Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think a big reason to birth rate is falling is because mothers are made to feel they must do more for their children than in previous times?

339 replies

TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 15:45

Now there's a lot more focus on mothers needing to do a lot, the whole 'concerted cultivation' thing where kids have a lot of activities that need help and travel time etc, pressure to get into top schools & unis arguably more than there was in the past, and for support & extra activities from an early age to enable this.

Wheras say, children in the 60s and 70s or before had a lot more independent play time and time outside without adult supervision
The gentle parenting thing ties in to this too, whereas before parents generally did not use such high-intensity strategies.

Working mums are made tp feel guilty often of they can't make the school run. But in previous times children often walked alone or with friends at pre-seckndary school age..my gran was walking to school at 6, tho admittedly this wad as an evacuee in the country
I think it's good we're more safety conscious now but also think that it's gone a bit too far in some ways and put too much pressure mainly on mothers.

otoh there's obvs areas where children are unsafe, and this must be addressed.
Maybe also an effect of the climate crisis will be to have less driving, so this would also make streets safer.

There's a lot of talk that mothers spend less time w kids now and this is why there is too much screen time. But I think that's wrong.
Studies show mothers, including both working and SAHM, spend more time with children than most SAHMs in the 1960s did

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/27/parents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children-as-50-years-ago&ved=2ahUKEwjuxsiS-dWPAxW3YEEAHXHsO044ChAWegQINhAB&usg=AOvVaw0RS-idWHNILw0SaKskdwRI

I don't think online stuff is bc mothers aren't spending time. I think it's bc there's a perception of less safety so kids are kept inside more than previously and are allowed screen access, so that takes place instead.

I'm saying this as a Gen Z who's really happy that my single mother (we lived w my gran tho who helped a lot) helped w my music & other hobbies. I don't think this is necessarily bad at all, I just think there needs to be more balance.

So what do people think? Is the expectation for children to be much more supervised now making women feel that children require much more effort than they actually do, and therefore affecting the birth rate?

https://www.google.com/url?opi=89978449&rct=j&sa=t&source=web&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fgraphic-detail%2F2017%2F11%2F27%2Fparents-now-spend-twice-as-much-time-with-their-children-as-50-years-ago&usg=AOvVaw0RS-idWHNILw0SaKskdwRI&ved=2ahUKEwjuxsiS-dWPAxW3YEEAHXHsO044ChAWegQINhAB

OP posts:
Anotherename · 13/09/2025 18:06

Hmm we had two children.

main reason we didn’t have anymore where

1- we had no space . We bought a two bed terrace before our first child arrived, and couldn’t afford to move. (Because of income and price of next house size )

2- little to no help . My mum occasionally watched a child (wouldn’t have both at same time) . In her defence she was working full time .

3- I can’t tell you how poor we were for so many years. We had nothing. ( on a side note, if we had been renting, we would have got our full rent paid on our income , which didn’t happen for our same priced mortgage payment. I know many people will disagree with me , but I always felt we should have been able to claim an equivalent housing payment )

I would have liked another one, but I don’t know what the government could have done to help us…. Made council housing available so we had more room ? Putting cb up £5 a week wouldn’t have encouraged me. The £18 we got for the first one paid £8for a box off milk a week, £5for a pack of nappies and wipes £2 for two boxes of baby porridge £2 for two toddler groups a week and two jars of baby food for when we had something we couldn’t mash for tea .

eventually the low birth rate will affect me as a ta (it already is actually) we have three classes in our primary that arnt full - this is a massive funding gap for the school to fill , and support staff are the first to thin out.

Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 18:02

CurlewKate · 13/09/2025 16:54

Could it possibly be because women don’t want to have “more children”?

A lot of polls show women wanting more but nit being able to afford.

OP posts:
Allswellthatendswelll · 13/09/2025 18:02

Natsku · 13/09/2025 17:01

I don't think so. I'm in Finland where there isn't the same kind of pressure on parents, here children are more independent much younger (walking to school alone starts in 1st grade - the school run is just not a thing here), you don't have to turn up to a million things in primary school, just two parents evenings a year, children play out still (my 7 year old has been playing out half the day) and things like that but our birth rate is even lower than in the UK.

I think all the statistics show that the more equality and choice women have the less children they choose to have.

I think it's sad when women want kids but can't have them for whatever reason but I think that pronatalism has a slightly sinister "women back in the kitchen" vibe to it.

bapples1 · 13/09/2025 18:01

We need better state schools but how would parents save money?

School funding is based on head count & it's already too low but falling rolls means even less money.

Narwhalsh · 13/09/2025 18:00

Before people decide to have kids they aren’t thinking of the time constraints, they’re thinking of the cost. Women have to work, they put off kids until they are financially stable, many have careers and having kids is happening later and not at all for some women then due to fertility issues related with age.

The multigenerational model has fallen down in this country. Pursuing jobs and careers the families are no longer collocated and the grandparents themselves are also working later. By the time the 30 somethings are having kids the grandparents are older and unable/unwilling to be able to be very hands on with grandchildren and may be some distance away.

I’d wager root cause is affordability

Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 18:00

SunshineAndFizz · 13/09/2025 16:50

There are SO many thanks we get asked to go to. ‘Stay and Plays’ (watching your child in their classroom), Autumn assemblys, nativity plays, volunteering for school trips, walk to the library days, sports days, parents evenings. We even had a ‘Look Book’ event - come and take a look at your child’s work books.

This is all before after school things!

Show quote history

I think things like nativity plays are nice & it is nice for parents to volunteer if they have time but this seems an awful lot...

OP posts:
Allswellthatendswelll · 13/09/2025 17:58

anyolddinosaur · 13/09/2025 17:41

Partly economic reasons but yes also not wanting to give up their nice lives for children. The ability to blame the economic costs also mean it's more socially acceptable not to have children. Mothers now are expected not to have an alcoholic drink during pregnancy and breastfeeding - could be 2 years of your life, our grandmothers didnt do that.

I mean heaven forbid women should want to have nice lives!
Also you can drink when breastfeeding (I know it isn't the point of the thread but need to correct it wherever I see it!).

Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:57

mit123 · 13/09/2025 16:48

I disagree- I am a grandmother and I work 4am till 8.30 am so I can help everyday with the school runs and look after my 3 grandchildren everyday all day during school holidays as their parents have to work to keep a roof over their heads

Show quote history

Yes, I think this comment is unfair to the many younger grandparents I know who do help!

OP posts:
Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:56

spoonbillstretford · 13/09/2025 16:45

I think schools expecting so much of parents is part of it. Dealing with school stuff felt like another part time job on top of general parenting, household chores and paid work. And because so much more is expected at home it actually leads to more inequality.

I think school should be for school and home for home life.

What did you feel school expected? Homework help? Extra research? PTA?

OP posts:
MumChp · 13/09/2025 17:56

TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:49

My gran actually had children in the 60s, the Pill was out but she didn't use it. She worked though, she was a school Head of Languages, but she only started work after child number 2 (my mum) was 4 and old enough for school. (BTW condoms were available before, surely they were used to limit kids?)

I do agree women working has raised prices. I am a strong feminist, I want people to be able to support a few kids on a single income without driving women out of the workforce.

Better state schools would also help w saving money..

Show quote history

We need better state schools but how would parents save money?

Raising children on a single income today is a hard job for most parents. And tbh I don't think it's going to change the next many years.

Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:55

LlamaNoDrama · 13/09/2025 16:45

I think it's because women have realised they don't have to have children at all if they don't want to. They no longer feel bound by the social expectation to have a family, have realised no you can't have it all, no longer wish to parent and work full time and take on a shit load of women's work. Good for them. I do also think the expense of raising children, housing and general living is probably also affecting things.

Why can't men help? If both parents are working full time then it's not like the woman has more time to do housework & childcare

OP posts:
LBFseBrom · 13/09/2025 17:55

The birth rate has fallen before, it will go up again. It swings back and forth. Don't worry about it.

Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:54

bapples1 · 13/09/2025 16:45

What once was could be again. It would require large cultural change though..

society is far more judgmental though, if your kids is playing out or playing unsupervised and something happens people will blame the parents. What was acceptable parenting when I was young would now border on neglect safeguarding wise.

That needs to change...

My dream is to be an MP, I'm thinking of how we can facilitate this. I wish we had SureStart centres back, for one, the government has talked about this, and I think it would help a lot.

OP posts:
Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:54

bapples1 · 13/09/2025 16:45

What once was could be again. It would require large cultural change though..

society is far more judgmental though, if your kids is playing out or playing unsupervised and something happens people will blame the parents. What was acceptable parenting when I was young would now border on neglect safeguarding wise.

That needs to change...

My dream is to be an MP, I'm thinking of how we can facilitate this. I wish we had SureStart centres back, for one, the government has talked about this, and I think it would help a lot.

OP posts:
Konstantine8364 · 13/09/2025 17:52

The problem with failing fertility is 2 fold. Lots of women are actively deciding to remain childfree, plus the women who have children are having a lot fewer.

I dont think its what you suggest though, I think cost is keeping families smaller, plus needing 2 salaries makes mat leave a challenge financially. I think as other people have said there are a lot more choices in life and not having kids is socially acceptable, I know quite a few couples who could absolutely afford to give kids a great life, but the women just don't want to as they have lovely lives already and don't want the drudgery, wreck their bodies etc

Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:50

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 13/09/2025 16:39

You talk about children of the 60s and 70s.

Amd forget that those children were born before the pill became available.

What the pill has done is given women choice and choice is always difficult. For starters women now get to choose when to have kids and that gap is much smaller when you're expected to do uni and then work a bit before starting a family at about 28. That's 10 years less than before and 10 years older in terms of energy.and 10 years further into starting to build.a nice lifestyle that's about to be disrupted, and 10 years later in terms of great fertility.

I'm not saying that the old days were better just that lack of choice brings its own momentum.

Also when you choose, you probably choose to have fewer, and feel you owe them more by virtue of that choice.

Plus, as PP have said, it's all damn expensive now. Workforce doubled when women all started working (full time professional careers) and I'm guessing that increased supply of people has depressed wages and hiked house prices somewhat in comparison.

I do think also that too many people, men and women, are made to feel they must do uni when it might be better just to start work. Better adult education courses would be good for people who want to learn later.

OP posts:
Original poster
TheJoyOfWriting · 13/09/2025 17:49

CanSeeClearlyNowTheRainHasGone · 13/09/2025 16:39

You talk about children of the 60s and 70s.

Amd forget that those children were born before the pill became available.

What the pill has done is given women choice and choice is always difficult. For starters women now get to choose when to have kids and that gap is much smaller when you're expected to do uni and then work a bit before starting a family at about 28. That's 10 years less than before and 10 years older in terms of energy.and 10 years further into starting to build.a nice lifestyle that's about to be disrupted, and 10 years later in terms of great fertility.

I'm not saying that the old days were better just that lack of choice brings its own momentum.

Also when you choose, you probably choose to have fewer, and feel you owe them more by virtue of that choice.

Plus, as PP have said, it's all damn expensive now. Workforce doubled when women all started working (full time professional careers) and I'm guessing that increased supply of people has depressed wages and hiked house prices somewhat in comparison.

My gran actually had children in the 60s, the Pill was out but she didn't use it. She worked though, she was a school Head of Languages, but she only started work after child number 2 (my mum) was 4 and old enough for school. (BTW condoms were available before, surely they were used to limit kids?)

I do agree women working has raised prices. I am a strong feminist, I want people to be able to support a few kids on a single income without driving women out of the workforce.

Better state schools would also help w saving money..

OP posts:
DarkForces · 13/09/2025 17:47

I like my life with 1 dd. I don't have more because I don't want more.

Iris2020 · 13/09/2025 17:47

I really agree with you OP and am surprised at the responses. Even pregnancy is super stressful these days, with movement monitoring and diets and exercise etc

Back in the day you had more time for housework and less to do as there were far fewer things in the houses.
You walked to school from 6 / 7, played, and if you didn't comply it was short lived as punishments were really deterrents. Life today is incredibly hard.

scalt · 13/09/2025 17:46

The way the government so cruelly treated children during lockdown cemented my decision not to have children. They showed that they do not value children or education at all.

And yes, even as a teenager, I thought the world was a very cruel place to bring children into.

MumChp · 13/09/2025 17:42

namechangetheworld · 13/09/2025 17:39

Are you sure? Our parents and in-laws help regularly, and most of my friends have similar help. We see so many grandparents doing the school run now and I don't recall seeing this much at all when I was a child.

Show quote history

We have no grandparents to help and it's quite standard around here. Grandparents are deceased, they work, they are poorly, they don't live close, they have their own stuff.

anyolddinosaur · 13/09/2025 17:41

Partly economic reasons but yes also not wanting to give up their nice lives for children. The ability to blame the economic costs also mean it's more socially acceptable not to have children. Mothers now are expected not to have an alcoholic drink during pregnancy and breastfeeding - could be 2 years of your life, our grandmothers didnt do that.

AhBiscuits · 13/09/2025 17:40

My parents could afford a house on just my dad's salary so they had 4 kids and my mum looked after them. We need two incomes to buy and run our house and 4 lots of nursery fees, afterschool clubs etc would be a lot. So we had 2.

namechangetheworld · 13/09/2025 17:39

Sitdowny · 13/09/2025 16:29

The Grandparents of today don’t want to help even if they are working less. They see that they have done their job raising their own children.

Are you sure? Our parents and in-laws help regularly, and most of my friends have similar help. We see so many grandparents doing the school run now and I don't recall seeing this much at all when I was a child.

Nodecaffallowed · 13/09/2025 17:39

This reply has been withdrawn

Withdrawn at poster's request