It’s becoming unfashionable to have kids

[Housebuyingfamily]

Birth rates are on the floor which people frame as, people would have more kids were it not for the cost of them or climate change, etc etc. But I feel like it’s now more than this. As if we have a global child-free culture that’s growing every day and it’s becoming increasingly “unfashionable” to have kids, even looked down upon.

I don’t know what this poster was describing as “the West” but I’m pretty sure even China and Russia have lower birth rates than the UK 🤣

It’s a global phenomenon that is correlated with….wait for it….educating women.

I find it’s quite common on MN for posters to let parents get some digs in, then wait for the childfree to respond and pop up with some variant of “the children are so bitter and angry!” or “why do the childfree have to resort to personal attacks?”

They never admonish other parents and so it’s incredibly disingenuous. I just ignore it.

And also your love for your partner is nothing special, it’s conditional and partners can always be replaced…..

Don't forget that anyone whose childfree but has animals that they love and care for also has issues - but of course if a parent owns and loves a dog that's okay 👌

And if a childfree person finds kids loud and annoying they’re evil, but if a parent says “I can’t stand all other kids apart from my own” then it’s absolutely fine.

Yep. Recent thread on Statutory Maternity Leave -some parents commenting they didn't agree with extending/increasing it. A couple of child free people post, one was a bit obnoxious about it and someone else starts an entire thread on 'mother and child haters on Mumsnet', with posters following up with how the nasty child free shouldn't be on here and how unicorns and rainbows this site would be if it was just parents allowed.

"Unconditional love for your child"

I do not doubt that the bond a parent and child has is something special, as a daughter - I know I would do absolutely anything for my own mother - she raised me with unconditional love and support (and she's supportive of my choice not to have children, too). However, to diminish peoples loves for their partners or pets or whatever because its just "not the same" is patronising as hell - feelings are subjective, not objective. Also, some people are just content with not feeling "that" kind of love... I also don't want to own a cat (which many people adore), nor do I want to move to Australia (which many people have a huge drive to do).

But if parents experience this overwordly level of love that childfree folks just can't understand, why is it that parents are also most likely to be perpetrators of physical and psychological abuse towards their children?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/abuseduringchildhood/findingsfromtheyearendingmarch2016crimesurveyforenglandandwales

Additionally, it's not something that can just be fobbed off on fathers. Of those children who experience abuse, 4 in 10 children are abused by their father, 3 in 10 children are abused by their mother.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/childphysicalabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019

People can want different things out of life. This is a thread asking essentially why people aren't having as many children... therefore you have your answers from childfree people. Just like the many threads which ask parents whether they would have been happy without childreen, many then explain why they would not be happy living that lifestyle. Answering the question of the thread.

Those stats are interested @TipsyCoralOtter - it's also very common knowledge that most kidnappings, child deaths etc. are at the hands of their own parents too.

So I think people can be forgiven if they don't really buy the "unconditional love" shtick.

Mostly down to cost. A mortgage for a family sized house should only need one living wage to get (as it used to be for donkeys years pre 1980s). Not sure how it can be fixed other than massive house building project, better affordable transport and probably UBI. And I can't imagine that happening soon...even the latest home building will probably be a lot less than what's needed.
(Guess I'm having a pessimistic day 🙄)

@Nc4dis

It’s a global phenomenon that is correlated with….wait for it….educating women.

Indeed. And it’s no surprise that if there’s one trend which consistently correlates with low birth rates it’s increased levels of education for women.

Its almost as if the better educated women get the less they want children and the fewer children they want. As well they might, because having lots of children generally makes people poorer and limits their opportunities.

Its really galling to have this spun as “selfishness” or emotional deficiency. It’s entirely sensible and logical.

Yep. And in many countries they are incentivising children - literally paying people to have them, offering mothers a lump sum for every child and cheaper mortgages etc. It’s still not working, because people clearly do not want a lot of children anymore! Apart from either very poor countries with bad education, or countries where women have few rights and choices.

Which is all the more interesting given the "parents are empathetic!!!" claim has, iirc, been demonstrated to be false - yes, they are empathetic to their own children (which one would think is a low bar to set) but not necessarily to other people's children.

Yes, and apparently it's bad to give a home to another animal after one has died. Of course OP refers to this only as buying, as if fostering and adoption don't exist. Wonder if she has any objection to the human trafficking that's euphemistically called surrogacy?

I can confirm that I am precisely as empathetic after having DS at 40 as I was before having him. I didn’t turn into a secular saint as soon as I expelled the placenta.

😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

I think this is a good point. If we talk about 'biological imperatives', I wonder if there's a subconscious decrease in that inbuilt. Species with higher birthrates tend to be the more vulnerable small prey creatures.

To a certain extent, you can see this in human behaviour historically. Baby booms are synonymous with high fatality/high need. When there's high infant mortality, the birth rate is much higher, logically and understandably.
From a national point of view, an ageing population that needs care indicates we need more young humans, yes. But from a biological perspective, an ageing population equates to less need to replace humans because so many are living longer.

Our understanding of shorter lifespans in the past is skewed by the volume of babies and mothers dying in childbirth. People still made it to their 80s and older, it just that fewer people made it out of childhood in the first place and fewer women made it out of childbirth alive.
Having multiple children if you were able to made more sense in an environment where the majority of parents would expect to lose at least one child to disease or in childbirth. Women who could carry babies to term and survive themselves would be having as many as possible to make up for those that couldn't.
On a conscious level, yes, as others have said, contraception, education of women, etc, but maybe we shouldn't ignore the subconscious imperative that might have driven us to improve methods of contraception in the first place.

I don’t have children and am in my late 30s. I am myself an only child. I am at a crossroads and have two possible options:

• Try to have a child with my partner (also an only child). Child would likely be an only too and would have very little family (no aunties, uncles, cousins etc). No guarantee that the child wouldn’t have additional needs either which would make their life more difficult and increase my worry about them being alone in the world once my partner and I have gone.

• Accept not having children and try to build my life and community in other ways. This would involve retiring early, and then getting more heavily involved with charity and voluntary work and hopefully making some close friends. I am also working to establish a couple of groups related to hobbies I have. I have read so much online, especially on Mumsnet, about loneliness. I like the idea that I could use my time and skills to create something that might help bring others together.

I feel option 2 is the less selfish one.

Of course not. For obvious reasons.

It’s not “condescension” it’s life experience. It’s very easy to say you don’t want children when you are surrounded by others living their young, single, childfree life. It’s a very different experience when you are older and surrounded by couples with children. I am probably older than you and can assert that of the women I know who were adamantly not wanting to ever have children in their 20s precious few chose to remain so in the 30s.

But who pays for it then?

I do wonder about loneliness within society in the future...if people don't have children or stick to one child, then future generations will not have aunts/uncles, cousins and wider family. Families will be much more linear... grandparents, parents and child. I know lots of childfree adults in their 30s/40s...they are still very much part of a family unit with their parents and siblings but once their parents die, I fear they may feel cast adrift. I think it is an interesting societal change.

No it won’t. Children cost money.

But many people choose their ‘families’, put their emotional efforts into friendship, and, while they’re on perfectly cordial terms with their families, blood bonds aren’t their primary link to other people. My wider family couldn’t be less important to me, for instance.

Maybe try listening to what people are saying to you instead of condescending to them? Having a pet, for many, has nothing to do with parenthood or desiring it.

@Comedycook Your life has worked out that you have your family. What if it had not? Would you just give up on life? I have considered doing the latter. You post similar thoughts on almost every thread about children and families condemning only children and those without children to a life of sadness and loneliness. You might be right, that's what I feel I am facing. As I say, I've thought about just giving up.

Whereas I’m 52 and while I did have a child at 40, many of my friends and three of my siblings, in their late 40s to mid-50s, remain childfree by choice. And looking pretty fulfilled on it.

I'm in my sixties and for me it's being able to be alone at last. I have umpteen cousins - Mum was the youngest of ten, several of whom had large families - but I've never met most of them, or ever wanted to. Not everyone feels this "they're my ReLaTiVeS" bond or like it's something they're missing out on. So what if there are people out there with the same bloodlines as me? Does that mean I'd even like them if I met them, or have any common interests, or want to spend time with them?

I'm less lonely now than I've ever been, because I have made friends and see them regularly.