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?

For an actual answer though…
Better sex education, and education for women in general.
Free and easily access to contraception.
Free and safe access to abortion.
Culminating with a diminished expectation that women MUST couple up and breed.
Women have choices.

Name calling usually means you have lost your side of the debate. And is hardly a good advert for motherhood If this is what it turns you into then im even more glad i gave it a swerve. Many people not meaning everyone? = semantics

Lots of good responses.

Mainly I think the cost of housing and childcare is a big problem.

But the changing attitudes can be detrimental to having kids.

Every child should have its own bedroom is often quoted on here for example. In years gone by, families with 3, 4 or 5 children often still lived in 3 bed homes. Sharing and bunk beds were common. 6 bedroom houses to accommodate a bedroom for everyone are expensive.

In years gone by, SAHMs were fairly usual, which probably contributed to more kids, it was easier to manage if mum was home anyway. Not saying it was right or wrong. But now the attitude is that women should work, should be financially independent, should have a good pension in their own right. Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is less likely to be achievable with a larger number of children.

Car seats. Years gone by, 3 kids fitted in the back seat with no seats. Now if you need a car seat per child, you need bigger cars.

There are so many changes to modern life that means having kids is more faff than it used to be.

FWIW I think the expectation is gone, back in my mothers generation it was expected you got married and had lots of kids (that you didn’t want or care about) whereas now people are seeing the damage from boomer parenting and either breaking those cycles by not having any or having fewer they actually want.

Appreciate this is a massive generalisation but it’s my personal opinion from the life I’ve lived.

yes its much less self centered to have a child and then decide parenting isnt for you 🙄

It’s a bit chicken and egg, but as soon as women entered the workforce en masse, it meant that families with two working parents could afford to pay more for houses. The coupled with other demographic changes (living longer, more divorces, more she single households) and house building lagging demand pushed up the price of houses.

At that point, the stay-at-home parent model becomes difficult / unviable unless one partner is extremely well paid. For normal people, families and children become an expensive luxury or major financial sacrifice.

I would also add having children is an immense emotional sacrifice as well, (of course with its rewards), and many people are too self-centred to bother with it.

I think many people in previous generations didn’t necessarily want children but they got married and had children because that was just what you did, there was immense societal pressure. Nowadays women can take care of themselves and don’t need to be with a man to have a roof over their heads, so they can make different choices to those our mothers and grandmothers made.

The birth rate drops in every country when women are educated.

You children will be competing globally in a capitalistic system; I think many parents worry that there children need to be on an even playing field with others competing for good jobs. In addition to this AI will change what jobs are profitable. Climate change may mean people competing for limited resources.

Women work but also take on the greater share of household responsibilities in the home and with children when they have them - some women now opt out as they think this is a poor deal.

I think people parent differently because the world looks different now.

Would you like me to show you the thread on the step parent board where a chef was berated for not being home in time to cook dinner for his 14 year old daughter?

The declining birth rate is partly due to women wanting a different life for themselves - not just as a wife and mother. Many more women are choosing to be independent of these commitments.

The contraceptive pill was available from the 60's onwards and there were other methods of contraception available which meant women in those days could and did choose if/when to have a baby...

Better sex education has contributed to lower birth rates. There is a lot of effort made by schools to make sure young people know the facts about getting pregnant, contraception and safe sex. Less accidental pregnancies as a result.

Cost of childcare
Climate apocalypse

I completely agree it’s deffo a big reason

I don't know about a specific example but I've seen threads about teenagers being home alone, managing friendship situations or getting busses and trains that you would think are about much younger children.

Name one 14 yo (without any significant disabilities) that has a babysitter. Or are you (slightly) exaggerating?

My own theory is that educated middle class women have 'professionalised' child rearing. Women who until giving birth spent their days in professional careers are bringing the same approach and skill set to their role as mothers. The same research, strategising, and high standards of performance, measured against a set of outcomes, plus in some cases, a level of competitiveness with their fellow mother 'co workers', and certainly a bench marking against them. This drives the expectations up across the board, and as you elude to, presents marketing opportunities because we are then told that to do our job to optimum levels, we need to buy this and pay for that.

I was 14 in 1987 Back then i was babysitting the younger kids of parents in my road on weekend evenings. Now a 14 year old seems to require a babysitter themselves

It’s ironic that you keep saying mums. That’s the issue. The expectation that it’s mums and not parents. While society is to blame for a lot of it, too many women are more than happy to perpetuate the status quo and pass judgement for anyone who doesn’t. I can understand men doing it, after all it suits them beautifully.

Who do you think is responsible for the messages to women that they need to take their children to several clubs a week? To do craft, baking, imaginative play with them? That the outside world is far too dangerous for children to play out and roam, so mum must become playmate and entertainment? That this diet and this activity and that behaviour is vital to healthy development? Who is pressuring them to read the books, implement the ever changing theories? Because if its a conspiracy, it would need to be men, wouldn't it? Do you have any reason to think it is?

I do think women were conned into thinking they could have it all when what they really meant was they want women to DO it all not have it all. Some of us saw through it and said nope but thats easier to do if you do not feel that maternal pull to have children.

I don't think anyone is blaming women.

But if you have two people in a relationship, both earning, then they can outbid a single breadwinner in a family. Therefore the natural ceiling (of affordability) is not there.

Once upon a time the mortgage ceiling was 2x main earner, plus 1/2 of secondary earner. Now it seems to be about 5x household income :(

When you get to the point where, when housing is seen as a constantly inflating asset (i.e. an investment, not just a home), the other partner is forced to work to get on the housing ladder or miss out forever - so people overbid (because they can).

Of course, the scourge of low interest rates made servicing large mortgages possible, and BTL piggy-backed on that - so you're right that the real acceleration and perversion of the market has its roots there.

But I do believe that without that initial boost of multiple breadwinners that house prices would never have got into that "only-upward" spiral.