Social media is now our judge and jury

by London School of Economics and Canada’s Western University, found that couples who have children later in life – between the ages of 35 and 49 – experience the highest and most lasting levels of happiness. The study’s authors, who followed English and German parents over 18 years, thought this could help to explain why more people start families at a later age.

So at last we have some research suggesting that 21stcentury women aren’t in fact nasty, selfish and – the subtext is there, so I’m just going to say it – unnatural, nurturing their careers above all else and putting off having children while their eggs rot, the health of the babies they eventually have is put at risk and society falls apart.

No, it turns out that older parents can be happier parents. And, as other studies have shown, they might even be better ones too.

I am approaching 36, my partner is 40 and our son is one, which, according to the study, is also the time when the happiness associated with child-rearing can start to dip. Oh dear. I presume this is something to do with the reality that gatecrashes the warm, cosy, cuddly baby party right about now. You know, the horror of nursery fees, the virtual impossibility of being a fulfilled, fully functioning, sane, working mother who can follow a sentence from start to… whatever, the dearth of state support, the psychological impact of all those back-toback viewings of In T he Night Garden, and so on. I admit it was all so much easier when I was

At last, research suggesting that 21st century women aren’t in fact nasty, selfish and unnatural

lost in a fug of muslin squares and sleep deprivation.

In fact, the study showed it is parents of my age who are least likely to experience this dip in happiness. For us, the gift of children keeps on giving, as opposed to couples aged between 23 and 34 who experienced less of a positive response to becoming parents. Those aged between 18 and 22 actually saw their happiness decrease.

There is a lot to be said for waiting to have children (though the trick is to not wait too long). After all, having a baby literally changes everything, from your perspective on life to the time you go to bed at night (9:30pm, since you’re asking).

When I was younger and sillier, such sacrifices would have appalled me, not to mention bored me to tears. Now, from my ancient perspective, happiness proves to be a small, demanding child. That’s because I did it when I was ready. Ready to stop thinking about myself, to sacrifice my body and mind to the gruelling task of pregnancy and parenting, and to devote the rest of my days to helping a funny little person become himself. I longed for a baby, so even on a bad day, of which there are many, I tend to feel lucky that I got one. It’s the biggest job I’ve ever undertaken – as well as the one that’s valued the least – and I think being older has made me more up for it. And more up to it, for that matter. Aside from the back pain, broken bones and memory loss, but you can’t have everything.

There is a bigger pattern at work here that tends to be neglected whenever “older mother” stories appear. The fact is, personal decisions are never made in a political vacuum. What appears as an individual choice to postpone parenting is, on closer inspection, driven by how a society and its policies views and treats parents. And in particular women.

I am part of a generation of women who waited because we had to wait. I couldn’t afford a mortgage in my twenties. Those years, and great fun they were too, were spent renting, partying and working ridiculous hours for not enough money.

This remains the case for most women in a country that has dropped to 26th place in the world – below Rwanda, Ireland, and South Africa – for gender equality. Where the average salary for women has fallen from £18,000 to £15,400 in the past year alone. What choice did I really have? Having a baby in my twenties would have spelled the end of my career. I couldn’t afford it then, and can barely do so now. “Having it all” is a fantasy cooked up by capitalism.

Around 20 per cent of babies are born to women aged 35 or older, the highest proportion since records began in 1938. I bet that not all of these women chose to postpone parenthood. Perhaps parenthood didn’t feel like an option for them until they hit their mid-thirties, realised it was now or never, and did it anyway. Under such circumstances, the notion that waiting might have its benefits should be welcomed, especially when that benefit turns out to be happiness, one of the great pursuits of life.

For this mother in her midthirties the old adage really is true: the best things do come to those who wait. Or, as my son would put it, wowder.

THERE is a saga unfolding on the other side of the Atlantic that is proving to be one of the most difficult celebrity scandals to judge since Operation Yew Tree.

A popular Canadian radio show host, Jian Ghomeshi, was sacked from his job on the cultural affairs show last Sunday, amid claims that a seedy side to his personal life was about to be uncovered.

Immediately after his ousting, the CBC star took to his Facebook page and published a statement detailing his side of the story. He could have done what his employers apparently suggested and slipped quietly out of the public eye. He didn’t.

He told how he was the subject of a smear campaign by an ex-girlfriend and a freelance writer who was known “not to be a fan” of Ghomeshi – so far, so very Aaron Sorkin’s T he Newsroom – who were plotting to expose him as an abusive sex pest.

In the shockingly open – and extremely lengthy – outpouring on his personal page, Ghomeshi admitted: “Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks.”

His relationship with his ex-girlfriend, he insisted, was talked about between them as being like “a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey” – but was, he claimed, 100 per cent consensual. However, a few days later, the allegations became more serious.

A Toronto-based newspaper revealed that it had, months earlier, done “due diligence” on the story after interviewing a group of women who claimed Ghomeshi had been unreasonably rough, in some cases abusive, with them, but had previously decided not to run it, due to the women’s refusal to go on the record.

Since then, a total of eight females have come forward to state that they have been mistreated in some form by Ghomeshi – from Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere to an unnamed CBC employee who claimed he had uttered foul and abusive words to her during a story meeting.

But what has been so very compelling about this story has been the ebb and flow of public opinion on 47-yearold Ghomeshi. When the news broke, there was an outpouring of support for the handsome celebrity, who has a dedicated army of super fans. Early

Qthis week, people wrote in their thousands that they “knew” he could not be guilty – that they “couldn’t believe” he’d been subjected to such treatment. Indeed, when the story related to only anonymous women, everyone was behind him. He was a star, their beloved; he could do no wrong. But now one of the women, DeCoutre, has gone on the record, putting forward details of Ghomeshi’s alleged violent attacks on her following a series of dates a decade ago, the tide has turned.

The number of “likes” on his Facebook page has plummeted. Even friends, such as musician Owen Pallett, who initially lent his voice to the pro-Ghomeshi camp, has now said that how his friendship with the broadcaster will continue “remains to be seen”, stating blankly: “Jian Ghomeshi beats women.”

Ghomeshi has been sacked from a post he has held for almost eight years – not suspended pending an investigation, but immediately sacked. He has been told repeatedly by former fans on social media that he is a terrible person, that the public will never again respect him.

So far in Canada, there has been no court case or, as yet, any suggestion that there is likely to be one, although the picture which is forming of Ghomeshi becomes more unsavoury by the day. His employer has said nothing. It is a tale of “he said, she said”, which has been dragged through the media – both traditional and social.

He has merely been dismissed from his job, so he claims, on the grounds that CBC would find his personal life being made public as “unbecoming” to a prominent host. Indeed, the only legal action that has been touted at this point is Ghomeshi planning to sue his employer for sacking him.

If the case never goes to court, the public may never know the truth – but his career is likely to be over either way. Of course, if the allegations are true, he deserves all he gets. Social media is a dangerous thing. It is quick to support – and equally quick to retract that support. By posting that starkly confessional post last weekend, he was clearly hoping it would all go away. But, of course, it wouldn’t. We’re in an era when the judge is not just the bloke in a wig sitting in the High Court: it is everyman sitting in front of his computer screen.

Frightening times.