anythings.org

I am not a fan of the Boston Globe. On top of their already biased reporting in terms of the 2008 presidential election, they printed an article titled “Want to have a baby? Now’s the time women eager to have children need to direct career drive toward mating.”

For an extremely short article, it is riddled with tons of sexist “facts” from various fields of research. The author of the article advocates getting pregnant before you’re 30 (especially if you want to have 3 kids!), because the quality of a woman’s eggs takes a “notable nose dive” in quality after the age of 35. While it has been scientifically proven that the older a woman is when she gives birth, the more likely it will be that the baby will have certain problems, it hasn’t been proven why these problems exist. Theories out there that blame aging eggs are very popular, but they are just that: theories. These can range from risky pregnancy, to still birth, to Down’s Syndrome. However, these same risks exist for any woman who gets pregnant, they are not limited to women over the age of 40.

For many young women today, they aren’t even beginning their careers until they are in their late 20s or early 30s. More women are attending medical school than ever, which is only 4 years in the classroom, but does include a lengthy residency period where you are still technically a student immediately following graduation from medical school. I myself am planning on obtaining a PhD, and if I receive that before I’m 30, it’ll be a miracle.

No generation of women has had more trouble with fertility than this generation, who received the terrible baby boomer advice, “Wait. You have time. Focus on your career first.”

But in fact, you have your whole life to get a career. Obviously, that’s not true of having a baby. If you are past your early twenties, and you’re single and want to have children, you need to find a partner now. Take that career drive and direct it toward mating - your ovaries will not last longer than your career.

The good news is that psychology research shows you will gain more happiness anyway by finding a partner than by having a good job. While you should not have to choose between a satisfying marriage or a good job, your biological clock does not care. You can control where you spend your time and energy, and you should search for your mate if you don’t want to face fertility problems.

Stephanie Trunk, the author, also says that “it’s recommended that you breast feed” your children, without offering any explanation of who is doing this recommending and based on what information. Last time I checked, breast feeding can be beneficial to the baby, but in some situations it is better for the mother to not breast feed her child. Which, again, runs you into the rhetoric of “who is more important, mother or baby?”

Of course, there is no mention of men rushing to have children in this article - the burden is placed completely upon women in their mid-to-late twenties to start reproducing. She includes two “alternatives” to having children early, one of which is good luck, hope your kid doesn’t have Down’s syndrome, and the other of which is a very judgmental spiel about freezing your eggs. Not once does she mention surrogacy or adoption.

The article is clearly targeted at women who are in my age range - just about to hit their mid-twenties - who are at my particular stage in life. She advocates for women my age to “focus on finding a partner”, but here’s the thing… if we’re so quick to find a partner just because we want to reproduce, what are the odds that we’ll actually find at a partner (when we’re 25…) that we want to be with until we’re 90? I’m going with slim.

While her ridiculously biased piece focuses on women’s careers, she completely neglects any other life experiences - including travel, experiencing different relationships, personal growth, your education, etc. Many of those things either can’t be done when you have children, or are extremely difficult.

My advice? Have a kid when you want to, not when some trumped up writer wants you to.

[Image from Getty]