If we all waited until we were proficient (supposed or actually) at something
before doing it nothing would get done.
I had children in my 20s and then one at 42. I don't know if it's
experience or age, but I am so much better at mothering the last child who is a
teen now. I'm calmer, less concerned about "finding myself".
I'm more aware of what's important to her and what she needs. I'm
less controlling and hysterical. I'm more aware that what I'm doing to
raise her is important. An older mom is more in touch with what a miracle it is
to have a child. I took it for granted when I was young.There are
adjustments. I can't stay up until she gets home from dates, but I set an
alarm and wake up when she should be home. Raising children in my 20s and
30s made an adult of ME; raising this last one in my 50s (gasp) is a pleasure.
scojos, I was a grandmother at age 39, and a great grandmother at age 63. By the
time I was a great grandmother, I had taught school for about a quarter-century,
had many kinds of writing jobs, raised four children, had a bunch of
grandchildren (but haven't raised any of them), and none of that seemed
creepy. Maybe I just wasn't in tune to creepiness.
There are many physical demands on parents, and I'm glad I have merely had
those demands placed on me as a grandmother (rather than mom) in my 40s. I am
totally supportive of mothers who have babies much later, but I don't think
it is good to wait that long if there is a choice. Emotional demands have a
wearing effect too.
The new findings come from a comparison of reported autism cases in California
to state singleton birth records from 1990 to 1999. Over that time, there were
about 5 million births and more than 12,000 autism cases.The
results:Women over age 40 are 77% more likely than women under age
25 to have a child with autism.Women over age 40 are 51% more likely than
women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.Women aged 35-39 are 31% more
likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.Women aged 30-34
are 12% more likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child with autism.Women under age 25 are 14% less likely than women aged 25-29 to have a child
Whenever I get the chance to be a mom, I'll be "older" - I'm
turning 30 this next month and have not been blessed with children, despite
being married for enough time to have one or two little ones. Life takes
strange turns and I didn't expect to hit my third decade of life childless.
This article gives me hope for the future, while RockOn's comments, which
I'm sure were meant well, only give me stress. I don't think the
author meant to banish 20-somethings to sterility and cheer on 40-something
first-time procreation, but those of us without babies of our own yet could use
all the hope we can get.A 40-year-old grandmother? That's just
I'm not an older mom (I'll be 30 by the time baby #3 arrives) but
I've been around both younger and older parents (and my dad was 36 when I
was born). My observations (which should be taken with a grain of salt!) are
that yes, younger moms have more physical energy. However, I live in a wealthier
community (without my own personal wealth, alas!) and many of the younger SAHM
moms I've encountered stock their kids' schedules (four weekly classes
for their 4-year-olds) so they can reclaim time to go to the gym and have social
hour with their girlfriends. They also seem permanently attached to iPhones and
their Facebook accounts. The few older moms I know aren't as energetic, but
they seem more in tune with their kids--and less concerned with their bodies or
their social media contacts. And they do seem more patient than us younger moms.
That being said, there are many younger moms that give parenting their all. But
older moms seem to better resist the pressure of social media and the lure of
that mystical pre-baby body (which will never return--not after three kids!!!).
Rock On - just because you and your spouse had kids young does not make you an
expert on the optimal age to have kids. My dad was an "older" dad and
guess what? He may not have wanted to "rough house" with us like a 35
year old, but he had more free time and was less stressed because he'd
already established his career before he had his first kid.Who are
you to say that choosing (or being forced by circumstances) to have kids older
is selfish or irresponsible? Personally I think it's a bit irresponsible to
have a kid that you can't adequately provide for because you wanted to be a
RockOn:[And while you may like it, a 15 year old boy with a 55 or 60 year
old Dad won't get the physical contact with his father that a 35 to 40 year
old Dad will have. At 55, we get tired sooner. And a 75 year old first time
grandpa/ma... no comparison to a 40 year old grandparent.]Phsical
contact? What do you even mean by that? Like wrestling around? Many fathers
don't do that with their children regardless of age.A father
can be engaged in many ways, not just "physical contact", whatever that
means, I'm still not sure. I've known many of what you would obviously
consider "older" fathers, and I would make the argument that they make
superior fathers at that age. They are more stable, less reckless, and more sure
of themselves. They're less likely to make the sudden lifestyle changes
that younger men are prone to make, and should be able to make at that age.
It's better to know who you are and what you want out of life before you
have kids, rather than dragging them through that process.You really
have no idea what you're talking about.
Rock On: "It's nothing to crow about and nothing to make like it is now
the new normal."I think this statement is simply wrong. I am a
single 32-yr-old woman, never married, LDS even, and I am the normal in SLC.
There are thousands of us. We're not single and childless because of
selfishness, or free-thinking views. We never planned for it to be this way,
but have discovered it is the new normal, because we're far from alone. We
are women who will make incredible mothers, and have the dream to be mothers.
Now, we are thinking (and MUST think) outside of the box, to find hope in having
and raising children at an older age. For the benefit of society and community,
everyone should understand this and join with us, because we will be the best
kind of mothers, and our children are this countries future. Later marriage
rates, later parenthood--this is statewide, and countrywide. It is the new
normal. To think otherwise is ignorance. The most incredible mothers will be
older mothers. We need to be looking at the best ways to make this work for
Rock on, i disagree. As a 32 year old woman who wants children, but hasn't
found mr. Right ...this article gave me hope,but also filld me with
concerns--ones that I was aware of, and now, moreso than ever. the article said
there were pro's and cons, and then went on to explain the pro's and
cons, with real life experiences given by women who explained their
One other angle not discussed or ignored, was the effects on the child of a new
mother at 40 who will not likely have any more children. An "only" child
isn't a great thing. Having siblings is good for many reasons. Parents who
have children for themselves short-change the child. Again, so long
as older parents are the quirky part of the stats, that's fine. But those
comments about "40 is the new 20" are idealistic and absurd. For a
country, that would be the death knell. It would produce a nation of vastly
shrinking population as any demographer will tell you, when the average # of
children per family drops below 2.3, recession is 20 years away. Ultimately the
country will cease to exist. In addition, having a generation without the
accessible wisdom of grandparents loses its cultural memory.As a
last resort, it's good to see a woman be able to successfully have a child
at 40, but it is nothing to crow about and nothing to make like it is now the
Anything wrong with a woman in her late 30's and her 40's having a
child? No. But, is it ideal? You make it sound like it's the new way to
live. Yes, have the child, but don't delude anyone into thinking
that's where society is headed. Its a poor overall choice. Those who have
held off having a child earlier then when they could seem to be the epitome of
the "me generation." Not talking about ladies who never
found the right guy. That's an exception. But those who hold
off having children to have their career, their fun, their "me time" for
20 years, are playing with fire. As a woman gets older her eggs become far more
likely to have a child with such birth defects as Downs Syndrome. And while you may like it, a 15 year old boy with a 55 or 60 year old Dad
won't get the physical contact with his father that a 35 to 40 year old Dad
will have. At 55, we get tired sooner. And a 75 year old first time
grandpa/ma... no comparison to a 40 year old grandparent.
I love this article! I was 43 when I gave birth my last child. He is perfect!
Now that he's 22, I can look back and say that my life would have never
been complete without him. He has brought me more joy that I can put into words.
He was worth any price I had to pay to get him here. I wouldn't trade the
experience for anything.