Post: #1

whew lads:

Quote: The more I think about it, the more the ‘biological clock’ deadline annoys me

When it comes to fertility, it is not a level playing field


“Science is finally coming around to the idea that being of advanced maternal age isn’t necessarily a hindrance, and can actually be beneficial.”


I've been hearing a lot of the phrase “geriatric pregnancy” lately. Curiously, I never hear it in my hospital or GP appointments; instead, the only people who ever mention it are the ones who are affronted that the term (given to pregnancies carried out by women aged over 35) exists in the first place.

The narrative goes a little something like this: having babies after 35 is a risky endeavour. It means you’ve waited too long, and might be subjecting yourself to a dangerous and complicated pregnancy and/or delivery. The older the mother, the higher the probability of chromosomal abnormalities, too. Even Meghan Markle (37) wasn’t immune to scrutiny when she announced her pregnancy: “Fertility falls off a cliff at 35, duchess or not”, one newspaper reminded us.

Some or all of this indeed may be scientifically accurate, but there’s little room in the overall conversation for the other possibility: that an older mother can enjoy a healthy pregnancy and go on to have a child with no chromosomal abnormalities. The risks of men delaying fatherhood, incidentally – and there has been some sporadic chat about the male biological clock – rarely get the same airtime.

Yet, women are staying younger for longer. Actress Jean Alexander was 36 when she took on the iconic role of Hilda Ogden in Coronation Street, making her two years younger at the time than Kim Kardashian is now. Why wouldn’t it stand to reason that a 35-year-old’s reproductive system is similarly sprightly, and no longer still wearing a hairnet and tabard?

As Jean M Twenge noted in a landmark essay in The Atlantic: “The widely cited statistic that one in three women ages 35 to 39 will not be pregnant after a year of trying, for instance, is based on an article published in 2004 in the journal Human Reproduction. Rarely mentioned is the source of the data: French birth records from 1670 to 1830.”

Our ideas around women, age and fertility are due an overhaul.

The reality is that the only person who seems to worry about my “advanced maternal age” around here is me. I mention my age as a “risk factor” in appointments; the experts shrug and move swiftly on. I go into ultrasound scans anticipating bad news based on nothing but my date of birth. I bombard technicians with questions about blood vessels in placenta cords, kidney function and “soft markers”. “Someone’s done their homework,” they murmur, patient but weary. Sometimes, it seems that having a healthy child with no health issues feels like the biggest miracle in the world.

As it happens, science is finally coming around to the idea that being of advanced maternal age isn’t necessarily a hindrance, and can actually be beneficial. An ongoing study, the New England Centenarian Study, has found that having a baby later in life can help women live longer. Another study, published in 2011 in the Population and Development Review, posits that older parents can be happier in general.

When I started writing this column, literally dozens of women contacted me to say that they’d had children at 44, 45, 46, not a bother on them. “Ahhh, the oopsie pregnancy,” was a recurring refrain; like me, they’d been led to believe by a whole swathe of literature that you’re not likely to find an ovarian reserve of any note inside a 40-something woman. If you’re lucky, you might find an old Teasmaid up there, and maybe a copy of the Beano instead of ovaries. Surely it’s okay, some of them reasoned, to relax a little on the contraception?

The more I think about it, the more the “biological clock” deadline annoys me. It’s generally accepted that 35 is make or break time for women thinking of settling down and having a family. I see it in my friends of that age: the ones who are single are weary with resignation, little realising that they might have whole decades of flings and strings-free fun ahead of them. Others resign themselves to staying in below-par relationships, figuring that their emotionally stunted plus-one will have to do (plus, they don’t have the time to start all over again with a new partner).

Another friend does the maths over and over, panic rising in her voice every time: “If I met someone tonight, I’d probably have to wait six months before we move in, and maybe another six months before I get pregnant, and sure by that stage I’ll be 39.” Another friend, in her mid- to late-30s, is worried that she’s a weirdo for not feeling more of a call to action when it comes to dating. Whatever the circumstances, there is often a sense of deadline looming.

And it’s why dating as a thirtysomething woman is such a toxic faceache. The whole biological clock conceit has created a less-than-level playing field, because many men don’t feel as though they’re on the clock in the same way. There’s a niggling sense, a panic even, that men are holding the proverbial cards. Some women (I know I was at some point) are so afraid to command respect and basic decent behaviour from men in case they scare them off, simply by coming across as too eager. I don’t miss those days for a second, but try telling a woman in her mid- to late-30s that things aren’t as gloomy, nor as urgent, as they seem.

Does being older make someone a better parent?

I often think that 21-year-old me – selfish, hedonistic, impulsive – would have made a terrible mother. Yet perhaps suggesting as such does everyone a disservice. There are fertile women at 25 and 45, and reproductively healthy women at all ages. It’s likely a 21-year-old is going to feel every bit as tired or as overwhelmed as I will as a new parent.

It’s high time we ditch the sweeping generalisations, for all our sakes.

I thought about posting this in the Scientism thread but I imagine this discussion will warrant its own thread.

I'm feeling a bit burnt out today so I'm only able to think or write in point form. The entire piece is essentially one long hamsterism. I'll just list the hamsterisms to kick things off:

- "The narrative goes a little something like this": female leftist projection; you see, it is science that is merely a narrative, no more valid than women's lived experiences or various anecdotes.

- "Yet, women are staying younger for longer": which women are staying younger? Maybe upper middle to upper class women who work comfortable jobs, eat all organic and go to the spa every week are staying younger. But the average working to middle class 35 y/o western woman looks like a sack of potatoes that's been left outside all winter. So, the hamstering here is that today's women are a bunch of J-Lo's or Jennifer Anistons (or Meghan Markles as the article suggests), the female tendency to focus only on what she wants for herself, i.e. wealth and status.

- "Some or all of this indeed may be scientifically accurate, but there’s little room in the overall conversation for the other possibility": so, she admits the science may be accurate but again, science is only science--what about other possibilities? Also, complaining "there's little room" smacks of femmunist whinging about being excluded from various spaces, especially in the field of science.

- "Our ideas around women, age and fertility are due an overhaul": Marxism, throwing out the old ways of traditionalism that have held women back for thousands of years.

- "I mention my age as a “risk factor” in appointments; the experts shrug and move swiftly on": Umm yeah, did she ever consider the reason they shrug at her concerns is because they are just hospital workers and at the end of the day don't give a shit about her? Especially under socialized healthcare, the patient is an item on an assembly line. Does she really think she's going to hear the honest to goodness truth from someone who would have to deal with the ensuing tears before seeing twelve other patients this afternoon?

- "literally dozens of women contacted me to say that they’d had children at 44, 45, 46, not a bother on them... they’d been led to believe by a whole swathe of literature that you’re not likely to find an ovarian reserve of any note inside a 40-something woman. ": Women's lived experience, i.e. anecdotes, trump science.

- "The more I think about it, the more the “biological clock” deadline annoys me" A woman has expressed annoyance, therefore society needs to stop what it's doing and change to meet her needs.

- "Others resign themselves to staying in below-par relationships, figuring that their emotionally stunted plus-one will have to do (plus, they don’t have the time to start all over again with a new partner)." Complete and utter denial over their own declining SMV. As if fertility is the only reason older women are less attractive as mates (though it is a major one).

- "Another friend does the maths over and over, panic rising in her voice every time": Women's emotions are more important than math.

- "The whole biological clock conceit has created a less-than-level playing field, because many men don’t feel as though they’re on the clock in the same way. There’s a niggling sense, a panic even, that men are holding the proverbial cards": This is the whole key to everything right here. She doesn't want to admit that, as we age, the balance of power in relationships shifts toward the man. Doesn't want to look the way women behave when they're young and desirable, the endless games and emotional abuse. Nah, she just knows men should never have power in the dating market and so any data that suggests we so must be flawed.

- "I often think that 21-year-old me – selfish, hedonistic, impulsive – would have made a terrible mother" Rationalizing her carousel riding.

"It’s high time we ditch the sweeping generalisations, for all our sakes." A fitting conclusion.

Holy fuck guys, this is what we're facing.

Post: #2

Link: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-styl...-1.3753681

Post: #3

(01-22-2019 03:40 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

That's a man.

A man with a big pillow or a fat suit or whatever.

But definitely a man.

Post: #4

Post: #5

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Post: #6

This is the most important article:

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-styl...-1.3678599

Quote:I began dating. The next few years would feature a motley crew of moochers, narcissists, spongers and emotionally unavailable “artists”. I was human fly-paper for malcontents, and soon the prospect of motherhood dwindled to nothing.

And despite living in a devout catholic country, the child is a bastard:

Quote:so unconvinced was I that I was pregnant that I took the test on a Saturday afternoon, not even bothering to wait for my boyfriend to get home from work.

I skimmed through a few of her other glorified diary entries and you'd be hard pressed to even know she had a partner because she never mentions the guy.

I'm sure her child will get a great start on life with such a devalued notion of fatherhood. She also wrote an article about how broke she is, which confirms the stereotype about single women spending and not saving all their child-free days away.

Despite such a gross display of irresonsibility, she got a "Lovely article." comment from "Galwaygirl".

Rags like this just tell women what they want to hear.

Post: #7

Simply foul.

Post: #8

A lot of female bullshit like this partially stems from the fact that many of them have no understanding of probability (in addition to all the very relevant points highlighted by the OP).

Male feminists often can't get their heads around it either. I remember arguing with one on this topic, that pregnancies over the age of 35 have a higher probability of genetic abnormalities. He kept insisting that this wasn't necessarily so, because his mother was over 35 when he was born (not untrue, but also not a counterargument).

Maybe improving the public's mathematical skills is an underrated tactic in this culture war...

Post: #9

Let them keep on believing. They'll figure it out eventually.

Post: #10

Again and again we see the fundamental male/female congnitive split. Men think in terms of rules whereas women think in terms of exceptions. This will never be reconciled

Post: #11

(01-22-2019 03:53 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:40 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

That's a man.

A man with a big pillow or a fat suit or whatever.

But definitely a man.

Its one of the reasons the English left that god forsaken potato farm decades ago.

Post: #12

(01-22-2019 05:49 PM)Ouroboros Wrote:  I remember arguing with one on this topic, that pregnancies over the age of 35 have a higher probability of genetic abnormalities. He kept insisting that this wasn't necessarily so, because his mother was over 35 when he was born (not untrue, but also not a counterargument).

Maybe improving the public's mathematical skills is an underrated tactic in this culture war...

I've known women with backgrounds in finance and technology and high-paying careers to match, i.e. women who "know math". They will still hamster like a teenage girl given the opportunity. Education cannot overcome women's innate tendency to let their emotions take control of their decision making.

Post: #13

^

Their logical abilities go out the door as soon as:
A) they leave the office
B) it involves them personally

Post: #14

I think the Irish are largely a myth. There's no way James Joyce was real. Also, has anyone actually ever seen a leprechaun besides on the Lucky Charms box? Didn't think so.

Post: #15

Post: #16

That thing is definitely male. Why does it worry about a biological clock?

Post: #17

Essentially pandering to their audience.

Post: #18

Delete

Post: #19

(01-22-2019 06:24 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:53 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 03:40 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

That's a man.

A man with a big pillow or a fat suit or whatever.

But definitely a man.

Its one of the reasons the English left that god forsaken potato farm decades ago.

The English got kicked out. Your Anti Irish stuff gets old Foolsgold. Ran into a lot of it when we moved to Sheffield as a kid, had a lot of fun with those boys. None could fight that I ran into. Course it helped that I had to fight all the time and it was their first go at repeating what they heard from their dad. Funny to think it is a muslim town now.

That redheaded Irish tranny is a disgrace. Breaks my heart to see the shit coming out of Ireland these days.

Post: #20

Imagine some 50 or 60 year old hag taking you to court for child support

Post: #21

(01-22-2019 06:16 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  Let them keep on believing. They'll figure it out eventually.

In the meantime, I'd like an opt-out option for financially supporting these retarded babies through my tax dollars.

Post: #22

Female scientist, presumably, allegedly debunks millions of years of science and evidence because it makes other females feel bad.

Science perhaps one day could severely slow the female biological clock - and I'm sure it'll be female scientists who contribute the yeomans work to do so...

Post: #23

All of their articles are classic hamster. This one got me rolling: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indepen...24045.html

Post: #24

(01-22-2019 10:49 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Imagine some 50 or 60 year old hag taking you to court for child support

Imagine giving a 50 or 60 year old hag a child.... no sir. That's just plain wrong.

Post: #25

(01-22-2019 11:06 PM)wi30 Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 06:16 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  Let them keep on believing. They'll figure it out eventually.

In the meantime, I'd like an opt-out option for financially supporting these retarded babies through my tax dollars.

Agreed.