I think it is because the focus of "achievement" has changed. More women are career-focused, not the stay at home moms of the past. It used to be an accomplishment for a woman to have many children and see them all into adulthood successfully, and an achievement for the man to bring home the bacon for all those people. Now, more women are seeking professional accomplishment and putting starting a family on hold for a while. Who wants to have five kids in daycare at 30 years old?
Also, the cost of living has increased as well as the acceptable standard of living. It is taking more money to "get by", and more women are working to cover the difference.
2007-04-04 02:17:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by robin0408 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
1.) The price of raising children has risen. Education can last into the early 20s for many, because of university etc. Compare this with earlier periods in history, where the kids could be put to work from a pretty early age- they helped the family rather than just taking resources.
2.) Traditional family roles have eroded. It is not necessarily so that men and women are satisfied with getting married and having children, they seek different, personal goals and fulfillments.
3.) Perhaps also due to extended education times, the average age of first marriage and first child has increased for many couples. Despite advances in fertility treatments, having children later in life reduces the number of kids couples can ultimately have.
4.) The burden of living costs often lead both man and woman in a couple to work to support themselves and their family. When both man and woman have to work, child rearing time is decreased. Schools, creches, and other such child care facilities are not yet sufficiently in place to take the strain off working mothers.
5- (and thanks to XRFM for reminding me) birth control technology is advanced enough for women to safely moderate their own fertility. That's the clincher, really. If you don't want to spend money raising a child, if you don't believe raising a family has anything for you, or you just don't want the hassle, then you can prevent the child being born, either by stopping fertilisation in the first place, or having the foetus terminated.
All these factors work together, none is wholly responsible for the decline, but each one has its own contribution to make.
2007-04-04 09:26:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Buzzard 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Birth Control,
People having longer careers.
Making money and enjoying life (like holidays, going out, getting that nice house/flat etc) before the kid ties you down.
It's toooo expensive.
People not committing to serious relationships or marriage so early in life now-a-days (think about it. The average person lives to about 80 so why not have 40 years single, free and doing what you want and the remaining 40 years settled, bringing up kids and retiring etc etc).
Also, its not the done thing any more whereby you have to do, this, this & this before that age, that age and that age. Its more like, take life as it comes, enjoy it for what it is, learn from mistakes and give back what you can.
2007-04-04 09:26:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
So this is homework?
How about less people are taking "go forth and multiply" seriously, and more are realising that overpopulation is a major problem in this world if not indirectly the most serious.
People also no longer need children to toil the fields.
2007-04-05 13:04:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Janne 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The number of children a woman in America has in her lifetime has declined during the past two centuries, and it's not just because of the birth control pill. It's the socio-economic and cultural factors in family downsizing. More women are putting careers ahead of family. The family unit is slowly dying out and there are more single working parents out there that just can't afford to have more children.
2007-04-04 09:44:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lynn 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Because of the living conditions. Before, you could have, say, 11 children, and only one or two reached the puberty; nowadays, the chances are that out of 11 all 11 will survive, and I think that there will be a rare family who would want 11 children.
2007-04-04 09:20:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
One answer is because unlike the early 1900's, a large family is no long required for farming to survive. Another reason is the cost of living and raising a child has increased. Another reason is the education of birth control.
2007-04-04 09:15:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by cows4me79 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Maybe their scared of todays society and how children are being raised and not watch when they are out of their house or even inside their own home. or maybe it just seems that way because so many pregnant women today are in the ages of like 12-17. its a crazy world and i dont think many people want to bring their kids into it. im a teen and i def. would not my daughter to be doing the things that i do so imagine that!
2007-04-04 09:16:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by .:...:. 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
too expensive? not enough time? Society doesnt really allow for children, the schools are rubbish unless you can afford to go private, then when they do go to school you 'have' to go to work in order to keep them, and dont get to enjoy having them. and are unable to teach them what they need. There are no activities etc without expense. all this equals the foul mouthed/mannered, disrespectful, unambitious youth we have upcoming in our society. Sorry if that seems harsh.
2007-04-04 09:24:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by ayngel 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
According to what I'm reading, the poor and uneducated are breeding like rabbits. The wealthy and educated have stopped having children. In fact, the wealthy and educated have stopped getting married. Marriage is still popular in places like Arkansas and bible belt states, but in metropolitan areas men and women would prefer to be single.
2007-04-04 09:18:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by kathy s 6
·
0⤊
1⤋