Students’ attitude to children and parenting: gender and rural-urban comparisons
Research Article
How to Cite
Vyalshina A.A. Students’ attitude to children and parenting: gender and rural-urban comparisons. Population. 2024. Vol. 27. No. S1. P. 132-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2024-S1-132-146 (in Russ.).
Abstract
Since 2015, Russia has shown signs of a demographic decline, and for the first time in many years, the decline in the birth rate has also affected the countryside. Transformation of marital and family, of reproductive and child-parental orientations extends to all socio-demographic groups of young people, but is internalized in different ways by people from the countryside and urban residents. Among the rural youths, there are more of those who value family and children highly in the system of life orientations, who have traditional ideas about the distribution of gender roles, who are focused on having many children and successful parenting. Rural girls are characterized by maximum reproductive attitudes, child-centric and positively parenting oriented. With a high orientation towards achieving well-being through a successful career and material independence, they are more likely to give birth to the desired number of children due to high social regulation of reproductive behavior, which is typical for rural local community. Urban girls are distinguished by the desire for self-realization in many areas of life that makes them reduce their reproductive orientations despite high normative ideas about children and parenthood. Realization of their reproductive potential lies in developing tools for an effective combination of motherhood and possibilities of individual self-development. Urban youths represent the group least interested in family and children. Among them, there is a high proportion of those inclined to consider children financially and morally costly, they are characterized by minimal reproductive attitudes. Thus, measures are needed to prevent consolidation of such attitudes and expansion of orientations towards childlessness. It is concluded that it is necessary to develop state family policy tools that take into account, on the one hand, the specific needs and preferences of different socio-demographic groups of young people, and on the other hand, that are aimed at harmonizing individual interests of potential parents’ self-development and demographic goals of the development of Russian society.
Keywords:
attitude towards children, parenthood, youth, sociological studies
References
1. Blinova T. V. Demograficheskije riski i ogranicheniya ustojchivogo razvitiya sel’skih territorij v period pandemii COVID-19 [Demographic risks and constraints on sustainable development of rural areas during the COVID-19 pandemic]. Ekonomika sel’skohozyajstvennyh i pererabatyvayushchih predpriyatij [Economy of Agricultural and Processing Enterprises]. 2022. No. 7. P. 51–59. DOI: 10.31442/0235-2494-2022-0-7-51-59 (in Russ.)
2. Zakharov S. V. Skromnyje rezul’taty pronatalistskoj politiki na fone dolgovremennoj evolyutsii rozhdaemosti v Rossii. Chast’ 1. [The modest results of the pronatalist policy against the background of long-term evolution of fertility in Russia. Part 1.]. Demograficheskoje obozrenije [Demographic Review]. 2016. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 6–38. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v3i3.1745 (in Russ.)
3. Osipova I. Reproduktivnyje ustanovki rossiyan i otnoshenije k gosudarstvennym meram podderzhki rozhdaemosti. [Reproductive attitudes of Russians and how they regard government measures to support fertility]. Demograficheskoe obozrenie [Demographic Review]. 2020. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 97–120. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v7i2.11143 (in Russ.)
4. Galloway P., Lee R., Hammel E. Urban versus rural: fertility decline in the cities and rural districts of Prussia, 1875 to 1910. European Journal of Population. 1998. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 209–264.
5. George M., Alves J., Cavenaghi S. Urbanization and Fertility Decline: Cashing in on Structural Change. IIED Working Paper. London. International Institute for Environment and Development. 2013. 43 p.
6. Cleland J., Wilson C. Demand theories of the fertility transition: an iconoclastic view. Population Studies. 1987. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 5–30.
7. Sharlin A. Urban-rural differences in fertility in Europe during the demographic transition. The Decline of Fertility in Europe. Eds. J. C. Ansley and S. C. Watkins. Princeton, New Jersey. 1986. P. 234– 260.
8. Caldwell J. The globalization of fertility behavior. Population and Development Review. 2001. No. 27 (Supplement: Global Fertility Transition). P. 93–115.
9. Klüsener S., Scalone F., Dribe M. Exploring the role of communication in shaping fertility transition pattern in space and time. Agent-Based Modelling in Popluation Studies. Eds. A. Grow and J. Bavel. 2017. P. 369–403.
10. Rodriguez G. The spacing and limiting components of the fertility transition in Latin America. The Fertility Transition in Latin America. Eds. J. M. Gnuzman, S. Sigh, G. Rodriguez and E. A. Pantelids. 1996. P. 27–47.
11. Shapiro D., Tambashe B. Fertility Transition in Urban and Rural Areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Working paper from the Department of Economics Pennsylvania State University. 2000. September. P. 1–29.
12. Garenne M., Veronique J. The timing of the fertility transition in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development. 2002. Vol. 30. No. 10. P. 1835–1843.
13. Blinova T. V. Vliyanie poslevoennyh tsiklov rozhdaemosti na sovremennoje demograficheskoje razvitije sela [The impact of post-war birth cycles on modern demographic development of rural areas]. Agrarnyj nauchnyj zhurnal [The Agrarian Scientific Journal]. 2018. No. 6. P. 60–64. (in Russ.)
14. Rybakovsky O. L., Tayunova O. A. Rozhdaemost’ naseleniya Rossii i demograficheskije volny [Fertility in Russia and demographic waves]. Narodonaselenie [Population]. 2017. No. 4. P. 56–66. (in Russ.)
15. Rybakovsky L. L., Kozhevnikova N. I. Depopulyatsiya v Rossii: etapy, osobennosti i vozmozhnosti neytralizatsii [Depopulation in Russia: its stages, features and possibilities of its neutralization]. Sotsial’no-trudovye issledovaniya [Social & Labor Research]. 2019. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 6–15. (in Russ.)
16. Blinova T. V., Kutenkov R. P., Shabanov V. L. Modelirovanije i otsenka sel’sko-gorodskih razlichij v dinamike rozhdaemosti naseleniya Rossii [Modeling and assessment of rural-urban differences in the dynamics of the birth rate in Russia]. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta [Vestnik of Saratov State Socio-Economic University]. 2019. No. 3(77). P. 73–77. (in Russ.)
17. Vishnevsky A. G. Demograficheskaya revolyutsiya menyajet reproduktivnuyu strategiyu vida Homo sapiens [The demographic revolution is changing the reproductive strategy of Homo sapiens]. Demograficheskoje obozrenije [Demographic Review]. 2014. No. 1(1). P. 6–33. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v1i1.1825 (in Russ.)
18. Van de Kaa D. J. Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin. 1987. No. 42(1). P. 1–59.
19. Lesthaeghe R. The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review. 2010. No. 36(2). P. 211–251.
20. Van de Kaa D. J. Anchored narratives: The story and findings of half a century of research into determinants of fertility. Population Studies. 1996. No. 50(3). P. 389–432.
21. Miller W. Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science. 1995. No. 27(4). P. 473–87. DOI: 10.1017/S0021932000023087
2. Zakharov S. V. Skromnyje rezul’taty pronatalistskoj politiki na fone dolgovremennoj evolyutsii rozhdaemosti v Rossii. Chast’ 1. [The modest results of the pronatalist policy against the background of long-term evolution of fertility in Russia. Part 1.]. Demograficheskoje obozrenije [Demographic Review]. 2016. Vol. 3. No. 3. P. 6–38. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v3i3.1745 (in Russ.)
3. Osipova I. Reproduktivnyje ustanovki rossiyan i otnoshenije k gosudarstvennym meram podderzhki rozhdaemosti. [Reproductive attitudes of Russians and how they regard government measures to support fertility]. Demograficheskoe obozrenie [Demographic Review]. 2020. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 97–120. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v7i2.11143 (in Russ.)
4. Galloway P., Lee R., Hammel E. Urban versus rural: fertility decline in the cities and rural districts of Prussia, 1875 to 1910. European Journal of Population. 1998. Vol. 14. No. 3. P. 209–264.
5. George M., Alves J., Cavenaghi S. Urbanization and Fertility Decline: Cashing in on Structural Change. IIED Working Paper. London. International Institute for Environment and Development. 2013. 43 p.
6. Cleland J., Wilson C. Demand theories of the fertility transition: an iconoclastic view. Population Studies. 1987. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 5–30.
7. Sharlin A. Urban-rural differences in fertility in Europe during the demographic transition. The Decline of Fertility in Europe. Eds. J. C. Ansley and S. C. Watkins. Princeton, New Jersey. 1986. P. 234– 260.
8. Caldwell J. The globalization of fertility behavior. Population and Development Review. 2001. No. 27 (Supplement: Global Fertility Transition). P. 93–115.
9. Klüsener S., Scalone F., Dribe M. Exploring the role of communication in shaping fertility transition pattern in space and time. Agent-Based Modelling in Popluation Studies. Eds. A. Grow and J. Bavel. 2017. P. 369–403.
10. Rodriguez G. The spacing and limiting components of the fertility transition in Latin America. The Fertility Transition in Latin America. Eds. J. M. Gnuzman, S. Sigh, G. Rodriguez and E. A. Pantelids. 1996. P. 27–47.
11. Shapiro D., Tambashe B. Fertility Transition in Urban and Rural Areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Working paper from the Department of Economics Pennsylvania State University. 2000. September. P. 1–29.
12. Garenne M., Veronique J. The timing of the fertility transition in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development. 2002. Vol. 30. No. 10. P. 1835–1843.
13. Blinova T. V. Vliyanie poslevoennyh tsiklov rozhdaemosti na sovremennoje demograficheskoje razvitije sela [The impact of post-war birth cycles on modern demographic development of rural areas]. Agrarnyj nauchnyj zhurnal [The Agrarian Scientific Journal]. 2018. No. 6. P. 60–64. (in Russ.)
14. Rybakovsky O. L., Tayunova O. A. Rozhdaemost’ naseleniya Rossii i demograficheskije volny [Fertility in Russia and demographic waves]. Narodonaselenie [Population]. 2017. No. 4. P. 56–66. (in Russ.)
15. Rybakovsky L. L., Kozhevnikova N. I. Depopulyatsiya v Rossii: etapy, osobennosti i vozmozhnosti neytralizatsii [Depopulation in Russia: its stages, features and possibilities of its neutralization]. Sotsial’no-trudovye issledovaniya [Social & Labor Research]. 2019. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 6–15. (in Russ.)
16. Blinova T. V., Kutenkov R. P., Shabanov V. L. Modelirovanije i otsenka sel’sko-gorodskih razlichij v dinamike rozhdaemosti naseleniya Rossii [Modeling and assessment of rural-urban differences in the dynamics of the birth rate in Russia]. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo universiteta [Vestnik of Saratov State Socio-Economic University]. 2019. No. 3(77). P. 73–77. (in Russ.)
17. Vishnevsky A. G. Demograficheskaya revolyutsiya menyajet reproduktivnuyu strategiyu vida Homo sapiens [The demographic revolution is changing the reproductive strategy of Homo sapiens]. Demograficheskoje obozrenije [Demographic Review]. 2014. No. 1(1). P. 6–33. DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v1i1.1825 (in Russ.)
18. Van de Kaa D. J. Europe’s second demographic transition. Population Bulletin. 1987. No. 42(1). P. 1–59.
19. Lesthaeghe R. The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and Development Review. 2010. No. 36(2). P. 211–251.
20. Van de Kaa D. J. Anchored narratives: The story and findings of half a century of research into determinants of fertility. Population Studies. 1996. No. 50(3). P. 389–432.
21. Miller W. Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science. 1995. No. 27(4). P. 473–87. DOI: 10.1017/S0021932000023087
Article
Received: 13.06.2023
Accepted: 28.05.2024
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Vyalshina, A. A. (2024). Students’ attitude to children and parenting: gender and rural-urban comparisons. Population, 27(S1), 132-146. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2024-S1-132-146
Section
YOUTH’S ATTITUDE TO FAMILY AND CHILDREN
