and so can I" school. Real issue, bullshit reason.
NumberSix at September 5, 2011 3:40 PM
> considering this article was in the fucking
> Fashion and Style section,
In one of my favorite blog posts of all time, Reynolds demonstrated how important it can be to consider the entire context of a NY Times piece. The F&S section counts.
> I'll wager that women who wait to have children
> and then are surprised they can't are a result
> of the "I want and can have it all" school of
> thought rather than the "Halle Berry did it and
> so can I" school.
Your money's safe, but I reserve the right to detest show people anyway. They're stoo-pit. And venal.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at September 5, 2011 4:03 PM
My jaw dropped at 15 rounds at roughly $20k a round. $300,000 to TRY for a baby? Obsessed much?
You can't have it all-Vogue lied. Or maybe you can have most of what you want, but not at the same time. And biology has to come first, if that's something you want.
momof4 at September 5, 2011 4:31 PM
"They're waiting because they haven't found the right partner, or they don't have enough money, or they don't feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance."
Isn't this another way of saying "poor planning".
'Haven't found the right partner': Bet if you really looked critically and honestly at their past, you would usually find they either did meet decent guys but passed them up for short-sighted reasons, or followed a less than sensible approach to finding someone decent, e.g. waiting for life to happen to them, or 'I'm young and just want to have fun, he's too boring' etc. 'Don't have enough money' = 'I didn't think ahead and save money for the day when I would want to have kids'. Humans are poor/lazy long-term thinkers/planners, the future always seem distantly abstract - until suddenly it's upon you. In general, you're usually more likely to meet longer-term goals in life if you plan for them to happen. As they say, luck is when preparation meets opportunity.
Lobster at September 5, 2011 5:36 PM
monicap: You should consider the possibility that if a woman can't get married and start a family with a particular guy, the problem is that she's with the wrong guy. The woman can try to blame the guy, but does that solve her problem or just make her feel good for a while?
Choices have consequences, whether you like it or not.
joe at September 5, 2011 5:41 PM
"Why? Because when women entered the workforce en masse the labor pool got much larger, meaning employeers could pay lower wages"
Lower wages occurring simultaneously with counter-balancing increases in production won't generally lead to lower quality of life, because there would be more goods available at lower prices, raising purchasing power and quality of life; I think a far bigger/worse effect becomes obvious if you just look at the numbers and 'follow the money', literally - much of the increase in production has been feeding firstly exponentially increasing government overspending (a large portion of which is entitlements), and secondly politically-connected bankers that keep losing trillions and getting bailed out by the taxpayer through both direct taxes and inflation-based-taxation through money printing, and that's why we feel poorer.
"And don't get me started on Western Europe. I bet you could stick a fork in most of those countries, because they're done, even if they don't know it yet"
Western Europe's entitlement and welfare spending run amok is literally blowing up in its face like a hand grenade right now, it's a right mess unfolding there, and it's barely begun.
Lobster at September 5, 2011 5:44 PM
"They spent money popping out kids, borrowed to the hilt, saved nothing, and expected their inheritances, their government benefits, their pensions, and as a last sort, their own children, to take care of them."
How is putting money into social security and/or pensions 'saving nothing'. It's not entirely their fault if the government is spending everyone's savings on useful things like multiple wars and trillions in bonuses for crony bankers. I think this whole "blame the greedy old people who didn't save and now expect you to look after them" meme is a piece of propaganda sewn by the government to make the citizenry blame one another (divide 'old vs young') so they don't pay attention to who is really pilfering the money.
Lobster at September 5, 2011 5:55 PM
"so they don't pay attention to who is really pilfering the money"
correction, 'they' = 'we' ordinary folk
Lobster at September 5, 2011 5:56 PM
> You can't have it all-Vogue lied
You still married?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 5, 2011 5:56 PM
Yep Crid, still married, still got 4 young ones, still petty darn happy with the choices I've made thus far. But I have no career and won't for some years now, and will never have the high-powered one women of the 80's dreamed of. I'm cool with that, but lots of women bought that line, and now find they can't have it all (at least not well) and aren't happy at all.
momof4 at September 5, 2011 6:40 PM
I think sex ed needs to cover this. Until I started having friends with fertility problems in their late 20s/early 30s I didn't realize it was common in that age range. I thought yes, risks for downs syndrome was higher after 35 but it was still low, but I didn't realize conception, especially for a first pregnancy was so difficult. I was poorly educated, I thought most women could have kids until their mid forties, and that menopause happened around 45 and you could have kids up till then.
I was poorly educated. I'm very lucky to have my daughter, but realize she may not ever have asibling (though I hope she does).
The other thing I wonder about is long term chemical BC use, the one other factor my infertile friends have in common.
But yeah... more time on this in sex ed in schools. We need to learn about this in addition to learning how NOT to get pregnant.
NicoleK at September 5, 2011 10:51 PM
Um.... OK. But....
Is high school supposed to prepare you for every stage of life? Over in shop, they're teaching how to deal with gas-powered inline 4s, not hydrogen or hybrids or aviation jets.
From a news-you-can-use perspective, a lot more people (including the girls themselves) are going to be suffering the consequences of too much fertility rather than not enough.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 5, 2011 11:07 PM
That's because hybrids are harder to make.
High School should prepare you for adulthood. They used to have home ec which taught you to budget, for example. Having kids is an important part of adulthood.
How hard would it be to have a paragraph on fertility in the bio textbook next to the pictures of ovaries?
Given how widespread this problem is, I'd say it should be addressed. Just got back from a mom's group and the topic came up again.
NicoleK at September 6, 2011 5:36 AM
> That's because hybrids are harder to make.
As are responsible choices in the dwindling fecundity of early middle age.
Despicable horrors have been introduced into our textbooks with the words "How hard would it be to have a paragraph on...."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 6:02 AM
It's playing dirty to criticize women for putting off having children if you're also going to criticize them for living off of the men in their lives. It's one or the other.
I get to dodge this issue entirely MonicaP, because I don't want kids. But it is one where I do feel very sorry for women - there's no good answer between "procreate with the nearest good looking guy in your 20s" or take the risk of "oops, my biological clock just rang". The window of opportunity has been squeezed down to a sliver by a variety of factors. And I can't blame women, or Vogue, or anyone else for that.
Plus, echoing a few people - 15 rounds of IVF? Forget the money...ouch. She's serious. That would hurt.
Ltw at September 6, 2011 6:09 AM
Informing people about fertility decline is not a despicable horror!
15 rounds of IVF sounds sucky indeed. A monthly ovidril shot (which you take when you're on chlomid) is sucky enough!
NicoleK at September 6, 2011 10:56 AM
You don't get it, NicoleK, most twenty-something aspiring professional women aren't going to say "wow, having kids after 35 is difficult, I'd better have them now." They are saying "I never want kids."
Besides, you'd have to be an illiterate idiot to not know having kids after 35 is difficult.
Joe at September 6, 2011 11:07 AM
Lobster- "They're waiting because they haven't found the right partner, or they don't have enough money, or they don't feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance."
Isn't this another way of saying "poor planning".
'Haven't found the right partner': Bet if you really looked critically and honestly at their past, you would usually find they either did meet decent guys but passed them up for short-sighted reasons, or followed a less than sensible approach to finding someone decent, e.g."
No, that's not poor planning, it's growing up. If a young woman, for short sighted reasons or otherwise, let's a decent guy pass by her it's not because of "poor planning" on her part. It's because she hasn't learned to make good decisions. It's part of growing up. But let's say, for planning purposes, she decides to settle down with decent guy and start reproducing. Years go by, she resents him because she feels like she settled for the sake of biology and she's now done having children. She stops having sex with him and we have another issue along the lines of "the family bed" letter. Or they live day to day doing what they have to do to get by, ultimately teaching their children that a miserable marriage is normal.
Or she doesn't resent him, realizes she made a mistake and divorces decent guy, now decent dad. Now we have a broken home.
Women aren't raised to be mothers these days. They are raised to be independent first, everything else second.
Habibti at September 6, 2011 11:33 AM
Reminds me of what the often-sentimental columnist Betsy Hart wrote at her blog recently - at the blog itself, the title is "What, No Magic 'Right' Time for Baby?" (She's a conservative divorced mother of four.)
Quote:
".......But women are increasingly delaying starting their families. And while gynecologists routinely ask a woman what she is doing for birth control, it's rare they will talk to her about her fertility. It's somehow seen as condescending.
"Women are too often left to visions of celebrity mothers having babies well into their 40s (though it's frequently with borrowed eggs), and often mistakenly think they themselves can easily wait.
"So much for knowledge is power, and empowering women.
"Well, back to my story and why I'm sharing it now.
"I'm guessing that today, more than ever, women in their 20s and early 30s might think that whatever else goes into their decisions about starting families, they should at least 'feel' like it's time. Strongly. So in case it's helpful, I just want such women to know that I myself didn't 'feel' much at all like having children before having them. My children changed me in that regard. So much...."
Here's what I said, in part:
(Betsy said) “And while gynecologists routinely ask a woman what she is doing for birth control, it’s rare they will talk to her about her fertility. It’s somehow seen as condescending.”
_____________________
Maybe because if she doesn’t say anything to her own doctor about WANTING to get pregnant soon, it’s usually safe to assume she doesn’t want to, yet? Not to mention that MOST women know not to wait until they’re 40, if only because they want to have enough energy to raise a child?
However, obviously, if a woman doesn’t want to spend so much as $1,000 on fertility treatments, she has to plan on the assumption that she won’t get pregnant after 30 – because chances are she’ll end up pushing her luck anyway, IF she wants a child.
____________________
(Betsy said) “I just want such women to know that I myself didn’t ‘feel’ much at all like having children before having them. My children changed me in that regard. So much.”
_________________
Lucky for you. However, I’m guessing there are a LOT of women who regret having children, even within marriage, and they just don’t like to say that publicly, especially if their children turned out well. (Clearly, there’s no such taboo on regretting not having children.) It’s NOT something to gamble on – especially if the husband expresses a lack of enthusiasm.
....I WILL say that if you’re a doctor, it should not be considered rude to ask your female patient “do you think you might want a child eventually?” IF she says yes, THEN it would be OK to start a careful conversation about age and declining fertility rates. What’s considered condescending, I expect, is assuming that every woman WANTS a baby without proof of that. (Of course, in the same vein, it may not be polite to assume that everyone uses or wants to use birth control – more than one religion opposes it, after all.)
____________________
(Betsy said) "Most women know pregnancy is better younger, but I don’t think they know how very difficult it is to get pregnant beyond a certain age."
______________________
Somehow, that sounds contradictory…..besides, with all the sob stories, ticking-clock stories, adoption stories, and expensive-fertility-treatment stories in the media, how can women NOT be a lot more aware than they used to be?
Finally, I’ll say that I didn’t have kids for the same reason I didn’t become a surgeon or a ditch-digger – I just didn’t want to. However, I can think of a few other compelling reasons to think twice:
1. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent in the neighborhood who actually pushes kids to be independent and to take responsibility for their own behavior.
2. I wouldn’t want to be the only parent who understands that when you say “no” to a five year old and he cries for an hour, it does NOT mean that you did anything horribly wrong or harmful – it only means that he needs to hear “no” more often.
3. I would not want my kids to grow up surrounded by classmates who are otherwise smart and friendly but who still put down reading and readers. I can only imagine how much less of a reader I would have been if I’d known ANY kids like that in the 1970s or 1980s. Anyone who talked like that would have been recognized as stupid. Nowadays, what’s considered stupid and nerdy, by kids, is almost anything that kids CHOOSE to do (outside of family time) that doesn’t overlap with video games or Facebook. Or sports. If it isn’t fast-paced or screen-related, what’s the point?
lenona at September 6, 2011 12:37 PM
Doctors don't need to stick a toe in, and then CAREFULLY start a conversation about anything related to your physicality. They need to be brutally upfront and honest, and not wait to be asked. That means a gyno letting a 28 year old know "if you're thinking about kids, you need to do it soon" and letting fat people know they're fat. Not "at high risk of heart-related blah blah blah" but actually fat.
momof4 at September 6, 2011 4:18 PM
"No, that's not poor planning, it's growing up. If a young woman, for short sighted reasons or otherwise, let's a decent guy pass by her it's not because of "poor planning" on her part. It's because she hasn't learned to make good decisions."
And if she reaches the age where she is unlikely to be able to have children, it means she hasn't 'learned to make good decisions' by her mid-30's. Come on. How much time do you need to 'grow up'?
And yes, it is still "poor planning". You haven't negated the "poor planning" part, all you've done is provide excuses for what remains "poor planning", i.e. you're saying basically 'she planned poorly because she hadn't yet learned to plan properly by mid-30's'. The fact is there is a LOT of time between puberty and your 40's to plan for starting a family.
Lobster at September 6, 2011 4:44 PM
The F&S section counts
Wasn't my point. I've read many substantive and compelling articles in various publications' Style sections. I also read them for the pretty stuff. My problem is the NYT treated the subject matter as a "trend" that stems from celebrity behavior, like Kabbalah or colon cleansing. It's at the same time too seriously reported and too frivolously presented. In all likelihood, the article was stuck there because there wasn't a place for it elsewhere.
NumberSix at September 6, 2011 8:29 PM
How is putting money into social security and/or pensions 'saving nothing'.
I'm not mean, I'm just drawn that way. And I am laughing my ass off.
It's not entirely their fault if the government is spending everyone's savings on useful things like multiple wars and trillions in bonuses for crony bankers.
Oh yes it is entirely their fault. It was THEIR government. Don't try to disassociate yourself with the people you elect. If you think 20- and 30-something people are going to accept this, think again.
Two ENTIRE GENERATIONS look at their kids and grandkids and say, 'Well, it isn't OUR fault. Now pay up!'
Adjust your expectations.
Pirate Jo at September 6, 2011 9:27 PM
> Wasn't my point.
Right, it was my point. I think the failure of NYT reads (and editors, certainly) to think consistently means that if you find a fault in one section, you should consider it in the context of other sections.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 6, 2011 9:37 PM
Doctors don't need to stick a toe in, and then CAREFULLY start a conversation about anything related to your physicality.
_____________________
They don't want to lose their patients' business, and that means not being blunt in the same arrogant, god-like way that doctors considered themselves entitled to half a century ago.
Of course, they have to tell fat people to lose weight, but they don't always know, right away, what their patients' attitudes are regarding having children or using birth control.
lenona at September 7, 2011 4:31 PM
I just spammed the Yoga website. It was fun. I suggest they bend over real far and su
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 7, 2011 8:14 PM
"The fact is there is a LOT of time between puberty and your 40's to plan for starting a family."
Just because mother nature knocks on the vaginal door and graces a young woman with her menstrual cycle at 13, making her capable of giving birth, doesn't mean she should. It also doesn't mean she's "planned poorly" if she chooses not to, for whatever reason.
I don't believe there is a perfect time to have a baby, but there are plenty of really really bad times to have a baby. Choosing not to get knocked up during any of those bad times is SMART planning.
I am 30,will be 31 very soon. My biological clock is ticking so loud, strangers can hear it. I've wanted to be a mom my entire life, but unless I want to rely on our government to feed my child, I'm in no position to have one. And Lobster, that is NOT a result of poor planning. I've made fairly smart decisions in my life. Not always, but I'm certainly not a fuck up.
I'm educated and I have a good, solid job. I make a decent living, I live within my means and I make ends meet. That's about all you can do with one income these days. I don't have the means, financially, to take care of a child. Maybe because a quarter of my paycheck goes to feed all those children who's parents didn't "plan poorly" and spit out babies every 9 months.
Habibti at September 9, 2011 8:58 AM
I think if we stopped rewarding people for making bad decisions, much of this problem would go away.
I'm sick of seeing people demanding that other people subsidize their reproductive decisions. I'm not telling you to have or not have kids, but why should I pay for them when I keep my dick in my pants? Your body, your choice, yet somehow my responsibility?
I read this story about a woman who has a silver spoon in her mouth the size of a steam shovel, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for her? I'm a vet, divorced twice from abusive people, a single custodial father of two (who has to regularly to prove himself to be a competent parent in court), and deal with a court system that refuses to hold my children's mother accountable, and while finding her a "complete train wreck" (judges own words), still wrings its hands about refusing custody to a violent, mentally ill substance abuser.
I've seen too many of these executive career women who are planning their entire lives out, looking for George Clooney or Mr Big to swoop in their lives like the perfect accessory to go along with the land rover, the waterford crystal, etc. Bridezillas might be an extreme example, but I think too many women are fetishising marrage, husbands, kids and careers, without a realistic understanding that there's at least two other people involved in their decision. Likely, the featured woman would soon be dissatisfied with her husband, boot him to the curb, and enjoy a nice subsidy of her lifestyle choice, courtesy of her ex. Good thing that some guy and a set of kids are spared her self centered apathy or worse, narcissism.
Go see Idiocracy. The idiots are spitting out kids indiscriminately, (and demanding a subsidy to do so!) while you're wondering if 'now' is the right time.
Really, I don't care what reproductive angst women are winding themselves up over this month. Remember what you tell us guys? "if you don't want to pay child support, don't have sex."
I'm sick of hearing how crappy women have it. You live 10 years longer than us, there's 9 federal agencies devoted to your special health care needs, you get the lions share of admissions and graduations, you can walk away from a pregnancy or a born child if you chose with zero responsibility, or dump them on a Utah adoption agency without so much as a heads up to the dad. You pay a fraction of what men do in taxes, yet collect far more in benefits, from wic to social security to startup grants for businesses.
When women have the same prison sentences and rates of prosecutions as men do for the same crimes, commit suicide at the same rate we do, die on the job at the same rate men to, and have the same chance of having their kids taken from them in a divorce, THEN I might care about the dilemma you face about pursuing kids vs career.
I manage to be a single parent without assistance from the state, manage to put 20 hours of study or more per week, pay for my own house, my own groceries, my own damn transportation and utilities.
BE equal. Demand accountability.
wayne at September 11, 2011 1:33 AM
Leave a comment