The Male Biological Clock: Why men should also not wait too long to have kids. Notes the lack of support for men in both medicine and the workplace.

Clockw0rk · 2015-11-03T17:48:57+00:00

Although the average life span in the first world has been getting longer over time, I'm pretty firm in my belief that you shouldn't have kids after 40.

Generational differences, significantly different energy levels, and genetic degradation over time (which the article mentions) just seem like insurmountable issues for the 40+ parent dealing with newborns and toddlers.

Unfortunately, lack of paternal leave and society's general attitude that fathers are less important than mothers when raising children often puts men in a difficult position of being expected to focus on their career instead of having and raising children.

There's a significant number of men that want to father and raise children, or teach / mentor young kids, but misandry of the feminist movement and pedophilia scares have basically written men out of families. However, much like suicide and homelessness, the general wellness and happiness of men is not something that our gynocentric culture seems interested in researching or discussing openly.

Karissa36 · 2015-11-03T17:47:53+00:00

This is just bollocks. Many studies have found that the a mans fertility will fall very marginally if at all. Many men have children in their 60's, 70's.The real reason this gets publicity is to try and persuade men to have children with women at a young age. It is women who are affected not men and that is uncomfortable for feminists and the the feminist media. Hence the need to try and make men concerned of a biological clock that is not actually ticking. This whole issue is propaganda

td9red · 2015-11-03T19:42:29+00:00

Feminist scientists have been trying very hard to "prove" there is a biological clock for men in the same fashion as women. This is clearly false due to a lack of any discernible menopause in females coupled with the fact that many men have children while older with younger females that are VERY healthy.

Common examples among the celebrity older men/rich men are endless for men into their 50s to 70s.

The purpose of this trend is to scare men into marriage through fear of declining fertility.

If you look at the statistics provided, the chances of these diseases remain extremely low, despite an advanced paternal age.

Further, there are significant confounding variables that are present that include:

1) Natural increase in autism diagnosis over the last year. Taking this into account, the rates of autism aren't discernibly higher for children of older aged fathers

2) Lack of evidence of testing for actual genetic disorder such as Down Syndrome, which can be clearly linked to maternal age.

Ergo, its bogus.

SupremeAuthority · 2015-11-03T19:43:18+00:00

Get a vasectomy. Do not have kids.

2015-11-03T18:04:49+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yxyn1/ticktock_the_male_biological_clock/

TheDude41 · 2015-11-06T04:14:19+00:00

Actually, the analyses in these studies are not truly probative, at least in the manner in which they are presented.

A man deciding whether or not to have kids when he is 30, vs 50, faces a generational cycle which lasts 30 years, versus a generational cycle which lasts 50 years.

Lets say you wanted to look at the overall genetics of your progeny 150 years from now. If a man and his male descendents reproduce every 50 years, they've only gone through 3 generations over that time period. Conversely, if a man and his male descendants reproduce every 30 years, they will have gone through 5 generations over that same time period.

So. while the generational mutation rate may be slightly higher per generation in the 50 year-generation group, overall it's probably going to to be close to the same outcome 150 years later. Plus, you have to take into consideration that there is a much larger chance of major fuck-ups not due to the point mutation rate, occurring over 5 generations vs. 3.

Not obvious, but I don't see this as a real reason to put a fire under anyone's butt to go out and have kids. Furthermore, a lot of the epidemiological studies linking age to phenotype are frankly, quite nearly bunk. It's not uncommon for genetics researchers to find all manner of spurious associations between genetic alterations and phenotype, that end up being disproved by better structured studies (e.g. family studies). There will be a lot of confounding factors in studies attempting to link schizophrenia for example, and age of parents, for example if men with certain genetic personality traits end up delaying fatherhood more than others, or if they have a higher tendency to mate with women who have personality characteristics that are more likely to generate offspring with certain types of problems. Particularly true, if as for example in the case of schizophrenia, the underlying genetics is not at all understood. If there were well-structured family studies that could address this issue, for example by comparing older siblings to younger siblings born to the same two parents (confirmed by parentage testing), there might be a strong case, but those studies I would predict are going to be unable to tease apart the effects of maternal vs. paternal age. You'd have to do other things too, like exclude kids born by IVF.

These are not randomized control experiments.

Comments