A study showing young
mothers have children who live longer is yet another example of women
being told what's best for them.
November
25, 2006
NOW THAT
MOST women are glumly grappling with the widespread medical consensus
that, if you want to have a baby, you'd best do it by age 35, here
comes more exciting news from the research community: Firstborn
children to mothers under 25 are nearly twice as likely to live
to be 100 than those born to mothers over 25. In terms of public
relations, the ad lines write themselves: Give your baby the gift
of a century, have him when you're barely done with college. As
a bonus, teenage moms might finally catch a break.
In fairness,
the research, which was conducted by the University of Chicago's
Center for Aging, did not set out to make older mothers feel guilty
about the potential lifespan of their children. Study authors Leonid
A. Gavrilov and Natalia Gavrilova were trying to determine why
firstborn children were more likely to reach their 100th birthdays
than those born later. Using census and Social Security Administration
data of 198 "validated centenarians" (it seems there
are a lot of fakers out there), they found that the mother's age
played a surprisingly important role.
"What
is really interesting is that the survival benefits of being born
to a young mother are observed only when the mother is younger
than 25 years," Gavrilova reported at a meeting last Sunday
of the Gerontological Society of America. "This may have important
social and actuarial implications, because so many women now decide
to postpone childbearing due to career demands."
Here we go
again. Not only do we risk infertility and birth defects if we
try to have a kid past 35, now we can feel bad about our children
dying "young" because we spent our early 20s not procreating
but monkeying around in graduate school or trying to rise out of
entry-level jobs.
So in case
you missed the memo the first 400 times: Tick tock, ladies!
Will women
never escape being told what is the proper age to make major life
decisions? Even though nearly 40 years have passed since feminism
entered the national consciousness, we're still governing much
of our lives based not on what's best for us but on whether there
is a culturally sanctioned, scientifically proven window of opportunity
to do what we think we're supposed to do. The result is that the
game of femaleness, like the game of football or basketball, is
ruled by the clock.
And I'm not
just talking about the biological clock. Long before most women
have an ounce of concern about the viability of their eggs, they've
been well informed of the pitfalls of not planning. Delay college
too long, we're told, and you'll wind up answering phones about
the time you should be getting your own office. Settle down before
you're 28 and you'll have cheated yourself of the all-important "experimental
phase," (promiscuity? a switch in sexual orientation? dating
a drummer?) which, in certain circles, is considered a prerequisite
to finding someone reasonable. Put off permanent commitment until
your mid-30s, however, and you're dealing with a very limited pool
of potential mates.
As for the
baby question, we all know the drill. Start a family in your 20s
and you'll likely face serious economic obstacles that might even
bar you from the middle class. Wait around much longer and, well,
we all know how that story turns out.
What we're
left with is a female life plan that is so beholden to tight schedules
that even with careful timing you can't win — you're either
fighting biology or you're embarrassingly retrograde and unambitious.
Admittedly, the women trying to
maintain this tyrannical schedule come from a demographic that's
privileged enough to have the kinds of opportunities for which there
are windows, a demographic that frets about personal growth and often
takes cues about marriage from places like the New York Times wedding
announcements. As it happens, those pages were where, in the 1980s,
my teenage self got the idea that it was a lot classier to be a high-achieving
30-something bride (extra points for late 30s if you'd won a MacArthur)
than a 24-year-old whose career was too nascent to warrant a mention.
Based on those observations (and
on that era's widely perceived notion that it was easy to conceive
well into your 40s), I set my clock accordingly. But I've noticed
that the brides in those pages tend to skew younger these days, and
I wonder what kind of clock they've tried to sync up with.
Maybe they've managed to buck
my generation's biases against marrying young and just committed
themselves to someone they loved. Or maybe the fertility alarmism
of the last decade has created a new kind of tyranny, one that's
not so easily dismissed as a trapping of bourgeois angst.
In any case, I hope the University
of Chicago study doesn't get much more play than I've given it here.
Mothers of any age have enough guilt without worrying about their
children becoming centenarians. Besides, the only thing worse than
having kids before you're ready is knowing that they could be talking
about you in therapy until they're 100.