I think it depends a lot on the person, but there is research that children of older men have a better chance of success in life, but maybe it's just because they had more time for their children and didn't put work and careers, friends first.
My husband is 50. We have two young children under the age of 3. This is his second marriage, and I can say he's a very good father... when he's with his family. Unfortunately, he makes the same mistakes as his first family in my opinion and puts work, power, career and money first. Otherwise, our son worships him, and frankly I can't find him a couss as a father, although he has never helped with things like diapers, milks and things like that, but he has clear principles in his upbringing, he's strict and loving at the same time, a good example as behavior - polite, he never lies, he can communicate with different people and he treats the last cleaner well. But I didn't choose him because of his age, and, despite his age, out of love. For me, this should be the foundation of one family, and the other is details
I see otherwise very good fathers my age, the so-called Millennials. They take care of their children, they cancel women in a lot of things, and they're very engaged in everything about children, even too much....
It's not up to age, it's about priorities, the way of thinking and the heart (if any).
My father was 37 when I was born. I'm an only child.
A real monster who doesn't deserve to be called "Dad." Real rubbish in the full sense of the word.
Now some will jump at me that "parents are our blood and whatever they have done, we should forgive them" - but apparently these people were lucky enough to be born to decent parents. Others haven't had it, and our own mothers and fathers have ruined the future for the WHOLE life.
I was born when my father was 40.
He didn't do anything for him. He's never taken me to fishing, a movie, a ball game, some kind of activity, mastering something, driving a car in some old field and the kind of things that father and son do.
I remember one time with 300 dawns, I made him teach me how to play chess. I was 16-17 at the time and I was ashamed of friends for not playing this game and they knew it from their fathers.
I'm now in my 30s and to this day I feel like in some typical male masters I'm not good at it, just because I haven't been shown in infancy.
It's as if younger parents are more active, but the coin has two sides. It's all about the man.
Most men do not have a business , for them a woman is obliged to look after her children , they can play little or sleep them .
Number 2 this is the very truth unfortunately .. there are people who just don't get to be parents
There are different types of people and it does not depend on age. Some as early as 20 years old are responsible and ready to be parents, while others at 45 have not lived. There are both energetic and lazy. Yes, in the 1920s it's probably easier to withstand sleep, but a 40-year-old can, as long as they want it. It is undeniable that a man aged 35-40 can contribute much more to the family financially, but this also applies to the woman. Basically, one has to pick a partner that they match, but also complement each other. En masse in Bulgaria, men consider that they "help" women, and in fact the child is in total and participation is required 50/50 or according to the possibilities. Even if a man carries most of the income (which, in my observation, is not the case), it does not give him the right to leave everything to the woman and she cannot rest, because, you see, she didn't go to work.
And, while the topic is not about this, I advise all women to choose their partners so that they do not wonder if it is precisely their age that is the problem if they are not fit for fathers.
1 sativahonest answered