Academia as a woman who wants a family

[Dishsoap]

So this is really something that's been bugging me for awhile, though I still have a lot of time. I'm only 21 now and in my 3rd year of undergrad. I plan to go on to graduate school, get a PhD, postdoc, and then become a professor. A long, arduous process, but one that I'm (so far) willing to attempt.

My question is this: do you know any women that have succeeded in academia (i.e., become a professor ideally) while still maintaining a family?

I'd really like to begin a family while I'm in my 20's or early 30's, but after I finish graduate school I'll probably be 28-29, then postdoc for a few years, and then all that is even before I start to look for a position somewhere.

Does anyone know a woman who has had children/a family during graduate school? A postdoc? Does she take some years off? How does it work?

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Failure rate is high if you have a child while going through school. Economic, maternal instincts, and having to care for your husband. Many single mothers do acquire an education, however if you have no children now while subject yourself to a harder life? Love is fickle. It has been shown time and time over that people who marry early tend to have a high divorce rate. For a person posting on physicsforum the lack of common sense is astounding. No offense.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There are female professors with children. There are female professors without children. There are male professors with children. There are male professors without children. An unscientific head count seems to indicate that there are more childless faculty of either sex than those with children, compared to the general population. I am not surprised by this - while most faculty positions have fairly generous policies with respect to childbearing and childrearing, postdoctoral positions, being fixed-term, generally don't.

 

[Choppy]

Failure rate is high if you have a child while going through school.

Do you have any evidence to back this up or this just a personal observation. I ask, because my experience is different. The students that I went through with and that I've subsequently instructed who've had children didn't have any difference in failure rates from those who didn't have them. One thing to consider though is that students with children have greater constraints on the time they can dedicate to academia.

Many single mothers do acquire an education, however if you have no children now while subject yourself to a harder life?

Well, for some, having children isn't just a case of choosing convenience vs. inconvenience. For some, having a family is more important or at least equally as important as pursing their academic goals. And with women (and to a lesser extend with men) you have the biological clock to consider. The fact of the mater is that fertility rates decline once women reach their mid-thirties, making it harder to have children. And the risk of complications increases dramatically. So there is a lot of pressure on women who are entering the post-doc stage of an academic career to make decisions about having a family - and quickly.

Love is fickle. It has been shown time and time over that people who marry early tend to have a high divorce rate.

Again - do you have evidence for this or is this a personal observation? And what's early?
In my experience people who get married fairly early in life these days (i.e. in their undergraduate years) are often particularly religious. Once people are into their mid-to-late twenties, I don't think it's early any more.

For a person posting on physicsforum the lack of common sense is astounding. No offense.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I think the OP has a legitimate question.

To answer that question, I would say that there are lots of issues to consider when balancing family and an academic career, but it's certainly doable. I personally know lots of academically successful women who have children. I think a lot can really depend on their partner - how supportive is that person, how flexible is that person in terms of sharing childcare responsibilities, how mobile that person is in terms of being able to follow you to different post-doctoral positions. It's the two-body problem that becomes an N-body problem. But it can be successfully solves.

 

[Quantum Defect]

Things are better now than when I was in graduate school. When I was in graduate school, things were better than the bad old days, when discrimination was blatant and ubiquitous.

During my time in graduate school, many male graduate student colleagues had kids, but relatively few women did. I did know one woman who had two children while she was getting her degree. I have known many women who have had children while moving on up the academic ladder. I agree with much of what Choppy says -- so much depends upon having a partner who helps.

US funding agencies are beginning to acknoweldge that balancing family life and science is something that they can help with through a variety of "family friendly" policies.

 

[axmls]

My physics professor (female) from last semester had a kid. She's also married to another physics professor in the department. So it's certainly not impossible, even with two academics in one family.

 

[jack476]

Well, if you're a tenured professor you will have a fair amount of flexibility when it comes to setting your hours and dealing with family stuff.

Good luck getting there with kids, though. You might just have to make a choice about which one you want more.

 

[axmls]

I think that's overly pessimistic. I'd venture to say more than a few academics had children before getting tenure.

 

[jack476]

I think that's overly pessimistic. I'd venture to say more than a few academics had children before getting tenure.

Of course, and getting on the tenure track is a main goal for many academics because the end result is exactly that needed flexibility to deal with family issues. But you have to admit that it would be much easier without family obligations than with.

 

[homeomorphic]

I've seen a lot of professors with kids, even some untenured, but I never saw a female grad student get pregnant during grad school. I knew male grad students whose wives were having kids, and it didn't seem to be a big issue, but they didn't have to be pregnant themselves, which is a considerable advantage.

I'd imagine it would make a tough road even tougher, but some people do it somehow. I think for some people, they might get past the point of early career struggles, like teaching classes for the first time and otherwise getting established and there ought to be a window of opportunity in there somewhere, even before tenure.

 

[StatGuy2000]

One of my personal friends was pregnant while pursuing her PhD in statistics, and it didn't noticeably affect her ability to finish her studies (granted, this was in Canada, where one year paid maternity leave is guaranteed by law, although I'm not sure how this would apply to graduate students since they are not technically employees).

 

[Dishsoap]

I've seen a lot of professors with kids, even some untenured, but I never saw a female grad student get pregnant during grad school. I knew male grad students whose wives were having kids, and it didn't seem to be a big issue, but they didn't have to be pregnant themselves, which is a considerable advantage.

I'd imagine it would make a tough road even tougher, but some people do it somehow. I think for some people, they might get past the point of early career struggles, like teaching classes for the first time and otherwise getting established and there ought to be a window of opportunity in there somewhere, even before tenure.

But would getting pregnant shortly after getting hired be frowned upon? Thinking from the perspective of an employer, I'd be furious if I hired someone who would have to take a semester (?) off a year later because she got pregnant. And then it would interfere with the tenure process, right?

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
My question is this: do you know any women that have succeeded in academia (i.e., become a professor ideally) while still maintaining a family?
<snip>

I consider this question sexist- many male professionals (such as myself) have to content with work-life balance as well. But nobody ever asks a male how they are able to be successful while still maintaining a family.

ps- the answer is figuring out how to balance work and life- there is no rulebook or 'best practices'. Figure out what works and then do that.

 

[Choppy]

But would getting pregnant shortly after getting hired be frowned upon? Thinking from the perspective of an employer, I'd be furious if I hired someone who would have to take a semester (?) off a year later because she got pregnant. And then it would interfere with the tenure process, right?

Why would you be furious? Just like sickness, pregnancy is a fact of life. Despite reasonably effective birth control methods, not every pregnancy is planned. And as an employer you have to plan for things like pregnancy and sickness. I can understand that often there can be a race to get certain results out in academia, and it can put a university in a difficult situation if they hired a person to teach a course and she has to take a maternity leave. But that's reality. And it's not like babies spontaneously appear. You have nine months to figure out how to adapt to a planned absence.

From an individual's point of view, yes it can be tough to remain competitive when you take time off. Your colleagues will make more progress and put out more publications in your absence and there's only so much leeway one can grant for such things. That's why its more difficult to remain competitive while starting or raising a family... more difficult, but not impossible.

And Andy makes a very good point. As a Dad, your schedule changes too. You don't necessarily take maternity leave. But you can't ignore family obligations either.

 

[jack476]

Why would you be furious? Just like sickness, pregnancy is a fact of life. Despite reasonably effective birth control methods, not every pregnancy is planned. And as an employer you have to plan for things like pregnancy and sickness.

But doesn't that create an incentive for employers to hire only males?

 

[Almeisan]

Depends on the country you live in. In some countries males have as much right to maternity leave as females. If not, it has to be the female who has to stay at home. Also, it depends on how much time you think you need to invest in your own child as opposed to your career.

The decision is similar for males and for females.

When in a marriage both want to be competitive for PhD positions, getting top publications and tenured professorship, that's a big problem.
If a male wants to have a family and be a top scientist at the same time, he has to have a partner who wants to stay at home.

So for you it would mean you have to find and be attracted to a male who wants to stay at home and take care of the kids while you achieve your career goals.

For most of us in science, we all have a hard time and we end up cleaning up the crumbs left behind by the top groups.

 

[MathAmateur]

Almeisan is right. It is possible, but very difficult. A female friend of mine just got tenure at the University of Arizona and she has three children. However, her husband is VERY supportive and fairly wealthy.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
And Andy makes a very good point. As a Dad, your schedule changes too. You don't necessarily take maternity leave. But you can't ignore family obligations either.

Especially since child care responsibilities last considerably longer than 9 months.

 

[teroenza]

I recently was taught by two professors that had children towards the end of graduate school, went on to post-docs at Harvard and MIT, then when one was hired for a tenure track position at my undergrad school, the other (husband) was hired on a temporary basis. They eventually liked him so much that he is now on a tenure track as well. They have two beautiful children, are both active researchers, publish often, and are excellent mentors to both graduate students and undergrads. From what I have seen, they are also as good a set of parents as anyone could ask for, equally sharing the roles of raising their children.

If a family, and an academic career, are both pretty much equally important to you, are some answers on an online forum really going to sway you from either? You might have to make sacrifices in either of those pursuits, but that's how life works. Go for what you want, and adjust plans accordingly as situations arise.

 

[halucka]

I think it may work the best to have kids (or the first one) during your PhD because that is a long period of time anyway, so it is more readily extended and a one with relatively most job stability (until you get tenure, but then it may be too late for biological reasons). It is easier if you live in a country where there is good support for families in general, for example in Scandinavia.

 

[f95toli]

It is perhaps worth pointing out that this is not problem unique to academia; the same is to a large extent true in any "high performing" profession where there is a lot of competition. We (my wife and I) have friend who work in finance, media, law, marketing etc and all the women (and men!) who work in those fields faced very similar problems and most of them had children in their late 30s.
Knowing this doesn't make it any easier, but keep this in mind when weighing up to the pros and cons of a career in academia; this is an issue you will face (at least to some extent) regardless of your choice of career.

 

[CalcNerd]

Women have it tougher in the career world, because someone has to have the children and it falls upon the woman to be blessed with this.

Having a child or children will definitely set you back a couple of years in your career. But I would also say, what are a couple of years compared to having a lifetime of happiness that children can bring you (granted, I say that from hindsight, my kid is now out of college and working, not a teenager!).

It will help a LOT if your husband can share in the child rearing when and where he can. However, one of you will tend to be more needed to take care of the kid(s) when they are sick or home. That usually ends up being Mom, but that wouldn't be to much trouble for you, if you are able to work on your studies at that time (which can take some serious concentration, something children won't cooperate with you on). But remember, He ain't going to suffer the first nine months (well, not quite as much as you).

 

[Dishsoap]

I mean, don't get me wrong, having a husband who will (and wants to) stay home and take care of a kid or something would be great, but then you have an income issue. Living on $20k/yr (a typical grad student's salary 'round here) is difficult for one person, let alone a married couple with a kid. And if your husband works, then you have a childcare issue. I've seen some online blogs and such about people with this issue who work for half the day, go home, and then their significant other works the other half of the day, but doing this for several years (at least until the kid is old enough for school) just seems like cruel and unusual punishment... I mean really, only seeing your significant other on weekends?

TL;DR, my only options are to marry Bill Gates or win the lottery.

 

[CalcNerd]

Let me take off my PC hat and make the following statements (w/o any formal studies, just some of my own observations).

Couples who have children when they are in their twenties seem to have the most well adjusted children. Why is that? Well, we could say that the parents can devote time, blah, blah, blah..., However, I have seen many couples(and maybe even myself), who really did not know a lot about supposedly how to raise children. Yet, I suspect this family group is probably the most normal (all families are usually dysfunctional in one or two ways). The children are probably the most well rounded (and this could also be due to the whole heard concept of 80% of the families are of this makeup).

I have known some individuals who were from parents of older years ie just prior to the woman's biological clock running out. These guys were often very smart (giving some credence to the intelligence knowledge of the parent being past on). However, these same people were the stereotypical NERD and did not mingle well with people in general. You are rubbing elbows in academia, you could certainly ask around and see how well my little theory holds up.

So, have the normal kid now (or in the next 3-5 years) or have the insufferable brainaic in 15-20 years.

I worked for a Woman who ran a fair sized company and did not have her children until she was about 40. When her kids were 15, she was often mistaken for their grandmother and often wished she had her children much younger when she could have played with them more. (oh, and her kids were smart, lending credence to my unscientific observation).

Best time to plant a tree? 10 years ago. But you only got today. My advice, if you want children, make it happen in the next 3-5 years (or sooner). Don't wait as you get older, you only increase your chances of having problems.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Age is not a major issue when raising children. Health and activity is. You have to be able to keep up with them even (especially) as teens. My brother and sisters all started having children in their mid to late 30s. The kids are all healthy and quite ordinary (with bits of extraordinary mixed in).

As others have pointed out, those in ANY high performing career need support. This is harder for women because of what our society expects of mothers. I think this is unfair, but unfortunately, there is no easy solution. As a father of three, I will be the first to admit that anyone having a child will have to slow down just a bit and spend the time you'd otherwise use in the career on the kids. Instead of writing a book on the weekends, I take them to activities, tutors, music lessons, help them with homework, show them how to cook meals, fix a tractor, build projects with an arduino board, etc.

I see this as a pay-it-forward acknowledgment for what my parents, my teachers, my mentors, and relatives did for me. I may not be the famous or wealthy person I had hoped I would be when I was younger, but I can be a great father and mentor. That's the choice I made and I made it deliberately. I do not regret it one bit.

 

[jack476]

Let me take off my PC hat and make the following statements (w/o any formal studies, just some of my own observations).

I have known some individuals who were from parents of older years ie just prior to the woman's biological clock running out. These guys were often very smart (giving some credence to the intelligence knowledge of the parent being past on). However, these same people were the stereotypical NERD and did not mingle well with people in general. You are rubbing elbows in academia, you could certainly ask around and see how well my little theory holds up.

I don't think that has anything to do with biology so much as with environment. Usually, when women are waiting until the 30s and 40s to have children, it's because they're in professional employment or they were otherwise waiting for an optimal family and financial situation. When the parents have more money, their children are more likely to be more intelligent and successful because they grow up in a more nurturing environment, there's more resources for education, the positive attitude towards achievement and education rubs off on the children, and maybe a genetic factor.

Best time to plant a tree? 10 years ago. But you only got today. My advice, if you want children, make it happen in the next 3-5 years (or sooner). Don't wait as you get older, you only increase your chances of having problems.

I thought the idea that children born later in a woman's life were more at risk for health problems was debunked as a myth?

 

[analogdesign]

I thought the idea that children born later in a woman's life were more at risk for health problems was debunked as a myth?

It's not a myth. The risk of Chromosome-related abnormalities (such as Down's syndrome) increases with maternal age. The health dangers on the mother also increase with age. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/getting-pregnant/in-depth/pregnancy/art-20045756

There is some interesting research that suggests that non-chromosomal abnormalities my actually *decrease* with age, but this is preliminary.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/2014...may-have-lower-risk-for-certain-birth-defects

My wife and I are having our first child (we're both in our late thirties). We both work in academia and now that we're established academia is actually a great environment to have kids in because it is very family-friendly (at least in Northern California) and flexible. It would be harder (especially for my wife) to get to where we are if we already had kids at a younger age. It takes a lot of late nights and weekends to get tenure, and that is difficult for both partners if you have children. Not impossible, but difficult.

 

[SteamKing]

I thought the idea that children born later in a woman's life were more at risk for health problems was debunked as a myth?

It's not just the increasing risk of birth defects which older women are fighting, but fertility starts to drop markedly as women age. That's why fertility clinics are doing a booming business: many women have postponed childbearing and need expensive medical help to conceive. There are instances reported where women will have eggs frozen with which to conceive years later, but that avenue is not without its risks as well.

BTW, Bill Gates is already married, so you'll have to plan on winning the lottery. Also, have you seen a recent picture? He's pushing 60 and no longer boyishly handsome:

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

It's not a myth. The risk of Chromosome-related abnormalities (such as Down's syndrome) increases with maternal age. The health dangers on the mother also increase with age. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/getting-pregnant/in-depth/pregnancy/art-20045756

Yes, BUT, remember that even a 50% increase of a small number is still a small number. There are so many things to worry about when having children. If you choose to worry, then you need to rethink those plans to have children.

Children are resilient, not perfect. There will be problems somewhere along the way. The health problems could be entirely random at any point in their lives, some genetic, some environmental, and some completely accidental. In the scheme of risks in daily life, this barely rates. The trip home from the hospital in your car offers at least as much danger. Your pet may snuggle up with the kid and pass along some nasty bacteria. The kid may run outside to play, get bitten by a deer tick, and then get Lyme Disease. They may jump into a pool and suffer injury. There is literally a lifetime of things to be scared of.

Not to belittle the issue, but... if you're going to worry over things like this, you are going to be a nervous wreck for the rest of your life. Deal with the problems as they come, do your best to ward off the problems that may happen, and... have more than one kid. You'll tend to hover over them less and then they'll learn to be more independent.

(Note that I'm a father of three, all born from our mid-to-late 30s --they're healthy well rounded teens and a tweener)

 

[analogdesign]

BTW, Bill Gates is already married, so you'll have to plan on winning the lottery. Also, have you seen a recent picture? He's pushing 60 and no longer boyishly handsome:

​

He's a billionaire! He could look like Gollum and he'd have hoards of women after him!

Yes, BUT, remember that even a 50% increase of a small number is still a small number. There are so many things to worry about when having children. If you choose to worry, then you need to rethink those plans to have children.

I mostly agree with you. I'm in my late 30s and I have a baby on the way so obviously I didn't overthink it. That said, the incidence of some birth defects actually grows to numbers I would hesitate to call small. For example, by the early forties, a woman has a 2 - 3% chance of having a fetus with Down Syndrome. That's enough of a chance to give me pause.

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm

Physically, the best time for a woman to have a baby is in her early to mid 20s. Emotionally and financially it is often more appropriate to wait until her 30s. Each family needs to make the call that is right for them. I didn't even meet my wife until I was in 32 so having a child in our 20s was right out.

 

[SteamKing]

He's a billionaire! He could look like Gollum and he'd have hoards of women after him!

A 'hoard' is a stockpile. OTOH, a 'horde' is a ravenous mob of people.

Still, the bigamy laws apply even unto billionaires. Gates, who shows no such tendencies, could engage in serial monogamy, but he can't take multiple wives simultaneously, even he moves to Utah.

 

[analogdesign]

A 'hoard' is a stockpile. OTOH, a 'horde' is a ravenous mob of people.

Touché.

Well, could you in that case say he has "Binders full of women?"

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I prefer the word coffers full of women.

And who says marrying women. I am sure bill gates has had enjoyed the flesh of many venuses throughout his 60 years of life.

 

[SteamKing]

I prefer the word coffers full of women.

And who says marrying women. I am sure bill gates has had enjoyed the flesh of many venuses throughout his 60 years of life.

Post #23

Bill Gates, Party Machine? I don't think so. His temperament is not that of a TMZ or Page 6 kinda guy. The big scandal in Bill's life has been Windows.

 

[moontiger]

So this is really something that's been bugging me for awhile, though I still have a lot of time. I'm only 21 now and in my 3rd year of undergrad. I plan to go on to graduate school, get a PhD, postdoc, and then become a professor. A long, arduous process, but one that I'm (so far) willing to attempt.

My question is this: do you know any women that have succeeded in academia (i.e., become a professor ideally) while still maintaining a family?

I'd really like to begin a family while I'm in my 20's or early 30's, but after I finish graduate school I'll probably be 28-29, then postdoc for a few years, and then all that is even before I start to look for a position somewhere.

Does anyone know a woman who has had children/a family during graduate school? A postdoc? Does she take some years off? How does it work?

Hello. I am a former female physics professor at a four-year college. No, typically you do not take time off; that will be a big red flag on your CV. Here are the phases when I have known people to have kids:

Grad School: I went to a Big 5 graduate school. I only know of one (male) physics student who had children during his PhD. It was very difficult for him (and probably more so for his wife), although he did manage to finish on time by choosing a very laid-back advisor who was not around much. The advisor recommended that he not continue further in academia, though.

Postdoc: I do know one woman theorist who married during graduate school and had two children as a postdoc. She was very, very brilliant and hardworking, and also had a supportive advisor who allowed her to work part time for several years. She is now faculty. Her husband was also a professor so they had a two-body problem but managed to find jobs near each other. I visited her once to give a talk. Her life was crazy busy but she was managing and doing very well. The other woman theorist I know who had two kids during her postdoc is still languishing in postdocs a decade post PhD. But she was in a field where she might not have found a job anyway.

Junior Faculty: I know a very large number of women who had children (usually two) after beginning tenure-track positions. This seems to be the most common path--people marry in grad school and then have children as soon as they become junior faculty. Of course you have to navigate all the two-body problems first. That's not easy.

I began my own TT position at 30. I initially thought I had the perfect job to raise children--located in a safe, idyllic college town where any future kids of mine would go to school with other professors' kids, schedule flexibility, unscheduled time whenever kids would have vacations, etc. I saw numerous women profs who were married with kids. But a semester or two in I realized the job was not really that family friendly--it was really, really time consuming. I was working as many hours as medical residents and investment bankers, and a lot of the work was just awful stuff like grading hundreds of exams and then meeting with 20 students who wanted to argue their grades. There was no such thing as sick leave if you got sick...any days you took off teaching, someone else had to cover--and that person was already probably working way too hard. And unfortunately due in part to all the moves and temporary positions I held beforehand, I had not actually met the right person. I had assumed it would happen for me; I'd meet another professor, or something. But the job was in a rural area and I rapidly realized that all the other women who were married with kids had all come there as married couples...they didn't meet their partners in Podunk, because there was nobody to meet.

I stayed a couple of years and got out. I'm now married with kids and I work in industry. Kids would not have been impossible in my TT job, but I find industry much friendlier.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Here is an unrelated question that I wanted to pose to all of you at Physics Forums. Which industries can be said to be the most family friendly in the US, in terms of allowing for flexibility for women to be able to raise children without going through too many hurdles, as well as providing the most generous family benefits to women?

 

[moontiger]

Here is an unrelated question that I wanted to pose to all of you at Physics Forums. Which industries can be said to be the most family friendly in the US, in terms of allowing for flexibility for women to be able to raise children without going through too many hurdles, as well as providing the most generous family benefits to women?

I would say something that does not require one to train into one's 30s, where the nature of work is such that working from home is possible, jobs do not require extensive travel, and where part-time opportunities are available. I would guess that jobs in software or web development might be likely to fit this bill, but I don't know. My only actual job experience is as a physicist.

 

[analogdesign]

Here is an unrelated question that I wanted to pose to all of you at Physics Forums. Which industries can be said to be the most family friendly in the US, in terms of allowing for flexibility for women to be able to raise children without going through too many hurdles, as well as providing the most generous family benefits to women?

I would say one good one is public health. It is the culture in that field to have a more "project-oriented" career where you change jobs ever couple of years and there isn't a lot of stigma for taking a few years off or becoming a consultant for a while. This is very hard in the other fields I have specific knowledge of (namely engineering and physics in academia and industry). It is also normal (in many public health organizations) to allow work part-time work which is rare in a professional career.

 

[JakeBrodskyPE]

Here is an unrelated question that I wanted to pose to all of you at Physics Forums. Which industries can be said to be the most family friendly in the US, in terms of allowing for flexibility for women to be able to raise children without going through too many hurdles, as well as providing the most generous family benefits to women?

Utilities tend to be stable, sedate places. The bureaucracy can be deep at times, but they do generally offer good job security and decent benefits. I have built a career at a large water utility where. After three years of service, one receives 19 days of annual leave per year and after 15 years of service we get 26 days of annual leave every year (literally one day off every two weeks), federal holidays, and not only maternity leave, but paternity leave as well. Overnight travel for work is rare. You can take some work home with you if you feel you must, but if you want to walk away from the crazy at the end of the day, you usually can.

However, senior staff positions are sometimes called upon for a week of 24 hour call. I was able to avoid that when my kids were too young to leave on their own.
I do know some who earned Ph.D degrees in other related fields who stumbled into this kind of work. They like it.

In general, this is not one of the sexier, high profile fields, We don't generally get people who go to school thinking, "when I graduate, I'm going to design stuff for a sewage treatment plant." But some smart people do stumble across this place. and a few find it relaxed and interesting enough to stick around.

 

[analogdesign]

In general, this is not one of the sexier, high profile fields, We don't generally get people who go to school thinking, "when I graduate, I'm going to design stuff for a sewage treatment plant." But some smart people do stumble across this place. and a few find it relaxed and interesting enough to stick around.

My father (now retired) designed waste-water treatment plants all over the world (although mostly in the US). I wonder if you've come across him over the years... small world. He worked for a consultant engineering firm, which I think is slightly less family-friendly that a utility.

 

[jack476]

I mostly agree with you. I'm in my late 30s and I have a baby on the way so obviously I didn't overthink it. That said, the incidence of some birth defects actually grows to numbers I would hesitate to call small. For example, by the early forties, a woman has a 2 - 3% chance of having a fetus with Down Syndrome. That's enough of a chance to give me pause.

But that's only Down syndrome. At any age, you have similar odds of having a child on the autism spectrum. You have anywhere between 5% and 10% chance of having a child with ADHD no matter what your own genetics are at any age. Your chances of having a child with bipolar are also between 2% and 3%, and your own age would have nothing to do with this. There is always a non-zero risk that your child will be born with a disability and nothing you can do about it.

My own experience with this argument is mostly that it's a statistic waved around by socially conservative types. It came up extremely frequently in our high school sex ed class, which was abstinence-focused and sponsored by a quasi-religious conservative PAC. Our book had an entire chapter devoted to the subject of why it's your social, moral, and biological priority to reproduce ASAP, and it reeked of BS.

 

[Arsenic&Lace]

It's doable. There are two female professors who are tenured and had children later, in their 30's, at my home institution. But my impression is that they have had to work even harder than their male counterparts, and they both have very supportive husbands.

 

[Niflheim]

But that's only Down syndrome. At any age, you have similar odds of having a child on the autism spectrum. You have anywhere between 5% and 10% chance of having a child with ADHD no matter what your own genetics are at any age. Your chances of having a child with bipolar are also between 2% and 3%, and your own age would have nothing to do with this. There is always a non-zero risk that your child will be born with a disability and nothing you can do about it.

My own experience with this argument is mostly that it's a statistic waved around by socially conservative types. It came up extremely frequently in our high school sex ed class, which was abstinence-focused and sponsored by a quasi-religious conservative PAC. Our book had an entire chapter devoted to the subject of why it's your social, moral, and biological priority to reproduce ASAP, and it reeked of BS.

I agree with the first part, but are you trying to imply that religious and conservative people think that people should reproduce as soon as they can?

 

[Dishsoap]

I also went to a religious school for middle and high school, and I can confirm that a lot of religious (though I'm not sure about conservative) people tend to be in support of a "God-planned" family, meaning no birth control... which, for obvious reasons, tends to result in having kids younger.

 

[jack476]

I agree with the first part, but are you trying to imply that religious and conservative people think that people should reproduce as soon as they can?

No, just that the curriculum had a very clear political angle and played rather loose with the facts. I said that the argument that it's somehow ideal to have children younger and that women ideally should be homemakers and child-rearers is typically a religious and conservative position, not that all religious conservative people argue that.