TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

'Women CAN'T have it all': Expert warns women are losing their best years of fertility because of financial and career pressures – and then struggle to conceive when they do try.

furchfur

June 26, 2018
94 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5888091/Women-Expert-warns-women-losing-best-years-fertility.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title 'Women CAN'T have it all': Expert warns women are losing their best years of fertility because of financial and career pressures – and then struggle to conceive when they do try.
Author

furchfur

Upvotes 94
Comments 38
Date June 26, 2018 9:07 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8u3prj/women_cant_have_it_all_expert_warns_women_are/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/women-cant-have-it-all-expert-warns-women-are.1177150
https://theredarchive.com/post/1177150
Top posts by furchfur

UK: Innocent student wrongly accused of rape calls for anonymity for sex assault defendants until they are found guilty.

17408 upvotes
December 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar. Up to 30,000 tests are being performed every year, says Alphabiolabs. In the UK about 750,000 babies are born every year. Feminists want the test to be illegal without the written consent of the mother.

4746 upvotes
January 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male rape survivors tell of their battle to have their voices heard after being told ‘men are the attackers, women are the victims’

4394 upvotes
April 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

16yo female 'prodigy' developer's app was actually written by a male programmer.

4210 upvotes
February 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Mother-of-two, 40, falsely branded a neighbour a sex offender because he 'made too much noise building a guinea pig hutch in his garden'. It seems for many women if they do not get their way they make a false sex allegation knowing a man is not protected by the law.

3937 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' online

3871 upvotes
January 18, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Nearly 500 men and boys are freed from 'house of torture' Islamic boarding school where they were chained up, raped by staff and starved 'in the name of teaching them the Koran' in Nigeria. OP: We will see how much media coverage this gets.

3825 upvotes
September 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Teenager, 18, who lied that ex-boyfriend drugged and raped her after he refused to rekindle their romance is convicted of wasting police time

3747 upvotes
May 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No one person can have it all.

Even Gloria steinem said that to be a successful career woman, she needs a wife. No in the lesbo sense. But a partner.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Even Gloria steinem said

Gloria Steinem, more so than the other 3 architects, has been woefully inconsistent over the years.

I would not put stock in anything she has said.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

what are some of the worst things she said

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what are some of the worst things she said

It has been a very long time since I read old school feminist literature, I will have to get back to you on that to provide hard contradictionts.

[–]polakfury 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

totally understand

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

"Experts"? hasn't everyone been saying this for over 50 years? (I.e. since day 1 of feminism , when it claimed "You women can have it ALL!!!").

It shouldn't be controversial even slightly, to say that "women cannot have it all".

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Millions of women all over the world who have both a successful job and children are begging to differ.

Seriously, is this an American thing? I’m European and have never, in my whole life, encountered this attitude that a woman must choose either to have children or a good job. In my country “stay at home mothers” aren’t even a thing, women just take a maternity leave for 1-2 years and then return to work. The most successful woman I personally know has two children and is a very devoted parent, so is her husband.

But then again, I’m not surprised if it’s different in the US that doesn’t even have maternity leave, let alone paternity leave or affordable daycare. I’m not surprised a lot of women there are forced to drop out of workforce altogether because they get no help and support to raise their children. It’s certainly true that women can’t be in two places at the same time... I remember an article about a fascinating case study of a clothing company Patagonia. Once they started offering cheap on-site daycare for employers, the number of women in top management rose to ~50%, with no incentives from the company itself. But it’s sad when companies have to take such lengths to take care of their employees because the state doesn’t...

In my country women are having children later than they used to as well, but that’s because most families simply can’t afford to have children in their early or mid 20s anymore, this is becoming a universal problem in most countries. However, very few women have children in their 40s, which is the age where they’re really starting to push it. The vast majority of women are still fertile in mid to late 30s, this fearmongering is bullshit.

[–]ThatNinaGAL 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You've identified the central issue. Other than a modest tax credit, American society provides essentially zero social support to middle-class families with young children. We allow our companies to demand more hours/week of labor, on a less predictable schedule, than is legal/customary in other developed nations. We do not subsidize childcare. We do not have high quality standards for childcare.

Nobody can HAVE IT ALL, but a middle-class French family can have excellent and affordable childcare at a neighborhood creche, and it's not surprising to me that families with resource are more likely to be dual-career than families without it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As my mother can assure you, having a good job and being a good mother at the same time is practically fucking impossible. In her case, she literally didn't have enough time to both be at home and working as a doctor full time.

Even without the burden of parenthood, most high paying jobs (6 figures) require you to work very long hours, sometimes for days at a time. You simply can't afford to do that without having a stay at home dad, which has it's own set of problems.

Btw, working part-time isn't a good job. At least, not for supporting a family. Kids are very expensive tbh.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

As my mother can assure you, having a good job and being a good mother at the same time is practically fucking impossible. In her case, she literally didn't have enough time to both be at home and working as a doctor full time.

What would you consider spending "enough time at home"? Why can men "have it all", then? They have jobs and they have children. They still spend enough time with their children that they get to know them, and their children grow to know them and love them. Women can do exactly the same thing.

My mother is a full time doctor, actually. Where I live, medicine is heavily female-dominated, and is going to get even more so, right now ~80% of medical school students are women. Our birthrates are quite low, but still the majority of women have at least one child.

Even without the burden of parenthood, most high paying jobs (6 figures) require you to work very long hours,

Ok, wait, so your definition of a "good job" is "something that pays at least 6 figures"? Some pretty high standards, don't you think? The majority of people of either sex aren't earning 6 figures whether they have children or not.

I'm guessing you're American. I know it's standard there to work more than 50 hours per week. That's not the case in most countries in Europe, for example.

You simply can't afford to do that without having a stay at home dad, which has it's own set of problems.

Have you forgotten daycare and babysitters exist? That's how most people elsewhere in the world do it. That's how people have done for thousands of years before the nuclear family became the norm. Childcare was never one person's job, but the job of the whole family, and family didn't used to mean only mom and dad until quite recently.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men don't have it all, they just don't get pregnant, meaning they don't have to leave their jobs for years at a time, and can get more work experience. Women can do the same thing, there are just some fundamental obstacles that come with that.

I'm not saying they don't serve as a role-model, it's just that someone has to:

-Watch over the kids so they don't escape and/or accidentally kill themselves

-Teach them morals, patience, kindness, compassion, cooperation, etc. And help teachers mentor and give them knowledge of the world.

-Take care of the house and cook/prepare food (can be replaced by a maid I guess)


Just so you know, daycare is terrible imo: https://www.livestrong.com/article/234110-negative-effects-of-day-care-on-children/

Do you really think a stranger can care for multiple kids the same way a parent can? I'd be impressed if they could.

By good job, I do imply better than average, I suppose the STEM fields have biased my views on that. Still, you'll have to work longer/smarter if you wish to maintain your lifestyle (with children).

I don't envy Europe's situation at the moment, with the migrant issues, the EU in general, and Article 13.

Oh, and I live in Japan, although that probably doesn't help your assumptions, lol.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Men don't have it all, they just don't get pregnant, meaning they don't have to leave their jobs for years at a time, and can get more work experience. Women can do the same thing, there are just some fundamental obstacles that come with that.

The only time women are physically forced to take time off in a way that men don't need to is physical recovery from childbirth, which is 4-6 weeks. That's a very short amount of time that's not going to jeopardise your career in any way. That's an amount of time some people use up their vacation days in one go (not in the US, of course, but in other Western countries where people actually do get vacation).

Men absolutely should be taking time off after their children are born. They need to be there for their wives who are recovering from childbirth, because it's an exceptionally demanding time, the baby has just been born and everything's so new and unfamiliar, it's a nightmare to be left on your own during such a time. Unfortunately, a lot of men still don't have an opportunity for paternity leave, but if any man does have such an opportunity but decides to go back to work right away and leave their wife and newborn child alone, he's a real ass who doesn't deserve children, or a wife. This is such a very unnatural model where a new mother is left alone and isolated during some of the most challenging times in her life. In traditional societies new mothers moved in with their own mothers, or their mothers moved in with them, and they had a period of 3-4 weeks where they were exempt from their usual duties and could focus on recovering and learning how to take care of their babies, constantly supported and helped by other women in their family. Today we don't have this anymore, people live in isolated nuclear families, so the supportive role falls solely to the father, which is not ideal, but still better than nothing, and he should support and help his wife as much as he can.

Not to mention he needs to learn to take care of his baby and bond with him/her as well. Right after birth is a crucial window and if the father misses is, the mother gets a huge headstart and then it can be very hard for him to ever become an equally proficient and involved father. Children only need their mothers more than fathers during the first year of their life, because of breastfeeding, and after 6 months they're not exclusively breastfeeding and father can become more involved (but even aside from feeding there's bathing, changing diapers, playing and lots of other activities fathers can engage in equally.) Despite the stereotypes, in the past raising children wasn't seen as solely women's job. Sons were mainly raised by their fathers after they outgrew infancy, aside from the basic care like cooking food. It was fathers who taught their sons about the world, educate him on their responsibilities (how could mothers do that when they themselves didn't do those jobs?). It's a modern anomaly where sons grow up barely seeing their fathers or any other male role model. Historically, if the father was unavailable because he died, or was at war or had a long-distance job like sailing, there was always a grandfather, uncle or someone else to take up that role.

Fathers might not be able to fulfil every role mothers can, and they should't be fully replacing mothers, but they should be no less involved.

Just so you know, daycare is terrible imo: https://www.livestrong.com/article/234110-negative-effects-of-day-care-on-children/

Here are ten studies showing the opposite

Do you really think a stranger can care for multiple kids the same way a parent can? I'd be impressed if they could.

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and role of daycare in children's lives.

It's not meant to replace parents, of course it cannot. But it doesn't - children only spend a maximum of half a day in daycare for 5 days a week (excluding all the holidays). That's far from "having strangers raise your child". Of course if both parents work 80 hours per week and don't have grandparents or other reliable close relatives step in, then it's not good, but those people shouldn't be having children in the first place.

However, the point of daycare (aside from, of course, allowing parents to work during that time) is to get a group of children together so that they can play and socialise together, often with a lot more toys and space than they would get at home, which leads to them having a chance to explore and learn that parents can't fully replace. This is how children learn best - by playing with other children. This is why all mammal pups spend most of their time playing with each other with only minimal interference by their parents. This is what children really need in order to develop proper emotional and socialising skills and learn to function in a society. They aren't learning this if they spend all their time glued to their parents.

A good daycare is not one when the caregivers are constantly hovering over the children and taking control in which activities they do and how. Daycare shouldn't be regimented like school, children should be allowed to be children. Throwing in one or two structured activities per day can be beneficial, but most of the time children should be left to themselves, even allowed to solve conflicts themselves, caregivers should only interfere when really necessary. People often underestimate how imaginative and creative children can be, and their ability for self-directed learning. They can occupy themselves perfectly well, and unstructured play has benefits that structured activities can't match. And the environment which allows them to do that is much harder to replicate at home these days, when parents only have 1-2 children and never let them out of sight. And when those children start school, it's much more of a shock to them, since they're not used to being away from their parents and surrounded by so many other children and unfamiliar adults, not to mention their immune system is much weaker.

If you went to some rural village 100 years ago, you would see groups of children of all ages (and often both sexes) playing together, the younger ones learning from older ones, that's how they spend most of their free time, and only come home when their parents call them to eat or do some work. Many millennials like myself can still remember having a similar childhood. Maybe that's why our parents weren't as stressed and overworked as many new parents today, especially in the US where helicopter parenting is so common. I had a nanny too, she didn't replace my mother but complemented her, she could tell me stories that my mom couldn't, or take me places and play games with me that my mom wouldn't. But she didn't take anything away, I still loved my mother a lot and had a very close relationship with her, still do even as an adult. I believe, and the research supports this, that this is the best way to raise children - have multiple caregivers instead of just one or two, have children meet new people early in life and learn to socialise with other children as much as possible, with parents serving more like protectors, carers of basics needs and guides in life, rather than constant hovering figures the child is roped to. And in this parenting model, mothers don't have to sacrifice their whole lives and identities solely to childcare - which has been shown to be very harmful for mothers' mental health and wellbeing.

By good job, I do imply better than average, I suppose the STEM fields have biased my views on that. Still, you'll have to work longer/smarter if you wish to maintain your lifestyle (with children).

If both parents work, neither one of them has to work disproportionately long hours in order to survive and provide for their children. Not unless they have exceptionally expensive tastes or are really bad at budgeting and saving money... Yes, you do seem to be biased, STEM fields are not the only ones that have good jobs. It's only computer science and engineering, really, most other STEM jobs have only average pay and not so great employability and job security. People should stop worshipping STEM as if it's the ultimate panacea.

It's no coincidence that women tend to flock towards jobs that have more flexibility. Something like nursing, for example, is quite compatible with motherhood, but also a very respectable and well-paid job that's intellectually stimulating. It's entirely dominated by women, and large number of those women have children as well. Many decent jobs in healthcare are dominated by women too. In most countries you don't need to work 60 hours per week to stay in a good job, 35-40 is sufficient. As I said, millions of women all over the world have both children and a career. How they're doing it is have help with childcare - which is not a sin, but something very natural that all mothers have had throughout history, until very recently.

Oh, and I live in Japan, although that probably doesn't help your assumptions, lol.

A country known for such extreme working hours that they have a term for "death from overwork"? No, it certainly doesn't... However, even here it's slowly becoming possible for mothers to combine childcare and career. As it happens, I'm actually living there at the moment. I constantly see fathers alone with their children in public and it's not seen as anything weird or special. If even Japanese fathers can find time to take care of their children, Western fathers really have no excuse.

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Millions of women all over the world who have both a successful job and children are begging to differ.

Statistically speaking, a single mother with a career and children will have to severely neglect either the children or the career. Not to mention there is a very high tendency to realize that it was huge mistake to do those things, but only after it is too late.

I’m European and have never, in my whole life, encountered this attitude that a woman must choose either to have children or a good job.

There are several socialist, borderline communist nations in europe. But that will change as soon as islam becomes too great of a burden.

In my country women are having children later than they used to as well, but that’s because most families simply can’t afford to have children in their early or mid 20s anymore, this is becoming a universal problem in most countries.

Uhh, no. Maybe in europe.

Mexico still has tons of teenage pregnancy and women have kids at 20. In fact it's a serious problem, so yeah the reverse problem that the europeans have.

The vast majority of women are still fertile in mid to late 30s

Uhhh bullshit?

After 35 , there is a very sharp decline in a woman's fertility and it becomes a "High risk preganncy" for both the embryo and the woman.

To put it in simple terms, between 18 - 22 are a woman's prime, fertile years for becoming pregnant and having a child. Each year after that, her fertility rates drop, and after 30 , they drop significantly.

For some reason, leftists are in extreme denial about facts; Reality =/= feaarmongering.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Statistically speaking, a single mother with a career and children will have to severely neglect either the children or the career. Not to mention there is a very high tendency to realize that it was huge mistake to do those things, but only after it is too late.

Yes, because most single mothers have to work two jobs. Good thing most children have two parents, then, isn't it? Too bad most of them don't have grandparents heavily involved, or other relatives. Extended family, not nuclear family, is the best for children.

There are several socialist, borderline communist nations in europe. But that will change as soon as islam becomes too great of a burden.

... what

After 35 , there is a very sharp decline in a woman's fertility and it becomes a "High risk preganncy" for both the embryo and the woman.

No, pregnancy is not automatically deemed "risk risk" at the age of 35... Maybe what you mean is "advanced maternal age", and that's 40, not 35. 40 is when that "sharp decline" you speak of happens. Or somewhere between 38 and 40 at least. But there's quite a large gap between "sharp decline" and "infertility".

The biggest problem with postponing fertility is that women often don't find out they're infertile (for other reasons) until it's too late and not enough time to fix it. However, women who've already have children are almost as fertile in mid to late 30s as women in their 20s.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/07/how-long-can-you-wait-to-have-a-baby/309374/

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. The chance of remaining childless—30 percent—was also calculated based on historical populations.

Surprisingly few well-designed studies of female age and natural fertility include women born in the 20th century—but those that do tend to paint a more optimistic picture. One study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology in 2004 and headed by David Dunson (now of Duke University), examined the chances of pregnancy among 770 European women. It found that with sex at least twice a week, 82 percent of 35-to-39-year-old women conceive within a year, compared with 86 percent of 27-to-34-year-olds. (The fertility of women in their late 20s and early 30s was almost identical—news in and of itself.) Another study, released this March in Fertility and Sterility and led by Kenneth Rothman of Boston University, followed 2,820 Danish women as they tried to get pregnant. Among women having sex during their fertile times, 78 percent of 35-to-40-year-olds got pregnant within a year, compared with 84 percent of 20-to-34-year-olds. A study headed by Anne Steiner, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the results of which were presented in June, found that among 38- and 39-year-olds who had been pregnant before, 80 percent of white women of normal weight got pregnant naturally within six months (although that percentage was lower among other races and among the overweight). “In our data, we’re not seeing huge drops until age 40,” she told me.

Even some studies based on historical birth records are more optimistic than what the press normally reports: One found that, in the days before birth control, 89 percent of 38-year-old women were still fertile. Another concluded that the typical woman was able to get pregnant until somewhere between ages 40 and 45. Yet these more encouraging numbers are rarely mentioned—none of these figures appear in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2008 committee opinion on female age and fertility, which instead relies on the most-ominous historical data.

For someone spouting about "reality" and "facts" so much, you sure don't seem too grounded in them or concerned with backing up your sources.

[–]polakfury 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Can you provide how high a risk it is for women after 30 to have kids when it comes to those kids having down syndrome??

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's in the same article...

What about birth defects? The risk of chromosomal abnormalities such as Down syndrome does rise with a woman’s age—such abnormalities are the source of many of those very early, undetected miscarriages. However, the probability of having a child with a chromosomal abnormality remains extremely low. Even at early fetal testing (known as chorionic villus sampling), 99 percent of fetuses are chromosomally normal among 35-year-old pregnant women, and 97 percent among 40-year-olds. At 45, when most women can no longer get pregnant, 87 percent of fetuses are still normal. (Many of those that are not will later be miscarried.) In the near future, fetal genetic testing will be done with a simple blood test, making it even easier than it is today for women to get early information about possible genetic issues.

[–]polakfury 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What about this scientific article??

http://www.mychildwithoutlimits.org/understand/down-syndrome/what-causes-down-syndrome/down-syndrome-risk-factors/

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What of it? Similar numbers. 1 in 400 risk at 35 is extremely low. Doesn't really matter if it's double or triple, or quadruple of that at 20, it's still way too low to warrant any alarm. Now at 42 it's more significant, but still the vast majority of cases are healthy.

[–]polakfury 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

1 in 400 risk at 35 is extremely low.

Thats super high lol.

And have not you seen down syndrome rates rise in the US?

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

... do you do math?

1 in 400 is 0.25%. That's what you deem as "super high"?

Remember those numbers are only averages based on nothing more than age anyway. The full risk of an individual woman is going to have only a very rough correlation with these numbers. That's why personalised testing is much more important while those preliminary age-based statistics should be ignored.

And have not you seen down syndrome rates rise in the US?

Iceland has almost eradicated Down syndrome because close to 100% women choose to abort their babies if they're found to have Down syndrome in uterus. The solution is as simple as that. I'm guessing the rates in the US are much higher because a lot fewer women have access to prenatal testing and abortion, plus strong cultural bias against abortion on moral grounds, which doesn't exist in progressive non-religious countries like Iceland.

[–]pazz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your comment about pregnancy and age seems incorrect. After 35 it is referred to as a geriatric pregnancy...and that is for a very good reason.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it’s 40.

Dude, the term “geriatric pregnancy” hasn’t been used for decades... It’s called “advanced maternal age” now. And it doesn’t really mean much, only that you get offered few additional tests. “Advanced maternal age” simply means there are certain increased risks, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible to have a healthy pregnancy beyond that age. The vast majority of women between 40 and menopause still do have healthy pregnancies. In most cases foetal abnormalities tend to be naturally resolved by miscarriage, that’s what their purpose is.

These days you can also test your eggs to calculate your own individual risks of various genetic disorders or abnormalities, which is a lot more accurate than just looking at age statistics. Every person is different, some women’s eggs stay higher quality for longer than others because of their genes or healthier lifestyle.

[–]pazz 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I took 5 seconds and googled the phrase "Geriatric Pregnancy" and the description said 35. I claim no expertise.

[–]lynx_and_nutmeg 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That term was used in the past but not anymore. Before family planning became the norm, the average age of last birth for women was 42, getting pregnancy beyond 35 was completely normal, the vast majority of women continued having children beyond that age. However, in later half of 20th century people started having a lot fewer children than before. Women usually married early, had 1-3 children in their 20s and then stopped. That's why back then, being pregnant in mid 30s or beyond was seen as an anomaly, some dangerous aberration. At some point "most women choose not to have children past their 20s" started being interpreted as "most women can't have children in their 30s".

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Extended family, not nuclear family, is the best for children.

Actually no.

Statistically speaking,there is nothing better for the child than the two biological parents raising them with the woman being by their side. This results in the children being most healthy, most centered compared to children being raised by someone else.

Single mothers are the worst choice.

No, pregnancy is not automatically deemed "risk risk" at the age of 35

"Risk risk" wtf?

No. After 35 it is a high risk pregnancy, that is not my opinion.

That exerpt you took HEAVILY relies on weasel phrasing; Yes 38 year old women "can be fertile", the question is, to what degree is the fertility viable? the answer is not much.

For someone spouting about "reality" and "facts" so much, you sure don't seem too grounded in them or concerned with backing up your sources.

"Backing up my sources"? nothing I said was outrageous, it is all axiomatic to the point where I see no need to source anything.

You have zero understanding of this so it may seem shocking to read something that is considered an axiom by anyone involved in the field of medicine.....

But let me explain as if you were a child, because that is the level of argument you are presenting; If something is axiomatic, generally speaking it is not necessary to source . I can source it, but I really don't feel I need to.

It's kind of like how I rarely source the terms phenotype and genotype, if you don't know what these mean, the source won't help.

But you can eat up all the propaganda you like, I have no interest in your delusions.

[–]pazz 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You replied to the wrong guy

[–]TheMythof_Feminism 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shoot, good point.

[–]ifelsedowhile 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If any career oriented woman needs a stay at home father I'm more than willing to step in for the role.

[–]TheImpossible1 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very masochistic.

I'd rather shoot myself than be a stay at home dad.

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the only solution that works for most career women (EDIT: unless their income is so high they can afford to hire help), but unfortunately it's a nonstarter for the general population. The tax base and infrastructure would collapse and all of the female administrators, government workers, and other assorted paper pushers would soon be out of a job. For the most part, women choose jobs that can be done by anyone (working class women) or that are not necessary (college-educated women). They are not willing to work themselves into an early grave to subsidize other women.

Plus there's the small issue that the average woman finds this to be a sexual turn-off. Plus it's just plain stupid to try to turn women into men. It doesn't work, and we already have men.

[–]thrway_1000 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Guess what, no one can have it all, it's a truth that feminism can't deal with.

Archive -- https://archive.is/o6vKI

[–]auMatech 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As if this is some sort of brand new revelation that has come about in the last few months...

Men and women have known about this for years, especially in previous generations. Now, women are taught that they can have everything and do everything.. And that biology is secondary, are now realizing, that biology won't sidestep your dreams of equality. Just like men, women are learning that they have to start sacrificing things or compromising to get what they want, in this case it's their fertility for a career.

[–]boringcarpets 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the modern age of denying biological realities

[–]1LegendaryWombat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, duh. You gotta plan for that shit.
Personally i don't see an issue with having kids in the late twenties. Seems like a better idea anyway, We need a globally smaller birth rate, not bigger.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree. And not to knock early 20s parents, but the level of maturity say post 26 or 27 increases significantly.

Women can't change the economic reality of our times, which is that to get a good paying job you have to get more education and experience. That is true of men and women. I'd much rather have people have babies at 29-35 and have those babies raised in healthy and stable homes, than at 20.

[–]tenchineuro 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Financial pressures are forcing women to delay their dreams of motherhood, and many are discovering the odds are against them by the time they try for a baby, new research has warned.

Dreams of motherhood? Don't most women think they children get in the way of their career?

Now, new research has revealed the biggest barriers to motherhood are economic, with three-quarters of women surveyed blaming their financial position.

This was ranked higher than problems finding the right partner, which 59 per cent of women blamed for having to delay motherhood.

Maybe keeping the job market saturated with foreigners has some side effects? Who wooda knewed?

The research, involving 1,000 women aged 18-45, was commissioned by The Stork, a clinically proven at-home conception aid which helps couples conceive.

'The truth is, fertility is often out of our control, and no amount of planning and preparation can detract from the fact that women's fertility begins to fall away sharply and men's fertility is not far behind.

'More frightening is the fact that figures from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists show that in any given month, your chances of getting pregnant at the age of 30 are about 20 percent. At age 40, it's just five percent.'

Tick, tick, tick...

'Unfortunately, almost three out of four (72 percent) women under 35 who have treatment will face failure, and success rates fall with every birthday.

'For women aged 35 to 37, the failure rate is 76 percent; it climbs to 82 percent for those aged 38 to 39 and for women aged 40 to 42 the failure rate is 89 percent.

Well look at the bright side, she can spend more time at the office and sidestep that 'wage gap' we keep hearing about, that should make feminists happy at least.

[–]nascarracer99316 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then they blame it on men.

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Instead of "losing" read "squandering."

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter