Women Lose 90 Percent of Eggs by Age 30

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I can thing of many.
I base that comment on most of the people I know that are in that situation. They elect to have a career rather than take care of their children properly.

The kids end up losing because of this.

riiight. well this is one of the most offensive things i have read lately.

i work my arse off to give my kids the opportunities i never had.
they spent some time in day care, and some time with my mother , they now attend an after school care program where they can undertake lots of sport , recreation, music and social opportunities. if i didnt work it wouldnt hapen and they would miss out. they are perfectly functional and fairly independent well adjusted kids . they also understand the value of work.




as for being able to have kids after 35... i wouldnt reccomend it , its seriously exhausting. however, babies come to you when and if the universe is ready.

But thanks for judging me on what a terrible career monster parent i must be.
 
They elect to have a career rather than take care of their children properly.

The kids end up losing because of this.

It's really not an either/or decision and as others have said, bad parents exist in equal proportion among all the types of family arrangements.

It may help to remember that kids also lose when their mothers are unprepared to support the family in the case of unexpected widowhood, divorce or a partner's unemployment. The workplace is not that accommodating to mothers, nevermind ones who are re-entering the workplace after a long absence.
 
We're adopting. Maybe I can sell my eggs...

I was in "day care" part time. I say that in quotes b/c my parents could not afford a real day care, we went to my mom's friends, or my aunts and grandmas watched us. When I was 11 I watched my siblings after school. To be honest I don't really remember it all that much, so I must not have been permanently scarred by the fact that my mom needed to work part time, maybe for money but maybe for her own sanity. Actually my mom's part time income has always gone towards education since we were sent to private schools. The public schools in our district were downright dangerous.
 
Listen, I see all this bullshit happening with parents that rather have a career (So they can have their motor homes, jet skis, mansions for homes, etc)...

Some of us genuinely like our careers for a hundred reasons other than $...:shrug:
 
another benefit of daycare/preschool is it helps get kids over their fear of abandonment before they start school. i was in preschool from a young age since both my parents needed to work for us to live comfortably. my mom took some time off when i was born but after a couple years needed to get back to work.

anyway, i think i turned out fine. i was lucky, i went to the same place from the time i was 2 or 3 (can't remember when exactly i started) until i was too old to go anymore. they were great and there were lots of fun activities and such to do and even sneaky ways to get us to learn.

if i had the choice, i would absolutely prefer to stay home and take care of the kid i'll eventually have, but it most likely won't be possible.
 
Some of us genuinely like our careers for a hundred reasons other than $...:shrug:

Indeed. In fact some of us are not simply slaves to economic burden or greed and actually believe striking the right balance of career, parenting and quality child care is responsible gender role modeling for the culture we're raising our children in.

On a side note, of the families I know who live in the financial category of motor boats, mansions and jet skis, most are stay-at-home moms. And not all of them by their own choice.

The notion that "good mothers" choose to stay home if given a choice is crap.
 
Im with Cori, near her age and no plans for kids.

however, on a close note its pretty annoyin pple tellin you to hurry and 'get ur skates on' just because ur not married and having kids, yet (according to them!)

whats wrong with being independently single!!! :wink:
 
:hi5: I'm very thankful that no one in my family "bugs" me about getting married and/or having kids. My mom knows better than to nag me. :wink:

And maddie, I didn't realize you were close to me in age - I thought you were a lot younger! You learn something new every day. :)

Does anyone have friends/coworkers/family who have a stay-at-home dad? One of my college friends stays home with his little girl while his wife works.

Also, my boss' husband is currently staying at home, but that's only because he was laid off last year.

Just curious.
 
Cori, I have a female mate who since her wee boy was born, she didnt work, I mean, she still isnt working and he must be about ten now, but she is doing comp course.

so, unless she is going to attempt.

Im with ya Cori! you and I, not dependent on a man and marriage :D:D
 
You make your own happiness - you can't rely on other people. :)

I actually would like to get married, but it's not my end-all-be-all for happiness.
 
So I guess women should start getting pregnant at age 18 and just find any guy to get the job done..even if he's the wrong one.

How does Mrs. Duggar keep having all those kids? She must have divine eggs or something

Maybe another reason men should only be with women who are in their 20's.
 
As far as I see it, the only hard and fast rules regarding parenting . . . love your kids, support your kids, laugh with your kids and be the best person you can be . . . the rest should pretty much fall in to place :)


btw . . . has been a very interesting little read this thread :yes:
 
so, just to add to the discussion:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

a sample:

Whether you acknowledge it or not, there’s good reason to worry. By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are. At their core, they pose one of the most complicated, painful, and pervasive dilemmas many single women are forced to grapple with nowadays: Is it better to be alone, or to settle?

My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)

Obviously, I wasn’t always an advocate of settling. In fact, it took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option, and even though settling is a rampant phenomenon, talking about it in a positive light makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment, the way a child might look at an older sibling who just informed her that Jerry’s Kids aren’t going to walk, even if you send them money. It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it’s downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality.

Even situation comedies, starting in the 1970s with The Mary Tyler Moore Show and going all the way to Friends, feature endearing single women in the dating trenches, and there’s supposed to be something romantic and even heroic about their search for true love. Of course, the crucial difference is that, whereas the earlier series begins after Mary has been jilted by her fiancé, the more modern-day Friends opens as Rachel Green leaves her nice-guy orthodontist fiancé at the altar simply because she isn’t feeling it. But either way, in episode after episode, as both women continue to be unlucky in love, settling starts to look pretty darn appealing. Mary is supposed to be contentedly independent and fulfilled by her newsroom family, but in fact her life seems lonely. Are we to assume that at the end of the series, Mary, by then in her late 30s, found her soul mate after the lights in the newsroom went out and her work family was disbanded? If her experience was anything like mine or that of my single friends, it’s unlikely.

And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier? She and Ross have passion but have never had long-term stability, and the fireworks she experiences with him but not with Barry might actually turn out to be a liability, given how many times their relationship has already gone up in flames. It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, only to end up with the more exciting but self-absorbed Mr. Big, will be better off in the framework of marriage and family. (Some time after the breakup, when Carrie ran into Aidan on the street, he was carrying his infant in a Baby Björn. Can anyone imagine Mr. Big walking around with a Björn?)

When we’re holding out for deep romantic love, we have the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make us happier. But marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion. Madame Bovary might not see it that way, but if she’d remained single, I’ll bet she would have been even more depressed than she was while living with her tedious but caring husband.


this is not an endorsement at all of what this woman is saying, but it does seem to go along with some of the themes discussed so far in this thread, so i thought i'd post it for the sake of discussion.
 
Once again though-women have to settle but men don't ? Maybe it all depends upon what your definition of settling is and what you expect from a relationship and the father of your kids.

My mother married Mr. Good Enough-hardly nearly good enough for her in my opinion- instead of the guy she really loved. It was not about "passion" or any of that...the way she still talks about him, it was really love and he was a great guy and she ended up with three kids but a lousy marriage. She did all of this in an entirely different time of course, in many ways. He came from quite a bit of money so I guess my mother wasn't deemed by his family to be good enough for him.
 
This blog, written by a friend of mine, seems to speak to the whole thing of "guys don't have to settle." Worth reading.

http://jaggard.blogspot.com/2009/11/shes-hotter-than-you-think.html

That girl.

You know, the one you're friends with? The one who-- on a scale of 1 to 10-- you'd say is a 7?

She's the one you laugh with in groups, banter with and who seems to get you. The one you talk late at night with every now and then when you want a girl's company. The one you went to coffee with the other day and had a pretty good time.

She's hotter than you think.

Let me explain:

I remember going to anniversary dinners and weddings and I'd hear the husband or groom, between sobs, say some sappy nonsense about how he was the luckiest guy in the world (statistically that's probably not true) and that he was married to the most beautiful girl in the world (which every man in the room instantly knew absolutely wasn't true).

I never understood those dinners. Those weddings. I thought the grooms and husbands were just being nice. I thought it was just poetry.

And then I got married.

Now, I'd like to think I'm an intelligent person. Yet there are many, many moments when I look at my wife who statistically speaking simply cannot be the most attractive woman in the world (they have competitions for that, after all) yet...

She is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen in my life.

Calendar girls? You can have them. Victoria Secret Models? I love your product (really). But your women come in 2nd.

If you're like me when I was single this just didn't make sense. It sounds like a hallmark card. It sounds like something you say to make yourself feel good (or your wife, at least).

But it's not. I actually think Sarah is God's greatest sculpture. I like that I get to look at her a lot.

The other thing I know is that an overwhelming majority of people who get married weren't totally into each other the first time they met. "Yeah, he was cute...but it was his ___________ that I eventually fell in love with." Or "Sure I thought she was pretty...but I didn't totally fall for her until ___________."

These are the real life stories of happily married people. It wasn't necessarily lust at first site. Their love almost snuck up on them.

The first time they met they were each others 7's. And now they're each others 10's.

They were hotter than they originally thought.

Here's the thing: I talk to some guys and they say they just aren't interested in anybody they know. Hogwash. Except for a handful of dudes I know, anytime someone says "I don't know anyone" line it means either they don't want to be in a relationship or it means they're holding out for the bikini model who plays Warcraft and laughs at all their fart jokes.

But let me burst your bubble (while giving you 100 new bubbles to play with): The Warcraft chick doesn't exist.

You might think, "Well if only so-and-so was a little hotter..."

And I'm telling you: she's hotter than you think.
 
Once again though-women have to settle but men don't ? Maybe it all depends upon what your definition of settling is and what you expect from a relationship and the father of your kids.

I don't see the text as saying that women have to settle while men don't. I rather see it as a woman writing from a woman's perspective, but nowhere does she say that the man is not to do the same thing.
 
Well women should settle in order to have a baby. If this is actually true about eggs and the age of 30, as a practical matter men just have more time and don't have to settle (they just have to find a younger woman, I guess). Just meant that in a general sense, not about that specific article.
 
Might be true as to the biological pressure. Though, even for men I would argue there is good incentive not to wait too long. Also, I think the original article with the 10% statement is overtly dramatic. Not only that, as stated, it is still a great number of eggs, if you just take a look at how many women nowadays become parents with 30+, and most of them without any special help whatsoever, I don't see why the researchers have to be so alarming about their findings other than a.) own moral values or b.) marketing for their research. It doesn't seem so significant.

Though, Western societies in general (i.e. exceptions do exist) still have a double-standard as to the expectations of women and men, that's for sure.
 
Come to west Michigan where the economy is shit and unemployment even shittier. There's plenty of stay at home dads around here. I also know several guys who are now going back to school for nursing since it's great money and one of the few guaranteed jobs.
 
I don't see why the researchers have to be so alarming about their findings other than a.) own moral values or b.) marketing for their research. It doesn't seem so significant.

Got it in one, I suspect. Like so many of our moral panics, you dig down and find that there isn't any there, there. Or not much, anyway. But people love being beaten about the head about how to live their lives. Or, well, 'love' isn't the word, but...
 
Im with Cori, near her age and no plans for kids.

however, on a close note its pretty annoyin pple tellin you to hurry and 'get ur skates on' just because ur not married and having kids, yet (according to them!)

whats wrong with being independently single!!! :wink:

or telling you to have a baby to save your marriage because if you leave you may be too old. By the time you find a new man willing to lay down with you it might be too late. :|
 
I refuse to settle and only wind up being miserable.

That is why when I reach a certain age and am not married or in a serious relationship, I'm adopting. Nothing is going to stop me from being a mom. I don't want to be old and alone and look back on my life wishing I had raised a kid but didn't because I didn't have a man in my life.
 
so, just to add to the discussion:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

a sample:




this is not an endorsement at all of what this woman is saying, but it does seem to go along with some of the themes discussed so far in this thread, so i thought i'd post it for the sake of discussion.



I read your post,
that article this morning, I can't believe people are responding to this woman like she had any legitmate points.

J16-lori_06-16-2008_427THAI.jpg


did any of you read what she wrote?

God help any man she would settle for (that would have her) , I sure would not want to be him.
 
I think it's a good idea to give people a chance and date them if you think they are nice and interesting, even if they don't totally knock your socks off romantically speaking the minute you meet them. Sometimes it takes a few dates for sparks to start flying. However, when it comes to actually marrying someone, "settling" sounds like a total recipe for disaster to me. Can the idea that the worst fate a woman can suffer is to be single just DIAF already? What century is this anyway? And what about the person you settle for? Doesn't he deserve to be with someone who is with him because she really, truly wants to be with him rather than someone who just married him simply because she wanted a child and didn't want to raise one by herself, or was afraid of being alone or whatever?
 
And what about the person you settle for? Doesn't he deserve to be with someone who is with him because she really, truly wants to be with him rather than someone who just married him simply because she wanted a child and didn't want to raise one by herself, or was afraid of being alone or whatever?

Her lonely Haagen-Dazs-and-Mary-Tyler-Moore-aided epiphany told her otherwise. Doesn't get more legit than that.

I feel laughably unfit to post in this thread, considering I'm 18 and find the concept of parenthood surreal (pitiable for the child, if I were to have one in my current situation), but I must say this has been a good read. It cut a lot deeper, avoiding the party lines that take all of one post to divide most discussions in FYM.

Though I fully realize my frame of mind will shift with age, perhaps to the breaking point the author found herself at, I believe the decision to settle is not only unwise, but (ironically enough) reckless. Having seen the damage a subtle drain of a marriage can cause a family, and having grown from being terrified of divorce to simply resigned on the subject, I know that the reward of true love is worth the risk of loneliness. I've been in both situations, and I can thrive on my own terms regardless. Hell, if I'm alone, I'm only with one person I can't stand. Why settle on another for the sake of filling empty space or, worse yet, social pressure?
 
Does anyone have friends/coworkers/family who have a stay-at-home dad?
:wave: That describes my family. And a couple others we know, though it's true it remains far less common than the reverse as a planned mutual choice. That said, he will be returning to work part-time now that our kids are all school-age, for several reasons, including the very important one AliEnvy mentioned:
It may help to remember that kids also lose when their mothers are unprepared to support the family in the case of unexpected widowhood, divorce or a partner's unemployment. The workplace is not that accommodating to mothers, nevermind ones who are re-entering the workplace after a long absence.
The workplace isn't very accommodating to single parents, period, and having experienced firsthand what the resulting consequences for the entire family can be (my father died suddenly when I was in my mid-teens, throwing my mother--who had no paid employment history to show for herself--into the position of having to raise and support three kids alone), I would not want mine to be similarly unprepared. There's no foolproof way to prepare your family for these kinds of eventualities, but having lived through it, I do feel very strongly that any responsible couple with children will consider those everpresent possibilities seriously in working out and maintaining the best family arrangement for them.
 
However, when it comes to actually marrying someone, "settling" sounds like a total recipe for disaster to me. Can the idea that the worst fate a woman can suffer is to be single just DIAF already? What century is this anyway? And what about the person you settle for? Doesn't he deserve to be with someone who is with him because she really, truly wants to be with him rather than someone who just married him simply because she wanted a child and didn't want to raise one by herself, or was afraid of being alone or whatever?

Good points. Of course it's not just women who do this. I know a guy who settled because he was 40 and wanted kids. Don't know how much of it was his own thoughts and how much of it was societal pressures, imagined "competitions" and comparisons with others, etc. But he is twice divorced and gets his son every other weekend. Being with the wrong person for reasons of wanting kids because you're feeling pressured internally, externally, however=recipe for disaster, in my opinion. Especially when you don't have many things figured out about yourself, which was true in his case.
 
Back
Top Bottom