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?

[TheJoyOfWriting]

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?

‘for most living creatures there is a natural inbuilt need to procreate.
I don't think that's true.
There's a natural desire to fornicate which often leads to procreation - that's why sex is pleasurable. We have managed to break that link though.
I don't see much that biology will do about that, though cultural factors might make yet make child-bearing a high-status role if breeding rates continue to plummet.’

Thank goodness we have managed to break that link!
But fundamentally the desire to fornicate is driven by the hormones created by our reproductive organs. Physiologically the two are one and the same.
Our brains differentiate between fornication and procreation - but (without intervention) our bodies do not, never have and never will.

Thank goodness we have managed to break that link!
But fundamentally the desire to fornicate is driven by the hormones created by our reproductive organs. Physiologically the two are one and the same.
Our brains differentiate between fornication and procreation - but (without intervention) our bodies do not, never have and never will.

This makes children sound terrifying!

Hmm..let me think - couldn't a lot of this be solved w more independent, less demanding children? Play out, walk themselves to school, no phone until 16 (much easier if we ban like France has done), low key Xmas? Why the need for bigger houses and cars I'd you only have 1 or 2 kids? (Depends I know on what size it is..)

I guess I'm also speaking as someone who is v much a 'mummy's girl' (is that a phrase like daddy's girl? If not should be). My mother worked hard as a single parent & relied on me to be sensible, which I mostly was. So are my friends, but I know some who have busy parents & were taking advantage of that to have sex and drink at 14! Hope I don't have to deal with that...

Tis is all v interesting, thanks. I'm again a bit untypical as my gran had her first child at 30, and her mother at 40. Both cases of losing their partner and finding another.. My gran broke up w her long term bf from her 20s and my great gran lost the husband of her 20s in the Spanish Flu, and it was hard to find another due to so many lost in WW1.

This is making me think : did the WW1 generation experience a birth rate fall, given so many young men had been killed so it famously became the spinster generation? I wonder how big it was?

I'd argue women still could wait to choose before the Pilll, they were just unable to have sex to help them decide...

That sounds incredibly gruelling. Would definitely make sense that it would limit fertility.

No, I meant if the state school had been better (or even just safe), I wouldn't have needed to pay for private education, and could have afforded two dcs rather than just one.

I wonder if it would help to separate the things that put people off children altogether and the things that make people have less than they might have wanted. The second group are more fixable, like improving maternity care so less women are traumatized and never want to do it again. The former much less so, people who don't want kids have reasons that you can't really argue with.

Very interesting! I agree, we are made feel guilty and feel the constant pressure as parents.

The pressure in women having a career has not been matched by a shift in society to support that. Nurseries are super expensive, schools stop at 3.45-4, loads of holidays, fathers are not doing 50% of child rearing, so women have never worked as hard as ever before.
there is a lot of pressure in getting kids to activities, top schools etc but nearly always it’s all on mums.

I think there is also a set of expectations we all hold without necessarily knowing that we do - and in this situation, smaller family sizes or even having no children has become more normal.

Your life sounds lovely. I don’t know anyone who had grand parents who owned their own home or where the grandmother did not need to work full time and usually doing extra wok at night or weekends.

I know I've been v lucky, it's v wrong more people are not in that situation. ☹️ My mum is Gen X, but as I've said, my gran is Silent Generation as she had kids older than average, and things were financially much easier then.

Are the grandparents you mention Boomer generation?

This might sound a bit conspiracy theorist, but anyone feel it's almost like a subconscious way of keeping the women in their place?

As in, we can work and be financially independent much more easily now, but to make up for it we have to worry about school runs, educational enrichment, entertainment/supervision of children etc much more than mothers did in previous times?

Like an updated version of Eve having to feel pain in labour, now only now more about constant supervision etc

I also feel another factor is parents feeling worried about Internet content but powerless to do anything about it. So maybe that manifests into worrying more about other things which are actually less of a risk?

Do you actually WANT to send your 6 yo out in the world with a key around their neck and just cross your fingers and hope for the best? If yes, then there are work arounds , and while some things would be frowned upon, you can drop a lot of balls. No one can force you to attend even parent’s evening, much less every single event at the school. No one can force you to bake cakes or send them in dress up. No one can force you to parent or spend time with your kids.

Yes I do a million times more parenting than my mother ever did. However, I actually enjoy some of those things and the others, well… I actually want DD to be safe and well raised.

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.

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.

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'm certainly not advocating children coming home to an empty house or parents not showing any interest in what their children are doing. I think some level of educational supervision is good too. Reading to children & other things are great.

I DO think that there's a lot to be said for a more relaxed attitude to some things (children playing out, walking to school younger, parents not going to endless events) which was common in previous eras : (60s-80s and before) & still is in some countries (Finland, eg., as pp mentioned)

But obvs there are other factors making this hard : dangerous streets, faraway schools, global economy so pressure for 'concerted cultivation' etc

I don't mean it's a literal conspiracy or that it's the main reason behind these things. But I wonder if people in general do sometimes have a slight subconscious sense that women have to 'make up' for working by spending extra time & effort w their kids than previous generations did.

You have a good point here : there is pressure from other women. Similar w pressure to BF whatever the circs & give birth naturally. I think also an uptick in marketing. Some have argued that 'teenagers' were essentially created (as a concept of a distinct stage of life) by marketing. I think that is a bit much but you could argue similar for this kind of stuff.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I completely agree it’s deffo a big reason