And if you are 40+ as a man, you are almost certainly going to not be able to give them as much of an experience as if you were 10+ years younger. Age limits us all, no matter how much you fight it it will still catch you. Sure you might have more money, but then you are at the gap between "attention versus stuff" on what makes a kid happier.
And its more than just your own kids. Grandparents are an integral part to not only helping newparents be successful through generational knowledge, but as part of a kid's happiness and development.
If you have your kids at 40+, then you will be pushing 60 by the time your kids have their own at the earliest possible chance. Reasonably you'll be closer to 70+, an age with very low capability to play with a child and a near certain death in their childhood that will devastate them.
As you say, its not about you and your experiences. Which also means giving your kids the best, longest and most capable years of your life possible instead of waiting for some "ideal" age just because you, as a man, can technically do so.
I’m proof that you can, because I make more money and have more time off to spend with my kids. During my younger days I had neither time nor money because I was always working.
You’ll still have kids at 40+, just fewer of them, and you have established a life you can provide well for them.
Its certainly possible, but its also unlikely. Most men are not going to be making more money while also working less as they age, one hopefully but not quite both. We live in clown world, where those types of jobs and careers aren't as plentiful and available to the average white guy.
During my younger years I also lacked money and time, but I made up for it with energy and resilience. Which is my point with age. I could come home after a 10 hour shift, beat up my kids for fun, sleep sporadically with a newborn and still be fully recovered with just one night on the weekend of sleeping in.
Now I am far less able to do that, and most men will cross this same bridge. You will throw a lot more footballs with the son you have in your 20s than the one in your 40s, no matter if you have the time or not.
You can still have them, but that's not the ideal choice and it has costs. Just as it does when women try to argue the same logic on their in.
just fewer of them
Considering we are in a birth rate plummet and demographic crisis, having fewer is a major problem itself on a communal and nation wide level. Even if you ignore every other point you and I can make on the topic, simply having less of them because you are waiting too long is a major issue.
And if you are 40+ as a man, you are almost certainly going to not be able to give them as much of an experience as if you were 10+ years younger. Age limits us all, no matter how much you fight it it will still catch you. Sure you might have more money, but then you are at the gap between "attention versus stuff" on what makes a kid happier.
And its more than just your own kids. Grandparents are an integral part to not only helping newparents be successful through generational knowledge, but as part of a kid's happiness and development.
If you have your kids at 40+, then you will be pushing 60 by the time your kids have their own at the earliest possible chance. Reasonably you'll be closer to 70+, an age with very low capability to play with a child and a near certain death in their childhood that will devastate them.
As you say, its not about you and your experiences. Which also means giving your kids the best, longest and most capable years of your life possible instead of waiting for some "ideal" age just because you, as a man, can technically do so.
I’m proof that you can, because I make more money and have more time off to spend with my kids. During my younger days I had neither time nor money because I was always working.
You’ll still have kids at 40+, just fewer of them, and you have established a life you can provide well for them.
Its certainly possible, but its also unlikely. Most men are not going to be making more money while also working less as they age, one hopefully but not quite both. We live in clown world, where those types of jobs and careers aren't as plentiful and available to the average white guy.
During my younger years I also lacked money and time, but I made up for it with energy and resilience. Which is my point with age. I could come home after a 10 hour shift, beat up my kids for fun, sleep sporadically with a newborn and still be fully recovered with just one night on the weekend of sleeping in.
Now I am far less able to do that, and most men will cross this same bridge. You will throw a lot more footballs with the son you have in your 20s than the one in your 40s, no matter if you have the time or not.
You can still have them, but that's not the ideal choice and it has costs. Just as it does when women try to argue the same logic on their in.
Considering we are in a birth rate plummet and demographic crisis, having fewer is a major problem itself on a communal and nation wide level. Even if you ignore every other point you and I can make on the topic, simply having less of them because you are waiting too long is a major issue.