Results 31 to 35 of 54
Thread: Young Moms
July 4th, 2013 02:21 PM #31
I second a previous poster who said that as long as the parents can support their baby financially and emotionally, their age shouldn't matter. Life throws different things at different people. I have been incredibly fortunate in my life, and I think it frankly rude to force one's lifestyle choices upon others by judging them, especially when you can know nothing about their situation at all.
*steps off the soapbox*
Phew, sorry about that. I felt it had to be saidDougal Fitzwilliam Matthias † Skandar Christian Raphael † Richard Corentin Magnus
Carlotta Benedikte Diana † Marguerite Roxana Elisabet † Eleonora Frances Frederika
Gray [boy] & Romola [girl] & Valentin [boy] & Julia [girl] & Mads [boy] & Ismeria [girl] & Rex [boy]
https://toomanybooksspoilthebroth.wordpress.com/ New post!
July 4th, 2013 11:19 PM #33Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
My mum had my eldest sister at 18 and had my youngest brother ar 39. She's currently 45 and a grandma already to the babies in my signature. She loved being a younger mum and also loved being an older one to my brother Darcy. We are aged between 27 and 6. My sister Miki just had her first shes 23, my sister Jaxie has two children and shes 25 and her girls are around 11 months apart and my eldest sister Charli had her first at 25. So my family tends to have children younger. I'm fifteen and nowhere near ready to have a child though give me around 12 years.Milly 15 year old name lover
Currently loving: Annabelle Talitha and Lawson Edward.
Aunty to: Emma, Samuel "Sam" and Sophia "Soph"
Catherine "Cricket" and Elizabeth "Zibby"
July 5th, 2013 02:24 AM #35Two small people, Mila Arden and Cato Bennett.
If I had a baby tomorrow...
Atlas Adair or Lyra Sylvie
July 5th, 2013 02:48 AM #37Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
I guess that as long as you are happy, emotionally mature, and financially stable it doesn't really matter how old you are when you have a baby. Frankly there are things that can't be postponed (becoming a professional athlete or musician, having a very skilled career — it's difficult to start studing medicine or engeneeiring 10 or 12 years after finishing high school) —*but why should having kids stop you from travelling?? You just have to adapt yourself to your circumstances!
I do think romanticising 1940's and 1950's America is a dangerous —*surely you realise not all women spent their time playing with children, knitting, and baking pies like Snow White. In those days many woman were basically domestic slaves who went from being controlled by their father to being controlled by their husbands and had to sacrifice personal dreams and tastes for the family and an unattainable sense of domestic perfection (the rich women, at least —*the poor, the minorities, and those whose husband walked out had to had jobs). See also: "The Feminine Mystique". It was a pretty dark age for women. I reckon many men and children were pretty unhappy as well.
Finally, I think it's neither sensible nor realistic, in the 21st century, to expect a man to financially support you for the rest of your life. (Again, this may be my cultural bias showing —*as I've explained in other posts, in my country being a housewife is very looked down upon.)Arabella, Thibault, Sophia, Alfred, Eleanor, Rémi, Charlotte, Achille, Olivia, Clement, Elizabeth, Frederick, Maud, Benedict, Adèle.
July 5th, 2013 02:17 PM #39Senior Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Interesting to see everyone's different opinions! I daydream about the 40s and 50s because it was a simpler time, and I, personally, would have fit in well because of the fact that career isn't huge to me and I would've been quite content with the stay at home lifestyle. Of course I realize that it is not for everyone. And women didnt have much of a choice back then, and that isn't right either! Women should be able to do anything they desire, and i fully agree with this! All I meant was that there is such a stark contrast. Back then you were expected to have kids, stay home, cook and clean. Now you are expected to go to college, have a career, and make a name for yourself. Back then, people who wante to do what you can now, could not. And today, if you choose not to follow the 'norm' you are looked down upon as well. I don't think one or the other is right. I think you should be able to choose a path that it is right for you without being judged. So maybe that was more the 60s era lol.
Milasmom- I don't mean to argue or anything, I just meant that the way it was stated was a generalization, which I am not a fan of. Again, this probably stems from the fact that I have never fit into generalizations. I will be 20 with a baby. I am married. I have no desire for partying, drinking, going out, etc. most of my friends are actually in their mid twenties, I guess because I don't fit on with the 'younger crowd'. I hated high school, hated the drama, hated it all! I used to walk around saying 'I hate teenagers' and every now an then someone would remind me that I was one! Everyone has always called me an'old soul'. That is why I said age is but a number. I suppose you are correct that a large portion of moms in their teens are NOT in any way ready for a child, and in addition are not ready to grow up to take on the responsibility. It just sort of hurts my ego a little when things like this are said, because I am automatically grouped in with all of those negative associations, you know what I mean?
That being said, I completely know how it is not to fit in as well! Even though I may be closer in age to all of those teen moms, I by no means will fit in at all with their lifestyle and attitude. And I also will not fit in witht the older crowd either. But oh well!
Last edited by bostonsavvy; July 5th, 2013 at 02:21 PM.