Home / Lifestyle and Trends / Children are the ultimate status symbols

Children are the ultimate status symbols

If wealthy Western mothers had heard opposition leader Tomislav Karamarko stating in his election campaign that (if the party wins the elections) the state would gift one thousand euros to every newborn child, it would be quite clear to them what kind of nation is in a ‘banana’.

Namely, it seems that in wealthier Western countries there is a trend of large families, and not among the average or poorer populace, but among the elite who would not receive a dime for expanding their families, but rather, on the contrary, show how generous their bank account is through their children. Children are, foreign media write, the ultimate status symbol of the new era. So, if you want to quickly and effectively show everyone how affluent you are, you should forget about Birkin bags, private jets, or winter vacations in luxury ski resorts and start having, or making children. As Wednesday Martin noted in her memoirs ‘Primates of Park Avenue’, this trend is spreading in luxurious New York neighborhoods at the speed of conception. She recently moved from New York’s West Side to the Upper East Side and quickly concluded that among affluent families, three children is what two used to be (a perfectly ordinary average), four what three used to be, and five the best indicator of the depth of someone’s pocket.

Three as the norm

As Business Insider states, children have become status symbols for a very simple reason: raising offspring is very difficult, especially in Western countries like America where the average cost of educating one child is around 250 thousand dollars, and in expensive cities or neighborhoods like New York’s Manhattan, it can climb to half a million dollars. When you add the costs of nannies, supplies, clothing, ultra-healthy food, and similar expenses, it is clear that the elite must have a few million dollars at their disposal if they want to raise a child according to the standard they are accustomed to. Comedian and screenwriter Tina Fey reflected on this trend four years ago in her piece for The New Yorker, which has actually become commonplace today. She also moved to New York’s Manhattan with her daughter and husband expecting that having one child would be the norm. Anyone who has watched the cult series ‘Sex and the City’ would likely think the same, where women are mostly free-spirited individuals who do not achieve motherhood until their thirties, or when they gather enough experience, romantic failures, and cathartic self-discoveries. As Fey notes, her expectations were wrong because her daughter is the only only child in her class. ‘With over four lovely children, often named after kings or fruits, parents send the world a message: ‘We have a four-room apartment and fifty thousand dollars for annual tuition per child. And how do you live?’ writes Fey. As Business Insider continues, or the aforementioned Wednesday Martin, children are not only indicators of family wealth but also reflect the image of ambitious mothers.

Competitive birthing

In a highly competitive society, Martin believes, children are a means through which mothers demonstrate their success and skills just as they do in the workplace, because motherhood is a career. And a rather anxious and stressful one because they cannot blame anyone else but themselves for their children’s failures (success or failure is subjectively defined by ambitious parents). Because the trend of birthing as a new career or status demonstration is spreading among the elite in more and more countries around the world, the media has coined the term ‘competitive birthing’ which is supported by the fact that among the upper class, the number of families with more than three children has increased by thirty percent in the last ten years, the largest jump in the last hundred years. It is also interesting that in many cases (this is a thesis from research by the popular media brand NPR) raising such a number of children is also driven by the fact that mostly highly educated mothers are withdrawing from the labor market and decide to showcase their business abilities, knowledge, and skills by ‘handling’ more offspring. In other words, the more children they have, some mothers feel more useful at home and direct their competitive energy towards raising children. Looking at things from this angle (competitive birthing as a demonstration of ability, not just status), it is clear how unhealthy this trend is, I would dare say even antifeminist. Then women do not give birth simply to become mothers, but also to justify their absence from the labor market (in the sense that when there are so many children, it is clear why they do not work). Birthing then becomes a defensive mechanism, claims the portal Feministing.org, not only against individuals who might eventually judge them for not ‘handling’ their career and motherhood well and withdrawing from the labor market but also to justify themselves (if they return to work, that is real proof of both status and ability). The latter is actually tragic because it speaks of the lack of freedom and insecurity of mostly affluent mothers in a competitive market. Of course, everyone has the right to decide how many children to have and how to raise them, but the decision about the number should never be motivated by the expectations of various know-it-alls, the fact that it must be so among the elite, or even political promises from the beginning of the story. Trends change, and children, thank God, remain.