Mill says, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Bill adds: "If they do nothing but look on as bad men compass their ends, are they still good men?"
I chime in to say, These Republican Senators have done something more than look on. They have actively endorsed a man who comes into office as the most corrupt and compromised AG in our nation's history. They have thrown their power and the force of the United States Senate behind him, and they have done it, not with resignation, but with a curious kind of defensive smugness, whining about their critics and talking about their own greatness merely for participating in the process.
They are not good men. They sure are not. These are some of the worst men the Good Lord ever blew breath into.
Blanche could have continued through the end of the administration with no Senate action, in his "acting" role (and "acting", indeed it is, since he does little that a heretofore A.G. would be doing). There was no need for Senate confirmation. But, after the Iran debacle, Trump had a burning need to demonstrate his dominance and force the Senate's meek submission to his will. Of course, they complied, likely out of fear of his flying monkeys. The Don rules the family.
The most damning and revelatory part of Gannon’s response was “I never thought it would happen to a guy like me.” Read: of course this happens to brown skinned, poor people, but it’s upsetting that those of us in the Epstein Class aren’t immune from these actions by ICE. Simply disgusting.
No question, some are cowardly sheep who only feel safe when hiding with the herd - but there are many who are so obviously just plain 'bad', who not only feel no sympathy for others when they go along with endorsing an action that will cause harm in some way to a targeted group, but often actively promote it on camera, joining in on the bullying (which, I just realized, also makes them 'sheep' who try to blend in with the bully's crowd).
"A Few Good Men" was made what, 30 years ago or so. Well they're all gone. The great Roman Senators Cato and Cicero went down fighting or by the sword, here our guys just make sure they have a great rest home environment lined up, while still serving, and the rest home won't stop them from serving--hat tip to Strom Thurmond. And Cassidy get's weepy about it all and the traditions of the US Senate. Too weird for me by miles.
There would be some hand-wringing, some vague comments about how violence is bad (with an undertone of, though maybe the guy that got beat was asking for it) and, of course, the obligatory thoughts and prayers for the victim in their recovery.
"The fact that I, Bill Cassidy, was able to do that, I am so privileged, and whenever I just for a second am hit by the gravity of that, and the honor of that, I get emotional.”
Apparently selling out your country is an emotional thing. Amazing the narrative these fools construct in their heads.
Can we simply stop pretending now, and stipulate that senate Republicans are the equivalent of the Russian Federation Council, and that Republican representatives the equivalent of the Russian Duma in any further discussions of pending appointments or legislation? Congress has been supine since Trump's election, and for the past decade has not functioned as a serious deliberative body thanks to the devolution of the Republican party into an authoritarian faction rather than a repository of serioous governing policy worthy of taking part in a representative democracy. My father would be disgusted at the present state of affairs. Long-time Republicans, for him and my mom, 2004 was the breaking point for the national party and they never looked back.
They're kind of the equivalent of the late-period Roman Republic Senate, whose inability to function led to the empire (and being a rubber stamp for the emperor).
MP - accurate call. One needed a sham vote to fool some voters, the other had lost his primary so didn't even need to pretend to meet the Constitutional duty of advice & consent. It's all up for grabs on this exciting episode of Tradin' for Trillions!
Come on guys! Everyone knows that on his perecription pads Cassiday had printed under every "Take twice a day to relieve..." , "But hey I can't tell the future."
"There will come a time when Donald Trump is gone. But your dishonor will remain" So said Liz Cheney.... The stain and dishonor will remain on Republicans forever in history.
I'm glad you brought this up. I feel as though the entire MAGA movement, or whatever you wish to call it, is at the point where they will glom onto anything, regardless of the level of hypocrisy, ridiculousness or veracity, to provide a fig leaf of justification for whatever they are doing and/or saying.
If it defends or justifies Trump and/or the movement...then it must be good. Speaker Johnson's “people have domestic disputes" is so wrong on so many levels...spoken by a supposed Christian guy leading the GOP house. UGH.
It's the most incredibly disgusting era of US politics in my lifetime.
It's worth remembering that Mike Johnson is a pseudo-Christian,of that variety that exalts white men over everyone else,but especially over women, who are all the daughters of Eve.
More likely, oblivious. The diet of social media & journalistic quality alongside a consumption of AI ; independently at home or in their schools will further polarize the once United States. This is a gop faction of Christian Nationalists, maga, & an unfortunate set that looks to Bannon, jdv, & their idea of religion as luminaries. When farmers have distorted ideations of herd immunity & there are outbreaks of measles propagated by a citizenry that puts Dr Fauci under the microscope…then sadly, rupture has arrived & stupid reigns . This is just what jdv wants; to reign over stupid; head hillbilly.
In response to Andrew's comments: Yes, having children at an earlier age means you'll be able to spend more time with them, baring health issues and barring accidents. But that is only one variable. Did you notice in the latest jobs report that women were the ones hit with job loss, while men gained jobs? Women who stop working to have children face a steep uphill road if they later want to (or need to) reenter the work force, both in job availability and in pay. Childcare expenses make it difficult, if not impossible, for women to work and raise children and many studies show that men do not equally shoulder the burdens. We're all aware of the numerous studies showing that Gen Z has a very difficult time buying a home, or simply existing in this economy, and it's worse on a single paycheck. Your section didn't even nod to these issues, seemingly basing your conclusion on age alone. My sister-in-law died the day after giving birth, 3.5 months prematurely, to a little girl. I adopted and raised that little girl and I was in my late 40s when this happened. I discovered that my age actually helped keep things in perspective and that I was more patient. FYI: My ex-husband did nothing at all to help because he didn't think it was his responsibility, even though it was his sister who was the biological mother. So yes, I'm 74 and my daughter is 28, but when she became ill, I was able to help and support her, including moving out of state, because I was retired. I was able to financially help her because I had a long, successful employment. Yes, this is an anomaly but, at the end of the day, most situations are. The decision if, and when, to have a child should be based on a lot of variables, especially ones that affect women.
As I said in another comment: The point of the piece I link to isn't that there aren't tradeoffs. The point is that we tend culturally to devalue one tradeoff in particular, because we don't like to think about aging and death.
"People's fertility decisions are nobody's business but their own!"
In the classic Seinfeld episode, "The Outing," in which Jerry and George are suspected of being gay, Jerry has a line that I adapted above to the decision of when and if to have children. His line was, "People's sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!" Nailed it.
I know that AOC publicized her decision, although one suspects that if she had kept it to herself and Republicans found out they would accuse her of having tried to hide her personal decision - she can't win no matter what she does.
What really bothers me about it is not Andrew's column or his opinions, take them or leave them, but that such personal decisions which don't have anything to do with AOC's job performance are now just considered fair game. Mind your own effing business.
Andrew - hey, speaking of aging, death, and all uplifting topics, isn't there some cheery fellow at The Bulwark who wrote a book a few years back about population dynamics and social/cultural issues? If he'd have posted this linked story in a Triad, wonder how the Comments would compare... 🤔
I am terribly sorry about the circumstances leading up to your SIL's death and the indifference of her brother, your ex-husband. Thank you for raising her as your own, loving her as your own.
I believe no male should be telling or offering advice to ANY woman of any age when they should or should not have children. Or whether they should have any children at all.
Have your opinions in your heads all you want but STAY IN YOUR LANES DUDES.
Patricia, thank you for explaining this. I feel that many people, especially male people miss the point which is that there is no one correct way. I do want to add that throughout history most women have worked they may have been relegated to work in the home, unpaid, or kept out of the more prestige occupations, but the idea that there is not a huge financial trade off in having children makes me livid.
I understand Andrew's case for having children at a younger age.
I had my only child just after my 32nd birthday, 40 years ago. My only grandson came along when my son was 31 and I was 61. I will not likely live long enough to meet my grandson's children.
My daughter-in-law had a child at 19 with her first husband. My bonus granddaughter is now 22 and earning her Master's degree. Sometimes I'm envious that they will be able to share so many years of their lives together.
But me? I cringe to think of myself as a parent when I was in my 20s. I had a lot of unresolved issues from my upbringing. The person I chose to marry and eventually have my only child with was one of those.
At 32 I had the maturity and experience to finally tackle my issues. I was fortunate to be well established in my career by then, which was important since I was the sole support of our family.
While I divorced when our son was 10, that career was the lifeline our family still relies on today. Like you, I've had to step up to occasionally help my son and his family as they deal with financial challenges.
Trade-offs indeed. I'm not sorry I made the choice I did but far more than young Andrew, I'm also very well aware of the clock that ticks down the remaining days of my life. Who doesn't want to spend more time with those they love?
Hello. You have reached Tim Coffey's "Morning Shots" autoresponder. You are receiving this message because the content in this morning's newsletter has dangerously compromised Mr. Coffey's ability to keep his more violent solutions to our ongoing national degradation to himself. As Mr. Coffey has noted multiple times in recent weeks, he does not wish to expose his fellow Bulwark subscribers to his feral id, and he also does not wish to lose his posting privileges on the Bulwark site by sharing what he'd really like to do. Lastly, Mr. Coffey believes the Speaker of the House, that unctuous little turd, should reacquaint himself with CS Lewis' "Screwtape Letters", particularly the closing passages of Letter 7, because Mr. Coffey is convinced the Speaker, whether he's aware of it or not, has an appointment with Our Father Below when the Speaker shuffles off his mortal coil. You will receive no further responses from Mr. Coffey this morning. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Unctuous is one of my favorite words. one of those words that kind of sounds like what it means--which are the best words.
Like Mr. Coffey, I often find myself incandescent with rage at what is going on--which is one of the reasons I do not post as much as I once did.
At this point I have largely said what needs to be said (in broad strokes if not specific detail to the latest outrage), so it has become wearying and depressing to say much else.
Andrew, you chose to have children when you were young. Luckily you had the maturity and hopefully the financial wherewithal to make that decision. The right is pushing people to have kids when the couple has neither and they vote against everything that may help a young family like that. As it is now, the right is endorsing teen pregnancy. What are your thoughts on that?
I am, obviously, anti-teen pregnancy (as is, despite social media, most of "the right"!) Financial wherewithal is overrated, as are many other decent enough reasons to put off having kids. The point of the piece I linked to (which I seriously strongly suggest reading in full) is that there are tradeoffs to everything here, and the tradeoff which we tend to devalue culturally is "total time sharing the earth with your kids."
Financial wherewithal is overrated? SERIOUSLY??? Are you that obtuse? Tell that to the family living in substandard housing or in their car, unable to afford enough food, clothing, or healthcare, etc. Tell that to a parent, or better yet a child who is watching a family member die of a preventable death because their Medicaid was cut and they couldn't afford to get them treated. You must have had a very sheltered upbringing. Financial stability is a huge reason why people either don't have children or only one. My sister and I were on our own as teenagers. I can't imagine what would have happened to us in today's world!
Isn't there some daylight between "overrated" and "meaningless?" There's also daylight between relative precarity and living out of a car or dying of an untreated disease.
I think that generally, the class of people who really emphasize financial health in delaying having kids are already better off than most people who just...go ahead and just have kids. Many of whom turn out fine. It's possible some people are setting too high a bar for when it's safe or responsible to start a family. Obviously, it can be harder or easier depending on all sorts of factors. But for an experience that's so integrally human and emotional, I think people who delay sometimes put too much weight on external, rational factors and undervalue the actual things that make them WANT to have a family in the first place.
Everyone has their perspective: sometimes it's not fully formed yet. I know a lot of"fortunately born" people who grew up in bubbles and attended elite private schools. Many don't understand that for a lot of folks in today's world, having kids is sentencing their kids to a really, really bad start in life. Mom working 2-3 jobs, older kids taking care of siblings, not enough money to buy decent food, no transportation, stuck in a s*** school district. The days of "equality of opportunity" for youth is gone, at least here in Texas. You can't even ride your bike safely to most schools and in many districts, you have to pay to use the school bus (it's $1100/year in ours).
My church does a lot of outreach in South Dallas and it's astounding how many smart kids want to go to college but are pulled back home to care for siblings or parents. In contrast those of us making a solid 6 figures plus can just hire some help. Those people living below the poverty line can't: education is secondary when you are trying to figure out the health-shelter-food-clothing basics. A very successful friend of mine recently put his kids back INTO the Dallas public school system because he realized that the school was not only very academically capable, but also that his kids would grow as adults by being around others with less. Some of the kids are living 3 and 4 to a room at home, whereas he lives in a $2.5M house. The school gets a bad rap because of the poverty, so most of his neighbors get them into one of the many $40K/year private schools around Dallas, and IMO, that's terrible for society unless you are just trying to create a class of elites that excludes everyone else not born into the right financial and social circles.
Hard for me to put it better than Scocca does (did I mention Tom Scocca, his 2018 piece "Your Real Biological Clock Is You're Going to Die," and how people should read it?):
"Did we choose the age at which we would have children? What does it mean to choose? We use the language of autonomy to avoid thinking about powers that shape our existence. Our civilization is remarkably hostile to the needs of life, from the helplessness of babyhood to the frailty of old age. The system is set up for healthy, productive, independent individuals, and one absorbs the lesson that one should try to stay in this class as long and as securely as one can.
So we wait until we are ready. There are good reasons to wait, or reasons that appear to be good once you accept the underlying terms. My children have not had to live with parents who are working 15-hour days, the way we worked in our 20s, or who are financially desperate, as we might have been if we’d been paying for children on the salaries of our 20s. Our professional standing allows us to skip work for pediatric appointments or parent-teacher conferences. We can afford to hire babysitters. I got a promotion and a big raise just when it was time to buy a piano. We all sit down together for home-cooked meals most evenings and talk about things.
I hope someday my children can do the same things for their own children. Maybe I’ll see them do it, but maybe I won’t: If my firstborn waits till he’s 35, going on 36, to have a child, the way I did, my grandchild will arrive the year I would turn 71. When that grandchild finishes fifth grade, I’ll be due to turn 81. And that would be the first of my grandchildren.
Are you ready to have a child? Take your age right now and add 18. And nine months, if you want to get particular about it, but call it 18. That’s how old you’ll be for high school graduation. Add 25 and picture yourself traveling to visit your grown-up child in a new city. Add 30. Add 40."
Not working 15-hour days and being able to skip work for appointments are extra hours with your children during their formative years. Are more years on earth while they are independent adults really as valuable as more hours with them during crucial developmental years?
The better mortality-related argument might be that death comes for some people in their 30s, 40s, or 50s, and if that turns out to be you, maybe you’d rather your children be older than younger. Socca hints at this (I did read the piece) but I suspect he’s still too uncomfortable thinking about earlier-than-average mortality to stick with the idea and make it the core of his argument.
I don’t disagree with this, but this is where policy could make it easier to have children at an earlier age and be geared towards better work-life-balance trade offs.
I am a parent both by our own conception and by adoption. This point about mortality and age of parenthood gets heated very fast in adoption circles. One side argues loudly that it's not fair to the child to adopt when the parent is 40 or 45 or 50 because they could be debilitated or dead by the time the child is 20 or 30. The other side argues that no one is guaranteed any time, and the child could be orphaned (again) at 10 if something happens young to the adoptive parent, which does of course happen. No one is guaranteed time. Or health. Or a child.
I respect everyone’s personal decisions around marriage and raising a family, and will fight with everything I’ve got to protect those rights- regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status.
There is a difference between how personal priorities manifest in our choices, and the factual underpinning to a life begun in financial scarcity, vs one in abundance. For every Dolly Parton, Dr Ben Carson, or Charles Barkley, there’s the other 85% of kids who don’t escape the American poverty to which they’re born. Citing a 2021 BYU study- not exactly progressive think tank persuasion:
Hi Andrew, I actually don’t disagree with the article and your comments about there being tradeoffs in life between having careers and having children, and when we do what. But if you really think having children earlier is better than what policies do you propose to make this easier, such as with regards to childcare, parents staying in the workforce and/or making it easier for them to return after being out. I was born in the mid-70’s and my mother who had been a nurse took time off to be a mother, but never went back to nursing taking other jobs when she rejoined the workforce. My husband’s mother was also a nurse who ever went back to work after having children. I know this is anecdotal, but still examples of highly trained professionals who never went back to those careers, and to be fair some parents may not want to go back to the workforce and stay home which is fine, but how do we make those decisions easier and provide the support for people to be able to make the decision that best meet their needs and circumstances.
There is an important distinction between what Richard Kane and you are saying. I am sure most of the '”the right” is against teen pregnancy; particularly out of wedlock pregnancy. Richard’s comment was more about policy, support, and yes abortion which often forces people to have children when they aren’t ready or able to take care of them. The difference isn’t that about condoning teenage pregnancy, but what tools and support are available to make decisions.
Andrew, and this may be more your age and or being part of the pundit class, but do you really think your readers impressions are merely shaped from social media? Obviously social media can be a source of news and information, but hardly the only source — I don’t use it for any news — but I doubt most of us are as online or consuming as much social media as you are or as you think we are.
As someone who was born to a 40 year old mother and had my own first child at 35, I understand the point Andrew is sharing here. While I haven't reached the stage where I'm mourning "last times" with my own child, I can see it clearly from a generational perspective. My mother would have been over 75 when her grandchild was born, and unfortunately, they both missed out on a relationship that could have been life changing for each of them. I’m not saying any of us should have or could have made different decisions, but the way things played out has definitely given me some perspective.
I also understand why people are miffed by what feels like hand waving over real financial obstacles. My experience is anecdotal, but we were far from comfortable financially when our child was born in San Francisco, just coming out of the depths of the Great Recession. We ended up moving to a slightly lower HCOL city, I became a stay at home dad, and our lifestyle changed fairly dramatically for a while, though eventually, we came out the other side.
I don't think Andrew is saying that people's financial concerns are misplaced, silly, or alarmist. My guess is that there are many people like me who thought they didn't have the means to have a child when they actually could have. The financial prospect of child rearing can feel just as terrifying as the prospect of parenting itself. But I wonder if those financial fears are similar to the anxiety we all have about whether we’ll be good parents. The latter usually works out, and perhaps the former can, to
As someone who was born to a 40 year old mother and had my own first child at 35, I understand the point Andrew is sharing here. While I haven't reached the stage where I'm mourning "last times" with my own child, I can see it clearly from a generational perspective. My mother would have been over 75 when her grandchild was born, and unfortunately, they both missed out on a relationship that could have been life changing for each of them. I’m not saying any of us should have or could have made different decisions, but the way things played out has definitely given me some perspective.
I also understand why people are miffed by what feels like hand waving over real financial obstacles. My experience is anecdotal, but we were far from comfortable financially when our child was born in San Francisco, just coming out of the depths of the Great Recession. We ended up moving to a slightly lower HCOL city, I became a stay at home dad, and our lifestyle changed fairly dramatically for a while, though eventually, we came out the other side.
I don't think Andrew is saying that people's financial concerns are misplaced, silly, or alarmist. My guess is that there are many people like me who thought they didn't have the means to have a child when they actually could have. The financial prospect of child rearing can feel just as terrifying as the prospect of parenting itself. But I wonder if those financial fears are similar to the anxiety we all have about whether we’ll be good parents. The latter usually works out, and perhaps the former can, too.
Financial wherewithal is a HUGE deal. My brother lives in the Bay Area and they cannot have kids. It would require either him or his wife giving up their careers: both as PhD's, they did not put in that work only to become a full-time parent. They can't afford a nanny, which is what would be required as they both travel so much for work. And they live in a pretty middle class area (for the Bay). Professionals with advanced degrees mostly.
People who come from money or who have family close by that can act as "daycare" are incredibly fortunate. We live in a HCOL area and we see the families having kids: they are either almost universally older and established in their careers (and can afford help) or come from upper class backgrounds where they can afford full-time help and therefore not give up their careers. I hear people talking about the "private school admissions wars" in some circles and just laugh when I know that there are 4th grade kids, 4 miles away, who can barely read "If You Give a Moose a Muffin".
There was just a story yesterday on NPR about a former teacher who is now a SAHM. She said that even though she doesn't regret the decision, she was frustrated that the decision was essentially "made for her" when her second kid came along and daycare for 2 would have far exceeded her salary. It shouldn't be a decision of "have a career" or "have kids" for women. It's also incredibly inefficient economically to do so: providing quailty educational day care while putting people back to work is a huge win-win long term.
That teacher is also missing out on contributing to Social Security and/or employer-sponsored retirement account. That will hurt her years down the road.
Yes. It's a bet that she and her husband are 1) going to stay together and 2) that his career will continue to progress so that he can take care of the family financially.
I've certainly known women that felt trapped in marriages because they stopped working and then knew they'd have trouble after so much time out of the job market. A friend of ours was recently divorced after being married to a man who had inherited his dad's construction company. She stopped working and did the upper class SAHM thing; kids, sports, social fundraising calendar, trips that look amazing on IG. He cheated on her, divorce ensued, he had more $ for lawyers and hammered her in the divorce. She went from living in a $2.8M house and driving a G-Wagen to living in a $350K condo and driving a Ford Escape. Luckily she had the social connections (she was very active in the social fundraising scene here) to get a good role in medical sales, but she said even that was dicey.
Historically staying at home and not working has only been open to upper middle to upper class families. Most lower income had to work either formally or informally to make a living. It is only in the post WW2 era that a factory worker on a single salary could afford a stay-at-home wife.
My alma mater boasts dropout -> First Lady Barbara Bush. She left in 1945 to marry W. During my late 70’s college years, we used her as a cautionary verb- “Are you sure you want to Barbara Bush it?”
My dad was not one to give much advice, but one thing he said to me early in my marriage was not to keep waiting for "the right time" to have kids. "The right time never comes," he said. "Just let life happen."
Trump this weekend on the Iran war: "It will work out. It always works out."
This statement betrays one of the key problems with modern American thinking. The president doesn't mean that whatever will be will be; he means that it will all work out in America's favor because we're just so goddamned amazing or something.
It's thoughtless and unrealistic but most importantly it absolves him (and the country) from any real work, any need to make real compromises, and any time spent on deciding what to do if things don't work out well, as they seem to do with increasing frequency.
So, yes. Things will happen. The future will arrive. And we're as likely as not to be standing around like dumbfounded idiots when it does.
And then if you point out the challenges we face or the obstacles in our path to make everything work out (whatever that means), they hide behind the flag and tar you for insufficient loyalty.
"It" has always worked out for Trump because of his money, his sociopathy, and the power that flowed from both. He has been largely insulated from his own many failures. But it will not work out for the world with this Iran situation (or the many ways in which he has made us a pariah state). And ultimately, Trump will not be able to escape death. That will not work out.
I think AOC deserves tremendous praise for her decision to be public about a deeply personal issue on a subject which has social and political implications. We are living in a time when after the overturning of Roe some pro-life advocates want to stop interventions like IVF. I personally feel that the best thing in my entire life is my children and I am completely willing to allow other people as much freedom as possible to do what feels right for them. The problem is that who we are and what we want changes year on year. Basically I would like to see more open discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of having children at different ages. Younger people might be less likely to to die while their children are young, but it does happen and unfortunately too many young people do not take account of these possibilities and fail to write wills, arrange insurance or even to discuss with family and others their wishes for this eventuality. I feel deeply sad that in this country where people are much more pro-birth than they are pro-child or pro-family. The fact is very simple in one of the wealthiest best resourced countries ever to exist no body seems to care that there are children who go hungry.
and, I'll add if a woman wants to talk about it FINE, single or married. Why does a man have to refute, agree, disagree or even expound, it is private.
Of course, after a decade of this, we shouldn’t be expecting anything other than hypocrisy from Republicans. They’ve shown time and again how they are willing to politicize an issue on the other side but ignoring it on their own.
But just look at the way they acted during the Platner saga before he dropped out versus how they’ve responded to Miller.
Re: "...the clear pattern of abuse [Miller] has left in his wake.”
Hegseth was no different. His own mother said it. Republicans voted for him and still support him. I'm not even a little bit surprised they're making excuses for Max Miller.
I am having kids later, and the article you posted now makes me feel like sh*t....I come here partly to escape our fertility woes, not be reminded of them :(.
I'm really sorry to hear that and I hope you don't read my item as any sort of moral judgment, because it isn't in the slightest. I'll be thinking of you.
Hopefully this will make you feel less like sh*t...
Andrew is entitled to his opinion, but I want to emphasize this is a hugely personal decision and no one way is right for everyone!!
Fertility concerns aside, there are many reasons to have kids when you are ready, not "early" just to make sure you have more time with them.
I myself, was a nationally competitive athlete in my 20s. Also in my 20s, I spent almost a year traveling to remote parts of the world (in a couple of different trips). Neither of these things which I could have done if I had kids at that time. Not to mention, I hadn't yet met the person I wanted to spend my life with and actually raise those kids!
I got married at 33 and had my kids at ~35 and 39. This is much different than having a kid at 73 like the Mick Jagger example. Sure, nothing is guaranteed, but I envision having plenty of time to watch my kids grow up and have kids of their own. I likely will never have great grandchildren, but I'm OK with that.
For me, I am thrilled with the decisions I made. Though I understand for others the right decision is to have kids earlier (and for others later!) than I did.
So, my advice to you... You do you (and ignore the article). And my advice to Andrew... you should NOT have sent this article to AOC (or anyone else trying to make this decision). Instead just advise them to do what feels most true to themselves.
Everyone should do as they judge best for their own circumstances, once they are fully informed on the plusses and minuses of various possible courses of action, a process that--in my view--tends to be enriched by one's reading Tom Scocca's classic 2018 piece "Your Real Biological Clock Is You're Going to Die."
Perhaps, but as I read the article, while it stated it was different for different people, it seemed to imply that NOT waiting was the "better" choice.
The whole premise of the article implies that women who are deciding to have children later have not already thought about the consequences of this decision and thus need to be reminded. As a woman, this just feels comical.
Perhaps I'd be a little less jaded if the article itself, or your recommendation of it, had come from a woman. But any man telling any woman they really should consider having kids earlier feels like someone speaking out of turn to me.
The sentence you quote: "If you intend to have children, but you don’t intend to have them just yet, you are not banking extra years as a person who is still too young to have children. You are subtracting years from the time you will share the world with your children. . . ." is a moral judgement that extra time with kids at an old age is inherently better than the opportunities that you must give up to have kids in your 20s or 30s. I think this is just a blatantly false pretense for many women.
And my point was that any woman making a conscious decision of when to have kids (as AOC is clearly doing), is ACUTELY aware of that.
Think about what you are saying... If AOC asked for your advice and you sent her this article... you don't think this would be construed as advice to "have kids earlier"?
If she took that advice, that would effectively preclude a presidential (or perhaps even a senatorial) run in 2028. Trying to endure the schedule of a campaign like that while pregnant or with a baby in tow is just absurd. Not to mention all the nasty comments she would be sure to get.
In my last comment, I was just trying to point out that the decision is very different for a woman. A man can still be a top athlete or run for president while his wife is pregnant. A woman can not do so while she is pregnant. (Not to mention what having kids young does to careers and lifetime earnings...)
Trying to spin this as "everyone dies" misses the point. What is being given up in the younger years in order to have the senior years with your children/grandchildren is not the same for men as it is for women.
Thank you so much for this. Andrew’s smugness on this issue is insufferable. He is clearly either clueless or indifferent to the fact that it’s women who give birth and who, more often than not, carry most of the responsibility for raising children. He needs to stop talking about this.
The best case in all circumstances is, I think, for children to outlive parents. More or less time - make the very best of what time you get so that memories are indeed blessings that last lifetimes.
Agreed! My wife and I had children in our 30's and now our youngest is in his late 20's and the others are in their 30's. That article, using the extreme example of Jagger is disingenuous at best.
Have kids later! Why let someone else influence you to have kids when you feel you're not ready yet (for watever reason)? I think the push on the right encouraging teenage pregnancy and parenthood is downright despicable and outright creepy! They really fly their pedophile flag proudly!
Mill says, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Bill adds: "If they do nothing but look on as bad men compass their ends, are they still good men?"
I chime in to say, These Republican Senators have done something more than look on. They have actively endorsed a man who comes into office as the most corrupt and compromised AG in our nation's history. They have thrown their power and the force of the United States Senate behind him, and they have done it, not with resignation, but with a curious kind of defensive smugness, whining about their critics and talking about their own greatness merely for participating in the process.
They are not good men. They sure are not. These are some of the worst men the Good Lord ever blew breath into.
Blanche could have continued through the end of the administration with no Senate action, in his "acting" role (and "acting", indeed it is, since he does little that a heretofore A.G. would be doing). There was no need for Senate confirmation. But, after the Iran debacle, Trump had a burning need to demonstrate his dominance and force the Senate's meek submission to his will. Of course, they complied, likely out of fear of his flying monkeys. The Don rules the family.
The most damning and revelatory part of Gannon’s response was “I never thought it would happen to a guy like me.” Read: of course this happens to brown skinned, poor people, but it’s upsetting that those of us in the Epstein Class aren’t immune from these actions by ICE. Simply disgusting.
Actually, Gannon sums up conservative philosophy. They have no empathy for others, but are concerned when it happens to them.
No question, some are cowardly sheep who only feel safe when hiding with the herd - but there are many who are so obviously just plain 'bad', who not only feel no sympathy for others when they go along with endorsing an action that will cause harm in some way to a targeted group, but often actively promote it on camera, joining in on the bullying (which, I just realized, also makes them 'sheep' who try to blend in with the bully's crowd).
There are no dissenters in a lynch mob.
"A Few Good Men" was made what, 30 years ago or so. Well they're all gone. The great Roman Senators Cato and Cicero went down fighting or by the sword, here our guys just make sure they have a great rest home environment lined up, while still serving, and the rest home won't stop them from serving--hat tip to Strom Thurmond. And Cassidy get's weepy about it all and the traditions of the US Senate. Too weird for me by miles.
And yet virtually all of These Republican Senators seem to be quite faithful.
I guess this is asymmetrical religion. Whatever the hell that is.
The only republican senator that has any cajones is Lisa Murkowski, I’m sure Susan Collins got a permission slip to vote no.
I am 100% convinced that the Republicans would defend the actions of Preston Brooks if the caning of Charles Sumner happened today: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/may-22/southern-congressman-attacks-northern-senator "Well, you know, disagreements happen", they would probably say. If they said anything at all!
There would be some hand-wringing, some vague comments about how violence is bad (with an undertone of, though maybe the guy that got beat was asking for it) and, of course, the obligatory thoughts and prayers for the victim in their recovery.
"The fact that I, Bill Cassidy, was able to do that, I am so privileged, and whenever I just for a second am hit by the gravity of that, and the honor of that, I get emotional.”
Apparently selling out your country is an emotional thing. Amazing the narrative these fools construct in their heads.
Can we simply stop pretending now, and stipulate that senate Republicans are the equivalent of the Russian Federation Council, and that Republican representatives the equivalent of the Russian Duma in any further discussions of pending appointments or legislation? Congress has been supine since Trump's election, and for the past decade has not functioned as a serious deliberative body thanks to the devolution of the Republican party into an authoritarian faction rather than a repository of serioous governing policy worthy of taking part in a representative democracy. My father would be disgusted at the present state of affairs. Long-time Republicans, for him and my mom, 2004 was the breaking point for the national party and they never looked back.
They're kind of the equivalent of the late-period Roman Republic Senate, whose inability to function led to the empire (and being a rubber stamp for the emperor).
on purpose I call it our REGIME just to piss my brother off, I do it all the time, silence
Those traitors really think they're going to be looked on in favor by history! Talk about delusion!
To be honest, I don't think they really give a shit regardless of what they say. Trump might care because he's Trump, but the others, I doubt it
Cassidy voted yes, so that Collins could vote no. End of story he is just giving her cover.
MP - accurate call. One needed a sham vote to fool some voters, the other had lost his primary so didn't even need to pretend to meet the Constitutional duty of advice & consent. It's all up for grabs on this exciting episode of Tradin' for Trillions!
This!!! I'll bet she even lent him her pearls to clutch while making his vote.
Come on guys! Everyone knows that on his perecription pads Cassiday had printed under every "Take twice a day to relieve..." , "But hey I can't tell the future."
Disgusting and despicable people, the whole lot.
Put Cassidy's photo next to a slinky.
"There will come a time when Donald Trump is gone. But your dishonor will remain" So said Liz Cheney.... The stain and dishonor will remain on Republicans forever in history.
I'm glad you brought this up. I feel as though the entire MAGA movement, or whatever you wish to call it, is at the point where they will glom onto anything, regardless of the level of hypocrisy, ridiculousness or veracity, to provide a fig leaf of justification for whatever they are doing and/or saying.
If it defends or justifies Trump and/or the movement...then it must be good. Speaker Johnson's “people have domestic disputes" is so wrong on so many levels...spoken by a supposed Christian guy leading the GOP house. UGH.
It's the most incredibly disgusting era of US politics in my lifetime.
It's worth remembering that Mike Johnson is a pseudo-Christian,of that variety that exalts white men over everyone else,but especially over women, who are all the daughters of Eve.
Miller is a person who has domestic disputes serially, counting the Stephanie Grisham situation.
Saddest and scariest thing is......they don't care.
More likely, oblivious. The diet of social media & journalistic quality alongside a consumption of AI ; independently at home or in their schools will further polarize the once United States. This is a gop faction of Christian Nationalists, maga, & an unfortunate set that looks to Bannon, jdv, & their idea of religion as luminaries. When farmers have distorted ideations of herd immunity & there are outbreaks of measles propagated by a citizenry that puts Dr Fauci under the microscope…then sadly, rupture has arrived & stupid reigns . This is just what jdv wants; to reign over stupid; head hillbilly.
In response to Andrew's comments: Yes, having children at an earlier age means you'll be able to spend more time with them, baring health issues and barring accidents. But that is only one variable. Did you notice in the latest jobs report that women were the ones hit with job loss, while men gained jobs? Women who stop working to have children face a steep uphill road if they later want to (or need to) reenter the work force, both in job availability and in pay. Childcare expenses make it difficult, if not impossible, for women to work and raise children and many studies show that men do not equally shoulder the burdens. We're all aware of the numerous studies showing that Gen Z has a very difficult time buying a home, or simply existing in this economy, and it's worse on a single paycheck. Your section didn't even nod to these issues, seemingly basing your conclusion on age alone. My sister-in-law died the day after giving birth, 3.5 months prematurely, to a little girl. I adopted and raised that little girl and I was in my late 40s when this happened. I discovered that my age actually helped keep things in perspective and that I was more patient. FYI: My ex-husband did nothing at all to help because he didn't think it was his responsibility, even though it was his sister who was the biological mother. So yes, I'm 74 and my daughter is 28, but when she became ill, I was able to help and support her, including moving out of state, because I was retired. I was able to financially help her because I had a long, successful employment. Yes, this is an anomaly but, at the end of the day, most situations are. The decision if, and when, to have a child should be based on a lot of variables, especially ones that affect women.
As I said in another comment: The point of the piece I link to isn't that there aren't tradeoffs. The point is that we tend culturally to devalue one tradeoff in particular, because we don't like to think about aging and death.
You should probably quit while you're ahead
More like behind. I think Andrew really stepped in it today.
Richard - sometimes I see the quicksand - it's right there! - but maybe not more than knee deep? ...or I can make that long jump? ...or....
Geoff - as I always say, if I'm explaining the bit I've lost the room 🤷♂️ ...please don't ask how I know
"People's fertility decisions are nobody's business but their own!"
In the classic Seinfeld episode, "The Outing," in which Jerry and George are suspected of being gay, Jerry has a line that I adapted above to the decision of when and if to have children. His line was, "People's sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own!" Nailed it.
I know that AOC publicized her decision, although one suspects that if she had kept it to herself and Republicans found out they would accuse her of having tried to hide her personal decision - she can't win no matter what she does.
What really bothers me about it is not Andrew's column or his opinions, take them or leave them, but that such personal decisions which don't have anything to do with AOC's job performance are now just considered fair game. Mind your own effing business.
Andrew - hey, speaking of aging, death, and all uplifting topics, isn't there some cheery fellow at The Bulwark who wrote a book a few years back about population dynamics and social/cultural issues? If he'd have posted this linked story in a Triad, wonder how the Comments would compare... 🤔
I am terribly sorry about the circumstances leading up to your SIL's death and the indifference of her brother, your ex-husband. Thank you for raising her as your own, loving her as your own.
I believe no male should be telling or offering advice to ANY woman of any age when they should or should not have children. Or whether they should have any children at all.
Have your opinions in your heads all you want but STAY IN YOUR LANES DUDES.
Thank you, thank you for this.
there, someone said it!!
thank you, I came here to say the same thing .
Patricia, thank you for explaining this. I feel that many people, especially male people miss the point which is that there is no one correct way. I do want to add that throughout history most women have worked they may have been relegated to work in the home, unpaid, or kept out of the more prestige occupations, but the idea that there is not a huge financial trade off in having children makes me livid.
I understand Andrew's case for having children at a younger age.
I had my only child just after my 32nd birthday, 40 years ago. My only grandson came along when my son was 31 and I was 61. I will not likely live long enough to meet my grandson's children.
My daughter-in-law had a child at 19 with her first husband. My bonus granddaughter is now 22 and earning her Master's degree. Sometimes I'm envious that they will be able to share so many years of their lives together.
But me? I cringe to think of myself as a parent when I was in my 20s. I had a lot of unresolved issues from my upbringing. The person I chose to marry and eventually have my only child with was one of those.
At 32 I had the maturity and experience to finally tackle my issues. I was fortunate to be well established in my career by then, which was important since I was the sole support of our family.
While I divorced when our son was 10, that career was the lifeline our family still relies on today. Like you, I've had to step up to occasionally help my son and his family as they deal with financial challenges.
Trade-offs indeed. I'm not sorry I made the choice I did but far more than young Andrew, I'm also very well aware of the clock that ticks down the remaining days of my life. Who doesn't want to spend more time with those they love?
Hello. You have reached Tim Coffey's "Morning Shots" autoresponder. You are receiving this message because the content in this morning's newsletter has dangerously compromised Mr. Coffey's ability to keep his more violent solutions to our ongoing national degradation to himself. As Mr. Coffey has noted multiple times in recent weeks, he does not wish to expose his fellow Bulwark subscribers to his feral id, and he also does not wish to lose his posting privileges on the Bulwark site by sharing what he'd really like to do. Lastly, Mr. Coffey believes the Speaker of the House, that unctuous little turd, should reacquaint himself with CS Lewis' "Screwtape Letters", particularly the closing passages of Letter 7, because Mr. Coffey is convinced the Speaker, whether he's aware of it or not, has an appointment with Our Father Below when the Speaker shuffles off his mortal coil. You will receive no further responses from Mr. Coffey this morning. Thank you, and have a nice day.
I like “feral id,” Tom. Well-chosen, and I sympathize. Oh, how I sympathize.
Hope Tom is out conferring with a copyright attorney about that marvelously descriptive term😊
Every time I see "feral" now, I think of the animal Trump was wearing on his head last week. 🤔
Unctuous is one of my favorite words. one of those words that kind of sounds like what it means--which are the best words.
Like Mr. Coffey, I often find myself incandescent with rage at what is going on--which is one of the reasons I do not post as much as I once did.
At this point I have largely said what needs to be said (in broad strokes if not specific detail to the latest outrage), so it has become wearying and depressing to say much else.
Andrew, you chose to have children when you were young. Luckily you had the maturity and hopefully the financial wherewithal to make that decision. The right is pushing people to have kids when the couple has neither and they vote against everything that may help a young family like that. As it is now, the right is endorsing teen pregnancy. What are your thoughts on that?
I am, obviously, anti-teen pregnancy (as is, despite social media, most of "the right"!) Financial wherewithal is overrated, as are many other decent enough reasons to put off having kids. The point of the piece I linked to (which I seriously strongly suggest reading in full) is that there are tradeoffs to everything here, and the tradeoff which we tend to devalue culturally is "total time sharing the earth with your kids."
Financial wherewithal is overrated? SERIOUSLY??? Are you that obtuse? Tell that to the family living in substandard housing or in their car, unable to afford enough food, clothing, or healthcare, etc. Tell that to a parent, or better yet a child who is watching a family member die of a preventable death because their Medicaid was cut and they couldn't afford to get them treated. You must have had a very sheltered upbringing. Financial stability is a huge reason why people either don't have children or only one. My sister and I were on our own as teenagers. I can't imagine what would have happened to us in today's world!
Isn't there some daylight between "overrated" and "meaningless?" There's also daylight between relative precarity and living out of a car or dying of an untreated disease.
I think that generally, the class of people who really emphasize financial health in delaying having kids are already better off than most people who just...go ahead and just have kids. Many of whom turn out fine. It's possible some people are setting too high a bar for when it's safe or responsible to start a family. Obviously, it can be harder or easier depending on all sorts of factors. But for an experience that's so integrally human and emotional, I think people who delay sometimes put too much weight on external, rational factors and undervalue the actual things that make them WANT to have a family in the first place.
Everyone has their perspective: sometimes it's not fully formed yet. I know a lot of"fortunately born" people who grew up in bubbles and attended elite private schools. Many don't understand that for a lot of folks in today's world, having kids is sentencing their kids to a really, really bad start in life. Mom working 2-3 jobs, older kids taking care of siblings, not enough money to buy decent food, no transportation, stuck in a s*** school district. The days of "equality of opportunity" for youth is gone, at least here in Texas. You can't even ride your bike safely to most schools and in many districts, you have to pay to use the school bus (it's $1100/year in ours).
My church does a lot of outreach in South Dallas and it's astounding how many smart kids want to go to college but are pulled back home to care for siblings or parents. In contrast those of us making a solid 6 figures plus can just hire some help. Those people living below the poverty line can't: education is secondary when you are trying to figure out the health-shelter-food-clothing basics. A very successful friend of mine recently put his kids back INTO the Dallas public school system because he realized that the school was not only very academically capable, but also that his kids would grow as adults by being around others with less. Some of the kids are living 3 and 4 to a room at home, whereas he lives in a $2.5M house. The school gets a bad rap because of the poverty, so most of his neighbors get them into one of the many $40K/year private schools around Dallas, and IMO, that's terrible for society unless you are just trying to create a class of elites that excludes everyone else not born into the right financial and social circles.
Thank you so much for this. How anyone could minimize the financial aspects of parenthood is beyond me.
Andrew- can you explain your thinking behind “financial wherewithal is overrated” in this context?
Hard for me to put it better than Scocca does (did I mention Tom Scocca, his 2018 piece "Your Real Biological Clock Is You're Going to Die," and how people should read it?):
"Did we choose the age at which we would have children? What does it mean to choose? We use the language of autonomy to avoid thinking about powers that shape our existence. Our civilization is remarkably hostile to the needs of life, from the helplessness of babyhood to the frailty of old age. The system is set up for healthy, productive, independent individuals, and one absorbs the lesson that one should try to stay in this class as long and as securely as one can.
So we wait until we are ready. There are good reasons to wait, or reasons that appear to be good once you accept the underlying terms. My children have not had to live with parents who are working 15-hour days, the way we worked in our 20s, or who are financially desperate, as we might have been if we’d been paying for children on the salaries of our 20s. Our professional standing allows us to skip work for pediatric appointments or parent-teacher conferences. We can afford to hire babysitters. I got a promotion and a big raise just when it was time to buy a piano. We all sit down together for home-cooked meals most evenings and talk about things.
I hope someday my children can do the same things for their own children. Maybe I’ll see them do it, but maybe I won’t: If my firstborn waits till he’s 35, going on 36, to have a child, the way I did, my grandchild will arrive the year I would turn 71. When that grandchild finishes fifth grade, I’ll be due to turn 81. And that would be the first of my grandchildren.
Are you ready to have a child? Take your age right now and add 18. And nine months, if you want to get particular about it, but call it 18. That’s how old you’ll be for high school graduation. Add 25 and picture yourself traveling to visit your grown-up child in a new city. Add 30. Add 40."
Not working 15-hour days and being able to skip work for appointments are extra hours with your children during their formative years. Are more years on earth while they are independent adults really as valuable as more hours with them during crucial developmental years?
The better mortality-related argument might be that death comes for some people in their 30s, 40s, or 50s, and if that turns out to be you, maybe you’d rather your children be older than younger. Socca hints at this (I did read the piece) but I suspect he’s still too uncomfortable thinking about earlier-than-average mortality to stick with the idea and make it the core of his argument.
I don’t disagree with this, but this is where policy could make it easier to have children at an earlier age and be geared towards better work-life-balance trade offs.
I am a parent both by our own conception and by adoption. This point about mortality and age of parenthood gets heated very fast in adoption circles. One side argues loudly that it's not fair to the child to adopt when the parent is 40 or 45 or 50 because they could be debilitated or dead by the time the child is 20 or 30. The other side argues that no one is guaranteed any time, and the child could be orphaned (again) at 10 if something happens young to the adoptive parent, which does of course happen. No one is guaranteed time. Or health. Or a child.
I respect everyone’s personal decisions around marriage and raising a family, and will fight with everything I’ve got to protect those rights- regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status.
There is a difference between how personal priorities manifest in our choices, and the factual underpinning to a life begun in financial scarcity, vs one in abundance. For every Dolly Parton, Dr Ben Carson, or Charles Barkley, there’s the other 85% of kids who don’t escape the American poverty to which they’re born. Citing a 2021 BYU study- not exactly progressive think tank persuasion:
https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/intergenerational-poverty-in-the-us-83scy
Hi Andrew, I actually don’t disagree with the article and your comments about there being tradeoffs in life between having careers and having children, and when we do what. But if you really think having children earlier is better than what policies do you propose to make this easier, such as with regards to childcare, parents staying in the workforce and/or making it easier for them to return after being out. I was born in the mid-70’s and my mother who had been a nurse took time off to be a mother, but never went back to nursing taking other jobs when she rejoined the workforce. My husband’s mother was also a nurse who ever went back to work after having children. I know this is anecdotal, but still examples of highly trained professionals who never went back to those careers, and to be fair some parents may not want to go back to the workforce and stay home which is fine, but how do we make those decisions easier and provide the support for people to be able to make the decision that best meet their needs and circumstances.
Yes, inquiring minds would like to know!
There is an important distinction between what Richard Kane and you are saying. I am sure most of the '”the right” is against teen pregnancy; particularly out of wedlock pregnancy. Richard’s comment was more about policy, support, and yes abortion which often forces people to have children when they aren’t ready or able to take care of them. The difference isn’t that about condoning teenage pregnancy, but what tools and support are available to make decisions.
Andrew, and this may be more your age and or being part of the pundit class, but do you really think your readers impressions are merely shaped from social media? Obviously social media can be a source of news and information, but hardly the only source — I don’t use it for any news — but I doubt most of us are as online or consuming as much social media as you are or as you think we are.
Thank you so much! You are definitely a much better wordsmith than I!
As someone who was born to a 40 year old mother and had my own first child at 35, I understand the point Andrew is sharing here. While I haven't reached the stage where I'm mourning "last times" with my own child, I can see it clearly from a generational perspective. My mother would have been over 75 when her grandchild was born, and unfortunately, they both missed out on a relationship that could have been life changing for each of them. I’m not saying any of us should have or could have made different decisions, but the way things played out has definitely given me some perspective.
I also understand why people are miffed by what feels like hand waving over real financial obstacles. My experience is anecdotal, but we were far from comfortable financially when our child was born in San Francisco, just coming out of the depths of the Great Recession. We ended up moving to a slightly lower HCOL city, I became a stay at home dad, and our lifestyle changed fairly dramatically for a while, though eventually, we came out the other side.
I don't think Andrew is saying that people's financial concerns are misplaced, silly, or alarmist. My guess is that there are many people like me who thought they didn't have the means to have a child when they actually could have. The financial prospect of child rearing can feel just as terrifying as the prospect of parenting itself. But I wonder if those financial fears are similar to the anxiety we all have about whether we’ll be good parents. The latter usually works out, and perhaps the former can, to
o.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
There is a trade-off in deciding to have kids at all.
When my partner and I met a quarter century ago, we both were clear we didn’t want children, and never wavered.
As someone who was born to a 40 year old mother and had my own first child at 35, I understand the point Andrew is sharing here. While I haven't reached the stage where I'm mourning "last times" with my own child, I can see it clearly from a generational perspective. My mother would have been over 75 when her grandchild was born, and unfortunately, they both missed out on a relationship that could have been life changing for each of them. I’m not saying any of us should have or could have made different decisions, but the way things played out has definitely given me some perspective.
I also understand why people are miffed by what feels like hand waving over real financial obstacles. My experience is anecdotal, but we were far from comfortable financially when our child was born in San Francisco, just coming out of the depths of the Great Recession. We ended up moving to a slightly lower HCOL city, I became a stay at home dad, and our lifestyle changed fairly dramatically for a while, though eventually, we came out the other side.
I don't think Andrew is saying that people's financial concerns are misplaced, silly, or alarmist. My guess is that there are many people like me who thought they didn't have the means to have a child when they actually could have. The financial prospect of child rearing can feel just as terrifying as the prospect of parenting itself. But I wonder if those financial fears are similar to the anxiety we all have about whether we’ll be good parents. The latter usually works out, and perhaps the former can, too.
Financial wherewithal is a HUGE deal. My brother lives in the Bay Area and they cannot have kids. It would require either him or his wife giving up their careers: both as PhD's, they did not put in that work only to become a full-time parent. They can't afford a nanny, which is what would be required as they both travel so much for work. And they live in a pretty middle class area (for the Bay). Professionals with advanced degrees mostly.
People who come from money or who have family close by that can act as "daycare" are incredibly fortunate. We live in a HCOL area and we see the families having kids: they are either almost universally older and established in their careers (and can afford help) or come from upper class backgrounds where they can afford full-time help and therefore not give up their careers. I hear people talking about the "private school admissions wars" in some circles and just laugh when I know that there are 4th grade kids, 4 miles away, who can barely read "If You Give a Moose a Muffin".
There was just a story yesterday on NPR about a former teacher who is now a SAHM. She said that even though she doesn't regret the decision, she was frustrated that the decision was essentially "made for her" when her second kid came along and daycare for 2 would have far exceeded her salary. It shouldn't be a decision of "have a career" or "have kids" for women. It's also incredibly inefficient economically to do so: providing quailty educational day care while putting people back to work is a huge win-win long term.
That teacher is also missing out on contributing to Social Security and/or employer-sponsored retirement account. That will hurt her years down the road.
Yes. It's a bet that she and her husband are 1) going to stay together and 2) that his career will continue to progress so that he can take care of the family financially.
I've certainly known women that felt trapped in marriages because they stopped working and then knew they'd have trouble after so much time out of the job market. A friend of ours was recently divorced after being married to a man who had inherited his dad's construction company. She stopped working and did the upper class SAHM thing; kids, sports, social fundraising calendar, trips that look amazing on IG. He cheated on her, divorce ensued, he had more $ for lawyers and hammered her in the divorce. She went from living in a $2.8M house and driving a G-Wagen to living in a $350K condo and driving a Ford Escape. Luckily she had the social connections (she was very active in the social fundraising scene here) to get a good role in medical sales, but she said even that was dicey.
Historically staying at home and not working has only been open to upper middle to upper class families. Most lower income had to work either formally or informally to make a living. It is only in the post WW2 era that a factory worker on a single salary could afford a stay-at-home wife.
My alma mater boasts dropout -> First Lady Barbara Bush. She left in 1945 to marry W. During my late 70’s college years, we used her as a cautionary verb- “Are you sure you want to Barbara Bush it?”
Not sure the right is pushing *all* people to have kids.
True, just those melanin deficient teenagers.
My dad was not one to give much advice, but one thing he said to me early in my marriage was not to keep waiting for "the right time" to have kids. "The right time never comes," he said. "Just let life happen."
And so it did.
I would have given that same advice 20 years ago but in today's world, economic and otherwise, I wouldn't.
Trump this weekend on the Iran war: "It will work out. It always works out."
This statement betrays one of the key problems with modern American thinking. The president doesn't mean that whatever will be will be; he means that it will all work out in America's favor because we're just so goddamned amazing or something.
It's thoughtless and unrealistic but most importantly it absolves him (and the country) from any real work, any need to make real compromises, and any time spent on deciding what to do if things don't work out well, as they seem to do with increasing frequency.
So, yes. Things will happen. The future will arrive. And we're as likely as not to be standing around like dumbfounded idiots when it does.
"It will work out. It always works out." - The perennial philosophy of the born-with-a-silver-spoon asshat.
THIS!!!
And then if you point out the challenges we face or the obstacles in our path to make everything work out (whatever that means), they hide behind the flag and tar you for insufficient loyalty.
"It" has always worked out for Trump because of his money, his sociopathy, and the power that flowed from both. He has been largely insulated from his own many failures. But it will not work out for the world with this Iran situation (or the many ways in which he has made us a pariah state). And ultimately, Trump will not be able to escape death. That will not work out.
Answer to Bill Kristol’s question: NO. May these privileged men be forever haunted by this vote and their overall support of Trump.
They won't be. They've already demonstrated many times over that they have no shame and no integrity.
I think AOC deserves tremendous praise for her decision to be public about a deeply personal issue on a subject which has social and political implications. We are living in a time when after the overturning of Roe some pro-life advocates want to stop interventions like IVF. I personally feel that the best thing in my entire life is my children and I am completely willing to allow other people as much freedom as possible to do what feels right for them. The problem is that who we are and what we want changes year on year. Basically I would like to see more open discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of having children at different ages. Younger people might be less likely to to die while their children are young, but it does happen and unfortunately too many young people do not take account of these possibilities and fail to write wills, arrange insurance or even to discuss with family and others their wishes for this eventuality. I feel deeply sad that in this country where people are much more pro-birth than they are pro-child or pro-family. The fact is very simple in one of the wealthiest best resourced countries ever to exist no body seems to care that there are children who go hungry.
and, I'll add if a woman wants to talk about it FINE, single or married. Why does a man have to refute, agree, disagree or even expound, it is private.
cassidy on his wondrous muchness being able to vote on the senate floor (for a criminal)...
What an honor!
What a privilege!
Me - Whatta dick.
"And as their speaker has helpfully reminded them, “people have domestic disputes.” Indeed, “It’s part of being flawed humans.”"
The so-called Speaker is living proof of that.
I hope President Biden is getting what he needs in this difficult moment. I am sorry for everything he had gone through in his life.
Every time I see a Biden cancer update I want to send him to the Gaza oncology center for treatment. Oh, wait....
Of course, after a decade of this, we shouldn’t be expecting anything other than hypocrisy from Republicans. They’ve shown time and again how they are willing to politicize an issue on the other side but ignoring it on their own.
But just look at the way they acted during the Platner saga before he dropped out versus how they’ve responded to Miller.
It’s a party with no principle beyond power.
“People* have domestic disputes. It’s part of being flawed humans.”
*"People" in this case meaning "Republican people running for office."
He'd never say that about a Democrat. He'd be going on and on about the degradation of standards promoted by The Left.
Apparently having a name like Amir Hassan is too much of a human flaw. Abusing your child? Not so much.
Re: "...the clear pattern of abuse [Miller] has left in his wake.”
Hegseth was no different. His own mother said it. Republicans voted for him and still support him. I'm not even a little bit surprised they're making excuses for Max Miller.
If they were a little smarter they would just do it...and talk about it a lot less.
I am having kids later, and the article you posted now makes me feel like sh*t....I come here partly to escape our fertility woes, not be reminded of them :(.
I'm really sorry to hear that and I hope you don't read my item as any sort of moral judgment, because it isn't in the slightest. I'll be thinking of you.
Thank you :)
Hopefully this will make you feel less like sh*t...
Andrew is entitled to his opinion, but I want to emphasize this is a hugely personal decision and no one way is right for everyone!!
Fertility concerns aside, there are many reasons to have kids when you are ready, not "early" just to make sure you have more time with them.
I myself, was a nationally competitive athlete in my 20s. Also in my 20s, I spent almost a year traveling to remote parts of the world (in a couple of different trips). Neither of these things which I could have done if I had kids at that time. Not to mention, I hadn't yet met the person I wanted to spend my life with and actually raise those kids!
I got married at 33 and had my kids at ~35 and 39. This is much different than having a kid at 73 like the Mick Jagger example. Sure, nothing is guaranteed, but I envision having plenty of time to watch my kids grow up and have kids of their own. I likely will never have great grandchildren, but I'm OK with that.
For me, I am thrilled with the decisions I made. Though I understand for others the right decision is to have kids earlier (and for others later!) than I did.
So, my advice to you... You do you (and ignore the article). And my advice to Andrew... you should NOT have sent this article to AOC (or anyone else trying to make this decision). Instead just advise them to do what feels most true to themselves.
Everyone should do as they judge best for their own circumstances, once they are fully informed on the plusses and minuses of various possible courses of action, a process that--in my view--tends to be enriched by one's reading Tom Scocca's classic 2018 piece "Your Real Biological Clock Is You're Going to Die."
Perhaps, but as I read the article, while it stated it was different for different people, it seemed to imply that NOT waiting was the "better" choice.
The whole premise of the article implies that women who are deciding to have children later have not already thought about the consequences of this decision and thus need to be reminded. As a woman, this just feels comical.
Perhaps I'd be a little less jaded if the article itself, or your recommendation of it, had come from a woman. But any man telling any woman they really should consider having kids earlier feels like someone speaking out of turn to me.
The sentence you quote: "If you intend to have children, but you don’t intend to have them just yet, you are not banking extra years as a person who is still too young to have children. You are subtracting years from the time you will share the world with your children. . . ." is a moral judgement that extra time with kids at an old age is inherently better than the opportunities that you must give up to have kids in your 20s or 30s. I think this is just a blatantly false pretense for many women.
The advice is for men and for women--after all, everyone dies.
And my point was that any woman making a conscious decision of when to have kids (as AOC is clearly doing), is ACUTELY aware of that.
Think about what you are saying... If AOC asked for your advice and you sent her this article... you don't think this would be construed as advice to "have kids earlier"?
If she took that advice, that would effectively preclude a presidential (or perhaps even a senatorial) run in 2028. Trying to endure the schedule of a campaign like that while pregnant or with a baby in tow is just absurd. Not to mention all the nasty comments she would be sure to get.
In my last comment, I was just trying to point out that the decision is very different for a woman. A man can still be a top athlete or run for president while his wife is pregnant. A woman can not do so while she is pregnant. (Not to mention what having kids young does to careers and lifetime earnings...)
Trying to spin this as "everyone dies" misses the point. What is being given up in the younger years in order to have the senior years with your children/grandchildren is not the same for men as it is for women.
Who's to say a 40-year old new-ish mother can't run for president? We keep letting all these 80-year-old men do it.
Thank you so much for this. Andrew’s smugness on this issue is insufferable. He is clearly either clueless or indifferent to the fact that it’s women who give birth and who, more often than not, carry most of the responsibility for raising children. He needs to stop talking about this.
it is too personal
The best case in all circumstances is, I think, for children to outlive parents. More or less time - make the very best of what time you get so that memories are indeed blessings that last lifetimes.
Agreed! My wife and I had children in our 30's and now our youngest is in his late 20's and the others are in their 30's. That article, using the extreme example of Jagger is disingenuous at best.
Thank you so much for this lovely reply :)
Have kids later! Why let someone else influence you to have kids when you feel you're not ready yet (for watever reason)? I think the push on the right encouraging teenage pregnancy and parenthood is downright despicable and outright creepy! They really fly their pedophile flag proudly!
Thank you :)
It was a shittily written piece by one man with one terribly narrow viewpoint. You're doing great.
Thank you so much!