------------ ---------- Diary of a Goldfish: Older Mothers: Sexism, Ageism & Disablism

Diary of a Goldfish

Monday, May 25, 2009

Older Mothers: Sexism, Ageism & Disablism



Older women having children is against nature.






Older women have disabled babies.





Women who are likely to have disabled children shouldn't have children.











Older mothers confuse people and invite their children to be bullied


"Think of the raise eyebrows at parents evening!"





Labels: , , , , , ,

Comments on "Older Mothers: Sexism, Ageism & Disablism"


Blogger Terri said ... (2:14 PM) : 

Brava! When people want to judge someone else's choices ANYTHING will pass as reason. I am sure they don't even know how prejudiced and stereotyping they sound.


Anonymous JackP said ... (5:59 PM) : 

While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I disagree with your stats relating to Downs. It is an increase in a fairly small risk, but it's a heck of an increase.

While I can find other stats, the ones from Wikipedia sum up my understanding:


That's an 8000% increase in risk, and one that - in my mind at least - moves it from "virtually insignificant risk" to "small but very much there".

I'm making no judgements about Downs, or people with it, but equally I'd not assume that parents with a higher income or more education would necessarily be better parents - any more than the assumption someone 'able bodied' would be... or that IQ is a good measure of intelligence, for that matter :-)

(NB your link to the "older fathers/evolution thing isn't working)

The Times article talks about mutation rate, but doesn't mention 'natural selection'. It also misses a key point: one old person might have more sperm with mutations, but even if all those mutations were viable ('tis generally not a good thing),the effect of one man fathering an excessive proportion of children would actually be to reduce the gene pool 'spread' because you've got less genes around to choose from...

In any case, there's little natural 'selection pressure' in this regard although there is still obviously sexual selection (people choosing partners they find desirable).

And why is there an assumption that further evolution is desirable or advantageous? We've reached the stage where instead of adapting to our environment, we are adapting the environment to suit us (although that is causing its own problems as well).

Anyway, where was I? Well, my first girlfriend's mother was 49 when she was born, so I've got nothing against older mothers per se; but I do think - as you say - the 'expectation of life expectancy' needs to be considered. If your odds of bringing your kids up to age 18 aren't great, maybe you should reconsider...

Other than that, fill yer bootees, as t'were...


Blogger The Goldfish said ... (7:59 PM) : 

Terri, thank you. :-)

Jack, you're right about the Downs stats - I should have probably phrased that a little clearly. But as you say, still a small risk as opposed to the near-inevitability it is often made out to be.

My point about age, wealth and education is about statistics. Statistically, children from wealthy backgrounds do better at school, and measure better IQs (IQ scores being as much about education as anything innate, thus my link to the post about race and IQ).

So although there are stats which show supposedly negative outcomes, there are also states which show supposedly positive ones. No comment on whether older parents make better parents - who knows? And who can say - most of us only get one set each!

The Times article (the link to which I've now corrected but here it is again) is bizarre, especially the bit about polygamy - even in societies where it is accepted, only very high status met get multiple wives, otherwise there aren't enough women to go around and you get a very discontented mass of frustrated young men. So the implication that there were many men in our genetic history who had many many partners is dubious.

I also agree about evolution; any time anyone suggests that there might be a way to move the species on just makes my skin crawl - we have no idea what the next step will be.


Blogger ecobunni said ... (10:30 PM) : 

Is it her own egg or not? I'm asking that because that makes a difference to the genetic chances the baby will have.

Personally I think it is her choice, maybe she will be a brilliant mother maybe not. Only her child will placed to judge.


Blogger Ariane said ... (12:41 AM) : 

Very nice summary of all the arguments against. I think it's important to call the arguments into question, because my gut reaction is to condemn motherhood in the 60s (although I have the same gut reaction to fatherhood, so at least my bias isn't also sexist!) and I don't think it is a valid response.

Two minor points: I agree that mutations are not necessarily bad, in fact it is not clear they are even usually bad. I carry a mutation, discovered as a result of excessive screening, and it does nothing. Mutations that are bad are heavily over-represented in the "identified" category - after all who goes hunting for benign mutations?

Also, with respect to whether a disabled child is worse off than not being brought into this world - I am in no position to have an opinion, but I worked with adults with CF, and many, maybe even half, believed that CF should be screened for and foetuses affected should be terminated. If such screening isn't available, they felt that parents shouldn't have kids. That is one condition, and one sample of 30 or so - anecdata at best, but there do exist some people who think people like them are better off not existing. Their parents universally disagree.


Blogger Never That Easy said ... (12:03 AM) : 

I do no know anything about this story: I am tangled up in a world all my own these days, but I read your post very, very carefully.

And if I could, I give you a great big hug, just for this line - Of all the ways in which a parent can fail their child, being disabled isn't one of them.

Bravo. And thank you.


Blogger Gone Fishing said ... (5:58 AM) : 

I liked the "joke" on the radio this morning.

A group of People arrived to see the Baby.

But they had to wait until it cried so she knew where she had left it.

Word verification = taldepus, I like that talepes is in my history maybe I am just an old taldepus


Blogger The Goldfish said ... (2:12 PM) : 

Thanks folks, sorry to dawdle on responding to comments!

Ecobunni - this is quite true. And I don't know whether or not she used her own egg - it is possible that she froze some a while back, but given her age now and the timeline of this technology, probably not.

Ariane - CF does seem to be one of these conditions - it's quite unusual for people with a congenital condition to say they wouldn't want to make another them, but I've heard people with CF say that myself. Which is sad and of course, those choices must be respected.

Thanks for the word anecdata, by the way. :-)

NTE - Thank you, consider yourself hugged back.

Gone Fishing - Oh dear. :-D Still, good to see you around.


OpenID starrlife said ... (1:02 PM) : 

I consider myself an older mom (42 when daughter was born) and yes I have a child with Down Syndrome. But I have many friends who do not and are of a similar age. Should I not have taken the risk? To each their own. There are challenges and there are gifts- how is that different than anyone else? I suppose I have some problems getting down on the floor at 53 compared to 20 but I have abundant patience and strategies galore. I certainly have the accumulated wisdom to know that 'isms' are for the unimaginative.



i crossed60 but still my mind is always think about sex and like subjects.my mind always thrive about senior ladies. am i wrong.


post a comment