Fertility problems in the 21st century

[Lyanna Stark]

Women have far more control over when to have babies than men do. If enough men aren't willing/able/mature in their early 20s to have children then and a woman that age wants children, she should extend her search criteria to include a somewhat older guy.

Yes, because marrying for money is so 2009. :thumbsdown:

discusses all the baggage that a person accumulates in their 20's, and how this can make seeking a mate harder. Instead of two people meeting at say, 19,

Or how about the ones of us who deal with their baggage during their 20's to emerge on the other side finally feeling whole? Don't think that is entirely uncommon since none of my Uni friends had a kid before age 27 (most didn't start until early thirties).

[ljkeane]

Hence you cannot be in your 40s and get free fertility treament under the UHC in the UK. I think this is reasonable, but it worries me that not more is done to encourage parenthood earlier, through tax credits, higher maternity leave compensation and subventions etc. I would be less hesitant to have a baby in Sweden than the UK, for instance, purely because my financial loss will be smaller and my husband and I would be able to deal with the costs easier. £117 a week is just pitiful compared to a "real" salary, I'm afraid.

I agree with you that those seem like reasonable restrictions on the provision of fertility treatment. I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to provide further incentives for people to have children though, in light of the current economic circumstances I'd have to see what sort of costs are involved as well as some sort of analysis as to how beneficial it would be. I'm not entirely against it in principle but I'm not sure that the benefits would outweigh the costs involved.

[mcbigski]

Yes, because marrying for money is so 2009. :thumbsdown:

Finding a man who is willing, ready, and mature enough to be a father is not marrying for money.

[Whitestripe]

However, I think the vast majority of the number of people not wanting children until their 30's, when they feel "settled down" is societal. Essentially, we're now told, through various media, etc, that "the 20's are for having fun". It's not like it used to be, where people expected to be (and there was great pressure to be) married right out of college.

Biology hasn't kept up with society.

I dunno, I was married right out of college. Actually I am one of three roommates who all got married after graduation. We are all still married, 15+ years later. Dh and I didn't have a baby until 11 years later. (Granted, if we had our way it would have been few years earlier, but not only two or three.) I can't imagine having a baby in my 20's. While I am sure it would have worked out, there is no way I could have afforded day care on my salary 10 years ago and no way that we could have lived on what hubby was making alone.

In fact, out of the three of us who all got married right out of college, the one who had children the soonest (in her mid-twenties) is in the worst financial shape. They accrued a ton of debt as young parents with crappy jobs that they are still paying off now.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

This made me think of an article I have read several times in the last year, called "My Single Identity Baggage." Basically the woman in article, (and I must couch this is from a young-Christian website where the readers are, at least in the theory, seeking to get married and have kids early) discusses all the baggage that a person accumulates in their 20's, and how this can make seeking a mate harder. Instead of two people meeting at say, 19, and growing together, they meet at 26 and have a long list of things they like/dislike/can't live without, which, in her opinion, make the compromises and mutual growth which are the bedrock of a relationship, harder.

I'd agree on the idea of society pushing people to think there is always "someone better." Seems these days i'm always in competition with the possibility of guys with 6-packs and big dollars. Probably how women feel with all the models parading themselves around 24/7.

If I'd married my high school boyfriend, I would be divorced now. If I'd married any of my college boyfriends, I would be divorced now. If I'd married my law school boyfriend (and that one was close), I would be miserable and talking to divorce lawyers right now. "Growing together" can just as equally be "growing apart." I think in a successful couple, each person needs to be comfortable with who he or she is, not try to become something that the other partner wants/thinks he or she is (common problem, I think, and one that takes a certain level of maturity and lack of insecurity to surmount), and be comfortable with the idea individuality within a single relationship. I wasn't mature enough at age 19 or 21 for that. Some people are. But for me, having had several years to figure out what my "deal-breakers" are, and what I can live with is crucial. It gives me a metric and perspective on our relationship.

[Lyanna Stark]

I agree that just assuming people's financial situation will be better if they have kids early is not always the case.

My mum had me at 24 and I was definitely NOT planned and she said she did not feel emotionally nor financially ready really, but once my parents had me, they decided to go ahead and do the "family thing" with a house and a second kid too, which put them in some pretty dire debt (mortgages in the 80s were OUCH) despite both of them working full time.

They weren't really back in the game until the mid-late 90s and even thought it's cool having younger parents, they had to suffer a lot of financial strain because of it. No holidays, no big purchases, panic every time a car or a washing machine broke down, borrowing from relatives, surviving on the cheapest or cheap food, etc etc. I don't blame people for not wanting to experience that sort of life. Hell, I might still do that what with the £117 a week, but at age 33 instead.

From the BBC regarding propensity to have kids and socio-economic status:

By their early 40s, about 17% of women were childless, in part corresponding with their relationship status.

"The data shows that lack of a co-resident partner still appears to be one of the main factors associated with childlessness," the study said.

However, career choice was also linked to childlessness, with more women employed in professional, managerial or technical occupations who did not have children.

In 2001, about 30% of mothers were in these occupations, compared with about 42% of childless women.

"Irrespective of their partnership status, women's own socio-economic characteristics, including economic activity and social class, are significantly associated with childlessness," the report said

If I'd married my high school boyfriend, I would be divorced now. If I'd married any of my college boyfriends, I would be divorced now. If I'd married my law school boyfriend (and that one was close), I would be miserable and talking to divorce lawyers right now.

Good God, I'm with you there. Just pondering what it would be like to be married to one of my early 20 something boyfriends makes me cringe. :stunned:

[Mentat]

I agree with mcbigski completely. I think willingness to have a family and children in ones early twenties is as good a meter of manhood as the amount of beers one can drink in an hour. I can imagine many a woman would be offended (and rightly so) by someone equating their worth with their fertility, or saying a woman who decided to devote herself to her career rather than to having children is somehow betraying some societal standard of feminity. Well exactly the same goes for men. The decision to be (and behave as) a father is just as personal and intimate as the decision to be a mother, and it shouldn't be forced nor expected of anyone at any age.

[mouse]

I would have been a disaster as a mother in my 20s. The men I was involved with in my 20s were even more so disasters. I did a lot of growing up and maturing through my 20s. I didn't meet my husband until I was 31 and didn't marry until 33. I finally felt like I was mature, emotionally stable, and financially secure enough to be a mother at 34, but, unfortunately, I'll be 37 before this kid arrives. (Off-topic: Found out this week: It's a girl!)

[Minaku]

I would have been a disaster as a mother in my 20s. The men I was involved with in my 20s were even more so disasters. I did a lot of growing up and maturing through my 20s. I didn't meet my husband until I was 31 and didn't marry until 33. I finally felt like I was mature, emotionally stable, and financially secure enough to be a mother at 34, but, unfortunately, I'll be 37 before this kid arrives. (Off-topic: Found out this week: It's a girl!)

Congrats, mouse!

Well exactly the same goes for men. The decision to be (and behave as) a father is just as personal and intimate as the decision to be a mother, and it shouldn't be forced nor expected of anyone at any age.

At any age? The time to act like a child, to shirk responsibility and to be carefree does end. Age is supposed to bring with it experience, wisdom, and responsibility. Choose to have kids or not have kids, but don't make a blanket statement that people shouldn't be forced or expected to act as if they are older when they are.

[Zoë Sumra]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/25/klavan/

Damn, if only I were single again...

And in contrast, with actual research:

Research by sociologists Scott Coltrane and Michele Adams looked at national survey data and found that when men increase their share of housework and childcare, their children are happier, healthier and do better in school. They are less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, less likely to be put on prescription medication, and less likely to see a child psychologist for behavioural problems. They have lower rates of absenteeism and higher school achievement scores.

What's more, when school-aged children do housework with their fathers, they get along better with their peers and have more friends. And they show more positive behaviours than if they did the same work with their mothers. "Because fewer men do housework than women," said Adams, "when they share the work, it has more impact on children." Fathers model "co-operative family partnerships".

When men share housework and childcare, it turns out, their partners are happier. (This is intuitively obvious.) Wives of egalitarian husbands, regardless of class, report the highest levels of marital satisfaction and lowest rates of depression, and are less likely to see therapists or take prescription medication. They are also more likely to stay fit, since they probably have more time on their hands.

And the benefits for men are even greater. Men who share housework and childcare are healthier – physically and psychologically. They smoke less, drink less, and take recreational drugs less often. They are more likely to stay in shape and more likely to go to doctors for routine screenings, but less likely to use emergency rooms or miss work due to illness.

They're also psychologically healthier: they see therapists, are diagnosed with depression, and take prescription medication less often. They report higher levels of marital satisfaction. They also live longer, a finding that caused the Economist to quip "Change a nappy, by God, and put years on your life".

Oh, and they have more sex. Research by psychologist John Gottman at the University of Washington also found higher rates of marital sex among couples where men did more housework and childcare. This last finding was trumpeted by Men's Health magazine with the headline "Housework Makes Her Horny" (although I suspect that is less true when she does it). It is probably worthwhile pointing out that these are what social scientists call "aggregate" statistics, over the long-term. There is no one-to-one correspondence and so I would advise male readers of this essay not to harbour any expectations if they rush home upon reading this essay and begin to load the washing machine.

But load it they should. The evidence is clear that the more men share housework and childcare, the happier and healthier are their loved ones – as well as the men themselves. Fatherhood is not simply a state of being; it's a set of practices, things people do. And when men share those tasks that are normally called "parenting" everyone benefits.

[mcbigski]

I agree with mcbigski completely.

That's not something you see every day on this board. ;)

[Annelise]

And in contrast, with actual research:

:) My favorite part of his world is the wife evidently agreeing to live under her husband's authority and in exchange, he deigns not to sleep with other women. Now that's a hot bargain.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

:) My favorite part of his world is the wife evidently agreeing to live under her husband's authority and in exchange, he deigns not to sleep with other women. Now that's a hot bargain.

Like I said, I wish he were mine. I don't think I'm eligible though. Sadness and woe.

[Annelise]

Like I said, I wish he were mine. I don't think I'm eligible though.

Yeah.. I sense that we're missing out on a good mudwrestling opportunity here. Ah well.

[Mentat]

At any age? The time to act like a child, to shirk responsibility and to be carefree does end. Age is supposed to bring with it experience, wisdom, and responsibility. Choose to have kids or not have kids, but don't make a blanket statement that people shouldn't be forced or expected to act as if they are older when they are.

I'm 30. I have a job that pays the bills and I live on my own. In my free time I enjoy playing RPGs with my friends, raiding with my World of Warcraft guild, posting on a fantasy literature internet forum, painting lead 28mm miniatures, etc. Why should anyone tell me how I should behave? That I should have this or that responsibility?

I dislike your statement because of what it doesn't say but seems to imply, and that is that people should adjust to a set of social expectations when deciding how to live their life. There's a big difference between being foolish and making your own decisions, and, though I agree I have to take responsability for my decisions, it's certainly up to me to make them as I see fit.

[turinturambar]

2) Eugenics. The ability to pick and choose certain aspects (i.e. sex) of your child should not be made available at any cost. That way lies all manner of unsavory practices.

I'm not really sure what's wrong with this(other than gender). I think a potential parent should be able to choose which characteristics they want. That is in essence what people often do subconsciously anyways when they choose a mate. They choose a mate that has ideal characteristics to pass onto their offspring.

[TerraPrime]

Instead of two people meeting at say, 19, and growing together, they meet at 26 and have a long list of things they like/dislike/can't live without, which, in her opinion, make the compromises and mutual growth which are the bedrock of a relationship, harder.

Nineteen is way too old. People are set in their ways by then. Ten sounds good. We should encourage people to get married at 10. That way, they have their whole life to grow up together. They can even experience puberty together. How can it not be a bond-forming experience to be there and support each other through each voice change and acne outbreak?

The ridiculous argument aside, the nugget of truth in that article is that we too often expect our mate-to-be to fit our specific ideals. That happens regardless of age, imo. The determining factor is experience and maturity. Most people who date seriously will find out, after a while, that chasing after that perfect ideal is a load of hogwash. We're all flawed. Accepting that and then finding true love and enduring companionship in light of that is about emotional maturity (and experience), not age.

I think, too, that if you look at divorces, you'll find that many of them resulted from people growing apart. People change and evolve. Sometimes, you managed to fail to do so in a synchronized fashion with your life partner. People fall in love, and people fall out of love, irrespective of marriage. Believing that growing up together implies a better chance of growing closer emotionally is rather, imo, naieve.

I'd agree on the idea of society pushing people to think there is always "someone better." Seems these days i'm always in competition with the possibility of guys with 6-packs and big dollars. Probably how women feel with all the models parading themselves around 24/7.

Most men don't have 6-packs and big dollars when they marry. Most men never have either, period, let alone both at the same time. Most women probably don't look for those things when they choose husbands*. The issue is not the lack of a nice abdomen or a big bank account - those are just excuses made up by men who can't find a good girl/boy-friend on their own merits.

PS *I mean, that's like thinking that most men want women who look like fashion models and who're dumb as a rock. That's a very warped view of gender, sex, and relationships, imo.

[Chaldanya]

I think a potential parent should be able to choose which characteristics they want.

Like blonde hair and blue eyes? But that way lies Godwin's Law so let me just say - suppose these parents choose to have a 5'5" female with red curly hair and brown eyes - if they didn't get that, would they be ble to get refund and hand the child back?

Are you aware that there are deaf parents who would choose the option of having a deaf child to enable them to better relate, little considering that thishampers the child in day to day life? Would you consider that acceptable?

N

[Joanna vander Poele]

I don't like fertility treatments or alternatives such as surrogacy, because there are so very many orphaned children in the world that could be adopted as opposed to cranking out a new strain on the Earth's already limited resources. At six billion people we are already living above our means, and they are projecting that we stabilise somewhere around nine billion. Is biological parenthood really what's important, or do you want to be a mother or father? Siring children is a far cry from being a parent, and a biological connection to the child won't really affect your ability to be a mother or father.

You don't have any sort of right to beget children, so I don't understand quite why it should be covered by UHC. In most cases, society will eventually benefit from any child being born, they becoming productive members of society and whatnot, but a society would also reap those benefits if the child was adopted rather than born to those particular parents. I would much rather see adoption sponsored by the state than I would fertility treatments.

My thoughts entirely, summed up in far more eloquence and brevity than I could ever manage.

2) Eugenics. The ability to pick and choose certain aspects (i.e. sex) of your child should not be made available at any cost. That way lies all manner of unsavory practices.

I would much rather let prospective parents choose their future baby's sex than abortions and infanticide because they didn't get what they wanted. It's sketchy, but the alternative is far more repulsive. I am pretty sure it will never be really possible for parents to pick out whether they want a red-haired brown-eyed girl who is exactly 5'5" through sheer IVF or genetic manipulation, but I'm ambivalent on the matter.

I will probably never have a kid, but if I did I'd much favour adoption over the traditional means.

[Eponine]

The idea of women having children immediately after undergrad (22ish) and then having ages 28+ to go to grad school and build a career is interesting, but I wonder how it stacks up against the experiences of women who actually do have children at that age.

Anecdotally, I was on a different message board where there was a poll regarding life experiences, and over and over again under "education", women were saying that they didn't finish their degree or didn't go to grad school because they'd gotten married and/or had kids. Probably half of them also listed "didn't finish/continue school" as a REGRET. But now a lot of them were in their early 30s and were saying that it was too late to go back, they had mortgages and debt, or their husband didn't have a stable well-paying job, or even if their oldest kid was elementary school aged, they had had another baby, or it was better to continue the less inspiring, lower paying career they already had than to have to totally restart.

***

If you want to avoid the push to always be looking for "someone better", and you'd prefer a culture where you're practically a failure if you don't find a spouse in college, I recommend going to a Christian university. I hear that those people have a much lower rate of divor... oh wait, nevermind.