Modern parenting, extended family, and why "village" life looks a bit different now

[FoxInGarden]

Hey everyone,
I’ve been doing some reading lately on how family and parenting structures have evolved, and it got me thinking about the whole concept of "it takes a village."
We hear all the time about how hard raising kids is right now—childcare costs are through the roof, local support networks are stretched thin, and parents are exhausted trying to do it all in isolated nuclear family units. But looking at how families actually function, it’s so clear that we rely heavily on people who step outside the traditional "mum, dad, 2.4 kids" mould to help hold communities together.
Anthropologists and evolutionary folks talk about how, in nature and across different cultures throughout history, having a "reserve army" of extended family, aunts, uncles, and community members who don't have biological children of their own has always been vital. They act as alloparents—extra hands for mentoring, emotional support, fostering, adopting, and just buffering the community.
Even looking at modern data here in the UK, it’s amazing how much heavy lifting LGBTQ+ and diverse families do in the foster and adoption systems, stepping up for kids who desperately need stability.
It just makes me roll my eyes when older public intellectuals try to throw a fit in the weekend papers, acting like gender variance or non-traditional lives are some brand-new "modern psychosis" or fad. Human societies have always had a diverse mix of roles, and frankly, modern parenting is hard enough without posh old biologists gatekeeping who is allowed to care for, protect, and support children.
Has anyone else noticed how much we rely on our wider, non-traditional "village" these days? How do you guys find your local support networks?

actually research says hetero couples are adopting less and less.

Still confused about the point of this thread.

Does it relate to a published article?

There’s also been a drop in same sex couples adoption as well.

So all couples are adopting less ?

could you answer my other questions ?
and adoption is only a small
part of modern or ancient parenting

my point isn't really the amount it's that avuncular care is beneficial in an evolutionary manner. don't see how your question addresses the main point.

Widening the circle of people who look after your child has to be balanced with safeguarding that child. Those two things pull in exactly opposite directions.

The first person who has a biologically driven urge to protect a baby is the mother who has just given birth to that baby. If you have given birth, you will know the feeling I describe. That's the innermost circle, the mother and baby dyad.

After that you have incrementally widening circles which include father, siblings, grandparents, and extended family, and neighbours and friends.

But the more you widen that circle, the more likely you will include someone who prioritises their own desires over the best interests of the child.

And someone who deliberately plans to sever the innermost circle, the mother-baby dyad, already prioritised their own desires over the best interests of the child.

Edit for typo

posh old biologist

Classist, ageist & scientist

indeed yet he's overlooking one of the best researched modern evolutionary theories.

OP, are you planning to answer my questions to you?

this is a naturalistic assumption but many extricating circumstances can lead to a mother not being the safest pair of hands, and as I mentioned adoption, we're plainly talking about children that are in the system.

If you're going to talk about history, then in traditional cultures those circles widen as the child grows. As a newborn the baby is strapped to the mother's back pretty much all the time. Then as the baby becomes a toddler, siblings and other family take turns to look after them. Then as an older child, it might be friends and neighbours.

I think the "non traditional" families you describe, it doesn't take this gradual progression.

Are you referring to the gay uncle hypothesis, like on the other thread?

1. I'd bet the lovely slice of cake that the woman from across the hallway just put on my desk that he is fully aware of this hypothesis and has thought about it (and probably written about it)
2. What the fuck does it have to do with trans (although tbf you have extended to the entire LGBTQRGMOJGMEHPTO in this thread)

I feel like I'm joining halfway through a conversation and I've read the whole thread. Are you arguing with someone who is arguing against gay couples adopting?

Because I thought your op was advocating for children (all children) being brought up by a village of "non conforming" people. I've reread your op and this is still the sense of it.

I'm explaining why that is at tension with safeguarding.

Btw a theory isn’t a fact

Agree @FoxInGarden it’s amazing how much heavy lifting LGBTQ+ and diverse families do in the foster and adoption systems, stepping up for kids who desperately need stability.

It was my gay throuple friends who were going to take on my DC when I had suspected stage 4 cancer. They are the most stable and reliable. Unlike all of our non-diverse family & friends.

Thankfully not needed. But it was discussed and agreed.

And the mother is nearly always the safest pair of hands. Rare exceptions do occur, but they will be far rarer than an strange man from the village being the safer option for your child.

"...or can't you address two points at once" is always the give away. The emotional incontinence and inability to discuss anything with women without throwing slurs and insults around.
It happens so often on here. A bit surprising from someone so new to Mumsnet who you'd think had arrived to enjoy discourse with predominantly feminist women?
They just can't help themselves. 😁

Foxingarden eh! We haven't had a visitation from Jolyon have we?

Rare exceptions do occur, but they will be far rarer than an strange man from the village being the safer option for your child.

The OP is trying to get us to agree that a strange man from the village who thinks he is a woman is the safer option for the child.

I think I've done a false negative here but you all know what I mean!

many extricating circumstances

OP, I don't think this is what you meant to say?

You're not the only one!

Yet it was my gay friends who were notably absent when I really needed an extra pair of hands ? They were not interested or comfortable with small children

id like some hard data not anecdotes if the claim is that gay people are performing a large village role than other ( childless) adults

and even more hard data if the claim is that they are safer than parents

Yes I muddled myself there. What i meant was the strange man in the village is basically never safer than the birth mum.