"The End of Babies," But Not the End of Long, Rancorous Comment Threads

The “End of Babies” piece that appeared in the New York Times this week, by the talented writer Anna Louie Sussman, is coming in for the special type of abuse reserved for articles that examine the pros and cons of having babies, delaying parenthood, or skipping it altogether. When, heaven forbid, the journalist enters the story and attempts to come to terms with her own reasons for not having babies, or for wanting babies, or for making whatever decisions she’s making, the abuse ratchets up a few notches.

One theme in the comments is about adoption. It’s worth noting that, contrary to what some commenters imply, Sussman does not at any point promote having one’s own kids instead of adopting. She wrestles with the “inherent narcissism of preserving own’s own genetic material when there are so many children without parents.” At the end, she admits to “craving genetic continuity, however tenuous and fictitious it might be,” and to understanding the emotional desire for it. By doing so, she brings on herself a punishing string of responses, but we won’t quote those here. Best to read the article itself, and dip into the comments if you have the time/inclination/masochistic streak.

Still, the upside of a long comments thread is that the best discussion often happens among the commenters themselves (if anyone has the patience to follow the thread for that long, which I only do in the rarest cases).

From the Sussman comment thread, now at almost 1400 and counting, here’s one worth republishing—a response from one Susan in Portland, OR, to another commenter:

“That which is a joy for one person is not a joy for another. I don't think childless people feel that their love is in any way diminished because they do not want children. …Parenting takes work and now, very commonly, both parents already have work outside the home and they are exhausted when they get home. Baby-having works more easily when generations lived together and older relatives were home to care for children. Many single people, as well as couples without children, find meaningful love, receive love, and give love that has nothing to do with parenting. Love is where you choose to find it and is worthy in all its forms.”

Amen to that.

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash.

Here's the Latest Idea for Renaming the Dreaded "Advanced Maternal Age"

By Salma Abdelnour Gilman

An article on NBC's 9News.com headlined "Can I have Kids After 35? And Other Mom Questions Answered" doesn't have much to offer in the way of insights. Spoiler alert: The answer to the headline question is, "Research has shown that women are having babies later in life." So... this gives you a sense of the level of hard-nosed, ear-to-the-ground reporting we're dealing with here. But there are two intriguing takeaways from the article:

1) "Women with more children have less teeth." This is weird. But it's apparently a "FACT" (all-caps), according to the aforementioned 9News.com.

2) There's a better alternative to "Advanced Maternal Age," and it's... are you ready? "Waited Until I Could Handle It Moms." Not entirely accurate, since certainly not everyone waits on purpose, but we could get used to this one. WUICHIM is the acronym, and it's already growing on us. Bye forever, AMA?

Photo by Maurice Schalker via Unsplash.

When Celebs Have Babies After 40, How Much Dirt Do They Owe Their Fans?

The answer is none. That's my opinion anyway, and it remains that way after more than a week of running this question through my mind over and over again. Lots of celebrities lately are having kids well over 35, into their mid-to-late 40s and even beyond. And that raises the question: How are they all doing it? Are they conceiving naturally, and if so, how are this many of them beating the odds? Are they using reproductive technologies? If celebs can have kids later in life, does this mean everyone can? Inquiring minds want to know, and these questions are all valid—especially as women wrestle with the question of when to have kids ourselves, and how long we can afford to wait.

It would be ideal if celebs revealed everything about their journeys and struggles, but they have every right to keep that information private. After I posted a reaction here to a recent NYU study I read that faults celebs and magazines for not revealing more about stars' fertility and pregnancy struggles—a study I found to be misguided in its conclusions—I couldn't get the issue out of my head. Since celebrities' decisions about childbirth and everything else tend to have disproportionate influence, don't those stars owe us explanations about what they're up to? Especially if that info could keep many of us from trying to follow in their footsteps, with often devastating results?

It would be terrific if more celebs felt comfortable opening up about their childbirth stories, and if they could help bust the stigmas surrounding fertility and childbirth problems. But I still think the responsibility to inform and educate lies elsewhere, far from the pages of Cosmo and People. So I wrote another piece about this for Medium. I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, and I may be a masochist for not letting it go. But I do believe the issue deserves a wider debate, in any case. 

The Medium article is here. Please click the hand-clap icon at the bottom if you like or agree with it, or if you at least think the issue is worth a wider conversation. Thanks for reading!  

Gwen Stefani photo by Jelizen via Wikimedia Commons.