|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 7, 2009 9:11:10 GMT -5
Why do people still feel so pressed to marry and have kids before they hit 30 ?
Seriously professional/leisure pursuits are increasingly important in people's priority list especially us, generation Y, life expectancy has never been that high and liberal love life schemes are more and more accepted: having on and off relationships, open relationships not involving moving in the same place or even long term gf or bf.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Sept 7, 2009 10:44:28 GMT -5
Two words: biological clock. 35, not 30, is actually the age after which the probability of having complications (including Downs syndrome) increases significantly and you are required/recommended to do extra exams with a doctor. But until/unless they get the technology to allow women to have healthy babies at later ages, women will always feel the pressure to have kids before they hit 30/35. Some of them might not be sure if they even want kids, but the fear of wanting a kid later and being unable to have one probably outweighs the fear of having a kid you decide you don't want later. There might be some deep biological reason that makes them want to have kids too, but I don't know how you could ever separate that from all of the social and family pressures that convince women they should want to have children. As for marriage, I find that to be less the case now. I think a lot of the pressure to get married before 35 comes from the desire to have babies and the belief that marriage increases financial security and the probability that the father will contribute to child-raising. I don't think the fear that all the good men will be taken, or that no one will want to marry an older woman, play much of a role. Attending all of your friends' weddings probably also helps concentrate the mind  |
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Sept 7, 2009 11:53:12 GMT -5
Yeah, betahat hit the nail on the head with the biological clock. That pretty much sums it up for everyone, but women in particular. It doesn't matter how much society changes, this will probably always remain. And unfortunately, even stupid people and idiots have biological clocks and can be fertile.
|
|
|
|
Post by moralhazard on Sept 8, 2009 2:19:24 GMT -5
^ Yeah, but stupid people and idiots...like myself are great!
|
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 8, 2009 6:43:45 GMT -5
Some of us don't exactly have a choice Ganbare
|
|
|
|
Post by meep on Sept 8, 2009 9:22:58 GMT -5
I would like to have kids before 30 because of all the things Betahat has mentioned. Also to have a family at a younger age means more energy to chase after the kids and give motherhood its all.
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Sept 8, 2009 11:50:28 GMT -5
My mom was joking (half-seriously) about us living in a retirement home together when she's 88 and I'm 66. That can only happen for young mothers, though I wouldn't recommend a Gilmour Girl style situation for anyone as cool as it seems to have a daughter who is a confidant and best friend. Having a child parent a mother is one of the most psychologically harmful things you can put them through though - in real life, the odds that Rory wouldn't have deep abiding mother-issues are low.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Sept 8, 2009 12:08:00 GMT -5
There are other risks having children late besides higher incidence of genetic defects.
Imagine having kids in your 40s. Then when they hit university age, you will be in your 60s. It may cause you to delay retirement, or you might have health problems when your kids are still young. There is a big difference between a 35 y.o. playing ball with his son and a 55-60 y.o.
People who have kids late also are at risk for having a sandwich dependent burden, eg, parents in their 80s, with kids in their 10s, just as their career has passed its peak.
It would not be so bad if we still had the extended family clan living in the same house or village. There would be close relatives of different ages, so each can help out with the family.
|
|
|
|
Post by meep on Sept 9, 2009 10:55:47 GMT -5
^ I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Sept 9, 2009 21:44:58 GMT -5
But with all the medical advancements and people living longer anyway, I would still consider having children as late as the mid-40s, although I'd still be concerned. And not to mention the financial benefits - I rarely hear older parents complaining about expenses or how much of a burden its putting on their budget.
I think the late 20s is an ideal age for most people to bear children, but economically it's still difficult. Just look at the prices they charge for diapers, day care, pediatric care, etc. these days and you'll see why people wait until their first social security check to have kids!
I hope society doesn't revert to placing too much stress on the physical benefits of age & child bearing, because I'm afraid this would revert back to old days when more women were pressured to be stay at home moms and give up great career prospects in their early 20s. Not that being a stay at home mom is a bad thing - my own mother stayed home to care for me until I got older - but I fear that this could hurt general female advancement in the workplace again. Or maybe I'm assuming too much?
|
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Sept 10, 2009 0:58:07 GMT -5
I guess the answer is to have kids as early as - you have a long-term committed partner - you are psychologically prepared for it - you can afford it. At that point, it no longer makes good sense to wait. I think there are also great financial reasons to have kids early. There is great pressure when you have young kids just as you are nearing retirement. My ex-colleague is in his early 60s and has 6 kids (all EA, BTW), 2 of which are in university and 2 of which are still in High School. He will be past age 70 before he can risk retiring. Yet, if all of your kids are graduated from university and working BEFORE you hit age 50, then you can REALLY prepare for retirement. I hope society doesn't revert to placing too much stress on the physical benefits of age & child bearing, because I'm afraid this would revert back to old days when more women were pressured to be stay at home moms and give up great career prospects in their early 20s. I don't think it is as much a society pressure as it is a BIOLOGICAL pressure combined with a sociological reality. With an extended family in the same village or even households, there is less pressure to raise all the kids yourself. Grandparents, aunts, uncles,etc. can be a great help if the parents need to be out of the house for most of the day. If you live in a place where hired help is cheap, then it also might make ECONOMIC sense for the mother to work outside the home (but it might not be the best SOCIOLOGICAL choice). But in any case, you cannot change biology. Females get pregnant, bear offspring, nurse infants and toddlers. It is very difficult to replace the mother in this regard. No wonder that the culture in most societies evolved to have women bear and raise children and men to be the breadwinner. If a woman wants to bear and raise more healthy children, she might be more *successful* if she finds a male who is willing provide for the more difficult or more life-threatening material needs of the family. At a SPECIES level (not at the individual level), it might be more efficient to have this kind of arrangement. Indeed, what happens when women choose to go on to higher education, develop careers, make more money, become more economically dependent, etc.? - they get married later, possibly meaning less marriage partner choices - they delay childbirth, sometimes until it is too late - if they have children, they tend to have much fewer children - they risk not even finding a suitable marriage partner, and become spinsters. - they may *outsource* part of the parenting duties to outside parties, thereby lessening the family bonds and affecting how the child later develops relationships - Delaying childbirth has higher risks of genetic defects, as well as health risks and lower intelligence for the child - Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles will be LESS available to help with childrearing - Parents more likely to become ill or die before the kids (which are already fewer in number) reach adulthood. - They will be less available to participate in the child-rearing of THEIR own grandchildren ETC., ETC. ETC. So, while it may benefit individual women to forgo childbearing in their young adulthood for career and leisure and individual economic well-being, at a SPECIES level, it is detrimental. Also, at an AGGREGATE ECONOMIC level, it is also not beneficial. Why? Just look at Japan. The average age in the population has risen from the late 20s in the 1950s to about 42-43 today. The baby boomer bulge is now age 55-63, past their economic prime and too old to have children. The workforce is shrinking every year, and population has stopped growing, and will also start to decline as baby boomers start to die off. By the time 40% of the population is over age 60, the economy and population will be in steep decline. Japan has steadfastly refused to allow much immigration, (esp. from countries like India, Philippines, Indonesia with higher birth rates), so perhaps in your life time, it will be an aged population in steep economic decline. OH, I forgot. They are really pushing robotics. Robots may be able to replace all economic value creation except for children, with the primary job to take care of the elderly. Or maybe they might start cloning old people and have them raised by robots.  |
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 11, 2009 6:47:25 GMT -5
I don't think age should be considered at all, whether one is ready for it financially or not depends simply on whether they cann or can not afford it like what you have mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Sept 11, 2009 11:51:53 GMT -5
- they may *outsource* part of the parenting duties to outside parties, thereby lessening the family bonds and affecting how the child later develops relationships - Delaying childbirth has higher risks of genetic defects, as well as health risks and lower intelligence for the child - Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles will be LESS available to help with childrearing - Parents more likely to become ill or die before the kids (which are already fewer in number) reach adulthood. - They will be less available to participate in the child-rearing of THEIR own grandchildren This is the part that is really more subjective. While relatives other than the immediate parents are indeed convenient and nice to have around, they are by no means necessary. Children have been going to day care, away from their mothers for over six hours each day, for years and I don't think it's ever been significantly related to declination of society. The biggest argument I see for child-bearing at younger ages is the health concerns. But as I said, medical advancements are constantly coming up with new ways to improve this and Americans and people in other nations are living longer. You really only need to be around until the kid graduates high school and perhaps to shell out the money and emotional support for some years of college. After that, the kid can deal on its own. If I'm not mistaken, Japan has the upside down population pyramid problem (in contrast to Sierra Leone's regular population pyramid - meaning too many children, and most citizens dying before age 30) because women are limiting themselves to one child. This isn't so much an age thing as it is a matter of family size. Hell, I'd encourage a healthy 40 year old woman who's still fertile to have six kids if she's smart and responsible. Although I can acknowledge how age would tie into this: older women simply aren't that fertile and women who do have children at an older age usually do so because they are in professions which aren't very accommodating of families. However, I'm not too keen on what the situation is with women in the workforce in Japan, so I couldn't say how much work affects women out there. I think it may be just be a tighter economy and more restrictive medical insurance practices out there that are causing women to not have children. |
|
|
|
Post by jefe on Sept 12, 2009 0:31:18 GMT -5
^ I hope that you accept that I respect your opinion, agree with part of it, but beg to disagree on other parts.
AGE at childbearing also has a big implication on the demography of a population, not only NUMBER of children. If women bear 1 single child at age 20, they can have 5 generations in a century. If they bear 1 single child at age 40, they can only have 2.5 generations. The population will be half as much and much older as well, despite both having only a single child.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Sept 12, 2009 18:54:28 GMT -5
AGE at childbearing also has a big implication on the demography of a population, not only NUMBER of children. If women bear 1 single child at age 20, they can have 5 generations in a century. If they bear 1 single child at age 40, they can only have 2.5 generations. The population will be half as much and much older as well, despite both having only a single child. As I sort of noted. And I perhaps should have added that I definitely don't discourage younger women from having children. I fully acknowledge that younger women will always be the first stop for babies. But even a 2.5 generations worth of babies from a 40 year old woman would help a place like Japan atop any younger women doing their thing. All in all, I simply don't feel as if having children at an older age is as bad of an idea as many of the posts (not just yours) in this thread have been making them out to be. Well, thank you. And for the record, I enjoy reading different opinions on here. But it is rather funny to note that almost every response I've seen from you in any thread here has been a strong disagreement with a defensive tone. Almost makes you sound is if you get repulsed very easily or have a chip on your shoulder. Nevertheless, Cheers. |
|
