Thursday, January 8, 2015
it's not you, it's your biological clock
Posted by saaara
My ovaries immediately burst into tears when I heard this. I find it so frustrating (and unfair) that a guy's future isn't impacted at all by a biological clock when a woman has it looming over her head. Even if women are married or in a relationship, they have to consider stalling their career for kids. I don't care how far you "lean in"-- having a kid is like competing in a race with weights attached to your legs. You can still run, you can still participate, but you're probably going to have to move a lot slower than everyone else. And you'll be way more exhausted at the finish line.
That said, I didn't totally hold these sentiments against my guy friend. He's most likely correct in thinking that a thirty-two year old woman isn't on the same marriage/baby timeline as a twenty-seven year old. Men have the luxury of waiting. They can be bachelors till they're fifties and then marry someone who's still young enough to have kids (ahem, George Clooney). If women had the same luxury, I'm sure we'd hold off on getting married and having children too.
Here's where I think my friend's wrong though. I don't think any of us-- men/women-- should find ourselves beholden to an imaginary timeline of when we think we'll be ready for marriage or children. Timing is a big part of relationships, but an even bigger part is finding the right person. Would you rather meet someone AMAZING a little earlier than planned or risk settling for someone else when you're finally ready? Not to mention, women can have children in their forties. I know, shocker. Halle Berry had her last kid at 46. My cousin had her son at forty and says she has no regrets about waiting, because she wouldn't have been ready any younger. So: dudes. Do yourselves a favor and don't write off women in their thirties. Trust me. They're a lot more interesting and fascinating and sexually confident than those twenty-somethings. But maybe that's exactly what scares you.