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?

PPs were saying people don’t want children any more because of x, y, z - but I meant that human biology will usually supercede cultural / economic factors because ultimately and for most living creatures there is a natural inbuilt need to procreate.
Exactly re evolutionary change, that’s why I said it will take a long time, if ever.

But I would think there’s always the chance that if people continue not to have / not to want to have children that could ultimately bring about an evolutionary shift (even if light years from now!)

The pill was first available in 1961, not widely, and only for married women (until 1967). The widespread change in mindset (of choice for family planning, rather than enabling women to continue having multiple children) didn't come in til the late 70's really.

Condoms (and anal sex) were used to avoid more kids. But they relied on the participation of the man, and the effectiveness of the prophylactic. Condoms were of heavier material in those days and attitudes were, shall we say, less enlightened about the relative weight of a man and woman's preferences.

Yes, many women worked in the 60s and 70s, but there wasn't the same expectation of education until 18 (leaving age rose from 15), nor of large numbers of girls going to university until they were 21. Only 5% of 18 year olds went, and IIRC the numbers were still skewed towards men.

It wasn't unusual to be pregnant at 17 or 18 (and married) then. The average age for a woman having her first child in the UK has steadily increased since the 1950s, rising from the early 20s in the 1950s to around 31 years old in the 2020s. For example, women born in 1950 were most likely to give birth in their early twenties, while those born in 1978 were having their first child around age 31.

I think in part this is driven by trying longer to find a suitable partner - something the pill has also enabled. Again, an extension of time because the woman can choose.

Fewer dc can lead to a cultural shift in a country where dc are seen as a pain, inconvenience eg child free cafes become popular, playgrounds don't exist in parks, maternity wards are closed so it becomes more difficult to choose to have dc.

www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-02/inside-south-korea-child-free-zones/103139230

If you look at the countries with the highest scores in the pisa rankings, Singapore, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, they have the lowest fertility rates. There is a huge tuition culture. I am from one of those countries and we had 4 exams per year when I was 6 going on 7. My mum bought me exam papers from the past 10 years (produced by the top 10 primary schools in the country) and made me complete them. Highly doubt she could do that if she had more than 2 children and tbh even 2 was a stretch for her.

I am one and done,my dh got a vasectomy when I was 6 months pregnant.

The previous day?
I was off the same morning from work as we were expected at the school and had very little downtime before heading off to the school.
I would have prefered a day shift before a parents' evening at school but it's not pick and choose in all jobs.

Have you worked night shift in a busy hospital ward? They are so exhausting.

I would also add that I think that families have generally become more separated with fewer 3 generation families in the same house/road/town/etc. which makes childcare across the generations much less likely. Even when they are near, more and more of the older generation are still working full-time.

That's a huge hole to fill with paid-for childcare.

The birth rate is low most likely for similar reasons to falling rates elsewhere - women have more choice (and its societally acceptable to choose not to have children now), finances or worries about future finances as jobs are much less stable now - a job for life is rarer, worry about the world you would bring children into, couples putting off having children until later, by which point fertility is reduced so they have less children or don't have them at all.

Yeah its a relatively safe country and children mostly go to the closest school as there's less difference between schools than in the UK.

Singapore is extremely safe and many 7 year olds do walk home from school and play outside on their own but fertility rate is still below 1.

Stressful education system and work hours. I think people dont want to leave kids to their own devices anymore. They want their kids to do well in school and if half the class is tutored intensively, then the stakes become much higher.

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.

At our child's school one parent (mostly both parents) shows up then expected of the school.
Some came a bit later than 3.15 as the event was on to 8.30 pm. We left at 7 pm as both I and child was very tired and the last things were for the older children to join in. We left after the non mandatory service which was fine with her form teacher.
If you didn't show yesterday you would be one of the very few parents not doing so.
Your child would also be one of the few not bringing in a cake.

But of course great for you if you choose differently than we do supporting our child in school.

Yes, I work full time with young dc. I see friends midweek for drinks and dinner. We work during the day, so my husband and I have our evenings together. We have found a way that works for us I guess and I wouldn’t change a thing.

Great post! Interesting comment esp about working parents wanting to make up for time spent away - whereas as you say in your generation children played out most of the day & were not constantly supervised.

If SAHMs weren't constantly supervising kids then, were they volunteering for stuff? Housework?

BTW is the Monty Python reference to the Irish men sketch? My mum introduced me to Monty Python & I really like them 🤣

I've read some articles from men which argue that women generally are more likely to work part time, less likely to work overtime, so it makes sense that men have less time for childcare and housework.

But more recent studies actually show that women are as likely to work overtime, it just tends to be unpaid overtime. Women are more likely to work part time though.

I'm raising kids now and I won't be doing any of that random social media stuff like Christmas eve boxes and most of my friends don't either. We do a few weeks self catering each year and the odd weekend away. No holiday club as I only work termtime but mainly local trips. It's really not radically different from my 90s childhood.

I think a lot of this thread is just people having a moan at the current generation as opposed to accepting women want less kids and have better contraception.

I can only speak for myself not all childfree women but I think my experience is pretty common.

I started work long after 1975 and when women were allowed their own bank accounts and mortgages. I was therefore living independently without issues and simply spent too long thinking about children and so never had any. I mean, if you actually think about it logically you'd never do it. So I didn't.

as I said I was working and a single parent. Exactly how was i meant to be piffling about with school stuff while working or caring for my other kids, with no other parent to do stuff

So if for example I was at one child's school of an evening doing this , what was i meant to be doing with the others?

As for cake, we'll its probably best, baking is not my forte Although school only allowed shop bought cakes sealed anyway

Theo Clarke, who authored an extremely harrowing birth trauma enquiry which was released a month after the (traumatic) birth of my son, was on the Today programme recently talking about how we just keep doing maternity inquiries without legislating for any change. Then somebody was on straight after talking about the ageing population and how the birth rate is a worry. I do wish somebody in charge would join the dots and see women’s health as a pressing issue that needs to be addressed NOW so we don’t end up in some Children of Men scenario. There’s lots that can be done- why can’t we get AI trained up to make growth scans loads more accurate so people don’t end up with unnecessary c-secs or (in my case) having to birth ginormous babies that blow the doors off on their way out? Why are we still just measuring bellies with a tape measure? Also making the postnatal wards less like being in the middle of a warzone would be welcome. And telling us about the long-term complications of not resting up properly after birth and neglecting our pelvic health ideally before our vaginas fall out would be great. I always wanted a couple of kids but I’m pretty sure I’m one and done after my massacre of an experience.

There’s other stuff too- anecdotally almost every mum I know had one or two miscarriages before they had their child. I had two. It’s also increasingly common to have problems conceiving, which Dr Shanna Swan says is linked to chemicals and microplastics in everything. (It sounds very tinfoil hatty but has been factchecked on Snopes.)

That’s before you even get into the social issues.

I do not agree that working women are responsible for raised prices, althpugh i have seen this raised a lot on the internet, usually by men who like to blame women for everything starting with original sin.

Women have always worked. Every so often men push a few back out of paid work again for one excuse or another, but that only takes money away from women and makes them dependent on men. The money is still there, merely given to men instead.

House prices rose as buy to let was encouraged, as mass immigration began and financial regulations were decreased enabling foreign money to flood the country. Other factors were the increasing tendency of boomers to live alone because they could. Those are the historical facts. Buy to let raises prices because suddenly you have far more people chasing properties, as of course does immigration. Similarly more people wanting their own space boosts demand.

But far easier to blame women and have another movement of making them dependent on male charity and promises to not thump too hard as long as they get their dicks pulled regularly.

Women have always worked

Mothers were less likely to work full time with young dc though.

That's fair enough but not the ethos of our youngst child's school. I want my child to feel safe at school with parents supporting her. But it's not the discussion.
The point was a lot of schools expect a lot from parents today and people might not be able to see themselves with full time jobs and large families because of this level of taking part in school life as parents. I am very happy to see our youngst through school as yes, university is expensive but ask very little of the parents.

The relentless pressure to BF exclusively without really doing anything to help besides demonising bottles is quite traumatic for women who have trouble with it. The HVs and midwives use a very stringent checklist from the World Health Organisation to check that you’re doing it ‘properly’. I know of 3 people within my circle whose babies have become quite ill from dehydration/ jaundice because their concerns were brushed off.

Yes sometimes support can be shockingly bad. I don't think it would put many people off more children though but perhaps I'm wrong?

I was more objecting to the idea (from a few other posters) that exclusively breastfeeding is some kind of modern helicopter parent fad as opposed to, pretty much, the norm for millenia. Obviously wet nursing has always been a thing for rich people but safe formula is a 20th century thing.

Interestingly: Extended nursing would have been used as a contraceptive and to space out children in the past (it's less effective now our diets are higher calorie). Which shows people have always tried to restrict family size. This is probably why you get these huge aristocratic families as the mothers wouldn't nurse themselves. But they aren't always representative of wider human experience. Hunter gatherers have on average 4 year age gaps due to extended feeding.

So if you haven't got free time to rock up to the school for cake events you are not supporting your child? I guess that's a view from a place of privilege.

My kids felt safe at school. We live in an fairly affluent area with good schools. My youngest has just graduated. Didn't miss out as I wasn't baking bloody cakes

If my 3rd has been the 1st I wouldn't have had more children. Caring for new parents are really been downhill the last years.

It can be really awful. There was a whole section on it in that birth trauma inquiry I mentioned upthread.

I had people trying to harvest colostrum from me when I’d just had 3 blood transfusions and was not even really conscious (I couldn’t hold the baby properly to latch him). I still think about it a lot 18 months later and it does put me off ever being on a postnatal ward again tbh.

In the end I successfully combi fed (about 80% BF) for a year, which was lovely, but I did get a lactation consultant in and pay for a private tongue tie revision because I was essentially written off for not being able to do it exclusively from the beginning.

edited: Also just to say that is really interesting about the huge aristocratic families! I had never thought of that but it makes sense.