Celebrating One Hundred Years of Failure to Reproduce on Demand [NYT editorial: Way off for women]

The NYT ^ | April 14, 2002 | Gail Collins

[usmom]

This is an interesting concept. While I was busy shocking my friends by having three children in my 'prime career years', everyone just shook their heads and kept telling me about all the fun and fullfilment I was missing out on by not 'working'. Now, in our late thirties, many of those friends have reached the 'disillusionment with career' phase and think it would be fun to just start having babies. Just one problem, though- it's not as easy as many thought and they are battling infertility problems while I enjoy my family. Two of my close friends have been told outright that it is too late and they will probably not have any more children (after having one). I'm definitely glad I chose the path I did. While I want my own daughters to be educated and make fullfilling choices for themselves, I will not push them to have all-out careers (as I was) if that is not what their heart tells them to do.

[Jim Noble]

>>I think that the reason for the delay in getting married is at least partially attributable to the fact that better educated males are not necessarily nicer people<<

Of course, if women who go to graduate school are only willing to marry "better educated males", while better educated males will marry anyone (almost), you will have a massive excess of unmarried better educated females.

Better educated women expect that the men they meet will strive to marry up, as they do.This is false, and the cause of much heartache.

[ikanakattara]

God is forgiving, but nature isn't. Check out this week's Time magazine's article on fertility. The *peak* time of fertility for women is between about age 16 to 25. There is a little leeway at ages 25-30, but after that it's a rapid downhill decline. Most women who go to grad school (JD, PhD) are just barely starting their careers at 25 and are NOT going to "throw it all away," as they see it.

Unfortunately, after-25 is nowhere near as "cute" as before-25, and that's how you get a sour unmarried woman whose clock is ticking like the one inside the crocodile that was chasing Captain Hook.

I have no solution. How many men are willing to marry an 18-year old girl right out of high school, or a woman right out of college who plans to devote herself wholeheartedly to kinder und kuche? You guys out here - would you seriously? Because that's the only way it's going to turn around - marriage at 18, four kids by 26; the last one out of high school by 44, and then maybe a career.

[summer]

Of course, if women who go to graduate school are only willing to marry "better educated males", while better educated males will marry anyone (almost), you will have a massive excess of unmarried better educated females.

Better educated women expect that the men they meet will strive to marry up, as they do.This is false, and the cause of much heartache.

This is exactly one of the many points Sylvia Hewlett makes in her book.

The pool of available female mates for a man continues to increase no matter what the man achieves in terms of success or education, because he is always willing to marry someone who will admire him -- and she need not necessarily match his level of income or education. And, younger women are always part of this pool.

Women, on the other hand, are trying to marry someone who is at least the same age or older -- and, these women are trying to marry someone who at least macthes them in education and income. But, this becomes harder to do as the woman becomes more educated and successful (and, older). Her pool of available mates is constantly decreasing.

Not a good situation for educated women.

[summer]

macthes = matches

[summer]

From the NY Post - Health Section:

DON'T EXPECT PREGNANCY AT 40: STUDY

By MEGAN TURNER

April 8, 2002 -- Late motherhood among celebrities may make headlines but, for most women, waiting until 40 to have babies is too late, according to new research.

Actress Liz Hurley just gave birth to her first child at age 36, joining high-profile older moms like Madonna, Susan Sarandon, Jane Seymour and Iman, who all gave birth in their 40s.

But ambitious young women who hope to have kids are heading down a dangerous path if they think they can wait until 35 or beyond to start a family, says economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett in her new book, "Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children."

Women have embraced a "male model" of career focus, resulting in an "epidemic of childlessness" among professional women, she told Time magazine.

Hewlett conducted a national survey of 1,647 "high achieving" American women and found that 42 percent were still childless after age 40. That figure rose to 49 percent for women who earn $100,000 or more.

The survey also found that nearly nine out of 10 women were confident of their ability to get pregnant into their 40s.

But research shows that such widespread optimism is false, according to Time.

A woman's fertility begins to decline at age 27. At 40, half of her eggs are chromosomally abnormal; by 42, that figure is 90 percent.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, once a woman celebrates her 42nd birthday, the chances of her having a baby using her own eggs are less than 10 percent.

More bad news: At 20, the risk of miscarriage is about 9 percent; it doubles by age 35, then doubles again by the time a woman reaches her early 40s.

[summer]

Thanks so much for sharing your interesting thoughts on this thread. I appreciate your post.

[summer]

Thanks for your post. :)

[speekinout]

From my observations, there is something badly wrong with these women [and I've dated scads of them through the years]. They seem to be driven by a visceral hatred of everything. They are, to a woman: Rude, mean, short-tempered, impatient, and venomous.

And maybe it's you who are finding the wrong ones (have you met them all in bars?) or are bringing out the worst in them. How many people (women or men) would get to be so successful if they had the nasty temperament you ascribe to all successful women?
I'm sure some are just as nasty as you have described, but there are a lot who aren't.

[wingnuts'nbolts]

This is a good post. In the 50's and 60's marriage was expected. A girl went to college mainly to find a husband who was upwardly mobile. As the 70's and the hippie movement grew along with radical feminism women who wanted to marry and be housewives were denegrated. So they busied themselves with showing the male population that women were just like men...not!

They gained financial success, led fast lives, climbed the corporate ladder, but nature will out. Men seemed to still want a woman to have his children, take care of them and love him exclusively. Not a bad concept. Been around for awhile.

Now these 40ish women are financially set, but it is a bit hollow. They can probabaly still marry and be happy enough but the child rearing days are over.

As women became more selfish in what they wanted from life the thought of giving oneself to children and husband before self was terrifying. But it is nature's call and really the way it was intended to be. The pendulum will swing back and the white middle and upper class will again start to have children. We inately need to leave something here. We need to make our mark on the world, have great, great, great grandchildren.

The team work involved in making and careing for a family has nothing to do with college degrees. Women with active curious minds become educated by reading and being socially active. Women want strong husbands and husbands want strong family oriented women.

The 70's, 80's and 90's divorce rate scared off a lot of marriagable women and men. Abortion made no committment sex OK. Birth control gave women the freedom that heretofore men had had exclusively.

Sadly for the 40 something single woman who is now wanting a husband and family it is too late to join the 20 someting young families. Let's hope society and women learn for the past 3 or 4 decades.

[victim soul]

BUMP

[SlickWillard]

Just out of curiosity: Are you a boy freeper, or a girl freeper?

[speekinout]

I'm a "girl" freeper who took the high powered career path. And I'm only mean to the losers who are jealous of my success :-)

[Aliska]

Many women get their college educations, marry and have children, and start their careers after their children are older or grown. That makes sense to me.

Women with young children still have opportunities to get post-graduate degrees while they have young children. Nowadays you can set your own pace.

The biggest problem is that young women are getting the message that they must prove their "worth" by having a fast-track career and that homemaking is a waste of time. I felt it back in the 60's and 70's. Society looks at lots of homemakers as unable or unwilling to do much else.

Men used to take pride in being the breadwinner. Now they like their mates to bring in some more cash. Things have really changed since the sexual revolution.

[conservative cat]

By your standard, I did it right. Married at 20 and husband was 21. I can tell you that we were definitely in the minority, especially on the West coast!

[SlickWillard]

And I'm only mean to the losers

Fair enough.

[summer]

Thanks for your insightful post, wingnuts'nbolts.

[summer]

I would say that a bachelor much past 30 would have trouble making the kind of lifestyle compromises that married life requires. And ladies might confirm my observation that fellows who stay single so long often have "issues" about relationships with women -- they are too embittered, or too selfish, or too "whatever" to make good husbands.

I agree with you here. I think men who have been single past 30 -- and, some men past 30 have never really been in a committed relationship at all -- have a much more difficult time seeing themselves make compromises that marriage requires. Thanks for writing. BTW, interesting age theory! :)