Home Old fogie moms - Q for ya.

[TravelingGal]

So just for a topic of discussion, this goes out to "old fogie" moms - 35 or older at the time of birth of their firstborn child.

If someone was able to allow you to have your child 10 years earlier, but you''d have to give up your experiences during those 10 years, would you? This is with the understanding that you would live to the same age either way.

Would you give up 10 years of your pre-child life to be with them 10 years longer or are you happy to have had your life experience, but will be with them 10 years less?

 

[TravelingGal]

My answer is this:

If I were to die in the next 20 years, then I would give up my experiences to be with her that extra 10 years., which would take her into adulthood.

If I die when I''m older, then no, I wouldn''t give up my 10 years of wonderful life experience.

I want to be around for a long time, but I REALLY want to make it to an age where Amelia is good to go in taking care of herself.

 

[janinegirly]

No I don''t think so. At that age, I was partying, living overseas, and not even invested in my 401K (thought that was AGES away, not even going to be at this company more than a year I''m sure!), so god knows what kind of parent I''d be!

But if I could have started maybe 2-3 years earlier, then I would''ve loved that..mostly so there''d be more time to think about #2. But that''s being nit picky, I''m more or less very lucky to have had things timed as they did and with relative ease (welll maybe nto the LIW part, haha). And, gulp, hopefully we''ll be around long enough not to have being"here 10yrs less" be a concern--but this is an issue DH raises if there''s a # 2 (that and energy level).

 

[lili]

I don''t know about having my kid 10 years earlier, not that I''ve travelled and experience all that much like someone

At 25, I was somewhat fresh out of school and barely got my foot in the workforce.
I don''t have enough stashed away and downpayment for a house.
Like Janine, if I could have started a few years earlier (or if I hadn''t dillydally too long w/ my fertility

), it would be nice.
Then I wouldn''t feel the time crunch to get started on #2.

 

[curlygirl]

Crap, I had written an entire post and just lost it!

I don''t think I was at all prepared to have a child at 26. I was just getting really settled into my career and enjoying my single life in NYC. I lived alone, traveled, moved to LA for 2.5 years, paid off my student loans, fell in and out of love and really experienced life. Plus, I didn''t get married until I was 35 because I hadn''t found the right person to be my husband and father of my children until then.

So I feel that while in retrospect there are things that I may have done differently, all that living has made me a better person and a better mother. I don''t feel like I''m missing out on anything right now. I''m done with my wild, partying days. I''m really content to sit at home with my kids and read Dr. Seuss instead of going out and getting wasted with my girlfriends. If I hadn''t done it all already, I might be feeling resentful right about now.

Anyway, to answer the question: I wish I had been maybe 4 years younger when I had my first child but I don''t think I would want to give up any of the experiences I had before. I hope to spend as much time with my children as possible and I hope the years are good to all of us. It pains me to imagine their lives without me in it so I just try to pretend that we''ll all be together for a really long time and I truly hope that I will be there to share in all the important moments of their lives, both good and bad. Now I''m going to go and cry!

Great topic, TGal. Very thought provoking...

 

[jas]

Aww, hells no. I was a frickin mess at 25 (I was 35 when I had babies). I am now slightly less of a mess.

I needed to bumble and fumble for 10 years. I know now I am capable of focusing on the boys selflessly, yet still balancing that with the occasional me-time.

I would have resented the boys 10 years ago for "taking over" Ironically, it is because of them that I can now work on pursuing my dreams (when they nap and/or when their Dad is watching them). I never gave myself permission to do that 10 years ago because I was working on my career. Trying to be someone.

I have stories and life lessons from those 10 years that my children will hear and ignore. That''s worth something to me.

I feel more wise. I have more patience (now that they are STTN and I feel more sane.) I am calmer. I am happier.

In fact, although I feel behind the curve in a lot of things in life, this is not one of them. They came to me at the perfect time.

Ten years ago I would have been raising anxious, mildly unsettled children because I was anxious and mildly unsettled.

I feel I am trending towards good traits. Ten years fewer of good traits beats 10 more years of bad ones from me.

Which reminds me to start getting busy for #3 before my eggs congeal.

 

[TravelingGal]

Thoughtful responses ladies.

I am, of course, going on the assumption that kids 10 years ago would be the same kids and their father would be the same. I know it''s hard to say though, because a lot happens in 10 years.

10 years ago, I was pulling myself together and pretty good at it. I was 2 years into the current career that I am in now, taking care my parents and pretty responsible. No debt. I think I would have been a decent mom at that age and I don''t think I''d regret having kids early. In fact, I''d probably be feeling a bit of pity for 35 year old first time mothers whose joints and bones hurt more than my spry 25 year old ones. (Who am I kidding, I wasn''t spry, even back then and always had back pain).

Having a kid 10 years ago would have meant:

- Stalling a promising career - I would not have been in the same place as I am in now.
- Financial worry - I was making 35K back then and probably wouldn''t have been able to save for a house - although I would have bought a house BEFORE the bubble so maybe I would have!
- No world travel, or even as much domestic travel. Would I really miss what I never knew?
- Learning how to cook for survival rather than enjoyment as I did in my 30s.

But as Curly said, I hate to think of my child''s life without me in it. I hate to think I could be 70 before I see my first grandchild (if she has them). Even worse, I hate to think I could be a 50 year old grandmother and have raise a baby again! But let''s not even GO there...different topic!!

 

[Shoopy]

Point #1: This is a very interesting thread.

Point #2: You are *not* old or fogie

 

[TravelingGal]

OK gals, seems like most of us wouldn''t do it at 25. But how about 30?

Me? Yes, 30, definitely. Still be giving up my travel experiences which is tough to swallow, but I would trade. My career was well established by then.

Ideally, I would have picked 32 or 33, but even at that age, I did not want to actually become a mother!

 

[Linda W]

ACK!!! I couldn''t have had my daughter 10 years earlier. I would have been 13 years old.

On the other hand, I am very glad I did have her at age 23. I am a young (in my eyes anyway) grandma, who loves spending time with my grandboys and still has the energy to keep up with them. I also hope that I live long enough to see my great grandchildren, like my mother has.

 

[janinegirly]

I "had it together" at 25-26 in the sense that I had no debt and in a steady career path. But I was NOT ready for a child or marriage..I felt young (must be why it took me so long to get married, that and finding "the guy", haha). I was enjoying life and thinking short term, and not saving $, buying designer shoes, drinking on Tuesday nights and going to work hungover, dating cute guys who were bad marriage prospects and more interestd in gossiping with my girlfreinds and celeb spotting at hot spots. But hey, isn't that what your 20's are for?

And yes, travel too, but I did alot of travel growing up, so that would have been less of an issue.

32-33 would have been ideal, but like I said, I think wishing for the perfect timing is pushing fate (you can't control everything and it's the big things that count, health,etc.) and in the end it's really only a few years away. But in terms of # 2, those few years do make a difference..

 

[curlygirl]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:19:47 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK gals, seems like most of us wouldn''t do it at 25. But how about 30?

Me? Yes, 30, definitely. Still be giving up my travel experiences which is tough to swallow, but I would trade. My career was well established by then.

Ideally, I would have picked 32 or 33, but even at that age, I did not want to actually become a mother!

I don''t think I could have done it at 30. That''s when I moved to LA which was a HUGE career move for me and probably the reason why I''m still working for the same company after 10 years. They appreciated my loyalty and rewarded me by moving me back to NY after 2.5 years when I was about to go crazy in LA!! So I think 32 would have been the right age for me because I was back where I wanted to be and in a great spot career-wise. But the reality is that once I came back to NY, I had to make up for the 2 years of partying that I had missed out on in LA! And none of my friends were married or having children at that point either. But if all the stars had been aligned, I think that would have been a good age to start having babies.

 

[TravelingGal]

So to all the lurkers of this thread who don''t yet have kids...

THE MAGIC AGE IS 32.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:41:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal
So to all the lurkers of this thread who don''t yet have kids...

THE MAGIC AGE IS 32.

*takes notes*

 

[lili]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:41:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal
So to all the lurkers of this thread who don''t yet have kids...
THE MAGIC AGE IS 32.

haha, that''s the age that we started.
unfortunately, i was broken and it took me 3 years before i went to see the dr about it.

 

[CurlySue]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:41:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal
So to all the lurkers of this thread who don''t yet have kids...

THE MAGIC AGE IS 32.

Darn! I''m already 33 and not even engaged yet.

In all seriousness, I am happy you started this thread. It''s reassuring to read all the posts. I know that if FFi and I decide to try for children, it probably won''t be until I am at least 35. I''ve never been one to regret the choices I''ve made or to second-guess the way things in my life have worked out thus far, but I must admit that I do have my moments when I wonder "what if" things had happened differently.

So... thanks.

 

[qtiekiki]

This thread is interesting. From your posts, I gather that you ladies are highly-motivated and career-oriented (sorry if I am generalizing here), and it makes sense that you all feel that 32 is the ideal age. That seems to be the age where everything has fallen in place, you’ve got your career going, done your traveling, just being you.

I don''t feel like I have a career yet, and I haven''t traveled much. Would I have wait a few more years to have kids if I could change that? No way.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/10/2009 6:09:07 PM
Author: qtiekiki
This thread is interesting. From your posts, I gather that you ladies are highly-motivated and career-oriented (sorry if I am generalizing here), and it makes sense that you all feel that 32 is the ideal age. That seems to be the age where everything has fallen in place, you’ve got your career going, done your traveling, just being you.

I don''t feel like I have a career yet, and I haven''t traveled much. Would I have wait a few more years to have kids if I could change that? No way.

But that''s the thing QT, I am pretty sure anyone with kids at a younger age wouldn''t trade them for any experience or career. If I had Amelia when I was 25, I would not, I think. Or maybe it''s a good question to ask the non fogie moms...would you be a slightly older mom if you could have the same kid? I''d reckon that most would say no, like you did.

Which is why I''m interested in the question in reverse...we love our kids so much, but would we trade the experiences we HAD for a few more years with them.

 

[qtiekiki]

I guess you are right. The younger moms probably wouldn''t trade their kids for more experiences or career when the kids are young, at least not until they become trouble teenagers. LOL.

 

[soocool]

When I was in my 20s I wasn''t thinking about having kids. I was too busy experiencing other things in life. Post grad studies, career, travel, living on my own, etc. It wasn''t until I went all through these experiences that I decided to have a child. I wasn''t ready before that.

If I had my DD earlier, I probably would have had more children (at least one more). Would I have gone to grad school when they grew up? Could I have restarted a career in my mid 40s? Who knows. What I do know is that I have no regrets. And I believe it is not the amount of time I spend with my family that truly matters (though we are very close knit) it is the quality of time spent.

 

[softly softly]

Very interesting question Tgal. I fall into that middle category you speak of (had my kids at 29 and almost 31), and while I definitely felt ready for motherhood and our lives were in order in as much as is possible, I did miss out on those travel experiences you speak of and I''d be lying if I didn''t say sometimes I wish I''d made travel a priority before I had kids.

However, in answer to your original question, would I trade previous life experience to have more time with my kids, from my perspective now my answer is of course. Like you, I also want to live long enough to see my kids into adulthood, but I also recognize that I''m answering this with the perspective of someone who was able to wait until I was emotionally and financially ready to be a parent, two important factors which I think have shaped my parenting experience for the better. So yeah, sure I sometimes wish I had made time to do more travel before I had my kids, but I think if I''d had them even 5 years younger I''d have felt I''d missed out on so much more by committing to motherhood so early and perhaps my answer to your original question would not have been the unqualified yes I am able to give now.

 

[goldenstar]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:41:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal
So to all the lurkers of this thread who don't yet have kids...


THE MAGIC AGE IS 32.

But what about the dads? I'm 27 and DH is 32. I can wait a few years but I don't want him to be an old fogie when we start.... decisions, decisions....

So if we meet in the middle, it will be a little earlier than I'd like and a little later than he'd like. But that doesn't sound too bad. He'd want them now if it were only up to him.

 

[purrfectpear]

I think women who are 35 when they start their family and worry about not living to see the kids grow up are worrying about nothing.

Seriously, we''re all living longer...not shorter lives. Your kids will be 20 when you''re my age. 55 is nothing. I can think of only two of my peers who have died. One guy was on the list for a heart transplant (he had all kinds of health issues) and the other gal got uterine cancer when she was only 30. You can''t worry about the exceptions. I plan to live to be at least 80 something (my parents are both 78, my grandparents died in their 90''s). Even if I''d had a child at 45, they''d be 30ish before I stood much of a chance of dropping dead.

 

[princesss]

Date: 6/10/2009 4:41:55 PM
Author: TravelingGal
So to all the lurkers of this thread who don''t yet have kids...


THE MAGIC AGE IS 32.

As always, TGal''s wisdom goes straight to the baby notes folder.

Good thing this time it lined up with my current life plan.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/10/2009 9:29:32 PM
Author: purrfectpear
I think women who are 35 when they start their family and worry about not living to see the kids grow up are worrying about nothing.

Seriously, we''re all living longer...not shorter lives. Your kids will be 20 when you''re my age. 55 is nothing. I can think of only two of my peers who have died. One guy was on the list for a heart transplant (he had all kinds of health issues) and the other gal got uterine cancer when she was only 30. You can''t worry about the exceptions. I plan to live to be at least 80 something (my parents are both 78, my grandparents died in their 90''s). Even if I''d had a child at 45, they''d be 30ish before I stood much of a chance of dropping dead.

It''s not that I really worry about seeing her growing up. My mom had me when she was 33 - quite old for a first child at that time in Korea. She''ll be 69 this year and it''s often that I wished she were longer because I want her to be here when I''m 50. She''s already expressed she doesn''t want to live past 75.

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 6/10/2009 3:01:29 PM
Author:TravelingGal
So just for a topic of discussion, this goes out to ''old fogie'' moms - 35 or older at the time of birth of their firstborn child.

If someone was able to allow you to have your child 10 years earlier, but you''d have to give up your experiences during those 10 years, would you? This is with the understanding that you would live to the same age either way.

Would you give up 10 years of your pre-child life to be with them 10 years longer or are you happy to have had your life experience, but will be with them 10 years less?

I don''t want to be a spoiler here, but I think a better question might be: would you give up 10 years of life/career experiences if you learned when you wanted to have your first child (at age 35+) that you had waited too long and that you were now unable to have a child.

I think the lucky ones are answering you. Women in our current society, especially those who are middle-class and above and those who are highly educated are encouraged to be in denial about or at least to be over-optimistic about the amount of time that they have before that biological clock runs out of sand. I have been the confidante of many friends who made the decision to put it off, without being properly informed that this was really a decision to give up their chances.

The fact is, that a 35 year old woman who is having her first child is called an ''elderly primigravida'' for a reason. Your fertility actually starts to decline after age 30. Not after age 36. After age 30. (There is actually now some evidence that your fertility may start to decline even earlier, in your late twenties, but I''m going with the established figure here). 20% of women who are over 35 who try to have their first baby are going to find out that they are infertile--that''s one out of five. A not insignificant number of women actually go into menopause in their thirties. There are also a whole of health issues that are much more common when older mothers have children in general, even if its not their first. Birth defects and instances of Down''s syndrome and things like that rise.

Of course, you might be the one who lucks out. But statistics are not in your favor if you make this choice. This won''t make any difference to some, but others might like to know this. I had my first child at 28 and still had time to complete school and grad school and to travel, so I''m not exactly advocating teenage motherhood here. Just awareness. I know you can''t always plan these things (meeting the right man at the right time and so forth) but for those who are in a stable relationship and just assuming that they are going to have lots of time, I would say that by age 32 it''s definitely time to get moving. Ask your doctor if you think I''m lying.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 6/10/2009 11:02:56 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 6/10/2009 3:01:29 PM
Author:TravelingGal
So just for a topic of discussion, this goes out to ''old fogie'' moms - 35 or older at the time of birth of their firstborn child.

If someone was able to allow you to have your child 10 years earlier, but you''d have to give up your experiences during those 10 years, would you? This is with the understanding that you would live to the same age either way.

Would you give up 10 years of your pre-child life to be with them 10 years longer or are you happy to have had your life experience, but will be with them 10 years less?

I don''t want to be a spoiler here, but I think a better question might be: would you give up 10 years of life/career experiences if you learned when you wanted to have your first child (at age 35+) that you had waited too long and that you were now unable to have a child.

I think the lucky ones are answering you. Women in our current society, especially those who are middle-class and above and those who are highly educated are encouraged to be in denial about or at least to be over-optimistic about the amount of time that they have before that biological clock runs out of sand. I have been the confidante of many friends who made the decision to put it off, without being properly informed that this was really a decision to give up their chances.

The fact is, that a 35 year old woman who is having her first child is called an ''elderly primigravida'' for a reason. Your fertility actually starts to decline after age 30. Not after age 36. After age 30. (There is actually now some evidence that your fertility may start to decline even earlier, in your late twenties, but I''m going with the established figure here). 20% of women who are over 35 who try to have their first baby are going to find out that they are infertile--that''s one out of five. A not insignificant number of women actually go into menopause in their thirties. There are also a whole of health issues that are much more common when older mothers have children in general, even if its not their first. Birth defects and instances of Down''s syndrome and things like that rise.

Of course, you might be the one who lucks out. But statistics are not in your favor if you make this choice. This won''t make any difference to some, but others might like to know this. I had my first child at 28 and still had time to complete school and grad school and to travel, so I''m not exactly advocating teenage motherhood here. Just awareness. I know you can''t always plan these things (meeting the right man at the right time and so forth) but for those who are in a stable relationship and just assuming that they are going to have lots of time, I would say that by age 32 it''s definitely time to get moving. Ask your doctor if you think I''m lying.

I think that the majority of us fogies met the right man a little later on in our lives, so the answers may be a bit skewed.

And to answer your question, if I were to answer now knowing my daugther, yes, I would give up those experiences to have her. If you told me beforehand (meaning when I was actually 25) that I had to have a baby by 25 or lose my chances at motherhood, then I would have said, fine, that''s life.

It''s really too bad we live in a time where the desire to finally have a baby and the biological clock often don''t coincide. I realized I was old when I got pregnant at 34 and was treated "special" by the doc, so I know you''re not lying.

 

[Elmorton]

Tgal, I love that you started this thread, and I howled with laughter at the "magic age." This is something DH and I talk about CONSTANTLY - will we regret it later when we''ve waited to have a child? (we plan to start in our early 30s - and I''ve talked about fertility with my OBGYN who says that as long as there is a regular cycle with a . all systems are likely a go from my end - so I''m not as worried about fertility, though Black Jade makes an excellent point) but all those experiences! Thanks to all who have weighed in!!

 

[janinegirly]

Agree with TGAL, some of this was decided for us (or at least me)...meaning I didn''t marry DH till 35, so well, 36 was a logical age and the earliest possible! We did date for 4 years before marraige, and I wish that could have been shortened, but you can''t rush some things. I mean in my head, 32 would be an ideal age because among my friends "30" tends to be the magical number to be married by. That way you can be carefree in your 20''s, but not necessarily rushing through kids when the time came,etc.

Qtiekiki: I don''t think I''m highly motivated or career oriented really. I mean I didn''t get married until 35 (had more to do with meeting the right guy then putting off marriage for career), so had to focus on something, haha. I have alot of girlfriends who are highly successfu "career women" and single, and in all honesty, I think they would have given it up for family & kids, but the opportunity didn''t come up. It''s hard balancing things perfectly! I do agree young moms have the advantage of being young empty nesters...so you and DH can travel and have fun then while us old fogeys will be dealing with young teen agers!

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 6/10/2009 3:11:13 PM
Author: janinegirly
No I don't think so. At that age, I was partying, living overseas, and not even invested in my 401K (thought that was AGES away, not even going to be at this company more than a year I'm sure!), so god knows what kind of parent I'd be!

Ditto!

My daughter would not have liked my 26 year-old self as a mother!

However 32 would have been pretty good - I'd met DH, done my 8 years of living abroad and got the travel bug out of my system, got a new career, bought a house, had my back semi-fixed and had done all the partying that one person needs in a lifetime.

My younger sister got married when she was 26 and has 2 kids and was very jealous of the freedom and lack of responsibility that I had. I would swap my life for hers, but I think she might for mine.