it makes absolutely no sense. why should women reach their peak of fertility in their teens and early twenties, when they have neither the time nor resources to raise children? most women don't achieve the financial means to start a family until their mid thirties or later, just when their fertility declines?...
In 1900, the average life expectancy of women was ~45, which was an all time high. In the 1600s, Shakespeare wrote about Romeo, who was 16, and Juliet, who was 14, which were typical ages for marriage in those days. The pregnant female really needed a male to support her in order to rear a successful family. And only ~1 in 4 babies lived to be 5 years old and older back then. Download and watch the movie, "Coalminer's Daughter", set in eastern Kentucky, where girls routinely married at age 14 and then began having babies. I'm not saying it was better back then. It was simply a fact.
Our species did not evolve in a time where time and resources peaked in a person's 30s; most died before that age.
You have it backwards. Society is out of sync with nature.
Nature isn't aware of when peak earnings occur in a woman's life. Some things are more important than money.
Our species evolved in a context where 35 years has been the average lifespan for hundreds of thousands of years.
Only industrialized countries have have reached 70 during last century.
The norm for Paleolithic boys and girls, as well as modern 3rd world countries and Hunter/gatherer tribes was to have as many children as possible since their early teens so a couple of them would survive the hight infant mortality, and the parents would live long enough lo teach them the basics of hunting, foraging and stone tooling before they got their own babies.
If it were not for the amazing achievements men, most women would be dead by 35 and the rest soon after. So women weren't very useful for the survival of the species after 35. It is society and feminism that is out of sync with reality.
If women want children, women should have children first and get that all finished by 35. Then start a career.
You have it backwards. Society is out of sync with nature.
Nature doesn't care about human created systems like capitalism.
You know though, plenty of people are financially ready to have children a great earlier than thirty-five.
Nature isn't out of sync with reality we are out of sync with nature.
wonnen have babies after age 35 so theyre not losing their fertility then
Actually, 35 is the perfect age to have grand children. And that's exactly why fertility continues to decline after an early peak.
Humans evolved in times with a lot of early deaths with the survivors living into old age. Don't let the discussion of a life expectancy of 35 fool you. That means for every infant who dies in their first year someone lives to be 70.
Once we walked we needed our hands to hold tools. Which means not holding kids. Which means the grand parents hold the kids. Which is why humans live so much longer than apes.
The perfect age to start having children is about 18 and you should be done by 25. Our current western society is perverted by the greedy agenda of your "conservative" overlords. They want you working for them and not taking care of your own life. In socialist countries you are not "on your own" and people care what happens to future generations, not just themselves. Humans are social animals and the species is what maters, not just individuals.
They don't "lose" their fertility after age 35. It gradually starts to decline. Most women are no longer able to conceive (naturally) after age 45-55, i.e. menopause (complete cessation of periods). Approximately 20% of all babies in the UK are born to mothers 35 and over...the same amount as born to mothers under 25 years of age. Hope this helps.
Since when did people generally have enough money and maturity to start a family in their 20s?
The age of menopause is ratcheting upward. It was once the case that, on average, it came significantly earlier than it does now. Human biology may be adapting to our growing preference for later-in-life pregnancies and childbirth and the fact that it's better for children to be raised by older, more stable parents.
However, that's a fairly recently-established preference, and evolution of that kind takes place slowly. Right now, women who wait too long can still have a lot of trouble conceiving even with assisted reproduction.
This is the 21st century. Women are not dying in childbirth or wearing out at age 35. We are living to 100, now. Women are fertile well into their 50s, and successfully have kids in their 60s, now and then. No need to rush things.
Until the last 100 years or so, women would begin having children in their early teens. Their parental duties were winding down, if not completed by age 35. At 35, a woman still has plenty of time to have a career. I don't really understand why it takes women until 35 to start a career if they are single and have no children.
My sister got married at age 17, with just a GED. She had her first child at 20, then 2 more at 22 and 25. Once her youngest was a teenager, she started taking classes at community college. It took a little longer than a full time student, but she got her bachelor's at age 43. She had no trouble getting a decent paying job and took on no student debt along the way.
She says she doesn't understand why women work on their career, then start a family. A woman is much better suited for having and raising children when they are younger, and much more respected in the workforce when they are older. She never had to juggle work and being a mom.
Maybe she is weird.
A woman's body can take the stress and abuse of bearing and raising children for only so long and she literally runs out of gas. In ages past women were married at 18 because by age 35 they are literally played out. Jesus was married when Mary was all of 17 the scholars seem to think, Henry Tudor who became Henry VII, was born when his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was only 14.
Breeders talk about fertility. Pathetic.
Please get fcked. Internet is not 4 breeders.
Ikr damn shame