I recently wrote an article exploring ‘why young people are moving out so late’, and in it, I spoke about how everything is happening later in life than it used to…

• Moving out of the family home,
• Getting married,
• Having children
  (or not).

On the latter, my research showed that first-time mothers’ average age hasn’t changed over the years. A surprising discovery.

I told my Dad and he was surprised too.
‘When we were younger, everyone had babies in their early twenties.’ (including my mum who was 21).

So, that got me thinking, is there a discrepancy in the age of first-time mothers depending on where in the UK they’re from, the north-south divide, as I wrote about in this article, an influencing factor on yet something else?…

According to official data from the Office for National Statistics, in the UK at large, ie not accounting for a north-south divide, the average age of first-time mothers hasn’t really changed over the years…

In 1940, the average age of UK mothers was 29.3 years, compared to 26.4 years in 1973.

Since 1973, the average age has generally increased, but not at a remarkable rate.

In 2003, it was 27. 
In 2013, 28.3. 
As of today, 2024, the average age of first-time mothers sits at 30.6 (only a 1.6-year increase in 84 years)…

30.6.

So why then, when I go into town, (Doncaster which, as of 2022 is officially a city, but most local people still refer to it as the shitty rundown market town that it is), do I see teen mothers pushing prams? Girls who I went to school with in parks with their toddlers? Why, when I was 16, did I personally know two girls who were pregnant? If the average age of first-time mothers is 30.6*, then why are all the signs here suggesting otherwise?

*(Take a decade off, and then some, and it might more accurately represent the demographic here in Doncaster)…

When we consider the irrefutable prevalence of the north-south divide and its effect on education for example, and thus job prospects and, ultimately, one’s overall quality of life, we can note that living up North does increase the chances of teen pregnancy.

When there is greater funding in the South, better education, and more opportunities in life, young people are more likely to delay having children so as to pursue their own careers. In the North, however, where those opportunities have historically been far fewer, with a lack of prospects and aspirations, people are more likely to have kids at a younger age, simply because they have no reason to delay/they have nothing that demands their responsibility.

Evidence of the difference in prospects in the North compared to the South can be seen in data from the 2021 census.

In 2021, 53.8% of Doncaster residents were employed, vs 74.7% of Londoners. The rates of unpaid work, however, were higher in Doncaster, with 4.1% of Doncaster residents reportedly providing up to 19 hours of unpaid care each week, vs 3.8% in London, the lowest proportion in the UK.

As Danny Dorling of the University of Sheffield puts it, the difference is that, in the north, there are “islands of affluence in a sea of poverty”. In the south, the sea is of affluence. And the contrast is growing.

Statistics show that children in London and the South East are 57% more likely to attend university than students in the North (as of 2023), unsurprising when differences (inequalities) are prevalent throughout the entirety of the education system.

In 2022, the proportion of GCSE results graded 7 or above in the North East and Yorkshire and Humber was 22.4%, vs 32.6% in London. 

And the differences don’t stop with compulsory education, either… At A-Level, the gap between the North East and South East was 8.7%.

See the graph below to notice the trend.

The regions with the youngest mothers also have the lowest median salaries.

In line with the theory that the richer you are, the greater job prospects you have (/the further South you are), the older you are to have children, according to data from Comparethemarket.com, Kensington & Chelsea, the richest local authority area in the UK, (where residents earn three times the national average, £64,868 per head), have the oldest mothers in the UK. At the other end of the scale sits Hartlepool. With an average salary per head of £25,000, Hartlepool has the youngest mothers in the UK.

To look at it more broadly, the North East and Yorkshire and the Humber have the largest percentage of mothers under the age of 30, as well as the lowest salaries of all the regions. London, on the other hand, has the highest median salary, as well as the largest proportion of mothers over the age of 30. 

Clearly then, there is a correlation between earning potential and the age of first-time mothers. 

Where earning potential is significantly higher in the South than in the North, so too is the age of first-time mothers higher in the South than in the North… 

Late twenties, early thirties= South

VS 

Late teens, early twenties= North.

The north-south divide gap must be closed to ensure that, regardless of where you call home in the UK, you have access to the same support, prospects, and opportunities as your Southern counterparts. Otherwise, the cycle continues;

Teen mothers giving birth to children who grow up in the same system. 

With a lack of job prospects, teen pregnancy being seen as the ‘norm’, the children of teen mothers are more likely to become teen mothers themselves, ‘following family tradition.’ And so on and on and on (and on) the cycle goes. People in London queuing outside of Oxford and Cambridge with their 9 GCSE’s and A-level certificates in one hand, rolled up notes, ‘mummy and daddy’s trust fund’ in the other. Meanwhile people in the North queue outside of Mothercare, baby in one hand, benefits in the other, just enough to buy nappies for child number two (at the age of 22). 

The fact that there is a decade difference in the age of first-time mothers in the North of England compared to the South, the fact that everything is different, worse off, in the North of England compared to the South, with wealth inequality only set to intensify, (the gap expected to reach £228,800 per head by 2030), proves just how divided we really are as a nation. When people talk of the UK as if London is all there is, forgetting us up here in the North, forgetting people in the Midlands who aren’t even factored into considerations of the north-south divide in many cases, we need (emphasis on ‘need’), greater equality. 

Oppression thrives on interconnectivity. Nothing is independent.

Racism, homophobia, sexism, it all stems from the same place-
the system,
society.

No one is born with the awareness of their differences.

Black, white
gay, straight
man, woman:
human.

So, where does the sense of ‘othering’ that we so often feel come from?…

Capitalism.

It’s all rooted in capitalism and how society thrives on oppression and domination to uphold that very system of oppression whereby;

the rich keep getting richer,
the poor keep getting poorer,
and the world keeps getting more and more (and more) divided…

The purpose of human existence, as set by capitalism, is to maximise profit, to yield financial gains, to make the rich richer.

Everything in society is done to uphold power, and without oppression, without the subordination of others, the ‘othering’ of others through the creation of an us vs them dynamic, there can be no power. 

Unlike socialism, the antidote to capitalism which calls for equality, shared resources, the actual definition being;
‘A political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole’,
capitalism is all about inequality, actual definition,
‘An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.’

It’s always about profit…

This is what every form of oppression boils down to… The oppressed being used as a cog in the profit-making machine of the greedy, power-hungry oppressor (see examples below).

We cannot hope to liberate marginalised bodies without dismantling the systems that oppress them…

Racism- the slave trade.

Between about 1500 and 1900, Europeans forcibly uprooted millions of people from throughout West Africa and shipped them across the Atlantic to become the ‘property’ of capitalists. They were forced to work, without pay, in terrible conditions in order to generate profit for their ‘owners.’

Misogyny- the subordination of women.

Women are constantly made to feel bad about their appearance, always ‘lacking’ somehow, in something. Why? Because, by constantly shifting trends, what’s in today, tomorrow I ‘wouldn’t be seen dead in’, women are constantly buying what’s ‘in’ to ease their insecurities…

Ten years ago, ‘Does my bum look big in this?’, insecure women would ask their husbands. If the answer was anything other than ‘no’, they would be queuing up outside Slimming World. ‘Too fat.’ ‘Diet starts tomorrow.’ Whereas now when women ask ‘Does my bum look big in this’, they want the answer to be yes. ‘Heroin chic’ having been replaced with ‘thickness’, for which women are now paying for implants; bigger lips, bigger bum. 

We are literally having fat, the thing that we used to be told was the ‘root of all evil’, injected into us just to keep up with the constantly changing trends. 

But this is the thing. 

‘Constantly changing.’ 

The female body has become a commodity…

By all means, have the operation, get the implants but, when everything we do is to uphold capitalism, and capitalism profits from our insecurities, in a few years, full 360, skinniness will be back in. 

Everything you bought to ‘emphasise your curves’ 
= out.

All the latest trends
= in.

And it’s always women who are at the brunt of such advertising campaigns. Why? Because capitalism is all about keeping the rich and powerful (men) in power. 

By keeping women focused on their appearance, reminding them, daily, of everything that is ‘wrong’ with them- ‘too much’, ‘not enough’, they have no time to think about what’s actually wrong- 

the system. 

Capitalism.

As explored in socialist feminism, an off-shoot of mainstream Feminism that emphasises the importance of class struggle in addressing social inequalities, we can’t achieve gender equality without overthrowing capitalism. Likewise, we can’t overthrow capitalism without achieving gender equality. 

The capitalist system oppresses women to ensure its own success, intertwined with the patriarchy which emphasises how it is the woman’s job to provide free labour for men — cooking, house care, and childcare to ensure the comfort and ease of male supremacy.

Despite the rise in ‘egalitarian’ relationships, where men and women are both in full-time employment (72.1% of women are employed, as of 2023 in the UK), contributing roughly half of their combined earnings, studies have shown that women are still spending more than double the amount of time on housework per week than men (4.6 hours for women vs. 1.9 hours for men), and almost two hours more per week on caregiving. Not because women are just ‘naturally’ supposed to be the cleaner/caregiver, (if that were the case, then it would apply to all relationships, not just heterosexual relationships), but because of capitalism, because capitalism relies on people (women) who will support the workers who work tirelessly to line the pockets of someone else…

Homophobia- conversion therapy.

In heterosexual relationships, it’s easy to uphold the division of labour via the presence of long-held gender roles where the man is the breadwinner, and the woman the homemaker (even when both work full time). As the ‘inferior’ sex, the woman’s work obviously isn’t as important so when she gets home she must do all the other work, unpaid, too…

In same-sex relationships, however, such gender roles aren’t so clear-cut. 

When same-sex couples have had to fight for their right to even just exist as equals to their heterosexual counterparts, they are more likely to prioritise equality in every aspect of their relationship, including the division of chores, etc. This poses a threat to a capitalist system which relies on the subordination of women.

Data from the Women in the Workplace survey (2021), which included over 30,000 people in opposite-gender couples and over 900 people in same-gender couples found that, while 53% of women in opposite-gender couples said they did “all or most” of the housework, only about a quarter of women in same-gender partnerships said so.

The discrepancies in the discrepancies themselves when it comes to determining who is expected to cook, clean, look after the children AND hold down a paid job in heterosexual couples VS queer couples is as a result of outdated gender norms designed to uphold the patriarchy/keep women oppressed.

It is such outdated gender norms that serve to contribute to straight men asking queer women in lesbian relationships who the ‘man’ is. A clue in the name ‘lesbian’, there is no man. But, in a society that is centered around the subordination of women at the hands of men, some people (namely, men) just cannot fathom how a relationship could possibly exist without a man in it, or at the very least, without clearly defined ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ roles. 

But evidently, they can. As this Guardian article states; 

‘More than one in ten young women (1.65 million people) identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.’

And, with the absence of the oppression that is so often featured in heterosexual relationships, such relationships focused on equality thrive.

Climate change- the planet.

Arguably the biggest source of oppression in the world though, at the hands of capitalism, is the world itself…

In the same way that women are viewed as inferior/’lesser than’, even when women are working the same hours as men, earning the same amount as men, yet they are still expected to take on the brunt of unpaid work (cooking, cleaning, looking after the children- performing the ‘triple shift’), their most important role, according to capitalism, being to ‘support men’, the same is true of nature. 

Even though without nature, like women, we wouldn’t be here, when nature is the very foundation of life, it is still exploited by power-hungry men, operating under the same hierarchical structure that grants them power, thus allowing for the exploitation of both women and nature (the supposed ‘subordinates’), in which both are merely viewed as being ‘resources for reproduction’, a ‘means to an end.’ 

The people at the top are prepared to do whatever it takes to stay at the top, even if they destroy the planet in the process.

Denying our generation the right to freedom.
Denying future generations the right to life.

When all systems of oppression work hand-in-hand to benefit each other and profit from the people they control, the only way for people to be truly liberated, for the planet to be truly liberated, is to dismantle capitalism and all systems of oppression,
in their entirety.

Calls for the eradication of racism and homophobia and misogyny and the patriarchy and the whole shit show of fascism,
(capitalism),
calls for the embracing of equality and equity 
(i.e., no more bigotry),
for, not just humankind, but the whole planet. 

^ ‘You cannot say that you’re free with certainty when the world within which you live is not free in its entirety.’ 

~ liberation.

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, there has been a significant increase in people in their early twenties still living at home with their parents, with the average age that people are moving out of their family home in the UK, as of 2023, being 25.

Whether they’ve never left home, or have left and come back (the ‘boomerang’ generation) people are staying at home far later than ever before.

A clear long-term trend…

In 1997, more than half of 21-year-olds had already left home. At that time, the most common living arrangement for an 18–34-year-old was in a couple with one or more children.

However, fast forward two decades, and, by the time of the census in 2021, most people in their early 20s were still at home, living with their parents (56% of people aged 20 to 24, an 11% increase from the previous decade).

This begs the question, ‘Why?’

In 1997, the average house price in the UK was £60,000, whereas today you can add 200 to the front of that. The average price of housing in 2024 is £263,600.

Evidently, inflation has made it, and continues to make it, increasingly difficult for young people to get their foot on the property ladder. Even if people do manage to scrape a deposit for a house together (and it often is a ‘scrape’ too, when the average cost of a deposit in London is £144,500– how does one save up enough money to pay their mortgage back, whilst also affording to pay the record high bills for gas and electricity, food, all of the above?…

Gas & Electricity

The average household’s electricity bill is estimated to be just short of £1200 annually. This is more than four times the annual cost of electricity 25 years ago when it was just £269. Similarly, the average household’s gas bill has also shot up. What was £275 per year in 1997 is now over £1000.

Council Tax

The average council tax bill has also increased, from £564 in 1997 to £1493 in 2022, a rise of 165%.

Food

And food. We’re now spending more than double the amount we spent on food in 1997.

In 1997, the average weekly food shop per person was just £16.71. But, by June 2022, the average had risen to £36.43. That equates to spending £1,025 more on food, per person, per year.

Combined with rising gas and electricity bills, council tax, and increasing house prices, people are forced to choose between ‘heating or eating.’

Or… food banks.

Thank GOD for food banks.

In 2021/22, a record number of 2.1 million people in the UK had used a food bank in the previous 12 months. And, one year on, in 2022/23, the Trussell Trust, a charity that works to end the need for food banks in the UK, supplied 2.99 million emergency food parcels to people living in poverty.

Inflation has seen everything rising, from house prices to food to council tax to gas and electricity, all of which contribute to the increasing age of people living at home with their parents, because, how else could they afford to live?

Many people wouldn’t, can’t, hence where the term ‘generation rent’ comes from…

‘Generation Rent’

Recent figures suggest that up to one-third of millennials (people aged 23–38 as of 2019) may never be able to own their own home, leaving them with no option aside from renting for the entirety of their entire lives.

While this can be an understandable concern for many young people, there are ways that one can improve their living experience when renting… Decorating, incorporating customised neon signs throughout their property, for example, can transform a house to a home, making it comfortable, ‘warm’, and full of personality.

Unfortunately, though, it’s not just house prices/mortgages that have dramatically increased either, but so too has rent, with what affordable housing does still exist being snapped up by buy-to-let landlords who rent properties out to desperate tenants at extortionate* prices.

*Consistent with the theme of literally everything increasing in price, from 1989 to 2023, the average price for renting across the whole of the UK has increased by around 3.71% year on year.

If we use the stats from above and assume that rent continues to increase by around 3.71% on average annually, then in 25 years we can expect that rent will be a staggering £3023 per month.

And so ultimately then, people have two choices.

They can either

1) Bankrupt themselves by paying rent for a home that they will never actually own,

Or 2) Fork out an extortionate sum to secure a deposit for a house (which they will probably also never own considering the historically high mortgage rates in the UK).

For people who can’t afford either, they’re essentially stuck, hence why homelessness is such a big issue.

According to the homeless charity Shelter, at least 309,000 people are homeless in England today, with over 3,000 people reported as sleeping rough on any given night (a stark increase of 14% in one year).

And it’s only going to get worse.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, it has only gotten worse…

Despite bills increasing, how much money we have to pay them is not [increasing], with the average person in the UK being £10,200 poorer than they would’ve been had the economy continued to grow at pre-2010 rates (i.e. pre-tory rates).

With the increase in homelessness, we need an increase in social housing (one can wish).

Fewer than 54,000 council homes have been built in England since 1990, yet 14.4 million people (one in five) live in poverty, with an income sitting far below the standard poverty line.

As this article in the Guardian comments: 

‘Owners of private rental properties have seen their assets grow in value by £400 billion since 1990, equivalent to the amount needed to build more than 50 times the number of council homes that were actually built in England in that period.’

But, is the cost of living the only influencing factor in why young people are living with their parents for longer? While it is certainly a major factor, if we look at trends in reaching ‘milestones’ in adulthood, everything is happening later.

First comes love, then comes marriage.

In the 70s, the average age of marriage for women was 22.8 (25.1 for men), with over a quarter of all women being married by the age of 20, over three-quarters by the age of 25, and 9 in 10 by the age of 30. The average age of marriage now, however, is 31, with only one in three women ‘tying the knot’ before the age of 30.

Then comes a baby in a golden carriage.

In 2021, the average age of mothers who gave birth in England and Wales was 30.9 years, an increase from the 70s when the average age of first-time mothers was 26.4.

Then comes the…

Snowflake?

Gen Z’ers, people born between 1997 and 2012, are told that they’re the ‘snowflake’ generation, ‘too soft, ‘too sensitive’, ‘too emotional’, ‘too woke’, ‘too liberal’, ‘too progressive’, ‘too quick to take offense’- ‘political correctness gone mad.’

Born in 2001, I sit firmly in the Gen Z, supposed ‘snowflake’ category.

In fact, only yesterday I had someone informing me that I am ‘the worst type’ and that I ‘make them feel sick’ for *daring* to call out racism. As I replied to them, ‘I’d much rather be a lightning-fast racist accuser than a lightning-fast racist.’

Perhaps rather surprisingly though, I do actually agree with many aspects of what boomers dub ‘snowflake’ characteristics.

Writing for myself, I am sensitive.

I am liberal.

Why?

Because I care.

And I do think that these characteristics lend some reason, alongside the housing crisis of course, as to why people are moving out later, getting married later, having kids later, doing everything ‘later’ because, again, writing for myself here as an angsty 22-year-old, (‘angsty’ because I don’t really know what I’m doing here- does anyone?!), I cannot quite get my head around the fact that I am actually an adult, let alone an adult who is supposed to be doing ‘adult’ things like…

Moving out.

What is that all about?

(Although, dear God PLEASE can we end the fourteen-year Tory hellscape at the next general election? I’d quite like to be able to afford to buy a house, one day