Hard News: The conversation they want to have
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
how many women of a fertile age (say, 18 to 35) would want to have a baby with some old geezer?
F**k I wish I could think of stuff like that. :)
-
On second thoughts - would this be a good time for a godwin ?
-
Morgan, you don't seem to be making any attempt to grasp the point here. Which is that the women here know a shitload more about their reproductive options than you or Andre ever will.
Russell, you're so wide of the mark in characterising what I think or grasp that you're not even in the same timezone.
I think Robyn was probably right when she suggested that people are reading my comments in light of comments posted by people who are. not. me.
-
On second thoughts - would this be a good time for a godwin?
There is never a good time.
Unless you've seen Inglourious Basterds?
-
So, I read, when women talk for serious, they're expressing their feelings, and not normally presenting a problem to be solved. When men respond for serious, they're providing answers to what they perceive as a problem (namely whatever it is induced these "feelings"), often in the form of "loosely related facts".
That was a "fact" (and somewhat of a load of crap, as an aside), as I am a man, and I perceived a problem to which it was loosely related. It did not help the women in this discussion, as none had need of any help at all, but were simply expressing their feelings.
This has been a pathetic excuse for men everywhere who just don't get it. Thank you.
-
Just to rewind the derailing a bit...
I increasingly feel that many Gen X & Y women feel entitled to everything without having to give up years of partying and travel to have babies in their 20's or early 30's.
Yes, as others have pointed out, because us h0rz who might have liked "partying" certainly can't make sane decisions about our life's priorities, can we? Ok, you have those nutters who want to have babies in their 50s, but seriously, how many of those are there really? Women are still mostly having their babies in their 20s and early 30s, FFS. And many are trying to achieve some kind of financial and relationship stability first, rather than "career development" per se.
And, wow, there are some of us in our 40s who haven't have babeez and never intend to, and are quite happy with our withered-up wombs, thank you. Of course, I'm a deviant dyke, what do I know about natural womanly feelings?
Getting back to the more recent tangent, I understand what Morgan was getting at, but it was the tone of "but if you don't have babies when you're younger, it's harder, DUH!" that was fairly irritating, in a Captain Obvious kind of way. Amazingly, most women have a reasonable understanding of their likely fertility at various ages. But yeah, a remark at the more clueless end of the scale rather than malicious, although the subsequent defence didn't help much.
-
Whoa I was there with the Ibogaine treatment but you lost me at having babies. Yep there is scientific evidence but I tend to keep out of the argument unless dragged into it by the current girlfriend..and as a 35 male there is ALSO a lot of pressure to get married and have kids.
I've been dodging the bullet but for how long..
As far as a serious ADULT farmers market goes, I like to have kids around playing and having fun, it balances the serious adults being serious about food. Which is all well and good but when I get bored its nice to feed the kids and fill them up with sugary things and then send them home with their parents.
Who doesn't like friendly munchkins man? They look pretty harmless. The photo states it all.
Oh yeah and I agree with Morgan in flagging getting addicted to heroin and then going through rehab and restarting..ibogaine doesn't work that way. You can maintain on methadone.
Ibogaine is pretty much a guided hallucinogenic trip to show you the errors of your ways but you have to want to quit(so you accept the understanding in hippy lingo). So its not a wonder drug unfortunately.
For meth(P) there are clinical trials in NZ underway using ritalin(and modafinil overseas) as a substitute for crystal meth(P), these would be to maintain the addict so they can live a life, ibogaine or LSD are a dramatic final step in ending an addiction.
You can see why a good psychotherapist is needed before dosing an addict in cold turkey with LSD!! And a good backup treatment plan.
But addiction really sucks so its best to avoid it. I'd agree with Morgan we need better drugs, Huxleys soma type thing. Something without addiction potential, but with euphoria or increased focus or whatever is needed. Lets face it, marijuana is pretty damn good in risk terms. but if we have to synthesise, I'm sure something can be brewed up to good effect.
Back to the lab..I keep out of the age/babies/women argument as all cases are different and I can't give birth so you tend to wear the argument no matter what you say!!!
-
The sound of ticking body clocks was deafening in that room along with the strain of them not being listened to.
Or... they could dislike holding babies. Some people do, you know. They could actually not want children. Some people don't, you know. Etc.
old/fat/bald/disgusting
Yeah, no one should ever love someone old, bald or fat. Because that's disgusting. (I know that's not the point you were making, but I find the casual conflation of all those things depressing.)
people are reading my comments in light of comments posted by people who are. not. me.
I would like to make it clear to you, Morgan, that I found your post discretely annoying for two distinct reasons: snark about 'the patriarchy' and 'but it's BIOLOGY!' Now, you probably are indeed, as Robyn says, a laissez-faire awesome dude. But that post did not help to cement that impression.
Women are still mostly having their babies in their 20s and early 30s, FFS. And many are trying to achieve some kind of financial and relationship stability first
Exactly. The current median age at first pregnancy in New Zealand is something like 28, and the average age is 30. Most women understand 'BIOLOGY!' perfectly well. It's a bit rich to expect women to be financially stable at 24 or something, when they've barely been in employment, *and* to have found some willing dude to sprog with (it generally takes two, gentlemen).
On another statistical note: a pregnant woman of forty will take longer to get pregnant (on average), have a higher risk of early miscarriage and a higher risk of the kidlet having Downs syndrome or another trisomy thing. Yet her chances of delivering a healthy child are still pretty high - the stats are still on her side. So it's really up to her to weigh up all those different risks and options. Which is really all we were saying in the first place.
-
And here's something to consider - while a 50-year-old man can get a woman pregnant, how many women of a fertile age (say, 18 to 35) would want to have a baby with some old geezer?
Well, my mum did. She was 22, he was 47. He already had 6 children, 3 of whom he was the widower father of. And then they had 3 more. They were married for 45 years, before he died. And she still thinks he was very, very sexy. Now, I don't know how usual that is - I mean my Dad was a very strong willed man, and my mum was not. He wanted her, she didn't know how to resist, and they had a fantastic life together. I think she would do it all over again. I'm pretty biased though. I can't imagine having a younger father - he wouldn't have been as awesome if he was I don't think. He knew stuff, he was loving because he loved kids, having had so many of us, but most of all, he knew what he was doing after years of experience. I know what you're saying, Robyn. But it can turn out happily.
-
I woke up after ruminating on this thread for a long time last night, and the more I think about it, the more it bothers me.
Yes the initial "40 yo first time parent" comment was a troll, but it sparked what I see as an interesting topic: fertility issues in older parents. I just re-read Morgan's initial post, which appears to be making that point "let's talk about an actual issue". And he gets flamed into oblivion by people accusing him of telling them what to do with their bodies, which he explicitly did not.
Like I said earlier, we had to deal with this issue first-hand (trisomy 21, plus multiple deformities, to be exact), and it frankly fucks me right off that I'm unable to have a grown-up conversation about it around certain groups of people without pussy-footing around the whole career/carer debate. That's a secondary point in my mind. We have babies when we want to, and we ALL have to deal with the consequences of having them later in life. The odds look fine until you're on the left hand side of the ratio.
If someone told me at 23 what we would have to deal with by having babies after 28, I would have forgone the career, travel, and 5-star dining to have babies earlier.
But then again, I'm a male. What would I know about reproduction?
-
Or... they could dislike holding babies. Some people do, you know. They could actually not want children. Some people don't, you know. Etc
Or it might actually be as Peter described it. It was a reasonable observation, made in good faith, and hardly at odds with women being aware of their choices.
-
And he gets flamed into oblivion by people accusing him of telling them what to do with their bodies, which he explicitly did not.
He didn't get flamed into oblivion, his first sentence was a smartarse bit of baiting and he did contribute substantially to the tone of the exchange.
But then again, I'm a male. What would I know about reproduction?
Oh Christ, Ben: don't you sulk. No one's preventing you talking about your experience.
But this isn't the first time Morgan has been on one side of this sort of derailing. He's a good guy irl but he really has a tin ear sometimes.
But with that, perhaps everyone could calm down. This thread got painful to watch.
-
Or it might actually be as Peter described it It was a reasonable observation, made in good faith, and hardly at odds with women being aware of their choices.
Russell, I really don't like holding other people's babies at all, and I'm *pregnant*. (I might break the little homeslice!) I think it's pretty damn presumptuous to assume that there were biological clocks ticking all over the place in that room. Unless someone says 'oh hey, my biological clock is kicking my ass right now!', you just don't know.
Ben, I'm very sorry about what happened to you and your partner. Truly.
-
Or it might actually be as Peter described it ...
Quite possibly, though the truth probably lies somewhere in between. I've already thought about the fact that if I have kids, I'm quite likely going to be juggling my post-doc and babies. But being told cautionary tales about the ticking biological clocks of other PhD students and post-docs...I know about that possibility, thanks awfully.
What I'd like to know is about the ones who are having babies and how they're managing that and what the lab's doing to accomodate it. Who are not the married men Peter referred to, because we all know how men balance work and babies, because that's apparently a God-given right if you've got a penis.
it frankly fucks me right off that I'm unable to have a grown-up conversation about it around certain groups of people without pussy-footing around the whole career/carer debate.
It fucks me right off that I'm unable to go through my life, let alone actually reproduce, without having the career/carer debate.
-
Ben, I'm very sorry about what happened to you and your partner. Truly.
On a thirty-second tone reconsider: yeah, I second that, and your experience is important to know about. Sharing that isn't, and would never have been, what the debate was about here.
-
On Mondays I'm a little busy, 'kay?
I feel your pain, Giovanni. I go away for like a day, and come back to find:
I increasingly feel that many Gen X & Y women feel entitled to everything without having to give up years of partying and travel to have babies in their 20's or early 30's.
And while I recognise that no one actually directed this at me, and I don't really want to continue the threadjack, but: Yes, I am one of those women, what of it?
Cos, frankly, I like my partying and my travelling and my having a career and all that good stuff. Playing with my one-year old cousin a couple of weeks ago just about made my ovaries explode with the cuteness, but I don't want a baby. Yet.
Where is it written that I can't at least TRY to have it all? Don't I have the right to make that decision all on my own, and ignore all the OH MY GOD YOU ARE 30? QUICK HAVE A BABY BEFORE YOU TURN INTO A BARREN, CAT-LOVING SPINSTER headline scaremongering?
That's what Mary Tyler Moore taught me, anyway.
-
Gee I didnt think Dana Beal made that big off a fuck up. But I guess it's not hard to get on the wrong side of a lot of New Zealanders if one doesnt watch one's P's and kids.
Isnt overpopulation a global problem? If people are taking time and care when it comes to having and raising kids isn't that a good thing?
And some people deciding not to have children seems a choice that should be more prominent?
(There is an upward inflection on that last word.) Just call me Kylie. -
The parents that are really a menace at farmer's markets are the parents-of-undergraduates, who descend three weekends per year and take up all the parking spaces and make the line for breakfast burritos incredibly long and buy all the best bread before you can get to it.
When I rule the world this will not be permitted.
-
Yes Amy, but the passive aggression that seems to permeate every parent-undergraduate grouping by the end of the move-in period makes it all worth it.
-
I just re-read Morgan's initial post, which appears to be making that point "let's talk about an actual issue". And he gets flamed into oblivion by people accusing him of telling them what to do with their bodies, which he explicitly did not.
The problem is Morgan is expressing a view about women as though he is in some way informed about pregnancy and childbirth when he is clearly not.
If Morgan knew anything about genetics or embryology why would he single out women? The risks are matched by older paternity, if you happen to read up on the subject. When men talk about a "biological clock" it is the convention to exclude the discussion of genetic diseases related to advanced paternal age, but they include:
Dominant disorders:
Wilms tumour, thanatophoric dysplasia, retinitis pigmentosa, osteogenisis imperfecta type IIA, acrodysostosis, achondroplasia, Apert’s disease, fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, aniridia, bilateral retinoblastoma, multiple exostoses, Marfan’s, Lesch-Nyan’s, Pfeiffer’s, Wardenburg’s, Treacher-Collins, Soto’s, and Crouzon’s syndromes, basel cell nevus, cleidocranial dysostosis, polyposis coli, oculodentodigital syndrome, Costello syndrome , progeria, Recklinghausen’s neurofibromatosis, tuberous sclerosis and renal polycystic kidney disease.... and let's not neglect X-linked recessive diseases:
Haemophilia A and Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy.And let's also not forget that, for instance, in the 19thC if a woman did not die from TB or childbirth (in that order) then the average age of her last childbirth was over forty (41 ish I believe).
My mother in law was over 40 when she had my husband, who is a fine specimen indeed, who can still (at 53) run 3.8 minute kilometres over distance and has only had to see a doctor twice (bronchitis from flu both times) in the 26 years we've been together. And he was not the youngest - my mother in law had her last child at nearly 45. He's fine too. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless mind you.
But the point is that women - and men - have been reproducing until the end of their reproductive years since our species began.
It is also the convention to do this thing about singling out women when speaking with reference to prostitutes - or that relationship that is based on commerce rather than attraction:
Us males aren't the only sex capable of being shallow and materialistic you know. I notice you don't question why a 50 yo man would want to sleep with a young woman.
as this thread ran.
I have met literally hundreds of prostitutes and I have never met a single female prostitute - the were all men. And boys, who had engaged in financial arrangements where other men - and it was only men who purchased their services - ejaculated, urinated, defecated or spat or punched - as their tastes ran - into whatever part of the young man they paid for.
But these common, age old behaviours are never, ever recognised beyond medical discussions. When prostitution is discussed, it's always in the context of female prostitutes. On tv there is always a photograph of a miniskirted female teenager, never some teenaged boy.
And l see a parallel in the way this is played out in our society when it comes to talking about reproductive issues.
But anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Yes, it is good for men and women to be between 19 and 28 years of age to reproduce. But there are many examples where this age has produced unhealthy offspring, and many other examples of parents of either sex of advanced age producing healthy offspring.
The problem women are having with the way Morgan made his point is that the opinion is expressed in a form that is both inaccurate and insulting. He should have said "people" where he said "women" and it would have been fine.
-
He should have said "people" where he said "women" and it would have been fine.
Amen.
-
breakfast burritos
Mmmmm. Breakfast burritos. With awesome sausage.
... sorry, what were you all saying?
-
He should have said "people" where he said "women" and it would have been fine.
Actually, that is exactly what I was thinking about the original comment. No time to stay with this today, sadly.
-
Or perhaps it's not sexism, but biology, to suggest that it's better for women to conceive a bit younger than they've been trending towards?
Just a thought...
We have a law (and generally accepted abhorrence?) about procreation between brother and sister or first cousins. The rational basis behind this is to avoid the observed increased risk of spontaneous mutations/deformities that can and do occur.
However, the spontaneous mutation/deformity rate for mothers older than 40 is actually higher.
If we were actually rational be would ban both or neither. But of course we aren't.
-
Chiming in to echo Ben, and not just because he's my bro...
Thankfully, umbrage is something we don't often take in these forums, but if and when we do, I would think that People For Whom These Statistics Are Not Theoretical would be as well-respected hereabouts as Women Tired Of Being Reminded Ad Nauseam About Importance Of Procreating ASAP.
(These are not mutually exclusive categories, either.)
It also strikes me that a handy self-generated rofflenui style shorthand for "Yeah got that, thanks, ten thousand bazillion years ago, cheers" might nip in the bud those ungainly statements-of-the-obvious that, given our hair-trigger strategic defense initiatives, tend to devolve into threads-of-the-we've-been-here-before-why-are-we-here-again variety?
Let it be noted: I'm all about raising consciousness when it clearly needs raising, but sometimes those sleeping dogs are just tired little puppies and will nod off again if you ignore them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.