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?

The birth rate is declining because women finally have a choice whether to have children or not. The reasons on both sides vary, but back in the old days they didn't have a choice. When I was born all forms of contraception were illegal on Ireland.

I am not a grandparent, but if I did become one, I would not want to look after my grandchildren.
One look at MN gives the impression at lest that I should be endlessly grateful for being allowed to give up my free time to save the parents money and I should put up, shut up and do as I am told, as I know nothing.
As I have brought up three children,I don't appreciate being patronised and 'gently explained to' that everything I am doing is wrong.

The thing is, with certain things , society has more of a say than the parent. For example, the age a child can go to school/come home by themselves. Or area dependent, the age a child can be out by themselves or stay at home by themselves.

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.

To add, this is probably because 'they have had their babies, it's your turn now' is repeated over and over again in any thread where the grandparent is doing something outrageous, like buying an expensive car seat or allowing the sacred child a cup of weak squash or something else equally beyond the pale.

No thanks!

They can expect all they like butnirs still not compulsory. In most cases the student can get a job on top of their loans.

I certainly didn't dole out money to uni child. They had loan and job, I did the occasional shop and collected stuff they needed for uni accommodation

They now have graduated and working so obviously didn't do them much harm

I hate to say it but I think I already know that there is only so much I'd want to do as a grandparent. I'd only want to do the fun things, not help bring up more children.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I'd had heavily involved grandparents for my kids and lots of freedom, respite and nights out. I'd never judge a grandparent wanting to make the most of their retirement.

@Thechaseison71

Again, you misunderstood. The maintenance loan is means tested based on parental income...

Most dc now need a job & parental help.

Yes, all of this is spot on. Especially when I've spoken to other women who don't have kids.

Women want more out of life than to be breeding mares. And quite rightly.

And everything is really expensive. It has probably always been the case that if you wait until you can afford to have kids you never will, but now especially.

And then the state of the world/climate change etc. Do we really need to add to the overpopulated world?

University being free wasn’t anything my parents even thought about during the 60s/70s, no one I knew went to University, it wasn’t even a consideration. I think now that many University courses have been shown to be a waste of money, more young people will go straight into work and apprenticeships.

You are right to some extent. There were less university places available, but parents didn't have to pay for fees and mandatory grants included accommodation. I think the sit-ins in the university in London helped stopped the grants eventually.

The system was different. True, many students did not go to university, but they were offered apprenticeships in FE Colleges and there were also 'TOPS' courses for older students which were full time for about 4 months or so and they were paid to study, and sat exams at the end. It could be revived?

There were more apprenticeship courses, and career officers in schools and further education colleges, many of which are now called universities. What is needed are more courses for building skills, to build more houses the government keeps promising but never delivers. Plumbers and carpenters are desperately needed in many areas.

The problem was, I think, that more and more children were attracted to university - or gave the school some prestige value if they went, so they did academic courses instead of more suitable apprenticeships. I think that was wrong, but that is not so prominent in social history as it should be, Now we have children leaving uni without jobs to go to and years of paying off the loan debt.

It was - and still is, in my view - wrong to encourage children to go to courses at universities when they would be better off in technical courses.

I think that's right. Back in my mum's day, I'd probably have married a mediocre man and had 2.4 children, neither of which I wanted. I was born in the late 1960s and I just about crept into the times that gave me a choice. So, I made it and remained single. And child free 🥰

Nobody bats an eyelid these days if women choose not to have children. And so those of us who don't want to don't need to: there are plenty of other options 😚

It’s just so expensive to have a child and work full time so just having one was a financial decision

It is heartening to see that most of the posts are about the expense and practicalities of having a family, and not the increase in childhood diseases, including the comparatively new ND diagnoses.

It isn't just grandparents and grandchildren. When there are elderly people who need help, the first reaction of social workers et al is ''Don't you have any children?'' or ''How much help do you get from your children?''

That has to stop.

Err I think men wouldn't be too willing to provide sperm under these circumstances!

I think the cost of childcare is high in the UK. Add a mortgage on top of that and a lot of people can’t afford another child—not to mention plenty of people don’t have any immediate family close by or potentially even in the country to support them. I also think women often carry most of the burden of household chores, childcare etc while still juggling demanding jobs which leads to burnout. Obviously there are exceptions to this but it’s just not the world we were raised in when childcare and homes were more affordable for families.

It’s a simple question of what’s in it for us and what’s in it for the kids.

Society puts women’s lives in opposition to kids - if a woman becomes a mother her work chances go down the drain, and god knows women’s work is restricted enough to start with. We are still having to fight past men , their sexism and sexuality, to get lucrative work in trades. Everything women have worked for, for decades, becomes a waste of effort. In the 90s and the 70s too, the idea was that everyone would be working part time as tech took over and men would support women more. It’s not happened. Austerity came instead to provide more luxury for the super rich, and guess who was forced to give up their jobs first, it wasn’t men. I believe this is why girls’ education results have suddenly gone down, certainly women’s continued low value and status is a topic of concern and depression in the local girls’ school. Why work harder and harder only to be knocked and kicked aside ever harder?

Equality has been shown to be something men simply are not capable of accepting. Again and again, at the least reason or justification men turn on women.

The unfortunate problem of having kids is that you either have to have a girl, a victim, or a boy, who will be a potential perpetrator. Which brings me onto the kids. Given the direction of Britain’s and the world’s politics, we’re losing democracy, becoming impoverished serfs, possibly going to war; climate change is happening and there are serious questions about the future of human survival in many parts of the world, including Europe if Atlantic circulation stops. Again, all known among local educated girls.

The question is not why women are having fewer babies but why anyone is still having them imo.

In addition, the idea of lower levels of human population being such an issue is a joke. When the global population drops to the point it was at just 100 years ago and is still falling there might be some legitimate concern. Until then it’s just right wing men wanting control over women and maybe over a population of serfs.

@WaryCrow Re trades, I live in social housing and by far the best gas engineer we have had attend is a woman

Having kids just isn't a very appealing prosect. Also why create more mouths to feed? Totally unnecessary.

Rude. Not sure personal insults are necessary.

Also, hardly a 'me problem'. The declining birthrate being evidence of that, fella.

Mumsnet reality again. How nice for you. Fact is most are men. I have personally had to escort girls who were trying out courses related to trades. The boys they were with were extremely hard to manage with their refusal, utter refusal, ro simply keep their hands to themselves. I remember similar treatment and have known other women reporting the same. Men can force women out of everything and have done so a number of times historically. I won’t work in schools now, I will not teach these male apes.
(sorry for late reply, was working. I normally let things slide but the mumsnet reality is so ridiculously at odds with everyone I know in this divided country now.)

I can well believe this but also have to say one of the best gas engineers I had was also a woman! It is really sad to think so many can't do their jobs in peace.