Should women wait until they’ve married and had kids before pursuing their career? (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
67Opinion
The part with eggs is not true actually, you can get pregnant even when your 50 years old, but it's harder to get pregnant and it harder on the body. Now days many do have kids between they are 30 and 40 with little problems. In Norway it's no a problem at all to have a career and a kid. It's universal at all workplaces to get paid parental leave. In total you get 49 weeks 100% paid time off. The mother can choose to go back to work earlier, but then the dad gets the remaining parental leave. The position at work is temporarily taken by a substitute until you are back. It is also normal for kids to start at kindergarten when they are 1 year old. And kindergartens in Norway is different from many others in the world, first of its staff have an education in child care and psychology. So you can have a career and a kid IF the country you live in have made it possible.
No, he is correct about the eggs. A female is born with all the eggs she will ever have, and loses them monthly. Also, eggs are lost in order of viability Meaning the absolute best eggs for creating healthy babies are the earliest to be lost if not impregnated. By age 30 and beyond, what eggs are left are the unhealthiest of the lot and more prone to developing deformed or retarded babies.
^ you are right. The chance of defects doubles when women are about 30. From about 0.5% to 1%.
It's true they are born with all the eggs yes. But they can still get kids way beyond the age of 30. The "quality" off the egg how ever go down, but not by much. A older woman that get pregnant have more checkups then other for that reason.
I think he is right, but not because of "eggs" but because of how long it takes for your children to grow up.
People who think they can have children at 40 are forgetting that children take some time to grow up.
It's much easier to deal with a teenager when you are 35 as opposed to when you are 55.
Not to mention real factors such as mortality (which goes up mighty quick after 40) and the fact that your children are going to need financial support.
It's not uncommon to die at 50.
I've already suffered two conditions that could have been fatal (at under 30), my aunt has lymphoma, my friend's brother died of a stroke, my ex girlfriend's aunt has already died, and so on and so forth.
The longer you take, the more irresponsible you are.
That is assuming that all 50 year olds are at death door. Many are in better shape physically than the parents who are younger. We don't have any wiggle room so we have to eat right and take care of ourselves. There is no way I would have been nearly as patient at 35 as I am 55. And I didn't sweat the small stuff. My goal was to get her out of high school alive, not addicted to anything and not pregnant. Then I just changed it to alive and not addicted. I figured I could deal with pregnant. While others were stressing about top grades, top athletics, going to top colleges I was working on getting her to a place where she could be in a good place so that she could start taking on adult responsibilities before she left high school.
I selected "other". Well, it definitely depends on what you want to do and let's not forget that things don't always go as planned.
Also it depends heavily on the financial status of the couple. A baby has needs and bills that have to be covered. Times have changed. Where I am from 1 salary is not sufficient to cover a couple's needs, let alone those of a baby... so at least, if you have a well established job and all you get maternity leave and can cover your expenses.
And because in theory everything is perfect it doesn't mean it will work out this way. To have kids you need to find the right guy. Some women are lucky and find a man to be happy with and have family sooner than others. So if you are not one of the lucky ones, what are you supposed to do? You pursue your career...
So you can't make a generalised statement about this...
Last but not least, there are careers that would end with a baby, and there are also women who don't want to have children.
Leaving aside all the social and moral implications about that statement - What planet do these people live on - In my country there are very few women who could afford to take years of work to have kids and they need a steady job to provide for their household.
Although I find it a moot point because of the low percentage that are able to do it, there is obviously a lower percentage who would chose to do it within that group.
Again using my country as an example - I don't have stats to clarify this but I am guessing HERE that most women would be at least in their late 20s, settled down with a fair number of years of their working life behind them. Actually if I heard of a woman having a baby under 25, I would assume unplanned unless they married young which very few do here - None of my married friends got married under 30.
I know women who had kids before career and women who had kids after career. Both are ok and happy. None had problems to have kids. Though the ones who had family before career that I know, are studying all to be kindergarten, primary school or high school teachers, while the career before family are doctors, lawyers or business managers.
Both starting to have kids older and starting to work older have its disadvantages. Some people are too old when the have kids and lack of the necessary energy. On the other side, my mom who had me young and started to work older won't have same advantages some people of her age that started to work younger, she's paid less and she will get retirement later.
When ever thinking about my future, getting a substantial job has always automatically come first for me. I would hate to be absolutely dependant on my partner financially because I see SO MANY ways this could go wrong or not work out. What if you never finished university and instead stared a family instead. for the first few years of your life after having a kid, you won't be able to get a job because you will ideally need to take care of your kid. by this time your probably going to be around 26. Also what if you never got any degree in university and 5 years later you break up? now you are jobless, with zero, or very little money, and probably will have to raise a child part time.
Women should do what they want to do.
In my situation, I'm 22 now so that would be the 'age' I should be married and have kids then right? With who though? I don't have a boyfriend or anything. Also I have to find someone then who earns enough to finance me and the child. Most guys my age are still studying and otherwise probably don't make enough money. Or I have to go with a guy a lot older than me, but sperm also degenerates by age, so that diminishes the purpose of me getting kids at a young age. Other than that, I don't want kids right now? I still want to do a lot of things like traveling, partying and have fun and a kid will prevent me from that and I just don't think I'm ready to have kids mentally. I'm still growing myself and I don't even know if I ever want children tbh.
So there are a lot more factors to be considered taking this statement. I'm watching The Handmaid's Tale right now and this question disturbs me.
I think women have a rather cruel biological clock, and I think that's something that needs to be taken into account for any who desire to have children at some point. Fertility starts to drop considerably at around 30 and especially plummets at around 35.
But I think women have to prioritize being able to be self-sufficient and take care of themselves first and foremost these days. So I lean towards "no" since marriage and children are not guaranteed even for young women who desire it. It takes a willing partner, and it'd be awful if he left her without a child and no career of her own.
Ideally, if a young woman wants both child and career, then I think the best scenario is that she pursues both interests at the same time and puts herself out there in her spare time and socializes and makes the effort to find a partner while simultaneously pursuing her career goals.
[...] and it'd be awful if he left her [with] a child and no career of her own.
But unfortunately that doesn't make her attractive to the right men. Say she does school to get ahead in her career. Now she had $60,000 in debt. Now say a man who is serious about having a family comes around. Why would he choose a woman with a bunch of debt who will not be working significantly for the next 5 years to have kids when he could choose a woman with no debt? Personally I've not dated girls precisely because of this reason and I'd imagine other men think of this too.
So I'm saying its a self fulfilling prophecy. By setting yourself up to care for yourself you ensure you will have to care for yourself. You will attract the wrong men and thus be left at some point.
@bamesjond0069 I tend to have criticisms of the skyrocketing costs of higher education in some places as well (don't think government subsidies for student loans are helping the problem), as well as people of modest means not choosing educational paths that are lucrative (ex: don't think many people are going to make all that much money with a gender studies degree). But the same issue about debt at least applies to men if they can't absolve it.
Sure but men can absolve it because they are permanently entering the workforce. Women who just completed their degree must enter the workforce to absolve it meaning they cannot have kids or else the husband will be the one paying for her debt.
@bamesjond0069 I think that's a very good point. I don't disagree with Molyneux on the need to pay attention to mother nature and the rates at which fertility so drop quickly. It's just that I don't think the nature of society at the present can guarantee that all young women will end up married even if they desire it. And to me a very smart career path these days might even avoid higher education or at least the most costly types.
@bamesjond0069 Well, the way I look at it is like this: let's say we have daughters, both me and you. They're both very bright, academically excellent, and their career interests are aligned to something very practical that pays well in the market and is in high economic demand. Do we really want them to start relying on some guy to marry her, have children together, and hope that works out before they leave the house and pursue the rest of their potential? I can't say I would, as I might risk having some unsatisfied daughter living at home well into her adulthood hoping some guy will finally marry her.
I think they could get married. You honestly think an 18 year old girl is going to be left to the wayside but if she waits around she won't be at 30? That doesn't seem plausible.
I would push her towards marriage. Most women these days marry unmarriagable men because they themselves are also unmarriagable. Its not surprising it doesn't go well for many people. doesn't make it the wrong decision. As a debt free young virgin you know damn well that girl has her pick of men. So i just have to make sure she chooses right. She certainly won't have better options later on after a handful of failed relationships, debt accumulation and with some age on her.
@bamesjond0069 Might vary by culture. I see this a lot here nowadays in Japan with girls living with their parents well into their late 30s hoping to get married while working a part-time job at a convenience store or something like this (or sometimes jobless the whole time). Part of it is exacerbated here by stagnating wages and lots of young men refusing to marry because of the costs and their lack of ability to afford a nice home and so forth. I mean perhaps most girls intent on finding marriage will do so, but there's about a 50/50 ratio of males and females in the populace. I don't think it's necessarily the case that if all females became this way, that all of them, and all males, would end up married while the girl is in her 20s, e. g.
@bamesjond0069 It might be easier if polygamy is practiced, like a well-to-do man late in his career takes multiple wives, e. g. But that's a rather outlandish idea. I just throw it out to illustrate the problem rather than to actually entertain.
@bamesjond0069 There are all kinds of different people as well of all sorts of backgrounds. Imagine a minority girl living in the ghettos. Maybe her brightest hope not only for finding a decent man but being able to take care of herself, either way, might be education and career. I don't know. I just don't want to see women doubly-screwed where they are cheated both out of marriage and career. At least the career choice doesn't require finding a decent partner willing to devote the rest of his life to her. I'd just see it as my duty as a parent to remind her to not forget about building her own family if she gets too absorbed in her pursuits to the point of putting that completely aside (for her own sake, as she might find, after years rolling by, that she missed out on one of life's greatest pleasures).
1. I know nothing of japan or polygamy.
2. Just because it doesn't work for ALL women doesn't mean its wrong. Does finding a career work for all women or do some end up bouncing around unable to keep a job or get stuck as a barista? Not all women need to find husbands in order for it to be generally the right decision.
3. regarding the ghetto girl, she absolutely should marry asap. Women marry up. So from the lowest position in society as a debt free young virgin many many well to do men would consider her for marriage. As a 30 year old with a mediocre career her marriage prospects are still less.
@bamesjond0069 >> Just because it doesn't work for ALL women doesn't mean its wrong.
Ideally, we might account for the individual in that case, like this daughter might be better suited to focus on career, this one marriage, etc. I mean if we're just talking rules of thumbs then it might be better for guys to wait until the 30s+ to marry as well, at least until they've stabilized their career and own a house without a mortgage. That's wise, no, if they want a wife and kids? But the problem I see is that if we apply the latter rule, lots of young women might not be able to find suitable partners.
So it's messy to navigate these things as I see it. I'd just prefer to err on the side of reminding women that they can't wait until 30s to have children and expect high success rates and leave the rest up to them to navigate their individual circumstances lacking much nuanced knowledge as a general guideline.
"it might be better for guys to wait until the 30s+ to marry as well, at least until they've stabilized their career and own a house without a mortgage. That's wise, no, if they want a wife and kids? But the problem I see is that if we apply the latter rule, lots of young women might not be able to find suitable partners"
Men should. And why would that make it hard for women to find suitable husbands? I would think it would make it easier to find suitable husbands as now you would actually have mature and financially stable men around looking for marriage.
@bamesjond0069 I mean if we get super logical about these things, and talking about women marrying up, then there's something wise for every woman seeking marriage absent career to be at least somewhat of a gold-digger, no, to ensure financial security for herself and children regardless of the circumstances? If we get entirely practical about these things, and question what's best for a woman who wants to delay her career interests later into life, then the best thing she can do as I see it is marrying a rich man. He might even be able to afford a maid to take on some of the household duties while she's free to go to university, pursue whatever dream and job she likes. But again, without polygamy, there might not be that many men to marry up to this way and we might find a rather large percentage of women doubly-screwed out of both career and marriage.
Marrying up or looking for a man with financial security is not being a gold digger. A man with a normal decent job and a house is not rich. That is just normal. I mean tough titty but if you dont have a stable job and living arraignment as a man you shouldn't expect to have a wife and family. Lol.
@bamesjond0069 I agree. But I think it'd be wise to not just favor financial security but someone who can even afford maids, for example. That would be the best choice, no? Shifting to economy, I do agree a lot with favoring economic freedom. For example, I lived in Singapore for a few years and that is one of the most economically free nations in the entire world (although personal freedom is somewhat lacking). And now they have almost 200,000 millionaires and it's growing rapidly in a population of 5.6 million. That's about 3% of the population as millionaires and growing which is quite awesome to see from a nation so small and lacking in natural resources. But that still doesn't leave all that many millionaires for women to marry, e. g.
@bamesjond0069 It's difficult for me to entertain monogamy and the idea that every woman can marry and have kids when combined with hypergamous sexual selection, for every such woman to find a suitable, let alone ideal, partner. It's easier in like a feudal society absent social mobility: peasants marry peasants, nobles marry nobles, royalty marry royalty. But if there's an upward trend in a capitalistic society that values freedom, and in this day and age post-feminism, post-sexual revolution, then I think to ensure that certain women don't get left out, it's important that both men and women are encouraged to be self-sufficient while simultaneously accounting for these biological differences.
Like i said. Why would they marry a millionaire? A guy with a decent job and stable living arrangements would make for a good pick. I believe women have other considerations besides simply money. Sure millionaires might be at an advantage but so would a super attractive girl or one who was really funny or one who didn't sleep around a lot. Just because a really fat boring girl who slept around town probably couldnt find a millionaire to marry is irrelevant. I dont know why you keep getting hung up on this. Women aren't entitled to men and vice versa. You are carefully considering what happens to the undesirables. Yeah my hypothetical girl better get a damn job or learn to be satisfied with a very unattractive man. Lol.
@bamesjond0069 I'm talking best pick: the ideal. But I mean, how many random guys out there are going to be supportive, and capable, of providing for a wife who wants to pursue a career post-marriage and kids, and won't abandon her no matter what? I don't have such huge trust in your average guy to do that, let alone marrying in the first place. My father failed this way (the reason my parents divorced is that my mother actually did what Molyneux suggested here, and my father didn't like this idea of his wife going to uni and pursuing a career, and it was awful dealing with their divorce with me and my sister caught in the middle).
I'm not such an optimist about guys or girls. I think most stumble their way through life, and many end up unhappy, some outright miserable. So I don't want to gamble on weak guys with their MGTOW thing or whatever to suddenly change their minds and turn into great fathers and husbands. If I have a daughter, I'd remind her that if she wants children, her body is not going to stay fertile for a very long time. But I don't want her to rely on guys to be happy.
@bamesjond0069 And likewise for a son. I don't want him to rely on girls to be happy. I'm no feminist type but I mean in this day and age, I don't think it's optimal to suggest a woman put these things off until after marriage and kids. I just think they need to be reminded that their biological clock is ticking, that the ability to physiologically have children is not the slightest between equal between males and females. That's the only observation I'd make, and try to persuade, from a libertarian standpoint that respects individual freedom and individual choice.
Tbh your mom sounds like an asshole. She would get divorced in order to go to college and work. Why do women have such a hard on for working. The day my girl wants a career is the day i sit home and eat bon bons. Lol.
@bamesjond0069 >> The day my girl wants a career is the day i sit home and eat bon bons. Lol.
So we're agreed then? Since unless you're rich sitting home and eating bonbons, the woman isn't going to be able to afford to go to university and taking care of children and so forth. I mean if you're talking about students debts that aren't paid off entirely, going to uni from scratch is way more expensive. So it sounds to me like we're both against women pursuing their careers after marriage. LOL.
Women working is stupid but if they are going to do it better after kids not before. Most fail at having careers anyways. Women typically work jobs where there is little or no advancement.
@bamesjond0069 And I do agree that my wife was quite selfish pursuing a career and higher education post-marriage while my father worked. But now we have a stalemate of sorts. Because we can't have it both ways. We can't have husbands and fathers willing to bear the extra costs in time and money to send their wives to school unless they can afford it. So that comes back to the idea that it's probably better for women to pursue these things before marriage if they're going to pursue them at all.
And I do agree that my [mother, sorry] was quite selfish pursuing a career and higher education post-marriage while my father worked.
>> Women working is stupid but if they are going to do it better after kids not before. Most fail at having careers anyways. Women typically work jobs where there is little or no advancement.
Isn't that leaning towards an argument though in favor of housewives without jobs? Would you prefer a woman suddenly deciding to pursue a career dream post-marriage (in my mother's case, to become an architect), and pay for everything and have to deal with the kids somehow (yourself or hire nanny), or get that shit out of the way, maybe even possibly fail, pre-marriage?
I mean at the end of the day either put your career first or family first. All the best men who want to have a family will choose women who make a commitment to family. So like i said its a self fulfilling prophecy. Any girl who puts career first will also have less marriage prospects for if she does want a family later. Women who make family the priority will have more marriage prospects and get better husbands but many will never actually end up working either by choice because they realize they dont want to or because the family pressures do not allow them to. But i know people on their deathbeds regret not having a family way more than not working a job. Lol so in terms of a happy life id suggest women prioritize family instead of risk having no family due to silly career aspirations to be a CEO doctor or lawyer (which the majority never have that awesome career anyways)
@bamesjond0069 It's like do you want to marry a girl, have kids, then suddenly after, she wants to become an astronaut while saying like, "Honey, can you pay for my education and take care of the kids in the meantime? Oh and make sure you cook dinner before 7 PM. KTHX." Cause I figure that sort of scenario is going to be a lot more common if women follow this advice.
No because men dont want to marry a girl with debt and little or no income who is now 6 8 10 years older. Their attempt has made them unattractive to men now.
Hmmm 20 year old girl with no debt vs 28 year old girl with 50k debt. Its obvious all else equal which one will have the most interest from men.
But it will never happen. Most women once they have kids realize careers are stupid and want to stay home. My friend for example bitched and moaned about not wanting kids because her career. She was 34. Finally her husband convinced her to have a kid after all these years and guess what? She never went back to work and is now trying for a 4th child at age i think she's 40 now. Lmao. Career my ass.
@bamesjond0069 What about a 20-year old girl who suddenly wants to be a neurosurgeon after marrying and having kids? Then with kids running around, she requires 7 years of schooling and $280,000 for her education?
@bamesjond0069 >> Lmao. Career my ass.
I actually see more merit in abandoning career than suggesting to pursue careers post-marriage and post-kids. If you're arguing from the standpoint that women shouldn't pursue careers in general in favor of such marriage and children, I'd see that as a very different point from waiting until after marriage and kids to start pursuing careers.
Its not realistic to become a neurosurgeon or astronaut right after you have a couple of kids. You are worrying too much about the exceptions and not the general population. As a percentage of the population both careers combined make up less than 1% of women. Most women will have a family and then never begin meaningful employment because they don't want to leave their kids and many will want more kids. Thats going to be the typical situation for a large majority of women. Whether they want to pursue a career after family or not. And good. That makes the most sense. What makes no sense is working and most likely failing and then having little or no family. Id call that the worst case scenario and right now its the most common.
@bamesjond0069 It's common for both sexes in my experience. If we don't talk about exceptions though, and you're talking about $60k in student debt like it's a common case and not also exceptional, was that debt not at least partially paid off? You'd rather the girl transfer the full costs to you post-marriage of not only a student loan but also all those years spent in education while kids are running around?
If you marry right after school its not paid off. And if you need a masters from a private school that could be a reasonable amount. Either way a girl with 0 debt is better for marriage prospects than one with 10k in community college debt. However you look at it debt and age are big factors in dating and they both take a hit if you go to school before marriage.
@bamesjond0069 A girl that insists on pursuing a career post-marriage has more practical debt than one with some paid off pre-marriage, not to mention a "time debt" (4+ years in school, e. g.). At least the 4+ years of schooling, and possibly some of the debt, is paid off if she spends these resources prior to marriage. If we're talking about costs potentially imposed on husbands, it should be rather obvious that the costs are far greater if she starts pursuing these things after marriage and kids, not before.
Yes but she's not paying them off. You dont pay your loans off while in school. So if she gets a 4 year then 2 year masters then you marry her she didn't pay anything off over the 6 years. Alternatively do you think the same man would want her 10 years after that when maybe its all paid off? No because he wants kids and can get someone both young and with little or no debt.
@bamesjond0069 I realize you're probably balancing lots of things in your mind, but if we're just talking about costs, $60k is rather dirt cheap if the girl transfers the costs to her husband, no? My sister (over in the US) majored in English literature with an M. A. and her student loans were in the range of $200k. In her case, she paid it all off before she became a professor and married and had kids, but imagine if she expected her husband to pay the full cost (including the extra time spent looking after kids) post-marriage and kids.
But how old is she? That was a gamble but it sounds like she made it through. More people than not do not have that experience.
@bamesjond0069 She is two years younger than me and got married I think at around 28 or so. It is a gamble but I'm thinking it's a bigger one, and more costly for everyone, if she waited for post-marriage. That's assuming she wasn't willing to give up her dream of becoming an English teacher.
The 90% dead eggs thing doesn’t tell you anything useful, assuming it’s true.
We do know that all sort of risks really start to pick up around 30-35 and it’s not a good age to have kids, you’re inviting complications.
Another thing to think about is while you may be able to handle an infant in your 30s, you might have a hard time managing a teenager in your late 40s or 50s.
Lastly, having a kid gets in the way of a career. It interrupts and you don’t get experience and opportunities the same of you have to insert a kid into the middle of a career. The thing I hear recommended is to have a family first get that all settled then you can plan a career around it and not have any interruptions.
To be honest teenagers at any age is a handful. I think I did just as well raising a teenager in my 50s as the ones who were doing it in their 40s. Some of the 40 years seemed a bit childish and were having a harder time with their midlife crisis issues.
@sejla Good for you, but we shouldn't treat it like it's going to be just fine for everyone. Depends on the parents, depends on the kids, depends on living situations.
You are right but looking at adults in their 20s and 30s compared to young adults in the 1970s they don't all look as healthy. Eating lifestyles have changed drastically for many and many are carrying much more weight than we ever did. The average woman weighed 140 in the U. S. now it is in the 160s.
@sejla I agree that there can be other problems involved, but that just means people should being responsible about nutrition and health as well as about the timing of their family. We shouldn't be telling people that fat is beautiful or saying that a girl can become a 40yo career woman and have a guy still want to start a family with her and the everything will be fine when she decides to settled down.
What a dumbass. What kind of mother gives birth first before establishing financial stability in order to feed herself AND the kids?
There's no setup, that she even will get a job in the first place.
According to common sense and real life practicality *YOU* make sure, that *YOU* have your provision FIRST - THEN think about whatever you want - including marriage or kids or both or neither.
Or else the child will end up like I used to be - Broke, starved, depressed and generally blooming late in life (and graduating from a low ranked university instead from the top university of the city).
It’s assuming that every all these young women are going to marry some rich old fart who can provide for the whole family, but: 1) a young attractive woman wants a young attractive man, not an old dude. At least not if she’s got any damn sense. 2) How many men can actually afford to be the only earner? Not many.
@MzAsh precisely! This just reeks of the desire to control women. I'm no fan of it.
I'm a product (child) of such a failure (it posed countless of challenges for me past and present still) and I'm going through great extends, am doing literally 200% effort to get out of being a product of failure towards normal human life. I am an example of what happens if women follow his advise. I'm not intending to repeat the same mistake and i will guarantee that 100% for myself.
This is provided that the father of the children, or even the mother's family, fulfill their financial needs. That IS what most people do around the world when women have kids before they decide to have a career.
@CubsterShura that failed terribly in my family. Like Ash said, there are not many men earning enough money to support an entire family only by himself. The economy is currently still collapsing
Ain't talking about where it fails and where it doesn't. Just talking about why many women start career after having kids. And it works for most women around the world. 🤷
Of course a man said that bull... 🙄
A woman can have a career, school first, THEN have a marriage and kids. It's called having priorities.
Who's to say a woman will want to go work after she's been at home with her kids for x amount of time? Or have the time, finances, and ability to...
Yes, plenty of women do return to work or school after having kids. That doesn't mean it works for everyone.
My Sister-in-Law left a corporate career when she and my brother started having children, then promptly started a contract baking business out of her home, which was VERY successful. She and my brother talked long and hard about their goals as a family, and what she would do when the children started coming (she had four children all together), and her contract baking business held on for at least a decade, and was very profitable for her and for my brother. And yet, she was still able to have an raise four children. I think it is a decision that needs to be discussed before marriage even happens, and if the right balance is struck, success in both the home and the career can take place.
I dunno if what he says is true. There have been many woman to have kids after 30. So to say most of your eggs are gone. Might be outlandish and crazy.
Also the risk for birth defects or pregnancy complications is only raised by a minimum chance 1-2% at most. For woman over 30. And give or take 3-5% woman over 40.
However ideally anywhere between 20-35 is your best bet. I would think.
Keep in mind I am not a doctor and have minimum understanding this all. Only going on what I have been told or read.
Yes I do think that is ideal. The women In my family that had kids early are now better of than those that didn't, both family wise and career wise. My mom for example had me at 22 and now she probably one of the best in her field. The same is true for a few cousins the oldest is unmarried and has no children, fucked around her 20s and doesn't have much of a "career". Her sister Is married had a kid at 24 and now runs her own business.
The "career first" indoctrination of women was not at all meant to empower women. it was meant to help corporations and keep entry level wages down. If they really wanted to help women they would have facilitated early family formation and facilitated slightly delayed job market entry for women.
HAVE. KIDS. EARLIER. The likelyhood for birth defects goes up with the age of the mother. Beyond that, it's hard on the kids. My mom had me at an older age and I now see her struggling with many health issues common to older people. I'm worried for her. That's hard to have weighing on me while in college.
The happiest women I know put kids before career, or started both at the same time.
There's nothing wrong with being a full time mom either. People keep shaming full time mothers and it's disgusting. Just because you think that money is more important than family doesn't make being a full time mom wrong.
It doubles by 30 something, going from 0.5% to 1%. B
I think yes and no...
Good reason is that when u young ur health is good, u not easily get tired and full of energy, whic is god think to raise kids who full of energy.
The earlier u have kids the sooner they will grow up...
Like, i had my 1st at age 27, when some of my classmates had babies at 18-20...
Now i am 30 and have 2 years old baby and my classmates r 30 and have 12-10 years old kids... NOT BABIES any more and they r only 30.. and almost free people... while i feel myself chained taking care of a little 2 y. o baby...
Also good u can go to work early when ur kids will be at day care and start a career and u ll be inly 20-22 y. o.
But the bad part is... when u young u stuid. not enough expiriance in everything, many early marriges fall apart.
And everyone should have kids when they r ready emotionally for it... and not be fprced by society or family or friends...
Most women in my family married in their early 30s once they finished their studies (sometimes PhD) and they got their children in their early 30s to mid 30s.
They're doing fine and have nice happy healthy families with good money from their career.
Wouldn't take advice from Stefan Moulinyeux.
It makes sense to only consider a career after family life is all settled. As a woman you are never going to be more attractive to men than you are right... now. Every second that passes you are losing your ability to land the man of your dreams.
You will also never have a super successful career if you get into it for 5 or 10 or 15 years only to quit for a few years and go back. You basically waste the whole first half of time.
So if you bang out kids fast with the husband of your dreams then you will also have the best chance of having a successful career.
Human biology cannot be negotiated. Find a guy who can provide financial stability in the home so that you can have children -- I believe, the longer you wait, the less likely you will be able to procreate (e. g., lets say there are two women -- the one who chose to have children in their 20s are more likely to be able to continue their reproductive success into their 30s than women who chose to wait). I think it is naive to think biology should not dictate what kind of decisions a woman chooses to make in terms of reproduction.
Pretty risky to assume you’ll get married in the first place. So in my 20s I shouldn’t go to school or work on a career but instead just go on dates all the time and hope I find someone who will be able to pay my bills and keep me alive?