I don’t know what to think of Saturday morning’s feature on older mothers in the Ottawa Citizen. What I found in equal parts troubling and interesting was to see the feature in the Life section, alongside maternity fashion and the comics. One article reported on “midlife mom” and blogger Angel La Liberté whose website heralds midlife pregnancies as so many fashion statements. You too can have children after 40… look at Céline!! As thrilled as Céline must be with her newborn twin boys, I’m not sure she considers years of fertility struggles and failed IVF attempts, briefly carrying triplets and losing one before finally giving birth prematurely to the remaining two babies on par with choosing the best maternity fashion to fit her midlife curves (not that Céline is particularly well-endowed in that department, which may or may not explain a lot). I don’t know Céline but I’m guessing.
I have no doubt that the particular challenges of pregnancy, childbirth and child-rearing after 40 make La Liberté’s blog timely and relevant, still I was struck by the “us against them” tone of the gig. Happy as I am to no longer qualify as a SMUT — well-toned Stepford Moms Under Thirty-five — being neither well-toned or under 35; I did not buy it. Truth is, having children late in life is not so much a choice as the culmination of previous choices not to have children before. Women have children in their late-thirties or early forties for many reasons: some married late, others were unable to conceive right away, other wanted to get a head-start on their careers, sometimes all of the above. Their choice not to have children at any given time morphed into a choice to have their children late.
Nobody argues that delaying motherhood is not the healthiest option for mother and baby. And I have yet to meet women who delayed childbearing because it was a bad health choice. We shouldn’t transform midlife childbearing into a lifestyle choice but wonder why women are not having their children earlier in life. As someone who had two children in her early 20s, I do not recommend it. When my young friends get married and start having children at 21 (usually in the reversed order), I cringe. As a society, it is much easier to look at pictures of Céline, Kelly Preston and Mariah Carey and attribute it to lifestyle than to wonder where we took a wrong turn.








Rather harsh on the older natural mother, that.
My apologies: I didn’t mean to be harsh on the older mother, natural or not.
As I mentioned, I do not recommend having children young in today’s world. I believe — and this observation applies to no-one but myself — that I am a much better mother to my younger children (those I had in my thirties) than I ever was to my older ones (who were born when I was 22, 23, 25 and 26). My point was only that the decision when to have children (now or later) was much more complex than a “lifestyle choice”. Women know that delaying childbearing poses increased health risks to both mother and babies. Yet — excluding women who have children late because they found their life partner late — these health risks outweigh the advantages of having their children young. In today’s world, it is more advantageous to delay childbearing regardless of the risk. Why is that? We talk a lot about the reasons why women delay childbearing and those are probably the most obvious answers. What I would like to hear more about is why women are NOT having their children earlier. I have a lot of ideas on this issue, too many to discuss here. But my goal was not to come down hard on the older mother. I apologize if I did: I have lost my writing habit, I must be a little rusty in the communication department.
I just had my first child at age 29 and wished I would’ve started earlier.
And 29 is considered young these days to start having children.
I think it is a combination of factors – for me a lot of it had to do with massive student loan debt and feeling like I had tons of time, etc.
However, I think the main reason is this “adult adolescence” period that is unique to society in the past 20ish years. Our twenties are for school, partying, racking up debt, more partying and not being tied down to one sexual partner, any particular location or job. (Yes, I know I am generalizing). Settling down with one partner and having kids is just considered too old for someone in their twenties or early thirties (not to mention no fun).
I don’t typically believe that contraception is at the root of all evil, but I think that the blame for the rise in older mothers can be traced to widely available contraception.
After the advent of the pill et al, I think we quickly went from the attitude “Isn’t it great that I can control when to have children!” to the attitude “Thou must not have children until thou is absolutely, completely ready for them.” In BC times (before contraceptives) it was generally acknowleged that when red-blooded women and men over a certain age got together, babies would result. There was a fair bit of impetus on the part of society to ensure that kids were fairly mature by the time they reached that age.
But you know what makes people grow up fast? Having babies. So we do find women (and men too) trapped in this “adult adolescence”, as Elizabeth so eloquently put it. A woman can choose not to have a baby until she is ready to have one, which is great, except that nobody is ever really ready to have a baby.
I’m reminded of Jennifer Fulwiler’s “Two lists” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012801.html
I think a person has always been considered grown up when he or she becomes ready (both physically and emotionally) for sexual activity. It’s only since contraception became widespread that readiness for parenthood isn’t something that is taken into account before someone becomes sexually active.