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?

Thank you, this is v interesting . Finnish childraising culture sounds v good. Why do you think the birth rate is still v low?

Also, I understand Finland is quite a safe country? Does this play a role in why small kids can safely walk to school? I've heard Finnish schools are generally good : does this mean it's easier also for parents to find a good school close by so children don't have to walk a long way?

I think it's a combination of the insane cost of childcare, the need for two salaries to get by, and no village. We've stopped at one because we have zero help, and balancing that with two full time jobs is extremely stressful.

The only reason I did is due to DS's disability. Very little chance otherwise.

It would certainly help. I have put ds through independent senior school because the state school offered was dire. Even ofsted said it wasn't safe.
I couldn't afford to educate two dcs privately.

Isn't it 7% privately educated?
Most parents wouldn't get more money because of better state schools.

I’m one and done because my mental health took a nosedive after very poor treatment in the nhs. If the nhs wasn’t such a sexist institution then maybe women would have more children.

If you're put off having kids because you're scared of being judged or not being able to attend school stuff, then I think you have bigger issues.

I would suggest the biggest issues area finances and more awareness of choosing a decent partner.

Fwiw, I got more judgement for bf where I live, than the non bf mothers.
"Ooh, I couldn't do that. It's weird"
"My tits aren't for that. "

There is a lot more choice now for women to do with their lives what they want - & less dependence on men for their futures.
But though I think people and life has changed so much since the 70s in lots of ways, I think it will take a long time, if ever, for the human biological urge to procreate to disappear, and that is ultimately what drives people to have children.

Finland/Scandinavian is very safe for children and families but most young children are in care of the school until parents pick them up on the way home from work. Being a bit older it's normal to walk home.

In Finland municipal childcare costs vary from £30 to £300 for full-time care depending on family income and size and with lower fees for siblings.
This is as far as I know due to higher taxes than UK.

Finland's schools are considered excellent and globally renowned for their effectiveness although performance in international rankings like PISA has seen slight fluctuations in recent years.

Before the 1960s there wasn't reliable contraception. If there had been, im sure small families would have existed prior to then when most people were poor and there wasn't a welfare state. Now, we are heading back that way but with the benefit of contraception. The ordinary family won't be able to afford to have children when both are needed to work and childcare is prohibitive. Maybe one if they are lucky.

Of course I realise this. I've never in my life worked 9-5. But if someone says they have done a DAYS work yet can be at a school at 3.15 it doesn't add up. Doing a night shift the previous day doesn't count as there's been a rest period before trotting to the school

I also think a woman who doesn’t want children in her 20s can now change her mind and is in a better position to by her late 30s - and because of advances in health care / science, for some there is still a realistic chance they can have a healthy child at an ‘older’ age. Maybe an emerging trend for older first time mums and smaller families.
Or conversely, I think it’s more likely nowadays that a woman’s ’biological clock’ may only kick in later in life than in previous decades because of the wider range of life choices available to women / a lot more independence / but for some by then it is too late / not possible or practical for them to have children.
Men have also probably changed alot over the decades!

Why would it ever disappear? You mean with medical intervention, hormone suppression and the like? Because it won’t naturally disappear - evolutionary changes of that kind would probably take millions of years.

Hmm my son in laws brother and his girlfriend just got given a council flat. No kids. Were in private rented before Both working full time

Exactly FLAT not HOUSE with a garden which is what most ppl want for their kids

So many of them will be at work when these events are on. Same as most schools. Baking cake then was a choice

I did bring up 3 kids and worked full time as a single parent so well aware of juggling things thanks

But if someone says they have done a DAYS work yet can be at a school at 3.15 it doesn't add up

What are you still confused by @Thechaseison71?

Do you think people chose less decent partners before?

I thought the issue was less trade jobs & degrees needed more but less men going to college, so harder to find a man who can act as breadwinner. And even tho plenty of women want to work, they worry about money w COL now.

Yes it’s certainly part of the reason we don’t have more kids as I feel I’m juggling extra curricular activities wildly as it is and can’t imagine trying to fit in another’s child’s.
As it is we have 3 x swimming lessons all at different times, brownies, football, dancing and netball but many in my kids classes do more than that!
Then there’s supporting them with homework and reading plus the constant visits into school.

I think your children’s generation have it right, to be honest. Much better to have a nice life and to go after what you want in life than make sacrifices and forego your dreams for the sake of having a certain number of children. Better one child whom you can afford to take travelling around the world with you, than 3 children and hardly ever having holidays and having to watch the pennies, IMO. Each to their own, of course.

Omg yes.
I didn't choose a partner to be a breadwinner; I can do that myself. I chose an equal partner of greatness.

I think whereas women may have settled for a man who could earn, then tried to overlook his flaws, now we want a man who can earn his keep. And by the sounds of it, they are few and far between. As much as the 'new men' is the 90s didn't always live up to their promise, a lot did at least expect to be better than their dads.

That's been happening ages through. My paternal grandmother was one of 16 kids. Out of those 16 they produced 3 kids between them .

My dad was one of them. So I don't think that side of our family replaced that number

Raised 3 kids. Never did an elf, christmas eve box, valentines or easter basket. They had plenty of nice experiences and holidays, but not all the time. Summer hols they largely went to holiday clubs whilst I worked. All well adjusted adults. Not spoilt, polite and successful. Just do you, don’t get into the whole competition element. My best friend 100% does and it’s a lot of pressure.

Sounds similar to my kids upbringing. And tbh pretty much my own although my kids had more holidays

I agree. There's a cultural pressure to be the perfect parent now.

Easier done with 1, 2 or 0 kids.