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?

Interestingly I was reading recently why Israel have a high birth rate, and, while there's a lot of reasons, an important one seems to be the child-friendly culture. Mothers feel happy to let small children walk to school, entertain themselves,, etc
However, the difference between Israel & similar Nordic countries is that there's much more of a cultural imperative to have children, Jewish traditions of Shabbat etc centre family etc

Very sad, I can well believe this. The Charlize Theron film North Country is based on a horrific case of sexual harassment in 90s US mining, and I suspect many are similar, if less drastic.

I was actually speaking to a builder & Trump voter on Substack a while ago, he claimed that Trump's infamous 'pussy' comments were shrugged off by blue-collar workers bc 'we hear much worse every day' & 'lots of antisocial people in building'. He then tried to argue that women in building were just as bad by citing some woman he'd known who apparently deliberately exposed her knickers while at work.

It took some self control not to ask whether the 'antisocial' attitudes & 'banter' explained why so many women in trades complain of sexual harassment. (I wanted to stay polite to find out more about why people like him voted Trump)

The issue is that an aging population means gerontocracy & lots of elderly people relying on a few younger people to support them w taxes, care etc Less young people also means less innovation.

The alternative being an ever expanding population. Young people are old themselves one day.

Surely a managed decline is the healthy medium here.

I think a major part is the planet has been fucked..Plus the leaders in the West can't work out the future for democracy, in the face of threats from China and Russia..at least that's how I'd feel if I was of child bearing age still.

I was a child of the 1950s and my parents main preoccupation was in getting me out of the house and from "under their feet." We were not ferried around to activities because there were very few of them apart from cubs, guides and brownies. Children played together in groups (no artificial play dates) and were socialized by the group. We learned about following the rules, fairness and unfairness, waiting your turn, sharing and friendship. It was very rare for parents to intervene, Children were made to realise that it was adults who ruled the roost and the world was not made for their sole convenence. I can nerer remember my parents helping me with homework or making sure that I did it. However they did make me go to school. If I had refused I would have got a real whalloping from my father.

This.

Bravo x 100

Had this discussion at work the other day (there's over 80 women where I work) and it seems to come down to money, childcare and social media l! A few colleagues said their families rallied around and cared for each others kids so they could work, and others said childcare was really cheap, could get term time jobs easily ect. I work full time but do shifts, as much as I need more money I can't do extra due to childcare, if I picked up a shift I'd get about £40 after nursery deductions, now what would be the point in that! Family work or I've offered to help my sister before but when I've asked in return 4 kids is just too much for her to handle, so then we have to use half term clubs when it comes to that. So many people on the media are just travelling, no time for men (plus it's so much easier to cheat these days) that they just aren't interested in settling down yet (these are people under 30).

agree with pp that managed decline of population is the best outcome for birth rates. As has been said by others there are so many overlapping reasons across all cultures, but pronatalist political stuff makes me deeply suspicious and honestly fearful as a child free woman. A lot of people advocating 'any means necessary' which yeah, doesn't feel safe. DH has had a vasectomy but I would honestly feel more secure getting sterilised myself to be completely sure

the sudden interest in birth rates from men seems to conveniently ignore the climate change situation - that no matter what we decided replacement rate is for X country the planet can barely sustain the total number of people we have.

For the western culture point, I love Abigail Porter (the girl with the list on tiktok/Instagram). People weren't real about motherhood until very recently and in the UK the NHS is always having another maternity scandal. That aside, it's just not what some women are choosing, and no measures could make us change our minds.

Can't remember what I said last time I posted on here.

But I bought a house,20ish years ago, at 26+ dh, which meant 4 years to plan for dc.

If you're still living at home/hmo at that age, everything gets pushed later. Then you either can't have them or have just got used to it being the way it is. I'm not the climate change stuff really resonates with most people; it's the way they're directly affected.

I think it's more acceptable just to not want them, too. Especially given the way many men behave. work with quite a few women younger than me. Only one is in a rship. The rest have decided that kids aren't for them. I'm coming back to an expensive age (uni) again.

I'm lucky to have great kids who don't cause me any problems, but I can't say I'm sad that they're nearly grown up. I'm not the maternal, self sacrificing type my mother was. I never wanted to be. But I think some women think they have to perfect to have kids. I adhered miss towards the 80s version.