Why do you think women worldwide are having fewer babies?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

We've been approached by an academic researcher at the Oxford Centre for Research into Parenting and Children who's working on a book called 'No Time For Children'. The book will explore why fertility rates - the number of babies being born per mother - are actually falling the world over, despite a widespread belief to the contrary. 

In China, for example, the worried government is reversing its one-child policy - but many adult 'onelies' now believe that one child is 'about right'. The same is true in Japan and Singapore, and fertility rates are also falling in Africa,  Europe, Latin America and all over Eastern Asia. 

The book will contain chapters written by an impressive roster of academic contributors, but its authors would also like to hear what mothers themselves think is going on, and what, specifically, they consider to be the barriers to having more children. If you'd like to contribute, please do post your thoughts here. 

[DrNortherner]

Well I am an only child. My Mother tried for 7 years to have me. Then no more came along.

I have an only child, a ds who is 9. For financial reasons we could not afford to have 2 kids in childcare at pre school age. We need my income, so we waited till ds was at school to try for a second. By this time, we had got used to not paying nursery fees......anyway, I got pg but sadly had a miscarriage when ds was 4. I found that such a traumatic experience I decided not to try again.

So, in a nutshell, for us the reasons are financial.

[HerdOfTinyElephants]

ColdTruth, I think when Sakura says that over-population is "created" by patriarchies she means that patriarchal societies caused the (genuine) problem, not that they made up the (imaginary) problem.

[Bandwithering]

\i can't cope with the two i have. today was another bad day. my grandma had nine. and she also made bread and cheese and cycled into to town to deliver them to local deli.

ireland has gone from this, 5-7 was average I'd say, as a norm to 'only children' being almost as common a family as 2 or 3 children in a family. In only 2 generations!

[Bandwithering]

ps, you have to save for braces too now. it's not enough just to put two kids through college now, you're expected to send them out into the world with american teeth.

[timetoask]

The world is overpopulated, so if it's true that we are having less children, then I think that's good news!

All my siblings have stopped at two. For all of them the reason has been education. They wanted to afford the best possible education for their children and felt that two would allow this.

In my opinion another important reason for not having more, aside from all the reasons mentioned by other posters, is that families are not as close as they used to be. Your cannot rely on your parents, and other close relatives to help with children because either you live too fat away from them, or you had your children so old that your own parents are too old to help.

The sense of community doesn't exist anymore. You are not allowed to let your children play freely outside anymore due to all the dangers. This means that if you have children, your freedom is history. I am sure that was not the case some decades ago.

In my case, I stopped at 2 because I started having children after working on my career, DH was already ancient! I want both of us to be around for as long as possible for our children, also your energy levels definitely decrease the older you get so I don't think I could cope with small children now (I am almost 40!).

[RamblingRosa]

IMO, improved access to both education and contraception have to be the main factors.

[MrsPlugThePlumber]

I honestly think it has to do with how our society is structured.

I could cope with more children if I had Mum across the road, Aunty on the next street, and I could let them all play out on the road with the other neighbourhood kids all day.

[MrsPlugThePlumber]

Plus I think it's not expected.

One friend of mine was actually scared to tell people when she was pregnant with number 9.

[MrsPlugThePlumber]

...okay scared = too strong.

Nervous and aprehensive of their reaction.

[OTheHugeManatee]

In a fair few cases, the answer is probably 'becase we can'. Childbirth and child-rearing is hard on women, and it's not surprising that given the choice a proportion of women are choosing to have smaller families.

[MaMattoo]

I think you must have all points covered by now. I agree with:
We have babies later in life.
We have careers, can take few breaks
Nuclear families = little help at home = harder to manage larger broods.
Costs of living, education, healthcare are higher
We want more from our lives and more for our kids.
We take longer to find the 'right' man and wait it out without worrying about the clock.
Planet's resources are limited and we are aware of that
Contraceptive choices are better

I would like to add that I had a terrible pregnancy and a nightmare c sec. I never want to go through that alone, I am happy to raise a single child. And though I am open to considering adoption, DH does not agree.

[sakura]

yes that was my point. WHY did women used to have SO MANY children? An obscene amount of children. WHen every single baby conceived risks the woman's life.
IT's extraordinary that even today governments downplay the enormous physical toll that child-bearing takes on a woman when they're discussing why women are having less children.

We are having less because for the first time in history we can

The fall in population comes with women's rising status.

Think about it. Until 1992 it was legal for a husband to rape is wife because according to patriarchal laws rape is defined as a property crime. In other words it only counts if a man rapes a woman that does not belong to him.

In the US until recently, and in many other countries, not only was spousal rape legal but abortion was illegal . So men had literally created a situation whereby women were impregnated against their wills and then forced to go through the pregnancy, and this was all enshrined by law.

Then you've got the fact that the main career for a woman until recently was marriage, and there was very little else for her--nothing that would allow her to live independantly.

Now that women can support themselves by other means they don't get married and have children--not to the extent they did in the past. this is precisely what is happening in Japan right now.

[sakura]

Birth trauma.
Many a woman has been treated appallingly by misogynistic doctors during her first birth and decided after that she would never go back for number two. Or even with the best births (and I had a great one) you feel like you've been hit by a truck. Then there's THE PAIN!!!!
Women are human. Maybe some women just can't be arsed with the PAIN

[HandDivedScallopsrgreat]

1. Economic freedom is valuable to women (as it is to men) and they don't want to let that go.
   
2. We can have less children - so we choose to.
   
3. Work/children is not compatible and the problems that causes generally still falls on the woman.
   

Also agree with the trains of thought of why is this situation necessarily a problem - surely women having lots of children was more of an issue (at least for the women it was ).

And why is this framed around it being a woman's problem? Men are also delaying/not having children. They are also the ones not stepping up to the plate in terms of doing their fair share of childcare which compounds the work/children balance issue.

[ElaineM67]

People are having fewer babies due to the rise in costs of living. With VAT curently standing at 20% in the UK with other expenses, families are finding it increasingly difficult to stay afloat on two incomes.

However, I don't think this is the sole reason for the drop in expectancy; as many of you have pointed out, women are not willing to give up their careers to devote themselves full time to a family.

It was difficult for me as an interior designer. When I found out I was pregnant with Gracie, I considered selling the interior design business, but decided all I needed to do was manage my time effectively between my family and work.

It was the best decision I ever made and I get to spend time with the kids and develop blue prints!

[Bandwithering]

Yeah I had that feeling when they were stitching me up after number 2 "never have to do that again". Like by having two that was all anybody would expect of me. I'd fulfilled that 'obligation'. Obviously i was never obliged to have one never mind two, but there was that feeling there, to a degree.

Men will miss out too. They shag around in their twenties and thirties and break it off with girlfriends who want to settle down. But they'll be too old to see their grandchildren grow up.

On my fb I have a lot of school friends and in the year that we all turned forty about 5 or 6 of the 'eligible bachelors' all announced their engagements on fb. Nice for them to have the option to fit in 20 years of fun before getting a family too.

[suzikettles]

Yes Bandwithering, it's difficult to unpick what human behaviour is innate (because we truly want to) and what is due to societal expectations. Society expects us to have 2 or 3 children these days and gets a bit sniffy if people step out of line and have 1 or 4 or, heaven forfend, zero.

I suspect in future (and it's already happening actually) society will stop thinking either "poor thing" or "selfish" when women have 1 or no children.

I agree it's funny that the question is "why are women having fewer babies?". Is there any research on men's patterns of fathering?

[ragged]

I don't agree that having children is necessarily expensive, it's actually quite good value if your children are your only pension. And I know UK families that are raising "lots" of children on very low incomes (not necessarily with any state support).

It's a GOOD thing that childbirth rates are falling worldwide, it means that the conditions of the living must have improved enormously compared to the past -- fertility is managed not random or imposed, conditions are good enough to mostly ensure survival of your offspring, and you don't need lots of children to look after you in old age.

[Bandwithering]

Elaine, actually, I believe that most of the time, a career good enough to feel bad about giving up will have a salary that makes it possible for the mother to employ good childcare and get back to the career.

I had a job. Which wasn't all that well paid. If I'd had a career, I would have been able to return to it. It's jobs that are harder to get back to.

[RJRabbit]

I think men (in my experience) tend to follow what their friends are doing and are refusing to settle down as early as they used to. My husband's friends started having children and hey presto he decided he was ready too ( in our late 30s when DC1arrived). I know it's not just my husband, I've seen it loads in friends and sisters' circles too.
I don't believe it's all about women wanting their careers first, we need our men to play the game too, hence we're having the great careers while we're waiting. I think others would agree if they're honest.

[OriginalPoster]

I would have had more if it was seen as 'normal' by other people. People start to presume you're odd if you have 6,7 or 8. We love having a biggish family and I feel less 'nuclear' because of it. It is less work to have more as they play together, and they can tidy up quicker than me, and there is safety in numbers if they go out.

I wonder how many dcs people would have in a utopia where money was not a factor and contraception, family support, georgeous men, and child care was freely available? That is meant as a pure thought experiment, not me being naive or critical of other people's choices.

[BlingLoving]

Well, I think we are having fewer children because we can. Did women in the past who had lots of children do so because they wanted big families? More likely it was because they had no choice - no contraception, considered a duty/responsibility etc.

For myself, I have one. Will probably have another but would be miserable with more - I hated being pregnant, and definitely don't want ti be changing nappies/ experiencing sleepless nights indefinitely.

[HerBeX]

Given that the Chinese account for a quarter of the world's population and they've pursued the one child policy for decades, I would have thought that that fact alone would have skewed the population figures.

Other than that, what everyone else has said: education, contraception and the fact that the world has been constructed so that the reward for women bearing and nurturing children, is poverty as they can't earn their living as well as if they don't have them. If you construct a society which punishes half of the people for having children, when they have the technical means not to have them they're going to utilise that technology.

[Bandwithering]

Does anybody who wants children (more than they have) and who can afford them really ever think 'oh better not, there are too many children in the world'. I mean yeah there are, but seriously, is that a decidingfactor for people?