More Women Are Mothers

This was published in New York times. Looks like CF men need to be cautious yet again. It used to be that if a woman did not breed by the age 40, chances were good, she was not going to do it. That appears to have changed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/upshot/the-us-fertility-rate-is-down-yet-more-women-are-mothers.html

Quote
New York Times

The U.S. Fertility Rate Is Down, Yet More Women Are Mothers.

The biggest increases have come from some groups who in the past were far less likely to have babies: highly educated women, those over 40, and women who have never been married.

A baby bust. The fertility rate at a record low. Millennials deciding not to have children. There has been a lot of worry about the state of American fertility.

Yet today, 86 percent of women ages 40 to 44 — near the end of their reproductive years — are mothers, up from 80 percent in 2006, reversing decades of declines, according to a new analysis of census data by Pew Research Center on Thursday.

The increase has been especially steep among groups of women who hadn’t been having as many babies: those with advanced degrees, and those who never marry. Today, 55 percent of never-married women ages 40 to 44 have at least one child, up from 31 percent two decades ago, Pew found.

Basically, there is a new breeding craze and fertility treatments are making it possible. Highly educated women have incomes and needed cash in order to receive needed medical help to breed. So, they are going for it. If there is no willing sperm donor, they go to the "bank". If there is a will, there is a way. It appears to me that there is no shortage of a will.

I also have a cause and effect theory to share. If a woman wants to breed at age 44, I personally don't know too many men who would be interested participants. Maybe that is why so many of these women are single mothers. It seems to me that breeding took a pause for a little while but everyone is catching up. Millennials may not be breeding YET, but the way that it all looks, it is going to happen before we know it. I was dumb enough to think that humanity is finally realizing what have they done to the planet and that breeding was going to be curtailed. I guess not.

Such sad news. These women are idiots.

The article omits important information by not stating the age of the kids for the mothers who are 40-44 (at least I couldn't find it). Isn't it considered once a mother always one even if the kids have moved out or relocated to the perma-basement? Wouldn't be surprised if many of these women became mothers while in their 20's and 30's. Now, 86 percent of women at 40-44 makes sense as most want the lifescript.

I don't know if it is true but it supposedly becomes nearly impossible to naturally sluice once past the age of 45 yet we also hear about all these accidents and exceptions. I'm definitely not banking on anything until at least 2 years past menopause. If you bleed, you can breed!

I see what you mean Freya, they are not saying the age of the kids, so there is room for interpretation. The general idea that I am getting out of this article is that women after the age of 40 are having babies. The hint of it is in this sentence:

Quote
New York Times

Women are planning to have children at later ages, when they are more likely to have trouble conceiving.

Quote
yurble
Such sad news. These women are idiots.

When it comes to discussion of reproduction, most people are not simply idiots. They are something much greater than that. Any and all reasoning and common sense goes out of the window when people discuss breeding.

For example. There is a financial radio talk show host, will call him Dave. He is the first one to yell at people for racking up $3000 worth of credit card debt, which is understandable in many cases. Yet, he will say NOTHING if someone makes $35000 per year and has 3 kids, which cost way more than $3000. Now, Dave is a very smart guy, but, like most people, when breeding is a subject of discussion, he never mentions how expensive it really is.

Quote
freya
The article omits important information by not stating the age of the kids for the mothers who are 40-44 (at least I couldn't find it). Isn't it considered once a mother always one even if the kids have moved out or relocated to the perma-basement? Wouldn't be surprised if many of these women became mothers while in their 20's and 30's. Now, 86 percent of women at 40-44 makes sense as most want the lifescript.

Of course many of those women might have had children earlier, it is simply that, by the age of 44, 86% of women have children. And that means that only 14% don't. I find that depressing because it looked like the percentage of women who reach 44 without having children was growing, from the 70s until today, but now the trend is reversing. Because the world is going to be such a wonderful place for the children born today...

Yurble, I am hoping that reversal is temporary. Having seen how trends generally progress, there are smaller increases even during a decline. We have to look at the overall picture. Kids now cost more than ever. While well off and well paid women will jump onto the motherhood bandwagon, I am curious to see what the birth rates are like during the next economic downturn. Right now, economy is good, so people are in spending mood, paying for IVF is a good idea because people think that good enonomy is here to stay. I say trends don't last very long nowadays and economic growth cannot last forever.

I'll have to read the article later but I always wondered about this. They say CL/CF-ness is up more than ever but all I know....like in my office of over 100 people(more women than men). and my husband's office of the same....there are now sooo many women who once they realized they weren't ever gonna find Mr Right, decided to have babies w/o him, and getting adoption and inVitro etc. And, not just the wealthy white collar workers, but he admin staff also. No one lives without these days. Also, now more and more gay people have kids, so one would think there was actually more people w/ kids instead of less. If this was before 1990 let's say, more than half my office would be full of CL women, but now they are not.

Cfuter, my workplace is mostly men, but it seems like situation is the same. Everyone either has a kid somewhere or will be having one (or more) in the near future. It seems to me that being CF is a thing that is likely to remain with Gen X folks, because younger generations are all about breeding. Even people who originate from really messed up homes, they too are on the breeding bandwagon, they do not care what kind of hell they inflict on a kid.

Now I had another thought yet. It's more of a philosophical thought than anything really based on hard facts. I have seen it in more than one source that roughly about 90% of people are simply the kind who would rather go with the flow. The other 10%, they are generally the ones who think outside of the box and are willing to take a road that is less traveled or maybe not traveled at all.

If 86% of women who are between ages 40 and 44 have kids, the numbers start to make sense. There is another 4% out there who would have had kids, but, for whatever reason, could not. That makes it a 90% that simply goes with the flow and does not question things a whole lot.

I do not think that anything has really changed. 10% who are "different", they have had access to reliable birth control for a while, so birth rate among those is definitely down. The 4% that could not have kids in the past, they now have access to reliable reproductive assistance, which means higher birth rates. Since reliable birth control showed up before reliable IVF, we first saw a drop in motherhood that was followed by an increase. I don't know that numbers have changed overall, the only difference now is that those who could not have kids, they now can and do.

Quote
freya
The article omits important information by not stating the age of the kids for the mothers who are 40-44 (at least I couldn't find it). Isn't it considered once a mother always one even if the kids have moved out or relocated to the perma-basement? Wouldn't be surprised if many of these women became mothers while in their 20's and 30's. Now, 86 percent of women at 40-44 makes sense as most want the lifescript.

I don't know if it is true but it supposedly becomes nearly impossible to naturally sluice once past the age of 45 yet we also hear about all these accidents and exceptions. I'm definitely not banking on anything until at least 2 years past menopause. If you bleed, you can breed!

A serious news outlet would track some of these age 40-44 mothers and fathers, too. I want to hear from them what their real thoughts are when they reach age 50-55 and have a young teenager, and when they reach age 60-65 and those college tuition bills start coming in.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
A serious news outlet would track some of these age 40-44 mothers and fathers, too. I want to hear from them what their real thoughts are when they reach age 50-55 and have a young teenager, and when they reach age 60-65 and those college tuition bills start coming in.

My guess and personal observation is that those who breed at the age of 44, they can usually more than afford it. I don't know that such is the case for everyone, but most older parents have college funds in place, in addition to a solid trust fund.

Quote
yurble

Quote
freya
The article omits important information by not stating the age of the kids for the mothers who are 40-44 (at least I couldn't find it). Isn't it considered once a mother always one even if the kids have moved out or relocated to the perma-basement? Wouldn't be surprised if many of these women became mothers while in their 20's and 30's. Now, 86 percent of women at 40-44 makes sense as most want the lifescript.

Of course many of those women might have had children earlier, it is simply that, by the age of 44, 86% of women have children. And that means that only 14% don't. I find that depressing because it looked like the percentage of women who reach 44 without having children was growing, from the 70s until today, but now the trend is reversing. Because the world is going to be such a wonderful place for the children born today...

The women being discussed are Generation X. Generation Millennial has a very different set of values and tend to shy away from Life Scripts, at least the two in my family do. Also, while the percentage of women being parents is inching upwards, biology means their families will be on the whole smaller than that of their parents and grandparents. Five women with two children is a great deal less population pressure than two women with five brats or more. When women are older, they have fewer eggs to play with with or without tech assistance.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote
yurble

Quote
freya
The article omits important information by not stating the age of the kids for the mothers who are 40-44 (at least I couldn't find it). Isn't it considered once a mother always one even if the kids have moved out or relocated to the perma-basement? Wouldn't be surprised if many of these women became mothers while in their 20's and 30's. Now, 86 percent of women at 40-44 makes sense as most want the lifescript.

Of course many of those women might have had children earlier, it is simply that, by the age of 44, 86% of women have children. And that means that only 14% don't. I find that depressing because it looked like the percentage of women who reach 44 without having children was growing, from the 70s until today, but now the trend is reversing. Because the world is going to be such a wonderful place for the children born today...

Exactly. Seems like the article is biased towards reproduction and there is an underlying theme of have a kid even if you are middle aged and screw the planet (as always) and who cares what the future holds for the children born today. It would sound different if the author stated 86% of women have kids without making a comment about the age of the women. If the author had said that 86% of women aged 65 have kids then it would be assumed by everyone reading it that those kids were adults. If I think of women with kids I tend to picture women in their 20's or 30's with little kids.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
freya
The article omits important information by not stating the age of the kids for the mothers who are 40-44 (at least I couldn't find it). Isn't it considered once a mother always one even if the kids have moved out or relocated to the perma-basement? Wouldn't be surprised if many of these women became mothers while in their 20's and 30's. Now, 86 percent of women at 40-44 makes sense as most want the lifescript.

I don't know if it is true but it supposedly becomes nearly impossible to naturally sluice once past the age of 45 yet we also hear about all these accidents and exceptions. I'm definitely not banking on anything until at least 2 years past menopause. If you bleed, you can breed!

A serious news outlet would track some of these age 40-44 mothers and fathers, too. I want to hear from them what their real thoughts are when they reach age 50-55 and have a young teenager, and when they reach age 60-65 and those college tuition bills start coming in.

I agree and feel like this article is slanted towards letting women in their 40's know they still have time and putting pressure on them to reproduce. And for the most part it requires expensive intervention to happen plus there is a 50-55 year old with a teenager. Yikes.

Quote
craftyzits
The women being discussed are Generation X. Generation Millennial has a very different set of values and tend to shy away from Life Scripts, at least the two in my family do. Also, while the percentage of women being parents is inching upwards, biology means their families will be on the whole smaller than that of their parents and grandparents. Five women with two children is a great deal less population pressure than two women with five brats or more. When women are older, they have fewer eggs to play with with or without tech assistance.

Well, Millennials aren't 40ish yet, so I don't think we can observe that trend just yet, since Gen X was also less interested in breeding in their 20s than the Boomers were. This is of course assuming there still is a society, rather than catastrophic environmental collapse, of course, by the time they are 40.

Yurble, I agree. It is too early to tell what the Millennials are going to do. The ones at my work are breeding at about the same rate that baby boomers did.