Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance whe

RobYourBuilder

Thread/article title didn't post properly/fit. It's; Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance when it comes to their fertility. Why?


Interesting but long article here(3,500 words). Basically, a woman writer goes to see a gynecologist at age 41 to see about getting pregnant. Doctor tells her to hurry up if she wants to get pregnant. She gets upset, then rejoices when she finally gets pregnant. Faces reality after several miscarriages.

Some excerpts from the piece:

It’s too painful to wonder what would have happened if that first gynaecologist had sat me down calmly and opened up some informative graphics to show how women’s fertility drastically declines with age – beginning at around 32, more rapidly after 37, then precipitously at 40. The way a doctor might explain to you the risk of smoking by showing you a picture of blackened lungs, or describe the effects fat has on arteries, often leading to heart attacks: simple medical facts, presented in an objective manner, without judgment or guilt or some hidden cultural agenda.

Sadly, all this is missing from the discussion on women’s fertility.

Many studies show that women are not only woefully ignorant when it comes to fertility, conception and the efficacy of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) – but they overestimate their knowledge about the subject.

Another way women might even out the fertility playing field is by focussing on the so-called male biological clock. But is there one? Although there have been recent news stories about how advanced age in men (over 40 or 50) increases time to conception and the incidence of autism and schizophrenia, the absolute risk is negligible. ‘When you look at the numbers, you have to separate what the absolute risk and the increased risk is,’ said Natan Bar-Chama, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. ‘The absolute risk is still really very small.’

"Women don't know there's a limit: the message is equal, equal, equal. But our biological clock is not."

http://aeon.co/magazine/society/why-do-women-know-so-little-about-their-own-fertility/

We spend a lot of time conditioning girls to believe that they're likely to get pregnant every single time they have sex when they're teenagers. Ovulation, time frames, none of that is touched on because it is much safer to make them believe it could happen at any time. After teaching them that for years on end, it is hard to flip a switch and then believe that there is a time when all that goes downhill and you can have sex for months on end without ever getting pregnant.

Ush1

What's the question?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Basic human biology and aging process. What exactly surprises you?

The Moldy Gowl

You think I'm gonna read an article for 3500 words on a Friday evening?

Goodluck to you

MarkR

So one lady didn't realise her fertility would be affected by age, and wrote an article on the internet about it. Interesting.

So, are talking "free pass" here, or would we still need to take precautions?

ScumLord

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

We spend a lot of time conditioning girls to believe that they're likely to get pregnant every single time they have sex when they're teenagers.

We also tell them their princesses and a fat man in a red suit breaks into the house at Christmas and leaves them presents. They get over those pretty quickly.

I would have thought every adult woman was fully aware of the menopause.

Grayson

I think most women know more about the female reproductive system than the OP does.

super_furry

Aren't most people more than aware of all that?

ceadaoin.

I would have thought it's pretty common knowledge that a womans fertility starts to decline in her 30s. This woman must have been spectacularly ignorant of the facts to think she would have no probs getting pregnant in her 40s

DoYouEvenLift

ScumLord wrote: »

We also tell them their princesses and a fat man in a red suit breaks into the house at Christmas and leaves them presents. They get over those pretty quickly.

I would have thought every adult woman was fully aware of the menopause.

Not all of them.

Philo Beddoe

Thinly veiled "OP is available and willing to impregnate middle-age women" thread.

whatdoicare

This woman is pretty dense, it's common knowledge that all women have a biological clock and it ticks louder and louder the older you get.

Although the average age for first time mothers is now 31, I know more than a few women having their first at 40. It's IMO more a society thing rather than an ignorance thing.

Women go to college finish in their mid twenties and are working on starting their careers until their late twenties, early thirties now. Before a woman is ready to even think of long term relationships she's over thirty and maybe take a year or two to actually enjoy the marriage and get a house/ sort out finances etc you could be 37 - 38 and trying for your first.

And that's if you are lucky enough to find someone, get married after a short engagement and get pregnant straight away - it's normal to take up to two years to get naturally pregnant and no fertility clinic will entertain you until you've been actively trying for at least a year.

Women are punished for getting pregnant in the work place, their careers instantly suffer - not a lot of women are ready to give that up in their early thirties and put off having babies until later when they are established and won't take as much of a hit.
You need alot of money to have a child if you intend to go back to work as odd as that sounds. Childcare costs a fortune, you can't stay late at work, your boss starts writing you off as the "mother who can't travel/stay late/do overtime/ is not available all the time at the drop of a hat" You get passed over for promotions and bonuses. You can't be in that position if you are trying to get your career started!

It's really tough to make decisions like that and when you are young you tend to think of these things as down the bottom of the list to think about later - but later is sometimes too late, women don't know if there's going to be a problem until they start trying and it's not always easy to pin point any causes and doctors can't always fix the problems. The longer it goes on, the more aware you are of the ticking clock.

These are the realities now, having a baby is damn hard, raising a child is even harder.

mirrorwall14

Oddly enough while the OP is a bit OTT I would argue that women are a little uninformed about the statistics around getting pregnant. We spend so long desperately avoiding it and I know I at least made it through life without ever knowing how ****ty the stats are on getting pregnant in anyone month. I assumed that if you had unprotected sex at the 'right time' you would get pregnant. The reality is very far from that

bb1234567

I'm sure in the near future we will easily develop technology or medicine that will allow women to have children at much older ages than at present

vicwatson

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Thread/article title didn't post properly/fit. It's; Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance when it comes to their fertility. Why?


Interesting but long article here(3,500 words). Basically, a woman writer goes to see a gynecologist at age 41 to see about getting pregnant. Doctor tells her to hurry up if she wants to get pregnant. She gets upset, then rejoices when she finally gets pregnant. Faces reality after several miscarriages.

Some excerpts from the piece:









http://aeon.co/magazine/society/why-do-women-know-so-little-about-their-own-fertility/

We spend a lot of time conditioning girls to believe that they're likely to get pregnant every single time they have sex when they're teenagers. Ovulation, time frames, none of that is touched on because it is much safer to make them believe it could happen at any time. After teaching them that for years on end, it is hard to flip a switch and then believe that there is a time when all that goes downhill and you can have sex for months on end without ever getting pregnant.

whatdoicare wrote: »

This woman is pretty dense, it's common knowledge that all women have a biological clock and it ticks louder and louder the older you get.

Although the average age for first time mothers is now 31, I know more than a few women having their first at 40. It's IMO more a society thing rather than an ignorance thing.

Women go to college finish in their mid twenties and are working on starting their careers until their late twenties, early thirties now. Before a woman is ready to even think of long term relationships she's over thirty and maybe take a year or two to actually enjoy the marriage and get a house/ sort out finances etc you could be 37 - 38 and trying for your first.

And that's if you are lucky enough to find someone, get married after a short engagement and get pregnant straight away - it's normal to take up to two years to get naturally pregnant and no fertility clinic will entertain you until you've been actively trying for at least a year.

Women are punished for getting pregnant in the work place, their careers instantly suffer - not a lot of women are ready to give that up in their early thirties and put off having babies until later when they are established and won't take as much of a hit.
You need alot of money to have a child if you intend to go back to work as odd as that sounds. Childcare costs a fortune, you can't stay late at work, your boss starts writing you off as the "mother who can't travel/stay late/do overtime/ is not available all the time at the drop of a hat" You get passed over for promotions and bonuses. You can't be in that position if you are trying to get your career started!

It's really tough to make decisions like that and when you are young you tend to think of these things as down the bottom of the list to think about later - but later is sometimes too late, women don't know if there's going to be a problem until they start trying and it's not always easy to pin point any causes and doctors can't always fix the problems. The longer it goes on, the more aware you are of the ticking clock.

These are the realities now, having a baby is damn hard, raising a child is even harder.

Why so many words? too many words

the nikkei is rising

Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix wishful thinking and woeful ignorance in general.

ScumLord

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I assumed that if you had unprotected sex at the 'right time' you would get pregnant.

That only happens if you don't want to get pregnant.

I think all the information is put in front of people it's just most of the time we simply ignore it and assume we'll get around to it at some point because we're young and have plenty of time.

SEPT 23 1989

bb1234567 wrote: »

I'm sure in the near future we will easily develop technology or medicine that will allow women to have children at much older ages than at present

Which is very unfair on the child

ScumLord

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Which is very unfair on the child

Not if we can also extend healthy life spans. If we can stay in our prime into our 60s and 70s there wouldn't be any difference.

Eramen

I certainly feel bad for women who are constantly bombarded with the same ridiculous arguments time and time again: to stave off pregnancy/starting a family until the very last minute - that they can conceive and raise a family at 40 and beyond with ease, when they are already quite old, that men like older women/find them attractive. It's all more or less untrue, and this is where the delusion starts.

Having children is a venture for a much younger woman and couple. There's no guarantees at this late stage of the game, well into the 30's or 40's, simply look at the statistics.

So now the 'expectation', through the media, university, and whatever spiel the 'minister for jobs' comes up with, is that women will spend their best years of their life working for the betterment of the corporate boyfriend and perceiving reality through the kaleidoscope of 'Sex and the City', with nothing to really show for it at the end (beyond mere material holdings). They are royally screwed over and we wonder why many professional ladies hold false values and are left bitter as things start to wind down.

Reality itself is being denied. Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady. There is little interest in women over 30-34. It was the more 'traditional' i.e. common sense, approach to society that gave older women high value in prior times. Now since that approach to society is evaporating very quickly - culminating in free sex for all, combined with the shenanigans of feminism - non-fertile, non-youthful women have zero value unless they are married/have dedicated long haul partner. Take heed, and don't kid ourselves.

Buford T. Justice XIX

ScumLord wrote: »

Not if we can also extend healthy life spans. If we can stay in our prime into our 60s and 70s there wouldn't be any difference.

I wouldn't think so.

Biologically, we are better able to have and rear children at a younger age, late teens and early 20s. We, in general, are healthier, more fertile, better able to recover from being awake all night with a sick child, have more energy to play with children etc.

We are more financially secure in our 30s to have children, though.

Also, many are unwilling to have children during their party years so they delay until they reach their 'time'.

Wasn't there some controversy a few years ago about an Italian woman in her 70s(?) that had a child with IVF but her health declined greatly a few years after, iirc? Even if our health in later years was to be greatly improved, it would still be poorer and we would suffer more health problems and have a greater likelihood of dying before our children would even be teens.

ceadaoin.

ScumLord wrote: »

Not if we can also extend healthy life spans. If we can stay in our prime into our 60s and 70s there wouldn't be any difference.

What about the inherent risks to the child associated with older parents though. Surely they would still exist and probably be hugely increased with people having children in their 70s. As it is now the risks are increased at an age that we would consider being in our prime.

RDM_83 again

Eramen wrote: »

Reality itself is being denied. Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady. There is little interest in women over 30-34. It was the more 'traditional' i.e. common sense, approach to society that gave older women high value in prior times. Now since that approach to society is evaporating very quickly - culminating in free sex for all - non-fertile, non-youthful women have zero value unless they are married/have dedicated long haul partner. Take heed, and don't kid ourselves.

Thats a bit grim isn't it. I mean as a guy I can understand the appeal of a younger partner but at 35 while they might be less fertile they are hardly grannies I'l be out later with a work mate in her very late 30's who will probably be out clubbing till 4.30 both nights this weekend.

And its hardly No value, like if your in it for the long haul wouldn't you rather it was someone that you could actually live with rather than somebody who ticks the right demographic boxes.

Before this sounds too white knighty I do get where your coming from in a way because while a 21 year old will probably get away with the spoiled princess stuff a 37 year old won't but would you actually want to have kids and build a life with a spoiled princess anyway

Laphroaig52

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

We spend a lot of time conditioning girls to believe that they're likely to get pregnant every single time they have sex when they're teenagers. Ovulation, time frames, none of that is touched on because it is much safer to make them believe it could happen at any time. After teaching them that for years on end, it is hard to flip a switch and then believe that there is a time when all that goes downhill and you can have sex for months on end without ever getting pregnant.

So women in their thirties are still relying only on what they were told about sex in their early teens to manage their fertility?

Right.

suicide_circus

Grayson wrote: »

I think most women know more about the female reproductive system than the OP does.

You'll almost certainly get the ride out of that post

Pwindedd

I'm so glad I had my daughter young. I'm just turned 40, she's 19. I'm now at the stage where I can go out when I want, come home when I want. And because I'm "old" I don't go mental I just have fun. I'm settled in my career so I have the money to do what I want. Out of the 4 of a group of high school friends I'm the only one with a child. The other 3 went the university route - careers, houses etc. and I'm not really sure why they haven't had kids. I know it's not to everyone's taste and God knows if you don't want children then don't have them - recipe for disaster. I just hope they don't regret it or leave it too late.

We have been convinced by media, feminism etc that we can have it all and truth is you can't. There's always a sacrifice. The lucky few get to have everything but I'd say for the majority of women there's a compromise somewhere along the line.

Wibbs

Eramen wrote: »

Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady.

Yea good luck with that Ted. Unless you're a ride/well preserved/rich/extremely socially clued in/live in a culture where age gaps are more the norm/have dumb luck[you're gonna need at least three of those] and you meet a woman who's into a guy 20 years older, forget about it. Sure you might pull a one night stand, even a mini relationship with that age gap(more outa novelly and curiosity on both parts), but unless you're one of those tiny minority of 40 odd year old men, the 20's are pretty much out for you, or it would be a lot harder than you seem to think

ScumLord wrote: »

Not if we can also extend healthy life spans. If we can stay in our prime into our 60s and 70s there wouldn't be any difference.

Pregnancy takes a large toll on the human body. Not wishing to make it sound icky and crude, but basically the woman's body is "hijacked" by a parasite for 9 months, a parasite that is constantly taking nutrients from her body to grow and that's before we get to the physical stresses of labour. Even with modern medicine the toll on say a 60 year olds body would be massive. It can be hard enough on some 25 year olds. There a few good evolutionary reasons for menopause in women and likely one of them is the increasing physical toll on the woman. Humans have unusually difficult births and pregnancies among mammals. After all it was about the number one cause of death for women before the modern age.

Older men have an exponentially more easy time. So long as he can get it up(viagra ahoy if he can't) and can "fire" at the appropriate time, that's his biological and physiological job done. The physiology of the male side of reproduction is a complete doddle. Hell I'm growing millions of potential kids every hour and it's hardly difficult. No periods for a start. If we need to empty out the older cells it's a pleasure. Unless there's an issue with fertility and I need to get checked out, I'll never have my legs in stirrups while some stranger fiddle about downstairs. Even if I need to get checked out, again it's a couple of minutes with a Jazz mag and a small placcy container and again some pleasure involved. My only real concern would be making sure my aim was on point... We blokes don't know we're born as far as continuing our species is concerned.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

T
Before this sounds too white knighty I do get where your coming from in a way because while a 21 year old will probably get away with the spoiled princess stuff a 37 year old won't but would you actually want to have kids and build a life with a spoiled princess anyway

And why is the 21 year old woman automatically a "princess"? I've known princesses and nut jobs and sound women at all ages. Generally speaking past 25 all the extra years do is paper over the nuttiness if present.

Tarzana2

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Oddly enough while the OP is a bit OTT I would argue that women are a little uninformed about the statistics around getting pregnant. We spend so long desperately avoiding it and I know I at least made it through life without ever knowing how ****ty the stats are on getting pregnant in anyone month. I assumed that if you had unprotected sex at the 'right time' you would get pregnant. The reality is very far from that

Yeah, whilst we're all aware of the menopause, I think there is a slight delusion among many career women that as soon as they want to get pregnant in their 30s, they will. Of course, many will, but many won't as it gets harder as you get older.

I don't want kids, I don't think. Just don't really get it and at my age I feel like if I really wanted them, I'd know by now. I'm 30, and honestly, I'm feeling some biological clock pressure, even though I'm not keen on the thoughts of having kids. Should I have them? Will I regret it if I don't? Is this something I should pursue before it's too late?

I can't imagine the quandaries women that want kids go through in their heads if this is what's running through mine!

Tarzana2

Eramen wrote: »

Reality itself is being denied. Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady.

If this scenario presents itself, make sure you're minted. Or incredibly funny and charismatic. Or good-looking. Or a mix of these things.

Eramen wrote: »

non-fertile, non-youthful women have zero value unless they are married/have dedicated long haul partner.

In general, or just in the partner attraction stakes? If you're saying they/we have no value in general, that's a kinda worrying sentiment to hold...

UCDVet

As a society, we've been telling women for a decades now, 'You can have your cake, and eat it too'.

But you can't.

Venus In Furs

It's the people who are enjoying saying women think they'll have no problem getting pregnant well into their 30s and in their early 40s that are the ones exhibiting a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance. They know full well women know our fertility declines drastically in our 30s.

Tenner bets the very same people would be saying women in their 30s are desperate to snare a man before it's too late to have a baby. :pac:

It's just a thread being used to have a go at women, end of.

Eramen wrote: »

I certainly feel bad for women who are constantly bombarded with the same ridiculous arguments time and time again: to stave off pregnancy/starting a family until the very last minute - that they can conceive and raise a family at 40 and beyond with ease, when they are already quite old, that men like older women/find them attractive.

Nobody, whatsoever, tells women they can conceive and raise a family at 40 and beyond with ease.
Nobody says all men like older women/find them attractive either, people do say some men do though, because it's true - or plenty of men don't take any notice of age. You're in denial that there are plenty of men in their 30s and 40s who are interested in women their own age.

Even if I was single and in my 40's I'd be aiming in the 20's for a lady.

Your view = everyone else's?

There is little interest in women over 30-34. It was the more 'traditional' i.e. common sense, approach to society that gave older women high value in prior times. Now since that approach to society is evaporating very quickly - culminating in free sex for all, combined with the shenanigans of feminism - non-fertile, non-youthful women have zero value unless they are married/have dedicated long haul partner. Take heed, and don't kid ourselves.

Not a fan of women at all I see - to the point of referring to human beings in terms of what their "value" is. But then again you DID thank "Women in their 30s and 40s exhibit a mix of wishful thinking and woeful ignorance in general". Sometimes what people thank reveals all that's needed to know about them.