505
Anon checks up on a childhood friend (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 11 months ago by [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

200 years ago people also had kids quite late.

And we live so much longer than even 40 years ago. Life is so much better and safer now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    But the nuclear family is much younger, so today’s kids rely much more heavily and directly on their parents with respect to kids 200 years ago. The “village” build around multigenerational housing has disappeared, making the age of parents a much bigger factor than earlier on

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (1 child)

    200 years ago people were having kids at 15-16

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    And at 40 and 45, since there wasn't birth control.

    I was honestly surprised when I looked at a genealogy site, so many of my ancestresses got married at 28-30, I guess reading Little House on the Prairie when I was a kid made me think all those women of old times married young but nope, that did not seem to be the case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent