Wimmin

Two articles on successive days in the Herald about women's fertility. Both written by women.

The first article said the best age to have children is 25. The second article said women are doing a bad thing putting off having children in hopes that science/medicine will help them to conceive when they are ready at, say, 40.

According to the second item, women shouldn't put off having their children because at 40 you don't have the stamina for bringing up children. Try telling that to all the grandparents in their 60s and 70s who are currently bringing up or helping to bring up their grandchildren.

So let's get a few things clear from the point of view of the wimmin. Never mind what society or the press thinks. It's not society's business when or if a woman has children. Certainly not when we make it so difficult for people to take that step. 'Society' and the Herald can butt out, unless we're prepared to offer help.

Having children at 25 assumes you are in a steady relationship, that you have a partner, someone you can rely on for emotional support - and probably financial support too because it's unlikely that you will have the money to stride out on your own at that age. And don't we just hate young women with a squad of kids who rely on the state for support? Most families now need two wages coming in. (We also know how much families - usually the woman and the kids - suffer financially if a marriage or a relationship breaks down).

At 25 a lot of women are just finishing their education and starting a career. Careers take time to build. Nobody ever said to a woman: Just you relax. It's not an either-or. We will judge you by a totally different set of career rules from the men. We value your role as a mother. You just take a few years off to have your kids and spend a bit of time with them. We'll keep your job open - oh, and yes, we'll pay you to take the time off and your career won't suffer for missing some years.

So women more and more have to wait to have their children. They're not career-driven harpies. They're realists.

For many women, life as a mother is a long balancing act: It starts with: Can I afford to get pregnant? I've discovered as a great-auntie that the full cot or buggy - sorry, 'transport system' - means we're talking big money. Babies are dear little things. How much time can I afford to take off work after the birth? For a start, you have to be in a job for some time before you are entitled to maternity and paternity leave. And the money isn't great. And it runs out pretty fast. What back-up do I have if my child is ill or during school holidays? Pretty crucial, because if you're 25, there's every chance the older generation who could look after your kids is still working. If you're 40, there's a good chance your family 'support' system will be too ill or too sick to help out.

In both cases, your family may be in another part of the country or the world. And childcare is still cripplingly expensive.

Nothing in either of these articles - or anywhere else I've been reading - suggests a solution to the problems women face when planning their families. So older women will go on looking for support to have children. Yes, women looking for fertility treatment will need to access the NHS. It costs. But women at 40 have been paying into National Insurance and the tax system for a long time. They are usually pretty healthy - it's old people like me who cost the NHS - so why shouldn't they get in vitro or other help with their fertility?

The one thing society can and must decide is this. What kind of mothers do we want our children to have? Young ones or good ones whatever their age?

We need to decide how to tackle this. And scolding women is just not going to do it.