PostingIt's all comparative

September07024_Small.JPG I'm working on the first chapter of Fashionably Late. This section of the book is about who makes the grade as an 'older' mum these days. Officially, any woman over thirty five is honoured with the title. But, unofficially, I suspect the goalposts have shifted somewhere north of around forty. The health professionals don't seem to get too worried these days until women are closer to forty five.

How we define ourselves depends not just on the medical definitions, of course, but also on personal circumstance. If a woman's mother and sisters had their babies before they were 28, she might consider herself 'old' to be having a child at only 34. If anybody reading this has been in that kind of situation, I'd love to hear from them and perhaps interview them.

More generally, I'm interested in what readers of this blog define as 'old' - and why - when it comes to having children. As I suggested above, some people base their ideas of 'old' on whether they're doing things later than their friends or family. I didn't think too much about my age (38) when I had Beanie, until I got to the post-natal meet-up and realised I was the oldest person in the room, barring the health visitor running the group. Other people go by the statistics for the national average (29 years old for first-time mums).

How do you define what it means to be an 'older' mum?

Please leave a comment or get in touch with me via email as I'm keen to know your views.

Two signed copies of the book go to every interviewee.

PS: I include this picture to prove that no mother, whatever her age, is ever too old to ride with her child on a flying teapot. Lacking in good sense or proper decorum, perhaps. But that, as they say, is another matter. You might be able to notice poor Beanie cowering in fear under my right arm.

Posted 22 October 2007 15:44

Fashionably Late - the book Older mother Work at Home Mum

Comments

DJ Kirkby said:

I never minded being the oldest person in the breast feeding group as my age got ignored in favour of the fact that I was a midwife. I was more concerend with being viewed as a miserable failure in front of everyone as I thought I would be expected to be a blazing success at everything to do with motherhood!

Posted 22 October 2007 18:25

Helen said:

DJ, you are a big success at motherhood.

Posted 22 October 2007 19:01

iota said:

Your book is going to be so interesting... I want to know the answers to all these questions.

Posted 22 October 2007 20:45

Helen said:

Iota, thanks, am working on them.

Posted 22 October 2007 21:04

potty mummy said:

Hi Helen,



as you know, my mum had her 3rd baby aged 32 - but her first 2 at 22 and 24 respectively. And my sister had hers at 27. So yes, must admit that I did feel a little over the hill when I had mine at 36 and 38.

It's enough of an issue for me that I feel I've played the lottery successfully twice and am not prepared to risk it a 3rd time - despite the fact that those pesky hormones are going hell for leather to convince me to go for it.

Posted 22 October 2007 21:17

Helen said:

Potty Mummy, none of my business, but why not go for it if that's what you really want to do? And thanks for what you say.

Posted 22 October 2007 21:40

Erica said:

Hi, I know I'm not in your target market for this post, but I didn't want to feel left out :)



I am regarded as a 'young mum' by society, which makes me feel like I've been a little 'careless' or that somehow I wasn't ready for Erin. I often feel that I need to 'defend' myself somehow by not so casually mentioning that I am married and that Erin was very much planned.



Just my feelings from the other side of the fence.

Posted 22 October 2007 22:00

guineapigmum said:

My mother must have been an older mum in her day. She had the first of us when she was about 30, and went on to have 5 more. Of her offspring, only one of us (my brother) has had children in their 20s. I was 37 when I had my first, 39 with the 2nd. My sisters were both mid-30s. As you say, I didn't think too much about my age. In fact I felt far too young for the responsibility! It was only once the children were toddlers that I really noticed I was quite a bit older than the mums around me.

Posted 22 October 2007 22:56

Helen said:

Erica, I get this at the other end of the spectrum, when people ask if Beanie was 'assisted'. Us mums just can't win.



Guineapig Mum, it's all relative. In so many senses.

Posted 22 October 2007 23:37

Joyfulgirl said:

The picture is great and made me laugh this morning! Good luck with the first chapter. It will be an interesting one...



Re. the question ... for me an older mum is 35 and over for their first child.



Strange thing is though that in my group this is quite "normal"-my best friend (since college) had her first baby just a few months before me; sisters, a close cousin and other work colleagues I know well also had their first baby at 35ish. So although I do feel I am definitely an older mum (and get confirmation of this when I look in the mirror!) it doesn't feel freakish - if this was in my mother's time she would have been classified as an ancient first time mum at 35! My mum was having me (her third child) at the age when I was having my first.



I found at the ante -natal classes and breastfeeding support group that many of the mums were older mums too so I didn't feel too old there- I didn't really think it was a representative group of the mums who were having babies at the same time as me but thought perhaps that older mums were more anxious and so attended more of these things!



I think this 35 threshold in a way "forces" you to get down to business if you are reaching that age, want a child and are in a stable relationship. My doctor’s advice was that there wouldn't be huge changes in your body in a year or two around 35 but all the same you would need to be getting on with things!

Posted 23 October 2007 08:47

Elaine said:

I had my first child at 31 and on my notes I noticed that I was down as an 'elderly prima gravida'.....I was highly amused

Posted 23 October 2007 12:09

Helen said:

Elaine, it's such nonsense, isn't it. Might I ask, how long ago did that happen?

Posted 23 October 2007 12:40

Helen said:

Joyfulgirl, turning 35 certainly proved a call to arms for me.

Posted 23 October 2007 12:41

Juliet said:

Hi - and thanks for visiting my blog - I've left a reply to your comment. I had my three at 33 (was the oldest in my NCT group and jolly well made to feel it!), 37 and (accidentally!) 41. Didn't bother with classes for 2 and 3, and consequently felt a lot better and more confident and simply 'me', rather than constantly being referred to as 'elderly' and having 'Birth Over 30' books thrust at me at every turn. Main downside of being 45 when third started school was gravitating towards some mothers of my sort of age at kids' parties, only to discover that they were in fact the grandmothers! (PS my mother had my sister and me at 32 and 37 when it was the norm for women to have babies in their early 20s; my grandmother had my father and his brother at 38 and 43, which was unheard of at the time.)

Posted 24 October 2007 00:05

Helen said:

Juliet, thanks for popping over. I'd count my blessings if the worst that happens is I end up socialising with the grannies. At least no-one has actually (yet) taken me for one.

Posted 24 October 2007 00:26

Post a comment

Enter your comment here.

You can use some html tags such as <b> and <i>.

Word verification

Name

Email (will not be made public)

Website (optional)

Remember me