This was a fascinating read, especially since a good number of my friends married women older than they and also had kids a bit later in life. As the trend to have kids later in life continues to...
This was a fascinating read, especially since a good number of my friends married women older than they and also had kids a bit later in life. As the trend to have kids later in life continues to increase I think this is something that’s going to have to be dealt with more and more. It’s great that women increasingly have the freedom to have kids when it suits them but they really are racing against the clock biologically speaking it’s a shame there is an upper limit that may not align with their goals. As general health and life expectancy continues to increase this divergence is going to become increasingly noticeable. Sayings like “45 is the new 35” kinda applies to everything except child bearing. Hopefully more progress can be made in this area to improve things.
I understand that you didn't mean this in a negative way, but can we not use phrasing like this? The "racing against the biological clock" nonsense has been so thoroughly used for misogyny that...
but they really are racing against the clock biologically speaking.
I understand that you didn't mean this in a negative way, but can we not use phrasing like this? The "racing against the biological clock" nonsense has been so thoroughly used for misogyny that it's impossible to separate those associations from it even in this more neutral context.
I have seen it used repeatedly in misogynistic contexts by misogynistic people. Women over some arbotrarily defined age (often as young as 30) are often treated like spoiled milk. There's a...
I have seen it used repeatedly in misogynistic contexts by misogynistic people. Women over some arbotrarily defined age (often as young as 30) are often treated like spoiled milk. There's a longstanding history of women being only considered valuable for their ability to give birth, and while this is no longer as universally dominant the idea that women need to "race against the clock" is often used to reinforce a disdain for women and older women in particular.
Like I said, I think OP is using it neutrally in their comment and I don't think they mean anything negative by it. But it's so embedded in this misogynistic context to me that it's uncomfortable seeing the same language used even in a neutral way. It's like seeing someone hold me up like a carton of milk and point at the expiration date.
This is the first I've heard of it being considered misogynistic. It is indeed a fact that the success rate of fertilization and childbirth decreases with age after a certain point for both men...
This is the first I've heard of it being considered misogynistic. It is indeed a fact that the success rate of fertilization and childbirth decreases with age after a certain point for both men and women. IMO, it's purely a biological limitation and not tied to "value" as a person. How would you prefer this natural timeline to be described?
I'm not the person you're having this conversation with up until now, but I want to chime in to point out that your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of those women you know who use the phrase...
Exemplary
I'm not the person you're having this conversation with up until now, but I want to chime in to point out that your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of those women you know who use the phrase themselves, is one that is very much informed by the phrase itself. Yes, you are considered what is medically known as a geriatric pregnancy if you are delivering over 35. It's also a terrible term, because it implies you would be better off not getting pregnant at this age, which is not really the case. One of the big problems is that it is much harder to quantify the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, as each thing that can go wrong needs to be assessed individually. Yes, in many cases things are higher risk. Often significantly higher risk. But with modern science and good medical care, including screening for birth defects and terminating where and when appropriate, it can be reasonably safe after 35 and into your early 40s. The problem there is the medical system and medical policy in the United States specifically. You may face more risk to you and your child by becoming pregnant in the U.S. vs New Zeland than you do by waiting until 35 to get pregnant.
As with anything it's a double edged sword. Many people hear this language and get anxious that they have to get pregnant by a certain goalpost, and that is not a healthy outlook for them, for their relationships, or for their eventual child.
It makes about as much sense as saying we are all up against the clock for cancer at age 50.
I mean, that's the truth. It might be a hard pill to swallow, but it's medically relevant and factual that age plays a huge factor in the risk of cancer. It's why men are strongly encouraged to...
Exemplary
It makes about as much sense as saying we are all up against the clock for cancer at age 50.
I mean, that's the truth. It might be a hard pill to swallow, but it's medically relevant and factual that age plays a huge factor in the risk of cancer. It's why men are strongly encouraged to get prostate exams regularly after age 50. There are also medical theories that hypothesize that every human would eventually succumb to the gene mutations that cause cancer at some point, so we are all on a cancer clock of sorts. It just so happens that there are other causes of death that most people realize before that point.
I'm fine with changing the language that we use to describe a "biological clock" of childbearing if there are better terms. Nobody has suggested any so far. But we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't exist just because we don't like it. It's a medical fact that there are increased risks for childbirth after age 35 for both the mother and child. Those risks might be manageable for women who are willing to address those risks (through testing and possible termination as you suggest). And the term "geriatric pregnancy" is a clinical term that addresses those risks. It's not a pretty term, but at the end of the day, it's important that people are properly educated about medical risks and physical limitations such as this.
The real issue here is people tying a woman's worth to her ability to have children. Bearing children is not a woman's only purpose. In fact, for some women who choose not to have children, it's not any part of their purpose at all. That's the view that needs to change, not medical facts.
Obviously it's factually accurate that getting pregnant is harder and pregnancies/births are riskier when the mother is older. But I think the "her biological clock is running out" language is a...
Obviously it's factually accurate that getting pregnant is harder and pregnancies/births are riskier when the mother is older. But I think the "her biological clock is running out" language is a bad cliche used to describe this as something women must rush to do before they no longer can -- the image is of "racing against the clock", after all, which implies something bad happens if time runs out -- and that's impossible to separate from the view of women as only worth anything for sex and childrearing that has existed for ages. Obviously not everyone who uses the phrase is thinking about this or believes this, but those misogynistic undertones are absolutely why we have this phrase in the first place.
It's very easy to describe the lower ability to conceive and riskier pregnancies without resorting to this flawed metaphor. We do so perfectly well when discussing changing fertility for men as they age, after all. I actually really appreciated the way that the linked article avoided using this language and spoke about it in a more straightforward way.
Hopefully by the rest of my comment it’s clear I didn’t mean to associate any negative connotation to the phrase. I hadn’t heard of that phrase having such misogynistic undertones, although I also...
Hopefully by the rest of my comment it’s clear I didn’t mean to associate any negative connotation to the phrase. I hadn’t heard of that phrase having such misogynistic undertones, although I also don’t associate with misogynists nor am I a woman, so it’s likely I’ve just not been exposed to it in that way.
My point was just that as both women’s rights and health care have been improving over time, this one aspect still seems to have a very strong anchor firmly in biology and as it affects more women hopefully it will be studied better and improved so that women don’t have to choose between having children earlier than they want or dangerously.
Oh yeah I totally get that you didn't intend anything negative when you used that phrase! I was just a bit bothered by it and decided to take the opportunity to describe why it's a phrase I'd...
Oh yeah I totally get that you didn't intend anything negative when you used that phrase! I was just a bit bothered by it and decided to take the opportunity to describe why it's a phrase I'd prefer people in general stop using. No ill intent assumed on your part, and I think your original point is sensible.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall: https://archive.is/fZ4wQ (sorry, I didn't realize Slate was paywalled or I would have provided this link earlier)
Thanks for sharing this OP. What a story and emotional ride! It’s such a well written piece and it’s fascinating to read from the perspective of an experienced doctor and patient. It also reminded...
Thanks for sharing this OP. What a story and emotional ride!
It’s such a well written piece and it’s fascinating to read from the perspective of an experienced doctor and patient.
It also reminded me of the excellent show ‘This Is Going To Hurt’ which everyone should check out if they haven’t already.
TBH, that's why I now regret posting this article. I thought it was an interesting and harrowing story, and very well written. So I simply wanted to share that with others. But the way the top...
TBH, that's why I now regret posting this article. I thought it was an interesting and harrowing story, and very well written. So I simply wanted to share that with others. But the way the top comment thread went, with a bunch of (presumably) male commenters being rather insensitive, and other (presumably) male users skewing the votes in favor of those insensitive comments, makes me want to delete the topic.
Edit: Deleted it. Sorry for making you, or any other women here on Tildes uncomfortable by posting this, and unintentionally opening up that can of worms. That was absolutely not my intent.
Yeah, I understand that I can't control other people's comments, and am not necessarily responsible for the outcome in the comment section, but I still feel bad about it happening here though. :(...
Yeah, I understand that I can't control other people's comments, and am not necessarily responsible for the outcome in the comment section, but I still feel bad about it happening here though. :( I'm glad to hear you, and some other people appreciated the article at least though.
And yeah, I'm starting to think ~life.women was probably not the greatest idea either, at least with the way Tildes is currently set up with Deimos as the only moderator, and him not necessarily monitoring this group or enforcing behavioral standards as strictly as he does in ~lgbt. This is why we can't have nice things, indeed. :(
This was a fascinating read, especially since a good number of my friends married women older than they and also had kids a bit later in life. As the trend to have kids later in life continues to increase I think this is something that’s going to have to be dealt with more and more. It’s great that women increasingly have the freedom to have kids when it suits them but
they really are racing against the clock biologically speakingit’s a shame there is an upper limit that may not align with their goals. As general health and life expectancy continues to increase this divergence is going to become increasingly noticeable. Sayings like “45 is the new 35” kinda applies to everything except child bearing. Hopefully more progress can be made in this area to improve things.I understand that you didn't mean this in a negative way, but can we not use phrasing like this? The "racing against the biological clock" nonsense has been so thoroughly used for misogyny that it's impossible to separate those associations from it even in this more neutral context.
I'm not seeing how the phrase is nonsense or misogynistic? Ancedotally, it reads completely neutral to me as many women I know use it
I have seen it used repeatedly in misogynistic contexts by misogynistic people. Women over some arbotrarily defined age (often as young as 30) are often treated like spoiled milk. There's a longstanding history of women being only considered valuable for their ability to give birth, and while this is no longer as universally dominant the idea that women need to "race against the clock" is often used to reinforce a disdain for women and older women in particular.
Like I said, I think OP is using it neutrally in their comment and I don't think they mean anything negative by it. But it's so embedded in this misogynistic context to me that it's uncomfortable seeing the same language used even in a neutral way. It's like seeing someone hold me up like a carton of milk and point at the expiration date.
This is the first I've heard of it being considered misogynistic. It is indeed a fact that the success rate of fertilization and childbirth decreases with age after a certain point for both men and women. IMO, it's purely a biological limitation and not tied to "value" as a person. How would you prefer this natural timeline to be described?
I'm not the person you're having this conversation with up until now, but I want to chime in to point out that your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of those women you know who use the phrase themselves, is one that is very much informed by the phrase itself. Yes, you are considered what is medically known as a geriatric pregnancy if you are delivering over 35. It's also a terrible term, because it implies you would be better off not getting pregnant at this age, which is not really the case. One of the big problems is that it is much harder to quantify the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, as each thing that can go wrong needs to be assessed individually. Yes, in many cases things are higher risk. Often significantly higher risk. But with modern science and good medical care, including screening for birth defects and terminating where and when appropriate, it can be reasonably safe after 35 and into your early 40s. The problem there is the medical system and medical policy in the United States specifically. You may face more risk to you and your child by becoming pregnant in the U.S. vs New Zeland than you do by waiting until 35 to get pregnant.
As with anything it's a double edged sword. Many people hear this language and get anxious that they have to get pregnant by a certain goalpost, and that is not a healthy outlook for them, for their relationships, or for their eventual child.
It makes about as much sense as saying we are all up against the clock for cancer at age 50.
I mean, that's the truth. It might be a hard pill to swallow, but it's medically relevant and factual that age plays a huge factor in the risk of cancer. It's why men are strongly encouraged to get prostate exams regularly after age 50. There are also medical theories that hypothesize that every human would eventually succumb to the gene mutations that cause cancer at some point, so we are all on a cancer clock of sorts. It just so happens that there are other causes of death that most people realize before that point.
I'm fine with changing the language that we use to describe a "biological clock" of childbearing if there are better terms. Nobody has suggested any so far. But we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't exist just because we don't like it. It's a medical fact that there are increased risks for childbirth after age 35 for both the mother and child. Those risks might be manageable for women who are willing to address those risks (through testing and possible termination as you suggest). And the term "geriatric pregnancy" is a clinical term that addresses those risks. It's not a pretty term, but at the end of the day, it's important that people are properly educated about medical risks and physical limitations such as this.
The real issue here is people tying a woman's worth to her ability to have children. Bearing children is not a woman's only purpose. In fact, for some women who choose not to have children, it's not any part of their purpose at all. That's the view that needs to change, not medical facts.
Obviously it's factually accurate that getting pregnant is harder and pregnancies/births are riskier when the mother is older. But I think the "her biological clock is running out" language is a bad cliche used to describe this as something women must rush to do before they no longer can -- the image is of "racing against the clock", after all, which implies something bad happens if time runs out -- and that's impossible to separate from the view of women as only worth anything for sex and childrearing that has existed for ages. Obviously not everyone who uses the phrase is thinking about this or believes this, but those misogynistic undertones are absolutely why we have this phrase in the first place.
It's very easy to describe the lower ability to conceive and riskier pregnancies without resorting to this flawed metaphor. We do so perfectly well when discussing changing fertility for men as they age, after all. I actually really appreciated the way that the linked article avoided using this language and spoke about it in a more straightforward way.
Hopefully by the rest of my comment it’s clear I didn’t mean to associate any negative connotation to the phrase. I hadn’t heard of that phrase having such misogynistic undertones, although I also don’t associate with misogynists nor am I a woman, so it’s likely I’ve just not been exposed to it in that way.
My point was just that as both women’s rights and health care have been improving over time, this one aspect still seems to have a very strong anchor firmly in biology and as it affects more women hopefully it will be studied better and improved so that women don’t have to choose between having children earlier than they want or dangerously.
Oh yeah I totally get that you didn't intend anything negative when you used that phrase! I was just a bit bothered by it and decided to take the opportunity to describe why it's a phrase I'd prefer people in general stop using. No ill intent assumed on your part, and I think your original point is sensible.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/fZ4wQ
(sorry, I didn't realize Slate was paywalled or I would have provided this link earlier)
Thanks for sharing this OP. What a story and emotional ride!
It’s such a well written piece and it’s fascinating to read from the perspective of an experienced doctor and patient.
It also reminded me of the excellent show ‘This Is Going To Hurt’ which everyone should check out if they haven’t already.
YVW. And oh, nice. I love Ben Whishaw, and didn't realize he was in a new miniseries. That looks really good too, so thanks for the recommendation!
TBH, that's why I now regret posting this article. I thought it was an interesting and harrowing story, and very well written. So I simply wanted to share that with others. But the way the top comment thread went, with a bunch of (presumably) male commenters being rather insensitive, and other (presumably) male users skewing the votes in favor of those insensitive comments, makes me want to delete the topic.
Edit: Deleted it. Sorry for making you, or any other women here on Tildes uncomfortable by posting this, and unintentionally opening up that can of worms. That was absolutely not my intent.
Yeah, I understand that I can't control other people's comments, and am not necessarily responsible for the outcome in the comment section, but I still feel bad about it happening here though. :( I'm glad to hear you, and some other people appreciated the article at least though.
And yeah, I'm starting to think ~life.women was probably not the greatest idea either, at least with the way Tildes is currently set up with Deimos as the only moderator, and him not necessarily monitoring this group or enforcing behavioral standards as strictly as he does in ~lgbt. This is why we can't have nice things, indeed. :(
p.s. HEMA FTW! :)