TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

15

On waiting to have children (self.RedPillWives)

submitted by Irisandoleander

On Twitter this morning Mrs Uppity posted this article about how the NHS is telling women they can not wait to have children. You can't fight biology. Those who wait are risking not having children, risking high risk pregnancy, and also expensive pregnancies.

She also has an old post titled Women can't afford to delay having children. Please stop telling us otherwise. This lead me to the question. Let's say girls generally started puberty at 15 and 30 was the cut off for having healthy pregnancies/babies. If girls are on average starting puberty at 10 does that mean the cut off is going to be closer to 25 soon?

Chatting with others on twitter this study was brought to my attention Father Absence Linked to Eearlier Puberty Among Some Girls

All of this points toward getting married young, keeping the father in the family, and this will ensure a better chance of healthy children, and a healthy YOU. :)


[–]SteelMagnoliaFields8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Seriously I shared this on my FB. It says 43% of people said this shouldn't be taught in school. Guess those are just a bunch of butt hurt feminists. If we want people to have "choices" then giving them factual data should help them make informed decisions, no?

Men get a little leeway in terms of age but the older they get the more children can be at risk for mental problems. Young ages are optimal for everyone I would say. Guess we should start preparing our children to be ready for the adult world at 18 instead of telling them they are special snowflakes and telling them they have 10 more years of adolescence to get things figured out.

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. People need reliable data to make informed decisions. The only possible reason for suppressing such important and useful information is that it stands in conflict with the social agenda of the academic elite responsible for deciding what can and can't be taught in the classroom.

[–]hazelfox32, Engaged 6 mos/5 yrs LTR7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

This is really important; biology is real, as much as our current culture wants to cry that it isn't. The problem seems to be that we've created the narrative of being able to have whatever you want, whenever you want it, including pregnancy, and many 20- to 25-year-old women are living out extended adolescences (like many men their age are, too) and postponing marriage and family. I was certainly guilty of this in my 20s, before I started to understand the world beyond my own reflection in the mirror.

And sadly, it's already "too late" for me; only in the last year did I realize I even want to have a child, and at 32, it's possible, but I won't exactly be holding my breath for a positive test.

[–]cxj5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have said this before but I finished labor and delivery classes for nursing school and know a thing or two about this. You can most likely still have 1 to 2 healthy kids considering you are engaged, rpw, and I'm assuming that means your fiance gets the point of marriage is kids. The risks are just higher.

[–]hazelfox32, Engaged 6 mos/5 yrs LTR2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hopefully we'll have one healthy baby and neither of us will change our minds about two kids, total, being enough (my fiance has a 7-year-old son, who lives with us most of of the time). We'll be married in two months and then we're planning to just "let nature take its course." I've been off hormonal BC for several years, have a predictable cycle, and ovulate every month, so hopefully at this time next year I am pregnant or redditing with a baby in my arms. :)

[–]cxj1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll bet you'll have 2 kids if that's your plan.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

😞 I'm sorry. I hope you are able to have kids if you want to have them

[–]hazelfox32, Engaged 6 mos/5 yrs LTR1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you! I hope so, too. :)

[–]littleteafox4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm 32 too and bf and I want children someday :) I also didn't realize I wanted them (and marriage) until later. But the timing feels right, even if it is later. My SO now is definitely the right father material and our relationship is far more ideal than my previous ones. I don't really want more than 2 either, and have always been open to adoption (a tradition in my family).

I don't think it's completely "too late" for either of us. Fertility does go down, but it's not a sharp drop-off. It's more gradual in your 30s and then much more steep around 40 from the studies I have read. There are also other factors that influence numbers -- for example, older couples may not be as sexually active at younger ones. Also, if you get to know your body and fertility signs, that can be on your side as well :)

https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/older-mothers/

The widely citied statistic that only 66% of women aged 35 to 39 will be pregnant after a year of trying if based on a 2004 article in the journal Human Reproduction, which in turn is based on an analysis of French birth records from 1670 to 1830. The attraction of using data from a pre-modern population is the fact that the data is not distorted by the use of birth control. But as the psychologist Jean Twenge points out in her review of the literature, this was "a time before electricity, antibiotics, or fertility treatment".

For modern women, the reality is far better expressed in a 2004 study by David Dunson and colleagues, published in Obstetrics and Gynecology. This found that, if they were having sex twice a week, 82% of women aged between 35 and 39 fell pregnant within a year. However, what made the biggest difference was the frequency of intercourse: if women had sex once per week instead of twice, 'the rates of infertility increase substantially to 15%, 22–24%, and 29% for women aged 19–26, 27–34, and 35–39 years, respectively'.

Another good reason to keep sexin' it up with your SO :)

[–]littleteafox3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Women are woefully uneducated on their own bodies. Never was fertility mentioned to me or anyone I know unless something was wrong and they had to see a doctor about it. Growing up, I just always had this vague impression that you couldn't have kids once you hit menopause, somewhere in your 40s, and that was about it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I have learned so much since going off the pill and learning NFP.

[–]nonnimoose2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I became pregnant due to birth control failure (an accident) in my early 30s. This was in the early 90s. At the time I was totally freaked out. It wasn't planned! I wasn't ready! (My biological clock was broken, I never heard a tick.) Ultimately we had a baby and everything felt "meant to be." But at that time I had absolutely no inclination that I was extremely lucky to have that accident. Left to my own devices, I would have waited another 5 years, when I was "ready," because I thought I'd be fertile enough 'til I turned 40. It's laughable to think this now, but this is what I believed. I'm an intelligent and educated person but the "conventional wisdom" at the time was that you had the whole 30s decade to create a family.

So yeah, I think young women should definitely be taught ALL the facts of reproduction. I don't think it's necessary to try to scare grade school girls with dire warnings, just state the facts. Puberty for girls happens in late childhood/early adolescence and fertility follows a curve with a peak in the 20s and decline starting in the 30s, accelerating at 35. Facts are facts.

[–]exit_sandman2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Left to my own devices, I would have waited another 5 years, when I was "ready," because I thought I'd be fertile enough 'til I turned 40. It's laughable to think this now, but this is what I believed. I'm an intelligent and educated person but the "conventional wisdom" at the time was that you had the whole 30s decade to create a family.

The blue pill is a powerful drug indeed.

[–]Kittenkajira6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Good on NHS for pushing that women should have children before 30. Often when I'm looking for health advice, I look at WHO or NHS rather than American sites. We seem to be way behind in healthcare recommendations. I'm 32, soon to be 33, and pregnant for the first time. The only regret I have is that I won't be able to have a huge family with lots of kids. I'll have to settle for 1-3 children. I've known quite a few older, infertile women who wanted children. It really is a disservice to tell women that they have plenty of time. Having children earlier also protects you against reproductive cancers.

I was just reading an article recently about how important fathers are to their children. Infants attach strongly to their mothers, but at some point they will switch the attachment to their father. He becomes this new and exciting parent to learn from. I think a lot of mothers start getting jealous at this point, but it really is natural and something to encourage. It's quite alright if a child suddenly starts wanting to hang around daddy more often.

I just can't even imagine what horrors we may be causing with so many single mothers, divorcing parents, working parents, obese pregnancies, geriatric pregnancies, medicated pregnancies, and all the interventions during birth including a high c-section rate.

[–]cxj5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol I remember this attaching to dad period and the jealousy it incurred in my mom. She was actually pretty good at parenting from 0-5 or so, then turned into an evil step mom somehow. I wonder if this was why? She has even told me about how mad this made her with both me and my sister.

Thank god it happened though because my dad was by far the better parent.

[–]philomexa32, married 11 years, 1.5 year old toddler4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I just can't even imagine what horrors we may be causing with...working parents

Small point of contention; parents have always worked. Whether it was the farm, storefront, docks, factories, etc. Fathers and mothers have pretty much always worked, usually together, but they were out there hustling for their family.

The Stay at Home Mother was an unexpected role that arose from the economic boon in the 1950's. Beyond that, only aristocratic women could 'stay home' and even then they were devoting their time to household management (finances, task delegation, upkeep, etc).

Sorry for the pedantry.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The Stay at Home Mother was an unexpected role that arose from the economic boon in the 1950's.

I have a nut to crack with this statement.

Yes, it's a fairly new term. But I don't like this part of the "stay at home" whatever. Women have always worked, but rarely if ever, away from the household. The US was largely agricultural for most of its existence until the last few decades. Those women who worked in factories mostly lived in the largest of cities until the 1950s, when there was a national craving for peace and calm and women were encouraged to stay at home and raise children following WWII.

But women were teachers and nurses and nannies and whatever for ages. They just didn't earn wages. They didn't drop off the kids at daycare and commute an hour to "work". They worked but they largely did it at home. Women who are SAHs now still do community work often times but they earn 0 wages.

Someone jump in if I'm off or incorrect.

In my opinion, all work is valuable.

[–]Kittenkajira7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but they used to work with the children, especially the mothers. When the mothers were doing their daily work, they either had the child with them, they had a wet nurse at home (who was probably doing work as well), or they left the children together and just didn't go off the property. It really is just unnatural for a mother and infant to part everyday after just 6 weeks. Children (even infants) learn from watching their parents. What are they learning when mom goes to work everyday and leaves them at a daycare? That life consists of playing all day while being watched by adults?

I have heard so many mothers talking of how difficult it is to go back to work and leave the child. It hurts. It's like that for a reason - because it shouldn't be done. I don't understand why we insist on hurting ourselves that way, just for the sake of having more money to purchase unnecessary things. Ideally women would be going to "work", either an actual job or household management, only with the young child/infant right there with them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

In this vein, do any of you redpill mothers wish you'd had children younger? Older? Did the age you wanted to have children change as you grew older?

[–]VintageVee29f, engaged, together 2yrs2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I had my children aged 21 and 24. I actually think that was the right age for me. I had not grown into selfish independence by such a young age - I didn't know what it was to be living alone and set in my ways having all my own way. I am an energetic mother. I'll be done and dusted largely by the time I turn 40, so I can then focus on travel and career (this is my SO and I's I ideal)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have liked to already have one by now but my husband's timeline for the wedding was the way it was - So we're hoping to start trying now. I've been pretty regular my whole life so I don't think we'll have any weird hiccups if we just do it like bunnies :0) HAHA

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"Do it like bunnies." Nice plan. :-)

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I had twelve. My first was born when I was 23 and my last at 45. I wouldn't change a thing.

I've had many friends who stopped at two or three children, though, and were wishing they hadn't when they found themselves dealing with an empty nest before 50. The time with children in the home is so precious, but it passes much faster than you can imagine is possible.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

12!!! that's ... WOW! Good for you! Did you ever think of having more - did your husband just keep wanting more. I love big families -- How did you decide on 12?

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I knew I wanted a big family before I ever married, so my husband and I discussed the issue at length while we were dating. Although we initially (before the wedding) thought we'd postpone having children until he finished school (I already had my degree), we quickly abandoned the plan and decided we'd just have as many babies as God chose to send us. Our youngest just turned six, but my cycles are still very regular, so it's still possible she won't be our last. I'd be thrilled to have more, but I'm 51, so I know that window will be closing for good pretty soon. Makes me sad to think I might never have another. Children are such a blessing -- both to their parents and to each other.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious if - because you did not cycle 1 egg/month for the bulk of your lifetime you keep your fertility (quality of eggs) later in life - as opposed to women who cycle monthly due to not having as many pregnancies.

I can't wait to start our family - hopefully soon! :)

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I've wondered the same thing. I've spent in excess of 9 years of my life pregnant, so maybe menopause will be 9 years delayed? That would be fine by me!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

MORE BABIES!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I always thought I'd start having kids younger; I'm 29 and pregnant with my first. It's funny though, the middle-aged women in my office say I'm still a baby myself! Say what!

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I think in today's world, women should be thinking about having children between 20-25, with 30 being the cut off. I guess, whatever year you started your first menses, you should give yourself 25 good years, with the first 10 years being ideal.

[–]PhilofloraLate 20s, married 6years, together 9 years6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm having my third child and last this year at 28. I'm so happy to have had my babies during my 20s. Most all of my mom friends are older than me and they seem worn out. I really don't know how they do it. 30 seems like a great cut off but that's when most ladies get started these days.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The first 5 years at least after starting your menses are definitely not medically ideal at all, that'd be talking age 10 or 11 to 15ish. Mothers at these ages and even extending a few years older have significantly higher-risk pregnancies.

[–]whats_her_face3431, married 3 years1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I came from a family where everyone marries and has kids early, and I always wanted it for myself but I didn't find anyone decent to marry until I was 28. I'm 31 now, and feeling like my window is closing (or maybe closed, who knows) but I guess the culture around me makes me feel like I have at least until 35 or 40 to worry about it. I have many friends having their first kids, and a few older aunts and cousins who are still having children too. So it's been easy to push the biology aspect away and believe I still have more time.

I do wish that maybe I had seen the urgency earlier. I might have set my life up a bit differently if it had been more stressed that 30 was the deadline instead of 40. Another popular message I've gotten about pregnancy is that you have to be "responsible" which means financially and "feeling ready" and all that. As far as feeling ready, well, if I think about being pregnant too much it sounds really scary, but I'd deal with it. As far as finances, well, it's easy to say we are not in a good financial place for a kid- husband is going back to school, I'm self employed which means I wouldn't get paid for any time off. It seems like any reasonable person would say, you should not have a kid right now.

But still, I want to pick the brains of people with kids, and ask all those nosy questions you can't ask because they're not polite. Like, how much does it really cost? Could I make my schedule work with raising an infant? CAN we do this now? Would it be the stupidest possible thing to try? Or is it more stupid for me to continue waiting?

I guess I'm rambling, but this article has at least pushed this issue to the front of my mind for the moment. So thanks!

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If everybody waited until they were "ready" to have kids -- financially or otherwise -- the human race would have died out a long time ago. Becoming a parent grows you in ways you cannot fully understand before having children. Even if you thought you were "ready" before starting your family, you'd realize soon after bringing baby home from the hospital how mistaken you were.

My husband and I had originally planned to wait until he was finished with school before beginning our family, but -- surprise! -- we got pregnant 2 weeks into the honeymoon instead. I am SO GLAD things worked out the way they did. If we'd waited until our circumstances were more ideal, we'd be waiting still.

[–]whats_her_face3431, married 3 years1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Every month I secretly hope that we get that kind of surprise- it would take the decision out of it and we'd just have to deal! It seems like every parent has told me what you did- that you never are truly ready. And every parent also says to have them while you're young and have energy!

Honestly, I think my real issue is that my husband is not on the same page as I am. He is still firmly in the "a baby would not be a good idea right now, thank god your period came" camp and I feel silly and a bit selfish for wanting one anyway. But at the same time, I have a feeling it's going to have to be a conversation I start. So more and more I'm thinking about how to pitch the idea to him. Maybe I'll quote your post, lol.

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, you should definitely have that conversation. Catch him in a good mood and let him know what you've been thinking. Listen to his concerns, think through them without reacting, and revisit the topic again once you've had time to evaluate and -- if you are a praying woman -- talk to God about it. It may be that your husband is concerned about the finances (babies don't cost nearly as much to raise as those insane estimates you see posted online) or maybe he thinks your sex life will never be the same once children enter the picture (of course, that doesn't have to be the case -- you should assure him you will continue to prioritize that aspect of your relationship, then make good on your promise both during your pregnancy and after junior arrives). The point is, you won't really no what the holdup is for him until you ask, and in light of the topic of this thread, I recommend you do that sooner rather than later. :-)

[–]whats_her_face3431, married 3 years0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, you're right. I have been praying, but it's more of, please let him bring this up. But it's been weighing on my mind more and more lately. I guess I will have to suck it up and initiate some kind of discussion about it.

[–]LovingLifeAtHomeEarly 50s, Married, 29 Years1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm so glad to see this discussion on RPW. It is such an important topic! A few months ago, my husband bought me a copy of the book Sweetening the Pill by Holly Grigg-Spall. It was a fascinating read that relates well to the topic of waiting to have children. The books offers compelling reasons why women should reject hormonal contraceptives, citing scientific studies that detail the health risks associated with their use. I don't agree with the author's perspective on everything she wrote, but I wish more women could understand that The Pill is not the panacea its pushers would have us believe. Those who are interested can find a more detailed review of the book on my blog and a list of other resources related to the same topic. http://lovinglifeathome.com/2015/05/09/postponing-motherhood-at-what-cost/

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter