When to have children?

The alternative and much longer title should read, "Women, whatever you do you are doing it wrong. Too old, too young, going out to work, staying at home?"

Blog post has been inspired by a series of discussions and articles today about a survey which suggests that the majority of women in Britain think that 40+ is too old to have a child. The Daily Mail article highlights the findings of a survey that was apparently managed by YouGov on behalf of First Response (early pregnancy tests). The survey suggests that 70% of British women over the age of 55 (source: Daily Mail) think that women should not be having children over the age of 40 as this is too old. There does not seem to be any mention of the optimum age for men to be having children.

My first thought was that whatever women do with regards to having children they will be criticised by someone somewhere. I have blogged before about people choosing not to have children and the pity and vitriol that this seems to inspire from people who barely know those who they choose to insult. If women choose to get educated and then work their way up the career ladder that will inevitably affect the age at which they have children. There seems to be derision and much of the negative and rude commentary that surrounds this choice focuses on the following ideas, that;

• these women will be 'left on the shelf'
• these women are somehow going against the expected biological 'norm'
• these women are fair for criticism

If a woman chooses to have children younger, perhaps before or instead of university education or before embarking on what they may describe as a 'career-path' then they are equally criticised for being too young and not having seen enough of the world. Pity is often given that these women will miss out on; partying, travelling and education. There is also the assumption that if they are young, then they must need state support. It does not seem to matter what a woman does, she will be criticised for her choices. I have never noticed or heard these same points made about male friends or family members with regards to their choices about having or not having children.

Anyway enough of my rambling. The point of this post was about the new website that First Response are launching, called Get Britain Fertile. There is not a lot on the site at the moment, but I presume when the tour launches it will be populated with information. I understand the promotion of good health and exercise (even if I'm not a fan of the exercise!) but I think there is more to fertility than eat your greens. I think the Daily Mail piece, in choosing to focus on age, is also too simplistic. Women are not stupid, we know that fertility declines as we age. But, fertility is also not as simplistic or linear as this. Some women will be fertile at 40 and others will not be fertile at 20. To tell a woman, and her partner, that the approach to conception involves eating well and exercising is patronising at best. Any woman or man who has been anyway or where through fertility treatment, whether that is dipping a toe in or having to go further, will be aware of the limitless amount of 'advice' that people will offer. 'Have you tried...' becomes a catch all phrase from any allegedly well meaning friend, colleague or family member.

By all means it is no bad thing to encourage people to think about their health and fertility. But unless the NHS is prepared to offer full MOTs for couples wanting to conceive, at the start of their journey, it is perhaps a little meaningless. It is also no bad thing to think about the diminishing nature of fertility for both men and women as we age, but don't patronise people. Most importantly, whatever choices women make about their bodies, lives and children, don't judge them. They haven't asked for your opinion and I'm sure they're not interested! As an addition, I really hate the 'mocked' up image of Get Britain Fertile's ambassador Kate Garraway as a heavily pregnant woman who is clearly way over 40. The image looks as if she is closer to 70, I get it is designed to shock, but actually it is just confirming the patronising nature of this.