When the New York Times recently asked "Are You as Fertile as You Look?" the question was rhetorical. The reporter suggested womenfolk are ignorant about their declining fertility because they confuse youthful looks with having youthful ovaries.
It's easy to judge women like the ones trotted out for this piece; in their late 30s through mid 40s, they express surprise at having difficulty conceiving. After all, the fact that fertility declines with age -- particularly after 35 -- isn't exactly a revelation.
But the conception woes of women past their fertility prime can't be written off as a symptom of mass female stupidity. As Slate's Jessica Grose cautioned, focusing on women who think shiny hair, white teeth, and clear complexions are sign of fertility "takes away from the messy reality that most women who wait to have children aren't doing it because they believe they are endlessly fertile. They're waiting because they haven't found the right partner, or they don't have enough money, or they don't feel ready, or a million other reasons that have nothing to do with female ignorance."
Grose is right. The New York Times is ignoring a thornier predicament than naiveté: many women are increasingly out of synch with their biology. And no one knows quite what to do about it.
According to the census, far fewer folks are marrying than just a few decades ago. Those who do marry are marrying later, and the number of women in the workforce continues to grow at the same time that working-class men's prospects are floundering. Culturally, we're cheerleaders for narcissism and delayed "adulthood," encouraging a quarter-century-adolescence, especially for men. This all but assures that fewer women will find suitable partners and start families before their fertility declines precipitously. And for those who are willing to become mothers on their own, our government doesn't provide any of the social welfare or safety nets that protect and support women with kids, like nationalized healthcare, daycare, or even a living wage for many. How could the confluence of these factors not dramatically impact how women think about the circumstances under which they have kids? Wouldn't you expect to see more women "waiting" for children under these circumstances?
Newsflash: Most research points to a woman's prime fertility years being from 22 to 26. How many women that age do you know who are married or in a committed partnership, financially stable, and ready for kids? How many men? (I recognize that my upbringing puts me far outside the median, but I literally have one friend who had a child in her 20s-and she was 29).
It's time we start talking with some sensitivity and compassion about a growing type of women's issue: "circumstantial infertility." It's a term Melanie Notkin coined recently in a touching biographical piece she wrote about coming to terms with the fact that at 42 she may never be a biological mother. "Circumstantial infertility" is the name Notkin gave to the situation faced by many women who want(ed) children but never had them for reasons other than biological infertility. It is something that impacts women who hoped to be mothers but ended up missing the window (whether that's because they never found a partner, found a partner at too advanced an age, weren't financially secure, or encountered a host of other impediments). Two simultaneous trends are worth noting here: Many more women over 35 are having babies than just two decades ago, while, at the same time, the number of childless women overall is increasing. A 2010 Pew Report notes that one in five women has made it to 40 without ever having a child. This is an increase from the 1970s when only one in 10 women between the ages of 40-44 was childless. As might be expected, women with the most education are the least likely to have children. While we don't know what percentage of women are childless by choice -- versus biological or circumstantial infertility -- I think we can agree that childless women deserve our kindness, support, and understanding.
After all, it's not hard to imagine how women find themselves in this situation. One day you're busy living your life and the next you're suddenly in a race against the clock. Just look at me. I'm 33 and have always wanted children. I'm also lucky to share my life and home with a lovely gentleman who would make a wonderful father. In fact, that's what prompted me to inquire at a recent annual gynecologist appointment about my own fertility. My question was of a general nature, along the lines of, "If I decide to have kids in the next few years, what do I need to think about now?" Imagine my surprise when, instead of assurance that I still had plenty of time, I was told, "My best advice for you is to go home and start trying tonight."
Reality check, anyone?
Here's the double-whammy for many women who find themselves in this situation: The realization that you can't slow down your biological clock often comes hand-in-hand with the acknowledgement that you can't really speed up choosing the partner you'd like to raise children with -- at least not in a particularly healthy way. My doctor may have thought she was talking about fertility, but what she was really suggesting was that I'd better figure out the future of my relationship, and fast. But can anyone really do that on command, especially in a relatively new relationship?
Making a lifetime commitment to a partner (and eventual co-parent) isn't something that should be done hastily, and women in their 30s must often weigh difficult options: Put faith in your current sweetie and start procreating faster than you might otherwise? Head to the nearest sperm bank? Ditch your man and start auditioning a new potential life-mate? Of course, these kinds of tough choices are not new. But as the timing of landmark life events like marriage start taking place later and societal expectations around work and family change, the lives of many women are put on a collision course with biology. Of course single women can have babies alone, and many choose to do just that. But it seems uncontroversial to suggest that most women would probably prefer a co-parent and ideally a committed relationship before they have kids.
The emotion stirred by Lori Gottlieb when she told women to settle for Mr. Good Enough exemplifies the discomfort many feel when encountering the realities of pregnancy and aging. Gottlieb's advice to "settle," after all, was informed by her personal experience as a single mother who conceived with a sperm donor after not meeting "Mr. Right" by the time she was nearing 40 -- along with the subsequent challenge of raising a child alone. There was some realistic tough-love buried in her advice to unmarried women in their 30s: "If you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go." But for anyone who has ever actually been in a nice-enough relationship with a nice-enough guy, it doesn't feel like sound advice.
At a time when more women than ever are childless, more are having babies later, and a record four-in-ten births are to unmarried women (that's up from 28 percent in 1990), we ought to think long and hard about the social, political, and emotional repercussions of our entrenched ideas about what makes -- and when to make -- a family. We need to understand that women who "wait" (often too long, biologically speaking) for kids are responding rationally to new paradigms that are still governed by old rules. We should talk more about options like nontraditional family units, adoption, and medical advances like IVF and do less judging and finger wagging. Our bodies aren't changing, but the world is. Maybe it's time our attitudes toward "circumstantially infertile" women do, too.
Follow Nicole Rodgers on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RoleReboot
I know far too many men that are like me. Wanting to live the family life and dream only to find out that the pickings for a woman of the same mind is ridiculously thin. It seems that if you want an intelligent, educated woman, you also have to settle for her being unwilling to settle down until her 30's.
Sorry to rant, I just think that there is an issue with my generation. College is no longer education and is more the reason for the super adolescence than the cure.
Of course, that means that we put our fertility at risk. As unfair as it may seem at times, I think women have to be realistic about the choices that we make and take the good with the bad. It's great that women are becoming more empowered and independent, but in the course of doing that, the chance for marriage and children does indeed take a hit. It's not quite realistic to speak of circumstantial infertility without mentioning how personal choice plays a role.
Instead of running around exploring their sexuality they should be looking for serious partners. Taking sex, and relationships seriously is important. I don't like how this article blames men for women not having children. It is the low quality of women and the feminist destruction of the male gender role that would cause men to be apathetic towards being a provider. Mature women with mature expectations encourage mature men. Instead we have women who chase bad boys and good times then get old and expect men to be in sync when they have spent their formative years trying to be the bad boy these women wanted. This stuff really does have a major impact. Even the good men that keep their virtue will have lost considerable respect for many women.
The biological clock is not a new idea. We can have sympathy for women who fail to find a mate in time just like we should for men who don't have enough money to impress these demanding women. It's time we return to the bits of traditional wisdom that sustain family and reproduction.
So, in other words, men are not capable of making decisions for themselves and maturing on their own; they follow the whims of women? Maybe that's not what you were trying to say, but that's pretty much what you said.
All feminism told women was that we could go out and live our lives, that we didn't have to start looking for a husband to take care of us because we could learn to take care of ourselves. And that's what we're doing. What's to say that if we started looking for mates earlier, we would find the right person? And who's to say that women aren't seeking mates while going about achieving their goals? I can't think of a single woman that is not simultaneously living her own life and seeking a mate.
The problem it appears that you have is that women aren't rotating their lives around finding a mate. Didn't we just talk about upsetting the status quo?
Mate selection was always a female role in society and in nature. Women carry the greatest burden in reproduction thus their inherent value gains them this privilege. Selecting the traits you need in a father rather than a lover decides how men will compete for your affections. We have spent too many years failing to raise our girls with a good value system so they can set sound priorities at a young age instead of frolicking and spoiling themselves and men in the process.
Feminism was short sighted and shallow. It basically amounted to telling women to do whatever they feel like which is pretty far from a effective long term system of social ethics for either gender. Children need guidance and as they form into adults they use that guidance to make better decisions. Just doing what they feel like is not going to get where they need to be because some things need to be done, like making stable families.
Managing our civilization needs to be done with some care. It doesn't endure on autopilot, our choices do matter.
I hope that I am not taken as one who is lacking in compassion in saying this, but I'm kind of thinking this advice is being blown past a little too easily, in this article. I mean, it may well not feel like sound advice, but I guess I rather think it's really relevant, what we expect out of a relationship and out of a partner, in modern times.
I guess I'm thinking, "someone I will be happy with, attracted to, and compatible with, throughout all the rest of the years of my life" is somewhat of a higher standard than, "would make for a loving and devoted parent".
Well, you did say one option to consider is "nontraditional" family units. Maybe it's time to consider if it's possible, to separate the role of romantic partner from that of parenting partner? Yeah, it sounds pretty unnatural and thus probably unworkable to me too, but it would address something at the heart of the problem, wouldn't it? We wait not just because we can't find someone who'd make a good parent -- but, because we can't find someone who'd make a good parent, *and* is someone we'd want to date, the rest of our lives.
I also wholeheartedly support a larger discussion about creating nontraditional family units, including the possibility of separating romantic partners from parenting partners. I don't think it's right for everyone - or necessarily ideal - but I think it's a valid option that deserves more air time than it gets. Perhaps its something I'll delve into soon :)
I'd like to see paradigm shifts in adoption. When women are finally in the situation in which they are ready to become mothers, instead of the mindset of 'biological is best', what if it was adoption we turned to first, rather than the last option? Win-win for parents, kids, and the planet for that matter. Lots of demystification about adoption is needed, as well as changes so that it is easier for mid-life couples to adopt. More women may be waiting to become parents, but there are always a whole lot of kids that need parents, homes and a whole lot of love. ~Laura http://lauracarroll.com