Skip to comments.The fertility panic
Posted on 01/02/2008 12:13:56 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
In 2005, doctors Susan Bewley and Melanie Davies published an article in British Medical Journal about optimum age for having children, entitled: Which Career First? I interviewed them; they were nice, they knew what they were talking about. Bewley said, "I don't want to speculate about things I don't understand - sociology, psychology. All we're saying is, if you saw a herd of people travelling north, you'd say, 'It's getting colder, take some warm clothes!' There's a herd of women drifting into a hazardous state. We are picking up the pieces."
Article continues This has been the line, from everyone, throughout the noughties - first, that women alone are making the decision about when to have children, while men, I don't know, watch; second, that being a herd of idiot sheep, we are drifting mindlessly into infertility and then bleating about it once it's way too late. This message was very noticeably driven by the media, rather than the doctors. An absolutely classic headline was one from 2003, in which an estimate was given of one in three couples needing treatment for infertility by 2020. Read more closely, it turned out to be a patchwork of other projections: if sexually transmitted diseases continued to spread at the current rate, coupled with advancing obesity, these factors between them would affect fertility. Well, sure, but you could just as well run a headline saying "One third of couples to contain at least one obese person by 2020". It would be just as true, but not as arresting.
The preoccupations of the decade are these: that women are delaying childbirth because they are consumed with ambition; that more and more women, knowing this, are freezing their eggs; that these women, and others besides, are starting to have their first child in their 40s.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk ...
Around here, when the herds of people start traveling North, that means it's SUMMERTIME!
See this video - explains it all
Since women live longer than men, it beats me why they can’t raise a fammily, refresh their education once the kids are in the upper grades and have careers after that. Evreybody wins.
What kind of rag is the Guardian anyway?
If youd like to be on this Death of the West ping list, please FR mail me.
fammily = family
They are compelled to make a difference....NOW!!
Since women live longer than men, it beats me why they cant raise a fammily, refresh their education once the kids are in the upper grades and have careers after that. Evreybody wins.
Look at our first female S.Ct. justice. Sandra Day O’Connor went to law school, practiced, left practice to have a family, and then went back to work — part time — when her 3rd child was 3 years old. Ended up on the Supreme Court. Women need to factor in their biology and desire for family when they plan their careers. That’s all. Instead they try to act like men that have all the time in the world . . . (which by the way is BS . . . try saving for retirement, buying a house, saving for your kid’s education all at the same time, which is what happens if a man waits too late to have kids).
Precisely what I did.....and that is excellent advice.
Abortion and birth control will mean the death of western civilization. Pat knows what demographic changes means to survival of the West.
Low readership, extremely left-wing UK newspaper.
The last outposts of Western Civilization in 50 years from now will be in the United States, Australia, and my guess would be Poland.
The Poles would be terribly outnumbered though.
It reads like it. Unfocused hate . . . career women are bitches dontcha know for the purposes of this article. Meanwhile they probably attack conservatives in other articles as "anti-woman" or whatever the current epithet of the left in Britain is for conservative social policies.
Maybe a few, but most are consumed with paying taxes to support the children of those whose only ambition is pop out babies and collect welfare checks. Then the children of the welfare set take over the public schools (which are needless to say entirely financed by people who work and make a net contribution to the economy) and the taxpaying women realize they have to make even more money because they now have to pay for private school when they have children, unless they want their children "educated" in the government indoctrination centers and growing up regarding drug use, adolescent pregnancy, and general irresponsibility as normal.
Paying taxes isn't a likely deterrent to pregnancy -- especially since income witholding makes it essentially invisible and painless.
Further, it doesn't take being "consumed with ambition."
What probably is true, is simply this: women, like men, tend to find their careers rewarding. Having a choice between children and careers means that some -- perhaps a lot -- of women will choose to continue their career for a while, figuring that childbearing will still be an option a few years hence.
That’s probably because age discrimination makes a late age career less profitable than one at an earlier age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.